Whatever they change moving in to Season 2, do you sincerely think that it will be as bright, smooth, and optimistic as a 60s adventure show?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Then why did you say that the DSC one was the most faithful of the three? That doesn't make any sense. It should be that the DSC one is the more faithful of the two, between it and the Kelvin version.
I'd rather it not try to be a 50 year old TV show, it's the 21st century.
I mean between it and the Konnie, the original was just there for comparison.
Yes, my point. Of the two.
This is the height of silliness. 'Which silhouette is most like another' is totally missing the point about the execution.The DSC one is clearly the most faithful of the three. Just look at the nacelles and heull on the Kelvin one.
It really isn't.
I just watched this about the Discovery phaser. I am not impressed. That triple beam emitter looks like it belongs on an old microscope. Overall, it may have 85% or so of detail compared to the original, but the new detail is lousy!
the triple beam emitter comes from The Cage phaser/laser.
Well, it's focusing on only a portion of the data, and excluding the rest, that's for sure.
You could paint the original model hot pink and make the windows out of muppet fur while keeping the silhouette the same, but it would clearly be an entirely different aesthetic.
Why can't it be its own thing and still be Star Trek? Like DS9 was?
I also argue vehemently that DSC wasn't "optimistic." The framing for the series was pure Trek. The war challenged everyone's ethics and morales, and in the end, they found their way through it. Lorca was from another universe and contributed to fucking the tone up (in fact, Isaacs himself said this on After Trek).
I don't understand what "smoothness" has to do with anything, quite honestly.
Brighthess (like, are we talking about how the sets are lit?) is really quite meaningless, and I'm not sure how realistic it is to have bright white neon lights blaring in every room or why that would add or detract from anyone's enjoyment.
Last edited:
So....they think the TOS Enterprise needs considerable work because there is not enough detail, but they will incorporate an element from the first phasers when they were highly lacking in detail and looked a lot like the old ray guns of the 50s....when they had the opportunity to go a different route.
Enterprise needed to be more futuristic, but the phasers didn't.
It's a contradiction that doesn't make sense.
You can't see why bringing up the Smithsonian has nothing to do with the argument you replied to? You and others are using the original 1701's cultural significance as a catch-all "argument" to support your position, without ever connecting said argument to that position.
That is a non sequitur. A fallacy meant to give an argument the appearance of relevance via various tricks without actually ever having to use a relevant argument.
The DSC one is clearly the most faithful of the two. Just look at the nacelles and hull on the Kelvin one.
Where'd you get the DSC ortho?
Except that the point was really about similarity. Personally, I don't know if the 2009, or the 2016, or the 1979, or the 2017 Enterprise is the closest to the 1964 one, but looking at how similar they look from various angles or components seems like a rational way to answer the question.
The DSC hand phaser looks better then the TOS phaser and has more detail. More ergonomic friendly as well.
It's from EAS which got it from the poster at the Eaglemoss booth at Destination Star Trek earlier this year.
I just coloured it in black.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/discovery_federation.htm#starfleet
Not from where I'm sitting. The Discovery phaser looks like it came out of Robocop or something.
the original TOS doesn't have a grips, and an odly angled and frankly hard to press trigger.
The new one is easier to hold and has a more finger friendly trigger.
Similar threads
