Umm Prime?

talonxv

Now this is from Trekyards. And they are getting their stuff from CBS/Eaglemoss.

Sorry DSC completely screwed up in canon. Now I get it. Star Trek and canon is all over the place.

But DSC screwed up continuity, especially the Enterprise. Don't believe me go to 20:50 time mark, then if you still don't believe me, go to the 23:00 mark.

But somehow DSC is prime? Yeah. CBS has no god forsaken clue what it is doing.
https://youtu.be/Bhrsotr4Az0

smokebailey

CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

talonxv

> @smokebailey said:
> CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.

That picture. Totally priceless

smokebailey

talonxv wrote: »

> @smokebailey said:
> CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.

That picture. Totally priceless

~curtsy~

talonxv

> @somtaawkhar said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> Now this is from Trekyards. And they are getting their stuff from CBS/Eaglemoss.
>
>
>
> Uhh no, Trekyards gets all of their stuff from Eaglemoss, but CBS has said anything that isn't in the shows/movies isn't canon, which includes ship sizes Eaglemoss uses.
>
> Typical Treyards idiots argument
> >THIS BREAKS CANON!
> >Whats your argument?
> >HERES SOME 100% NON-CANON INFORMATION THAT PROVES IT!
> Nope.

Didn't even bother to watch the vid. Cochine has an official poster from CBS. Care to try again white knight?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

talonxv

> @somtaawkhar said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> Didn't even bother to watch the vid. Cochine has an official poster from CBS. Care to try again white knight?
>
>
>
> Posters aren't canon, as they aren't in the TV show. Try again.

When it's the official from CBS with official sizes, you're wrong. But you can keep deflecting while completely dismissing the evidence. So I'm just going to completely dismiss you.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

mustrumridcully0

smokebailey wrote: »

CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.

WHy is it TRIBBLE with fans if they decide to depict the Enterprise a bit different? What if some fans like the new look?
Are you TRIBBLE with fans with your Constitution rendition in your signature. Because it certainly isn't how the ship looked in either the movie, the TV show, or in the the animated show,nor how it looked in Discovery.


Or another canon breaker:
Saavik


Also Saavik

smokebailey

mustrumridcully0 wrote: »

smokebailey wrote: »

CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.

WHy is it TRIBBLE with fans if they decide to depict the Enterprise a bit different? What if some fans like the new look?
Are you TRIBBLE with fans with your Constitution rendition in your signature. Because it certainly isn't how the ship looked in either the movie, the TV show, or in the the animated show,nor how it looked in Discovery.


Or another canon breaker:
Saavik


Also Saavik

Watch the video....we got from the Cage...ENLARGE it to Disco...and shrink it back down when Kirk takes over.

And the TOS Enterprise was fine the way it WAS for the past FIFTY+ YEARS, it did not NEED a change.


THAT would be like me taking the Millennium Falcon and changing it into this






Or making R2-D2 into this




I'd become hated by Star War fans as if I were Jar-Jar Binks. And notice in Rogue One....did they change the TIE's? Did they change R2? Did they change the Star Destroyers? Did they make Tarkin look like Dwayne Johnson? Did they make the Death Star look like a sea urchin? Did they make Darth Vader look like an angry Optimus Prime? Did they change the Falcon in Force Awakens? (they even kept the old Atari graphics for the Falcon's targeting computer!)

Did they make the Tardis in 2005 look like Bill and Ted's phone booth?

I mean I remember, 20 years ago, when Red Dwarf was remastered....did not like it, the resign did not fit the description for the Dwarf itself....suffice to say, there was a reason why it never went beyond the first 3 seasons.



So, I say TOS and the TOS Enterprise is fine as it has been all these years.

LEAVE IT ALONE.


And in my sig, the ship is only one of its kind. TEMPORAL CONSTITUTION CLASS, and NOT CONSTITUTION.
Heck, I still need to fix the saucer on my 3D model.

talonxv

> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> smokebailey wrote: »
>
> CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WHy is it TRIBBLE with fans if they decide to depict the Enterprise a bit different? What if some fans like the new look?
> Are you TRIBBLE with fans with your Constitution rendition in your signature. Because it certainly isn't how the ship looked in either the movie, the TV show, or in the the animated show,nor how it looked in Discovery.
>
>
> Or another canon breaker:
> Saavik
>
>
> Also Saavik

I have zero issues with her look. Her SIZE OTOH, that's a different story. In the cage, Enterprise is around 230 meters. In DSC she's suddenly 430ish meters(case in point, Discovery is listed at 750 meters. Meaning you take cage/TOS enterprise in front of Discovery, she'd look like a pigmy) then suddenly back to around 240-250 meters when Kirk takes command.

Now how do we know the size of DSC Enterprise? The saucer of the Enterprise is the same size as Shenzhou. Which the saucer of Shenzhou is about 33% bigger or so than TOS Enterprise.

And since they upscaled the Enterprise saucer, they upscaled the rest of the ship to match. Meaning whatever Mr White Knight says, the Enterprise in DSC is TOO BIG to fit into TOS.

Now if Kurtzman has the stones, he'll simply say he's rebooting canon and be done with it.

And IIRC Kurtzman even admitted during a convention he can't get DSC to line up with TOS anymore.

khan5000

Its a visual reboot.

smokebailey

talonxv wrote: »

> @mustrumridcully0 said:
> smokebailey wrote: »
>
> CBS: We don't give a #$&@ about fans.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WHy is it TRIBBLE with fans if they decide to depict the Enterprise a bit different? What if some fans like the new look?
> Are you TRIBBLE with fans with your Constitution rendition in your signature. Because it certainly isn't how the ship looked in either the movie, the TV show, or in the the animated show,nor how it looked in Discovery.
>
>
> Or another canon breaker:
> Saavik
>
>
> Also Saavik

I have zero issues with her look. Her SIZE OTOH, that's a different story. In the cage, Enterprise is around 230 meters. In DSC she's suddenly 430ish meters(case in point, Discovery is listed at 750 meters. Meaning you take cage/TOS enterprise in front of Discovery, she'd look like a pigmy) then suddenly back to around 240-250 meters when Kirk takes command.

Now how do we know the size of DSC Enterprise? The saucer of the Enterprise is the same size as Shenzhou. Which the saucer of Shenzhou is about 33% bigger or so than TOS Enterprise.

And since they upscaled the Enterprise saucer, they upscaled the rest of the ship to match. Meaning whatever Mr White Knight says, the Enterprise in DSC is TOO BIG to fit into TOS.

Now if Kurtzman has the stones, he'll simply say he's rebooting canon and be done with it.

And IIRC Kurtzman even admitted during a convention he can't get DSC to line up with TOS anymore.

In my mind, I got this image forming

-In CBS Studios-

The Guys in charge of Disco: We have small %&@#* !!!!!!! We need to overcompensate!!!!!!!

talonxv

> @khan5000 said:
> Its a visual reboot.

If it's the same size, sure. But when you take a 250 meter ship and make her 432 meters, that's not a visual reboot.

That's like trying to claim USS Enterprise CVN-65 is a visual reboot of USS Enterprise CV-6.

jonsills

Basically, Som, they hate DSC for reasons they are either unable or unwilling to articulate, and will instead seize on non-canon information from outside sources to claim that canon "is broken" (when even TOS couldn't decide on the size or crew complement of the Enterprise; Pike claimed responsibility for "over two hundred" souls, while later episodes stated the ship's complement was in excess of 400).

And they love their little echo-chamber threads like this one, as evidenced by the fact that they keep making them.

khan5000

talonxv wrote: »

> @khan5000 said:
> Its a visual reboot.

If it's the same size, sure. But when you take a 250 meter ship and make her 432 meters, that's not a visual reboot.

That's like trying to claim USS Enterprise CVN-65 is a visual reboot of USS Enterprise CV-6.

Thats not what a visual reboot is. A visual reboot is when you take a property and change the visuals of said property. TMP can be considered a visual reboot as very little from the series is kept in the visual language of the movie. TNG is a visual reboot of Star Trek.

starkaos

Personally, I have less of a problem with the size of the ship and more about technology, the look of iconic alien races, and events. The holocommunicator seems like it is a standard piece of 23rd Century Federation technology and yet it vanishes for about 100 years. There is nothing resembling TOS Klingons and TNG Klingons in the Discovery Klingons. Show them to a Star Trek fan 5 years ago and tell them that they are Klingons and the fans would think you are crazy. The Federation is almost destroyed in the Klingon War and there is no mention of it in TOS. There should have been hatred towards the Klingons in TOS instead of the cold war attitude. It is as if the Klingon War never happened about 10 years before TOS or Q snapped his fingers and everyone forgot about it.

talonxv

> @jonsills said:
> Basically, Som, they hate DSC for reasons they are either unable or unwilling to articulate, and will instead seize on non-canon information from outside sources to claim that canon "is broken" (when even TOS couldn't decide on the size or crew complement of the Enterprise; Pike claimed responsibility for "over two hundred" souls, while later episodes stated the ship's complement was in excess of 400).
>
> And they love their little echo-chamber threads like this one, as evidenced by the fact that they keep making them.

More hyperbole. I HAVE articulated. But like Mr White Knight 1, you simply dismiss it because you don't like it then demand we just follow what you say because reasons. Haven't even refuted where I point out how they upsized the Enterprise. Still waiting on that.

rattler2

talonxv wrote: »

If it's the same size, sure. But when you take a 250 meter ship and make her 432 meters, that's not a visual reboot.

Pretty sure the accepted size of the TOS Connie was more along the lines of 295 meters, and the refit was 305. And they did admit they upscaled her a bit to not look as small compared to Discovery.

Frankly the size issue here is no different than the magic size changing USS Defiant.

talonxv

> @rattler2 said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> If it's the same size, sure. But when you take a 250 meter ship and make her 432 meters, that's not a visual reboot.
>
>
>
>
> Pretty sure the accepted size of the TOS Connie was more along the lines of 295 meters, and the refit was 305. And they did admit they upscaled her a bit to not look as small compared to Discovery.
>
> Frankly the size issue here is no different than the magic size changing USS Defiant.

Memory alpha has her listed 289 meters. Still hell of a lot smaller than what Discovery is.

And yes when we get inconsistent writing on BoP and Defiant it's maddening.

But come on. Taking a VERY well known ship and upsizing it 33%, that's a bit of a problem. And making Discovery 750 meters?! That makes her longer than a Sovvy.

Also one further thing. Making the Connie that size(Enterprise) that makes her almost the size of the EXCELSIOR. So what. Are we going to upsize everything now?

mustrumridcully0

talonxv wrote: »

> @rattler2 said:
> talonxv wrote: »
>
> If it's the same size, sure. But when you take a 250 meter ship and make her 432 meters, that's not a visual reboot.
>
>
>
>
> Pretty sure the accepted size of the TOS Connie was more along the lines of 295 meters, and the refit was 305. And they did admit they upscaled her a bit to not look as small compared to Discovery.
>
> Frankly the size issue here is no different than the magic size changing USS Defiant.

Memory alpha has her listed 289 meters. Still hell of a lot smaller than what Discovery is.

And yes when we get inconsistent writing on BoP and Defiant it's maddening.

But come on. Taking a VERY well known ship and upsizing it 33%, that's a bit of a problem. And making Discovery 750 meters?! That makes her longer than a Sovvy.

Also one further thing. Making the Connie that size(Enterprise) that makes her almost the size of the EXCELSIOR. So what. Are we going to upsize everything now?

Maybe?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

rattler2

The main source of the Crossfield's length is the nacelles. Probably because she's in a flat configuration. Thus if the nacelles need to "see" each other, they would have to be longer. Mass wise... doesn't feel that bigger than an Excelsior honestly. She's just a lot more spread out.

brian334

The size of the ship is a non-issue. It matters not at all to the story. If it's 200 meters or 700, what real difference does it make? We're talking about a pretend spaceship set in a pretend future with actors portraying pretend people in a pretend war. Why is it so hard then to pretend that the size of the ship is whatever makes you feel good?

If you are so invested in the trivia created by others detailing a pretend spaceship that you can't accept that it is, in fact, imaginary and thus subject to infinite mutability, I suggest you turn off the television, walk outside, ride a bicycle, meet a girl, visit your parents, or do virtually anything else that doesn't involve Star Trek because, quite frankly, you've lost perspective.

I can understand wishing things were otherwise in the newest incarnation of a beloved franchise, but to allow it to take an emotional toll on you? My friend, the real world is full of real things to worry about. If Trek is no longer the fun you used to know, it's time to move on.

talonxv

> @brian334 said:
> The size of the ship is a non-issue. It matters not at all to the story. If it's 200 meters or 700, what real difference does it make? We're talking about a pretend spaceship set in a pretend future with actors portraying pretend people in a pretend war. Why is it so hard then to pretend that the size of the ship is whatever makes you feel good?
>
> If you are so invested in the trivia created by others detailing a pretend spaceship that you can't accept that it is, in fact, imaginary and thus subject to infinite mutability, I suggest you turn off the television, walk outside, ride a bicycle, meet a girl, visit your parents, or do virtually anything else that doesn't involve Star Trek because, quite frankly, you've lost perspective.
>
> I can understand wishing things were otherwise in the newest incarnation of a beloved franchise, but to allow it to take an emotional toll on you? My friend, the real world is full of real things to worry about. If Trek is no longer the fun you used to know, it's time to move on.

Wow bro, turn off the straw man for a minute. Star Trek is a hobby. It doesn't control my life like you assume it does. But I can still raise concerns of what people are doing taking Star Trek on, that's my call.

But if it doesn't bother you at all, good for you. It at best slightly bothers me. But you can take the hyperbolic statement there, and well, chill out. I am doing just fine thanks.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

artan42

(flame/troll post removed) - darkbladejk

Unknown

This content has been removed.

mustrumridcully0

valoreah wrote: »

talonxv wrote: »

...Care to try again white knight?

Stopped reading after this. This "anyone who disagrees with me is a white knight" stuff is getting very tiresome.

But why? It's a very convenient approach. It ensures the only answers that count are those that agree with you, thereby validating your claims.

This really simplifies things.

luminaire

Scaling has always varied wildly in Trek due to issues with differing model scales and how shots were set up and etc, that's really not a particular issue with Discovery.

It's Discovery's actual story/plots that fundamentally break any pretense of continuity with the prime timeline.