Metropolis (1927)
I thought of Metropolis, too, when I saw that! I can picture a crewman prepping the Transporter by moving the arms quickly to the connection points before the crew gets into the chamber!
Reveal: New transporter design!
- Thread starter Balok's Decoy
- Start date
I thought of Metropolis, too, when I saw that! I can picture a crewman prepping the Transporter by moving the arms quickly to the connection points before the crew gets into the chamber!
I wonder ... maybe the black 'rugs' are hung in front of the gold background to provide lots of high-contrast corners for motion tracking. Then a CGI set extension or effect is composited in.
I don't think that's tile. I think it's a net of some sort.
There's a big difference between something designed today with a big budget that is made to look old, and something designed decades ago with very little money.
No, I don't think it's a net. Look closely at the image here.
I think those are black panels, like carpeted stair treads hanging in front of a textured, gold panel at varying distances. But it's really sloppy work.
I've seen the image. I've blown it up. I stand by my net thought. Or it's a makeshift transporter for some odd reason. Regardless, I don't think this is how the transporter is supposed to normally look.
Nice tactical/combat suits. They do seem a bit STOnline inspired btw. Beam Weapons see to be ok. Conceivable to be around, design-wise. Tile work is extremelly slopy, I hope it's meant to be fixed through CGI.
Also the deflector dish as transporter.. myabe I'll change my mind after seeing it in action but don't like it so far, maybe if multiple, shrinked(like 1/50) versions of this one were placed around a half-cylinder wall as points of digitization, dunno. This way looks like it hurts everything in it's path and I'd be afraid to stand in front of it or within the distance Saru and that blue guy from the trailer(though not blue here, looks like him to me) are standing.
Also looks like the technology is really creating a copy of the person digitally and then destroys the original, which was a hypothesis of how actual transporters might work, but not sure if I like it to actually be like that. I think they should have kept it vague.
I will probably be ok with the more traditional ones of Discovery.
And I didn't get that...Shenzou is 1227 Discovery is 1031, how can that be newer as a ship?(no 1031-A/B etc there) Unless it's 1301 or something now..
Also the deflector dish as transporter.. myabe I'll change my mind after seeing it in action but don't like it so far, maybe if multiple, shrinked(like 1/50) versions of this one were placed around a half-cylinder wall as points of digitization, dunno. This way looks like it hurts everything in it's path and I'd be afraid to stand in front of it or within the distance Saru and that blue guy from the trailer(though not blue here, looks like him to me) are standing.
Also looks like the technology is really creating a copy of the person digitally and then destroys the original, which was a hypothesis of how actual transporters might work, but not sure if I like it to actually be like that. I think they should have kept it vague.
I will probably be ok with the more traditional ones of Discovery.
And I didn't get that...Shenzou is 1227 Discovery is 1031, how can that be newer as a ship?(no 1031-A/B etc there) Unless it's 1301 or something now..
The numbers never made sense. In TOS we get a Constitution class with 1017, in the 2280's we get a new design with number of 638. They get wonkier as the shows went on. There is no rhythm or reason to registry numbers.
The US Navy, at least, sets numbers for ships well before they're built, and Star Trek seems, at times, to have certain series' of registry #'s reserved for certain classes of ships.
1031 being built after 1227 seems a pretty big gap. If the registry # for the USS Nebula is accurate, it came well before the Galaxy class. Were there issues with the Galaxy's design? Did the Discovery take that long to finish?
1031 being built after 1227 seems a pretty big gap. If the registry # for the USS Nebula is accurate, it came well before the Galaxy class. Were there issues with the Galaxy's design? Did the Discovery take that long to finish?
The U.S. Navy sometimes ignores the sequence of hull numbering. For example, the Navy built the last Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine as SSN-773. Next the Navy built the three Seawolf class submarines SSN-21 through SSN-23. 21 being built after 773 seems a pretty big gap.
That might just be a case of starting the numbering over near the beginning. Though, they have destroyers with #'s in the 900's and now 1000's.
...After the three Seawolf-class submarines (SSN-21 through SSN-23), the Navy later resumed the original sequence of hull numbers with the USS Virginia SSN-774 for its next class of nuclear attack submarines.
There doesn't seem to be anything explaining that numbering scheme, but it seems to be the exception to the rule.
Yeah, looking at the bigger picture, it does look like it's a carpetish texture. It's also the first I've noticed that it's a bunch of smaller pieces kind of crookedly attatched to each other, before that I had it was one big piece with holes in it. I'll admit, it is a bit odd, but it seems to me like the kind of thing that could easily have an explanation in the story.
A) The U.S. Navy doesn't need to explain their numbering system anymore than the U.S. Air Force needs to explain why it skipped the F-24 thru F-34 designations.
B) The rule is that the U.S. Navy sometimes ignores the sequence of hull numbering. The same seems to apply to Starfleet since the days of TOS.
C) And even if the above wasn't the case, whose to say that the Shenzhou and Discovery's registry numbers aren't also "the exception to the rule"?
Similar threads
