If they cannot tell apart a saucer with some nacelles bolted on from a ship with distinct secondary hull, then the shape of the nacelles is not gonna even register.
Starship Concept Art - Battle of Binary Stars Fleet
- Thread starter PixelMagic
- Start date
This really bothers me, the Klingons have had really consistent design aesthetic over the years, and this totally kills it. The new ships don't even look particularly good. ENT's Klingon ships and K't'ingas* would have looked just fine on screen.
(*I'm perfectly fine pretending that TOS D7's and K'ti'ngas are the same, the only real difference is the surface detail.)
@Longinus - Agree totally, here is a view of their design consistency, from another thread a while back:
Raptor class scout ship (22nd century)
Early bird-of-prey (22nd century)
Scout ship (22nd century)
Transport ship (22nd century)
D4 class battle-cruiser (22nd century) [non-canonical... thanks to producers]
D5 class battle-cruiser (22nd century, 23rd century)
D6 class battle-cruiser (22nd century, 23rd century) [non-canonical... nice transition design]
D7 class battle-cruiser - k't'inga variant (22nd century, 23rd century, 24th century)
D7 class battle-cruiser - TOS variant (23rd century)
D4 class bird-of-prey (23rd century) [Kelvin timeline]
D7 class ??? warbird (23rd century) [Kelvin timeline]
D12 / b'rel / k'vort class bird-of-prey (23rd century, 24th century)
Vor'cha class attack cruiser (24th century)
Transport ship (24th century)
Negh'var class dreadnought (24th century)
Also, something I posted elsewhere, where I attempted to make the lifespan of the D7 make sense - you can kinda break it down into a few different models:
D7 - design variant 1 (ENT: aquamarine nacelles, dark hull):
D7 - design variant 2 (TOS: solid nacelles, light hull) [since this one was built differently it was never refit]:
D7 - design variant 3 (TMP: solid nacelles, dark hull):
D7 - design variant 4 (TUC: cyan nacelles, light hull):
I know in the past most people have tended to separate the K't'inga class from the D7 class, but I suggest that the TOS D7 might be just a smooth subclass of the K't'inga.
Here is design variant 4 at the Battle of Deep Space 9 (firing a cool ass disruptor beam):
Raptor class scout ship (22nd century)
Early bird-of-prey (22nd century)
Scout ship (22nd century)
Transport ship (22nd century)
D4 class battle-cruiser (22nd century) [non-canonical... thanks to producers]
D5 class battle-cruiser (22nd century, 23rd century)
D6 class battle-cruiser (22nd century, 23rd century) [non-canonical... nice transition design]
D7 class battle-cruiser - k't'inga variant (22nd century, 23rd century, 24th century)
D7 class battle-cruiser - TOS variant (23rd century)
D4 class bird-of-prey (23rd century) [Kelvin timeline]
D7 class ??? warbird (23rd century) [Kelvin timeline]
D12 / b'rel / k'vort class bird-of-prey (23rd century, 24th century)
Vor'cha class attack cruiser (24th century)
Transport ship (24th century)
Negh'var class dreadnought (24th century)
Also, something I posted elsewhere, where I attempted to make the lifespan of the D7 make sense - you can kinda break it down into a few different models:
D7 - design variant 1 (ENT: aquamarine nacelles, dark hull):
D7 - design variant 2 (TOS: solid nacelles, light hull) [since this one was built differently it was never refit]:
D7 - design variant 3 (TMP: solid nacelles, dark hull):
D7 - design variant 4 (TUC: cyan nacelles, light hull):
I know in the past most people have tended to separate the K't'inga class from the D7 class, but I suggest that the TOS D7 might be just a smooth subclass of the K't'inga.
Here is design variant 4 at the Battle of Deep Space 9 (firing a cool ass disruptor beam):
i decided long ago that D# are federation names (like all nato names for russian fighters starting with an F) and k't'inga is the klingon name for what the federation calls D7. problem solved
Design variant 3 appearing in The Next Generation:
Design variant 1 appearing in Voyager (after a decades long multi-generational voyage):
Possible fifth variant from Trials and Tribble-ations:
Design variant 1 appearing in Voyager (after a decades long multi-generational voyage):
Possible fifth variant from Trials and Tribble-ations:
The new bird of prey looked really.... Romulan.
Yep. This is my reasoning as well.
To me, from the quick clips in this last episode and the flashes of the one or two in the second episode, they look like forerunners of what we'd see starting in TSFS, but a bit smaller and more maneuverable.
If you took the neck away and moved the boom section back to connect with the hull, it would be close.
If you took the neck away and moved the boom section back to connect with the hull, it would be close.
I've said this before, but I just accept ENT K't'inga to be a mistake and ignore it. The producers said that it was a mistake, we were supposed to see some other ship. These things happen in real historical films too.
@KirkusOveractus The problem is that they seem to be highly "ornate" where Klingon ships are established for being "industrial", or "used future" - it's as if the Empire from Star Wars suddenly started making their ships into fine sculptures - I can understand some - but their entire fleet seems to be like that - even their birds of prey look like a sculpture with an impulse engine.
Yeah, it made sens for T'Kuvma's ship, it was basically a space cathedral and was extensively modified and decorated over time. That all of their ships would be like that it just weird.
Oh, I agree on that point. I was working more from a description of the ships seen in the last episode more from a silhouette point of view.
I could understand something with the Klingons being ornate, like the beacon, but the ships were always as you said, the industrial, function way over form style.
The new Bird of Prey looked like a Death Glider from Stargate to me (as did the Son'a fighters from Insurrection, fwiw)
I do not get what the big deal is with wanting round Nacells. ENT showed round nacells where a thing over a 120 years before this show. I say 120, as we count all those much older pre NX designs. Other races had moved away from that type. Sorry really, round nacells are a pre-federation human design.
I for one amglad they went more TMP style with them.
I for one amglad they went more TMP style with them.
@King Daniel Paid CBS Plant Yeah, now that you mention it:
Or a Centauri fighter from Babylon 5:
And we come to another irksome difference - gone is the Horatio Hornblower/Jack Aubery style combat - the ships move like fighters and the Discovery so far acts like an AA platform - and, yes, I know that Star Trek can change, and has changed, but I wonder why when Star Wars faithfully preserves it's well-known visual style, Star Trek does not keep the famous Battle of the Mutara Nebula style, which is a differentiating asset, rather than a burden.
Or a Centauri fighter from Babylon 5:
And we come to another irksome difference - gone is the Horatio Hornblower/Jack Aubery style combat - the ships move like fighters and the Discovery so far acts like an AA platform - and, yes, I know that Star Trek can change, and has changed, but I wonder why when Star Wars faithfully preserves it's well-known visual style, Star Trek does not keep the famous Battle of the Mutara Nebula style, which is a differentiating asset, rather than a burden.
The Constitution Class wasn't a pre-Federation design, neither was the Kelvin.
these ships have to be a few years old, maybe even decades old... shenzhou was "old". they may not even be intended to fit a 2250s aesthetic.
TOS was the 1960;s, that whole look can be ignored here. If they show the class, its not gonna look the same. The Kelvin, like wise will not look like we see as its a whole other visual style. And it was a 22nd century deign IIRC, it could be older than the walker.
Similar threads
