USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[F. King Daniel]

Because there is no way we have seen every single Klingon design in their history. That is impossible and I have no issue with that, whatsoever.

Again, even GR kind of hand waved away TOS in the novel by calling it a "recreation" of Kirk's adventures. There have been explanations of every inconsistency across Trek. Only now, with Discovery, is it suddenly not OK? O_o

As I've said before, it's a matter of degree. We've gone from handwaving two or three things to handwaving everything.

I'm curious if any naval buffs can point to a real-life example of a ship being extensively refitted, defitted, and then refitted extensively but differently again?

 

[Tuskin38]

The Shenzhou was his old Next Gen-era fanclub design

That’s just a coincidence If you look at all the concepts he went through before coming to the final design. It looks similar because he designed it, that's it.

There are a lot of differences between the Shenzhou and that design.

You people keep saying there is a John Eaves signature, but before DSC he only a few official Fed ships and some Ent Era Starfleet, and none of them look like DSC Fed Era ships.

Most of his designs were alien.

 

[Dukhat]

Because there is no way we have seen every single Klingon design in their history. That is impossible and I have no issue with that, whatsoever.

Again, even GR kind of hand waved away TOS in the novel by calling it a "recreation" of Kirk's adventures. There have been explanations of every inconsistency across Trek. Only now, with Discovery, is it suddenly not OK? O_o

Here’s the problem with that kind of thinking: everyone keeps underestimating the popularity of TOS. Everyone keeps telling me to just “ignore it.” Well, screw that. Retconning a show that has been in the hearts and minds of generations of Star Trek fans for over 50 years just for the sake of “realism” is a flawed concept. I’m 46 years old, and have been a fan of Star Trek in all its iterations my whole life. And I’d be the first one to say that it would have been totally awesome to see a new Star Trek series in 2018 that looks similar to TOS. I don’t give a shit about “realism.” I care about good storytelling, characters that I can relate to, and ships that look like they belong in the friggin’ era that I’m used to seeing.

That’s just a coincidence If you look at all the concepts he went through before coming to the final design.

It’s not a coincidence if he’s known for doing that.

 

[Tuskin38]

It’s not a coincidence if he’s known for doing that.

He's never done that. He's borrowed elements, not entire designs. That's what artists do.

 

[Timo]

^^Which is why you ought to sleep easy. Every single incarnation of Star Trek has bowed toes deep to TOS eventually, after all. And DSC is well into its downward curve towards those toes now: we already got NCC-1701, we got Pike, we got the brightly colored uniforms, we got Spock. It really is just a matter of time till we're back to the usual point where the "reimagined", "rebooted" spinoff fully meshes with the original. Because that's what TPTB strive to do, in every case, including the one at hand.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Dukhat]

He's never done that. He's borrowed elements, not entire designs. That's what artists do.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. One man’s “artist” is another man’s hack.

 

[Tuskin38]

Pre-Discovery Fed Ships/Shuttles Eaves Designed:

Excelsior Refit
Sovereign and its Yacht
Data's Scout Ship from insurrection
The Holoship from Insurrection
The Argo Shuttle
USS Kelvin Shuttle
Kelvin Timeline Kobayashi Maru

That's it, and none of those have anything massively in common with his DSC Designs.

His ENT Era Starfleet Designs mostly reused elements from Drexler's NX-01.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, my friend. One man’s “artist” is another man’s hack.

Give examples please

 

[fireproof78]

As I've said before, it's a matter of degree. We've gone from handwaving two or three things to handwaving everything.

I'm curious if any naval buffs can point to a real-life example of a ship being extensively refitted, defitted, and then refitted extensively but differently again?

I don't see it as "handwaving everything" when all I'm doing is providing logical, in universe explanations, for what I'm seeing. Thus far, I have found such explanations for myself to be sufficient, aside from the spore drive. That one I am in wait and see mode on.

I'm not sitting here pretending it didn't happen. I just acknowledging the possibly that TOS didn't show us everything about a fast interstellar organization. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Here’s the problem with that thinking: everyone keeps underestimating the popularity of TOS. Everyone keeps telling me to just “ignore it.” Retconning a show that has been in the hearts and minds of generations of Star Trek fans for over 50 years just for the sake of “realism” is a flawed concept. I’m 46 years old, and have been a fan of Star Trek in all its iterations my whole life. And I’d be the first one to say that it would have been totally awesome to see a new Star Trek series in 2018 that looks similar to TOS. I don’t give a shit about “realism.” I care about good storytelling, characters that I can relate to, and ships that look like they belong in the friggin’ era that I’m used to seeing.

Here's the thing-I'm not saying "Just ignore it." I'm only saying that is unlikely that we have seen everything that was part of the Federation or the Klingons in this era. The spore drive is the one wrinkle, but I'm willing to wait on that and see.

The aesthetics will vary from person to person. I don't see them as problematic, but that's fine. Others will.

I'm 34 so, for me, TOS will always be the future. The rest are just spin offs with varying degrees of acceptability for me. TNG was not acceptable to me.

I want some degree of realism, so the fact that Discovery is expanding upon concepts presented in TOS is more interesting to me, because I like seeing that stuff expanded. I also am interested in the characters, and that matters above all else to me.

I just can't believe that the TOS aesthetic was some how the only look for the Federation in this timeline.

 

[Kemaiku]

Why are we all jumping to explain changes in the Enterprise when nothing in the show tries to be consistent with classic Trek in any way??? Why are new Klingons and uniforms and technology all okay so long as we explain the Enterprise being upgraded and then downgraded again?

The Enterprise becomes infested with the spores during her contact with Discovery, they mutate somehow and spread through the fleet, causing a massive drug trip that reverts Starfleet temporarily to a 1960's aesthetic.

It starts wearing off in the 2270's, with the old manness, and bad hair, and constant vague looks of not knowing where they are.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Pre-Discovery Fed Ships/Shuttles Eaves Designed:

Excelsior Refit
Sovereign and its Yacht
Data's Scout Ship from insurrection
The Holoship from Insurrection
The Argo Shuttle
USS Kelvin Shuttle
Kelvin Timeline Kobayashi Maru

That's it, and none of those have anything massively in common with his DSC Designs.

Give examples please

It's not the shapes so much generally as the aesthetic he applies to those shapes, the details: he's huge into cutouts (both in terms of holes all the way through like the struts, as well as more notch-like bits, like the Discoprise headlight section, the front of his NX-01 concept, the front of the Shenzhou, etc) and also little fins (E-B, Discoprise impulse deck, Shenzhou, the shuttles, heck, look and you'll see them on every Fed design he's done except possibly the holoship - but then look at the holoship concept and... cutouts!). To a lesser degree: his way of drawing hull paneling on Fed ships is the same across the board, which might be less of an issue if it was just his drawing style flourish and was not so directly reflected in the finished models.

TLDR: Eaves makes all or at least most of his designs look busy with a similar aesthetic of interrupting the smooth Federation style with cutouts and fins.

 

[UssGlenn]

You people keep saying there is a John Eaves signature, but before DSC he only a few official Fed ships and some Ent Era Starfleet, and none of them look like DSC Fed Era ships.

Most of his designs were alien.

It's something about the way he layers and angles his hull paneling. It's super distinctive and it crops up in both his alien and Starfleet designs.


edit: post above beat me to it by seconds

 

[Dukhat]

Give examples please

I just did. You like John Eaves’s work. I don’t. Do you like Thomas Kincaid? If you do, great. Some people obviously like his work because he has stores that sell his paintings. I think he made shitty art for people with shitty taste. What other examples do you need?

 

[BillJ]

Here’s the problem with that kind of thinking: everyone keeps underestimating the popularity of TOS. Everyone keeps telling me to just “ignore it.” Well, screw that. Retconning a show that has been in the hearts and minds of generations of Star Trek fans for over 50 years just for the sake of “realism” is a flawed concept.

Especially when this "realism" will have to be overwritten again and again and again. If Discovery wanted to do its own thing, it should've been a reboot (which it is in everything but name).

I’m 46 years old, and have been a fan of Star Trek in all its iterations my whole life. And I’d be the first one to say that it would have been totally awesome to see a new Star Trek series in 2018 that looks similar to TOS.

Yep.

 

[Tuskin38]

I just did. You like John Eaves’s work. I don’t. Do you like Thomas Kincaid? If you do, great. Some people obviously like his work because he has stores that sell his paintings. I think he made shitty art for people with shitty taste. What other examples do you need?

I meant examples of Eaves work.

 

[fireproof78]

Especially when this "realism" will have to be overwritten again and again and again. If Discovery wanted to do its own thing, it should've been a reboot (which it is in everything but name).

Then treat it as such.

Star Trek does get rewritten again and again and again, so I'm failing (again and again) to see how discovery is some how different...

Technology will change, humanity's understanding, knowledge and growth will change, and on and on. Just give me a foundation that shows Trek has a base understanding of current tech and I'll be happy. I don't expect strict adherence to either Trek lore or to reality.

I think Discovery does OK in terms of difference but can almost fit. It isn't perfect and it isn't how I would do it. But, I can live with it.

I just did. You like John Eaves’s work. I don’t. Do you like Thomas Kincaid? If you do, great. Some people obviously like his work because he has stores that sell his paintings. I think he made shitty art for people with shitty taste. What other examples do you need?

Did Kincaid kill your dog or something?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

TLDR: Eaves makes all or at least most of his designs look busy with a similar aesthetic of interrupting the smooth Federation style with cutouts and fins.

Eaves has done some good work on Trek, but I'm over his aesthetic. I much prefer Church's Enterprise over the Disco-Prise.

 

[Dukhat]

I meant examples of Eaves work.

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say I’m a car designer, and I was given the job of designing a car that might be built in the year 2050. First I would research how cars look now and extrapolate a futuristic design based on various factors. Then let’s say that later I was given the job of designing a fictitious car that would have been built in the 1930’s. Do you think that the first thing I’d do is take my design for a 2050’s car and extrapolate backwards from that to come up with a design for a 1930’s car? No. I would research what cars looked like in the 1930’s and extrapolate based on that.

Did Kincaid kill your dog or something?

No, but imagine how I’d feel about him if he did.

 

[Tuskin38]

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say I’m a car designer, and I was given the job of designing a car that might be built in the year 2050. First I would research how cars look now and extrapolate a futuristic design based on various factors. Then let’s say that later I was given the job of designing a fictitious car that would have been built in the 1930’s. Do you think that the first thing I’d do is take my design for a 2050’s car and extrapolate backwards from that to come up with a design for a 1930’s car? No. I would research what cars looked like in the 1930’s and extrapolate based on that.

It wasn't Eaves choice not to match the TOS Aesthetic, he was just doing as he was told by the higher ups. He's even said in his Art Book and other sources like Eaglemoss that he was frustrated that he wasn't allowed to use round nacelles like the era was meant to have.

Remember all his designs need to go through approval, the design department and most likely the producers look them over to approve them.

And I think the ships fine, they look like something that would have evolved from the Ent-Era aesthetic, especially the Connie.

Most of the ships appear to be a hybrid of the ENT, TOS and TMP era designs. I'm not seeing anything 24th century about them. The cloest to the 24th would be the Walker Class IMO.

 

[fireproof78]

No, but imagine how I’d feel about him if he did.

 

[cooleddie74]

Augment Klingons are around. We just have yet to see some of them.

That's my hope, anyways, now that Bryan Fuller is gone.