And it's neither as clever, funny nor ironic as certain people would like to think it is.
Spoilers Star Trek: Starfleet Academy 1x05 – “Series Acclimation Mil”
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
DSC is the perfect acronym anyways. Phonetically it's "disc."
The shows name is Star Trek Discovery(STD). Its using the first letter of each word.
I call Star Trek Picard (STP). Star Trek Voyager (STV).
Last edited:
You are objectively incorrect with all three. That is not how any of the Treks do it.
Thats the way I do it. There is no correct or official way.
For a Star Trek show? Yeah, I do. Because representation in Star Trek is already built-in.
Most media nowadays uses the veil of representation as a mask for their atrocious writing.
Black Panther is a multi-billion dollar IP, so is Avatar, everybody loves those, there are no negative talks about representation in those IPs.
The theater absolutely erupted when Blade slid into frame in D&P. Because it was a great movie and a great way to reintroduce Wesley Snipes' Blade.
Any criticism of SFA however (or DSC a decade ago) whether it's storyline or tech or technical mistakes immediately becomes "OMG you're a racist chud that can't tolerate minorities on your screens!"
Fucking tiresome.
Last decade of Trek has caused us to use a lot more headcanon than the first 50 years of it.
There are no visual differences in DSC-SNW-SFA. I can understand DSC-SNW, but SFA should have had way better treknology than what's being shown.
ENT did a great job at visually distancing itself from the 24th century. The 24th century itself did a great job at showing differences from the 23rd.
DSC - SFA has zero treknological difference visually and it's irritating to say the least.
TOS and TNG have more dialogue than later series. All of 90s Trek is heavier on it than streaming Trek.
You appear to be basing your assertion on how frequently the chatter is interrupted by weapons fire.
No. But a lot of insecure people chose to interpret it that way when the series met heavy early criticism.
This had the predictable effect of causing people who were hostile to the show to double down on using it.
It also alienated folks who resented being accused of nonexistent bad intent simply because their general opinions upset some cheerleaders.
Humans are contrary.
ENT was not great for this. The tech felt the same, and the phrasing by the crew felt just like TNG, with percentages of hull plating and then the hull plating went offline.
The 23rd and 24th started blending together because of set reuse and the absolute cheap ass use of Excelsior models
Great? It was mid at best, and that was initially before it started blending back together.
Wait, is this a serious comment???? The show with the “Akiraprise” and shoulder yokes visually distanced itself from the 24th Century??
Now pull the other leg.
Yes.Wait, is this a serious comment???? The show with the “Akiraprise” and shoulder yokes visually distanced itself from the 24th Century??
Now pull the other leg.
I’m a pretty big Enterprise booster, but come on.
For a Star Trek show? Yeah, I do. Because representation in Star Trek is already built-in.
Most media nowadays uses the veil of representation as a mask for their atrocious writing.
Black Panther is a multi-billion dollar IP, so is Avatar, everybody loves those, there are no negative talks about representation in those IPs.
The theater absolutely erupted when Blade slid into frame in D&P. Because it was a great movie and a great way to reintroduce Wesley Snipes' Blade.
Any criticism of SFA however (or DSC a decade ago) whether it's storyline or tech or technical mistakes immediately becomes "OMG you're a racist chud that can't tolerate minorities on your screens!"
Fucking tiresome.
Last decade of Trek has caused us to use a lot more headcanon than the first 50 years of it.
There are no visual differences in DSC-SNW-SFA. I can understand DSC-SNW, but SFA should have had way better treknology than what's being shown.
ENT did a great job at visually distancing itself from the 24th century. The 24th century itself did a great job at showing differences from the 23rd.
DSC - SFA has zero treknological difference visually and it's irritating to say the least.
Right. I know sime people disagree but STE seemed primitive to me. Plasma tv screens littered all over the bridge, the bridge was tiny, the corridors were small. The ship didnt look comfortable at all. It looked like a naval submarine. There were no food replicators. The transporter was dangerous and not nearly as efficient. No tractor beams. Shield plating held up poorly. Warp was slow. The ship was tiny compared to the tos 1701.
If we go from STE to The Cage to TOS to the TOS movies to TNG to DSN to STV the tech seems to flow well when we look how their look and tech advance. The kurtzman trek retconning the look of The Cage enterprise(which of course retcons the TOS enterprise) and having an advanced Discovery starship in STD throws everything off. The SNW Enterprise and Discovery look more advanced even than the D. They have luxurious and huge quarters even nicer than the D had. Way more advanced viewscreens aa well. The SNW enterprise also had a holodeck. Look at the section 31 movie. We know it probably takes place in the 2320s yet it looks like it tales place in the kurtzman 2250s. The Athena bridge on SFA has the same aesthetic look as the SNW Enterprise bridge. LED strip lighting everywhere and the same bridge design with the railings is back. 900 plus years nothing has changed. We are talking near a millennium and anyone from the 23td century would feel right at home. Scotty only traveled 75 years into the future and he was amazed at the D and frankly was lost. The Discovery crew acclimated very quickly and some are teaching at starfleet academy. 900 years is a lot of time yet they had no problems yet scotty couldn't fathom the tech changes 75 years later in the 24th century. Poor writing and design all around for kurtzman and company. Discovery should have at most went to the late 25th century. Its like the people making kurtzman trek have no idea what the previous shoes looked like.
Last edited:
Yes there is.
They did, in a great many respects. I thought the visual style was refreshing - within the Trek envelope.Wait, is this a serious comment???? The show with the “Akiraprise” and shoulder yokes visually distanced itself from the 24th Century??
Now pull the other leg.
I loved the interior of the NX-01 and the nods to TOS on the exterior. The jumpsuits were good except for the afore mentioned yokes.
ToS and Voy are both official in universe.
The cramped interiors and submarine-like bulkheads in many areas of the ship really helped sell this was a spaceship built between our own time and Kirk's. It was never completely convincing as a starship designed more than a century before TOS, but that's mostly because some of us spent so much time visualizing sphere-hulled Daedalus-class starships as indicative of that time period. So that's on us more than on either Doug Drexler or the producers.
I thought the interiors of the NX-01 were convincing enough to be a starship from a century before Kirk. The art department and set designers did a terrific job there. I personally saw no fault in ENT as far as that aspect.
There is an official way - the studio uses TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC/DIS, PIC, PRO, LD(S), etc SNW, etc.
I agree. I think they pitched ENT as best they could to avoid looking too retro and sixties (they came a cropper a bit when they went to the Defiant) but also lots of things like zippers, loose uniforms, doors on hinges etc. And small, cramped spaces.
I do think the look of the Athena isn't a good match for the era its in. There was a clear aesthetic at SFHQ and on that station where the fella had been waiting to put up the flag for 40 years. And that was a pre-Burrrrrrrrn installation
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll