I'm saying a better-realized design is an improvement, whereas a changed design (with no in-story rationale) generally isn't. The difference doesn't have to matter to you (just as the Star Wars visual continuity doesn't much matter to me). That's fine. But if you're sincerely asking why it matters to other Trek fans, I'm not sure what I can say that hasn't already been said ad nauseam in these forums to get the point across. And if you're just being sarcastic and not asking sincerely, well, what's the point of that?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I found a pretty good blog post describing the changes made to the Star Destroyer for Rogue One. The gist of it is that the Star Destroyer, while not identical to the original, is actually closer to it than the larger, more detailed model made for ESB was. The most obvious difference from the original model is that it now has lighted windows.
That said, I think an Enterprise as unchanged as the ISDs in Rogue One would be more than a little out of place in Discovery.
Wow, so they can't tell that it's dated, but they'll magically know? Seems like your claim is unfalsifiable.
That assumes that styles are not cyclical or that the in-universe styles follow the same pattern as the real-ones of the past. Explain why I think that the NX looks more primitive than the 1701?
Yep. Comparing Rogue One Star Destroyer update to this DIS Connie Update is a total fallacy. The changes in the Connie are far more extensive (and I'm even fine with most of them, but the approach was certainly quite different.) The R1 Star Destroyer is more like when they changed the Galaxy filming model in TNG.
But how it is this possible? Art Deco was decades old at that point. How could these people in the 70's find this ancient style appealing?
That is a very good comparison.
I think it's time for a not-so-colorful metaphor.No, but this is freaking awesome!
I'll definitely take a look!
I think it's time for a not-so-colorful metaphor.
That was fun. Sadly it also somewhat makes the argument for the designs looking a little dated, as they could pas for high budget thirties Hollywood. On the other hand, you could argue timeless. It will never end.
Oh right, OK. I thought there were flashbacks to them doing spy-stuff together during the War?
I guess I must be mixing memories - merging the War reference to 006's parents and them doing (presumably Cold War) spy stuff together?
dJE
You may be thinking of the pre-credits sequence, where they infiltrate a dam and 006 "gets shot" by Ourumov?
Exactly. Even Star Trek suffers from the 2 dimensional idea of space, with use of 3 dimensions being "novel" ways of fighting foes, i.e. TWOK.
Hmm. Some interesting quotes from that piece, especially this...
...the Star Destroyer seen in the Rogue One trailer is an unbelievably faithful recreation of the three-foot model as it appeared in the original Star Wars. When discussing updating things like the original Star Trek or Babylon 5, my philosophy has been to approach a new version as if you’re looking at the original with your glasses on.
I can get behind that philosophy. Wish the producers of DSC followed it.
and also this...
There are similar variations among X-Wings, Y-Wings, and the Falcon, between both different miniatures and the miniatures versus their full-scale versions, but the trailer isn’t clear enough and I’m not enough of an expert to distinguish between them at a glance.
IOW, even an extremely dedicated SW fan who works professionally as a digital 3D modeler can't necessarily tell the difference between SW ship versions... in contrast to DSC's new version of Enterprise, which is obviously different at a glance.
Well, there's two-dimensional thinking, and then there's misunderstanding how gravity works. Not quite the same level of wrongness. But at any rate I merely offered that as one example of why I personally just don't get into SW as much as Trek; of course YMMV.
Last edited:
I kind of agree, except that this blogger seems to be analyzing the trailer and not the film, where more of those details are available. Among the many changes to the ISD's design includes:
1) Small point defense turrets actually modeled and placed on the hull instead of just implied by laser blasts seeming to come out of them
2) Actual depth and details added behind the oval ports on the superstructure (the parts that, in the original model, came from aircraft carrier kits)
3) Windows in the command tower to represent the location of the bridge
4) Additional ventral and dorsal cannons
5) Slightly redesigned hangar bay complete with Tie fighter launch racks, none of which had even been conceived in ANH.
6) Revised coloring and lighting
Not exhaustive, but this is just for starters.
If you altered the TOS design as much as the original ISD was, what would you get?
1) Phaser banks and torpedo launchers are actually visible on the hull
2) Interiors modeled behind the windows, slight change in the design of the windows
3) Windows on the bridge
4) Visible tractor beams and RCS thrusters
5) Redesigned hangar bay.
6) Revised color and lighting
It actually seems to me that if you painted the discovery version bluish-white and and made it the same COLOR as the TOS version, the differences would be considerably less obvious (much as the difference between the original Star Destroyer and the Empire Strikes Back version are completely lost on 99% of the people who watch Star Wars).
Kind of a good example... how many of us demanded an in-universe explanation for why the Galaxy class starship suddenly looked so weird in half of its effects shots?
Actually, that's 2014 with TNG-Remastered. The original broadcast version used the TMP ship. Just FYI.
1987
No, but this is freaking awesome!
I'll definitely take a look!
that's not the original desgin.
I saw an almost identical concept, the first time like 10 years ago, with no guns and minor hull changes
What I'm getting from the explanations is meaningless terms being explained with other meaningless terms, though. "Better realized," for instance. We seem to be on an infinite regress here.
Whenever I see an argument like this, it usually ends up being founded on irreducible personal tastes.
Similar threads
