Summed up in my second paragraph, that why is one more sacred than the other, and if everything else is changing why not change the ship too?
Just use a "Connie"!
- Thread starter dswynne1
- Start date
Honestly I still don't get it. If you say "Constitution class" and show a random/different ship each time then the different ship class names become totally useless. Why even bother to use them?
Last edited:
Because if it's okay to refer to a Kirk, Spock, Cochrane, Ziyal, Saavik or whoever and it sometimes be a different actor, why should the design of the ships be any less fluid? Their role in the story - as the vehicle for Captain Pike's adventures - remains constant.
Because they are telling everyone this is "Prime". If it is Prime, then it should be consistent with how the shows portray the 23rd century. The Batmobile and Batman aren't even in the same zip code here, as the various versions have taken place in various continuities.
Because a ship design doesn't get fat and grow wrinkles. A ship design is not a real person. The 2009 movie was about a young Kirk and Spock, Shatner and Nimoy did not fit that role. DSC is not about the Connie or even comparable to the situation of Kirk and Spock in '09.
You're comparing hard reboots separate of previous entries with a soft reboot set in the same universe as the others. The Cage uniforms are dated, the Adam West Batmobile is dated, the Connie design is timeless. You're asking to change everything because one or two things are changed in another series. There's a difference between modernizing something to look good in 2017 and updating something for the sake of looking different.
"Hey, since Kirk is wearing different jeans in the new film, why not change the look of everything else!"
It doesn't make sense.
Then why then is Star Trek: First Contact still Prime universe when Zefram Cochrane is completely different to the version in "Metamorphosis"? Why is Star Trek: Enterprise, when it's characters, ship and events are never seen or referred to in any of the subsequent Treks even in situations (like those ship displays in the conference lounge) they should?
I guess it comes down to how literally you choose to interpret what we see. IMO it's a television show telling a story, not historical documents showing found footage of real events exactly as they happened.
I guess it comes down to how literally you choose to interpret what we see. IMO it's a television show telling a story, not historical documents showing found footage of real events exactly as they happened.
I think the actors analogy is confusing. I would use a Car Company analogy instead. I mean, if Chevrolet can have seven generations of the Corvette out, I can't see why Starfleet can't release seven generations of the Constitution. I can even see the ads now: "The new Starfleet Constitution! Does Warp 0 to 9 in 3 seconds! Come to your local Starfleet Dealership for a test flight now"!
Still doesn't apply here. Cochrane was recast because he had only ever been in one TOS episode before at a different age from his First Contact self and, more importantly, the original actor, Glen Corbett, was dead.
I haven't yet watched ENT, but why would it have to be referred to in later shows? I don't see what it has to do with the Connie, your analogies aren't making much sense.
Your thought process that the Connie has to be redesigned despite its best interests is more robotic than any of the "canonistas"' complaints about continuity.
Last edited:
I've never said it has to be redesigned, merely that they can do so and it'd be no different than replacing an actor. It wouldn't disqualify it from being part of the Prime continuity.
Enterprise was supposed to be a prequel to TOS and set in the same continuity, but received some flak for ignoring a few bits of TOS lore (for example, cloaking devices are an amazing theoretical technology in TOS, but in Enterprise they encountered at least 3 races that used them) and as a result some fans refused to accept it as part of the same universe. Hence my referencing it here - because it was a fan outcry over retcons.
Enterprise was supposed to be a prequel to TOS and set in the same continuity, but received some flak for ignoring a few bits of TOS lore (for example, cloaking devices are an amazing theoretical technology in TOS, but in Enterprise they encountered at least 3 races that used them) and as a result some fans refused to accept it as part of the same universe. Hence my referencing it here - because it was a fan outcry over retcons.
You have pretty much every show saying the 23rd century looked a certain way. It is one heck of a big recon to all of a sudden have it look totally different. For me, it simply wouldn't be "Prime". But, I'm more flexible than a lot of folks and see TMP, TNG and Enterprise as soft reboots of the franchise already.
The Batmobile or the Daily Planet are better analogies than real world cars, tanks because they like the Connie are fictional objects. Their looks have been updated as style and technology have changed. A Connie in the new show should reflect a "modern" aesthetic.
Yeah, and in Star Wars: Rogue One I'm sure they will redesign the old Death Star, the Imperial Star Destroyers and the X-wings. I mean, they have to reflect a "modern" aesthetic and not a '70s aesthetic! Right?
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/E6B6/production/_89126095_cruiser.jpg
Wrong. ILM went to great lengths to make them look exactly how they looked in 1977.
Based on Batman Automobilia Partwork Collection I believe the official count on that is ~80. http://www.batman-cars.com/faqs.asp
Not everyone will have the same approach. It's not one size fits all. There maybe future films in the Star Wars Canon that will opt for a redesign.
Ben Affleck would look totally pimp as fuck driving Adam West's Batmobile. And yes, "pimp as fuck" is meant to be a compliment.
Same continuity, same design. It's ok if they spruce it up a bit (the Star Destroyers in the original Star Wars didn't have internal lighting, believe it or not), but if the Constitution shows up, they can't change the design without a darned good explanation.
Exactly! Even those 'unlighted' Star Destroyers have an in-universe explanation in SW as they belong to the Imperial I-class Star Destroyers. The later 'lighted' models used in ESB and RotJ are of the Imperial II-class.
In Star Wars they always had a respect and even reverence to their fictional universe designs. J.J. Abrams would never even think about redesigning an iconic ship like the Millennium Falcon in TFA!
That is an entirely different beast. It is a continuation of the story. If Discovery is a continuation of the "Prime" universe, then the 23rd century should look like the 23rd century as we know it.
Different stories require different approaches. It is not a one to one comparison.
Similar threads
