USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I wasn't putting anyone down. No need to take things personally. I was merely disputing your claim that non-fans (a term I assume you intended as synonymous with "general audiences") think the original Enterprise looks "downright silly." Specifically, I did this by underscoring your own admission that you don't actually have data to support the claim.
I honestly don't understand the attitude involved here; I've observed it from multiple posters (not just you), but it seems self-contradictory to me. You seem to think that pleasing general audiences and pleasing Trek fans are mutually incompatible goals, and that the former are more important (even though the reasons involved come down entirely to business goals, not creative ones). Yet you've also posted that general audiences are "rather easy to please." Apparently, you think they can be pleased by just about anything the producers care to throw on screen, except material that would gratify actual Trek fans. Specifically, you appear to think that general audiences will be pleased by a version of the Enterprise that looks almost like the original (except for a few fairly arbitrary design changes), yet somehow wouldn't tolerate the actual original design (even spiffed up with modern production values). The underlying logic is... elusive.
Last edited:
Possibly because there is not always logic to design preferences.
So I assume you related to La La Land?
FWIW, I don't think jazz is as dead as all that. I don't know what style of it you're into, but I know that there's at least a steady demand for '40s-style swing jazz, because you can dance to it. I live in Indiana, for heaven's sake — not exactly a cultural mecca! — and even around here, there are regular opportunities to swing dance to a live band, and people of all ages turn out for them, in significant numbers. In larger cities I've visited, the swing scene is even more vibrant. It's a subculture, yeah, but a lively one.
It's not to make it "busy" but to give it scale.
And as you apparently missed in my response, anecdotes ARE data, despite what snappy one-liners might otherwise indicate.
Careful, now. I mentioned a very specific subset of Trek fans.
Well, of course they're business goals. How do you expect _any_ fictional franchise to remain alive without a steady flow of money?
Please refrain from putting words in my mouth. "Rather easy" doesn't mean what you just posted here. On the one hand you ask me to not take things personally and on the other you blatantly misrepresent what I post.
How about you stop speculating about what I think and go with what I write, ok? What's the point of addressing what you believe I think anyway? It has no bearing on the discussion.
I don't follow. Wanting to change the look doesn't imply wanting to change the narrative and history.
Honestly, IDGAF if people want to call DSC a reboot or not. (Taxonomy strikes me as being a worthless exercise most of the time.) I just have no idea what one thing has to do with the other.
Which is why I said "potential."
I think that set is the so-called "Section 31 Bridge/Lab" that we see as a title on the set of blueprints in the video.
How does aztecing give anything scale? Ship features recognizably relatable to human beings do that (e.g., bridges, windows, decks).
No, they're not — at least, not the kind that would support the claim you made. Saying it again doesn't make it so.
Restating and paraphrasing what an interlocutor has said is a pretty standard component of civil conversation. It helps to avoid misunderstandings, summarize complex trains of thought, and make clear exactly what one is responding to. In a forum like this, it's also a lot easier and more elegant than wading through pages of old posts to quote your exact words back to you. IOW, it's done in good faith, and it's nothing to take offense at. If you think I am in fact misunderstanding what you were trying to say, though, then by all means feel free to clarify in some way that demonstrates how there isn't actually an internal contradiction.
(The essence of that contradiction, FWIW, is summed up even more succinctly by @Serveaux's post immediately above this one.)
Really? It's like asking me to prove that 2+2 = 4.
It gives scale because you can see the plating that was used to make the hull, so it looks big because we expect individual plates to be of a certain size. Hell, just having a bunch of components on the ship, ala Star Wars, gives it scale even though SW details make little sense. I know real ships don't have plating like that, but I didn't say it was for realism, just scale.
And denying it doesn't make it not so. Anecdotes are _weak_ evidence, but they are evidence. Anecdotes are used as data all the time. Especially since we're already talking about people's opinions. Polling anecdotes is the only way to do it.
Twisting it to mean something else is a pretty standard component of trolling. Stop it.
Maybe. I'm not them, so I don't know. But at least the latter looks more modern.
The rightful place of Disco's design profile is in the disco era with "Planet of the Titans."
Kor
Except it doesn't, because we don't. Who the heck has an intuitive sense of the size of a piece of starship hull plating? I certainly don't. Honestly, all aztecing has ever done for me is make me wonder why the shipbuilders can't polish or paint the hull plates in some way to reduce the visual clutter.
But it doesn't actually have that effect, because the details don't make sense.
The two are inextricable, though. The whole concept of a ship's "scale" is about how it relates to real-world objects, particularly human beings. Things we can relate to on that level (a window, a turbolift shaft, an airlock) provide scale. So do features that we can match up from both exterior and interior views (e.g., a shuttle bay). Random surface details, however, do not.
Now you're accusing me of trolling?
Seriously, give it a rest. You seem incapable of discussing disagreements without taking things personally. I invited you to clarify your intended meaning, very politely. If you decline to do so, that's not my problem.
Who the hell talked about intuitive or exact size? I said that it creates an expectation of scale. Do you or do you not understand that?
All I'm asking you to do is to stop adding to or changing what I post. Can you do that?
Last edited:
Heavily redesigned.
Last edited:
There are a lot of things about the show itself that I like. The ship is not one of them.
Kor
Similar threads
