That's not fair. We get to see her out of every window on Discovery whenever someone is having a conversation near one, nomatter where on the ship they are.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
That's not fair. We get to see her out of every window on Discovery whenever someone is having a conversation near one, nomatter where on the ship they are.
I love how you put words in my mouth and then continue to act as if I'm the one who said it.
But congratulations on yet another deliberate and successful avoidance of the actual point, which was that your personal appreciation of this movie does not make it "bad" for anyone else.
That if you dislike a movie (down) and they enjoyed it (up), you're trying to drag them down with you, presumably because misery loves company.
See, the fact that we can agree on some things, sometimes, makes it worthwhile to spar with you.
I've always liked Vektor's Enterprise, but it really doesn't fit the aesthetic of DSC. How would you guys feel about it if the Enterprise looked like this? Pretty much the same as the Discoprise, but with the neck and pylons stretched to bring it closer to the original look.
Exactly. There's no reason to argue otherwise, but this isn't the first time that Bill uses the iconic status of the original Enterprise as a cure-all for all arguments.
I've always liked Vektor's Enterprise, but it really doesn't fit the aesthetic of DSC. How would you guys feel about it if the Enterprise looked like this? Pretty much the same as the Discoprise, but with the neck and pylons stretched to bring it closer to the original look.
Given that Kuhn's original attempt to reproduce the Discoprise was less than satisfactory, and this looks even worse, I .... no.
I'd rather have what we got on the show.
The reason why I ask these questions is simply because, given the proliferation of new official designs and fanworks for the Enterprise it's fun to imagine them replacing one another.
I think if the color were lightened up just a hair, less gray more white, then I would be on board with this one. Even the pylons look more substantial.I've always liked Vektor's Enterprise, but it really doesn't fit the aesthetic of DSC. How would you guys feel about it if the Enterprise looked like this? Pretty much the same as the Discoprise, but with the neck and pylons stretched to bring it closer to the original look.
That definitely is the question. If it’s only being done for profit, then no the new material isn’t worth it - and that’s kinda what s1 felt like. If they genuinely want to expand the universe and delve further into the lore then I’m all for it. I’m hoping that season 2 is an improvement and based on the trailer it certainly looks like it could be. Fingers crossed!
Okay, so explain to me how the window is not stupid.. You said it's not, so I would like to know why.
Trek is an inherently political show, and always has been. Why are you bothered so much by conversationsabout the real-world analogues it evokes?
Annoyingly, this stupid rationale always gets put out whenever anyone complains about writer political virtue signaling, or preachy political biases Based on the writers "supposed" ideological superiority on moralisms they try to shove down audience throats.
There's a big difference to how social issues were addressed in the past, then how they are handled today
If you can't see it, that's because you agree with the ideology of the writer. Ingorance is bliss..enjoy.
But we shouldn't as fans harass those who have a different opinion, or demonize those who don't adhere to one specific political dogma. That's NOT being inclusive to all fans of the genre.
Sadly, I'll be attacked for this statement, I'm sure. As it doesn't conform to the social norms of the high and mighty thought brigade. Carry on..
Annoyingly, this stupid rationale always gets put out whenever anyone complains about writer political virtue signaling, or preachy political biases Based on the writers "supposed" ideological superiority on moralisms they try to shove down audience throats.
There's a big difference to how social issues were addressed in the past, then how they are handled today
If you can't see it, that's because you agree with the ideology of the writer. Ingorance is bliss..enjoy.
But we shouldn't as fans harass those who have a different opinion, or demonize those who don't adhere to one specific political dogma. That's NOT being inclusive to all fans of the genre.
Sadly, I'll be attacked for this statement, I'm sure. As it doesn't conform to the social norms of the high and mighty thought brigade. Carry on..
Social issues were very on the nose way in past Star Treks. You might not notice it, because many of those issues are not contentious now in a degree they were then, and thus are less likely to rub you the wrong way. So basically inverse of what you're saying is true. You don't notice pushing liberal values in TOS, because you agree with what were considered liberal values in the 60's. You notice it in the modern shows, as you do not agree with the liberal values of today.
I love how you keep deciding you get to dictate what "the point" of any given discussion is, and getting pissy whenever somebody else doesn't agree with you about it.
And seriously... I did not "put words in your mouth," nor have I ever done so before. One of the standard features of conversation is to summarize and paraphrase what one's interlocutor has been saying, so as to avoid misunderstandings, improve clarity, and retain focus on whatever "the point" may be. For some reason this seems to bother you. But if you really want a string of exact quotes...
...fireproof78 posted puzzlement at why Abrams still gets "berated" even though "he made one of the most successful films in franchise history."
...I replied to that with "'Successful' is not remotely the same thing as 'good.'"
...You replied to me with "Actually, it's the only way you can judge if something's 'good' for people other than yourself."
...and I replied with "Success in the market? Hardly."
...I replied to that with "'Successful' is not remotely the same thing as 'good.'"
...You replied to me with "Actually, it's the only way you can judge if something's 'good' for people other than yourself."
...and I replied with "Success in the market? Hardly."
IOW, what fireproof78 was referring to from the start was ST09's success — i.e., its economic success in the market for entertainment. I pointed out that this does not denote quality. You interposed that "it" (i.e., success in the market!) is in fact a criteria by which to assess aesthetic quality — indeed, that it's the only criteria for judging what others think of something. I then merely reiterated what "it" we were talking about, pointed out (with "hardly") that I think your assertion is badly mistaken, and then went on to explain why and how I think other criteria are available and relevant. That is the exact chain of what constitutes "the point" of this particular exchange. If you think "success in the market" isn't the criterion we were talking about and that by saying so I'm putting words in your mouth, then I'm not the one who missed the point.
How very dichotomous of you.
Do you imagine this conversation over drinks consisted of my sitting there lashing out "nuh-uh, it sucked and you're a doofus if you liked it"? None of us were 13-year-olds. It was an in-depth conversation about lots of details of the story, and how and why they did or didn't work. As I've already mentioned, people (including me) do this all the time, after lots of movies, because it's sociable and stimulating. Nobody expects all their friends to agree with them about everything, and nobody takes disagreement personally, nor should they.You say that like it's a bad thing.
It gets repeated because it's a perfectly valid answer to the kind of right-wing caterwauling from folks who don't like the fact that Trek has always been created by left-leaning writers for audiences with forward-looking, progressive attitudes.
Those kind of folks have always viewed conservative political currents in America as retrograde, the faux-military environment of Starfleet notwithstanding.
There is no intentional comfort for conservatives or bigots in Trek. Never has been.
In my opinion, yes, the material is worth it. I can put my own meaning in to it regardless of authorial or corporate intent.
You didn't link my post for some reason, but it's me you're quoting, so I'll reply.
You seem to have missed the context of the conversation that was happening. In brief, Longinus and others objected that certain incidents in DS9 and DSC send the message that military actions that qualify as war crimes were justified by an "ends justify the means" rationale, as nobody was ever held accountable for them. Belz and others responded that this is just being realistic, because (A) the winners make the rules, and (B) open societies allegedly "need" people doing "dirty work" to sustain them, with analogies from WWII offered for support. I weighed in suggesting that the scenes in question were indeed problematic, and that the analogies didn't hold up for various reasons. Tuskin38 objected to the very presence of the discussion. I replied with the sentences you quote above, and that's where you came in.
In other words... the writers of the scenes that sparked the discussion were not "virtue signaling" nor trying to force liberal "moralisms" on the audience — quite the contrary. And I, in defending the political content of the conversation that ensued, was not taking the side of the writers or their defenders — again, quite the contrary. Somehow, you seem to have a completely inverted impression of what the exchange was actually about.
Just for the record, I also wasn't harassing or demonizing anyone in the discussion, nor am I attacking you here. I'm merely clarifying.
I was in fact defending a liberal viewpoint — namely, that civilized societies should adhere to their principles and hold accountable those who violate them. FWIW, in terms of international relations theory it's a view that's something of a hybrid of liberal institutionalism and constructivism, with a touch of the "complex interdependence" position argued by scholars like Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye — IOW, it's a rebuke to the statist realpolitik and neo-realist schools of thought that are so beloved of conservative thinkers, and that have traditionally dominated IR discourse. However, this liberal viewpoint has been central to Star Trek since day one, so it remains really surprising to me that anyone who's a fan would disagree.
Last edited:
Yes and no. It's taking the content and what meaning is there, either implicit or explicit, and deriving meaning based upon personal experience. It isn't as simple as ignoring it, so much as engaging based upon one's world view.
In the era of “death of the author” that’s a fair point
I suppose it’s kinda like how one could view DSC as a reboot in a separate timeline/universe or whatever.
Unless these red space things lead to TOS and they’re some kind of dimensional mumbo jumbo.
I’ll be honest - I care about what the red swirly things are.
I didn’t give a fig about the Klingon conflict. Or Michael’s mutiny. Or Saru’s spidey sense. Huh there’s a lot of alliteration there.
But the fact that there’s a mystery - a Star Trek type mystery - “there’s a thing out there” - has actually piqued my interest. Even though I’m still very discoskeptic after s1. I’m actually interested to see what s2 is going to be about.
Similar threads
