USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
There's no need for any of that descriptors. Threads drift.
Funny, I thoroughly enjoy Kirk's arc in the Abrams' films as it explores what makes Kirk Kirk.
They obviously know what they're doing or the show wouldn't have gotten made in the first place. I mean, they're competent enough to actually create a professional quality television series with realistic looking sets and respectable acting and broadcast their product on a digital streaming service, which is more than could be said for any of us. Apart from maybe Christopher, I doubt anyone on this thread would be qualified to bring John Eaves a cup of coffee, let alone make creative decisions that will define the shape of the entire series...
Okay, I've never said this out loud, but why does it feel like every one of these threads has a subtext like "If I was in charge of this series, it would be so awesome!"
This is a thread about starships... and all of the starships in Discovery were basically designed by the same guy and touched up by the same five or six people.
So I can't help but think that maybe the problem is you DON'T UNDERSTAND the styles they're using and assume that they don't either?
Well yeah, which means you're pretty much BOTH wrong. They're not being totally contemporary, they're redesigning classic props and sets using contemporary styles. The hand phaser and the communicator were the most obvious examples of this; Discovery's engine room with its big glowy business behind the blast doors was another. And now we have the Enterprise itself, making it totally obvious that what they're actually doing is taking the classic designs and jazzing them up with contemporary filigree.
You may not LIKE that idea, but that's obviously the goal of what they're trying to do, and they've been pretty explicit about this from day one (hell, the fucking title sequence actually shows the transformation of the hand phaser!) It's yet another case where someone is trying to push a subjective interpretation as if it were objectively verifiable.
Well, other than the fact that Abrams explicit said as much in 2009:
"I wanted to go back to the beginning and start afresh," he recalls, talking just before the Los Angeles premiere and soon after rave reviews of the movie had appeared in the US. As producer and director he knew he had to walk a fine line between creating a fresh Star Trek for the 21st century while avoiding alienating die-hard Trekkies, who still revere the old series as an icon of modern pop culture.
"I wanted to take the spirit of what was created 43 years ago and use it to make it relevant for today, but the key was that we wanted to make it ours and not feel constrained by too many rules that were almost half a century old," he says. "The spirit of what came before had to fuel the movie and yet the specifics of the film needed to be ours."
"I wanted to take the spirit of what was created 43 years ago and use it to make it relevant for today, but the key was that we wanted to make it ours and not feel constrained by too many rules that were almost half a century old," he says. "The spirit of what came before had to fuel the movie and yet the specifics of the film needed to be ours."
But as an "experienced audience member" I'm sure you're a qualified expert to judge his real intentions, yes?
... which YOUR Star Trek television series totally is, yes?
Whbat does it mean? It means the film did well at the Box Office:Ah, the myth of a "2009 audience." (Now updated to a "2018 audience" by defenders of DSC.)What exactly does that mean? Who exactly do you imagine those audiences to be? How exactly do you imagine that their tastes are different than audiences of the 1990s or the 1960s? How do you imagine Abrams imagined their tastes? Why do you imagine his films (or now, DSC) is necessarily more suited to those tastes than something else might be?
It's all a big game of psychological projection. People — including Hollywood producers and directors, and including you, and most of us here — naturally consider our own tastes to be reasonable and relatable, and concomitantly assume that other people (at least most of them) share those tastes. Even when there's not a shred of empirical evidence for it, it's a comforting thing to believe, and thus an easy argument to mount in defense of making stuff that we like. You can tell, because you see it mounted in defense of wildly different stuff, even at the same time.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek11.htm
Total Lifetime Grosses (2009)
Domestic: $257,730,019 66.8%
+ Foreign: $127,950,427 33.2%
= Worldwide: $385,680,446
As opposed to the last outing of TNG on the big screen: aka Star Trek: Nemesis
Total Lifetime Grosses (2002)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek10.htm
Domestic: $43,254,409 64.3%
+ Foreign: $24,058,417 35.7%
= Worldwide: $67,312,826
(Which was BEAT OUT its opening weekend by: Maid in Manhattan
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=maidinmanhattan.htm)
You mean the rambling “critique” of the Abrams Trek full of pompous postmodern clichés written by a grad student trying oh so hard to show she’s smarter than everyone else? The one that apparently failed to understand that the Kirk presented in those films had a completely separate life path to the one against whom he’s being compared (thus offering an insightful, yet still entertaining, look into the effect of environment on shaping a person’s personality and behaviour)? The one where the essayist clearly misunderstood that Pine-Kirk is MEANT to act DIFFERENTLY from Shatner-Kirk in order to explore a classic “what if?” scenario for which sci-fi is especially suited? That piece?
Yeah. I read it. She’s still full of shit.
Shenzhou and the New Connie are not done in the same style. They do not look like products of a same culture during same time period. I am not blaming Eaves, he is doing fine job under the directives he has been given. For example, he was explicitly told to avoid round nacelles while doing Discovery fleet.
Similarly, in After Trek the costume designer told that the horrid metallic side panels on the uniforms were not originally there, but some producer wanted them.
So while the artists working for the show certainly may be competent, it doesn't mean there is coherent overall vision. It seems that some producers are meddling with stuff they don't understand.
I like that idea. The phasers and Tricorders are superb, and the new Connie is OK. It is just that they're not doing it consistently. The other ships do not reflect that idea, except maybe Discovery itself, which is vaguely based on old design.
Last edited:
This is an absurd standard. I don't need to be a professional chef to tell that McDonald's cheeseburgers are pretty crappy food.
The connie and any DSC ship do not look like they are the same period. The issue with the connie is its a mesh mash of styles. Its part DSC and too much space age styling left. It could be fixed as those left over oddities are the issue.
The connie is the oldest looking ship we have seen.
Last edited:
Right. We agree on this. It is just that I think it is the other ships that are the problem.
I get that, but as they all match, for this show the connie is the issue. I would agree with you of only the shenzhou stuck out. But all the other ships flow. The connie looks like its two decades out from the NX, at most.
Sigh, it would have been super eady to really fix the connie
It's funny, I came by these pics couple days ago:
It takes sooo little to go from 22nd century to late 24th century style. Updated nacelles, different dish, different color and presto, 250 years of ship development. So are we all really complaining which ships look too old or too new? Or if design is right for the era or not? It's all very close to each other anyway.
It takes sooo little to go from 22nd century to late 24th century style. Updated nacelles, different dish, different color and presto, 250 years of ship development. So are we all really complaining which ships look too old or too new? Or if design is right for the era or not? It's all very close to each other anyway.
They were never gonna go cheap and dated. They was never gonna happen for a major show in 2017
Yes, maybe 3, but clearily older than the other ships we have seen.
More like 90
It's funny, I came by these pics couple days ago:
It takes sooo little to go from 22nd century to late 24th century style. Updated nacelles, different dish, different color and presto, 250 years of ship development. So are we all really complaining which ships look too old or too new? Or if design is right for the era or not? It's all very close to each other anyway.
Considering they were designed by the same artist, AND considering that we barely even know what the Discoprize even looks like, I am ASTONISHED that you are in any way comfortable making that assertion.
They do to me. Then again, Shenzhou is considered to be a very OLD ship, so that comparison is probably meaningless.
Even so, what SPECIFICALLY makes you think they don't belong to the same culture in the same time period?
You say "Stuff they don't understand" but I can't help but wonder if you actually mean "Stuff longinus would have preferred."
Take it up with John Eaves, because in all of his interviews and public statements he's been pretty explicit about the fact that this is EXACTLY the idea he was trying to convey.
Similar threads
