Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology

[DSG2k]

You know, you can believe whatever bullshit you like. I can't change your mind. But that doesn't make it true. Moving on.

It is not that my mind cannot be changed, but, to quote the good captain, "you must convince me."

He went on to say, "if I had irrefutable evidence ... but you did not bring irrefutable evidence." And, just like the defector to whom he spoke, it's very difficult to take your side's position seriously when you guys try to dance on both sides of evidence and reason, flip-flopping between demand for pixel precision in one breath while dismissing every single pixel on-screen as merely today's simulacrum (replacing yesterday's) in the next.

Pick a consistent side, folks. Most of you have crossed over to rejection of pre-2017 visual evidence, if not visual evidence altogether, prima facie. Make yourselves comfortable with that, and drop any pretense to the contrary.

 

[Dukhat]

I think everyone has stopped caring what you think. We can move on now.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Pick a consistent side, folks.

We're not acting as a group. My posts are as consistent as I can make them according to my own understanding.

We can move on now.

I'm 100% cool with that. Let's!

 

[Tomalak]

Close enough for artistic representation. Certainly it matches the other relative scales I showed.

Sure, relative. The artistic intent is to show some ships called Enterprise, and that D is bigger than C, which is bigger than B, etc. it wasn't broken when they later invented the NX-01, and it's not broken when SNW enlarged the Enterprise.

Again, I'm not claiming there isn't a retcon - obviously there is, but there always have been.

I get that for many fans this is a retcon too far, because there was a 50-yeat cottage industry of fans writing books and websites all around the TOS Enterprise being 289m. It's rather ironic that the only time that "fact" appeared on screen was in an episode of Discovery that immediately contradicted it.

 

[DSG2k]

I think everyone has stopped caring what you think. We can move on now.

{...}

We're not acting as a group.

{...}

I'm 100% cool with that. Let's!

Y'know, I wasn't trying to accuse y'all of groupthink, here, just challenging the members of a like-minded group (which is a different concept) en masse. That said, the "we" talk above almost makes me wish I had been aiming in the other direction . . . I couldn't have asked for a creepier demonstration.

However, I am not trying to infuriate, but illuminate. I'll give as good as I get, of course, and rescalers tend to get very upset when their bubble is poked, but that isn't a good reason to leave the nonsense unchallenged. Indeed, the tracing of the standard arguments and contradictions ... no matter how the individual got snookered initially ... is quite helpful.

 

[HotRod]

{...}

{...}


Y'know, I wasn't trying to accuse y'all of groupthink, here, just challenging the members of a like-minded group (which is a different concept) en masse. That said, the "we" talk above almost makes me wish I had been aiming in the other direction . . . I couldn't have asked for a creepier demonstration.

However, I am not trying to infuriate, but illuminate. I'll give as good as I get, of course, and rescalers tend to get very upset when their bubble is poked, but that isn't a good reason to leave the nonsense unchallenged. Indeed, the tracing of the standard arguments and contradictions ... no matter how the individual got snookered initially ... is quite helpful.

Your posts are full of theatrics about “illuminating nonsense,” but still short on actual evidence. You keep demanding “irrefutable proof” from everyone else while presenting none yourself, just accusations about “rescalers” and supposed contradictions.

If the goal is a serious discussion, the standard should apply equally. So far, this reads more like performance than argument.

 

[DSG2k]

Sure, relative. The artistic intent is to show some ships called Enterprise, and that D is bigger than C, which is bigger than B, etc.

Bingo.

it wasn't broken when they later invented the NX-01, and it's not broken when SNW

Again, I'm not claiming there isn't a retcon - obviously there is, but there always have been.

This is true. There will always be retcons just as surely as there will always be things left out. Even single authors -- with editors backing them and fans pestering them -- forget details, or decide to include something without working out the impact, et cetera. Meanwhile, by the end of the Berman era, it was forty years of various productions, each the work of many, many hands. The fact any of it hung together at all was remarkable, the fact it meshes rather well a miracle, but it was also no accident. The willingness to discard that effort and the continuity it resulted in, a continuity that brought so many so much deeper into Trek in the first place, is just . . . ugh.

I get that for many fans this is a retcon too far, because there was a 50-yeat cottage industry of fans writing books and websites all around the TOS Enterprise being 289m.

That's exactly why some rescalers like to do what they do. It's the same elitist secret-knowledge thrill folks get with conspiracy theories ... generating them or buying into them. "289 meters? That's just what they want you to believe! I know better than the little minds who can't get past that!"

For most folks, noticing that a set piece or matte painting doesn't match the model is just an error, either a typical Hollywood mistake (just as might occur when a sitcom house interior doesn't match the exterior establishing shot) or perhaps an intentional cost-saving (like Michelson's Follies regarding the Rec Deck), or just something to ease production (like a standing height TOS shuttle interior).

For rescalers, however, it's evidence that shuttle fuel can't melt duranium beams . . . but when pressed over the inconsistencies that line of thinking would bring, it's suddenly all "James R. Kirk! TMP Klingons!", et cetera. But if everything is a YATI, why not their evidence, real or imagined? Why must consistency itself be attacked? (That, too, is not dissimilar to conspiracist argument.)

Where folks have found genuine, significant errors, congrats . . . but even then, there are fewer of those than claimed.

 

[DSG2k]

Your posts are full of theatrics about “illuminating nonsense,” but still short on actual evidence. You keep demanding “irrefutable proof” from everyone else while presenting none yourself, just accusations about “rescalers” and supposed contradictions.

If the goal is a serious discussion, the standard should apply equally. So far, this reads more like performance than argument.

This posturing is a ballsy move from the guy who _just tried to dismiss scale shown directly on-screen_, readable years before the HD remasters as _demonstrated in previous discussions_ you're conveniently forgetting.

You also _just tried to dismiss the relative scales shown in diagrams by tossing up obviously un-scaled diagrams_ as if relevant.

As I said earlier, you were all "show me evidence ... no, no, not that evidence!", and now you're pretending none has been shown?

Sorry, the posturing isn't very convincing. It looks to me as if you saw me not post a supporting image in like twelve seconds so figured that would be a usable attack vector.

It wasn't.

 

[Dukhat]

The SNW Enterprise isn’t going to turn into the TOS Enterprise. Yay, we are back on topic now.

 

[Tomalak]

Honestly I'm not so sure. With everything going on at Paramount, it's extremely unlikely that the producers' proposed Year One spin-off happens.

So I could absolutely see them ending it with Paul Wesley striding onto the bridge of the refitted Enterprise, which turns out to be the one from the sixties. There's nothing to stop them.

 

[Hellbird]

They'll straighten the struts to make Stuart Foley happy.

 

[Tomalak]

Ha, yeah a TOS-ified version is probably more likely. Balls on the nacelle ends, maybe a flatter hull texture etc.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

The SNW Enterprise isn’t going to turn into the TOS Enterprise.

But maybe it will.

 

[Dukhat]

Honestly I'm not so sure. With everything going on at Paramount, it's extremely unlikely that the producers' proposed Year One spin-off happens.

So I could absolutely see them ending it with Paul Wesley striding onto the bridge of the refitted Enterprise, which turns out to be the one from the sixties. There's nothing to stop them.

But maybe it will.

That would go against everything that the aesthetic of the show has been portraying. Is Uhura going to sport a beehive hairdo in the final episode as well? Are they really going to build an entire TOS bridge set for just one episode before they have to tear it back down?

As has been stated already, SNW is a visual reinterpretation of TOS. The goal of the showrunners is not to segue it into the TOS aesthetic by the end. They're going to have enough problems just trying to end the show with the truncated six episodes CBS gave them.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

They don't have to build anything, as just showing the outside of the TOS ship at the end would do all the work. And it wouldn't even invalidate the idea that SNW is a visual reinterpretation.

 

[Tomalak]

That would go against everything that the aesthetic of the show has been portraying. Is Uhura going to sport a beehive hairdo in the final episode as well?

Why not? Her hair as changed already from the very close crop in season 1.

Are they really going to build an entire TOS bridge set for just one episode before they have to tear it back down?

I doubt it. Maybe they'll spend a day at Ticonderoga.

You're probably right, I just don't think it should be ruled out as a possibility, because this show and this era more generally, loves a call-back.

 

[Dukhat]

I think you guys are going to be very disappointed if you think that's what's going to happen.

 

[Tomalak]

I think you guys are going to be very disappointed if you think that's what's going to happen.

I don't think it *will* happen, and I don't actually *want* it to.

I just don't think it can be ruled out.

If you'd told me that PIC S3 would end with the TNG crew on the Enterprise-D fighting a Borg cube, I would have thought you were an idiotic fanboy. If you'd told me the Enterprise finale would have been a TNG episode, I'd have thought the same.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

I think you guys are going to be very disappointed if you think that's what's going to happen.

Strange New Worlds exists to disappoint me.

 

[Dukhat]

I suppose the question would be why they would actually do something like that. Are they really all that concerned about making the visuals of SNW look like a carbon copy of TOS by the final episode, just to please some TOS purists who probably hate the show anyway?