Yep, but all those in setting came from the pathfinder design project. They were all the product of the same teams and same tech.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Yep, but all those in setting came from the pathfinder design project. They were all the product of the same teams and same tech.
Say what you want about Kelvin Trek but it at least had uniforms for different tasks.
That thing gets taken out with one shot by a Klingon Kia of Prey (with due respect to SF Debris) . A lucky shot nonetheless.
Very true, its also funky and no one is sure of its size or how anyone gets to that second hull.
I disliked the Jammies, but loved the many uniforms.
Jammies? Which one does that describe?
Anti-intellectual?
I’m currently working on my third graduate degree (a PhD in history) and I have been teaching for 27 years (the last 15 at the college level). And I understand postmodernism just fine, thanks (I’ve been swimming in it for the past 24 months).You’re welcome to your disdain but you are incorrect to argue that the two points mentioned here are incompatible or antithetical. The “spirit” of TOS is quite well represented in the films precisely because they explore a familiar idea from a different angle. The fact that Pine-Kirk is different from Shatner-Kirk does not negate the very Trek-like exploration of the human condition—it’s an example of such exploration. Moreover, the films have an element not really seen since TOS (at least not to nearly the same extent), something that makes them much closer to the “spirit” of TOS than anything else in the Trek “universe”—a sense of fun and adventure.
I’d go on but A) lengthy posts from my phone are a pain and B) I’ve procrastinated enough from comps readings for today (gotta get back to Foucault, Joan Scott and Patrick Joyce).
The main ones, they looked like sleepwear, some comfy jammie pants and a jersey
... which is something I've always considered significant and taken as evidence of the secondary hull being a biologically isolated section suitable for researching unknown (and therefore potentially dangerous) lifeforms.
I think one fun theory is its a self contained pod for sensors and such. But its not designed in such a ways it looks like it would be easy to swap it.
You poor soulAnti-intellectual?
Also, freshly graduated graduate student here.
Exactly. The idea that Kelvin Trek carries the spirit of the original, while also presenting it for a film going audience with fun and adventure in a contemporary way is not even close to being out of sync with each other. It explores the human condition, what it take for Kirk to become a leader, and has fun.
Ridiculous, I know
I thought as much. The Beyond ones are growing on me a little more, though the 09 ones at least look comfy.
They look like a sleep over to me, Although the movies had some much better uniforms in them.
No. No we don’t.
Ten Trekkies. Twelve opinions.
Needed more variety.
It does share some subtle Excelsior touches though.
I didn't log on for a day and come back to find five pages of discussion about my signature!
All disputes about Discovery and the Abrams movies aside (and I've made clear where I stand on that), lawman's right: that's not the main point of the article. Discovery didn't even exist when it was written.
I think it's a really excellent piece, and I routinely recommend it to people who aren't even Trekkies. I'm a right-winger who normally closes an article the instant I see the word "kyriarchy" (heck, guys, I backed Santorum in 2008, just to give you an idea of how far I am from Horakova ideologically)... but Horakova points out something that is really, really strange: the fact that our cultural memory of James T. Kirk isn't simply unrelated to the actual James T. Kirk depicted on screen, but is actually opposed to the actual Kirk in almost every way, and even people who obsessively watch the show are frequently unable to see the real Kirk instead of the distorted cultural memory of him they've received from Zapp Brannigan. This is a startling realization, and, once you notice it, you start to see it other places in pop culture. (It's like seeing past the TARDIS perception filter, though; it's not easy.) We routinely deny facts about characters that are literally right before our eyes in favor of a cultural opinion about those characters that is completely incompatible with those facts.
Once she's demonstrated this bizarre phenomenon, she tries to develop some explanation for it. And the Marxist lens through which she sees the world definitely influences that, and often not for the better. Yet I haven't come up with any better explanations, and even if I threw her whole explanation for it out the window, the whole article is still worth it simply for calling our attention to the fact of "Kirk Drift," which certainly demands some explanation.
It took me months of leaving the tab open before I actually read the piece all the way through, because the author's ideology was so obviously very far away from mine, but I'm very glad I finally did, and you should read it even if you don't share her beliefs about the Abrams movies (which are very much not the main object of the piece).
Also, although it is only a footnote, her comment on the gamification of continuity -- not just in Star Trek but in a huge range of "franchises" today -- absolutely hits the nail on the head of a problem that's been bothering me for years, but which I could never quite articulate. (I love continuity! But the most important part of continuity is verisimilitude, and the great majority of "references" in, say, modern superhero movies not only fail to advance verisimilitude, but actually undermine it.)
Thanks for pulling me (and this wonderful article) into the conversation, Lawman!
I thought the article was junk.
Similar threads
