Poll Are You Satisfied? (Season Finale Spoilers)

[The Memetic Susurrus]

As opposed to all these "earned" moments?

...and they all equally reeked of pathetic attempts to show that it was all a shared universe. Heresy, I know, but I cannot help but think there are very few--if any--episodes or movies where it didn't feel forced when they did something like the above.

So, yeah, I essentially agree that it was "unearned" in that it didn't feel organic to the story. It was tacked on. And it stretched credulity that the Discovery and the Enterprise were in the same sector, in roughly the same area. Just...cheesy.

But, hey, I liked the design, so...that should account for something.

Now...I don't want to see it again. Discovery should rise or fall on its own.

 

[Hythlodeus]

And it stretched credulity that the Discovery and the Enterprise were in the same sector, in roughly the same area.

Maybe the Enterprise transfered whoever the new captain of the Disco is to Vulcan.
But I don't think it is extremely unbelievable that Starfleet ordered all of their ships back to the core of Federation space at the end of the Klingon war, so it makes sense most of the ships would be somewhere between Earth, Andor, Vulcan and Telar, just having finished their mission defending the core worlds

 

[The Memetic Susurrus]

Maybe the Enterprise transfered whoever the new captain of the Disco is to Vulcan.
But I don't think it is extremely unbelievable that Starfleet ordered all of their ships back to the core of Federation space at the end of the Klingon war, so it makes sense most of the ships would be somewhere between Earth, Andor, Vulcan and Telar, just having finished their mission defending the core worlds

That's an interesting hypothesis and I could just about buy it, but...wouldn't you think that you'd want a couple of heavy cruisers on the (newly reestablished and regarrisoned) border? Heck, if I were Starfleet, I'd have all that I could spare running that line, not knowing whether or not this very delicate dance that L'Rell was attempting to do would suss out.

But, having said that, I could buy your idea.

 

[Hythlodeus]

That's an interesting hypothesis and I could just about buy it, but...wouldn't you think that you'd want a couple of heavy cruisers on the (newly reestablished and regarrisoned) border? Heck, if I were Starfleet, I'd have all that I could spare running that line, not knowing whether or not this very delicate dance that L'Rell was attempting to do would suss out.

But, having said that, I could buy your idea.

I agree, but remember: you have 12 Connies at that time. You can still have one or two Connies per core world and still have the rest of them near the Klingon border

 

[AlanC9]

Naw man, read that again. It's not about the color itself. It's about the combination of colors. Having only one(!) glowy thing on a nacelle (the connie) is okay. Having multiple glowy things who's colors fit with each other - also okay (see the Discovery herself). Having the majority of your engine being illuminated like a christmas tree with wildly different colors (red+blue) = does not look very good.

Oh, I read it. I just didn't understand it. The supposed clash didn't exist for me. Still doesn't. I'll pull the scene up again and squint at it a bit. Maybe I'll see it this time.

And she will again. As long as there is Star Trek, the original Connie will appear in one form or another (and be it only a model or a picture). And they will ALWAYS reference the original one - the 60s studio model - and never any of the newer re-designs... Just look how fast everyone forgot about the JJprise. Already vanished as if she never existed. The DIS-Enterprise awaits the same fate.

Um... sure. Future versions will always redesign the Connie to match whatever look the new show has. They weren't going to base the DSC Connie on the JJ Connie. Why play telephone?

 

[fireproof78]

So, yeah, I essentially agree that it was "unearned" in that it didn't feel organic to the story. It was tacked on. And it stretched credulity that the Discovery and the Enterprise were in the same sector, in roughly the same area. Just...cheesy.

Half of TOS and TNG plots revolve around the Enterprise being the "only ship" in the sector. TMP is a whole movie based on the idea!

But, the Discovery meeting up with another ship appropriate to the time line? Apparently ridiculous...

 

[CaptainMurdock]

another ship

It sure lives up to it's reputation of being the only ship in the sector.

 

[lawman]

No amount of lighting changes nor special effects will make the TOS Enterprise, especially the interior, look like it's from anywhere other than 1960's sci-fi.

And yet, it worked absolutely beautifully in 2005 in ENT's "IAMD."

I’m just chuffed they said “The Enterprise”, and not “it’s Enterprise”. Let’s nip that nonsense in the bud right now.

Umm... why? Most ship names take a definite article...

 

[Wowbagger]

Remember when everyone went to see The Force Awakens, but then stormed out of the theater because the producers had decided to faithfully reproduce a bunch of outdated, low-budget sets from literally the 1970s instead of updating them to reflect modern design sensibilities?

Fans and casuals alike hated the un-refurbished Millennium Falcon most of all, of course, which was probably the nail in the coffin that made Disney Star Wars the financial failure it is today.

 

[Butters]

Umm... why? Most ship names take a definite article...

Because for the entirety of Voyager and Enterprise, this particular convention was all but forgotten.

 

[lawman]

Because for the entirety of Voyager and Enterprise, this particular convention was all but forgotten.

And, so? Are you suggesting the current series should take its cues from the shows held in lowest regard across the entire history of the franchise? Ship names (most of them, not just Enterprise) just sound better in a sentence when they have a definite article.

 

[Butters]

And, so? Are you suggesting the current series should take its cues from the shows held in lowest regard across the entire history of the franchise? Ship names (most of them, not just Enterprise) just sound better in a sentence when they have a definite article.

No. I’m saying that the definite article is necessary, and that it sounds wrong without it. Mostly.

There are exceptions. “Kirk to Grissom, this is Enterprise calling” is ok.

“See you back onboard Enterprise” is entirely wrong.

I think we’re in agreement.

 

[Jesse1066]

USS Enterprise (CVN-65) is rarely if ever referred to as "the Enterprise." If it is, it's a mistake. Voyager 1 isn't referred to as "the Voyager." Voyager and Enterprise were just taking cues from the real world. It's the other shows that got it wrong.

 

[lawman]

No. I’m saying that the definite article is necessary, and that it sounds wrong without it. Mostly.

There are exceptions. “Kirk to Grissom, this is Enterprise calling” is ok.

“See you back onboard Enterprise” is entirely wrong.

I think we’re in agreement.

Oh. Wait. I see.

"Chuffed" is a British-ism that's uncommon in the American vernacular, and I was under the impression that it meant something akin to "annoyed" or "pissed off." A little Googling reveals that I was wrong, and it actually means pretty much the exact opposite, something akin to "pleased."

We are indeed in agreement, then! Mea culpa. Nothing to see here, folks, move along...

 

[Hythlodeus]

And yet, it worked absolutely beautifully in 2005 in ENT's "IAMD."

that really depends on how one defines "worked" or "beautifully"

 

[Tuskin38]

The Connie working in IAMD is opinion not fact

I loved seeing the Connie in IAMD, it worked fine for what they were doing, a homage.

DSC isn’t a homage, and we’re probably going to see the Connie for more then two episodes

 

[Tuskin38]

Remember when everyone went to see The Force Awakens, but then stormed out of the theater because the producers had decided to faithfully reproduce a bunch of outdated, low-budget sets from literally the 1970s instead of updating them to reflect modern design sensibilities?

Fans and casuals alike hated the un-refurbished Millennium Falcon most of all, of course, which was probably the nail in the coffin that made Disney Star Wars the financial failure it is today.

That is completely different. Star Wars is a lot more detailed and the original designs were made on a lot larger budget and hold up.

Star Wars was also not meant to portray our future

 

[Butters]

Oh. Wait. I see.

"Chuffed" is a British-ism that's uncommon in the American vernacular, and I was under the impression that it meant something akin to "annoyed" or "pissed off." A little Googling reveals that I was wrong, and it actually means pretty much the exact opposite, something akin to "pleased."

We are indeed in agreement, then! Mea culpa. Nothing to see here, folks, move along...

My fault really. I forget that not everyone on the internet grew up in a Yorkshire mining village in the 1970s. I should take more care with my colloquialisms.

 

[lawman]

The Connie working in IAMD is opinion not fact...

Star Wars is a lot more detailed and the original designs were made on a lot larger budget and hold up...

Sort of an ironic conjunction of posts here. In one you insist that the visuals worked in "IAMD" is mere opinion. In the very next one you assert (as if empirical fact!) that the designs from Star Wars "hold up" better.

I'll agree with the former point, with the proviso that it's a very widely held opinion and one that I think is extremely defensible in any reasonable comparison with other ship visuals in that episode, in ENT more broadly, or elsewhere in Trek canon.

But I must observe that the latter point is every bit as much an opinion, and one with which I emphatically disagree; ship designs in Star Wars have literally never looked either plausible or attractive to me. (And they are only "more detailed" if you consider inscrutable greebles to be relevant "detail," as compared to the carefully thought-out functionality of Matt Jefferies' designs for Trek.)

As a side note, what do you mean when you describe "IAMD" as an "homage"? It was a regular (pair of) episode(s) in the series, entirely canonical, and intended to be taken just as seriously as any other. It holds up just fine in terms of plot and characterization — indeed, IMHO better than much of the rest of ENT. What do you consider the defining characteristics of an homage to be, and what do you imagine the implications of that status are as compared to any other episodes?

 

[RobertoRossUK]

TOS screams 60s and Star Wars screams 70s, nothing about either of them "holds up" lol. They're both just nostalgia!