Starfleet's nickname for Kirk's "Enterprise"?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
The TOS ones looks so flimsy though.
How convenient that when TNG, DS9 and ENT show the Enterprise how she looked in TOS, it doesn't count and is dismissed because of "nostalgic purposes"
It is supposed to be a 23rd century spaceship though, it should challenge our perceptions a bit.
Change doesn't always mean that the reason for the change was a problem with what came before.
The Refit pylons look a lot more sturdy.
That is a silly reasoning, most every other ship after it improved on the design of the pylons.
From a distance. But if a human was standing right beside one. It would probably be as thick as a football field.
No, it was the YF-12 I was thinking of only I'd mistaken it for a bomber and not an interceptor.
Discovery couldn't possibly have brought in the NCC-1701 for nostalgia purposes. Nothing in Discovery is for nostalgia purposes, it is all very serious high-brow entertainment. So much so, I'm surprised CBS doesn't ask for our MENSA cards before allowing us to subscribe to All-Access.
Square. Get with the times, old man.
The base of both look to be pretty much the same size.
Which was the downfall of the Kelvin Enterprise in “beyond” funnily enough. Those swarm ships sliced right through the pylons. I do actually think (despite all of my “prime Enterprise is the best” posturing) that putting the nacelles on pylons makes them tactically vulnerable.
Presumably this is part of the mentality of the Connie being an explorer not a battleship (like the defiant class).
What’s the USS Shran? Is she a battleship? Her nacelles look relatively well-protected since they run through the superstructure of the whole saucer section
Kirk never cared for Romulan Ale. All other captains needed extra space for ale on long voyages. So they all requested wider pylons, since the empty space is perfect hiding space for the vast amount ale needed for long missions.
I watched Discovery on Netflix so I didn’t need the Mensa thing - I just needed to email cbs a photo of me doing some algebra while I considered classical philosophy. It’s a cop out really but I was willing to make the sacrifice for Discovery.
The Refit pylons look a lot more sturdy.
No, actually, they don't....especially at the point of attachment to the hull.
I believe that is confusing nostalgia with "hacks need cliffhanger to rope in viewers"
I wouldn't call the writers/artists "hacks", none of us really know what kind of mandates are being demanded from CBS. I would like to think they would be more creative if they had the freedom.
No, that's not what I said. I pointed out (not "argued") that the TMP refit has elements of Art Deco design. I definitely didn't argue that this dates it to the 1970s, nor would I have, because Art Deco dates to the 1930s. However, to claim that the TMP Enterprise therefore looks like it was designed in the 1930s would be laughably wrong.
That's one of the neat things about design concepts: once they've been introduced, they're around forever to use in different contexts. The TOS Enterprise introduced (as you yourself acknowledged) a whole new visual aesthetic for fictional spaceships. That aesthetic remains valid and appealing today (and can even be remixed with elements of other things, like, say, Art Deco). It doesn't mark the ship as "dated," it marks it as ahead of its time.
Again, you mischaracterize what I've said. I readily acknowledge and accept that some "significant number of people" think the design looks "very '60s." I'm just convinced that they're wrong. Large numbers of people are capable of believing wrong things. For example, millions of Americans don't believe the theory of evolution is true. Millions of Americans think Donald Trump is fit to serve as president. In both cases, they're all completely wrong.
Also, there's no evidence whatsoever (including from the past episodes you dismiss as "nostalgia") that this perception, to whatever extent it exists, would actually "affect how people enjoyed the show." If the version of the Enterprise that showed up at the end of DSC's season finale looked just like the ones in DS9 and ENT, who would be complaining? Seriously?
You've said that before, but the proposition willfully mixes up diegetic and non-diegetic aspects of how fiction works. IRL, sure, the 2250-'60s don't yet "exist," unlike (say) the 1910s, so a story set there can look like anything the creators want. Within the constraints of a specific fictional universe, however — which is where we've been told DSC is set — that period does have a specific look, one that's consistent across all previous appearances prior to DSC. If you have to think about non-diegetic elements for what's on screen to make sense, then the show's creators are breaking the illusion.
You keep saying this, too. It's special pleading. I can't think of one single successful pop-culture franchise where the "lore" and the "visuals" have been separated to the extent you're talking about here. It's an arbitrary and pointless distinction, and not one that really holds up under scrutiny; it's like saying the cake will still taste the same even though the icing is different, when in fact for most people the icing is part of the overall experience.
See that thing under my post called a signature?
They look stiff, weak and silly. They should've been swept back from the get-go.
It wasn't for nostalgic purposes, that's for sure, and that was my point.
Interesting. I never heard that. Do you have a source for that? (EDIT: I see that you do not. Shame.)
Start with the rest of that very post:
I've already explained exactly what I meant. You have no excuse to keep misrepresenting me anymore.
It's decidedly inconvenient, since they had to go back and make a silly explanation for why the Klingons were different in the DS9 episode. Should've left that one alone.
But whether it's convenient is irrelevant: it's TRUE. You forgot to address that.
Which is hilarious, since the TMP Enterprise's pylons had to be reinforced because of the shallow angle. Serves to show how perception works sometimes.
Are you deliberately trying to make bad arguments?
Similar threads
