"Choose Your Pain" Klingon ship (Visual spoilers?)

[Tuskin38]

No, hell no. That one is owned by paramount

Nope, CBS owns the rights to it.

Or else Star Trek Online and several other CBS licensed products wouldn’t have been able to use it.

Though maybe Paramount reserves the rights to use it in a live action movie. Who knows, we don’t have access to their contract

 

[alex08060]

CBS controls how Star Trek is portrays, the D7 redesign is going to make it to the new movies just like how ‘into the darkness’ influence how the Klingons look like in discovery.

 

[Blamo]

It's either a visual reboot or the ship gets a refit similar to the Constitution class.

 

[cultcross]

Or Starfleet just refer to any Klingon heavy cruiser as a 'D7', meaning perhaps '7th generation'.

 

[Tuskin38]

CBS controls how Star Trek is portrays, the D7 redesign is going to make it to the new movies just like how ‘into the darkness’ influence how the Klingons look like in discovery.

The Klingons in Into Darkness and Discovery look nothing alike.

And no, just because Discovery used this design doesn't mean a possible 4th movie will.

 

[The Wormhole]

I never once believed any of the claims that this show was really going to be the Prime Universe. There was no way this show was going to be consistent with the other Treks, of which are never very consistent to begin with.

That said, it was brain-dead stupid to label a brand new ship design as "D-7." Did they really think that wasn't going to get noticed by the fans?

 

[dahj]

You all misheard, they actually said...

 

[Kor]

So the term "D7" just became a broader category that covers more designs than the specific one we were familiar with.

Big deal.

Kor

 

[Timo]

Everything so far points to "them" being extremely aware of anything and everything relating to "our" sort of fandom. They read their Memory Alpha and browse their Star Charts. And they don't do things for no reason.

What the reason here might be remains to be decided.

But what the fan response should be... Obviously, we rationalize!

Theory one: Starfleet is responsible for the designations, and it probably allocates them in the order of appearance. Could D7 go to two different categories of ship in one and the same timeline? Such things have happened ITRW, with NATO having to adjust its code names when it turns out two "distinct" Warsaw Pact designs are in fact one and the same, or one design in fact is two.

Theory two: These are Klingon designations, and Starfleet intel on them is sketchy at this point. They erred, and this is actually the D-17. Simple enough.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I can accept that they changed the Klingons visually. But I will never accept that they changed the Klingon D7 visuals. NEVER!

 

[Gonzo]

I can accept that they changed the Klingons visually. But I will never accept that they changed the Klingon D7 visuals. NEVER!

I can live with it I just don't understand why they would do it when they visually updated Starfleet's ships and kept them recognisable.

I don't see any advantage in doing it and the Klingon ships just look like a mess.

It probably means the Romulans ships will be similar as we know the Romulans and Klingons shared technology during this time period.

 

[XCV330]

Possible too that Klingon ship classifications could be based around their inner workings with the rest modular, say a D7 engine/warp field generator. Replace tube/bridge section/nacelle-ish bits as necessary.

That could also explain how a Connie/Refit Connie remains the same ship.

It's a stretch, I know. Just an idea I head.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Sorry I'm late; I brought the cue cards, but you'll have to work out amongst yourselves who's taking which line(s) in this re-staging...

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN SAYING THIS IS A D-7 KLINGON SHIP! IT'S A D-6!"

"NO, YOU IDIOT, THE D-6 HAS FOUR DOORS OVER HERE AND THE D-7 ONLY HAS TWO!"

"NO, NO, NO—IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. YOU'VE GOT IT ALL WRONG."

"WHAT ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT? THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR!"

"COME ON FELLOWS, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER. LET'S GET ON WITH THE SCENE."

"HEY, TIME IS NOT THAT SERIOUS. RELAX A LITTLE."

 

[GilmourD]

Yeah. Different for the sake of just being different is often the excuse of both the lazy and the inconsiderate. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. The JJ films proved you could tweak and slightly upgrade the Klingon aesthetic and still keep the basic Prime timeline feel and shapes of ships, weapons and body armor. The D7 battle cruiser in the Kelvin timeline is largely identical to the D7s and K't'ingas we've seen in other parts of the franchise. This thing is...well, it's sure as heck not a D7 battle cruiser.

And the JJ films are in a whole different timeline where you COULD go "Oh, different timeline. Things changed!"

It's one of two scenarios:

1. Somebody/everybody is lying to us
2. Nobody knows what they're talking about

 

[Kor]

When did we ever see Kelvin-verse D7s?

Kor

 

[GilmourD]

Constitiution-class is going to be like the one in the new movies.

That would be closer to classic designs than anything else in STD.

 

[GilmourD]

Retrofitted Kelvin ships with more TOS style engines and scaled down a bit. The USS Kelvin was never the problem with ST'09. People liked that part of it. It was always the Enterprise itself that people had issues with.

And my issues were more in the refined design, not the design lineage. If everything in Discovery looked like it could be related to the JJVerse I'd have zero complaints.

 

[Tuskin38]

When did we ever see Kelvin-verse D7s?

Kor

Not close up, but they were in the Kobayashi Maru test. Though they were called Warbirds in dialogue.

 

[Kor]

Not close up, but they were in the Kobayashi Maru test. Though they were called Warbirds in dialogue.

Ah yes, I can't believe I forgot that.

Kor

 

[GilmourD]

When did we ever see Kelvin-verse D7s?

Kor

Not close up, but they were in the Kobayashi Maru test. Though they were called Warbirds in dialogue.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies