• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll Does the Discovery look good?

Does the Discovery look good?

  • Yes. It's gorgeous!

    Votes: 94 40.7%
  • No. I find it slightly unappealing.

    Votes: 137 59.3%

  • Total voters
    231
4403c206d1b6cc5b429acb759afaeab6-650-80.jpg


tigh12.jpg


Even a hero ship can be crewed with antagonists.

'Crewed by antagonists' implies a ship openly run by the bad guys, not one plagued with complicated political intrigue that creates a possibility that it might be taken by the bad (or misguided) guys. And I doubt we'll actually see even that on ST, anyway.
 
A rebuild?

Maybe this is the oldest, and last, class of ships taken out of mothballs during the Dominion War.

And the antique was upgraded with scraps/leftovers?
 
Last edited:
'Crewed by antagonists' implies a ship openly run by the bad guys

It doesn't. Which is why I used two primary characters who also stand as the shows lead antagonists on a crew on a ship in space. And even if it does mean the 'bad guys', there's absolutely no reason one of the bad guys can't be a member of the crew, or multiple members of the crew.

Because I originally wrote the phrase using the word 'antagonists,' I can tell you that no, it doesn't. That's why I chose the word. I had no thought to define whether they are good or bad guys.

I'd have chosen the same word to be honest. In the current television market it's just not logical to define anyone as a good or bad guy. Especially when the most popular shows of the century so far have involved serial killers, drug dealers and murderers in the lead roles.

Star Trek's not going to have a drug dealing, murdering captain at the helm - but I sincerely doubt Bryan fecking Fuller isn't going to lean towards an all-star team of perfect people.
 
In a vacuum, I'm not in love with it. BUT, it really depends on what the plot of the show is going to be. The plot is what matters, and the ship will be defined by that.
 
Because I originally wrote the phrase using the word 'antagonists,' I can tell you that no, it doesn't. That's why I chose the word. I had no thought to define whether they are good or bad guys.

It doesn't. Which is why I used two primary characters who also stand as the shows lead antagonists on a crew on a ship in space. And even if it does mean the 'bad guys', there's absolutely no reason one of the bad guys can't be a member of the crew, or multiple members of the crew.

I'd have chosen the same word to be honest. In the current television market it's just not logical to define anyone as a good or bad guy. Especially when the most popular shows of the century so far have involved serial killers, drug dealers and murderers in the lead roles.

Star Trek's not going to have a drug dealing, murdering captain at the helm - but I sincerely doubt Bryan fecking Fuller isn't going to lean towards an all-star team of perfect people.

Yes, in some shows the protagonists are actually bad guys. Star Trek is almost certainly not going to be one of them, so in that context, antagonists does mean bad guys (or at the very least, misguided guys, as I already mentioned).

And when the original quote under discussion is 'It seems to me a lot of people are still too solidly in the mode of thinking one main shiny new ship per show. It could be any one of several in an ensemble, and we were shown the fugly one crewed by antagonists', that pretty clearly does imply the whole crew (or at least the majority) being antagonists, not just one or two crew members who don't fit in properly.
 

I facepalmed a little, when someone is citing Klingon design, which is brutalistic, as an argument against brutalism.

I see your point, but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was: Ralph McQuarrie, Ken Adam, Matt Jefferies, William Ware Theiss and Gene Roddenberry.;)
 
Perhaps the Discovery is something like the Eureka Maru (the "slag heap" in Andromeda) or the Millennium Falcon (which Luke Skywalker viewed as junk).

Perhaps the Discovery will have a crew of misfits, like the old submarine in Down Periscope.
 
Last edited:
When i first saw it I thought "Why would they make the same mistake as the Akira-prise?"
Why base your whole series ship design on a rejected design from the 60s, just because the fans have seen it before?

The more I thought about it the more I thought about the statement a ship like this makes.
It's ugly. But its deliberately ugly, so the producers are obviously implying this is a "Behind the scenes" ship in the trek universe.
This isn't a ship that gets in-universe headlines like the Enterprises or other flagships before and after, this is a workhorse ship that gets the low-profile jobs done.

Having said that, I still think it's a mistake. Star Trek relies a lot on the "cool" factor, and a good looking main ship can get a lot of casual fan attention, maybe even keep that attention long enough for them to get attached to the characters and plot of the thing.
A lot of them with this ship will think it's ugly and not bother tuning in to see more of it, the opposite of what I did when i first saw the Enterprise D on TV as a child in the single digits.

But then there could be a bit of Whedon sydrome here, launching this ship to great fanfare only to have it destroyed during the pilot and the true "discovery" will be either just a metaphor for the crew's ability to work together or a sleeker ship the crew are rewarded with at the end of the pilot (which, now I think about it, would be a good hook for people to pay for the rest of the series, making the current design of the ship a bit of a loss leader in that respect)

Oh well, lets let this play out before we rush to too much judgement.
Although, as I'm posting this on a multiple page-d thread, that may be slamming the cargo bay door way after the ship has warped off ;)
 
When i first saw it I thought "Why would they make the same mistake as the Akira-prise?"
Why base your whole series ship design on a rejected design from the 60s, just because the fans have seen it before?
The Ralph McQuarrie/Ken Adam concept ship was designed for the Star Trek: Planet of the Titans feature film, which was developed by Paramount in 1975-1977 (and not the 60s). Their design was never "rejected", but the whole movie was cancelled by Paramount who then decided to go ahead with a second Star Trek TV series (Phase II, which also got cancelled).
The problem with the Akiraprise was never that it was based on a rejected design that the fans had seen before. It was exactly the opposite. The problem was that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga wanted the "cool", "good looking" and "sexy" starship Akira (from 2373) to star in a series set in 2151!!! I guess they thought that a "good looking" main ship will get a lot of casual fan attention. Thank God Doug Drexler and Herman Zimmerman convinced them to at least modify the Akira to make it appear older than Kirk's Enterprise.
At least Bryan Fuller didn't make the same mistake. If Star Trek: Discovery is indeed post-ENT and pre-TOS, or pre-TMP then maybe we don't have such a beautiful starship but at least this time we have a ship that looks like it fits the era it was built!
 
The Ralph McQuarrie/Ken Adam concept ship was designed for the Star Trek: Planet of the Titans feature film, which was developed by Paramount in 1975-1977 (and not the 60s). Their design was never "rejected", but the whole movie was cancelled by Paramount who then decided to go ahead with a second Star Trek TV series (Phase II, which also got cancelled).
The problem with the Akiraprise was never that it was based on a rejected design that the fans had seen before. It was exactly the opposite. The problem was that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga wanted the "cool", "good looking" and "sexy" starship Akira (from 2373) to star in a series set in 2151!!! I guess they thought that a "good looking" main ship will get a lot of casual fan attention. Thank God Doug Drexler and Herman Zimmerman convinced them to at least modify the Akira to make it appear older than Kirk's Enterprise.
At least Bryan Fuller didn't make the same mistake. If Star Trek: Discovery is indeed post-ENT and pre-TOS, or pre-TMP then maybe we don't have such a beautiful starship but at least this time we have a ship that looks like it fits the era it was built!

I really don't think the casual audience give 2 frells about any of that, they don't think "It looks bad but at least it looks like it fits in the canon timeline"

They think "wow that ship looks bad, hand me the remote please!"

It's a big gamble by CBS to not have eye-candy as the hero ship, potentially the first time in star trek history when you think about it.
(The Akira-prise was still appealing to the eye, even if the behind the scenes decision making to use it in the first place was questionable )
 
It's SOP for fans to dismiss, condemn, yea brother, even declare the death of Trek, based on as little information as possible.
 
It's SOP for fans to dismiss, condemn, yea brother, even declare the death of Trek, based on as little information as possible.

Yep.

I don't doubt that this ship, designed by Adams and rendered by McQuarrie - two artists who knew a thing or two about what looks good in a movie - can be fleshed out and rendered in such a way as to be marvelous "eye candy" for the "casual audience" that doesn't give two fucks about the provenance of a design or care whether it looks "Star Trek pretty" or "Star Wars awesome."

In fact, given the relative success and popularity of the two franchises the smart thing to do in order to charge up the visual appeal of Star Trek at this late date may well be to go as far in the Star Wars direction as they can get away with. :cool:
 
The casual audience doesn't give 2 frells about Stat Trek period.
Every time Star Trek producers catered to the casual audience they ended up making generic action sci-fi and not Star Trek.
And I don't think the Akiraprise's good looks helped the show's ratings in the long run.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top