What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Lord Garth]

Incidentally – Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale were contacted by the US military to ask what they knew about the design of portable vehicle-mounted nuclear reactors after the release of Back to the Future. "Real world attention" doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I'm still disappointed that our time doesn't look like Back to the Future, Part II.

 

[Tallguy]

The Enterprise as depicted in "The Cage" was meant to be significantly smaller. You can see it with the bigger bridge dome and single row of windows on the saucer rim.

Yes, but by the time they repurposed the footage for The Menagerie they had changed their minds. Also the same bridge dome is on the ship in Where No Man.

But you knew that.

I'll take the SNW Enterprise over the Kelvin Enterprise.

This is just a fact.

 

[cooleddie74]

The SNW Enterprise is gorgeous. The Kelvin Enterprise is, well, utilitarian. And pops more Weight Gain 5000 than Eric Cartman.

 

[fireproof78]

Kelvin Enterprise is beautiful. I like SNW Enterprise Bridge but prefer the Kelvin exterior.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

All the bridges are basically the same in layout.

Also, put me in as another 'no-one' who loves the JJ-bridge and the Discovery bridge. Beautiful, both.

To claim either of the above lack 'real world attention' is just total nonsense and clearly not true.

@fireproof78 Also, with you on the exterior of the KelvinPrise. I prefer it to the SNW iteration by a mile.

 

[Lord Garth]

I just think the Kelvin Enterprise looks distorted and out of proportion. The neck is too far back, and those nacelles are ridiculously oversized. Strange as this sounds, it looked like they finally almost got everything in proportion with each other with the Kelvin Enterprise-A... and then the Abrams Movies stalled!

Just like Beyond was the first time I liked Chris Pine's Kirk. Not that I blame Chris Pine. He played the character as written during the first two movies, so he did his job. But Beyond showed what he could do with a Kirk who acts like an actual adult. Chris Pine was also great as Trevor in Wonder Woman. But Kirk in the 2009 Film really rubbed me the wrong way. I was completely, totally on Spock's side. 99% of the time, anyway. When he jettisoned Kirk off the Enterprise, I thought that was a step too far; but I guess it shows how compromised his judgement really was.

 

[donners22]

I think that's the beauty of the Kelvin trilogy. In 2009, he is a cocky kid who gets lucky. In Into Darkness, he is plainly too raw for command, and he makes a number of mistakes. In Beyond, he is a much more mature captain who has learned from his experiences.

 

[AresB]

A lot of starships were designed to be a specific size. We know Richard Taylor and Andrew Probert designed the refit Enterprise to be exactly 1000 feet (304.8m) long. Andrew Probert later designed the Enterprise-D to be 2108 feet (642.5m) long (originally 2000 feet long in fact, but Roddenberry made him extend the nacelles backwards a bit). Nilo Rodis, one of the production designers for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock and co-designer of the Excelsior, drew a size comparison chart for the movie giving the Excelsior's length as 1531 feet (466.6m). And Rick Sternbach designed Voyager to be 344m long, intending for it to be roughly the same overall size as the original Enterprise (in fact it has about double the volume because of how comparatively chunky it is).

The problem is that there are many cases where the designer's intended size is not used by the production team. Sometimes this is unintentional – for example, the Enterprise refit, the Excelsior, and the various Enterprise-D filming models were all at different scales, so it was impossible to film any of them together and have them appear accurately sized without having to fudge it in post-production.

And sometimes this is intentional. lnfamously, Ryan Church designed the Enterprise for Star Trek (2009) at 366m in length, making it more-or-less in proportion with the Enterprise refit, and JJ Abrams just doubled it to give it "more presence". Deep Space 9 was designed at around 750m in diameter, but was hugely scaled up to dwarf the Enterprise-D in "Emissary", even though we can clearly see how big the ops dome, the standard "porthole" windows, and large promenade windows are on the sets, and even though sometimes it has to be shrunk in subsequent effects shots so as not to look completely disproportionate (most notably with the spacesuited technicians working on its hull in the season 4+ title sequence). Let's not go near the Defiant, which would sometimes change scale (and physical proportions!) between shots, depending on the intent of the production team and the specific model being used. And the Delta Flyer was designed at 15m in length, yet the interior sets require it to be bigger – too big, in fact, to fit through Voyager's shuttlebay doors.

And other times it's a combination of the two – while the designers may intend their designs to be at a specific size they often aren't the people building the physical or CGI models that will be used on screen, and there are cases where that is where changes were introduced without the original designer's knowledge or consent. We know that Sean Hargreaves's Enterprise-A from Star Trek Beyond was extensively modified from his original concept by the CGI artists. And John Eaves's original concept for the DIS/SNW Enterprise was modified by the CGI artists as well, most notably in being given swept back TMP-style nacelle pylons instead of the TOS-style perpendicular ones he originally intended.

All proper starships are bigger on the inside.

 

[Tallguy]

All proper starships are bigger on the inside.

I'm trying to think of one that wasn't. Even the Galileo.

 

[MikHutch]

I just wish we had an exact size for the Klingon BOP

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm trying to think now if any starship has had a specific size stated on screen. Though even in the absence of explicit dialogue or clear graphics (which don't always help), beyond what the production teams have stated we can often infer ship size from things like hatches, windows, shuttles and so on.

Stated? No, AFAIK.

Clear graphics? Well, kinda, so therefore not entirely, or, shall we say, no. But present and on screen? Absolutely.

From "The Enterprise Incident":

https://tos.trekcore.com/hd/albums/3x02hd/theenterpriseincidenthd0198.jpg

"SCALE IN FEET" is legible in HD, but only barely.

Here is the scene in DVD:
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x02/The_Enterprise_Incident_046.JPG

It is, shall we say, less clear.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Arrogance is not a becoming trait in a franchise.

There's no "arrogance" in the reality that the scales of entertainment, historical importance, cultural impact and other factors are not balanced in any franchise. Please, if one exists, list it here, because its not the case with Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Planet of the Apes, Indiana Jones, Ghostbusters, LOTR, James Bond, superhero films/TV, etc. That is one of the few facts one can attribute to entertainment properties.

No one said progression of design.

Really? Because this thread features criticism of the actual TOS designs in some neverending attempt to separate it from the rest of the franchise as if productions from TOS movies-forward consciously rejected it.

No one, eh?

I love being called no one in a discussion.

"Oh, you're not "no one"--if you join the glorious TOS family...oh, and put the goggles on, they will help correct your TOS-hatin' vision problems!"

 

[fireproof78]

Really? Because this thread features criticism of the actual TOS designs in some neverending attempt to separate it from the rest of the franchise as if productions from TOS movies-forward consciously rejected it.

Well, yes. Criticism of art can always be separated from what succeeds it. If you believe TOS set designs as they stand can be put forward for a show in the 2020s and streamed to a mainstream audience with success I welcome the opportunity to see it.

"Oh, you're not "no one"--if you join the glorious TOS family...oh, and put the goggles on, they will help correct your TOS-hatin' vision problems!"

Tell me you know nothing about me without actually saying it.

 

[herofhyrule]

Realistically, a TV series from the 2020s is not going to have sets that are 100% accurate to a TV series from the 1960s. You can complain about canon/continuity all you want, but if SNW exactly copied the TOS sets, it just wouldn't be taken seriously. People would complain that it looks too outdated and low-budget. And they wouldn't really be wrong.

 

[Macintosh]

Really? Because this thread features criticism of the actual TOS designs in some neverending attempt to separate it from the rest of the franchise as if productions from TOS movies-forward consciously rejected it.

Absolutely false. It contains criticism of the ludicrous opinion that TOS's distinctive "look and feel" somehow stands up today. Once again, it's not about "circular bridge with perimeter stations" or "saucer-secondary-nacelles". It's about TOS looking cheap and old even compared to content that came just a decade later and even some other scifi of the time, and the frankly bonkers argument that it somehow holds up visually compared to more modern series because of the memberberries they used in "Trials and Tribble-ations" and "In a Mirror, Darkly".

 

[fireproof78]

Realistically, a TV series from the 2020s is not going to have sets that are 100% accurate to a TV series from the 1960s. You can complain about canon/continuity all you want, but if SNW exactly copied the TOS sets, it just wouldn't be taken seriously. People would complain that it looks too outdated and low-budget. And they wouldn't really be wrong.

You're saying that Star Trek is not an exception?

*tongue slightly in cheek.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Well, yes. Criticism of art can always be separated from what succeeds it. If you believe TOS set designs as they stand can be put forward for a show in the 2020s and streamed to a mainstream audience with success I welcome the opportunity to see it.

1996 - the year "Trials and Tribble-ations" was produced / aired and 2005's "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter are not the silent era of film. By the time both were in development, production of sci-fi series had changed, yet where was the outcry--in either year--that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

I'm still waiting to hear that one, as both episodes are among the most praised in either series' history, and yes, though some will hand-wring until Doomsday over the following--part of that praise was about the great integration of the 1960s designs / sets, etc., with DS9 and ENT.

Honestly, I'm still waiting to see anyone post period accounts making that claim.

 

[fireproof78]

1996 - the year "Trials and Tribble-ations" was produced / aired and 2005's "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter are not the silent era of film. By the time both were in development, production of sci-fi series had changed, yet where was the outcry--in either year--that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

Well, it does stand out but I believe that's the point. The episodes in question were meant as an homage to TOS, one as an anniversary episode (VOY did one as well) and the other as "for shit's and giggles."

Inside that framing device they work well. But I am curious because fans seem convinced that if we took unaltered 60s era sets and designs they are acceptable to modern audiences.

I'm not convinced.

 

[Macintosh]

I'm still waiting to hear that one, as both episodes are among the most praised in either series' history, and yes, though some will hand-wring until Doomsday over the following--part of that praise was about the great integration of the 1960s designs / sets, etc., with DS9 and ENT.

Because, as has already been explained, you're deliberately ignoring the point that it succeeded precisely because it was a specific and positive reference to Star Trek's own production past. That was the central conceit.

Edited for clarity.

 

[herofhyrule]

1996 - the year "Trials and Tribble-ations" was produced / aired and 2005's "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter are not the silent era of film. By the time both were in development, production of sci-fi series had changed, yet where was the outcry--in either year--that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

I'm still waiting to hear that one, as both episodes are among the most praised in either series' history, and yes, though some will hand-wring until Doomsday over the following--part of that praise was about the great integration of the 1960s designs / sets, etc., with DS9 and ENT.

Honestly, I'm still waiting to see anyone post period accounts making that claim.

Enterprise as a series was set prior to TOS.
Here's the ENT bridge:
https://ibb.co/N9wfMPW
Here's the TOS bridge:
https://ibb.co/rxycMsC

You'll notice that the ENT bridge looks more advanced than the TOS bridge. Do you think that's because, maybe, just maybe, even back in 2001-2005 people wouldn't accept a bridge that looked even less advanced than a bridge from the 1960s? If this really was solely a new Trek problem as you claim, then the ENT bridge should look older than the TOS bridge. Yet it doesn't. I wonder why.