test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

[STAR TREK DiSCOVERY] | SEASON TWO |

1141517192071

Comments

  • legendarylycan#5411 legendarylycan Member Posts: 37,282 Arc User
    He also did a version of U.S.S. Discovery as it SHOULD look (or similar) to fit into the prime-universe's aesthetic:

    Top:

    tumblr_or50y8iDoo1rzu2xzo6_r1_500.jpg

    Rear/Bottom:
    89cded971244df1237aa167ece360e39.jpg

    Rear:
    DFVin7NWAAE1D-N.jpg

    does it still have the disgustingly-small-for-the-rest-of-the-ship saucer? because that's what makes the current crossfield the biggest abomination star trek has vomited up in the past 50+ years - and i am including the new fed MW ships in that​​
    Like special weapons from other Star Trek games? Wondering if they can be replicated in STO even a little bit? Check this out: https://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1262277/a-mostly-comprehensive-guide-to-star-trek-videogame-special-weapons-and-their-sto-equivalents

    #LegalizeAwoo

    A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
    An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
    A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
    A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"


    "It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
    "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
    Passion and Serenity are one.
    I gain power by understanding both.
    In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
    I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
    The Force is united within me.
  • redvengeredvenge Member Posts: 1,425 Arc User
    I find it a lot more important that the tone and the writing can keep up. And from my perspective, both feels right. A modern Star Trek simply can't be made like TNG anymore. The Alien-of-the-week-formula aged terribly, Battlestar Galactica's remake was the final proof of that. Modern Sci-Fi-audiences wanted a cinematic and serialized story. That show outranked Enterprise big time, even though Enterprise was broadcast publically while BSG was not.
    You've said several things here, and they make no sense.

    First, Star Trek is not for everyone. Gonna put that right out there. It SHOULD NOT BE FOR EVERYONE. It was never FOR everyone. It is sci-fi and appealed to a niche audience. Turning Star Trek into Game of Thrones meets Stargate: Universe is changing it into a product, rather than a unique work. It just becomes another faceless entity in a sea of mediocrity trying desperately to get 'ratings' when it never was that popular to begin with. If you change it, you lose the people who were most likely to watch it, and you have to compete with other sci-fi works which do this better.

    The Orville really isn't that good. It has promise, but it isn't there yet. However, Trek fans are watching it because there really is not an alternative. The only reason The Orville is likely to get a second season is because Star Trek: Discovery is trying to be 'Warhammer 40K Lite'. This might be a good thing for The Orville, since it probably needs that time to get better.

    For you to claim "you can't make it like that anymore" is plain false. The issue is they don't WANT to make it like that anymore, because Game of Thrones makes piles of money. That is all there is to it. Just like how every studio in Hollywood wants to make a shared universe to get that sweet Avengers money.
  • This content has been removed.
  • starkaosstarkaos Member Posts: 11,556 Arc User
    Darn it, I wish I had found this before I made that long post above.
    I knew he made this version of a Klingon Battlecruiser for the Pre-TOS era, but I kept using bad key-words.
    Here is MadoiFish's version of D-7 style ship that illustrates PERFECTLY what I'm trying to get across here (and probably butchering. :smiley: )

    Top:

    a202ae4ed1f2583f7d47c9b10fd155df.jpg

    This is definitely an updated version of the D-7 that showcases the whole keeping the original aesthetic concept. The Discovery Klingons could have been renamed to another alien race and placed in the 25th Century and they would fit much better. There is nothing about them that screams Klingon which is the worst mistake that a prequel can do. A prequel must always match the aesthetic of the setting.
  • This content has been removed.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,668 Arc User
    Red Alert

    But ya don't change a ship design for a D7 with what looks like a Romulan Miracle Worker ship and expect everyone to go, "got it, cool!" no.

    They *needed* to do this. DIS is meant for all audiences and not exclusively for people that watched Star Trek before. Which is also one of the reasons why the KT-ships look so much more modern than they "should have".

    I agree that the designs are *radically* different in DIS, but what's the matter? The things that we as fans remember are not taken away, they just look different in this particular show. The visuals of the show are fine.

    I find it a lot more important that the tone and the writing can keep up. And from my perspective, both feels right. A modern Star Trek simply can't be made like TNG anymore. The Alien-of-the-week-formula aged terribly, Battlestar Galactica's remake was the final proof of that. Modern Sci-Fi-audiences wanted a cinematic and serialized story. That show outranked Enterprise big time, even though Enterprise was broadcast publically while BSG was not.

    Even Voyager had fairly low quotes, it never came close to DS9 or TNG.


    DIS is simply a modern Star Trek with decent writing and thus, it gets all the bashing by so-called "hardcore-fans" that on one hand want Star Trek back but then don't accept changes that are somewhat necessary.


    And trekyards is not exactly an authority on the matter either. They're just two geeks discussing designs from sci-fi with a strong focus on ST, but they hardly deliver useful insight or facts. They only tell their audience what *they* like or dislike about this or that ship. "Too much out of the box for me" is clear evidence that he simply doesn't like the design because it's different-looking. That's not a valid point.

    The original D7 doesn't even look like a very effective battlecruiser at all. It looks too fragile and not very alien. With the warp-nacelles on it, the original could even be mistaken for a starfleet-ship by a newcomer, especially if you'd add the original paintjob.

    BIG DEAL.

    If I made Darth Vader look like Optimus Prime, or make Obi Won Kenobi look like Vin Diesel, or remove lightsabers and replace em with regular swords, or turn Superman into Richard Simmons, I'd have my TRIBBLE nailed to a cross ASAP.

    You don't drop your pants and take a big, steaming dump on the long time fans for the benefit of 'all audiences'.

    Us "geeks" care and cherish what we like....don't TRIBBLE up over for the low IQ hipsters.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,668 Arc User
    Red Alert
    LMFAO....oh my.....that is horrible, even the mighty D-7 has been disfigured by this TRIBBLE. :smiley:

    You mean, the cheap D7-model that was built with very low budget was actually made into a capable-looking warship that actually seems somewhat non-human. The original D7-design only means something to TOS-fans that actually cared about the alien ships back then.

    No, the original design is an iconic part of Star Trek. It is part of the setting of this franchise. To change it so radically is to throw out over 50-years of an integral part of the design. A design that even JJ-Abrams has respect for with his "Warbird" version that appears in the 2009 movie.

    klingon_warbird_ortho_by_unusualsuspex-d6xpoxw.jpg

    What we see in TRIBBLE looks like it just flew out of Stargate Atlantis, not Star Trek.
    2f756563f0b63bbeb0fee0b857dfa523.jpg

    The D-7 (and its derivatives) have been featured in every Star Trek production from TOS to the JJ-Abrams films, so no it is not just TOS-fans (not that that matters) who dislike this redesign, its most Star Trek fans save for young kids who are just getting into Star Trek.
    LMFAO....oh my.....that is horrible, even the mighty D-7 has been disfigured by this TRIBBLE. :smiley:

    You mean, the cheap D7-model that was built with very low budget was actually made into a capable-looking warship that actually seems somewhat non-human. The original D7-design only means something to TOS-fans that actually cared about the alien ships back then.

    No, the original design is an iconic part of Star Trek. It is part of the setting of this franchise. To change it so radically is to throw out over 50-years of an integral part of the design. A design that even JJ-Abrams has respect for with his "Warbird" version that appears in the 2009 movie.

    klingon_warbird_ortho_by_unusualsuspex-d6xpoxw.jpg

    What we see in TRIBBLE looks like it just flew out of Stargate Atlantis, not Star Trek.
    2f756563f0b63bbeb0fee0b857dfa523.jpg

    The D-7 (and its derivatives) have been featured in every Star Trek production from TOS to the JJ-Abrams films, so no it is not just TOS-fans (not that that matters) who dislike this redesign, its most Star Trek fans save for young kids who are just getting into Star Trek.

    d1Bhlgl.jpg

    And I shown some kids some classic sixties Doctor Who, and they LOVED it....so all that 'vert low budget' stuff can still appeal to folks. Just because something is all 'new and fancy' does not mean it's gonna be good, per say.

    All flash and no substance.....a formula for TRIBBLE that is the big problem of television, not to mention films, these days.

    All flash....and nothing else....no good acting, no good writing, no story, no good plot. You get the idea.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,668 Arc User
    Red Alert
    LMFAO....oh my.....that is horrible, even the mighty D-7 has been disfigured by this TRIBBLE. :smiley:

    You mean, the cheap D7-model that was built with very low budget was actually made into a capable-looking warship that actually seems somewhat non-human. The original D7-design only means something to TOS-fans that actually cared about the alien ships back then.

    No, the original design is an iconic part of Star Trek. It is part of the setting of this franchise. To change it so radically is to throw out over 50-years of an integral part of the design. A design that even JJ-Abrams has respect for with his "Warbird" version that appears in the 2009 movie.

    klingon_warbird_ortho_by_unusualsuspex-d6xpoxw.jpg

    What we see in TRIBBLE looks like it just flew out of Stargate Atlantis, not Star Trek.
    2f756563f0b63bbeb0fee0b857dfa523.jpg

    The D-7 (and its derivatives) have been featured in every Star Trek production from TOS to the JJ-Abrams films, so no it is not just TOS-fans (not that that matters) who dislike this redesign, its most Star Trek fans save for young kids who are just getting into Star Trek.
    LMFAO....oh my.....that is horrible, even the mighty D-7 has been disfigured by this TRIBBLE. :smiley:

    You mean, the cheap D7-model that was built with very low budget was actually made into a capable-looking warship that actually seems somewhat non-human. The original D7-design only means something to TOS-fans that actually cared about the alien ships back then.

    No, the original design is an iconic part of Star Trek. It is part of the setting of this franchise. To change it so radically is to throw out over 50-years of an integral part of the design. A design that even JJ-Abrams has respect for with his "Warbird" version that appears in the 2009 movie.

    klingon_warbird_ortho_by_unusualsuspex-d6xpoxw.jpg

    What we see in TRIBBLE looks like it just flew out of Stargate Atlantis, not Star Trek.
    2f756563f0b63bbeb0fee0b857dfa523.jpg

    The D-7 (and its derivatives) have been featured in every Star Trek production from TOS to the JJ-Abrams films, so no it is not just TOS-fans (not that that matters) who dislike this redesign, its most Star Trek fans save for young kids who are just getting into Star Trek.

    d1Bhlgl.jpg

    And I shown some kids some classic sixties Doctor Who, and they LOVED it....so all that 'vert low budget' stuff can still appeal to folks. Just because something is all 'new and fancy' does not mean it's gonna be good, per say.

    All flash and no substance.....a formula for **** that is the big problem of television, not to mention films, these days.

    All flash....and nothing else....no good acting, no good writing, no story, no good plot. You get the idea.

    I've done the same thing with Forbidden Planet. I know Millennials that love that movie after I introduced them to it.
    It isn't the "pew-pew", "bang-bang", "oooh....flashy spaceship" that has the gravitas of a fictional story. It is the story itself that has to be good, which is why over 60-years later, Forbidden Planet is still one of the best SF movies ever made.
    I highly doubt TRIBBLE will enjoy that level of respect or gravitas in 60-years from now.

    I doubt even SIX years.
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
  • irm1963irm1963 Member Posts: 682 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    it can be safely said that it is not Star Trek in the minds of many fans (as can be seen by the 1-star reviews dominating websites like IMBD, etc. ).

    That must be why it's sitting at 7.3, with individual episodes generally higher, on IMDB and similar scores elsewhere then. "Dominating" my backside.
  • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    irm1963 wrote: »
    it can be safely said that it is not Star Trek in the minds of many fans (as can be seen by the 1-star reviews dominating websites like IMBD, etc. ).

    That must be why it's sitting at 7.3, with individual episodes generally higher, on IMDB and similar scores elsewhere then. "Dominating" my backside.

    It's also funny to note how incredibly superficial the self-elected hardcore-fans judge DIS.

    I've already touched on the writing compared to some other shows but following discussions revolved like 99% about the different look of things. Specifically the redesign of klingon ships is apparently a major problem for people.

    I say that's really stupid. I'm a hardcore Trek-fan too. I've always been. Guess what? I don't care how the D7 looks in that show. It's been screwed up before, when on Voyager they can't tell a D7 apart from a K'T'inga or it makes an appearance on Enterprise for no reason. Enterprise undermined the continuity alot more in my opinion and everything there also looked a lot more modern than before (because it was not 1966 anymore). Yeah the D7 doesn't even have the iconic shape anymore but well... the original D7 is still in TOS, right? They will not remaster it again to replace the models once more.


    Rogue One has been mentioned. OMG folks... this movie is pure fanservice for Star Wars-fans. They just slapped in everything from X-wings to AT-AT's just to please their fans. The movie itself was boring and the characters were so onedimensional - but fans love it (same way fans loved Star Trek First Contact while the movie was really hard to access by people that didn't watch any Star Trek previously because they mention so many things that only fans can know, or the subtext of the movie lacks some bridges, like Worf being on Defiant and not on Enterprise).

    Anyway. Back to DIS.

    There is much more actual Star Trek-ideas in it than "fans" want to admit. There are many poignant callbacks to previous Trek-moments. Characters are not the black and white type, they're walking greyzones. The writing is fairly decent, I'd even say pretty good here and there. It's still early into the show, so I can't tell if it gets better or not, but the potential for a great show is *definately* there.

    Lorca is basically Captain Janeway done RIGHT. He sticks with his way rather than jumping back and forth and he also does not pretend or try to be a morally perfect person. He's not a Starfleet-captain like in the books, and he reminds me (at least background-wise) of Boone, from Fallout New Vegas.

    Now the explanation is more difficult and not easily done without spoilers for both DIS and FONV, so be warned.

    Boone was a sniper of the NCR until he settled in Novac (a small settlement in a former motel) with his wife. There, he took the job as a guard to defend the settlement from possible raids and attacks through Caesar's Legion. If the player helps him and investigates, the dark secrets of Novac are uncovered and Boone joins the player.

    Long story short, eventually it turns out that Boone killed his own wife with a headshot after finding out she was sold to Caesar's Legion as a slave. He killed her so she doesn't have to go through the cruelty of being a slave of that faction, eventually leaving himself thinking that may be with a little more effort he could have tried to save her - feeding into his guilty conscience and into his hatred towards Caesar's Legion equally. Ultimately Boone is still a good guy, but also a broken man that lives on only to kill members of Caesar's Legion.


    If Lorca's actual reasons as to why he blew up his previous ship with the crew still onboard are anything similar to Boone's motivation (though that one was a lot more personal and had "only" one death involved) then it would make him an awsome anti-hero in a way. That still remains to be seen though. He could easily end up being Garth of Izar himself. Which would be kinda cool too tbh.



    Anyway. The characters on DIS have at least some depth to them, and the contrast to previous shows is mostly that some of them are not your typical Starfleet-officers that can only do the right thing. They have a past and struggle with it. Even the exemplary officers like Saru struggle with what happened before.
  • This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    Lorca's actual reasons as to why he blew up his previous ship with the crew still onboard are anything similar to Boone's motivation (though that one was a lot more personal and had "only" one death involved) then it would make him an awsome anti-hero in a way. That still remains to be seen though.
    My current hypothesis is that the spore drive is a failure due to invoking some sort of eldritch horror. Maybe his previous crew wasn't really alive anymore? :/
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    Lorca's actual reasons as to why he blew up his previous ship with the crew still onboard are anything similar to Boone's motivation (though that one was a lot more personal and had "only" one death involved) then it would make him an awsome anti-hero in a way. That still remains to be seen though.
    My current hypothesis is that the spore drive is a failure due to invoking some sort of eldritch horror. Maybe his previous crew wasn't really alive anymore? :/

    We only know for sure that the spore-drive and the necessary mushrooms were on two ships, and according to our local fungus-expert there originally was one large team that was split into two for field-testing.

    But who knows what Lorca has actually been through. Voq' and his henchmen ATE the poor Captain Georgiou afterall.
  • This content has been removed.
  • shpoksshpoks Member Posts: 6,967 Arc User
    Kobayashi Maru
    garaks31 wrote: »

    YAY!!! :)
    That's fantastic news!!!
    HQroeLu.jpg
  • alexhurlbutalexhurlbut Member Posts: 292 Arc User
    I say that's really stupid. I'm a hardcore Trek-fan too. I've always been. Guess what? I don't care how the D7 looks in that show. It's been screwed up before, when on Voyager they can't tell a D7 apart from a K'T'inga or it makes an appearance on Enterprise for no reason. Enterprise undermined the continuity alot more in my opinion and everything there also looked a lot more modern than before (because it was not 1966 anymore). Yeah the D7 doesn't even have the iconic shape anymore but well... the original D7 is still in TOS, right? They will not remaster it again to replace the models once more.
    First. That was a mistake on part of the writer and the CG department, the writer didn't know that the CG didn't have the D7 model (computer) and the CG didn't know that the writer was calling for an actual D7 and not the K'Tinga.
    Second. D7 and K'Tinga at least do show they're related as the TOS Enterprise and the 'The Motion Picture' Enterprise are related.

    Third. This DISCO klingon battlecruiser doesn't have the line of the D7 at all. It's....VERY obvious it's NOT D7.
    At least the Vor'cha showed its lineage to the D7/K'Tinga. Seriously, none of us would had a problem HAD they chose a different designation or called it by a klingon name (not K'Tinga).
  • redeyedravenredeyedraven Member Posts: 1,297 Arc User
    edited October 2017
    Kobayashi Maru
    First. That was a mistake on part of the writer and the CG department, the writer didn't know that the CG didn't have the D7 model (computer) and the CG didn't know that the writer was calling for an actual D7 and not the K'Tinga.
    Second. D7 and K'Tinga at least do show they're related as the TOS Enterprise and the 'The Motion Picture' Enterprise are related.

    Third. This DISCO klingon battlecruiser doesn't have the line of the D7 at all. It's....VERY obvious it's NOT D7.
    At least the Vor'cha showed its lineage to the D7/K'Tinga. Seriously, none of us would had a problem HAD they chose a different designation or called it by a klingon name (not K'Tinga).

    Mistake or not, it ended up being on screen like that. Similar to the nitpick about the color of the transporter-beam that beams Picard to Veridian III in Generations. Eventually it's not a big deal and doesn't change the story.

    So does the new D7 not change the story or the narrative of DIS. It's a klingon battlecruiser and thus built to blow up things but with some versatility in mind. How exactly it looks does not interfere with anything.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • edited October 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • edited October 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.