Where have ya been all day? Been talking about this particular subject.. As they say.. Scroll up and take a peek.
Is Titan-A a refit of original Titan?
- Thread starter MarsWeeps
- Start date
After thinking about it some more, Italy's Conte de Cavour class of battleships might be a better real-world analogy to the Titan/Titan-A.
All three battleships were heavily modernized/refit during the interwar period.
Conte di Cavour-class battleship - Wikipedia
The Wikipedia entry says that after completing their refit/modernization only 40% of the original ship remained.
Another possible real-world example would be the Illustrious-class carrier HMS Victorious. She too was heavily modernized after the war.
HMS Victorious (R38) - Wikipedia
All three battleships were heavily modernized/refit during the interwar period.
Conte di Cavour-class battleship - Wikipedia
The Wikipedia entry says that after completing their refit/modernization only 40% of the original ship remained.
Another possible real-world example would be the Illustrious-class carrier HMS Victorious. She too was heavily modernized after the war.
HMS Victorious (R38) - Wikipedia
that means they were installed sometime around 2381 if we wanna be figuratively and literally basically means they haven't been replaced since Riker was in command.
No, it means the components were new as of 2381, were installed in the Luna class Titan, and were later removed from the Luna class Titan and installed in the Connie III Titan at some point before Shaw took command of that ship.
The bottom line here is that the writing and creative thought processes around the Titan in S3 are just sloppy and inconsistent.
Sure, it's possible to do a whole lot of mental gymnastics in order to develop some kinda vaguely plausible explanation... but that in itself tells you just how poorly this was developed. If they had bothered to make the effort to think this through then all those mental gymnastics would be unnecessary.
Now, Trek has always had creative inconsistencies, right back to TOS, but the majority of those were minor details like wardrobe errors or the odd word in a script... the sort of details that fans would pick up on... and, yes, sometimes they just plain changed tack and dropped old ideas for newer ones. I fully accept that sometimes there just is no good answer and the inconsistencies are what they are, even with fan retcons to try to explain them.
There have been other, bigger inconsistencies but there was, at least for a time, a distinct effort to maintain as much internal continuity as possible within the wider Trek universe. That Matalas and Co. have chosen to put this glaring disconnect front and center feels somehow emblematic of the broader problems with the writing on Picard. It's annoying because it makes no sense to anyone with half a brain and because with just a little more thought on their part it was wholly avoidable.
Sure, it's possible to do a whole lot of mental gymnastics in order to develop some kinda vaguely plausible explanation... but that in itself tells you just how poorly this was developed. If they had bothered to make the effort to think this through then all those mental gymnastics would be unnecessary.
Now, Trek has always had creative inconsistencies, right back to TOS, but the majority of those were minor details like wardrobe errors or the odd word in a script... the sort of details that fans would pick up on... and, yes, sometimes they just plain changed tack and dropped old ideas for newer ones. I fully accept that sometimes there just is no good answer and the inconsistencies are what they are, even with fan retcons to try to explain them.
There have been other, bigger inconsistencies but there was, at least for a time, a distinct effort to maintain as much internal continuity as possible within the wider Trek universe. That Matalas and Co. have chosen to put this glaring disconnect front and center feels somehow emblematic of the broader problems with the writing on Picard. It's annoying because it makes no sense to anyone with half a brain and because with just a little more thought on their part it was wholly avoidable.
It makes perfect sense to me
So glad I only have half the brain then! My abnormal psych professor was right; I don't miss it all.
It's extremely convoluted to me. First Matalas recruits Drexler to come up with some reasoning why the ship looks anachronistic, and Doug says it's because Starfleet found out that round saucers are better for emergency separation and landing than pointed saucers. This explanation then vanishes in a puff of smoke. Next, we're told that the ship looks the way it does because Starfleet now wants to go back to its 'exploration roots' so ships now need to look like they did a century ago. This explanation, even more convoluted than the first one, also vanishes in a puff of smoke. And it's not like any other ships adhered to these explanations anyway. Finally the explanation as to why the ship looks the way it does (and is still considered Riker's old command) was that some parts from the old ship were installed in the new ship, which for some reason now makes the new ship a 'refit' even though that's not the definition of a refit. So I'm glad it makes perfect sense to you, 'cause it makes zero sense to me.
When?
Have you heard anyone mention it since? Or mention it on screen?
They never said it would be explained in the show. It's just tech manual type fluff.
Which can be easily ignored.
But all those reasons can be mutually inclusive if you use a bit of imagination.
Let's get real. The reason the Titan looks as it does is because Terry liked the design. It's the same reason any Star Trek ship looks like it does. Why does the Enterprise-E have long nacelles when every other ship of that era has short ones? Doesn't it look like something a hundred years older?
They've gone out of their way to give reasons why it looks like it does, and why it has a connection to Riker's ship.
You don't have to like those reasons, but they exist, and dialogue is there in the show. I don't really think it's fair to accuse the writers or the design team of not thinking about this, or not caring.
Let's get real. The reason the Titan looks as it does is because Terry liked the design. It's the same reason any Star Trek ship looks like it does. Why does the Enterprise-E have long nacelles when every other ship of that era has short ones? Doesn't it look like something a hundred years older?
They've gone out of their way to give reasons why it looks like it does, and why it has a connection to Riker's ship.
You don't have to like those reasons, but they exist, and dialogue is there in the show. I don't really think it's fair to accuse the writers or the design team of not thinking about this, or not caring.
Who was accusing them of that?
I agree. They try very hard, when really they would best let it lie à la Worf "we don't speak about it". I'm surprised that so many people are willing to accept their attempts to explain it. Matalas and Picard S3 seem to have serious credit with lots of ST fans,at this moment.
For me it's simple: for whatever reason (personal preference or maybe there is some commercial or legal reason somewhere) they did not want to use the Luna-class and they also wanted it to be Riker's old ship, yet they did not dare or were not allowed to directly contradict Lower Decks. All the rest are attempts to explain something in universe that doesn't make one iota of sense.
But then, I was never a fan of Enterprise's "explanation" for the Klingon make-up change, either.
Same. But I did enjoy the episodes either way.
It's his art. Why wouldn't I? People seem to think it must make sense to all to be accepted.
Actually, it’s Bill Krause’s art that he just modified a tiny bit.
Similar threads
