No. It's people who tell me to ignore things that I like that impacts my enjoyment. (Not saying you personally are doing that; it's just a general statement.) And that's probably even going too far.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
No. It's people who tell me to ignore things that I like that impacts my enjoyment. (Not saying you personally are doing that; it's just a general statement.) And that's probably even going too far.
For the record we love the Enterprise so much we actually argue and fight over her details. If anything proves Gene's creation and Matt Jefferies' design has been a success it's the fact that over 50 years later we're still devoting entire threads to her, and threads in a forum about another series where she's not even the main starship.
Seeing as how I have never believed official numbers for the size of the ships I guess I'll chalk this up to difference of perspective. I look at starships for their shape and function, not whether the deck measures up right...
Sorry, doesn't feel like love to me in these discussions.For the record we love the Enterprise so much we actually argue and fight over her details. If anything proves Gene's creation and Matt Jefferies' design has been a success it's the fact that over 50 years later we're still devoting entire threads to her, and threads in a forum about another series where she's not even the main starship.
To clarify: I'm not telling you to ignore it. I'm saying that there's no reason to be stuck on it, and that the only person who pays the price for getting stuck on it is you. That's why I stopped worrying about it, myself.
Seeing as how I have never believed official numbers for the size of the ships I guess I'll chalk this up to difference of perspective. I look at starships for their shape and function, not whether the deck measures up right...
Some of us are just a bit obsessive, I have to admit.
It's subtle but I noticedSome of us are just a bit obsessive, I have to admit.
it's the circumference, I've been told, that matters
It's subtle but I noticed
Truth is, I absolutely care about canon and consistency; but over the years I realised that no matter how much changes and continuity problems bothered me, none of that bother or whining by me changed anything. So although privately I might think about how things might fit together, I also accept that, as a franchise owned and operated and designed by several people over decades, and that I can't expect consistently in that context. If I want to enjoy the show, I might as well put those concerns aside and focus on the story and characters, and then on the side doing my own thing (like my starship designs and so on).
Alright guys, it seems like you're both getting a little personal here, so let's just chill out.
For the record we love the Enterprise so much we actually argue and fight over her details. If anything proves Gene's creation and Matt Jefferies' design has been a success it's the fact that over 50 years later we're still devoting entire threads to her, and threads in a forum about another series where she's not even the main starship.
Sorry, doesn't feel like love to me in these discussions.
No, cooleddie is right. One of the things I've always loved about Star Trek were the myriad ships throughout its history, especially the TOS/TMP designs. When I was a kid I collected all the FASA, Starfleet Battles, etc. RPG books and other fan created and semi-official stuff. To me, the ship designs are just as important as the stories they're telling. That's why I take stuff like this seriously. Whether other people do or not is up to them, and I don't appreciate being told that the specific things I enjoy don't matter.
Sorry, doesn't feel like love to me in these discussions.
Love can become abusive.
This makes the most sense to me. As I stated (perhaps in a different thread-why do we have so many Enterprise threads?
) that if I am trying to measure these things out then it bites in to my enjoyment of characters and stories. I mean, I love icing as much as the next person but I don't give that up for the cake. Characters are why I watch shows not the tech-tech.Again, it doesn't feel like love to me. It doesn't come across as loving. It comes across as territorial battles over who is more correct.
I love starships, and have since I had the tech manual, the Concordance and Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise. I built starships in MS Paint (as best as I could) and developed deck plans based upon what I read.
Now, I'll diverge a bit and state that starships are not as important as stories to me. Otherwise, I would not have made it through TNG and TMP would be my favorite film.
Finally, at the risk of sound argumentative if it is up to people to decide how seriously to take it then why care about their opinion?
Love can become abusive.
Fandom=fanatic. I need to remember that.
Last edited:
Here's my idea on how they should show the Enterprise in Discovery--have any scene be in the rec room. This was basically a holodeck and was confirmed to exist in the Animated series. Don't show the bridge or anywhere else.
They can make the rec room less advanced than TNG by not having any sentient holographic characters (i.e. Moriarty). Maybe Spock and Burnham can come here and watch the fight in their childhood holographically recreated.
They can make the rec room less advanced than TNG by not having any sentient holographic characters (i.e. Moriarty). Maybe Spock and Burnham can come here and watch the fight in their childhood holographically recreated.
Yep, there is a huge section of fans who care about the technical aspects of the universe, the starships in particular. I am certainly among them. But it is exactly for this reason that the upscaling doesn't bother me, it has bugged me for years that the deck heights on Connie do not make sense or the stuff we've seen on screen doesn't really fit in the commonly assumed size. If you were a Thermian trying to construct a Connie from the screen evidence alone, you wouldn't end up with a 300ish metre ship, you would end up with a 400ish metre ship. So I am just, yeah, it all finally fits! (Too bad the ship is now also completely different shape...)
And whilst aesthetics of DSC leave a lot to be desired, I think they're pretty good on the technical aspects; it actually seems they have thought quite a bit how the stuff actually fits in their ships, and as a result they ended up with the larger sizes.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Well I suspect the fairer sex would say yes, although all I seem to get is no so there you go.
For me the size of the ships hasn't been a problem, I am happy to see that they have made them fit with the sets and deck heights which is a welcome change, the only issue I really have with the Starfleet ships and design lineage is the Shenzou itself, it sticks out like a sore thumb or a failed experiment, I understand they wanted a somewhat unique ship for the pilot episodes but it ends up getting destroyed anyway.
The disparity in the nacelle shapes is also rather odd and out of sequence.
Must admit it probably doesn't matter that much as most of the Starfleet ships we saw during the pilot episode were probably destroyed by the Klingons, making way for the ship designs and styles we know are coming.
Shenzhou is the best looking ship in this show, miles better than the hideous, boxy Discovery.
Whelp, we were bound to agree on something...I don't know how to feel about this
Well I suspect the fairer sex would say yes, although all I seem to get is no so there you go.
It's not the size of your equipment, or matters of configuration....it's how attentive and respectful you are and whether or not you are aware that deployment need not necessarily even be a component of a mutually successful campaign.
Similar threads
