Cage-SNW-TOS Enterprise

[B.J.]

I love big ships.

And you cannot lie?

 

[Dukhat]

And you cannot lie?

Damn, you beat me to the punch.

 

[Ithekro]

We know Scotty has a thing for ample nacelled starships.

 

[Dukhat]

Except when they decided Terry Farrell didn't look pretty with the Trill make up TNG established and painted Famke Janssen's non-Trill dots on her instead.

It had nothing to do with how 'pretty' she looked. The makeup department indeed tried to use similar prosthetics that Janssen used to keep continuity with the Trills we saw in 'The Host,' but they just couldn't make it look right on Farrell's face. So they opted to break with the continuity for the sake of a makeup change that worked better for her. But they weren't consciously trying to go against the established Trill look in TNG.

Which is why I personally ascribe it to "Marketing" - a loud and probably numerically significant portion of the dedicated fanbase wants everything to queue up nicely into a single future history...

I don't think it was as much about what the fanbase wanted as it was the skewed logic of the CBSAA marketing department, who seemed to think that if they couldn't tie their show into the original '60's TOS continuity, nobody would watch it. So they made the claim that 'it all fits! Trust us!' And then proceeded to produce a show that looks and feels nothing like TOS.

Although in my headcanon, I do use the lines (if not the size) of the SNW Enterprise as the Republic-class predecessor to the Constitution-class.

The Discoprise sure does look more like a mid-point between the NX class and the TOS Constitution class rather than THE Constitution class to me. So if my mid-point ship is what you're describing as a Republic class ship, then I would agree with you.

 

[David cgc]

Going back to Saavik, we need a thread with pictures and diagrams to figure out Saavik's canon bra size.

I'm looking up actor heights for my White Star model (since I want to have crew in the little rooms I've made behind the windows and getting it right is easier than guessing who should be really tall and who should be really short). I happened to click through from the Google results to www.celebheights.com and saw discussions of comparative scale that seemed weirdly familiar.

 

[DSG2k]

That just means you pick whatever you like best.

I leave that approach to others.

don't act like you're somehow preaching an objective truth.

There are reasonable approaches, and there are unreasonable approaches. If there were an objective truth associated with a fictional starship, the reasonable approach would be naturally superior.

As a thought experiment, if we were from 1700 and trying to figure out the size of a Cold War Soviet sub based on the sets and visual effects of some 1960s American TV show, I have no doubt that there would be some ceilings that were too high, some scenes against a fake tower that didn't match the actual curvature so looked flat, et cetera.

If we give the slightest thought to production realities based on experience with plays, these things are easily understood.

If we, instead, try to pretend that everything we see is absolute 100% documentary and damn the contradictions, just let me embiggen!, then sure, you'll end up with Soviet subs a mile long.

A period piece is by definition set in an earlier real life period.

That may have been the original meaning, but the term is no longer that limited.

"Wild, Wild West" in its various incarnations is considered a period piece despite the science-fiction bits in its "historical period". You wouldn't just plop a modern laptop computer into that setting, even given the divergence.

Star Wars: Rogue One has been referred to as a "period piece" and a "science fiction period piece" . . . and is set in a completely fictional "historical period".

An established imaginary future . . . especially one that has been shown repeatedly and faithfully as the past of incarnations set later in the same fictional universe . . . is certainly a period piece. We can quibble over adding adjectives (e.g. "Star Trek period piece" or "fictional future period piece" or similar, versus a reboot or "reimagine"), but to reject the term outright seems improper given the commonality of meaning.

Put simply, it's a good terminology, and the ship has long-since sailed.

Except when they decided Terry Farrell didn't look pretty with the Trill make up TNG established and painted Famke Janssen's non-Trill dots on her instead. Or when the Defiant changed size randomly and also shape whenever they switched from the physical to the cgi model or when the Galaxy class got a fat saucer when they used the 4 footer and don't even get me started in the ever changing Bird of Prey size. And what about Worf's forehead?

The only one of those that was intentional was the Trill change, unless you count the "dramaturgical" rescalings of David Stipes. That means he was actively rejecting maintaining a consistent scale, and so his contributions, like Michelson's Folly, ought to be ignored.

Changes can happen.

A sufficient number of changes, or changes of sufficient import, tend to result in folks either acknowledging that there is no continuity to be had or recognizing that multiple continuities exist (made very much easier when the production staff say so).

 

[UssGlenn]

It had nothing to do with how 'pretty' she looked. The makeup department indeed tried to use similar prosthetics that Janssen used to keep continuity with the Trills we saw in 'The Host,' but they just couldn't make it look right on Farrell's face. So they opted to break with the continuity for the sake of a makeup change that worked better for her. But they weren't consciously trying to go against the established Trill look in TNG.

It wasn't that it didn't look right. Terry Farrel has extremely sensitive skin. She physically can't wear prosthetics. Its why Klingon expert Dax didn't get altered to look like a Kingon in Apocalypse Rising.

 

[Firebird]

That may have been the original meaning, but the term is no longer that limited.

According to whom? Merriam-Webster defines "period piece" as a work whose special value lies in its evocation of a historical period.

As Star Trek is not documenting a time in history that has or will ever happen, it's therefore not a period piece.

 

[Dukhat]

It wasn't that it didn't look right. Terry Farrel has extremely sensitive skin. She physically can't wear prosthetics. Its why Klingon expert Dax didn't get altered to look like a Kingon in Apocalypse Rising.

That's all fine. However, it doesn't change my point that they tried to utilize the original TNG Trill prosthetic to maintain continuity with "The Host," when that point was being interpreted by someone as DS9 not trying to maintain continuity with TNG.

 

[DSG2k]

According to whom? Merriam-Webster {...}

Let me stop you there. Language evolves and dictionaries try to keep up. That is the order of things.

I have referenced multiple uses of the term as I described. That's how it is used in the world. You don't have to like it. It has long been said that dictionaries take ten years to catch up . . . some words take longer. Bill Bryson, in "Made in America", tells this tale:

Curiously, although everyone refers to the object as a light bulb, few dictionaries do. The American Heritage (first edition) has [...] no light bulb. If you wish to know what that object is, you must look under incandescent light, electric light or electric lamp. Funk & Wagnalls Revised Standard Dictionary devotes 6,500 words to light and its derivatives, but again makes no mention of light bulb. Webster's Second New International similarly makes no mention of light bulb. The third edition does - although it has just this to say: "light bulb n: incandescent lamp". {...}
{Chapter 6, We're in the Money: The Age of Invention, p. 118}

There were dictionaries with "light bulb" or "lightbulb" before 1969 (American Heritage (first edition)) and 1934 (Webster's Second New International), but the fact that there also weren't should adequately cover this point.

 

[Firebird]

"That's how it's used in the world" is just a nebulous way to handwave away providing any conclusive sources.

 

[DSG2k]

"That's how it's used in the world" is just a nebulous way to handwave away providing any conclusive sources.

Do you want links to the uses that I referenced, or do you need some English professor to grant his imprimatur to the use?

Given your dictionary argument, I didn't really see a point in providing links in reply.

 

[UssGlenn]

another vote for Star Trek being a period piece. I've made the comparison before that TOS is Pride and Prejudice to SNW's Bridgerton, stylistically speaking.

 

[Ronald Held]

I cannot see NX-01 design elements being used in the mid 23d century. This a a problem with prequels.