I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
If Star Wars can be visually consistent with it's prequels than so can Star Trek.
And I'm not just talking about "The Prequels" either. "Rogue One" was visually consistent. "Solo" looks to be as well. That doesn't mean they didn't change anything, but the things that should look the same from Prequel to main story (barring a significant amount of time passing between stories) do look the same, as they should.
Had they of used the TOS Constitution, and (if) they use TOS interfaces, weapons and sets in Discovery's Season 2, it'll just look out of place, especially when the crew of Discovery are using touchscreen rather than buttons. I guess a lot of it comes down to personal preference.
... Visually consistent =/= 100% identical. The lighting, amount of bloom, upping the brightness of the external lights, and extra detail in the hull plates of a TOS Constitution would negate how "out of place" it might look.
Like this:
Weapons can be the same as Discovery's (both personal and ship) since this is 3 years after "The Cage" and the Enterprise didn't fire a shot on screen until "The Corbomite Maneuver." As for buttons/touchscreen, the farthest you could go without providing an explanation would be to mix the two like Enterprise did.
At the end of the day, Discovery, even though it's a prequel show, is also a modern show; it's going to look shinier, and I'm more than satisfied with that. I genuinely don't think I'd have stuck with it had it been as tacky looking as TOS - just so that it would otherwise satisfy a few people that can't move with the times.
You know, more than anything those last five words really make me angry. It's dismissive and insulting. It's what politicians say. It's what historical revisionists say. We as Star Trek fans of any caliber should be above that.
I want Discovery to be accepted into the larger Star Trek universe, but I also don't want TOS to be rewritten, overwritten, or at worst erased. I'm afraid for it. I fear the comicbook syndrome that's permeated other media, where reboots almost for the sake of rebooting are more common than ever. It's irrational and possibly unfounded, but fear often is.
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
It's in the dialog of the film, flash, and was a major plot point through the first half. We're sure.
I'm confused now. Is the Constitution shown in Discovery supposed to be a sort of pre-upgraded version of the Constitution we see in The Original Series? Or is it supposed to actually replace the appearance of the Constitution we see in TOS? Like Discovery is saying "This is how the Constitution looks now." I was thinking it was the former...
Had they of used the TOS Constitution, and (if) they use TOS interfaces, weapons and sets in Discovery's Season 2, it'll just look out of place, especially when the crew of Discovery are using touchscreen rather than buttons. I guess a lot of it comes down to personal preference.
... Visually consistent =/= 100% identical. The lighting, amount of bloom, upping the brightness of the external lights, and extra detail in the hull plates of a TOS Constitution would negate how "out of place" it might look.
Like this:
To me, even this would look out of place with DSC.
Weapons can be the same as Discovery's (both personal and ship) since this is 3 years after "The Cage" and the Enterprise didn't fire a shot on screen until "The Corbomite Maneuver." As for buttons/touchscreen, the farthest you could go without providing an explanation would be to mix the two like Enterprise did.
Except we already know that the Constitution Class doesn't have touchscreen. It's all buttons and flippers over there.
At the end of the day, Discovery, even though it's a prequel show, is also a modern show; it's going to look shinier, and I'm more than satisfied with that. I genuinely don't think I'd have stuck with it had it been as tacky looking as TOS - just so that it would otherwise satisfy a few people that can't move with the times.
You know, more than anything those last five words really make me angry. It's dismissive and insulting. It's what politicians say. It's what historical revisionists say. We as Star Trek fans of any caliber should be above that.
We as fans of science fiction should also allow for change.
I want Discovery to be accepted into the larger Star Trek universe, but I also don't want TOS to be rewritten, overwritten, or at worst erased. I'm afraid for it. I fear the comicbook syndrome that's permeated other media, where reboots almost for the sake of rebooting are more common than ever. It's irrational and possibly unfounded, but fear often is.
TOS isn't being rewrote; it still happened, it just took place in a different generation (from our perspective). If Trek is still going in another 50 years, there's a good chance that TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and even DSC will look obsolete by comparison.
There's nothing wrong with a reboot either, assuming it does well and doesn't take away from the original source material. This doesn't mean designs can't be changed and brought up to date; look at the Cylons from BSG. There was nothing wrong with them, but they were modernised and worked perfectly well. The exact same is being applied to the Constitution.
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
It's in the dialog of the film, flash, and was a major plot point through the first half. We're sure.
As true as that may be, it would be illogical to do so. This wouldn't be the first time something has been said, read, or seen on Trek that shouldn't be taken literally - not unless we're suddenly supposed to believe that the Refit Constitution has, what, 74 decks?
I'm confused now. Is the Constitution shown in Discovery supposed to be a sort of pre-upgraded version of the Constitution we see in The Original Series? Or is it supposed to actually replace the appearance of the Constitution we see in TOS? Like Discovery is saying "This is how the Constitution looks now." I was thinking it was the former...
It could be either to be fair.
The DSC Constitution could (soon?) undergo a refit that'll make it the TOS Constitution we're more familiar with, or this could simply be the more modern style of a Constitution to otherwise better fit in with Discovery.
DSC is set in 2256. TOS in 2266 and WNMHGB a year before in 2265. There are 9 years to get from the version in DSC to the version in WNMHGB. It was later refitted in 2273, so a further 7 years later.
Yes The Cage shows the WNMHGB version but as The Cage is incompatible with The Menagerie (due to the different endings) and all we see in The Menagerie are illusions, recordings, and simulations we can easily dismiss the 'wrong' model of Conni in the same way we can with the incorrectly placed K't'ingas in VGR and ENT (where they should be a D7 and a new ship respectively).
Besides the differences boil down to different shuttlebay, different pylons, and different nacelles. The different hull material is easy, it's either lighting or armour plating. Other than the shuttlebay I can't see it being too hard to swap the pylon/nacelle assemblage out as a whole unit every so often if they want to try new things.
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
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
quite sure about it. And yes it would have been. However, the Enterprise was the only one of her class to make it home after 5yrs, even to the people in universe, she was something of a "Hero Ship" at that point and got special treatment.
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
quite sure about it. And yes it would have been. However, the Enterprise was the only one of her class to make it home after 5yrs, even to the people in universe, she was something of a "Hero Ship" at that point and got special treatment.
Of the known (officially confirmed) Constitution Class Starships we have:
USS Ahwahnee (NCC-2048)
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
USS Eagle (NCC-956)
USS Emden (NCC-1856)
USS Endeavour (NCC-1895)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Korolev (NCC-2014)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1659)
Red represents those lost, abandoned (Exeter) or damaged beyond repair. Blue represents those ships still active and/or in service. Green represents Constitution Class starships that also underwent the refit.
Evidently, your rather bold statement about the Enterprise being the only one of her class to make it home seems inconclusive. I'd love to know your source. We've also got the USS Yorkown (which is rumoured to have been the ship that became the Enterprise-A).
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
quite sure about it. And yes it would have been. However, the Enterprise was the only one of her class to make it home after 5yrs, even to the people in universe, she was something of a "Hero Ship" at that point and got special treatment.
Of the known (officially confirmed) Constitution Class Starships we have:
USS Ahwahnee (NCC-2048)
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
USS Eagle (NCC-956)
USS Emden (NCC-1856)
USS Endeavour (NCC-1895)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Korolev (NCC-2014)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1659)
Red represents those lost, abandoned (Exeter) or damaged beyond repair. Blue represents those ships still active and/or in service. Green represents Constitution Class starships that also underwent the refit.
Evidently, your rather bold statement about the Enterprise being the only one of her class to make it home seems inconclusive. I'd love to know your source. We've also got the USS Yorkown (which is rumoured to have been the ship that became the Enterprise-A).
Before this goes any further I must say that you're nitpicking and this can only end badly.
If Star Wars can be visually consistent with it's prequels than so can Star Trek.
And I'm not just talking about "The Prequels" either. "Rogue One" was visually consistent. "Solo" looks to be as well. That doesn't mean they didn't change anything, but the things that should look the same from Prequel to main story (barring a significant amount of time passing between stories) do look the same, as they should.
Had they of used the TOS Constitution, and (if) they use TOS interfaces, weapons and sets in Discovery's Season 2, it'll just look out of place, especially when the crew of Discovery are using touchscreen rather than buttons. I guess a lot of it comes down to personal preference.
... Visually consistent =/= 100% identical. The lighting, amount of bloom, upping the brightness of the external lights, and extra detail in the hull plates of a TOS Constitution would negate how "out of place" it might look.
Like this:
Weapons can be the same as Discovery's (both personal and ship) since this is 3 years after "The Cage" and the Enterprise didn't fire a shot on screen until "The Corbomite Maneuver." As for buttons/touchscreen, the farthest you could go without providing an explanation would be to mix the two like Enterprise did.
At the end of the day, Discovery, even though it's a prequel show, is also a modern show; it's going to look shinier, and I'm more than satisfied with that. I genuinely don't think I'd have stuck with it had it been as tacky looking as TOS - just so that it would otherwise satisfy a few people that can't move with the times.
You know, more than anything those last five words really make me angry. It's dismissive and insulting. It's what politicians say. It's what historical revisionists say. We as Star Trek fans of any caliber should be above that.
I want Discovery to be accepted into the larger Star Trek universe, but I also don't want TOS to be rewritten, overwritten, or at worst erased. I'm afraid for it. I fear the comicbook syndrome that's permeated other media, where reboots almost for the sake of rebooting are more common than ever. It's irrational and possibly unfounded, but fear often is.
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
It's in the dialog of the film, flash, and was a major plot point through the first half. We're sure.
I want to remind the person behind that twittard post that the Enterprise was stripped down to her superstructure and rebuilt into an entirely new class of vessel. So different that Kirk nearly blew the ship up from ignorace of major systems.
You sure about that? Doesn't seem very feasible; surely it's cheaper and more productive to just build a new friggin' ship?
quite sure about it. And yes it would have been. However, the Enterprise was the only one of her class to make it home after 5yrs, even to the people in universe, she was something of a "Hero Ship" at that point and got special treatment.
Of the known (officially confirmed) Constitution Class Starships we have:
USS Ahwahnee (NCC-2048)
USS Constellation (NCC-1017)
USS Defiant (NCC-1764)
USS Eagle (NCC-956)
USS Emden (NCC-1856)
USS Endeavour (NCC-1895)
USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
USS Hood (NCC-1703)
USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
USS Korolev (NCC-2014)
USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
USS Potemkin (NCC-1659)
Red represents those lost, abandoned (Exeter) or damaged beyond repair. Blue represents those ships still active and/or in service. Green represents Constitution Class starships that also underwent the refit.
Evidently, your rather bold statement about the Enterprise being the only one of her class to make it home seems inconclusive. I'd love to know your source. We've also got the USS Yorkown (which is rumoured to have been the ship that became the Enterprise-A).
yeah ok sure, wherever you got those from. Frankly I dont care, you're a happy little special snowflake and you can go be a happy little special snowflake, the only place this conversation will go if we continue is to being modded out for being off topic.
The question of visual consistency in Star Trek versus visual consistency in Star Wars is an interesting one.
The main difference that makes it difficult to compare the two properties in this subject is that one is intended, to a degree anyway, to be speculative of our own future, whereas the other is just a space fantasy. Star Wars requires consistency because it's set in a sort of vacuum, independent of our own advances in real life, whereas Star Trek by its nature looks forward from what we are now. It's this difference that render any comparison made between the two largely invalid. It doesn't matter if wire frames look antiquated in Star Wars because the state of their technology is irrelevant - there's no speculation, merely a setting with a certain style. But it does matter in Star Trek, because Star Trek was always supposed to be forward-looking.
Discovery made the choice to look forward, as suggested by the nature of Star Trek. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it's just that it chose to set the show in a canonically established time period, which is where the resistance to most of its aesthetic arises from.
So I guess the real question is, which do you prefer your Star Trek to be - a forward-looking glimpse at what humanity might be, or just another sci-fi setting? There's nothing wrong with either option, nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive, but it does dictate a lot about what you think matters visually.
Discovery made the choice to look forward, as suggested by the nature of Star Trek. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it's just that it chose to set the show in a canonically established time period, which is where the resistance to most of its aesthetic arises from.
Also... Discovery herself is actually a newer ship than the Enterprise. By the time Kirk took command of the Enterprise, she already had two previous captains and was in service for what... 10-20 years or so? Meanwhile the Discovery was stated to be a new ship by the lack of scratches on her hanger deck as noted by one of the prisoners that were aboard the shuttle, stating that she must be fresh out of the shipyard, yet not out on the front lines.
So again we have a potential excuse for why Discovery has touch screens if they show Enterprise doesn't. It would be comparable to the difference between the Enterprise and Enterprise-A.
Despite what the TV execs say, ST:D is set in the JJ-verse.
They are only saying it's set in the Prime universe to try and give it some legitimacy and draw in Trek fans. This latest 'Enterprise' trick is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to shore up their HUGE mistake of a show.
All one needs to do it look at it. (...but please don't, because it's terrible)
TOS underwent a revision in 2009 during the Digital Update. The ship was enhanced, planets were enhanced, Starbases, Janus VI, all sorts of matte backgrounds were revised, and the most egregious of all, the analog countdown clock in 'The Corbomite Manuever' went DIGITAL!!!
We can't allow these abominations to go on!!!
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
All one needs to do it look at it. (...but please don't, because it's terrible)
But it's not. It's actually good. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't true. Like flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers.
Like, usually I'd at least offer some give on the ground of subjectivity, but this isn't a subjective thing - the DSC Connie is factually, in whole truth, a pretty good interpretation of the Consititution-class, extremely faithful to the classic while spinning it just slightly enough to look good next to the Discovery aesthetic.
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Short version: Purists.
If they had their way... Anything that take place around TOS MUST, without question, look like it was done with a low budget in the 1960s with every single detail EXACTLY the same as it was in TOS, right down to the jellybean buttons.
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Short version: Purists.
If they had their way... Anything that take place around TOS MUST, without question, look like it was done with a low budget in the 1960s with every single detail EXACTLY the same as it was in TOS, right down to the jellybean buttons.
The sets would look cooler if they actually used jelly bean buttons.
Honestly I'd LOVE to see what TOS would look like if it was remastered to look modern.
Despite what the TV execs say, ST:D is set in the JJ-verse.
They are only saying it's set in the Prime universe to try and give it some legitimacy and draw in Trek fans. This latest 'Enterprise' trick is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to shore up their HUGE mistake of a show.
All one needs to do it look at it. (...but please don't, because it's terrible)
There's no such thing as a 'JJ-verse'. I assume you're trying to refer to the Kelvin Timeline film series in which case kindly prove the USS Kelvin was destroyed by Nero in DSC. If it wasn't then it's not in the KT. If it was then Paramount is drawing up its lawyers.
And if you think the Enterprise (you can drop the quotes you baby, it was spoken on-sceen) was included for whining fanbois as part of a deception, well, it's cute you think they care about your mob. You're not the audience for DSC and nobody cares that you're excluded including the producers.
But rather than accept it's not for you, you can whine about a 'conspiricy' to lie to you personally about what timeline the film is set in whilst also including things to drag your mob in despite being set in the film series your mob is known to despise. I love your logic genius.
Also the Enterprise is a new ship in 09, built in its launch configuration whereas DSC shows a different Enterprise to that. You can't even follow your own confused ramblings.
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
Despite what the TV execs say, ST:D is set in the JJ-verse.
They are only saying it's set in the Prime universe to try and give it some legitimacy and draw in Trek fans. This latest 'Enterprise' trick is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to shore up their HUGE mistake of a show.
All one needs to do it look at it. (...but please don't, because it's terrible)
Lol are there actual arguments attached to your claim or do you simply dont like the show and dismissing it in such a fashion makes it easier for you?
Just asking because if it’s the latter I raise: Star Trek Discovery is a great show and is definitely set in the Prime universe!
p.s. thanks for linking those awsome pics @reyan01, I think my TOS Connie is in for an unexpected refit.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Short version: Purists.
If they had their way... Anything that take place around TOS MUST, without question, look like it was done with a low budget in the 1960s with every single detail EXACTLY the same as it was in TOS, right down to the jellybean buttons.
The sets would look cooler if they actually used jelly bean buttons.
Honestly I'd LOVE to see what TOS would look like if it was remastered to look modern.
I think Enterprise did a good job when the USS Defiant made an appearance.
yeah ok sure, wherever you got those from. Frankly I dont care, you're a happy little special snowflake and you can go be a happy little special snowflake, the only place this conversation will go if we continue is to being modded out for being off topic.
I got them from Memory Alpha; a very reliable Trek resource. You talk of my being a special little snowflake, which I guess beats being a special little liar. This is on topic; we're discussing why the DSC Constitution looks different, and further, the differences between the TOS Constitution and the TMP Constitution.
You were incorrect with your statement about the Enterprise being the only surviving Constitution. Instead of admitting your error, you respond with you don't care. How mature! If you're going to make bold claims, you should at least do a little research first. As it stands, your previous point is void because *drum roll* it's a load of nonsense.
Despite what the TV execs say, ST:D is set in the JJ-verse.
Well, you couldn't be further from the truth. DSC may not be set in the Roddenberry Universe, but it sure as TRIBBLE isn't set in the JJverse, if it was, then the Enterprise (which would look vastly different) wouldn't be in space just yet, the Narada would be flying around somewhere too, and the Klingon's would look better, and not be at war with the Federation.
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Quoted, simply, for truth. The irony however, is that they're not even purists; Star Trek has, and will continue to evolve. I'd go as far as to say they're simply stuck in the past. I suppose by their logic, TNG is all wrong too because it's panels rather than buttons and clickers.
'D*mn it Flash, I'm a Doctor not a Script Writer!!!'
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
You were incorrect with your statement about the Enterprise being the only surviving Constitution. Instead of admitting your error, you respond with you don't care. How mature! If you're going to make bold claims, you should at least do a little research first. As it stands, your previous point is void because *drum roll* it's a load of nonsense.
If I may, I think kodachikuno's original statement was in reference to surviving the 5 year mission Enterprise was on. As we do not know definitively of another ship that was on a 5 year mission, it is reasonable (if not well founded) to make such an assumption as the Enterprise being the only ship to come back from said mission, possibly more than once as she's been in service so long. But that is another assumption.
Conversely, the a similar assumption can be made of the other ships you have listed, flash. So the point can go either way. But we cannot dispute that the Enterprise was, for all intents and purposes, a "hero ship" both in and out of universe. So, as we don't have enough concrete information as to the why, we are just left with the fact that she was refit.
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Quoted, simply, for truth. The irony however, is that they're not even purists; Star Trek has, and will continue to evolve. I'd go as far as to say they're simply stuck in the past. I suppose by their logic, TNG is all wrong too because it's panels rather than buttons and clickers.
This sounds more like belief than truth, but I do not know your experiences or exchanges with those you would call purists. However it is true that Star Trek has and will continue to evolve. I can't speak for others, it's not my right to do so, but I can relay my thoughts. That evolution has always moved forward with the time in-universe, with the exception of Enterprise. The trouble right now is that the evolution is set in a period that is for the most part already established. Had Discovery been set post Voyager/Nemesis by say 10-25 years, there would be far fewer problems from those parts of the fanbase. Though I guess those that hold the novels to a high regard would be upset, but hopefully we all understand and accept those to be Beta canon.
Your last sentence is exaggeration of course, but I understand that you may be tired of hearing about this. But may I just ask you to not dismiss their thoughts so readily. And I would ask them to do the same. To all be fans of a franchise that extols the virtues of cooperation and yet let that very thing set us at each others throats is, if I may be so bold, not logical.
You were incorrect with your statement about the Enterprise being the only surviving Constitution. Instead of admitting your error, you respond with you don't care. How mature! If you're going to make bold claims, you should at least do a little research first. As it stands, your previous point is void because *drum roll* it's a load of nonsense.
If I may, I think kodachikuno's original statement was in reference to surviving the 5 year mission Enterprise was on. As we do not know definitively of another ship that was on a 5 year mission, it is reasonable (if not well founded) to make such an assumption as the Enterprise being the only ship to come back from said mission, possibly more than once as she's been in service so long. But that is another assumption.
Conversely, the a similar assumption can be made of the other ships you have listed, flash. So the point can go either way. But we cannot dispute that the Enterprise was, for all intents and purposes, a "hero ship" both in and out of universe. So, as we don't have enough concrete information as to the why, we are just left with the fact that she was refit.
An unbiased and fair comment, although kodachikuno's comment certainly seemed to imply the Enterprise was the sole surviving Constitution Class. Hero status aside, why mention the Enterprise being (the only) surviving Constitution otherwise? I guess only kodachikuno can answer that one..
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Quoted, simply, for truth. The irony however, is that they're not even purists; Star Trek has, and will continue to evolve. I'd go as far as to say they're simply stuck in the past. I suppose by their logic, TNG is all wrong too because it's panels rather than buttons and clickers.
This sounds more like belief than truth, but I do not know your experiences or exchanges with those you would call purists. However it is true that Star Trek has and will continue to evolve. I can't speak for others, it's not my right to do so, but I can relay my thoughts. That evolution has always moved forward with the time in-universe, with the exception of Enterprise. The trouble right now is that the evolution is set in a period that is for the most part already established. Had Discovery been set post Voyager/Nemesis by say 10-25 years, there would be far fewer problems from those parts of the fanbase. Though I guess those that hold the novels to a high regard would be upset, but hopefully we all understand and accept those to be Beta canon.
Your last sentence is exaggeration of course, but I understand that you may be tired of hearing about this. But may I just ask you to not dismiss their thoughts so readily. And I would ask them to do the same. To all be fans of a franchise that extols the virtues of cooperation and yet let that very thing set us at each others throats is, if I may be so bold, not logical.
You may, and I shall, providing we can all agree that (as far as Trek goes) there's fundamentally no actual right or wrong considering it is a fictional universe.
I completely understand that say, someone who grew up and maybe even idolised TOS may take issue with ENT & DSC, because from their point of view, everything they've come to know and love is being replaced. It would be like someone owning a classic, vintage Ferrari, and then someone coming along, taking it away, and replacing it with a brand new, more modern one; the modern one may look nicer, and may have better handing and may even be better economically (hah) but there's going to be some love lost.
In the same breath though, I grow tired of people (fans) who claim that, because of the changes, this is in the Kelvin Timeline, or that it's destroying canon, or that X, Y or Z shouldn't be possible. From a timeline and/or storyline perspective, nothing (and I actually mean, nothing) has been altered. Sure, there may be some things that have happened that haven't been mentioned since (spore drive), but events of established canon haven't been changed. If one wanted, they could probably find a whole range of ships, species, actions (etc) that happened on TNG that weren't mentioned or repeated on DS9 or VOY. These people are picking at the show not because it's bad, but because it's not what they want.
I can further see the desire in having a show post-VOY/Nemesis, and that would have been the logical choice, especially since the writers aren't limited to established lore and don't need their story to slot in anywhere, but for reasons unknown to us, they went backwards pre TOS to tell a story.
I'm not remotely a fan of the Klingon redesign, and I'm not remotely a fan of the Crossfield Class, but I've come to accept this show and the design choices. I am a fan of Trek, heck, I'm a fan of science fiction in general, and as a both a Trek, and casual Sci-Fi fan, I think Discovery has, and will continue to do well. I wish more people could do that, because I fear the simple truth is, if enough people complain about a Trek show, it'll harm it, and then we'll end up without a Trek show. If Discovery fails because of the fans that don't like it, that'll be it for a good number of years - it's not going to suddenly find a replacement that is set 25/50 years after VOY/Nemesis.
Despite what the TV execs say, ST:D is set in the JJ-verse.
They are only saying it's set in the Prime universe to try and give it some legitimacy and draw in Trek fans. This latest 'Enterprise' trick is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to shore up their HUGE mistake of a show.
All one needs to do it look at it. (...but please don't, because it's terrible)
You are correct, though not in the way you think. ST:D is indeed part of the JJ-verse. Only not JJ-Abrams but JJ-Binks.
Yes, ST:D is set in the Star Wars universe.
Of course TV execs are wary that this truth gets out. Every True Trekker (TM) despises Star Wars, and everybody in total despises JarJar. This is why they cut all references to Wookiees and Jedis and Sith and such - to shoehorn uninformed Trekkers into second rate sci fi material of Star Wars. But it is obvious, isn't it, that all the Vulcans and Enterprises are just tricks to make us believe it is Star Trek.
Also Star Wars itself is set in 19th century Virginia. All the spaceships and robots are just decoys.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
If I may make a comment. I don't like the changes they've made, setting it in the period they did there was really no reason to completely change the existing look. It very much feels like they changed it just for the sake of changing it, which is a shame, it could easily have used what already existed and just gave it a little update. I don't claim it's wrong, I just don't enjoy it, the story elements seem silly (mushroom drive etc.) , However for those that enjoy it I'm glad they do and hope that they get everything they want from the show. I only wish they hadn't changed the aesthetics as much as they did (esp. the klingons...but oh well).
Now, in regards to the appearance of the controls of the original Enterprise, this is actually specifically mentioned in one of the novels and I think it's a brilliant explanation. Uhura is questioned by a visitor (or young officer I forget the specifics) about the antiquated controls, the lack of touch controls etc....she tells him that it was built that way (while she's rebuilding a circuit) as the Enterprise was designed for exploration and to operate without support, so if needed she could rebuild every circuit on the ship given time. With all the freak storms and problems that encounter in deep space, easy to replace circuits were a necessity...if the whole ship short circuited they could rebuild it and carry on with time.
This is a great explanation and would be a great way to explain keeping the Enterprise bridge looking a bit more old fashioned....they won't, but there is no reason not to and just give it a well thought out explanation.
In the end...some of us are a little upset they made changes for no real reason or don't like the story much, but here's the thing...it's just as valid a position as saying it's a great show. If some are happier saying it's not the prime universe (makes the show make more sense to me at least) then who cares, no one else is forced to think that. Star Trek fandom of all things should be about inclusiveness...if someone has a different opinion then let's respect it and move on, as long as we don't force it on others. Saying things like I hope they include X so that it pisses the fanboys off is rude and uncalled for, just let everyone be fans in their own way.
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Short version: Purists.
If they had their way... Anything that take place around TOS MUST, without question, look like it was done with a low budget in the 1960s with every single detail EXACTLY the same as it was in TOS, right down to the jellybean buttons.
The sets would look cooler if they actually used jelly bean buttons.
Honestly I'd LOVE to see what TOS would look like if it was remastered to look modern.
I think Enterprise did a good job when the USS Defiant made an appearance.
That was part of why I'd love to see all of TOS reimagined that way. It looked good! It makes the original look like the low budget show it was.
Comments
That does not change and has no bearing on this:
And I'm not just talking about "The Prequels" either. "Rogue One" was visually consistent. "Solo" looks to be as well. That doesn't mean they didn't change anything, but the things that should look the same from Prequel to main story (barring a significant amount of time passing between stories) do look the same, as they should.
... Visually consistent =/= 100% identical. The lighting, amount of bloom, upping the brightness of the external lights, and extra detail in the hull plates of a TOS Constitution would negate how "out of place" it might look.
Like this:
Weapons can be the same as Discovery's (both personal and ship) since this is 3 years after "The Cage" and the Enterprise didn't fire a shot on screen until "The Corbomite Maneuver." As for buttons/touchscreen, the farthest you could go without providing an explanation would be to mix the two like Enterprise did.
You know, more than anything those last five words really make me angry. It's dismissive and insulting. It's what politicians say. It's what historical revisionists say. We as Star Trek fans of any caliber should be above that.
I want Discovery to be accepted into the larger Star Trek universe, but I also don't want TOS to be rewritten, overwritten, or at worst erased. I'm afraid for it. I fear the comicbook syndrome that's permeated other media, where reboots almost for the sake of rebooting are more common than ever. It's irrational and possibly unfounded, but fear often is.
It's in the dialog of the film, flash, and was a major plot point through the first half. We're sure.
Except we already know that the Constitution Class doesn't have touchscreen. It's all buttons and flippers over there.
We as fans of science fiction should also allow for change.
TOS isn't being rewrote; it still happened, it just took place in a different generation (from our perspective). If Trek is still going in another 50 years, there's a good chance that TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and even DSC will look obsolete by comparison.
There's nothing wrong with a reboot either, assuming it does well and doesn't take away from the original source material. This doesn't mean designs can't be changed and brought up to date; look at the Cylons from BSG. There was nothing wrong with them, but they were modernised and worked perfectly well. The exact same is being applied to the Constitution.
As true as that may be, it would be illogical to do so. This wouldn't be the first time something has been said, read, or seen on Trek that shouldn't be taken literally - not unless we're suddenly supposed to believe that the Refit Constitution has, what, 74 decks?
The DSC Constitution could (soon?) undergo a refit that'll make it the TOS Constitution we're more familiar with, or this could simply be the more modern style of a Constitution to otherwise better fit in with Discovery.
Yes The Cage shows the WNMHGB version but as The Cage is incompatible with The Menagerie (due to the different endings) and all we see in The Menagerie are illusions, recordings, and simulations we can easily dismiss the 'wrong' model of Conni in the same way we can with the incorrectly placed K't'ingas in VGR and ENT (where they should be a D7 and a new ship respectively).
Besides the differences boil down to different shuttlebay, different pylons, and different nacelles. The different hull material is easy, it's either lighting or armour plating. Other than the shuttlebay I can't see it being too hard to swap the pylon/nacelle assemblage out as a whole unit every so often if they want to try new things.
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!
quite sure about it. And yes it would have been. However, the Enterprise was the only one of her class to make it home after 5yrs, even to the people in universe, she was something of a "Hero Ship" at that point and got special treatment.
Red represents those lost, abandoned (Exeter) or damaged beyond repair.
Blue represents those ships still active and/or in service.
Green represents Constitution Class starships that also underwent the refit.
Evidently, your rather bold statement about the Enterprise being the only one of her class to make it home seems inconclusive. I'd love to know your source. We've also got the USS Yorkown (which is rumoured to have been the ship that became the Enterprise-A).
Before this goes any further I must say that you're nitpicking and this can only end badly.
https://i.imgur.com/Wu1Ooju.jpg You nailed it.
yeah ok sure, wherever you got those from. Frankly I dont care, you're a happy little special snowflake and you can go be a happy little special snowflake, the only place this conversation will go if we continue is to being modded out for being off topic.
The main difference that makes it difficult to compare the two properties in this subject is that one is intended, to a degree anyway, to be speculative of our own future, whereas the other is just a space fantasy. Star Wars requires consistency because it's set in a sort of vacuum, independent of our own advances in real life, whereas Star Trek by its nature looks forward from what we are now. It's this difference that render any comparison made between the two largely invalid. It doesn't matter if wire frames look antiquated in Star Wars because the state of their technology is irrelevant - there's no speculation, merely a setting with a certain style. But it does matter in Star Trek, because Star Trek was always supposed to be forward-looking.
Discovery made the choice to look forward, as suggested by the nature of Star Trek. There's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it's just that it chose to set the show in a canonically established time period, which is where the resistance to most of its aesthetic arises from.
So I guess the real question is, which do you prefer your Star Trek to be - a forward-looking glimpse at what humanity might be, or just another sci-fi setting? There's nothing wrong with either option, nor are they necessarily mutually exclusive, but it does dictate a lot about what you think matters visually.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
Also... Discovery herself is actually a newer ship than the Enterprise. By the time Kirk took command of the Enterprise, she already had two previous captains and was in service for what... 10-20 years or so? Meanwhile the Discovery was stated to be a new ship by the lack of scratches on her hanger deck as noted by one of the prisoners that were aboard the shuttle, stating that she must be fresh out of the shipyard, yet not out on the front lines.
So again we have a potential excuse for why Discovery has touch screens if they show Enterprise doesn't. It would be comparable to the difference between the Enterprise and Enterprise-A.
Despite what the TV execs say, ST:D is set in the JJ-verse.
They are only saying it's set in the Prime universe to try and give it some legitimacy and draw in Trek fans. This latest 'Enterprise' trick is a desperate last ditch attempt to try to shore up their HUGE mistake of a show.
All one needs to do it look at it. (...but please don't, because it's terrible)
arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1203368/pve-content-a-list-of-gamewide-polishing-pass-suggestions
We can't allow these abominations to go on!!!
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
But it's not. It's actually good. Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it isn't true. Like flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers.
Like, usually I'd at least offer some give on the ground of subjectivity, but this isn't a subjective thing - the DSC Connie is factually, in whole truth, a pretty good interpretation of the Consititution-class, extremely faithful to the classic while spinning it just slightly enough to look good next to the Discovery aesthetic.
I don't see how this is even debatable.
I Support Disco | Disco is Love | Disco is Life
People who can't accept change or feel that the "vision of Saint Roddenberry" is being violated.
Short version: Purists.
If they had their way... Anything that take place around TOS MUST, without question, look like it was done with a low budget in the 1960s with every single detail EXACTLY the same as it was in TOS, right down to the jellybean buttons.
Honestly I'd LOVE to see what TOS would look like if it was remastered to look modern.
My character Tsin'xing
There's no such thing as a 'JJ-verse'. I assume you're trying to refer to the Kelvin Timeline film series in which case kindly prove the USS Kelvin was destroyed by Nero in DSC. If it wasn't then it's not in the KT. If it was then Paramount is drawing up its lawyers.
And if you think the Enterprise (you can drop the quotes you baby, it was spoken on-sceen) was included for whining fanbois as part of a deception, well, it's cute you think they care about your mob. You're not the audience for DSC and nobody cares that you're excluded including the producers.
But rather than accept it's not for you, you can whine about a 'conspiricy' to lie to you personally about what timeline the film is set in whilst also including things to drag your mob in despite being set in the film series your mob is known to despise. I love your logic genius.
Also the Enterprise is a new ship in 09, built in its launch configuration whereas DSC shows a different Enterprise to that. You can't even follow your own confused ramblings.
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!
Lol are there actual arguments attached to your claim or do you simply dont like the show and dismissing it in such a fashion makes it easier for you?
Just asking because if it’s the latter I raise: Star Trek Discovery is a great show and is definitely set in the Prime universe!
p.s. thanks for linking those awsome pics @reyan01, I think my TOS Connie is in for an unexpected refit.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
I think Enterprise did a good job when the USS Defiant made an appearance.
You were incorrect with your statement about the Enterprise being the only surviving Constitution. Instead of admitting your error, you respond with you don't care. How mature!
Well, you couldn't be further from the truth. DSC may not be set in the Roddenberry Universe, but it sure as TRIBBLE isn't set in the JJverse, if it was, then the Enterprise (which would look vastly different) wouldn't be in space just yet, the Narada would be flying around somewhere too, and the Klingon's would look better, and not be at war with the Federation.
Quoted, simply, for truth. The irony however, is that they're not even purists; Star Trek has, and will continue to evolve. I'd go as far as to say they're simply stuck in the past. I suppose by their logic, TNG is all wrong too because it's panels rather than buttons and clickers.
I'll second this. The only thing we may have to concern ourselves with would be some of the acting.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
If I may, I think kodachikuno's original statement was in reference to surviving the 5 year mission Enterprise was on. As we do not know definitively of another ship that was on a 5 year mission, it is reasonable (if not well founded) to make such an assumption as the Enterprise being the only ship to come back from said mission, possibly more than once as she's been in service so long. But that is another assumption.
Conversely, the a similar assumption can be made of the other ships you have listed, flash. So the point can go either way. But we cannot dispute that the Enterprise was, for all intents and purposes, a "hero ship" both in and out of universe. So, as we don't have enough concrete information as to the why, we are just left with the fact that she was refit.
This sounds more like belief than truth, but I do not know your experiences or exchanges with those you would call purists. However it is true that Star Trek has and will continue to evolve. I can't speak for others, it's not my right to do so, but I can relay my thoughts. That evolution has always moved forward with the time in-universe, with the exception of Enterprise. The trouble right now is that the evolution is set in a period that is for the most part already established. Had Discovery been set post Voyager/Nemesis by say 10-25 years, there would be far fewer problems from those parts of the fanbase. Though I guess those that hold the novels to a high regard would be upset, but hopefully we all understand and accept those to be Beta canon.
Your last sentence is exaggeration of course, but I understand that you may be tired of hearing about this. But may I just ask you to not dismiss their thoughts so readily. And I would ask them to do the same. To all be fans of a franchise that extols the virtues of cooperation and yet let that very thing set us at each others throats is, if I may be so bold, not logical.
You may, and I shall, providing we can all agree that (as far as Trek goes) there's fundamentally no actual right or wrong considering it is a fictional universe.
I completely understand that say, someone who grew up and maybe even idolised TOS may take issue with ENT & DSC, because from their point of view, everything they've come to know and love is being replaced. It would be like someone owning a classic, vintage Ferrari, and then someone coming along, taking it away, and replacing it with a brand new, more modern one; the modern one may look nicer, and may have better handing and may even be better economically (hah) but there's going to be some love lost.
In the same breath though, I grow tired of people (fans) who claim that, because of the changes, this is in the Kelvin Timeline, or that it's destroying canon, or that X, Y or Z shouldn't be possible. From a timeline and/or storyline perspective, nothing (and I actually mean, nothing) has been altered. Sure, there may be some things that have happened that haven't been mentioned since (spore drive), but events of established canon haven't been changed. If one wanted, they could probably find a whole range of ships, species, actions (etc) that happened on TNG that weren't mentioned or repeated on DS9 or VOY. These people are picking at the show not because it's bad, but because it's not what they want.
I can further see the desire in having a show post-VOY/Nemesis, and that would have been the logical choice, especially since the writers aren't limited to established lore and don't need their story to slot in anywhere, but for reasons unknown to us, they went backwards pre TOS to tell a story.
I'm not remotely a fan of the Klingon redesign, and I'm not remotely a fan of the Crossfield Class, but I've come to accept this show and the design choices. I am a fan of Trek, heck, I'm a fan of science fiction in general, and as a both a Trek, and casual Sci-Fi fan, I think Discovery has, and will continue to do well. I wish more people could do that, because I fear the simple truth is, if enough people complain about a Trek show, it'll harm it, and then we'll end up without a Trek show. If Discovery fails because of the fans that don't like it, that'll be it for a good number of years - it's not going to suddenly find a replacement that is set 25/50 years after VOY/Nemesis.
You are correct, though not in the way you think. ST:D is indeed part of the JJ-verse. Only not JJ-Abrams but JJ-Binks.
Yes, ST:D is set in the Star Wars universe.
Of course TV execs are wary that this truth gets out. Every True Trekker (TM) despises Star Wars, and everybody in total despises JarJar. This is why they cut all references to Wookiees and Jedis and Sith and such - to shoehorn uninformed Trekkers into second rate sci fi material of Star Wars. But it is obvious, isn't it, that all the Vulcans and Enterprises are just tricks to make us believe it is Star Trek.
Also Star Wars itself is set in 19th century Virginia. All the spaceships and robots are just decoys.
I don't like the changes they've made, setting it in the period they did there was really no reason to completely change the existing look. It very much feels like they changed it just for the sake of changing it, which is a shame, it could easily have used what already existed and just gave it a little update.
I don't claim it's wrong, I just don't enjoy it, the story elements seem silly (mushroom drive etc.) , However for those that enjoy it I'm glad they do and hope that they get everything they want from the show. I only wish they hadn't changed the aesthetics as much as they did (esp. the klingons...but oh well).
Now, in regards to the appearance of the controls of the original Enterprise, this is actually specifically mentioned in one of the novels and I think it's a brilliant explanation.
Uhura is questioned by a visitor (or young officer I forget the specifics) about the antiquated controls, the lack of touch controls etc....she tells him that it was built that way (while she's rebuilding a circuit) as the Enterprise was designed for exploration and to operate without support, so if needed she could rebuild every circuit on the ship given time. With all the freak storms and problems that encounter in deep space, easy to replace circuits were a necessity...if the whole ship short circuited they could rebuild it and carry on with time.
This is a great explanation and would be a great way to explain keeping the Enterprise bridge looking a bit more old fashioned....they won't, but there is no reason not to and just give it a well thought out explanation.
In the end...some of us are a little upset they made changes for no real reason or don't like the story much, but here's the thing...it's just as valid a position as saying it's a great show. If some are happier saying it's not the prime universe (makes the show make more sense to me at least) then who cares, no one else is forced to think that. Star Trek fandom of all things should be about inclusiveness...if someone has a different opinion then let's respect it and move on, as long as we don't force it on others. Saying things like I hope they include X so that it pisses the fanboys off is rude and uncalled for, just let everyone be fans in their own way.
Sorry for the ramble.
My character Tsin'xing