USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

For everything Star Trek related, that isn't covered by the other forums.
User avatar
Greyryder
Can-Do Captain
Can-Do Captain
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2013 4:06 am
Contact:

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby Greyryder » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:40 am

el gato wrote:Probert was on to something with the design of the D


I think he was just on something.

SKO
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:38 am

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby SKO » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:59 am

Greyryder wrote:
el gato wrote:Probert was on to something with the design of the D


I think he was just on something.


The Probert interviews on Trekyards are my favorite, because he's a cranky old dude with no filter, so you get the unwashed behind the scenes stories, but also you can definitely see why his ideas were considered impractical enough for a weekly show on a limited miniatures budget that they needed to let him go after a season. I do love a lot of his designs, the D'Deridex and the D'Kora are both excellent ships (even if the D'Kora was sadly under-used and under-represented as a 1/1400 model kit amirite folks?). I don't hate the Galaxy Class. I don't hate many federation starships at all outside of most of the DS9 kitbashes and the Princeton. I just don't love it as much as I love the other Enterprises.

User avatar
Tesral
Anything Goes Admiral
Anything Goes Admiral
Posts: 3193
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Location: Dearborn, Mi -- at my desk.
Contact:

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby Tesral » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:01 pm

el gato wrote:I harken back to that quote from Kirk about "engines the size of walnuts." That spoke to raw power and impossibly advanced technologies. The curves speak to grace and beauty, art as function. Probert was on to something with the design of the D


Yes, bigger is not necessarily better. The Nacelles on the Intrepid class are also relatively small. I design my own ships to the same esthetic. IMHO the worse Enterprise is the B. The Excelsior is an ugly fug on good days. Slapped together from spare parts.

I also keep in mind Rodenbeery's idea that starships are worked from the INSIDE. I am not fond of greblles and kurdels on the outside. Smooth skins please. ILM getting a hold of Trek models was not a good thing.

The scene in First Contact where they have to go outside to release the dish is bunk.
Garry AKA --Phoenix-- Rising above the Flames.
"I saw it done on Voyager" is no excuse for anything, even breathing.

SKO
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 176
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 1:38 am

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby SKO » Thu Aug 10, 2017 1:18 pm

Tesral wrote:
el gato wrote:I harken back to that quote from Kirk about "engines the size of walnuts." That spoke to raw power and impossibly advanced technologies. The curves speak to grace and beauty, art as function. Probert was on to something with the design of the D


Yes, bigger is not necessarily better. The Nacelles on the Intrepid class are also relatively small. I design my own ships to the same esthetic. IMHO the worse Enterprise is the B. The Excelsior is an ugly fug on good days. Slapped together from spare parts.

I also keep in mind Rodenbeery's idea that starships are worked from the INSIDE. I am not fond of greblles and kurdels on the outside. Smooth skins please. ILM getting a hold of Trek models was not a good thing.

The scene in First Contact where they have to go outside to release the dish is bunk.


I always took the line that deck 11 contained deflector control and the fact that the borg had locked them out of most non-main computer systems to mean that they had to go outside to release it manually because the automatic function had been disabled. I never assumed that was the only way to do it.

I also don't really think the Sovereign/Excelsior have many more greeblies outside the ship than a connie, they just have different colored or multi-layered paneling, the overall surface is still smooth and as hundreds of episodes and movies have shown like 99% of all repairs are done entirely from within the ship.

User avatar
el gato
Fatidical Fleet Admiral
Fatidical Fleet Admiral
Posts: 5924
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:41 pm
Location: In a land whose boundaries are that of imagination

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby el gato » Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:01 pm

Greyryder wrote:
el gato wrote:Probert was on to something with the design of the D


I think he was just on something.


:lol: :lol:

OK, that is funny, but Probert's design of the D was one of the few instances where organic shapes were first introduced into scifi ship design. The D wasn't just mechanical or functional; it was both but graceful. It signaled that humanity/Starfleet had moved beyond utilitarian ship designs and could splurge a little. It was an embrace of nature (and possibly hubris). I'm not going to convince you to love the D, but it should be appreciated for what Probert was trying to do.
RogueWolf wrote:I've sacrificed many dozens (maybe even hundreds) of gummy bears to the dark modeling gods to grant me my wish... but I fear my offerings only amuse them, not appease them.

User avatar
patrickivan
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Central Ontario
Contact:

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby patrickivan » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Tesral wrote:
el gato wrote:I harken back to that quote from Kirk about "engines the size of walnuts." That spoke to raw power and impossibly advanced technologies. The curves speak to grace and beauty, art as function. Probert was on to something with the design of the D


Yes, bigger is not necessarily better. The Nacelles on the Intrepid class are also relatively small. I design my own ships to the same esthetic. IMHO the worse Enterprise is the B. The Excelsior is an ugly fug on good days. Slapped together from spare parts.

I also keep in mind Rodenbeery's idea that starships are worked from the INSIDE. I am not fond of greblles and kurdels on the outside. Smooth skins please. ILM getting a hold of Trek models was not a good thing.

The scene in First Contact where they have to go outside to release the dish is bunk.


Agreed. The whole detail on the outside was less important on TOS E, because everything important was inside. And dangerous Engines were kept far from the hull. But I'm not going to try to sway anyone on that POV. Many camps and I'm in the Right One ;) LOL
"I drink to make people interesting"

George Nathan

User avatar
patrickivan
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Central Ontario
Contact:

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby patrickivan » Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:55 pm

el gato wrote:
Greyryder wrote:
el gato wrote:Probert was on to something with the design of the D


I think he was just on something.


:lol: :lol:

OK, that is funny, but Probert's design of the D was one of the few instances where organic shapes were first introduced into scifi ship design. The D wasn't just mechanical or functional; it was both but graceful. It signaled that humanity/Starfleet had moved beyond utilitarian ship designs and could splurge a little. It was an embrace of nature (and possibly hubris). I'm not going to convince you to love the D, but it should be appreciated for what Probert was trying to do.


True... Organic and horrible pastels LOL.

Clearly I like the D (See my avatar). And yes, other series like Andromeda had very organic looking ships. Andromeda for one I think would have fit in nicely as a non-terran ship in TNG.

And what the hell was that other series with McDowell? The ship was shaped loosely like a dragonfly... Very neat... FARSCAPE! Yes. That's it. LOL
"I drink to make people interesting"

George Nathan

TonyG2
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:42 am
Location: Steel City UK

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby TonyG2 » Fri Aug 11, 2017 9:10 am

And what the hell was that other series with McDowell? The ship was shaped loosely like a dragonfly... Very neat... FARSCAPE! Yes. That's it. LOL


Close but no Banana.

You are thinking of Lexx

Image

User avatar
patrickivan
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2012 3:40 pm
Location: Central Ontario
Contact:

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby patrickivan » Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:12 pm

Ah yes! Thanks!

But at least I was right about it being organic looking.

And taking time to actually LOOK this time, Leviathan (from Farscape was also organic looking). I completely forgot what that ship looked like. As was more than clear when I described Lexx :lol:

Bananas are also organic looking! You know- because they bananas.
"I drink to make people interesting"

George Nathan

User avatar
nova1972x
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 297
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:37 am
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Re: USS DISCOVERY vs TOS E THOUGHTS

Postby nova1972x » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:43 pm

So I watched the first episode. I did not rush out to see episode 2 online.

First off, this episode was a decent episode, but all the things I was afraid I would not like, came true. No they don't show the USS Discovery, beyond the opening credits.

Here are some observations I made:

1. Just consider this a reboot/reimagining :This episode does not make clear it is the primeverse, and I hope they never do. 1000% a visual reboot for sure. I think from the start, it's better to just view this show as a yet another universe. Absolutely does NOT hold up as prime verse visually. May not fit in the Abramsverse neatly (though with only 3 films, fits there a lot nicer than in the prime verse) Some can get past that maybe, but to me, visuals are as much a part of the Star Trek story as a character or a plot, so i cannot accept this as prime-verse.

2. CGI was pretty mediocre. Most of it looked fine but there are a few space shots (ships, space suits) that looks like AOTC level of CGI, which is to say acceptable but on the verge of looking completely fake. There is a point where Burnham is in a space suit and being raised onto they hull of the ship...totally obvious they just photoshopped her head onto a CGI space suit body.

However, the CGI and FX are pretty nice and polished compared to other series, over all. Unfortunately, NOTHING shares any designs with previous incarnations. Looks on par with the contemporary Abramsverse, but the styling to me is different enough to have a tad bit of trouble shoe-horning it into Abrams-verse canon. Again, think of this as yet another universe, and you will have less problems accepting the visuals.

3. Characters
There are only three Federation characters given enough screen time to even begin forming opinions.

Captain Georgiou: for all the people who wanted Star Trek to go back to its TOS roots....this Captain is very Picard-ish. Which I like, BTW, but for the 24th century haters, you might not. Just don't get too attached.

CDR Michael Burnham: Not once did I say "Haaayyy! It's the Walking dead lady. No, you don't hear why she has a male first name. Green is a good actress, but there are a few points in the episode that bother me how she was written. First off, she is Spock's secret adopted sister we never heard of before. She is sort of a reverse Worf: human child rescued by Sarek at an outpost attacked by Klingons, and raised on Vulcan. She seems too impulsive, and hot headed. Doesn't seem like someone who was a commander who served her captain for 7 years, nor is she convincing as a human who spent her childhood raised on Vulcan and went to Vulcan schools and comes across as too emotional, too aggressive, too insubordinate...especially the end of the first episode. I want to like Burnham, because I like Green as an actress, but so far her character has been written annoyingly to me.

LT Saru: The death sensing alien. They were going for a Big 3 vibe between Georgiou, Burnham and Saru there for a couple scenes Probably the only character I have any overly positive feeling about so far. At least until his death sensing speech.

Klingons: They completely changed the look, feel, armor, and their ships. If you have seen the spoiler photos, it confirms everything, especially your fears. In fact, you will find you have been spoiled on them almost completely. I for one, do not like the new look and does not line up with the other series. If they were another race, I would think they look awesome. As Klingons, not so much. One more reason to consider this a complete reboot.

Then they have a robot who has a CRT monitor for a head (a nod to Data?) that just repeats what everyone else said and whose face flashes red alert and some guy with Lobot's cranial cybernetic implants stuck to his head.

4. Holograms: people talk to each other in the ready room using subspace holograms, like Star Wars (or like in DS9 the last couple seasons).

5. Uniforms really do look THAT bad! I was spoiled on the new uniforms. Hated them when I first saw months ago. But I had a sliver of hope that maybe in action, they look better. NOPE! They look very space-cadet-ish As in a bad 1950s way.

6. Everything has a Federation delta on it. From the guns, to the ships, to the uniforms with tiny deltas on them. Even the toilet paper has a delta stamped on each square.

7. Opening credits look cool. No more complaining about a Rod Steward impersonator.

8. The sets look cool. The interiors of the USS Shenzhao look nice. External shot looks cool, but does not fit at all in the prime-verse, but they do look very JJverse looking. Maybe my imagination, but does look a bit like it was influenced by http://www.pacific201.com/. The gadgets (phasers, communicators) are true to TOS.

9. Klingons at this point have had no formal contact with the Federation for 100 years. So that basically means since the show Enterprise, where the Klingons look just like they did in the TMP films through Nemesis, and all through TNG and DS9...and nothing like they do in this incarnation (yet another reason to see this as a reboot). The Klingon houses that end up making the Great Council we are exposed to in TNG, are not united, which is what the main Klingon leader is wanting to do with a holy war against the Federation. Interesting thing is it is mentioned in one scene there has been no contact with Klingons, then we are told (implied through flashback) Burnham's family was killed by Klingons, when they attacked an Earth-Vulcan (non-Federation?) outpost. Those two revelations come off almost like a continuity error within the same episode, that someone caught, and proposed a line to fix it.

10. The things that I kept thinking throughout seeing the whole episode was why is this not in the 25th century (post nemesis) instead of a decade before Kirk's command, and why do we have to have Burnham have that Sarek connection? Would have worked a lot better if there were no TOS connection. I know it is probably all about name recognition. But this should have been a post nemesis setting. Therefore, I have to just pretend this is yet another timeline or universe to accept it.

Overall reaction is "Eh... well, I don't hate it." But can't say I find it very compelling to watch. I will likely catch the rest of the season when it finally comes to Netflix, but not enough for me to watch and pay for CBS All Access. If CBS's plan was to have Star Trek Discovery as the worm on the hook to lure in more All Access subscriptions, then I think all those who predicted a flop might be right. Also, it is basically as I feared...Abramsverse brought to the small screen. But I doubt we will see any direct connection to the Abramsverse. I also get the impression they will ignore previous canon, while remaining silent on whether it is prime-verse or not, until people just stop asking. I think if one decides early on this is a reboot or reimagining, and not the Star Trek you grew up with and love, you will have a better time accepting it. If you try to connect it to TOS, you will drive yourself crazy.


Return to “General Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests