They work just fine.Look at those flimsy nacelle pylons. Those do not work at all.
They work just fine.Look at those flimsy nacelle pylons. Those do not work at all.
Certainly they'd be fine in DSC, which features lots of such pylons.
Sufficiently advanced technology cares not about such things
They are fan made, but using photos of the original model after the restoration process.This. A thousand times this! And these were done by a fan. Imagine what the professionals with CBSAA/Netflix money could achieve!
The ones on the Shenzhou and the Gagarin are just as "thin" - them being a tad shorter hides the fact somewhat.
Timo Saloniemi
Unless it does. Fans don't have veto power over retcons; if they decide that it does, then it does.But it doesn't.
While that is unlikely in principal, the fact is the DSC starship, uniform and prop designs are ALOT closer to what we saw in TMP than in TOS.As said, though, it doesn't follow that DSC couldn't show us some TOS movie style stuff for the shits and giggles.
Unless it does. Fans don't have veto power over retcons; if they decide that it does, then it does.
While that is unlikely in principal, the fact is the DSC starship, uniform and prop designs are ALOT closer to what we saw in TMP than in TOS.
More importantly, this has already happened once. The art department of the Kelvinverse films borrowed alot more elements -- in terms of style and shape -- from the TMP version than the TOS one.
That looks great.I just had a thought. Discovery has taken Star Trek space scenes into new dynamic territory. Back in the old days we're used to seeing ships backlit and super imposed on space backgrounds. With modern technology, Discovery's rendered lighting has a more realistic feel. I was experimenting with a photo of a Master Replica's enterprise model and put it against a Discovery esque space background and tried my best to give it the dynamic Discovery lighting.
![]()
Thank you. I don't get it either. I guess it's not 2017 enough for some.That looks great.
For the life of me, I just cannot get why so many think that the original Constitution is an inherently primitive-looking design. It's slim, sleek, and streamlined, reflecting a modernist design aesthetic.
Kor
I agree. The Grey Lady is still sexy as hell.For the life of me, I just cannot get why so many think that the original Constitution is an inherently primitive-looking design. It's slim, sleek, and streamlined, reflecting a modernist design aesthetic.
Look at those flimsy nacelle pylons. Those do not work at all.
Sufficiently advanced technology cares not about such things, as it is advanced enough so that those nacelles are strong enough for what the ship was designed to do.
That looks great.
For the life of me, I just cannot get why so many think that the original Constitution is an inherently primitive-looking design. It's slim, sleek, and streamlined, reflecting a modernist design aesthetic.
Kor
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.