USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

For what it's worth did they ever outright say Beverly Crusher went to Starfleet Medical? Was it ever addressed in dialogue?

I found the Pulaski/Crusher thing most jarring in all my years of watching Trek. Bridge configurations were nothing compared to that.

 

Is it? Have you looked at, say, the Star Destroyer model or Death Star bridge in A New Hope and Rogue One side by side? They're probably more different than you think, and the originals definitely look cheaper than you remember.

Since they went for a prequel, we have to expect and accept that they're not going to make a prequel?

I'll buy that they needed to revise the designs for a modern production. What I don't believe is that what we've gotten is somehow inevitable, or natural, that this is what it'd look like if you brought Matt Jefferies forward in time from 1966 and put him in charge of the art department. If you'll look back a few pages, you'll note my major objections were the areas where the new bridge looked too cheap and retro, cheesier than the original, even. Discovery's visual style has never been very coherent, with itself or with the larger universe. It lacks a theme, a goal, an ethos. You can see the contradictions every week in the opening credits, where the TOS phaser turns into the DSC phaser, and is immediately followed by the TOS communicator. Is it a reimagining or a prequel? Are they updating the designs for modern standards or replacing them with stuff they think looks objectively better? Are earlier installments in the franchise foundational to the story they're telling now, or a campy joke they've outgrown? DSC doesn't need to answer those questions the same way I would, but it should have an answer, and I don't think it does.

 

An even better example, I think, is the D's bridge from Generations. As far as I remember it's never explained in dialogue and it was simply done to make the bridge look better in widescreen.

 

Yeah, they wanted more stuff on the sides of the frame.

 

This explains why Scotty absolutely lost his shit when M-5 did something as innocuous as turn off the lights in an unoccupied part of the ship. Starfleet must have been super ultra paranoid about even automatic power saving.

Gives a new perspective to multitronic units one through four being, in the words of Dr. Daystrom, "not entirely successful"

 

Season Two, Episode One: “The Child”

Other episodes reflecting Doctor Crusher’s time at Starfleet Medical include “Evolution”, “Starship Mine”, and “Unnatural Selection”.

 

Anyone who claims that "But anyone who claims this is an appropriate and respectful reimagination has an awful taste and no sense of Star Trek." isn't an insult has awful interpersonal skills and has no sense of respect for their fellow human.

No offense.

 

They weren't meaningless. I used to run a machine (3890 document sorter) that used the same type of lights to indicate various states and status of the machine.

We may have moved past them, but they worked very well in the real world for a very long time.

 

The bridge chairs and the shape of the viewscreen really throw me. The bridge chairs are weird as they looked to have done a decent update on them for the Shenzhou.

 

No offense taken. I admit I have little respect for other humans and I probably have some kind of superiority complex. I look down at anybody that thinks differently and I admit it.
But I don't take offense if somebody says to me that I don't know Star Trek if I like Voyager more than I like TNG or DS9 (which is not the case).

 

Yes, but that's a change of main character. Not just a hand phaser design.

I don't need to remember. I watch the movies regularily. Yes, they were cheaper, but they're still not particularily futuristic.

...what?

I never said it was inevitable, or natural. I said that it was expected.

I don't recall seeing this objection. It's a silly objection. It doesn't look cheap or retro compared to TOS.

I disagree.

 

The point is I don't think that was addressed in dialogue either. Suddenly she was there, gone, then back.

 

When training Spot, Data was "not entirely successful". It's a sliding scale.

 

Great. Name three differences in either of the two examples I provided. From memory, please, no checking making-of articles or comparing screencaps. Since you know the movies so well, and all.

You said that since they decided to make a show in an established context, we shouldn't expect them to make a show in that context it's being made it. I don't blame you for being confused, it's a confusing idea. "We're going back to the days of Kirk and Spock, but nothing and no one is going to look or act like it did then."

You don't think the helm console is a blatant throwback that's too small and too chunky compared to the rest of the bridge? You don't think the random controls mounted to the ceiling seem silly? You don't think just sticking in the TOS chairs all but unchanged disrupts the coherence of the design?

Would you like to elaborate on that? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know the logic explaining why the phasers should look all but identical to the TOS props, but the warp engines couldn't be round, or why the ships went back-and-forth between '60s and '80s style pinstriping and fonts in the months before the show first came out? I thought the collective makers of the show just didn't know what they wanted, but I'd love to know the mission statement that brings everything together that's so apparent to you.

 

No, I just told you they did address it. Watch the start of season 2.

What difference does it make? Yes, there are minor but relatively obvious differences between the two movies. I know the Death Star bridge is not identical but it's hard to say in what way exactly without looking at pictures to show the comparison. But what's that have to do with anything? And what's with the snark?

You're the one who's confused. I never said that. I think you're extrapolating from your interpretation of what I said. I suggest you stop trying to read between the lines, and simply go with what I actually post.

What I said is that if they make a NEW show, even one set in an established time period, we can expect them to want to make it their own and redesign stuff. You or I might prefer that they didn't, but you know there's a good chance they will. Accepting it allows you to enjoy the show better.

No. You're getting hung on ridiculous, trivial details. Just enjoy the show.

No.

 

Oh, I know. I was just joking. The TOS displays were more interesting than a lot of 24th century Okudagrams.

 

Nah, it made sense to me.

False equivalence, since ears are biological and not a design choice, like technology.

Nope.

I would welcome to see such designs. I love TOS designs and find them futuristic, but I know that my opinion is not shared among those younger than I.

The bridges are modular. I don't need it explained and I am tired of feeling like every silly little change requires an explanation of some kind.

Very much poor way of expressing it. Star Trek means different things to different people, and the fact that individuals have different points of view is to be celebrated, not condemned.

 

I do hope the bridge is part of the usual episode promo pictures next week. Just to stave off the pain of waiting a bit.

 

Look here.

 

So you know it was updated, you can't tell the difference at a casual glance, and it was still of sufficient quality to not be laughed out of the theater. That's my point. It's possible. It can be done. It is not mandatory to totally reinvent the wheel to make modern audiences approve of your throwback nostalgic science fiction production.

That's to say nothing of my suspicions about DSC's audience size. It's entirely possible their retcons and redesigns are catering to a smaller group of die-hards than the faithful updates done back during ENT (I say "possible" because I checked the numbers, and with what little we know, it's too close to call. CBSAA's total subscriber base is currently about twice as many accounts as TVs that watched IAMD first-run, but without knowing how many accounts actually watch DSC, and how many people on average watched either episode in groups on a single account/TV, it's impossible to be sure. If All Access had, I don't know, twenty million subscribers, or we knew DSC specifically had half a million views, I'd be comfortable making a determination).

They say it's a side story of TOS, but they don't make it look that way, and they don't write it that way. So why is it not a remake or reimagining? Why is it not a sequel, or set in the world of the new movies? All the things that they could only get by setting it where and how they did are the things they aren't doing. Why am I supposed to expect that it won't look like TOS, feel like TOS, it act like TOS when they explicitly and emphatically placed it on top of TOS, out of all the possible times and places they could've set the show? Especially with the precedent from other sci-fi franchises (and this one, for that matter) that haven't forgotten that when you're cashing in nostalgia, it helps to actually resemble the thing you're evoking.

What do you think we're talking about? What do you expect to read people's opinions on in the thread about the redesigned Enterprise if not people's opinions on about the redesigned Enterprise? Why do you not expect me to respond by specifying my critiques after you said, "I didn't read what you said, but it was silly"?

Also, while this thread is about the Enterprise specifically and not the show as a whole, it's really condescending to be told that you should relax and enjoy things even when they're bad. I'm not going to gaslight myself into believing the helm console doesn't look dinky to me because you think I shouldn't have opinions about design.