USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

Tell me about it. I was eyeing up a snapfit defiant for my six year old to build. But he’d have to paint it...there’s a handy painting mask kit...costs as much as the model.

I am planning on using modern coloured glow in the dark paints on my Voyager build. I might even experiment with painting on floodlight areas that will show when glowing. Like the front end. Mind you..that’s on hiatus atm. A wonky RCs thruster has put me off and then we moved house. Am still trying to work out a way to get set photos in the windows like the shooting model.

 

It’s crazy how much stuff is! Couldn’t believe the lighting kit was as much as the model - but I’m not complaining because it’s going to fit perfectly and the bustard collector lights will spin!!! Can’t wait!

I did a Voyager build a few years ago and lit it - it wasn’t very sophisticated overall and I wish I’d gone as far as putting photos in the windows - but to light them I guess you’d have to print on acetate sheets or something? Like what you’d have used in the olden days on an overhead projector? Not sure how well that would work...

I love the glow in the dark idea though. I’m building the prime 1701 and it will be period specific (except that they’ve put hull lines on it and I can’t be bothered to fill them and sand it down so that it’s smooth...) so no exterior running lights on the registry for me

 

Well, back in the day.. erly 90's.. star trek kits cost $20. with inflation, thats up to err.. $35 ish. So prices are still decent, if you remmeber the old ones were releasted over 20 years ago!
Do what I do, make your own lighting kits

 

Making lighting kits is great for the few with workshop access or what not. Some of us work on kitchen or dining room tables if we are lucky. XD

 

Plus I have no idea what I’m doing when it comes to electronics so a pre made kit is a godsend to me.

Did I mention that the bussard collector lights will spin? Like the original? That’s in the kit - I couldn’t program the lights myself, so to have it ready made is awesome I’m so excited

 

Look at Ebay for diy electronic kits, for blinking and chasers.
al you need is a good soldering iron for led work, no big setup

 

The lighting kit I bought was from a chap on eBay. He makes them specifically for the 1/600 revell enterprise kit - I got the deluxe one since my bussards have to spin (have I mentioned that the bussards spin?)

Why yes, I *do* need to get out more.

 

I know the director of photography in TWOK thought it was ugly. I can only conclude that he's an idiot.

That is completely irrelevant to my point, though. There's a reason our science has been able to produce results, and that's because there are ways to compensate for any issue of perception.

"Objective" means that it doesn't rely on the observer, which it doesn't. Your perception or mine has no bearing on what's considered "true" in-universe.

 

Totally agree with that!

The shuttle pod trip from TMP is one of my favourite scenes in that film - seriously, I love that ship!

 

For anyone who wants more about the evolution of the Phase II / TMP refit model(s) check out this thread:

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/sho...-design-have-been-used-in-tmp-wok-sfs.295000/

I have been rounding up as many images as I can find. It's interesting that the older version was used in quite a number of publications, etc.

 

You said something couldn't be blue and not blue at the same time. The question inevitably becomes: what do we mean by "blue"? Most people in most contexts don't actually mean "that which can be determined via spectrometer under controlled conditions to reflect visible light of wavelengths in the range of 490–450 nm and absorb others"; rather they mean "that which gives the impression of the appearance I associate with the word blue." Depending on the circumstances, those two things may coincide, or they may not. Color is a concept, not an immutable property.

http://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/

Quite the contrary, there can be never be any such "truth" without perception and consideration. Art is indeed totally reliant on the observer for any and all meaning it has, including where the observer in question is the artist themself. One can choose to accept the author's own interpretation (or any other's) and incorporate it into one's own, or not. Neither choice actually makes any interpretation "truer" than any other, although in contexts such as discussions like this one, some may be better argued and/or supported than others.

Naturally, the two are interlinked...which reminds me, as to the earlier query regarding the color scheme of TMP versus TOS:

“Another thing I changed was the basic color concept. The original Star Trek was brightly colored. But a lot of that came about because color TV had been recently invented and all the networks wanted as much color as they could get for their money, right away. I used to get directives from NBC to use more color. ‘We spent a hundred million dollars to invent this system and we don’t want any grays or browns.’ So I felt, and Robert Wise felt, that the brilliant color was not very realistic, that it seemed distracting. He wanted to concentrate on people's faces or the emotion involved, and bright turquoise and red things vibrating on a widescreen were not what he wanted to do...”

-Robert Fletcher, costume designer​

Still not really seeing what's so "big" about this one, to be quite honest. Fandom already widely accepted that the changes made to the model between the two pilots and then the series proper indicated refitting(s) long before DSC came along. DSC just slipped another one in, or perhaps fleshed one or more of them out, depending on one's preferred interpretation.

But if your question is "has Trek ever substituted one noticeably different design for another previously depicted without direct comment before?" then the answer is unequivocally yes, although undoubtedly quibbles with any of several examples I might cite will be raised along the lines of "but that's not the same, because this is the Enterprise!"

Which brings me to...

Without necessarily accepting as factual the premise that this is the sole or even primary reason for what has been done on DSC—after all, nearly every incarnation of Trek thus far has introduced its own distinct versions of various elements for no particular reason at all beyond simple artistic desire to put their own stamp on things—to this sayeth one wiser than I:



-MMoM

 

No, it really doesn't. Blue has a definition in the wavelengths, and we all agree, except those with receptor defects, that we call those blue. We're getting not only off-topic, but into the realm of the ridiculous.

Again, that is entirely irrelevant. We have methods to remove the issues inherent with perception. And if you mention solipsism in your response, you lose.

 

I can't express how wrong that is. Like, that's exactly the thinking that made the Berman/Braga era look so dull, visually boring and gray. That gave us that uniform DS9/VOY/ENT/DIS aesthetic of grey.

Compare that to ST09, (or, HELL, the brightly red uniforms used right afterwards from TWOK onward!), and tell me which fits better with the Trek universe?

This is a lesson everyone in Hollywood seems to forget: Colors work. TOS might have overdone them from time to times. But really, they are an important part of the identity of Star Trek. EVERY science fiction show is blue and grey! Why do people come to a property that is unique - and then try their darndest to take everything that makes it unique away?​

 

Well, TWOK was unique and mostly gray and I don't think its look hurt the franchise. In fact, it's probably my favourite visual look in all of Trek.

 

TWOK was noticably more colorful than TMP. Especially with warm colors, while TMP felt very cold and sterile. The new uniforms made for bright colors in every single frame of the movie, and the rest of the set design changed accordingly for visual balance. Also, Mutara nebula anyone?

That said: TMP also had it's fair use of colors. But everything was tainted blue or gray. And brown. But mostly blue or gray. And everything muted. I don't know how it was back at the time, but nowadays this look is so over-used for science fiction, I get annoyed by it. It's one of the things I think makes "The Expanse" look so generic, even though it tries really hard not to be. Or DIS. Or anything else.

 

Winner!

 

Well I meant a change where they went *back* to a time period and changed something. Like if they’d had TNG Klingons in “trails and tribbleations” for instance. To my knowledge there’s not been a change quite like this - which operates so broadly on the visuals - that was retroactive before.

Yes there were updates in TMP then TNG etc.

But with the exception of the romulans stupidly wearing NEM era uniforms in Enterprise, I can’t think of a time where they revisited a previous time period and changed things (except that mess in “all good things” where Picard’s chair was WRONG, but that was a Q recreation. I’m not still mad about it, honest...)

 

Someone stole the original chair.

Edit: I was wrong, it was the new chair that was stolen

 

I always thought it was the original chair that was stolen too. So was it the 2nd season chair that was nicked?

Still, I was incensed that Picard’s chair didn’t have the flippy up panels on the arm rests in AGT. I wish they’d kept them for the full run of the show tbh but they obviously didn’t care enough about anal retentive fans like me who wanted the finale to be period specific

On that note - they shouldn’t have used the 4 foot model for the “farpoint” era time period either because 10 forward didn’t exist at that point...

Down the rabbit hole we go...
(Probably a Michael Burnham quote...)

 

Yesterday, I happened upon this piece of artwork done by Andy Probert in the late 70s and I was struck by the high level of similarity with the final scene of the Enterprise in Discovery season 1: