Star Trek: Discovery

[Petrov27]

Im so old I prefer the TOS E and the Franz Joseph Tech Manual designs for the other Federation ship classes (Destroyer, Scout, Dreadnought, Tug)

Was into the Star Fleet Battles stuff as well - liked some of those....

[Sildani]

My favorite non-canon ship is this interpretation of the McQuarrie configuration:

http://www.galacticempire.org/2011/11/star-trek-uss-edward-teller-nx-27cln.html

It retains the elegant lines of the yacht-like TMP aesthetics, yet it looks like a starship and not like a hood ornament or a toy. the reduced color palette also helps a lot.

Hey, that I like!

Don't much care for the Chariot class. What's the purpose of the deep keel?

[Thom]

That is so much better than what we've seen so far! Still don't like it! But much better!

[JB0]

Yeah the hinged nacelles was gimmicky. My least favorite Enterprise is probably the NX followed by TOS. I respect and appreciate the original E for what it did and represents, but, that design aesthetic hasn't aged well IMO and definitely looks like a product of its time. Before the pitchforks come out, just because it is one of my least favorite of the E's doesn't mean I don't like it. It just doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that other designs do.

Chris

I think the original ship's biggest problem is the deflector dish. After that, there's really nothing preventing them from panel-lining the thing and suddenly it looks "modern" again.

But I have a wild nostalgia boner for it regardless. I admit that it is not objectively as nice-looking as some of the others, but I will rank it higher than it deserves every time.

My favorite non-canon ship is this interpretation of the McQuarrie configuration:

http://www.galacticempire.org/2011/11/star-trek-uss-edward-teller-nx-27cln.html

It retains the elegant lines of the yacht-like TMP aesthetics, yet it looks like a starship and not like a hood ornament or a toy. the reduced color palette also helps a lot.

See, that is snazzy as hell and why isn't CBS doing it?

[sh9000]

That does look cooler.

[David Hingtgen]

I guess it'll be DSC, because DIS already means Disney, when it comes to entertainment.

[lechuck]

Never seen or heard of that abbreviation for Disney.

[peter]

I think the original ship's biggest problem is the deflector dish. After that, there's really nothing preventing them from panel-lining the thing and suddenly it looks "modern" again.

But I have a wild nostalgia boner for it regardless. I admit that it is not objectively as nice-looking as some of the others, but I will rank it higher than it deserves every time.

See, that is snazzy as hell and why isn't CBS doing it?

TOS Enterprise would look awesome with panel lining. Would love to see more customs like this.

Edited July 29, 2016 by peter

[JB0]

Apparently, the original filming model had panel lining on it... because Roddenberry wanted to shut people up when they told him it needed more detail, so he had faint lines put on that were visible to the naked eye but would never ever show up on film.

[Dobber]

Apparently, the original filming model had panel lining on it... because Roddenberry wanted to shut people up when they told him it needed more detail, so he had faint lines put on that were visible to the naked eye but would never ever show up on film.

I believe you are thinking of the Deflector grid which was penciled on. As far as I know, there wasn't any paneling on it though.

Chris

[JB0]

Yeah, that is what I was thinking of. But the deflector grid pencilwork serves (more or less) the same purpose as panel lining would have: it breaks up the smooth surface and adds superficial detail. Only it doesn't really, because it was only meant to fool management.

I simplified things a bit, mostly for the sake of not obfuscating the point, which is that there was a conscious decision to keep the original Enterprise "smooth" in the face of pressure to tech it up a bit.

Incidentally, I made an unintended misrepresentation as well, due solely to faulty recollection. I take the opportunity to correct it here, for it was a large one.

It was Jefferies that added the unphotographable lines, not Roddenberry(who had requested their addition). It was the final blow in a long-running battle to keep the design detail-light.

[Dobber]

Cool info though.

Those drawn on lines really created a crap storm in the Trek modeling community too. Since they were on the filming model some people, myself included, take that as the Original E had the shield grid on the model and have no problems with models that either through engraving or decals, show the shield grid ala the refit and every other Fed. starship seen. While others state that it can't be seen on screen so the "smoothie" is the only way to go. It's pointless but fun at the same time, both look cool to me as I'm not a purist and like how it looks all paneled up as was shown above.

Chris

Edited July 29, 2016 by Dobber

[JB0]

I tend towards screen-accuracy, in general. My logic is that the model was designed to be photographed, not viewed with the naked eye, and what the camera sees is how it was intended to look.

In this case specifically, the deflector grid is documented as intended to be invisible on film. I sort of feel that citing its presence on the studio model is akin to colorizing a B&W movie and saying that is how it is supposed to look because you used the paint colors of the original set as references. It misses a very important point somewhere.

But! I can certainly see the appeal of the grid. It livens up a design which, once you get past the nostalgia, is kind of dull with so little detail. I would probably do the deflector grid, were I building one, for that reason alone. A model should be more about personal preference than a perfectly true-to-life representation of a vessel that never existed in life(which is why I'd skip it and just build the movie version instead! The refit version is so sexy!).

And given that CBS still kicks the argument back and forth internally, who are we to judge? Apparently, the mirror universe episodes of Enterprise were supposed to feature a 60s-accurate smooth Defiant, but the renderer took it upon themselves to tech it up in defiance* of instructions and there was no time for a do-over.

*No pun intended. Honest.

[azrael]

Notes from TV Critics Association panel

-Discovery is set 10 years before TOS.

-Slightly more graphic content, since it will be exclusively available on CBS’ streaming service All Access.

-Protagonist will center on a Lt. Commander female lead, not a captain. Fuller wants to focus on a different point of view since we've had so many focused on the Captain or commanding officer.

[mikeszekely]

Not sure how spoilery stuff we'll likely figure from the first five minutes (assuming you miss all the promos and trailers) is, but I'll roll with it.

Very mixed opinions.

People are making a big deal about the gender (and maybe race) of the lead. I kind of don't care. I mean, it's Star Trek... a female lead just isn't a big deal.

As far as the show focusing on a Lt. Commander, I think it's a great idea. It never really made sense that the whole senior staff kept going on away missions.

One assumes that by "graphic content" they mean gratuitous sex and not more graphic violence. And Star Trek doesn't strike me as the kind of show that needs sexing up with actual sex.

I don't mind the time period, and you didn't mention it but it's confirmed to be set in the Prime universe and not the Kelvin universe, which is my personal preference. That said, I feel like the gap between the TOS movies and TNG is more ripe for exploration than the gap between ENT and TOS.

[Mechinyun]

WE GOT GAYS!! WE GOT GAYS!!! WE GOT WOMEN AND MINORITIES TOO! LOOK AT US OVER HERE!!

While I am neither of those, and have no issues with those groups.. star trek kinda has been about that since the beginning, it's given. Gettin real tired of hollywood hitting us over the head with it to look PC or whatever, it turns me off. (Looking at you ghostbusters 2016 and pre release gay sulu headlines.)

[Kanedas Bike]

Agreed that the time period between TOS movies and the Next Generation would make for better subject matter. I feel like they're beating the TOS time period, and before (with Enterprise) to death.

But oh well...at least Star Wars and Disney seem to be getting it right.

-b.

[Harlock Fan]

Well if they really were interested in diversity, they would cast an Eskimo, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Native American, Mexican, Indian, Middle Eastern, etc. in the lead role. We already had Sisko and Janeway in the lead roles. Combining the two doesn't really serve any purpose except for pandering. I would love to see something different and exciting, but unfortunately we won't be getting here in this series.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Harlock Fan

[azrael]

Regarding the diversity issue, I agree with Mechinyun. Star Trek has it embedded in its DNA. It's always been there. We don't need it announced like Star Wars. It should just be a given.

[TangledThorns]

WE GOT GAYS!! WE GOT GAYS!!! WE GOT WOMEN AND MINORITIES TOO! LOOK AT US OVER HERE!!

While I am neither of those, and have no issues with those groups.. star trek kinda has been about that since the beginning, it's given. Gettin real tired of hollywood hitting us over the head with it to look PC or whatever, it turns me off. (Looking at you ghostbusters 2016 and pre release gay sulu headlines.)

Agreed. When you force characters like this it shows they are trying too hard and is a real turn off.

[Harlock Fan]

Azrael, Star Trek SHOULD have diversity. But they really didn't do that. Combining two characters doesn't fill that need. Can you imagine a Native American lead? Never been done before in a major Sci-Fi series.

[technoblue]

Azrael, Star Trek SHOULD have diversity. But they really didn't do that. Combining two characters doesn't fill that need. Can you imagine a Native American lead? Never been done before in a major Sci-Fi series.

Define lead. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Robert Beltran's work on Voyager. I think he was as much of a lead as Kate Mulgrew.

[Mommar]

Define lead. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Robert Beltran's work on Voyager. I think he was as much of a lead as Kate Mulgrew.

And far more likeable...

[Dynaman]

The only shows with a "lead" character were the original Star Trek and Enterprise. The others were ensemble shows.

[Harlock Fan]

Define lead? An actor or actress where show/movie centered around. They are the focus of the show. Dyaman might more correct since most of the Star Trek shows could be considered ensemble pieces. Personally, I just want something different. Star Trek has become rather stale. As far as Voyager, Kate in the beginning was the face of the show until Seven of Nine stole it. Commander Chakotay to me was like Commander Riker, always there but just always there.

[azrael]

Agreed. When you force characters like this it shows they are trying too hard and is a real turn off.

For me, the issue isn't about forcing it in with Star Trek when it's been there all along. I have an issue about making a big stink about it. I don't see what the big deal is when Star Trek has done this before in some form or another.

What I do find great is finally the show isn't centered around a captain. Finally. We get to focus on someone lower on the food chain-of-command.

[Kanedas Bike]

^

until they kill Captain Expendable and make Lt. Commander Diversity in charge.

And who cares if the lead isn't a heterosexual white male? And if it's you, why? Does the casting of someone who doesn't fit that mold threaten you? The crap that got spit out over Star Wars TFA and to an extent Star Wars Rogue One is/was sickening, would love if that doesn't play out here either.

Let's just argue, err, discuss, about the timeline, time period and how fugly the ship is.

Besides, most of the commenters in this thread have stated that they're not willing to pay for the subscription to see ST:D, including myself. So...

BUT As long as the character is compelling does this really have to be an issue?

-b.

[technoblue]

Define lead? An actor or actress where show/movie centered around. They are the focus of the show. Dyaman might more correct since most of the Star Trek shows could be considered ensemble pieces. Personally, I just want something different. Star Trek has become rather stale. As far as Voyager, Kate in the beginning was the face of the show until Seven of Nine stole it. Commander Chakotay to me was like Commander Riker, always there but just always there.

It's okay to want something different, but I don't think Star Trek has ever been consistently focused on a single starring actor. It has always been made up of an ensemble cast. That's how we got Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in the beginning and not just the Adventures of Captain Kirk. That, itself, evolved to include Uhura, Scottie, Sulu, Chekov, and even some minor characters that had recurring roles like Nurse Chapel and Yeoman Rand.

Ignore the original series ensemble, and the others that came after it, and posing that Trek pushes single actors as stars seems odd to me.

[squaresphere]

I just hope they don't make things look retro, ie tube tvs and such that were found in TOS.

[Harlock Fan]

The original series was mostly about the original three. Never really got to know the rest of the crew. They were there and consistently, but not the focus. I don't remember an episode that just follows Sulu or Scottie. Kirk was the focus then you had some special moments with Spock and McCoy (Cage, etc). Next Generation, Patrick Stewart stole the show. Yeah, you had Data, Georgi, Crusher, Riker, Worf, etc, but Picard was the centerpiece.

[derex3592]

I felt that Next Gen always did a fair job of spreading out the stories for people. Yes, Picard got more, but there were some very good Data, Worf episodes as well. Riker/LaForge had a few, Troy episodes..snore..Dr. Crusher episodes I always liked as well. Wesley Crusher..well..let's just move on.

[squaresphere]

DS9 did a great job of spreading screen time around. I'd be ok if Discovery was about a ensign climbing the ranks or something of that nature.

[Sandman]

http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/08/new-trek-series-committed-to-casting-diversity-main-character-wont-be-captain/

interesting cast break down.

I don't know how there can be a klingon captain in that time period unless he's an enemy who's a regular.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Sandman

[Dynaman]

Since it is in the original timeline and has a female lead all I'm really wondering is if they are going to keep to the cannon regarding females not being allowed to be a starship captain.

[Sandman]

Since it is in the original timeline and has a female lead all I'm really wondering is if they are going to keep to the cannon regarding females not being allowed to be a starship captain.

What? When has that been cannon?