Starship design history in light of Discovery

[cooleddie74]

Good, because the old design looked flimsy as hell.

But the DS9 shooting model of the I.K.S. Gr'oth fixed any of those issues. Flimsy doesn't necessarily mean weak or not believable as a spaceship. A lot of the Discovery is thin and narrow and looks very flimsy but that doesn't mean the ship doesn't exude power in some scenes.

 

[Spaceship Jo]

Unfortunately, I disagree. I think he can stick a pair of TOS nacelles on a ship that looks nothing like it came from the TOS era, but that's about it.

Exactly. TOS nacelles don't make it evocative of the TOS era so much as an Eaves-era ship with TOS-ish nacelles.

I like a lot of John's designs, but to say these DSC ships look totally different from FC era because they lack compound curves is... silly at best. Eaves (and Alex Jaeger) focused on a lot of cutouts, notches, fins, and more than anything else, a particular brand of hull-plating / levels style. All these elements are substantially present in DSC ships and FC ships but not (in-universe chronology) in between.

That's not a problem in and of itself, of course. In the same way that rescaling isn't really a problem unless it's really important that things just keep getting bigger in an even, chronological order.

 

[fireproof78]

But the DS9 shooting model of the I.K.S. Gr'oth fixed any of those issues. Flimsy doesn't necessarily mean weak or not believable as a spaceship. A lot of the Discovery is thin and narrow and looks very flimsy but that doesn't mean the ship doesn't exude power in some scenes.

I can think of one scene, and that's about it.

 

[137th Gebirg]

It's like a D7 and a 24th century Negh'Var-class warship had a baby but the baby took a lot more after the former than it did the latter. I'm still fine with it based on what the hologram looks like.

Yes, anything like this is an order of magnitude better than one came in S1.

 

[Dukhat]

Yes, anything like this is an order of magnitude better than one came in S1.

I just hope that the D7 isn't actually green like in that hologram, since D7s in TOS were bluish gray. But of course it will be to go along with ENT and TNG+, while again completely ignoring TOS. But I guess that ship has sailed.

 

[Tuskin38]

Unfortunately, I disagree. I think he can stick a pair of TOS nacelles on a ship that looks nothing like it came from the TOS era, but that's about it.

Case in point:

https://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/trekkkk1.jpg

https://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/armada-starfleet-vessel.jpg

Counter point, one of Eaves early designs for the Malachowski.

 

[Dukhat]

Counter point, one of Eaves early designs for the Malachowski.

Except that's not what we got. We got the body of the ship with square nacelles. So that's not all that different from my example.

 

[Tuskin38]

Except that's not what we got. We got the body of the ship with square nacelles. So that's not all that different from my example.

Because Fuller or the head production design said no.

We never get the first design for any ship in any TV series.

And the final version of Malachowski looks nothing like that. It's nothing like your example.

This early design actually looks TOS.

 

[Dukhat]

Because Fuller or the head production design said no.

Again, you have no proof it was Fuller. For all we know, Eaves made the Malachowski with both nacelles and the boxy one was the one he submitted. Just like he did with the examples I gave above for STO.

 

[David cgc]

Again, you have no proof it was Fuller.

Then here is the proof you seek:

We started doing sketches based on [Paul Christopher's Discovery concept and the '70s Ken Adam & Ralph McQuarrie Enterprise design], but the first thing Bryan [Fuller] said when he saw them was that he didn't want to see any round nacelles on any Starfleet ships! That became a huge concern for all of us, because we were all thinking, "No round nacelles, what are we going to do now?"

Since everyone knew our timeframe took place between Enterprise and the original TV series, round nacelles would really sell the timeframe without question, so having to alter them on all our starships was strange.

We were probably 90% of the way there in the first month or so, but the nacelles became a big holdup. It ended up being a battle for easily five months, just trying to figure out what kind of nacelles we were going to do, and we tried every shape possible.

(Pages 183-184)

 

[Tuskin38]

Again, you have no proof it was Fuller. For all we know, Eaves made the Malachowski with both nacelles and the boxy one was the one he submitted. Just like he did with the examples I gave above for STO.

The proof comes from the books.

 

[137th Gebirg]

Then here is the proof you seek:

That’s a Q.E.D. if ever I saw one. Well done.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, anything like this is an order of magnitude better than one came in S1.

To each their own. I'd rather have the Klingons of S1 then must of the cookie cutter stuff in Berman Era.

Then here is the proof you seek:

This is rather meaningless. Such proof will be dismissed no matter what.

 

[Nerys Myk]

This is rather meaningless. Such proof will be dismissed no matter what.

So, not your first day then?

 

[fireproof78]

So, not your first day then?

Of course not!!!!

It's my second

 

[Spaceship Jo]

I start on Tuesday.

The book quote is probably as authoritative as we will ever get, so unless Fuller writes a memoir in 20 years and includes a tidbit about this, we either accept Eaves at face value or not. I too am prone to take the "official production" story with a grain or ten of salt, but more often in the case of throwing someone under the bus sort of situations. Fuller is gone, but nobody (outside of some fans) are saying his decisions were flat wrong. Sure, they are changing things here and there under the new regime, but that's more a "we're going to do it our way now that we are in charge" than a "the guy before us f-ed everything up and we need to change everything and make it good now".

 

[Dukhat]

No, it’s not proof. Not trying to be a serial contrarian, but it is what it is. I have a very hard time believing why Fuller would give a shit about what shape nacelles are, when none of the Starfleet ships are remotely consistent in design anyway.

Could I be wrong? Of course, because I have no proof either. But I find it very revealing that Fuller has become the convenient punching bag for everything the fans have been bitching about (nacelles, Klingons, etc.)

 

[Tuskin38]

I have a very hard time believing why Fuller would give a shit about what shape nacelles are.

Because he wanted to be different.

He was quoted as saying as much a few years ago. He said he wanted to revamp known aliens, he wanted the Klingons to be more alien.

Now h wasn't talking about the ships, this was just the makeup.

 

[Dukhat]

Because he wanted to be different.

Again, proof please.

 

[fireproof78]

Could I be wrong? Of course, because I have no proof either. But I find it very revealing that Fuller has become the convenient punching bag for everything the fans have been bitching about (nacelles, Klingons, etc.)

He's not a punching bag, any more than Kurtzman is (and he has taken knocks as well). People have been noting DSC as "Fuller's vision" since I've been following production.

But, regardless, no proof will be satisfactory in this instance. Even if Fuller came out and stated everything was his idea it would be shot down as him towing the party line or some nonsense. I didn't realize this would be controversial but here we are.