This would be my guess; too many cooks and all that.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
This would be my guess; too many cooks and all that.
thats my take away from it.
I mean seriously, I love the TOS, it is my favorite, I was 3 years old, I knew who Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise were, and even as a kid I could see that TOS looked older compared to the TOS movies that had come out at the time, and especially compared to TNG, which is they Trek that was in production during that time, but it's the TOS that is my number one Favorite, not dis-respect to the rest. and even back then I could see the 60's aesthetics on the Exterior design of the ship, but it was still the Enterprise!
After seeing First Contact, I started wondering what the TOS era would look like based on the contemporary(at the time)look of Trek's past, and I imagined something that still pretty much looked like the TOS Enterprise, just a bit more detail, maybe a few curves here and there, I was open to it, not as a replacement, but just as a contemporary look at that Era of Trek. The 2009 movie did great on the uniforms, the JJprise I was not and still not a Fan of, I liked the updated surface detail and things like that, but the proportions just made me gag, I accepted it through gritted teeth, concept art for the ship looked better.
Once I started seeing images for Discovery, I begin to wonder what the TOS Enterprise would look like according to Discovery, what would Dicovery's Interpretation be? and that had nothing to do with whether I like the show or not, just as a TOS Fan, I was curious as to what it would look like . and I was surprised it was as close as it was, I saw those Nacelles glowing Red, and said "Holy Shit" as it came closer, I said "The Enterprise" I was busy seeing The Enterprise in the design , to see the design changes on the ship. And that's the best I could have hoped for, now of course where they go from here with it, have to wait and see. No I would not dare go back and replace the Enterprise in TOS with this one, but I can buy that within the context of Star Trek Discovery, This is The Enterprise!
Perhaps on readout stations but the Helm and Navigation console still had buttons on it.
What with sketches and 3D rendering and (no doubt) a lot of OK's and "no ways", I could see it taking that long. Stuff like "we're not putting 3 nacelles on it"
Are you talking in-universe, or real-world? As far as real-world, the thing started out being redone for Phase II, them re-redone for TMP. In-universe, even if the core areas are still in there, everything on the outside was expanded and redone. Probably could've built a ship from the keel up quicker.
In the real world the move may be more away from discreen controls, at least on some spacecraft.Perhaps on readout stations but the Helm and Navigation console still had buttons on it.
The early version of SpaceX crewed Dragon 2 on public display a couple of years ago included some Tesla like displays with a center joystick and a center console that seemed to be a homage to the old Apollo AGC.
The (apparently) close to finished version has far fewer buttons, no joystick at all. No jellybeans, toggle switches or barberpole indicators to be found. Looks like it would be right at home on the front of a runabout.
The CST-100 however, still has lots of throwable switches.
Nonsense. "Stop!" doesn't mean something different to a mountain climber than it does on a VCR. Now they might imply different contextual procedure, but the definition of the word is exactly the same.
The crux here is that there are multiple ways to "reboot" something and people [incorrectly] use them interchangeably. And just because it's common usage doesn't make it correct. See: "literally"; "ironic"; etc. Or the one that particularly rubs my rhubarb: iconic.
With computers, there are multiple ways to reboot one. Users can run a software reboot or a hardware reboot. The software reboot can be high-level or low level. They can run one over the other. (While it's more common to reboot software without rebooting hardware, it is possible - with modern networking technology - to do the opposite.) This can be done concurrently or sequentially.
And even within those types or reboots, there are multiple processes that can be run. You can run initiation scripts to change your wallpaper and icons and fonts when the computer boots up again. You can set it to install updates or drivers for new hardware. Hell, you can set it up so that you turn it off before going to bed and wake up with a whole new operating system. Or, of course, you can close your laptop lid and turn the power off in good faith, knowing everything will be right where you left it in the morning.
Interestingly enough, all those things have their equivalent analog in fiction. And if more people recognized that, #Klingonswrong #Discotoobig, #Notprime, #Canonviolation, #Genesvision, #Notmystartrek would never be a thing.
You, sir, are too legit to quit.
The NX design comes before it, Nothing in Trek is based off the TOS design. Its the lame duck here. Once the NX was placed before the TOS design, it killed its place. Which is not what I am even talking about to start with. The Dish is retro, far, far too retro for any other design on DSC, many of which are supposed to be older than this ship.
I like the rest of the ship, but that dish does not fit and stick out like someone duct taping a 34 ford front clip to a PT cruiser.
It is a design style. It is know by a few names "Space age", "Atomic age", "60's future" and "Retro future" to name a few off hands. Like "Art Deco" you know it when you see it and its a set thing. I am not saying it looks "old" just to be saying it. I went to school for this stuff. I may not be as experienced as Pixel magic, but this stuff is glaring to me. Like a freaking emergency flare in the dark.
As to "IRL" we have dishes, which this was based off of. They are pretty common in realistic ship art. This is a style that went out by the 1970's IRL. So yes, I can point out RL designs as people have tried to do in this thread,
Why it was a false argument is because that car does not look more primitive. Its simply a change in artistic style, but everything about it does not seem primitive. The dish stands out , the same way the 50's car styling does. If you see a 57 chevy, you know what it is. You also know its less advanced than something from the late 80's, even if the style of the square body is more utilitarian than the classic 50's fin styling.
That is the issue you are trying to over step here. The Dish is a space age style, which no longer matches the updated design or anything else in DSC.
No is correct. Everything that comes later is based off the TMP design, which in turn is not the TOS design. Its a vague shape , like the TOS ship, but not the TOS ship.
Yes. It is Space age styling. A retro look, that the other designs lack. It does not fit the ship, its belongs on something Jetson would drive,
Jetsons never had anything like that.
And parts of the NX-Class were based off the TOS Connie because it pre-dated it.
That's cold.
We're trying too hard here. Let's call it a reset, if you prefer. The point is that they didn't reset the continuity. It's in the same timeline as the rest of Trek, Abrams movies excluded.
No such thing as a "false argument". Stop it.
Yes it does. Naturally we expect things to become smoother and more complex with time, but often the reverse happens. It's not that easy to say what looks more primitive if you don't already know. Some guns from the 17th century look a lot cooler and more artistic than modern ones, and yet they are primitive and unreliable.
The whole ship's design stands out like a 60s starship.
Of course you know. The point is that if you didn't, you might think otherwise. Sheesh, what a bad argument.
Not to these eyes. No 60s dish would look like that.
The early AMT TOS E model kits had the raised lines and most blueprints (esp. the FJ ones) have grid lines. They probably wanted a grid pattern, but like may other things & greeblies, it wouldn't have translated well to 1960's TV, if at all.
In the real world the move may be more away from discreen controls, at least on some spacecraft.
The early version of SpaceX crewed Dragon 2 on public display a couple of years ago included some Tesla like displays with a center joystick and a center console that seemed to be a homage to the old Apollo AGC.
The (apparently) close to finished version has far fewer buttons, no joystick at all. No jellybeans, toggle switches or barberpole indicators to be found. Looks like it would be right at home on the front of a runabout.
The CST-100 however, still has lots of throwable switches.
Switches are better for redundancy, and harder to break a whole panels worth. On the other hand, reconfigurable panels, lots of them, TNG style, gives you ultimate redundancy. You can run the ship from a panel in the nursery.
Similar threads
