I believe the Bridge Window was to keep in line with the design philosophy seen in Discovery. We've seen at least two major ships with the hybrid window/viewscreen already: Discovery herself and Shenzhou. We honestly don't know at which point Starfleet shifted from the hybrid design to just the viewscreen itself, but clearly it happens at some point between the end of Discovery season 1 and the beginning of TOS, which is still ten years down the road in universe. And we have seen hybrid window/viewscreens as far back as 2233 thanks to the USS Kelvin, which by virtue of a split timeline as mentioned by Kelvin Spock, can be considered BOTH Prime and Kelvin timeline. Honestly that detail would be no different than the warp nacelle style used on the TOS Connie vs the Refit Connie.
At least it is more consistant design wise than when we saw the Kelvin Enterprise compared to the rest of the fleet in '09. The Kelvin Connie was a COMPLETE contrast in style to the rest of the ships. Discovery's Enterprise visually fits in with everything else we have seen.
Judging by the exterior shots, not even NX-01 had window viewscreens. Sure there are a few windos liek lightspots on the top module but they are more like portholes. But alas, I am just not m think windows are more advanced than electronic screens
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
We also need to consider that Discovery takes place... maybe three years after The Cage, so it is possible this was a wartime refit. Kinda like how Galaxy class ships got extra phaser strips on the nacelles during the Dominion War. And lets not forget that unlike in the Kelvin Timeline, the Constitution class was an old workhorse by the time of TOS. Enterprise herself had two previous captains by the time Kirk took command. So its not outside the realm of possibility that she would be refitted into the TOS design we are all familiar with within the 10 years we have between Discovery and TOS.
And IMO... the Discovery design is lightyears better than The Cage one. And I like how they took cues from previous incarnations, including the TOS one, to make her.
Fashion comes and goes. In the 2260s people are just reeaaaally into the 1960s style and miniskirt. And whoever designed the uniform is a genious.
Hast thou not gone against sincerity
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
I'm not a "defender" for the sake of "we haven't had a show in forever". I actually gave it a chance, and decided I liked it.
And we've seen a LOT of the same criticizms for Discovery that were brought up with the Kelvin Timeline and Enterprise. Hell... some of the arguments aren't just similar, they're the SAME arguments. And it feels like they're just recycling material to hate on something new because "its not the same".
I'm one of those people who doesn't hold something up to a high pedistal. I give it a chance to stand on its own merits, not the merits of what came before. While I do want them to be true to source material if it is a franchise, like Star Trek, I am willing to give leeway for storytelling. Discovery isn't the continuing adventures of the Enterprise. Its a different ship with a different crew. Let them have a chance to earn their place. Don't just bash it because "its not the same".
One thing that drives me up a wall is how some people can't accept change. Its like they want every ship to be like the Enterprise. DS9 was a frickin' space station, and yet people hold that series up like its a paragon of Star Trek, right there next to TOS in some cases. Yet DS9 had War and a few other controvertial subjects that weren't really explored in Star Trek until that point. Hell... Sisko did something even Kirk wouldn't have done, juryrig a WMD using Trilithium Resin and Quantum Torpedos to render a planet uninhabitable to force a Maquis leader to surrender.
Now here we are in 2018, and we're getting a lot of the same arguments we got with Enterprise. "It doesn't look the same", "its not canon because its all wrong", and so on. Can we just agree that we have a new Trek and NOT rip it to shreds for being new? Literally everything made after Voyager has been ripped apart by so called "True Fans" for being different. Its getting old.
A show about boldly going where no one has gone before, and humanity changing with the times, gets mad when a show changes with the times
Lets bring back ham acting to Trek, and episodes like Spock's brain and that time Beverly was in a relationship with a ghost
Or take bold steps with new shows...like another Trek show that was hated during its time for not being Trek cause Trek had to be on a Star ship
and that show is now considered one of the best...and even had THE GREATEST VILLAIN OF ALL TIME
DISCO could have taken the Voyager route and solve all problems with unlimited torpedoes since we live in a Pew pew action time, but nope the decided hey how about we try for peace and not blow everything up
I think my pet-peeve with this whole thing are fans who forget their own canon (not Cannon) that they are trying to preserve example
In DISCO they sent a Terran Captain to wipe out the Klingon's, only to not do it cause the crew stood up to their superior officer about about Star Fleet morality and changed their minds about genocide
fans got mad saying that would never happen!!
Really?
Really?
Hey remember when Picard the greatest Trek diplomat ever and he wanted to wipe out the Borg with a drone, and stopped after his crew gave him a refresher course on Federation morality. That Star Fleet that was a lot more holier and moral then the TOS Star Fleet
Then later Star Fleet tells Picard yeah maybe you should have wiped out the Borg
and the Borg never did the damage the Klingon's in DISCO did
the closest to the damage we see in Trek is the Dominion....but star fleet or the Federation never turned a blind eye to genocide during desperate times during that war....Oh wait
Only things I don't like about DISCO are the Klingon ships, their ears....and lack of hair cause How dare the retcon the glorious hair of Worf
The technology style of Star Trek has to look futuristic compared to the present. Right now, that involves holographic interfaces instead of switches or touchscreens. Neural implants are a possibility for futuristic technology, but that opens up questions about transhumanism that the creators of Star Trek don't want to deal with. We already have one neural implant that is likely treatment to deal with a brain injury. Also, the problem with neural implants is that it makes the story boring due to everyone controlling the ship and communicating by standing there and doing nothing noticeable. Neural Implants would have to rely on showing a character's actions in cyberspace.
So as long as the Enterprise is noticeable and the events of Discovery follow what was established in the other Star Trek series, then everything else shouldn't matter.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
we're going to disagree, but that's a matter of taste, everyone has it, and everyone doesn't, because it's highly subjective.
Well... TNG season 1 and 2 were pretty shaky too. And well... TOS has the epic stinker of "Spock's Brain".
While we can both agree to disagree... at least the two of us are civil about it and not foaming at the mouth rabbid. And yea... the Discovery style uniforms are pretty practical and nice. I admit at first I was skeptical about the badges also having pip system rank on them at first. But like the Kelvin Connie, its grown on me.
So as long as the Enterprise is noticeable and the events of Discovery follow what was established in the other Star Trek series, then everything else shouldn't matter.
True. We also have to consider that events in the time period Discovery is set in isn't exactly well documented. Just like the time period with the Enterprise-B and C. And we have the added bone of "This isn't the Enterprise", which opens the door to stories that don't infringe on any established events concerning Enterprise. Basically how they were able to run TNG alongside DS9 for a couple seasons, and same with DS9 and Voyager. They were in different regions and had no real impact on each other.
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
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
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
Frankly... I feel that Discovery is not as grim/dark serious as its being painted out to be. Stargate: Universe was moreso to the point it pretty much killed the series after only two seasons.
Frankly... I feel that Discovery is not as grim/dark serious as its being painted out to be. Stargate: Universe was moreso to the point it pretty much killed the series after only two seasons.
Stargate: Universe at least had a better start compared to Voyager for what a SF series about being transported thousands to millions of light years away with no easy way to get back. After the first episode of Voyager, Voyager had the ship fixed while it took a few episodes for the SGU crew to get most of it fixed properly. Unfortunately, SGU relied too much on those communication stones. It took a few seasons for Voyager to have episodes in the Alpha Quadrant. The first few episodes of Voyager should have been like the Year of Hell except with a more incompetent alien race chasing after them.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
I will agree that SG:U did the persistant ship status better than Voyager. Someone on the Voyager creative team decided that they should have a magic reset button between episodes. Honestly I headcanon some things as Voyager traded with other species for supplies. Hence why they fired more torpedos in the series than they started out with in episode 1. They traded for the raw materials and built torpedos to keep supplied. I mean Voyager should have the schematics for a Photon Torpedo in her computer right? At the very least they could scan one of their own to see how its put together, then build more from that. The magic repairs are harder to explain away though.
I will agree that SG:U did the persistant ship status better than Voyager. Someone on the Voyager creative team decided that they should have a magic reset button between episodes. Honestly I headcanon some things as Voyager traded with other species for supplies. Hence why they fired more torpedos in the series than they started out with in episode 1. They traded for the raw materials and built torpedos to keep supplied. I mean Voyager should have the schematics for a Photon Torpedo in her computer right? At the very least they could scan one of their own to see how its put together, then build more from that. The magic repairs are harder to explain away though.
The only logical explanation is nanites. As long as they enter a star system with the right resources and enough energy, then any damage to Voyager can be easily fixed.
In order to build torpedoes the normal way, either it requires the use of Industrial Replicators or contracting alien races to build the torpedoes for them. Neither solution is viable since we have never seen an Industrial Replicator on Voyager and contracting alien races to build weapons violates the Prime Directive or some other Federation law about giving Starfleet's military technology to non-Federation species.
Although, it does bring up the question about how the Delta Flyer was created. After all, it is an extremely advanced shuttle that doesn't look like it was assembled by hand or from the various parts that Voyager found around the Delta Quadrant.
0
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
Yea... they built it themselves. So they do have some manufacturing capability of some sort.
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
Considering some of us prefer Orville over Discovery, the 'official' labels won't mean a damn to some of us.
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
Considering some of us prefer Orville over Discovery, the 'official' labels won't mean a damn to some of us.
And? Official is a word like fact. It doesn't rely on your feelings on the issue to still be true. You can claim to like TO over DSC but you cannot assert it is more Trek than an acual Trek production just because you don't like the latter because the latter is by definition Trek.
Though considering you do seem to think facts are optional I suspect you'll argue against this as well.
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 actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
Considering some of us prefer Orville over Discovery, the 'official' labels won't mean a damn to some of us.
And? Official is a word like fact. It doesn't rely on your feelings on the issue to still be true. You can claim to like TO over DSC but you cannot assert it is more Trek than an acual Trek production just because you don't like the latter because the latter is by definition Trek.
Though considering you do seem to think facts are optional I suspect you'll argue against this as well.
Like I care? Orville feels more Trek than Discovery.....Discovery does not feel like Trek to me. ~sticks out tongue~
It's not an obsession, when it's an observation. my observations about Discovery's Klingons are more on the order of telling someone that "building a submarine with a screen door is a bad idea-because water is wet and it will get inside."
Pointing out obvious defects doesn't constitute obsession. that's being observant.
Doing it over and over again, at every turn, definitely is being obsessive.
How often have you repeated these observations" already? In this very thread probably, but certainly several times in this subforum, talking to pretty much the exact same people as in all the other threads?
And then you go off to post paragraphs on paragraphs on text mostly, repeating stuff you already said before.
and Burnham? scores 175 out of 200 possible on the marysue scale. that's pretty high for a character that originates as an official author creation, most writers over the age of 13 try to avoid that much improbability stacked on a single character (from debut onward) unless they're doing a comedy.
Checking off a checklist on a character in a show you don't like to see how many points on the marysue scale she might have is not just observant, it's also sign of being obsessive about it. Wanting to know this, figuring out, and using it as some kind of argument and not just as smalltalk chatter pretty much sounds like obsession.
It's not that I have a problem with someone being obsessive about Star Trek. I am a Star Trek fan, too. But I a not pretending as if I am some particularly clever and observant outsider that stands above such things.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
That they didn't deliver a good story however is a completely subjective impression, and many people obviously do not share. Just because you want to present yourself as some kind of observant outsider that isn't "really a fan" doesn't mean that your view is the more relevant than that of the people that liked it.
Even if I thought Orville was a good parody of Star Trek wouldn't really mean anything. Parodies are not some kind of lesser art form that can never be as good as the original!
Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest are great, but so are Star Wars ESB and Star Trek VI.
EDITMONSTER_HOORAY x
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
Considering some of us prefer Orville over Discovery, the 'official' labels won't mean a damn to some of us.
And? Official is a word like fact. It doesn't rely on your feelings on the issue to still be true. You can claim to like TO over DSC but you cannot assert it is more Trek than an acual Trek production just because you don't like the latter because the latter is by definition Trek.
Though considering you do seem to think facts are optional I suspect you'll argue against this as well.
Like I care? Orville feels more Trek than Discovery.....Discovery does not feel like Trek to me. ~sticks out tongue~
One by its very nature will out-Trek the other by definition. Your rage against the heavens is futile.
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
Voyager replacing torpedos isn't a huge stretch. The replicators can fabricate practically everything except the anti-matter, and the ship carries that for fuel so they shouldn't have any problem building them. Resupplying on anti-matter on the other hand should have been an issue during the show, but alas the writers didn't seem to really understand the tech being used in the franchise. They constantly seem to forget the anti-matter and just assume it is always the dilithium that makes the engines go...
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,576Community Moderator
I myself don't have problems with people calling themselves fans. I start to take issue when they start trying to claim they are "TRUE fans", try and dictate what it means to be a "TRUE fan" by saying what must be liked and what must be hated to qualify, and beating those who don't agree with them with their "TRUE fan" stick and say they aren't over something as simple as liking the Kelvin Timeline movies, Discovery, or Enterprise.
I'm a fan. I like Trek. I form opinions on what I like and don't like. But those opinions are MY opinions. Not a Fan Guidebook.
Things that would disqualify me from the so called "True Fan Club":
I happen to like the Kelvin Timeline movies (At first I was turned off by the Enterprise redsign, until I saw her pop out of Titan's atmosphere)
I happen to be enjoying Discovery - While I admit the Klingons are weird looking, I'm still willing to give the show a chance to stand on its own merits and not measure it against anything else. Let it shine on its own as this is a different ship than say Enterprise.
I happen to like Enterprise - Except season 3. That one was a drag. Was looking forward to the Earth-Romulan War but it got canned.
I thought Voyager was alright - I admit looking back that the show had too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak (writers), but I don't view the entire show as garbage like some others seem to do.
I seem to be in the minority on being open to new things. I understand that these things actually help expand the universe we all know and love. Will I voice my opinion on details I don't like? Maybe. But I don't view myself as some sort of Holy Canon Police that must defend the faith and purity that is Saint Roddenberry's work. Frankly some people put a whole new shine to the term "rabid fan".
[/soapbox]
Now that I got my own little rant out of my system... I again like how Discovery built the Enterprise and included elements from various incarnations of the Connie. IMO she still looks like the classic, but at the same time looks sleek, modern, and technologically advanced. Best of both worlds. Can't wait to see more of her.
I myself don't have problems with people calling themselves fans. I start to take issue when they start trying to claim they are "TRUE fans", try and dictate what it means to be a "TRUE fan" by saying what must be liked and what must be hated to qualify, and beating those who don't agree with them with their "TRUE fan" stick and say they aren't over something as simple as liking the Kelvin Timeline movies, Discovery, or Enterprise.
I'm a fan. I like Trek. I form opinions on what I like and don't like. But those opinions are MY opinions. Not a Fan Guidebook.
Things that would disqualify me from the so called "True Fan Club":
I happen to like the Kelvin Timeline movies (At first I was turned off by the Enterprise redsign, until I saw her pop out of Titan's atmosphere)
I happen to be enjoying Discovery - While I admit the Klingons are weird looking, I'm still willing to give the show a chance to stand on its own merits and not measure it against anything else. Let it shine on its own as this is a different ship than say Enterprise.
I happen to like Enterprise - Except season 3. That one was a drag. Was looking forward to the Earth-Romulan War but it got canned.
I thought Voyager was alright - I admit looking back that the show had too many cooks in the kitchen so to speak (writers), but I don't view the entire show as garbage like some others seem to do.
I seem to be in the minority on being open to new things. I understand that these things actually help expand the universe we all know and love. Will I voice my opinion on details I don't like? Maybe. But I don't view myself as some sort of Holy Canon Police that must defend the faith and purity that is Saint Roddenberry's work. Frankly some people put a whole new shine to the term "rabid fan".
[/soapbox]
Now that I got my own little rant out of my system... I again like how Discovery built the Enterprise and included elements from various incarnations of the Connie. IMO she still looks like the classic, but at the same time looks sleek, modern, and technologically advanced. Best of both worlds. Can't wait to see more of her.
Well you're clearly not a True Fan.
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
None of you is. You all can kiss my filthy hooves, as it is I, the only one knowing what Trek is good and what is repulsive.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
I actually realized that within the 'fandom' community, I don't really qualify as a FAN. I'm not a fanatic,
I would challenge that claim, based on the observations from your forums.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
That Discovery's getting compared to what amounts to a parody (The Orville) and it's actually coming up short on delivering good stories? That right there is an example of a ludicrous situation. Someone at CBS needs to be fired for that.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
Considering some of us prefer Orville over Discovery, the 'official' labels won't mean a damn to some of us.
And? Official is a word like fact. It doesn't rely on your feelings on the issue to still be true. You can claim to like TO over DSC but you cannot assert it is more Trek than an acual Trek production just because you don't like the latter because the latter is by definition Trek.
Though considering you do seem to think facts are optional I suspect you'll argue against this as well.
Discovery spent too much time with the Klingon War to capture the essence of Star Trek which is "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before" and using aliens to create social commentary about our existence. The only instances of this is with the Tardigrade, Pahvo, and the Mirror Universe. The only Star Trek series that focused on a war as much as Discovery is DS9 with the Dominion War and it took a few seasons to get to that point. Maybe the second season will resolve this problem and focus more on exploration and social commentary.
Orville looked like what Gene Roddenberry could create if he had today's technology and social problems. The Orville is definitely the spiritual successor of TOS even if it doesn't have Star Trek in its name.
Comments
Judging by the exterior shots, not even NX-01 had window viewscreens. Sure there are a few windos liek lightspots on the top module but they are more like portholes. But alas, I am just not m think windows are more advanced than electronic screens
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
And IMO... the Discovery design is lightyears better than The Cage one. And I like how they took cues from previous incarnations, including the TOS one, to make her.
Hast thou not felt ashamed of thy words and deeds
Hast thou not lacked vigor
Hast thou exerted all possible efforts
Hast thou not become slothful
And we've seen a LOT of the same criticizms for Discovery that were brought up with the Kelvin Timeline and Enterprise. Hell... some of the arguments aren't just similar, they're the SAME arguments. And it feels like they're just recycling material to hate on something new because "its not the same".
I'm one of those people who doesn't hold something up to a high pedistal. I give it a chance to stand on its own merits, not the merits of what came before. While I do want them to be true to source material if it is a franchise, like Star Trek, I am willing to give leeway for storytelling. Discovery isn't the continuing adventures of the Enterprise. Its a different ship with a different crew. Let them have a chance to earn their place. Don't just bash it because "its not the same".
One thing that drives me up a wall is how some people can't accept change. Its like they want every ship to be like the Enterprise. DS9 was a frickin' space station, and yet people hold that series up like its a paragon of Star Trek, right there next to TOS in some cases. Yet DS9 had War and a few other controvertial subjects that weren't really explored in Star Trek until that point. Hell... Sisko did something even Kirk wouldn't have done, juryrig a WMD using Trilithium Resin and Quantum Torpedos to render a planet uninhabitable to force a Maquis leader to surrender.
Now here we are in 2018, and we're getting a lot of the same arguments we got with Enterprise. "It doesn't look the same", "its not canon because its all wrong", and so on. Can we just agree that we have a new Trek and NOT rip it to shreds for being new? Literally everything made after Voyager has been ripped apart by so called "True Fans" for being different. Its getting old.
Lets bring back ham acting to Trek, and episodes like Spock's brain and that time Beverly was in a relationship with a ghost
Or take bold steps with new shows...like another Trek show that was hated during its time for not being Trek cause Trek had to be on a Star ship
and that show is now considered one of the best...and even had THE GREATEST VILLAIN OF ALL TIME
DISCO could have taken the Voyager route and solve all problems with unlimited torpedoes since we live in a Pew pew action time, but nope the decided hey how about we try for peace and not blow everything up
I think my pet-peeve with this whole thing are fans who forget their own canon (not Cannon) that they are trying to preserve example
In DISCO they sent a Terran Captain to wipe out the Klingon's, only to not do it cause the crew stood up to their superior officer about about Star Fleet morality and changed their minds about genocide
fans got mad saying that would never happen!!
Really?
Really?
Hey remember when Picard the greatest Trek diplomat ever and he wanted to wipe out the Borg with a drone, and stopped after his crew gave him a refresher course on Federation morality. That Star Fleet that was a lot more holier and moral then the TOS Star Fleet
Then later Star Fleet tells Picard yeah maybe you should have wiped out the Borg
and the Borg never did the damage the Klingon's in DISCO did
the closest to the damage we see in Trek is the Dominion....but star fleet or the Federation never turned a blind eye to genocide during desperate times during that war....Oh wait
Only things I don't like about DISCO are the Klingon ships, their ears....and lack of hair cause How dare the retcon the glorious hair of Worf
So as long as the Enterprise is noticeable and the events of Discovery follow what was established in the other Star Trek series, then everything else shouldn't matter.
Well... TNG season 1 and 2 were pretty shaky too. And well... TOS has the epic stinker of "Spock's Brain".
While we can both agree to disagree... at least the two of us are civil about it and not foaming at the mouth rabbid. And yea... the Discovery style uniforms are pretty practical and nice. I admit at first I was skeptical about the badges also having pip system rank on them at first. But like the Kelvin Connie, its grown on me.
True. We also have to consider that events in the time period Discovery is set in isn't exactly well documented. Just like the time period with the Enterprise-B and C. And we have the added bone of "This isn't the Enterprise", which opens the door to stories that don't infringe on any established events concerning Enterprise. Basically how they were able to run TNG alongside DS9 for a couple seasons, and same with DS9 and Voyager. They were in different regions and had no real impact on each other.
You obsessively (and fanatically) repeat the same claims about Discovery Klingons, about the Mary Sue status of certain Discovery characters, about (assumed) opinions and feelings of Cryptic employees about the Klingon faction. You do this over and over again, whenever a thread even remotely touches one of the things you're fanatic about. Your behavior certainly seems quite fanatic - do you not realize it yourself?
Also, fans are well known to be strongly opposed to anything they don't like about whatever they are fan about. Be it a player of their favorite football team, be it the newest movie in their favorite franchises. It doesn't make you anything special and unusual and somehow removed from the "fandom". You could argue that you're not a fan of Star Trek if you saw the whole franchise as terrible and maybe said Babylon 5 was the only true sci-fi franchise worth watching. At best, you might be a sectarian, e.g. a particularly subsection of the fan community.
Star Trek fans are a complex bunch, they aren't all the same, but if you're there to discuss Star Trek from a position that there is good Star Trek and there is bad Star Trek (or "not true Star Trek"), you're already part of that fandom. You're really just haggling over the price.
It is a sad day when the parody has more Star Trek in it than the actual Star Trek series.
If that day happens. As it hasn't and DSC is not only a far better story than The Orville, but it actually is Star Trek, it's immaterial really.
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!
Stargate: Universe at least had a better start compared to Voyager for what a SF series about being transported thousands to millions of light years away with no easy way to get back. After the first episode of Voyager, Voyager had the ship fixed while it took a few episodes for the SGU crew to get most of it fixed properly. Unfortunately, SGU relied too much on those communication stones. It took a few seasons for Voyager to have episodes in the Alpha Quadrant. The first few episodes of Voyager should have been like the Year of Hell except with a more incompetent alien race chasing after them.
The only logical explanation is nanites. As long as they enter a star system with the right resources and enough energy, then any damage to Voyager can be easily fixed.
In order to build torpedoes the normal way, either it requires the use of Industrial Replicators or contracting alien races to build the torpedoes for them. Neither solution is viable since we have never seen an Industrial Replicator on Voyager and contracting alien races to build weapons violates the Prime Directive or some other Federation law about giving Starfleet's military technology to non-Federation species.
Although, it does bring up the question about how the Delta Flyer was created. After all, it is an extremely advanced shuttle that doesn't look like it was assembled by hand or from the various parts that Voyager found around the Delta Quadrant.
Considering some of us prefer Orville over Discovery, the 'official' labels won't mean a damn to some of us.
And? Official is a word like fact. It doesn't rely on your feelings on the issue to still be true. You can claim to like TO over DSC but you cannot assert it is more Trek than an acual Trek production just because you don't like the latter because the latter is by definition Trek.
Though considering you do seem to think facts are optional I suspect you'll argue against this as well.
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!
Like I care? Orville feels more Trek than Discovery.....Discovery does not feel like Trek to me. ~sticks out tongue~
How often have you repeated these observations" already? In this very thread probably, but certainly several times in this subforum, talking to pretty much the exact same people as in all the other threads?
And then you go off to post paragraphs on paragraphs on text mostly, repeating stuff you already said before.
Checking off a checklist on a character in a show you don't like to see how many points on the marysue scale she might have is not just observant, it's also sign of being obsessive about it. Wanting to know this, figuring out, and using it as some kind of argument and not just as smalltalk chatter pretty much sounds like obsession.
It's not that I have a problem with someone being obsessive about Star Trek. I am a Star Trek fan, too. But I a not pretending as if I am some particularly clever and observant outsider that stands above such things.
That they didn't deliver a good story however is a completely subjective impression, and many people obviously do not share. Just because you want to present yourself as some kind of observant outsider that isn't "really a fan" doesn't mean that your view is the more relevant than that of the people that liked it.
Even if I thought Orville was a good parody of Star Trek wouldn't really mean anything. Parodies are not some kind of lesser art form that can never be as good as the original!
Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest are great, but so are Star Wars ESB and Star Trek VI.
EDITMONSTER_HOORAY x
One by its very nature will out-Trek the other by definition. Your rage against the heavens is futile.
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!
I'm a fan. I like Trek. I form opinions on what I like and don't like. But those opinions are MY opinions. Not a Fan Guidebook.
Things that would disqualify me from the so called "True Fan Club":
I seem to be in the minority on being open to new things. I understand that these things actually help expand the universe we all know and love. Will I voice my opinion on details I don't like? Maybe. But I don't view myself as some sort of Holy Canon Police that must defend the faith and purity that is Saint Roddenberry's work. Frankly some people put a whole new shine to the term "rabid fan".
[/soapbox]
Now that I got my own little rant out of my system... I again like how Discovery built the Enterprise and included elements from various incarnations of the Connie. IMO she still looks like the classic, but at the same time looks sleek, modern, and technologically advanced. Best of both worlds. Can't wait to see more of her.
Well you're clearly not a True Fan.
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!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Discovery spent too much time with the Klingon War to capture the essence of Star Trek which is "to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before" and using aliens to create social commentary about our existence. The only instances of this is with the Tardigrade, Pahvo, and the Mirror Universe. The only Star Trek series that focused on a war as much as Discovery is DS9 with the Dominion War and it took a few seasons to get to that point. Maybe the second season will resolve this problem and focus more on exploration and social commentary.
Orville looked like what Gene Roddenberry could create if he had today's technology and social problems. The Orville is definitely the spiritual successor of TOS even if it doesn't have Star Trek in its name.