She fires TOS blue beams!New footage from Star Trek Adversaries:
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Was it?
It's like 5th time I am posting this pic. Anti-TOS people tend to ignore it. Can you with a straight face say this ship doesn't belong in a modern TV show or movie?
I can with straight face say for nth time that original model needs modernization to fit in visual continuity with other ST tv shows. Can you say with straight face that original TOS model fits perfectly in current visual continuity? If no then which visual continuity is dated? TOS or ENT->DSC->TNG? BTW your image collage proofs my point. There isn't one image on which model isn't modernised with added details or change some visuals. All images are comparable to DSC modernization of Enterprise and all aren't original.
I don't argue that he did. But if you side by side compare NX-01, Defiant and i.e. Akira which item stands out as different, out of place?
Full quote was: „Like from sci-fi show from older era when star ship's model was built from few sheets of metal at the blacksmith and then all details painted on it. Everyone without TOS nostalgia objectively sees it” so if you want you can rephrase last sentence. But this doesn't change reality how TOS model was created and reality is that it is visible at first glance if you don't deeply modernize.
We don't compare to other shows from 60s but to ENT, DSC, TNG, DS9 and VOY. Defiant was faithful recreation of original model and stood out like for example 3d model from older game in new 3d game. Less detailed and with worse textures.
Last edited:
Again, no.
Upthread, I proposed asking a group of people who know nothing about current 'space stuff' design or Trek, to see if they would find the TOS Enterprise dated or silly.
Do you understand difference between subjective and objective? Look it up, I'll waitSorry but this is also only your opinion. Mine is different. I can say that NX-01 is modern 3d model of starship which perfectly fits in visual continuity ENT->DSC->TNG. You have right to disagree but you objectively cannot say without a doubt that 3d model of Defiant is more modern when isn't. Simple truth is de gustibus non est disputandum. Anyway if you objectively saying that this Defiant 3d model is modern then you saying that perfectly fits visually in continuity ENT->DSC->TOS->TNG and no one ever disagreed that opinion on this forum.
Objective - Enterprise is Constitution class
Subjective - I feel Constitution class is best looking compared to classes that came later
Objective - Klingons have a ship with designation of D7
Subjective - D7 in STD is an abomination and should be burned with fire from collective memory of anyone that saw it
Now just because my last statement about D7 maybe universally accepted, it is still a subjective statement. It's that simple.
Last edited:
You said it yourself. De gustibus non est disputandum. "Regarding taste, do not dispute." That means, of course, that you can't claim objectivity either.
Again, in the above quote, you speak of what "reality is." That's just another way of trying to claim objectivity.
If all you had done was say how you perceive things, there might be actual room for discussion. But you've got a double standard going, where you've pronounced what other people cannot objectively say, while claiming objectivity yourself.
Nope.
Do you understand difference between subjective and objective? Look it up, I'll wait
Yes. You can rephrase this one sentence where I used word objectively. But this doesn't change reality how original model was created and that Defiant is faithful recreation and this is visible and stands out of visual continuity with ENT and other shows. All discussions about prime or not prime timeline and visual reboot or full reboot prove my point.
Sorry but words cut from sentence lose context. Are you really dispute how was created original model and that this isn't visible? If yes then further discussion is futile.
Last edited:
Why is she fighting Goa'uld Death Gliders? Is this some Stargate SG-1 crossover I wasn't aware of?New footage from Star Trek Adversaries:
Quite a hefty claim there, bub.
Those are 2250's Birds of Prey.
Stolen from the Goa'uld, no doubt. Those tricksy DiscoKlingons!
Ok finally we can have some objective statements:
-Defiant model faithfully recreates original Constitution. I think there maybe some minor differences here and there, but let's say this is objectively true.
-ENT ships have their own visual style. Granted, objectively true.
-Defiant stands out of continuity with ENT and other show. No way in hell you can claim objectivity here. Yes, NX-01 and Defiant look different, they are 100 years apart (objective fact). But to say one belongs or doesn't with the other is a matter of opinion (one that has been discussed here since about 2001 when ENT premiered). Any discussion of opinion is by definition subjective. So you cannot claim as an objective fact that Defiant and ENT do not fit together in one timeline.
Actually, that would make so much more sense. Can someone go through all of STD Season 1 and dub-out any mention of Klingons? If it is "generic alien #47" instead of Klingons, it may just work!
It just points to just not thinking outside of the box. They could've created an alien race who worship many of the same things as Klingons do. Due to early contact with them.
At least as far as I can tell, literally no one's said to keep using the original model, or even a perfect replica of it. Even people advocating for only minimal change admit the caveat of "minimal" change as opposed to "none."
What's going on is that some fans think that the DISCOPRISE could hew much closer to the TOSPRISE without compromising suspension of disbelief.
"In a Mirror, Darkly" 1&2 are held up as examples. Here's a screencap vs a similar view (well, closest in the gallery) of the restored TOS model.
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x19/inamirrordarkly2_049.jpg
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/smithsonian-model-june16/ent-smithsonian-june-2016-10.jpg
Another:
http://ent.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/4x19/inamirrordarkly2_802.jpg
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/smithsonian-model-june16/ent-smithsonian-june-2016-07.jpg
Koji Kuramura's computer model for ENT clearly has much greater detail [i.e., features at smaller resolutions] than was present on the original physical model. You can call it just the paint job [ed - for the most part it appears to be surface texture that's providing the finer detail]; that's fine.
I simply disagree with your perception of what the model suggests about how the ship appears to have been fabricated. For one thing, I never looked at the ship and thought it necessarily had to be metal. Sometimes it looks metallic, but others it looks like it could be made out of some fantastical space-age ceramic.
Last edited:
I disagree. Though the TOS model looks out of place everywhere except in TOS itself, the fact that it's smoother and more featureless could be interepreted as a sign of futurism and sophistication, as the need for the NX-01's external components and platings is removed by advancements.
New footage from Star Trek Adversaries:
Looks fine to me.
Maybe 60s sci-fi designs will come back into vogue and the TOS ship will no longer look dated, then!
Nobody's ignored it. And no one here is anti-TOS. Do you really think one must either be bonkers in love with everything TOS or downright against it?
Yes.
Wait, didn't you just say "objectively"? Is it your opinion or not?
Don't say they are objectively dated, as "dated" is an opinion. Say most people would agree, and that since Trek should appeal to a wider audience, it should adapt, but don't pretend that your, or my, opinion is objective.
I wouldn't take that as proof it will in the show however.
Wrong Hull font, and it appears to have 4 intercoolers (?) on each nacelle instead of just 2.I looked at original TOS Enterprise in Star Trek Adversaries, and it looks better than the Discoprise. Not surprised at all
Are those phasers/torpedo tubes right in front of the sensor dome?
Similar threads
