USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by EJD1984, Jul 24, 2017.

  1. GNDN18

    GNDN18 270 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Location:
    Down by the Bay
    Season Two, Episode One: “The Child”
    Other episodes reflecting Doctor Crusher’s time at Starfleet Medical include “Evolution”, “Starship Mine”, and “Unnatural Selection”.
     
  2. Jerikka Dawn

    Jerikka Dawn Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2004
    Anyone who claims that "But anyone who claims this is an appropriate and respectful reimagination has an awful taste and no sense of Star Trek." isn't an insult has awful interpersonal skills and has no sense of respect for their fellow human.

    No offense.
     
    BeatleJWOL and fireproof78 like this.
  3. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    They weren't meaningless. I used to run a machine (3890 document sorter) that used the same type of lights to indicate various states and status of the machine.

    We may have moved past them, but they worked very well in the real world for a very long time.
     
    Captain Jed R. and GNDN18 like this.
  4. BillJ

    BillJ History’s Greatest Monster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Covington, Ky. USA
    The bridge chairs and the shape of the viewscreen really throw me. The bridge chairs are weird as they looked to have done a decent update on them for the Shenzhou.
     
  5. GhostLoveScore

    GhostLoveScore Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2014
    No offense taken. I admit I have little respect for other humans and I probably have some kind of superiority complex. I look down at anybody that thinks differently and I admit it.
    But I don't take offense if somebody says to me that I don't know Star Trek if I like Voyager more than I like TNG or DS9 (which is not the case).
     
  6. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    Yes, but that's a change of main character. Not just a hand phaser design.

    I don't need to remember. I watch the movies regularily. Yes, they were cheaper, but they're still not particularily futuristic.

    ...what?

    I never said it was inevitable, or natural. I said that it was expected.

    I don't recall seeing this objection. It's a silly objection. It doesn't look cheap or retro compared to TOS.

    I disagree.
     
    JoeP likes this.
  7. Yistaan

    Yistaan Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2018
    The point is I don't think that was addressed in dialogue either. Suddenly she was there, gone, then back.
     
  8. Ar-Pharazon

    Ar-Pharazon Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Location:
    Far North Chicago Suburbs
    When training Spot, Data was "not entirely successful". It's a sliding scale.
     
  9. David cgc

    David cgc Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    California
    Great. Name three differences in either of the two examples I provided. From memory, please, no checking making-of articles or comparing screencaps. Since you know the movies so well, and all.

    You said that since they decided to make a show in an established context, we shouldn't expect them to make a show in that context it's being made it. I don't blame you for being confused, it's a confusing idea. "We're going back to the days of Kirk and Spock, but nothing and no one is going to look or act like it did then."

    You don't think the helm console is a blatant throwback that's too small and too chunky compared to the rest of the bridge? You don't think the random controls mounted to the ceiling seem silly? You don't think just sticking in the TOS chairs all but unchanged disrupts the coherence of the design?

    Would you like to elaborate on that? I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know the logic explaining why the phasers should look all but identical to the TOS props, but the warp engines couldn't be round, or why the ships went back-and-forth between '60s and '80s style pinstriping and fonts in the months before the show first came out? I thought the collective makers of the show just didn't know what they wanted, but I'd love to know the mission statement that brings everything together that's so apparent to you.
     
  10. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    No, I just told you they did address it. Watch the start of season 2.

    What difference does it make? Yes, there are minor but relatively obvious differences between the two movies. I know the Death Star bridge is not identical but it's hard to say in what way exactly without looking at pictures to show the comparison. But what's that have to do with anything? And what's with the snark?

    You're the one who's confused. I never said that. I think you're extrapolating from your interpretation of what I said. I suggest you stop trying to read between the lines, and simply go with what I actually post.

    What I said is that if they make a NEW show, even one set in an established time period, we can expect them to want to make it their own and redesign stuff. You or I might prefer that they didn't, but you know there's a good chance they will. Accepting it allows you to enjoy the show better.

    No. You're getting hung on ridiculous, trivial details. Just enjoy the show.

    No.
     
    JoeP and Midquest like this.
  11. cooleddie74

    cooleddie74 Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Location:
    The Warped Sector of the Demented Quadrant
    Oh, I know. I was just joking. The TOS displays were more interesting than a lot of 24th century Okudagrams.
     
    Jadeb and BillJ like this.
  12. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    Nah, it made sense to me.
    False equivalence, since ears are biological and not a design choice, like technology.
    Nope.
    I would welcome to see such designs. I love TOS designs and find them futuristic, but I know that my opinion is not shared among those younger than I.
    The bridges are modular. I don't need it explained and I am tired of feeling like every silly little change requires an explanation of some kind.

    Very much poor way of expressing it. Star Trek means different things to different people, and the fact that individuals have different points of view is to be celebrated, not condemned.
     
  13. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    I do hope the bridge is part of the usual episode promo pictures next week. Just to stave off the pain of waiting a bit.
     
  14. GNDN18

    GNDN18 270 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2013
    Location:
    Down by the Bay
    Look here.
     
  15. David cgc

    David cgc Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    California
    So you know it was updated, you can't tell the difference at a casual glance, and it was still of sufficient quality to not be laughed out of the theater. That's my point. It's possible. It can be done. It is not mandatory to totally reinvent the wheel to make modern audiences approve of your throwback nostalgic science fiction production.

    That's to say nothing of my suspicions about DSC's audience size. It's entirely possible their retcons and redesigns are catering to a smaller group of die-hards than the faithful updates done back during ENT (I say "possible" because I checked the numbers, and with what little we know, it's too close to call. CBSAA's total subscriber base is currently about twice as many accounts as TVs that watched IAMD first-run, but without knowing how many accounts actually watch DSC, and how many people on average watched either episode in groups on a single account/TV, it's impossible to be sure. If All Access had, I don't know, twenty million subscribers, or we knew DSC specifically had half a million views, I'd be comfortable making a determination).

    They say it's a side story of TOS, but they don't make it look that way, and they don't write it that way. So why is it not a remake or reimagining? Why is it not a sequel, or set in the world of the new movies? All the things that they could only get by setting it where and how they did are the things they aren't doing. Why am I supposed to expect that it won't look like TOS, feel like TOS, it act like TOS when they explicitly and emphatically placed it on top of TOS, out of all the possible times and places they could've set the show? Especially with the precedent from other sci-fi franchises (and this one, for that matter) that haven't forgotten that when you're cashing in nostalgia, it helps to actually resemble the thing you're evoking.

    What do you think we're talking about? What do you expect to read people's opinions on in the thread about the redesigned Enterprise if not people's opinions on about the redesigned Enterprise? Why do you not expect me to respond by specifying my critiques after you said, "I didn't read what you said, but it was silly"?

    Also, while this thread is about the Enterprise specifically and not the show as a whole, it's really condescending to be told that you should relax and enjoy things even when they're bad. I'm not going to gaslight myself into believing the helm console doesn't look dinky to me because you think I shouldn't have opinions about design.
     
    CaptainMurdock and Longinus like this.
  16. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    NOTE: The post below is not meant to be antagonistic, even though tone is often hard to read.

    YOU CAN tell the difference at a casual glance. That was what I said. What I also said was that it's hard to explain what they are off the top of my head, which is not the same thing, and I also asked what relevance it had to the discussion.

    No, that was _my_ point. SW is different because it's not dated in the same way as TOS was, and it was never meant to look futuristic to begin with. It was retro-sci-fi whereas TOS was squarely of its time. I love the TOS designs, but they are dated. There's no issue with having both of those thoughts at once.

    NO ONE said anything about it being mandatory, or natural, or automatic, or any other word you can dream up to make me say something I didn't say. I said expected. See further down.

    Who's "they"? It's set ten years before TOS, so it's not a side story to it. It's a prequel.

    What does that mean? It looks the way Starfleet looked ten years before Kirk. Discovery is an older ship, as indicated by its registry. And what does writing have to do with it?

    Well, I can't disagree with you there. I would've prefered a post-Nemesis show, as I stated before. But I don't mind visual retcons.

    Because it's not TOS. It's a different series with different characters set at a different time in a different place in a different situation.

    As for why you'd be expected to, because as I've already explained at least twice today, designers and writers tend to do that: make the series their own both visually and narratively. Maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly, and it wouldn't be the first time, but you don't seem to be making much of an effort to understand it. You seem to want to take issue with DSC.

    I absolutely expect to read people's opinions. You should, however, expect me to disagree with them. In this case, as I said, I think you're focusing on trivia which is costing you enjoyment for no reason.

    As a sidenote, you could do better than to both misrepresent what I post, add to my posts and respond to things I didn't say. It's annoying and adds nothing to the discussion. Please address what I actually write.

    There's nothing condescending about it; I'm telling you from personal experience that if you focus on pointless minutiae you're doing yourself a disservice. But if what you want is to complain about every iteration of Star Trek and make yourself feel bad about it for the rest of your life, that's your call. I'd rather enjoy myself while watching the show, which is why I ignore the fanboy, obsessive-compulsive side of me when I do.

    It's a retcon. About a fictional TV show. You'll get over it. If you can watch Star Wars and not mind the fact that they made a new suit for Vader in Empire, or a new Star Destroyer model in the same movie, etc. you can accept larger changes that have no narrative impact.
     
    JoeP, burningoil and Midquest like this.
  17. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    I have to disagree there.
     
    Midquest likes this.
  18. fireproof78

    fireproof78 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    Location:
    fireproof78
    I think this is a part that requires some restating. If this were a historical recreation then I could follow the complaints better. However, it is an artistic recreation of a fictional world that extrapolates humanity's possible future. Of course it will be reimagined to artistic and technological knowledge.
    Retcons in Star Wars?! Next you'll tell me that Luke and Leia were not intended to be brother and sister! :D
     
    JoeP, burningoil, SJGardner and 2 others like this.
  19. Tuskin38

    Tuskin38 Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Or that Vader was Luke's father.
     
    fireproof78 likes this.
  20. David cgc

    David cgc Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Location:
    California
    There. Right there. And that was in regard to someone suggesting just keeping the floorplan and basic shapes (which very nearly describes what they actually did denotatively, if not connotatively), not rebuilding it with authentic cardboard, cheap carpeting, and jelly-beans. They could've done something that looked a lot more like the original and still would've "cut it." This was not the minimum viable redesign.

    There are two separate arguments going on here. One is, could DSC have hewed closer to the TOS mid-century modern aesthetic and still maintained an acceptable level of quality and verisimilitude for a modern TV show? I say, "yes," but it's a dead issue, though apparently one where there was behind-the-scenes debate up through post-production on the pilot.

    (A related question is, if they didn't want to evoke TOS visually or dramaturgically at all, and only minimally narratively, why did they set it nearly in that period? To which the answer is, "hell if I know.")

    The second argument is, is the redesign of the Enterprise bridge successful? I say, "almost, but not quite," but because I also didn't believe the style change was necessary in the first place, we've gotten distracted. There could be better versions of the bridge that look more like TOS, and better versions that look less like it, but the fact is that this version has issues, "silly" though they may be.

    So, just so we're clear, because I accept things like the stuff I explicitly gave as examples of getting it right, I can accept things I explicitly gave as examples of getting it wrong. "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things."

    You clearly don't want to talk about the redesign on the merits. Its existence apparently asserts its quality for you.

    I think, in a theoretical sense, that if they were going to revisit something we've already seen, it should look like it did before, but that ship has sailed for DSC. In an actual sense, I think that if they were going to redesign the Enterprise bridge for the DSC aesthetic, they didn't go far enough, and were too wedded to trying to add details that looked '60s rather than combining their design style, such as it is, with TOS's bridge holistically, and the result is a disunified mishmash of retro touches in a modern setting.

    The helm is too small and blocky compared to the rest of the room. The Burke chairs look incongruous. The closer they'd kept to the original design, the less open they would've left themselves to critique. Yes, I know, I'll die friendless and alone, my heart swollen with black bile, but I must speak my truth; the new Enterprise bridge could've been better.
     
    Captain Jed R. likes this.