test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Solo, Han Solo.
zedbrightlander1
Member Posts: 14,764 Arc User
in Ten Forward
And look who's Lando.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPEYpryMp2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPEYpryMp2s 
Sig? What sig? I don't see any sig.
0
Comments
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
Disney actually nailed Star Wars transition into the "modern day" methinks. CBS/Paramount on the other hoof didn't with Star Trek, as they simply had no faith in their IP.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
The Millenium Falcon i noticed in the trailer linked above had this piece of bodywork on the front of it. instead of what you would expect. pause at the end of 1:28 and start of 1:29.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
For another, it's been established both in the movies and in ancillary, no-longer-quite-canon materials like the KotOR games that technology "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" doesn't advance very quickly, if at all. Over the decades between The Phantom Menace and Return of the Jedi, we can see that the ship tech has only gotten bigger, not especially better or faster. (In some ways, it appears to have gone backwards - the military's fleets of top-line fighter craft being brought down by the equivalent of heavily-armed Cessnas, for instance.) And if we look at KotOR, taking place four thousand years earlier, we see that the primary difference between the Ebon Hawk and the Millennium Falcon is streamlining. That's as if the ancient Egyptians had driven around in 1920s-style cars, and in the thousands of years since all we'd done was produce the cars you see today.
And for a third, SW takes place, as noted, "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away". When they use a technology we're moving past, like big flip-switches all over the cockpit of a starship, that's a different sort of technology than ours. Trek, on the other hand, is supposed to be taking place in our future, where 1960s-style control panels, even with glowing jellybean buttons, would make as much sense as having someone in Engineering stoking the warp drive with a shovel.
True, however that's plausible. We know that Han himself modified the Falcon extensively, having it look different in the time he acquires it makes sense. But these subtle difference is not what I'm hinting at, look at the cockpit and see all the blinking lights and LCD displays intact. The style hasn't been fundamentally altered like CBS and Paramount did with Star Trek because they somehow think that Star Trek has to evolve with the time it's made in because it is somehow different from other shows that exist.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It quite clearly does not. Star Trek was set in an alternate timeline with it's own events. And that is fine. To contain valid social commentary does not mean you have to keep the appearance of already established "in line" with our present. People should stop pretending that Star Trek is some holy prophecy of our future and just start to treat it as a sci-fi show which has and still should use it's stage to make relevant social commentary. Or do you think they should retcon the Bell Riots in two years because they didn't actually happen? Oh well, I guess 'El Presidente Drumpf' still has two years to create "Sanctuary Districts" but still...
Star Wars kept the iconic look created in the 70s, Star Trek did not. They could have, but they chose not to. But I don't think this should be forcefully rationalized with any in-universe reasoning.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
well thinking about Star Wars smugglers always looking for cash and a payday where they can get em, using their charm and sidarm in equal measure. Just how many times could Han really update the electronics of the ship? it would mean pulling her apart down to the bones and putting new electronics in, that probably would of cost a lot of credits. an in universe reason anyway.
I wonder if the original MF cockpit was held by Lucas from the films in the 80's all the way until very recently? it would save a lot on needing to build a whole new set.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
That's because the OT looks fine even now. It's the effects surrounding the sets that might look dated but SW is very industrial, very military, and very contemporary.
TOS and TMP where dated productions that would look massivly out of place in modern productions.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Han literally says so.
Now, was Han playing salesman, being a braggart or telling the truth?
Half and half of the latter two. He wasn't making a pitch to sell the MF which is made more apparent for his defensive attitude towards the ship.
Been around since Dec 2010 on STO and bought LTS in Apr 2013 for STO.
The ultimate difference(s) between the two are summed up thusly:
Trek is supposed to be "our" future, what humanity can achieve if a savant rocket scientist creates FTL drive and is seen by Vulcan "explorers" in what, 250 years from now?
Star Wars takes place "in a galaxy far far away", absolutely no relation to Earth, at all.
The "independent" one has to use "70s inspired" technologies to maintain "internal consistency" with it's separate little galaxy "far far away", while the other one has to account for things like RAZR phones being half the size of the TOS Communicator and iPads having the same screensize as the TOS PADD but nowhere near the thickness, necessary switches and lights, bezels, and mandatory stylus, or flash drives being a quarter of the size of the "floppy-disk-esque" rectangular storage devices that sure looked like blocks of a solid color...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
Why do you (and others) think Star Trek is such a magic show that it has to constantly be upgraded and thus abandon internal consistency? It is just a show in a fictional future with aliens that represent aspects of mankind, just like Doctor WHO for example. To avoid having to deal with "dated optics", maybe they shouldn't make "prequels" or "remakes" all the time and just go on - the kind of story they tell has absolutely no bearing on the era they chose. Discovery's story is not in the slightest influenced by the whole thing taking place close to TOS, literally not a single thing would have changed if it was set in the 25th century - except nothing established had to be changed because "TRIBBLE it, I feel like it". What kind of story the authors tell has squeal to do with what kind of communicator someone uses or that our phones can do more than the TOS Connie's central computer or M5. Literally squeal.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Or are we supposed to ignore all of TOS after the first few episodes because they unaccountably ditched the unicolored turtleneck shirts and all the little gooseneck things on every single console on the bridge including the captain's chair? And what about suddenly turning "lithium" into "dilithium" without so much as a fare-thee-well, or ship's phasers firing a beam in one episode, a pulse in another, then a beam again in the next? Or the exploding phasers used as depth charges in "Balance of Terror"? Or... but you get my drift. Aesthetics, and tech, changed time and again in the original series, as available technology improved. For that matter, that was going to be the entire explanation for Klingon forehead ridges, in Roddenberry's own view - "they were always like that, you just didn't see it." That's why there was no episode asking that question in TNG, and why even DS9 treated it more as a non-question.
Basically, Targ, ol' buddy ol' pal, you need to get over yourself and stop defining "Real Trek" as "what I saw in reruns on an old black-and-white TV in the rec room when I was a kid" (or, if you're one of us really lucky ones, "what my folks watched on Thursday nights, until the last season when they put it on Friday nights instead"). Open yourself to change. It's a lot more fun that way.
I have no problem with the visual changes during all the shows and all the eras. I don't even mind the step from TOS to TNG Klingons, I was very happy with the way the shows dealt with it prior to ENT. It only became terrible after DS9 after all
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!