USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[CorporalClegg]

If I had to guess, the "screen" was born out of the budding TV technology and trying to equate the starship bridge with a submarine.

The big difference here is there are very practical (and unavoidable) reasons subs don't have any windows. Those reasons don't apply to future ships in space. Plus, as I've already noted, there are also practical reasons for starship bridges to have a window.

And, by 2009, the concept projection glass transparent aluminum was a real technology, only making the window's absence even more noticeable.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

If I had to guess, the "screen" was born out of the budding TV technology and trying to equate the starship bridge with a submarine.

The big difference here is there are very practical (and unavoidable) reasons subs don't have any windows. Those reasons don't apply to future ships in space. Plus, as I've already noted, there are also practical reasons for starship bridges to have a window.

And, by 2009, the concept projection glass transparent aluminum was a real technology, only making the window's absence even more noticeable.

I suppose the inclusion of a window in 2009 followed the same logic as being able to see the destruction of Vulcan from the surface of Delta Vega.

Because visuals.

I would argue that just because projection technology exists, there’s no need to include it into Star Trek. If anything that just serves to date the show.

Like the president said in TUC: just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean that we must do that thing.

 

[Jinn]

On the Enterprise E, the screen is turned on and off, displaying the wall behind the screen. No window.

Images from TrekCore

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Viewscreen?file=Intrepid_class_viewscreen,_damaged.jpg

Interestingly I completely forgot these shots existed. I guess that means no to my theory then

 

[Belz...]

Considering that Sisko, Sarek and Cornwell did not end up behind bars, that obviously didn't happen.

That has literally nothing to do with what I said. It sounds like you're deliberately missing the point now.

You know what my biggest problem with the window is? If it were reversed and the TOS Enterprise had the window, everyone who is currently pro window would be going on about how primitive a window is and how superior the Disco Enterprise is for dispensing with such a useless feature it and going with the clearly more advanced and safe viewscreen.

"Pro window"? As if those posters are on the window's team.

Let me put it this way: I don't mind the window, but it strikes me as rather useless. Is that pro window, or anti window?

Yeah. At the exact point Sisko fired weapons of mass destruction on a human Maquis colony ("For the uniform"), I knew I was pretty much done with Sisko as a respectable human being and DS9 as a "serious" show.

I suppose you gave up on TOS after Spock's Brain, too, and TNG after Genesis. And given The Final Frontier, Threshold and These Are The Voyages..., you probably hate Star Trek in its entirety now.

Sure, Sisko's behaviour in that episode is off the mark and more than a little extreme, but so what? Every series has their faux pas. In Arena, Spock argues against attacking the Gorn ship out of "respect for sentient life" even though they had wiped out a Federation outpost and ambushed the Enterprise and her crew. This is completely out of character, but I didn't "give up" on Spock or on the seriousness of his character.

 

[Longinus]

That has literally nothing to do with what I said. It sounds like you're deliberately missing the point now.

Nope. You're just delusional if you think that either DS9 or Discovery managed to successfully portray optimism.

 

[Belz...]

Nope. You're just delusional if you think that either DS9 or Discovery managed to successfully portray optimism.

Wow, so now you attack my mental health. Very nice. I guess you don't take very well to disagreement.

I also guess you didn't read what I wrote earlier about challenging the principles of the Federation/Star Trek and then having them triumph. I suppose that's not quite "optimistic" for you?

 

[Longinus]

I also guess you didn't read what I wrote earlier about challenging the principles of the Federation/Star Trek and then having them triumph. I suppose that's not quite "optimistic" for you?

It would, if that would have actually happened.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

It would, if that would have actually happened.

Not to drag the discussion too far away from the Enterprise but if we consider two episodes of DS9 with the Enterprise in them we can see some examples of the optimism of the show shining through.

1. Emissary (Enterprise D). Optimism of a whole new quadrant to explore. Optimistic view of Bajor rebuilding after the occupation. The optimism of building relations with a new species of aliens who live in the wormhole. Even the optimistic view that we can live peacefully across from our Cardassian neighbours.

2. Trials and tribble-ations (prime Enterprise). Optimism that Darvin can be stopped. Optimism that history will unfold the way it should. O’Brien optimistic that Bashir isn’t supposed to participate in a predestination paradox and become his own great great grandfather (because he still existed when they got back to Deep Space Nine). Good guys optimistic they will beat bad guys - in both centuries.

Now, zooming out to the rest of the series - we have:

The optimistic view that the wormhole is good for Bajor.

The view that the prophets will triumph over the pah wraiths.

The view that starfleet will defeat the dominion.

The view that Nog will get better after his injury.

The view that Worf will get better after Jadzia gets into StoVoKor.

There is never a sense of despair on DS9. Even in “the sound of her voice” the crew is optimistic that they will save the crashed captain.

DS9 illustrated the view that although it may be darkest before the dawn, we should remain optimistic that the dawn will indeed come.

Sisko’s speech to Worf about not resigning in “way of the warrior” encapsulates the optimism of DS9. And Sisko was talking about staying optimistic after the death of his wife.

YMMV of course, but Deep Space Nine was nothing if not optimistic.

 

[Belz...]

It would, if that would have actually happened.

Did you watch the whole of DS9 and DSC so far? It sounds as if you didn't.

 

[Longinus]

Did you watch the whole of DS9 and DSC so far? It sounds as if you didn't.

Yes I did. Couple of pretty speeches do not make me forget the atrocities.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Seriously, how do Anovos make a physical model that looks like a blurry-textured low-poly render? That takes some serious effort.

That (either one of them) isn't the greatest image to begin with. It appears to be zoomed-in part of a low-resolution photograph that's possibly been processed through lossy compression at some point in its way across the Internet from there to here. Could it be that you're reacting to artifacts in the image itself?

 

[GNDN18]

Interestingly I completely forgot these shots existed. I guess that means no to my theory then

Pilot no. 1:

SPOCK: Check the circuit.
TYLER: All operating, sir.
SPOCK: It can't be the screen then. Definitely something out there, Captain, headed this way.

Sorry, Jinn. I couldn’t resist

 

[Rahul]

I suppose you gave up on TOS after Spock's Brain, too, and TNG after Genesis. And given The Final Frontier, Threshold and These Are The Voyages..., you probably hate Star Trek in its entirety now.

Sure, Sisko's behaviour in that episode is off the mark and more than a little extreme, but so what? Every series has their faux pas. In Arena, Spock argues against attacking the Gorn ship out of "respect for sentient life" even though they had wiped out a Federation outpost and ambushed the Enterprise and her crew. This is completely out of character, but I didn't "give up" on Spock or on the seriousness of his character.

Dude!
There is a fuckin' difference between "someone acting out of character", and "someone using WMD's on civilians".
Like, a REALLY big one.

And the sad thing is: Sisko doesn't really act out of character at this point. It's really him, the same "the ends justify ALL fucking means at all times"- guy.

Sisko is a war criminal. Period.
And I don't blame the show for including this - I'm okay with a show about war having war criminals act in them. The problem is Sisko is always treated like a hero, and never like the abhorring criminal he is.
A bit like as if "Lorca" was still hailed as a hero after his villain-reveal.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Dude!
There is a fuckin' difference between "someone acting out of character", and "someone using WMD's on civilians".
Like, a REALLY big one.

And the sad thing is: Sisko doesn't really act out of character at this point. It's really him, the same "the ends justify ALL fucking means at all times"- guy.

Sisko is a war criminal. Period.
And I don't blame the show for including this - I'm okay with a show about war having war criminals act in them. The problem is Sisko is always treated like a hero, and never like the abhorring criminal he is.
A bit like as if "Lorca" was still hailed as a hero after his villain-reveal.

Wasn’t the planet Sisko used the torpedoes on a maquis base?

So they weren’t civilians? They were armed soldiers who were actively attacking starfleet ships? They did disable the Malinche... and the defiant!

And Sisko gave the maquis plenty of warning before he opened fire giving them time to evacuate. The maquis ignored him.

Plus Sisko poisoned the atmosphere slowly - the maquis would have to leave but it’s not like he nuked it so that they would all die instantly. As far as WMDs go, the torpedoes Sisko used seemed reasonably harmless - so long as you leave the planet immediately and didn’t breathe in the air for a long time.

 

[Jinn]

Wasn’t the planet Sisko used the torpedoes on a maquis base?

So they weren’t civilians? They were armed soldiers who were actively attacking starfleet ships? They did disable the Malinche... and the defiant!

And Sisko gave the maquis plenty of warning before he opened fire giving them time to evacuate. The maquis ignored him.

Plus Sisko poisoned the atmosphere slowly - the maquis would have to leave but it’s not like he nuked it so that they would all die instantly. As far as WMDs go, the torpedoes Sisko used seemed reasonably harmless - so long as you leave the planet immediately and didn’t breathe in the air for a long time.

SISKO: I'm not planning to fire at any ships, Mister Worf. Major, what is the nearest Maquis colony.
KIRA: Solosos Three. Less than an hour away.
SISKO: Helm, set a course for Solosos Three.
DAX: Aye, sir.
SISKO: Major, I want you to send the following message on all Maquis frequencies. To all the members of the Maquis resistance. This is Captain Sisko of the USS Defiant. In response to the Maquis's use of biogenic weapons in their recent attacks, I am about to take the following action. In exactly one hour, I will detonate two quantum torpedoes that will scatter trilithium resin in the atmosphere of Solosos Three. I thereby will make the planet uninhabitable to all human life for the next fifty years. I suggest evacuation plans begin immediately. What are you waiting for, people? Carry out your orders.

While it isn't definitely said that it's a civillian facility, there is another Maquis colony in the episode which is said to be the home of resettled civilists, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this colony also has civilians. But even if it doesn't, there is still the fact that Sisko just asked Kira for the name of the nearest colony while knowing that it may harbour civilian life.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

While it isn't definitely said that it's a civillian facility, there is another Maquis colony in the episode which is said to be the home of resettled civilists, so I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that this colony also has civilians. But even if it doesn't, there is still the fact that Sisko just asked Kira for the name of the nearest colony while knowing that it may harbour civilian life.

True I suppose. Although the description of “maquis colony” suggests that it may have essentially been a base of operations.

Either way - the civilians, sadly, would likely have been considered collateral damage. But the maquis attacked the federation, putting them in a state of war with starfleet. And a nonaligned colony wouldn’t necessarily have been a maquis colony - so the fact that Solosos iii was a called a maquis colony implies that even if the colonists weren’t soldiers they were sympathetic towards the maquis, possibly even hiding them etc.

Sisko isn’t a war criminal.

 

[Rahul]

True I suppose. Although the description of “maquis colony” suggests that it may have essentially been a base of operations.

Either way - the civilians, sadly, would likely have been considered collateral damage. But the maquis attacked the federation, putting them in a state of war with starfleet. And a nonaligned colony wouldn’t necessarily have been a maquis colony - so the fact that Solosos iii was a called a maquis colony implies that even if the colonists weren’t soldiers they were sympathetic towards the maquis, possibly even hiding them etc.

Sisko isn’t a war criminal.

A "colony" IMO describes a settlement. Which is distinctively different than a "base", which can have solely military functions.

And even in a war, it's a hell of a war crime no non-distinctively attack populated settlements in enemy territory. Especially when using WMDs or bio-weapons! There is really nothing "vague" about it - if any of the real world laws would have applied, Sisko should have found himself in front of a UN tribunal.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the maquis attacked the federation, putting them in a state of war with starfleet. And a nonaligned colony wouldn’t necessarily have been a maquis colony - so the fact that Solosos iii was a called a maquis colony implies that even if the colonists weren’t soldiers they were sympathetic towards the maquis, possibly even hiding them etc.

Exactly.

Not all of the colonists in the DMZ were Maquis. That word only applies to the ones who chose to fight. There is no such thing as a "civilian Maquis". So the use of the specific phrase "Maquis colony" implies a military/paramilitary base of some kind.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

A "colony" IMO describes a settlement. Which is distinctively different than a "base", which can have solely military functions.

And even in a war, it's a hell of a war crime no non-distinctively attack populated settlements in enemy territory. Especially when using WMDs or bio-weapons! There is really nothing "vague" about it - if any of the real world laws would have applied, Sisko should have found himself in front of a UN tribunal.

Did Churchill find himself before such a tribunal for ordering the bombing of civilian targets in ww2? Air raids on Berlin and all that?

Seriously - I’m a Doctor* not an historian

*of linguistics but still...

And as @Mr. Laser Beam points out the term “maquis colony” heavily implies that this was an enemy colony since the maquis were politically aligned against the federation.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Did Churchill find himself before such a tribunal for ordering the bombing of civilian targets in ww2? Air raids on Berlin and all that?

Seriously - I’m a Doctor* not an historian

*of linguistics but still...

And as @Mr. Laser Beam points out the term “maquis colony” heavily implies that this was an enemy colony since the maquis were politically aligned against the federation.

Are you a cunning linguist?