And then in Lower Decks, the Andorians and other aliens are using the same ships and interiors as Enterprise 200 years earlier
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
And photon torpedoes aboard Voyager.
... and too few promotions aboard Voyager!
Harry Kim sobs every night in his quarters while playing his clarinet, wondering when he'll be worthy of another pip.
That's okay. Harry's got the blue check account on X.
Here's a question...
I remember reading that TNG's "Conspiracy" was controversial when it first aired. In the TNG Companion, there was a bit about how some fans felt it was too graphic for Star Trek and not the type of story that the franchise should go towards. And I wonder if that would still be true today? I know Strange New Worlds has kinda gone there again with the Gorn, but is there a point where people think something is "too weird" for Star Trek?
I've spent the weekend watching HBO Max's Scavengers Reign, which is absolutely amazing, and really captures the idea of putting the audience in a "strange new world" with the tension of the unknown around every corner. To me, I think there have been points where Discovery has attempted to show the universe as being weird and wonderous, and I think those moments have been the strongest aspects of the series.
I remember reading that TNG's "Conspiracy" was controversial when it first aired. In the TNG Companion, there was a bit about how some fans felt it was too graphic for Star Trek and not the type of story that the franchise should go towards. And I wonder if that would still be true today? I know Strange New Worlds has kinda gone there again with the Gorn, but is there a point where people think something is "too weird" for Star Trek?
I've spent the weekend watching HBO Max's Scavengers Reign, which is absolutely amazing, and really captures the idea of putting the audience in a "strange new world" with the tension of the unknown around every corner. To me, I think there have been points where Discovery has attempted to show the universe as being weird and wonderous, and I think those moments have been the strongest aspects of the series.
IIRC, it wasn't the fans, it was Roddenberry. Guess someone changed his mind or he was just too stoned to notice what was going on, on his show.
Yes
The USAF's B-52 StratoFortress is > 70 years old & looks to run for up to 100 years and maybe beyond.And then in Lower Decks, the Andorians and other aliens are using the same ships and interiors as Enterprise 200 years earlier
The structural hull can always be updated, if the Androians and other Aliens find a platform / design that works, they can keep on updating the hardware inside to keep up to date.
That's why I expect Klingons, Vulcans, Andorians to update their fundamental designs, but it's generally the same ship type.
That is assuming the same pattern of technological progress as in our century (i.e. electronics advancing at a faster pace than material science).
25 year old electronics is usually so obsolete it would put the military at an unbridgeable disadvantage. A 25 year old airplane frame/hull may be behind the times, but is apparently still adequate enough to many purposes.
What if in the Star Trek future, it's the other way around? - i.e. one century old hulls are completely outdated (e,g. to impressive advances in material science or for example a more advanced understanding of warp geometry would imply completely different hull configurations), but computer technology and other internal equipment technology have hit a wall and only make marginal increments over the decades?
Not saying we actually see any proof of this in Star Trek (I think there's more visual proof of the '100 year old ship hulls are still quite serviceable'), but I think it's important to be open to the possibility, and not blithely assume that the pattern we've seen in this century will hold into the future indefinitely.
Fair enough, the VCF Sh'vhal was a different configuration of the Ring based ships that Vulcans used in the 22nd century.
So all the member world's might have changed many aspects of their internal configurations & hull material to keep up with modernized tech. They just end up looking similar to the past in the same way that StarFleet ships looks similar to their past designs.
Most StarFleet StarShips have Parallel Warp Nacelles, Vulcans have Warp Rings, even into the 24th century and well into the future.
And if I remember PRO correctly even Tellarite vessels constructed after the founding of the Federation still retain a distinct Tellarite look that resembles their ships seen in Season 4 of ENT.
It seems like all member races maintain their general StarShip designs / shapes.
While Humanity's StarFleet merged into UFP's StarFleet.
I like to debate.
I like aggression much less.
Whether or not you’re aware of it, or perhaps because I’m misinterpreting , but your posts, specifically towards myself as late, have an unpleasant tone.
It’s that that I’m not interested in.
As I said, possibly I’m wrong, but your tone is something that needs some work IMO. The quoted post is a prime example.
If I’m wrong about you, tell me so and I’ll accept and apologise.
Well, DSC was not recognizable as taking place in the same continuity as ten years before TOS. If anything, the production values made it look more like a show taking place after the TNG movie era. So I don't think it's a matter of them trying to make their show unrecognizable from Star Trek in general. It's that they weren't good at trying to portray the era their Trek show was supposed to take place in.
That's interesting that the way to convey the 25th century is "Expensive". So the opposite of that is...
Not sure what your point is. 'Expensive' has nothing to do with it. I'm sure the production values for TOS were 'expensive' at the time.
They were. $195,000 a week in 1966 and 1967 dollars bought you a lot of advanced set design for the time.
Similar threads
- Locked
