Same here. A blast, and Kirk was a highlight, but I don't find myself wanting to revisit it like I do 09 and ST ID.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Hey, that's the fun of discussion.Fair pointsthat’s made me reconsider 09 a little bit actually
And, one thing I do with 09 is look at it through a lens of previous Trek. Destiny is a recurring theme (Mirror Universe anyone?) as is cadets as lieutenants, and promotions that do not always make perfect sense. But, as has been articulated in the past, Starfleet is not a perfect military organization, so treating their cadets as the same Midshipmen from Annapolis is not exactly a 1-to-1.
Secondly, the film isn't perfect. There are several scenes that I would change and tighten up a bit to showcase a bit more lapse of time. But, that doesn't make it a poor story. Just a story
And AGAIN with the irrelevancy, sprinkled with a bit of strawman right on top. Could you make, please, a smidgen of an effort to honestly and respectfully make some case here that doesn't involve those? Your personal feelings won't communicate or convince quite as well as a sound argument.
I have never said or implied that ANY design would've done the trick. The Enterprise's basic design is iconic enough that any relatively small variation of it would've done the trick. Do you think the Excelsior, or the 1701-D, or the Ambassador-class wouldn't have had the same impact? That's not to say that a chair-shaped ship would've worked. It has to have that iconic shape; but the exact details, angle of the pylons, bridge window or whatnot have zero bearing on that.
Is that clearer?
I made a point, which was my own, in an ongoing discussion.
Seriously do I have to teach you the basics of linguistics and human interactions, now? This is getting more than ridiculous.
Then you're not thinking clearly. If the franchise makes money, more of it will be made. I'd think a fan of the franchise would be happy, but then I'm not the kind of fan who thinks that each episode and movie should be tailor-made with myself in mind, specifically.
So yeah, the movie essentially bringing Star Trek back to life via its box-office success is a MAJOR positive for fans everywhere, but some of you treated that as some sort of slap in the face because it wasn't exacly what you would've wanted.
No one's saying that you shouldn't maintain your opinion. But your opinion is not, repeat, not a good argument when responding to someone's query about why the director was being maligned by fans. Especially since the overwhelming majority of them liked it.
Because of my sparkling personality?
You're the one misrepresenting my posts and dodging points. You're in no position to intimate that I'm being less than genuine.
It's fine to discuss politics when it relates to something in the plot, tone, production, casting, or message of the show, but let's please not bring it up as random examples with no direct connection to the series itself.
It probably wouldn't have been substantially different. The writer's strike began two days before principal photography started, and lasted about three-and-a-half months (with filming continuing for another month-and-a-half beyond that).
While there might have been some small changes that were missed out on, they probably wouldn't have been making any substantial changes even without the strike. Decisions like filming locations were already committed at that point.
Locations can be set, but how the movie uses those locations can vary significantly based on rewrites. The whole third act of TMP was in flux almost continuously from the start of production in July 1978 until they finished the continuity in November 1978. There's at least 3 completely different versions of the third act written by Livingston and Roddenberry that were intended to be filmed.
Locations are not in question. Allowing the actors to make adjustments to the script based upon characters, and the like, small changes for sure, but enough that I think it would be interesting to see.
I know this is kinda way out there but...,
In my mind, all those things happened that way because when Nero crossed over, he really fucked up that Universes' natural order of things.
In fact it was so bad that the Universe itself was pushing people and events in such a way to correct Nero's destructive interference.
It's probably not very logical, but for me, it explains and gives reason to the entire premise of the movie.
Explain to me how the location of the bridge is not stupid.
We're talking stupid vs stupid with a window. No version of this makes any more sense than the Enterprise's shape.
If we're going to stick strictly with pragmatic and practical functionality, then every Star Trek ship ever designed is stupid.
A fleet of spheres isn't so visually interesting, though. So we allow the dumb to creep in. Eventually we're arguing about one dumb thing at the front of an already dumb thing which exists so at least we get a cool view and scale-establishing feature from the dumb thing.
Take the additional layer of shields from TWOK....those "defense fields"....and also have the entire bridge on hydraulics so that it can be quickly lowered into the middle of the saucer in a crisis situation. Add in that all of the shields can be raised instantaneously like the environment fields that they used in TAS in place of bulky space suits. Then you've got a better level of protection.
And we can figure that the bridge window on the Discoprise is design lineage from the Franklin....
And we can figure that the bridge window on the Discoprise is design lineage from the Franklin....
I didn't respond to the other post, because you seemed to answer my question with another question.. But here is your reason the window isn't stupid? It brings a sense of scale?
That's all you got?
But here is your reason the window isn't stupid? It brings a sense of scale?
That's all you got?
He called it dumb. Did you even read the post?
Also you're talking to King Daniel, he who has made several threads about ship scale over the years.
Last edited:
Okay.. "Dumb". I think the placement of the bridge is logical. I mean, it was the 60s, and most maratime ships have their bridge on the top. Jeffries had really no frame of reference. Most ships at that time were modeled on rocketships. The Enterprise was unique in its design at that time. But I guess a window can work, but like I said, it needs to be able to hide itself at least from the outside. Alien species unfamiliar with Starfleet ships at first glance wouldn't know where to concentrate their firepower.
Now, the STD Enterprise redesign is okay, but I suppose my biggest gripe is the depression carved into the saucer specifically to accomodate the logo numbers and those God awful lights.
The slanted neck and the overly kibbled Nacelles. The slanted pylon extansions are okay. As the refit has them. The color is too dark, and the Aztec patterns are throwing off the overall sleek feel of the inherent design itself. It could use some tweaking, but from the Season 2 trailer, they are committed, and it's unfortunate.
Not my fav reimagining of the TOS ship.
But the worst offender is the Kelvin ship.
Maybe I'll give the STD Enterprise a chance, but only if the writing on the show improves. Still. I'm not happy with STD. If a new Star Trek TV series is planned, and It eclipses this STD series because it's more of what fans want to see, I won't shed a tear if STD is quietly wrapped up and put to rest.
They still wouldn't. As most starships have more than one window. Besides, without shields, it doesn't matter whether it is a window or a bulkhead as we see in Star Trek: Nemesis.
Nemesis...yea..that's a good example of strategic McGuffin window placement.
The bridge window makes it obvious, it's a point of command.
It really doesn't, not for a species that has had no contact with Starfleet before. For all they know, the shuttlebay doors are blast shielding that protects the command center.
Similar threads
