Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?

[Lord Garth]

Something about the way the Defiant looks in DSC from that read-out reminds me of the Enterprise-C. The way the silhouette of the nacelles complements from the frame of the overall vessel. And the curvature of secondary hull leading up the deflector dish...

... What the Fuck?! I'm spending too much time with you people.

 

[Tuskin38]

I agree. There is nothing inherently retro about the original exterior. It is still a perfectly fine sci-fi ship, IMHO.

It doesn't match anything before or after it.

As I've said before I love the design in the context of the era it was made, but not on modern TV.

 

[Ithekro]

Three indentations. One at the bow and one on each side at the 45 degree mark. No idea what the short fin is on the back of the secondary hull. The impulse deck takes up the entire back of the saucer between the nacelles. The secondary hull is stretched. The dish has two prongs like USS Discovery and other ships of the era. The pylons are lower on the secondary hull leading a technology thing (could be a weapon, could be a pivot point), than angle up to the nacelles. The nacelles are rotated 90 degrees so the top is facing the sides. To incorporate the slightly lower nacelle placement, the neck to shorter and possibly wider than the original model. And the bottom of the saucer seems to be flat.

The one superior detail change to the 2009 version is the nacelles still being cylinders, though they appear to be mounted weird.

 

[MvRojo]

Three indentations. One at the bow and one on each side at the 45 degree mark. No idea what the short fin in on the back of the secondary hull. The impulse deck takes up the entire back of the saucer between the nacelles. The secondary hull is stretched. The dish has two prongs like USS Discovery and other ships of the era. The pylons are lower on the secondary hull leading a technology thing (could be a weapon, could be a pivot point), than angle up to the nacelles. The nacelles are rotated 90 degrees to the top is facing the sides. To incorporate the slightly lower nacelle placement, the neck to shorter and possibly wider than the original model. And the bottom of the saucer seems to be flat.

The one superior detail change to the 2009 version is the nacelles still being cylinders, though they appear to be mounted weird.

I think that fin is actually on the rear of the port nacelle. It's just the angle of ship that makes it looks like it's on the secondary hull.

 

[cylkoth]

So what if they show the Prime Connie looking nearly identical to that graphic?

We'll riot of course...

 

[Feron]

It doesn't match anything before or after it.

As I've said before I love the design in the context of the era it was made, but not on modern TV.

And there is nothing that matches a Model T. But if you were to make a show leading up to that era, it would make sense to match the coming appearance ascetic.

 

[Tuskin38]

And there is nothing that matches a Model T. But if you were to make a show leading up to that era, it would make sense to match the coming appearance ascetic.

It's cheap because it was made on the cheap. There is no reason to follow it now that they have a bigger budget.

The one we saw in the last episode still looks like a connie, but made at a higher budget.

 

[Ithekro]

I think that fin is actually on the rear of the port nacelle. It's just the angle of ship that makes it looks like it's on the secondary hull.

Possible, given the nacelle is rotated differently that we are use to seeing it.

 

[MvRojo]

Possible, given the nacelle is rotated differently that we are use to seeing it.

Yeah, it seems like it has three of those things at the end of the nacelles than the original two.

 

[Feron]

It's cheap because it was made on the cheap. There is no reason to follow it now that they have a bigger budget.

The one we saw in the last episode still looks like a connie, but made at a higher budget.

I don't see anything that makes it inherently look "cheap".

IMHO, it's cleaner and simpler design actually makes it look more advanced to me personally.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

It doesn't match anything before or after it.

Which isn't fair to say because We never got to see much of that era. With TNG,DS9 and VOY we had 3 different shows in the same span of time showing off and fleshing out their time period. We never got that in TOS outside of more Connies which the budget could only call for those. Personally, with Discovery, It would have been cool to see those Franz Joseph ships. And even a retrofitted Miranda.

 

[Tuskin38]

it's cleaner and simpler design actually makes it look more advanced to me personally.

I agree.

 

[Tuskin38]

Personally, with Discovery, It would have been cool to see those Franz Joseph ships. And even a retrofitted Miranda.

That doesn't look cheap compared to the Connie. Just slap some viable weapon emplacements on it and it would be golden.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

That doesn't look cheap compared to the Connie.

How does the connie look cheap anyway?

 

[Tuskin38]

How does the connie look cheap anyway?

The nacelle pylons and neck.

They're so thin and vulnerable.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

The nacelle pylons and neck.

They're so thin and vulnerable.

They look thin from a distance but how big are they when you are standing right next to one?

 

[Tuskin38]

They look thin from a distance but how big are they when you are standing right next to one?

They're thin in the grand scheme of space combat. I loved how ST Beyond exploited that vulnerability.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Thin doesn't matter when you have structural integrity fields to shore them up and deflector shields to protect them.

 

[Tuskin38]

Thin doesn't matter when you have structural integrity fields to shore them up and deflector shields to protect them.

Then why did later ships move away from that vulnerability?

 

[CaptainMurdock]

The Excelsior, Enterprise C and D have thin nacelle pylons too. Not just the standard prerefit connie.