USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[psCargile]

Lol, if gender swapping doesn't change anything, what's the point of swapping gender. Oh look, Kirk with tits. . .and, wow. . .(s)he's a lesbian.

Oh, and the Enterprise looks fine to me.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The easiest/quickest way to get the AMT model ready WAS to use the decals as they did - all to avoid possible audience confusion, and better differentiate the ships on the TV screen for that story. Doing extra painting on the model would have taken time they didn't have/want to waste on such an honestly trivial detail.

You say "audience confusion" like it's a bad thing.

 

[ITDUDE]

Lol, if gender swapping doesn't change anything, what's the point of swapping gender

Sometimes it just works:

 

[psCargile]

Katee's Starbuck was all woman. Tomboyish, but still very much a woman. Delightfully so.

 

[cooleddie74]

As per starship registry numbers don't forget that the U.S.S. Eagle - according to the Paramount-approved Star Trek Encyclopedia - is a Constitution-class starship with an onscreen registry of NCC-956(she was one of the starships mobilized as part of plans for Operation Retrieve in TUC and her name and registry are visible on Colonel West's map). That would be the lowest known registry number of any post-U.S.S. Kelvin Starfleet vessel that isn't a science vessel.

 

[Noname Given]

Sometimes it just works:

Not according to Dirk Benedict.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As per starship registry numbers don't forget that the U.S.S. Eagle - according to the Paramount-approved Star Trek Encyclopedia - is a Constitution-class starship with an onscreen registry of NCC-956(she was one of the starships mobilized as part of plans for Operation Retrieve in TUC and her name and registry are visible on Colonel West's map). That would be the lowest known registry number of any post-U.S.S. Kelvin Starfleet vessel that isn't a science vessel.

Actually we don't know for sure that the Eagle was a Connie.

It was represented on the map by an icon that kind of looked like one, but this could be just a generic icon meaning "any starship".

 

[ITDUDE]

Not according to Dirk Benedict.

The article from which this pic was taken says he eventually lightened up. They did pose in that pic together after all. Starbuck and Starbuck at Starbucks

 

[cooleddie74]

I'm going with the Okudas and saying she was a Connie. Don't make me get Robau after you.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Starbuck and Starbuck in Starbucks

That is literally THE most contrived thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

That said, I am pleased to hear that Dirk and Katee eventually (sort of) patched things up. I always thought that the Starbuck/Starbuck/Starbucks photo was taken BEFORE it all went south...

 

[Tuskin38]

Connie change is more like recasting Pine as Kirk.

This is a great analogy.

 

[ITDUDE]

That is literally THE most contrived thing I have ever seen in my entire life.

To prove a point I think. Meeting in at a "meta" neutral ground to take a publicity photo, if only to make a somewhat funny meme:

 

[fireproof78]

Right. so then female Kirk can behave that way without a problem.

Bullshit.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/our-brains-have-no-gender/

And most men don't behave that way either.

For every article you find stating that, I can find one that states the opposite.

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/3...ure-are-already-apparent-at-one-month-of-age/

 

[ITDUDE]

For every article you find stating that, I can find one that states the opposite.

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/3...ure-are-already-apparent-at-one-month-of-age/

This thread is great

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

DSC is a reboot and entirely separate from the rest of Trek. And they're okay with that.

We already knew that though.

 

[fireproof78]

This thread is great

I know, right? I'm learning so much

I'm waiting for the next article being slung at me stating that I'm wrong

 

[Longinus]

For every article you find stating that, I can find one that states the opposite.

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/01/3...ure-are-already-apparent-at-one-month-of-age/

Without going into detail, the two articles do not necessarily conflict. The first article states that you cannot just group brains in two different groups by gender, but this does not mean that some features would not be more common in one gender. But none of those traits define the gender, as they ultimately may be present in either gender. So you can say some traits are more common in males than in females, but those traits are not male traits as they may be present in females as well, and vice versa.

 

[lawman]

I can only conclude that the whole 'reimagining is not rebooting' thing was hypocrisy, and really meant 'it is not rebooting as long as they only change things I don't care about.'

This! Wonderfully succinct. It perfectly sums up the attitude I've been noticing from a contingent of posters around here all season (and implicitly from the show's producers as well).

That said, I'm not in the school that's convinced DSC is necessarily a reboot. I'm still inclined to think most of the show's changes and contradictions can be explained away, albeit somewhat awkwardly. But there's a difference between that and embracing the changes, and not caring about explaining them.

My biggest concerns about the show, in terms of both writing and visuals, aren't about continuity. They're about quality, which has been extremely uneven. Nevertheless, biggest doesn't mean "only," and continuity is something I care about. Always has been. It's part of what I enjoy so much about Trek, or any shared universe.

Just look at it as a visual reset that you don't necessarily have to accept in your personal canon. The timeline itself is pretty consistent with TOS and with ENT before it. Here's a very obscure example for you ... still Rosa Klebb's shoe. Just with a slightly different stitching pattern and outline.

On the one hand, I see the point you're trying to make, and I agree with you: while the Enterprise we saw Sunday night didn't look like I really would've wanted, it was probably the best we were going to get, and it's certainly light years ahead of what the show did to the Klingons.

On the other hand, I can't help thinking that the Bond franchise is just a poor analogy to use for this sort of thing. Or at least, it is for me. The Bond films have really never had any coherent big-picture continuity, nor have they even tried. I have no problem approaching each film (or each actor-based cluster of films) as its own thing, a couple hours of disposable brain candy that's mostly forgettable afterwards. I don't care about them. They're not part of something bigger. Star Trek is.

This is a warp core?

No, it's not. The TOS Enterprise never had a "warp core." The very term didn't exist at the time. It was invented for TNG.

I find it funny how people who were telling others stop whining about 'Enterprise' a few years ago and the NX design and saying "fans are so sad for complaining, this is the problem with trek fans blah blah" are now the ones who have big problems with discovery, it's starship designs and story telling. Guess that's old age for ya or just plain old hypocrisy.

Well I can only speak for myself here... but I assume that means I'm being completely consistent and non-hypocritical, then, if I say I had serious continuity concerns about ENT at the time, and also have serious continuity concerns about DSC now?

"Punch first and ask questions later".

And a woman cannot do this why?
(Not that I'd characterise Kirk that way to begin with.)

Seriously. DigificWriter, have you never watched Buffy? Or Xena? Both of them have way "punchier" protagonists than Jim Kirk ever was. And they're hardly the only examples.

They can; most don't, though, because their brains are not "wired" that way.

OMFG.

Again, what about David? If we're genderswapping, Kirk's pregnant with David during the five-year mission. And that makes a big difference.

It's never been decisively established, but I thought the general consensus was that David was born well before the FYM began. He appears to be in at least his early 20s in TWOK.

 

[fireproof78]

Without going into detail, the two articles do not necessarily conflict. The first article states that you cannot just group brains in two different groups by gender, but this does not mean that some features would not be more common in one gender. But none of those traits define the gender, as they ultimately may be present in either gender. So you can say some traits are more common in males than in females, but those traits are not male traits as they may be present in females as well, and vice versa.

Yes, real life is often that way

The PBS article was bit off putting in its title. I found it amusing that I had recently reviewed an article stating something a little different.

That said, I'm not in the school that's convinced DSC is necessarily a reboot. I'm still inclined to think most of the show's changes and contradictions can be explained away, albeit somewhat awkwardly. But there's a difference between that and embracing the changes, and not caring about explaining them.

I can explain them just fine, based upon what I watched and have seen.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the Bond franchise is just a poor analogy to use for this sort of thing. Or at least, it is for me. The Bond films have really never had any coherent big-picture continuity, nor have they even tried. I have no problem approaching each film (or each actor-based cluster of films) as its own thing

Agreed. I've always viewed each new Bond as a reboot. They may choose to incorporate certain elements (like Judi Dench's M, or Bond's marriage to Tracy) of earlier Bonds into the next ones, but each of them is basically a clean slate.

(For example, how else could you explain Bond's age? If new Bonds AREN'T reboots, he should be a hundred years old by now.)

So Daniel Craig, for instance...that was no more a reboot than any other Bond.