I asked how they look more functional and your answer is "because they look like they function". That doesn't tell me anything. The ships in Star Trek were designed by people with extraordinary attention to detail who provide rationale for every detail and create comprehensive blueprints, so you're making a fairly bold claim when you say a generic flying saucer with randomly placed bumps and grooves does a better job at "functional". Why should they say that and not "Team Edward One is King Apples", as per an old phonetic alphabet of the British navy? Like technology, military jargon changes over time and across cultures. Star Trek is about a "United Earth" where no one culture dominates and it takes place in the future. Using that language would unnecessarily tie it to one specific culture and time period.
zar I'm not going to keep arguing with you. If your going to troll can you please go do it somewhere else. You're acting like my whole thread is offensive. Maybe you should read the title and the pre-face first before you start spouting off at the mouth. This is just my idea and I'm not saying anyone elses is stupid. Your automatically assuming that I am saying "this is how it's going to be and that's final". I guess I am talking to a wall.
Really? I'm acting offended? I'm not automatically assuming anything, I'm just offering a reasoned critique. But if you don't want people to think that is your attitude, perhaps you should stop automatically calling everyone who disagrees with you a "troll".
A troll is somone who mocks and provides no constructive contributions to the thread and tends to argue for arguements sake and always say "if you don't want people too......".
^ Ah, so we're in agreement that no one is trolling, then. Okay, I'm confused. Wasn't your rationale for the US Navy inspiration that it would be set in the 21st century? If it's focused on the 25th century, do you still say they should be living in cramped ships and saying "kilo alpha"?
Nononononono No. You said the show should take place over the course of a few centuries, starting with the 21st. Ditching the main cast every time it moved forward, necessitating entirely new props, sets, costumes, vfx and ship designs every time. That is untenable for the writers and the production people. As a writer, I would hate working on that show. No proper time to flesh out my characters, having to suddenly jump forward 25, 50, 100 years every season. And yes, I'm clinging to the 24th century like driftwood, even though I have no problem with ditching the tired trappings and storytelling devices of TNG and it's spinoffs.
SPEKTRE, I'm just gonna be strait-up honest. The problem here is that you were entirely dismissive of everything that's been the sum of Star Trek for a while. It's the reaction you'd get if you chopped off the Chrysler' Building's crown and replaced it with an angular modern steel and glass piece. Too aggressive, too dismissive. You got the same in kind as a response from other users, myself included. Your condescending replies have done very little to help your case. Or calm anyone's nerves.
(sigh) As much as some of you may not like the way he presents them, none of SPEKTRE's proposed changes are off base. I find it especially funny that so many of you seem to object to a US Navy influence on the concept. It's already there. It has been since the show was created. It starts with three little letters: USS. That prefix has appeared before the name on the hull of every Federation Starfleet ship that ever existed, starting with the first one seen on screen: USS Enterprise. And you can argue what it's supposed to mean in-universe (United Space Ship, United Star Ship), but in RL there's only one source it could have been derived from because there's only one organization in the world that includes the prefix before each one of its ships' names: The United States Navy. It's also in the rank structure. While they may not be exclusive to the US Navy, few other navies have the ranks of Lieutenant Commander and Ensign. Most use variations on "Midshipman" for ensign, while they have terms like "SubCommander" or "Captain Lieutanant" for Lieutenant Commander. What ranks does Starfleet use? When asked to explain Enterprise's registry number, Matt Jeffries said the "CC" part of it stood for "Heavy Cruiser." Care to guess which is the only Navy in the world to ever have used the code CC to designate cruisers? The US Navy influence is there. It was intentional, because it is essentially an American show with a mainly American audience and therefore it gives Americans something they can identify with. To object to an increase in US Navy jargon as if it would be a completely new thing is to be ignorant of an influence that's been in your face for forty years.
Finally someone gets it and well said sir. I guess no one know that Gene Roddenberry served in the US Navy and thus it's roots entwined in the show. Most of these guys all immediatelyattacked and dimissed any of my ideas and claim me to be condecending? I would never do that to anyone on here. And Jitty you can express all the opinions you want just try and be constructive (eagerly awaits childish response). I know it's very easy to be 10ft tall and bullet proof online.
All of your ideas? Check my previous replies. You'll find my focus was on storytelling and universe-building ideas. Anything I didn't object to, I ignored. If you must know, the points I agreed with to one extent or another were: #3) For the professionalism aspect. I'm CIVPAC, and never served, and even I can tell that these guys sometimes don't act like professionals. Riker's hissy fit over having to take orders from Jellico for instance. That shit wouldn't even fly in the building from Office Space. #6) Okay, I tore into this one a little, but due to personal bias. The conspiracy people are everywhere on the internet, and every time I see Annunaki or Grey, I go into Troll Mode. That's probably what did it. Anyways, I agree, to some extent. If you are gonna have dudes in masks, take a hint from the new movie, which had some pretty bizarre designs, and also cast people with unique physiques in those roles (like the helmsperson from the Kelvin). CGI aliens could be effective, but also technically demanding. No reason not to try, though. Cryptology team is a good idea, adds an analysis aspect that modern audiences will grok, with CSI and the like being top-viewed TV. #8) Obviously, character development is a must. This is something that TOS, TNG, and DS9 bothered with to some extent, but the rest of the shows didn't really touch. For instance, I have no idea how Harry Kim or Malcom Reed got to where they are in life. They just have a couple of details, but not the full enchilada. Bothering to dispense with this kind of information gives characters depth. #11) This is something that's always seen incongruent. It takes 4 years (!) to get an officer in the fleet, which makes enlisted men all the more important. As I recall, when TNG came on, Roddenberry, or someone at the top decreed that everyone was officers. Maybe that's not a real story, or something someone made up, but I've read it around. In any case, having dedicated away teams also makes sense. Exploring uncharted worlds would require a very specific kind of special ops training, never seen before. They'd need to be scientists, technicians, experts in first contact scenario, but also able to defend themselves in a highly competent fashion.
His ideas fall into two camps: good and irrelevant, meaning, not bad, it just doesn't matter one way or the other. Changing terminology, set design or costuming isn't worth worrying about too much. Those things are aesthetic choices and a number of different choices could work. Continuing with the nonsense technobabble is fine by me. Changing it is also fine. Set design probably needs to veer towards the shiny & new, just for tradition's sake, but you could get away with more grunge in a pre-23rd C show. The pajama look for costumes is well established. If you wanted to rationalize it, you could explain away the fabric as being amazingly high tech, phaser resistant or whatever. Discussions here tend to obsess over trivialities while avoiding the monster question of: why would CBS Studios take a chance on Star Trek at all? Adding Navy terminology isn't going to address that question in the least.
SPEKTRE76, apparently you think "getting it" and "being constructive" mean "agreeing with me". Jitty, Randy, and I all gave reasoning for our opinions, but all we get in response is name-calling. You don't really seem interested in two-way discussion. Rod's Navy background is already well-known. However the fact that some of its influence is there isn't sufficient rationalization for adding more of it everywhere else, especially if it would clash with what is already established.
Ensigns =/= Midshipmen. Ensigns are the lowest rank of commissioned officer in a seagoing service. Midshipmen are cadets from a naval academy, not even an officer yet. And nearly ALL navies have Lieutenant Commander and Ensign as ranks. You've got everything backwards here. Please, try again.
Wrong. Roddenberry served in the US Army Air Corps, now the US AIR FORCE. From http://www.roddenberry.com/corporate-gene-biography : Thank you for playing, please try again.
There are in America's military 1.4 million active duty, 1.5 million in the reserves, 460 thousand in the guard, also 20 million military veterans. Plus tens of millions of military family members. These people understand things like rank structure and the organizations in general. These people are a part of the Star Trek audience. You first. It depends on the nation. While a midshipman isn't always a commissioned officer, sometimes they are. In the Royal New Zealand Navy, midshipman is the lowest commissioned officer rank. Google can provide you with other examples. And by nearly all, you mean four? With the exception of America and Canada, the navies of the Americas use corvette captain. In Europe (excepting UK and Ireland) it either corvette captain or captain lieutenant.
Another cookie for the ancient aliens bits. Heck, some of TOS had that concept, too, Apollo being one example. Also, with head officers doing some of the more hands on work can be useful, since guys like Kirk and Picard did that stuff for quite awhile before becoming captains. Picard takng the Enterprise out of the Menthar booby trap put a smile on my face.