Why do you dislike my ideas?
Because it's different from what you're used to?
You don't like change?
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Because it's different from what you're used to?
You don't like change?
That bluescreen filming clip is from Where No Man Has Gone Before, and it's among the amazing outtake footage on the Roddenberry Vault blu-ray released back in 2016... which a lot more folks need to see.So just for my own sake, I just did a quick bit of searching and it does not appear that the Bridge Window made it to filming on The Cage, but the studio model was originally built with one.
It's not about logical ships either.
Which goes against the onscreen evidence of the bridge not being in any more danger than other positions on the ship. We see shields up and damage to engineering, and shaking the hull, and causing on physical damage. Seems like the evidence points towards the shields are essential not just placement of structures based on what we've seen.
But, the argument made against the window is that view screens have worked great in TOS, TNG, and VOY, and only after Abrams did we see a window. Well, by extension, we have seen the bridges function just fine, and not be destroyed except 3 instances over hundreds of episodes.
Would not the logic of the argument for the view screen extend to the bridge on top? That it just works?
Ahh, so without going to look myself, did the window make it the actual episode?!
Your "world building" is so mired in technical minutiae that it doesn't really present anything you could write a story around.
I think you look at Star Trek entirely from an analytical point of view. You never consider anything about the emotional or personal side of the franchise.
Star Trek under you would be absolutely soulless and devoid of anything that makes it fun.
Then what is it about?
Shields are obviously essential, but whey can't other parts of the fundamental design change for the sake of improvement?
What's stopping it from other than "You don't want to".
The same can be said for any major changes in history.
We went from 4x Engine Airliners to 2x Engine Airliners becoming normal.
Eventually change was had.
Same with most big technological change.
CRT's was fine, but we moved to LCD screens anyways.
CIC's on Modern Naval Combat vessels are buried into the hull as is.
Given that Star Trek has usually followed with Naval Doctrinal change, it's about time that we move out of WW2 era doctrine and started catching up wtih modern Naval Design Doctrine.
Ahh, I knew I remembered seeing it onscreen! So, yet again, Strange New Worlds is honouring the canon!Yup! You can see her glowing in the oft-used stock shot used throughout the series:
Not just you.
Your ideas about where the bridge ought to go aren't changing shit. That ship
Your arguments are not new ones either. Quite the opposite. Bridge vulnerability has been a topic among fans at least since the 1970s. I know. My buddies and I discussed it—at length. (It was probably discussed in the 1960s, but I don't have a citation handy at the moment.)
Please, accept this. Thanks.
I can come up with infinite amount of scenarios to work around the technical minutiae, it isn't a problem.
That's why the Writing Room in ST has the regular writers and the Technical/Scientific Staff are seperate to handle Technical & Scientific writing.
You split up the work load based on what each writer focuses/specializes on.
And nobody in the current side looks at Trek from the analytical PoV, that's it's main issue IMO.
There are plenty of logical flaws based on what has already occured in universe that doesn't make sense.
Also plenty of past lore that should've been more ground breaking & world changing that gets ignored for the sake of plot convenience.
We have other writers for that. They can come up with the Emotion / Drama needed for the inter-personal conflict or storyline conflict.
That's not what I care about.
Technically Competent Shows have plenty of soul & fun.
Just watch other shows that do it well.
Gundam & Macross always has great Technical aspects to it with a Wealth of Technical Detail.
Those are legendary franchises as well with a giant fan base.
Star Wars has plenty of technical detail for those who care to dive into it.
Star Trek already has a lot of technical detail for those who care.
If you don't care to dive into the technology, that's up to you.
But for those who care, I'm there to help sort things out.
I can leave the big storyline ars, the interpersonal relationship drama to other main storyline writers.
That's not where I care to focus about.
I care about the Technology & World Building side.
Think of me as the D&D Core Rule Book.
Then we can have the main writers craft the story around the World Structure & Rules I setup for the adventure you'll go on.
Hell, Andrew Probert tried the argument of putting the Bridge further inside the ship when he was designing the Enterprise-D, which ended up leading to the Battle Bridge concept.
Sounds to me like you just don't like Star Trek. I mean, you haven't even seen The Original Series.
We thought StarShips would always have Pylons, but that changed in DISCO once they moved forward in time to the 32nd century.
Same with having a neck, there was no Neck for most StarShips moving into the 32nd century.
Things can always change in the future.
What is common now can always change in newer iterations of the show.
There is a big difference between a science consultant and a staff writer.
Science consultants like Harvey Lynn aren't the reason we remember TOS sixty years later. It's the work of Gene Roddenberry, DC Fontana, Gene Coon, and others are why we're still here discussing this stuff. Stories and characters matter, not the technical manual.
Really, you're going to keep bringing this up?
Plenty of modern Trek Fans haven't gone back to watch TOS for whatever reason.
Doesn't make them any less of a fan.
If that's your critieria for being a "Trekkie", than that's a narrow minded gate-keeping PoV.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are A LOT of younger than you Trekkies who grew up on the TNG Technical Manual and are that type of Trek Nerd.
I'm not the only one out there, there are plenty of us amongst the fan base.
Different strokes for different folks.
Why do you think there are so many Star Trek YT channels that LOVE talking about the technical minutiae of Star Trek.
We are one of those major sub-sets within the Trek Fandom.
You may not like it, but we are part of the Trek Collective for better or worse.
How about, no?
Thank you!Hell, Andrew Probert tried the argument of putting the Bridge further inside the ship when he was designing the Enterprise-D, which ended up leading to the Battle Bridge concept.
Franz Joseph's blueprints had an emergency bridge in the center of the saucer (there's a non-anecdotal citation from the 1970s), and a bridge in the secondary hull.
FWIW, TOS also had auxiliary control.
You absolutely don't need to have seen The Original Series to be a Star Trek fan. There's no requirements at all to be a Trekkie.
But if you're going to go online and preach that you're some kind of Trek expert, I think seeing The Original Series, the series that started it all and is the basis for everything that came after it, is kinda a requirement.
I don't think that makes me a gatekeeper, I think it makes me.... logical.
And by the same token, change can also mean going back to something used in the past, like bridges being placed on the top.
Similar threads
- Locked
