Well, there are quite a few alterations, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Shenzhou is the starting point.
Oh, I quite like it too. If they only altered the bottom of the saucer a bit...
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Well, there are quite a few alterations, but there's no doubt in my mind that the Shenzhou is the starting point.
Oh, I quite like it too. If they only altered the bottom of the saucer a bit...
It's not very minimum at all. Hopefully once Eaglemoss releases their renders it will be easier to see.
The only part that is nearly identical is part of the saucer.
The nacelles, the impulse engines, the pylons, they're all completely different designs.
Is the condescension necessary?
CBS is approaching it from a business model, including current trends and the like. Execution aside, as I think the execution has been fair for first season, they have a reason. Whether the audience agrees or not will be born out in the market.
Those are LITERALLY the same things.
I mean, unless you are using an alternate definition of "the audience," which is entirely possible. Do you mean specifically THE FANS, whom you assume based on [citation needed] think exactly like you?
Because Star Trek is a commodity whose continued existence depends on it being profitable. If the brand doesn't grow, Star Trek doesn't make money. If Star Trek doesn't make money, they won't make NEW Star Treks. If they don't make NEW Star Treks, we're stuck with reruns for the rest of our lives.
I, for one, would enjoy seeing something new every once in a while. I fully accept that I won't like all of the new stuff, even though I expect that I will like alot more of it than I dislike (this has been the case for every iteration of Star Trek so far except for Voyager). If you DON'T want to see new things, if you DON'T want the brand to grow, then you're better off clinging to the reruns on DVD/Blu-Ray.
As do I. Which is one of the reasons I love Discovery.
TOS designs LITERALLY WERE cheap. They didn't have the budget to do anything super expensive. Hell, they couldn't even afford to put in the dynamic graphics on the monitors that Gene wanted because the unions insisted that the guys running the projectors had to be union members, which is why the viewscreens on the TOS bridge are all full of matte paintings instead of the dynamic graphics and displays we saw in "The Cage" and which we never saw again until TMP.
They were impressive, yes. Different, certainly.
But once again, there's "2001: A Space Odyssey" which was already in production by the time "The Man Trap" aired on television. ASO may have premiered after Star Trek was canceled, but the sets for USS Discovery were built at the same time or slightly BEFORE the bridge of the Enterprise.
"Trek" doesn't have history. Trek is fictional.
They're actually evoking a very specific period in TELEVISION history, which is a very different thing. That's why the female crew-members are seen walking around in miniskirts and gogo boots and even the characters themselves lampshade this by saying "This was the style at the time lol!" Dax was definitely knocking on the fourth wall with that haircut too.
TOS was a great show for the mid 1960s. But it's BEYOND silly to think it's a great show for the mid 2010s.
Which was, to be honest, incredibly silly but obviously evocative -- though not a direct copy -- of the TOS uniforms.
Or just stand in their underwear. Walking in short skirts is too high brow for the films.
Even worse the new female uniform is short sleeves so females cant display rank. Maybe female is a rank. I like the shirt and trouser uniforms from the Abrams movies, but the mininskirt uniform is honestly silly.
Those are LITERALLY the same things.
I don't know. "Trends" can be what companies think or decide we want vs. what we actually want. Look at what models are wearing that are called trendy. Some ugly crap there that I don't think I've ever seen a single woman wearing.
Last edited:
How many viewers woukd CBSAA lose with a TOS Enterprise versus gain with the Discoprise?
None at all, one way or the other.
I imagine they'd have to give the original ship different textures, at the least - the lighting on STD is so different and extreme that this would be the main incompatibility of the design with their set-up. Just the paint.
Last edited:
I lnow of three, including myself who would have been done if they went with that dated look. So your none at all is false.
miniskirts and gogo boots are popular out east. I wonder if it's a trend.
Its a sexist dress uniform dating back decades. So no, not a trend. The trend is to have a woman's dress uniform have pants
Those are just regular skirts and boots. no mini or gogo.
It's sexist to think women in dresses is sexist. Women shouldn't have to wear pants (i.e. dress like a man) to be taken seriously.
No, they're not. (Not unless you believe some creative-enterprise variation on the Efficient Market Hypothesis, at least... and the Efficient Market Hypothesis has been pretty widely discredited at this point. It's a tautology masquerading as a theory. Behavioral economics are where all the credibility is.)Those are LITERALLY the same things.
When MirrorMirror keeps talking about what's "in trend," he's talking about what people who are trained in design and do it professionally for TV and movie studios think of as trendy — or, at least, what their bosses and clients think of as trendy. Unless they're mind-readers, they do not have any special perception of what actual audience members like and don't like — designwise or otherwise. If they did, every new show and movie would be a hit... whereas in reality, most of them are failures.
You've got it mixed up here. MirrorMirror is the one who keeps insisting that audiences all think the same way, which is (conveniently) just like him. I'm the one who keeps pointing out that they actually have diverse and unpredictable tastes.
I don't grasp your logic here at all. You're basically saying that old Star Trek, the stuff that made us love it in the first place, just isn't enough — we need new Star Trek, even if it sucks and we don't like it. You're mistaking quantity for quality.
VOY was a terrible show. My appreciation of Star Trek would not be diminished one iota if the entire seven seasons of VOY ceased to exist. I daresay the overall body of Trek lore itself would not be diminished, either, and in fact might be improved as a matter of average quality.
Moreover, as I've already pointed out, it's pretty much a foreordained conclusion that new Trek product is going to be produced, for years to come. Given that, I'd rather the new stuff be good. To the extent that it's good, I'm going to praise it; to the extent that it's not good; I'm going to criticize it. And "good" is not the same as "profitable," a statement that should be self-evident to anyone who's ever watched TV. I very sincerely do not care if a project makes money if I don't enjoy watching it.
First of all, as apparently it's necessary to keep repeating this on a regular basis, there is a difference between designs on the one hand, and production values (including special effects) on the other. Sophisticated designs can be executed cheaply, and slapdash designs can be executed at great expense. (I'd argue that DSC is all too often an example of the latter.)
Second, as is also apparently necessary to repeat in contrast to popular myth, the original Star Trek was not produced cheaply. Its first-season budget was $190k/episode, roughly $1.4m in current dollars. It was one of the most expensive shows on the air at the time. It received Emmy nominations for its visuals, in every season.
(That's not to say it didn't face budget constraints, especially in S3. But every show faces budget constraints; that's the nature of TV. You can see it in DSC, even with its astronomically high per-episode average.)
Sigh.
We're talking about continuity here. It's a self-contained fictional universe, with its own internal history. That's one of the big components of its lasting appeal. You may have noticed that people on these forums kinda enjoy discussing it. There are countless books and an entire very impressive wiki dedicated to documenting it. I can't imagine what you accomplish by pretending that aspect doesn't exist, beyond undermining your own suspension of disbelief.Similar threads
