They all have physical deflectors with antennae just like the connie, just with glowy bits like Voyager and the NX-01.
The connie might have glowy stuff behind it but it's hard to tell.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
They all have physical deflectors with antennae just like the connie, just with glowy bits like Voyager and the NX-01.
The connie might have glowy stuff behind it but it's hard to tell.
Sure it does. The setting is the same exact setting as TOS. They took the story in a different direction, but it is nonetheless "Star Trek".
But it's not Prime. It's Kelvin.
And? Honestly, it would be a hard argument to make that Prime is even "Prime". Thanks to all the time travel hi-jinks from all the various series. Which future timeline in "Endgame" is "Prime"?
It's Prime-E
My main concern is storytelling possibilities. Cramming this show into the continuity of other shows takes away so much of the dramatic potential of Discovery. Especially when the show relies on so many already known ideas and characters whose outcomes have already been defined.
I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth (even though that's exactly what I'm doing), but I think they don't like that it's round and mostly undetailed aside from a single spike in the center. Or that it's pretty much the least changed part of the entire ship. I could be wrong.
I don't think that's true. Writers in prose, TV and film have been "cramming" things into Trek's continuity since the 1960's.
A good story is about the journey, not the destination. You can tell a good story about Abraham Lincoln even knowing he dies in 1865.
I think cramming it in the this point of the continuity would be fine, if they were content of making their stories in a bit less universe-shattering in their scope. A traditional Trek stories about a ship doing explorey stuff and responding to random emergencies can be pretty easily fitted in any point of the fictional history. It is just that they insist on bringing on new never heard of supertech and starting massive wars, so it gets kinda awkward.
It is if they create a group of character as flat and uninspiring as the one's we have now.
Something like this is how I think the entire ship should have looked. I'd of course make a few adjustments myself, such as a different neck, curve adjustments to the saucer shape to get rid of the pop scifi 60s shapes, and something a bit more fancy than rectangular pylons, but overall this is in the ballpark of how they should have done it, imo.
That's a different subject and has nothing to do with continuity, canon or cramming. And of course opinions vary. I think the characters are actually pretty interesting. The weakest sadly is Burnham.It is if they create a group of character as flat and uninspiring as the one's we have now.
I like what we got, but that is a very good looking ship.Something like this is how I think the entire ship should have looked. I'd of course make a few adjustments myself, such as a different neck, curve adjustments to the saucer shape to get rid of the pop scifi 60s shapes, and something a bit more fancy than rectangular pylons, but overall this is in the ballpark of how they should have done it, imo.
It is perfect. It's one of the few ships that looks amazing from every conceivable angle.
Only if you use a special definition of the word. It's not a reboot if the makers of the show specifically say that it's in the original timeline. And no, it doesn't change anything if there are discrepancies, no matter how large because A) those who own and make the show call the shots and B) every other iteration of Trek has been pretty blatant in its disregard for continuity.
I disagree about the deflector. Although post-TMP deflectors are sexier, the fact of the matter is that, realistically speaking, the physics that make dishes work in real life won't change ever. So the dish is actually more believable than some glowy cup.
I've been saying for years that First Contact and several Trek episodes, most notablyl Assignment: Earth, have made important changes to the timeline.
They should've set it post-Hobus just to free it of continuity. Plus, it'd make the spore drive more interesting.
Well, if we are going to get hung up on physics, you've got to throw all Trek starship design out the window anyway. But if we're not, at least the deflector could look cool.
It does if the characters are uninteresting. Because you then start looking for something else to latch onto, and all that is left is fanwank.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Looks good to me, it is in dire need of some hull textures though.Something like this is how I think the entire ship should have looked. I'd of course make a few adjustments myself, such as a different neck, curve adjustments to the saucer shape to get rid of the pop scifi 60s shapes, and something a bit more fancy than rectangular pylons, but overall this is in the ballpark of how they should have done it, imo.
No it doesn't. Being badly written, acted or filmed has nothing to do with continuity or canon. That's about being entertained.
What?
Or "Start Again." There is no other definition of the word - at least not in proper English.
You seem to be moving your goalposts here. Previously you wrote, "They can do that [a modern take on Star Trek where they can let their imaginations run wild] and call it prime. Prime has nothing to do with changing, updating or adding things."
To reconcile these two statements, one would have to infer that you mean (A) letting one's imagination run wild to change, update, or add things (even in the context of a prequel) does not in any way interfere with (B) working within a setting that consists of a single relatively coherent timeline. That would seem to be the bone of contention here, as to me and many other posters, those two things just don't seem compatible.
Perhaps you have some heterodox conception of what "relatively coherent" means? How many retcons can you swallow before you decide you're talking about something substantively new and different? It's like the classic paradox of Theseus's ship, also familiar from George Washington's axe (bonus: Trek reference in the link).
Of course you can. But you can't if you decide to depict him, say, wearing leather biker gear and riding a Harley around the country on his political campaign. Or at least, people might reasonably ask if it's intended to be the "same" Abraham Lincoln they know from history.
That's a pretty good (re)design. But for my money it looks at least as close to the original as what we got in DSC, if not more so (although part of that impression might be due to the hull color and lighting). The deflector dish is still outboard rather than inboard, for instance. So it's not at all clear to me what differences you're zeroing in on here. (It's also not clear what you're seeing that you deride as "60s shapes" when you look at the saucer.)
Similar threads
