|
Martha Stewart Undying posted:Bruce Campbell as a star ship captain (I refuse to rank him any lower) would be the best star ship captain. The perfect Zapp Brannigan.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
MorgaineDax posted:Besides everyone mentioning Space, CraveTV is supposed to have exclusive streaming rights up here in Canada. Looking forward to not being able to watch the show because of this dumb poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:If this is pre TOS then why do all the warp nacelles look like highlighters or box cutters This. For me, I can't get past the fact that neither of these two ships is looking at all like something contemporary to the Constitution Class of TOS, which it's supposed to be.You want to make a crazy new, non Star Trek ship design? Fine--just don't set the show during the same time as TOS and wreck canon. Even the NX-01 and the Franklin bothered to have round nacelles with a colored dome on the top. But hey, let's do a new show and gently caress 50 years of established continuity because network suits don't give a poo poo or w/e. Sorry to sound like a spergy nerd, but I think as a Star Trek fan I kinda have that right because it's what we do. I've invested 30 years of my life being a fan and looking at the history and worldbuilding of this universe, and to change poo poo up would be like saying "OK, we're going to set a historical show about the US Navy between WWI and WWII but we're going to make the uniforms and ships look like ones from the 90s because the real ones from the 1930s look kinda lame to modern viewers and it's a creative choice and nobody cares about accuracy especially if it gets in the way of the story we're trying to tell." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
Eh, keep in mind that this ship was built 10 years after the TOS Connie and 15 years before the Refit Connie. It does look kinda like it might fall out of tech developed between those two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
It's the Ford Edsel of the Utopia Planitia Fleet Yards.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 13:32
|
|
|
I still don't like the Galaxy-class very much. Talk about unbalanced. The saucer is like twice as big as it should be. Even if it were circular that would help a lot I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Hot take, every Star Trek starship looks bad, or at least, not good. I'm not watching Star Trek for ship design, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 14:24
|
|
|
Sovreign-class rules. From the back, anyway. From the front it just looks fat. I'd also say the original Enterprise is still solid, but I can't tell if that's because I actually like it or if it's just been imprinted on my brain by overwhelming cultural saturation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Astroman posted:This. MikeJF posted:Eh, keep in mind that this ship was built 10 years after the TOS Connie and 15 years before the Refit Connie. It does look kinda like it might fall out of tech developed between those two. Well, as was said 8 months ago when that lovely teaser came out, it's probably not quite the final design anyway. Given that we now know that the show was, in fact, in pre-pre-production at the time, I strongly suspect that that whole teaser was just something they threw together based on existing concept work because "poo poo poo poo poo poo, it's the anniversary and those assholes in marketing won't stop asking for something to show at Comic-Con!" Hopefully they're not married to it. The textures, at least, will certainly change because they didn't look like more than a placeholder in that teaser (which is probably why everything in it was either sepia or shadow) and real textures with a proper lighting engine will go a long way toward fixing the fug right there. As for the canonicity of nacelles and all that, first of all, shut up nerds and secondly, we don't know exactly when this show is set (~10 years prior to one of the two pilots isn't very clear) and secondly, we don't know how old the ship will be. It could be brand new or decades older than the Connie. Remember, the Excelsior, Oberth, and Miranda classes were still being used like a century later, so there's some precedent there. Another interesting thing that I haven't seen anyone point out is that our "Number One" is a lieutenant commander. That would mean that there's either a weird gap in the chain of command, she's a Second Officer with a really weird nickname or -- most likely --the Discovery's CO is going to be a commander rather than a full captain. This would mean that the ship isn't a sleek flagship or anything like the "cruisers" we're used to seeing, but rather something smaller (and, perhaps, less prestigious/advanced). As a reminder, the "curvy like a race car" starfleet aesthetic mostly comes from the movie era on (and JJ Trek). The handful of non-Connie Federation ships we actually saw in TOS were mostly lovely freighters shaped like boxes. Since we have basically no model of what an early 23rd Century small/mid sized ship looks like (even the Kelvin had a full captain in command), the design space is actually pretty wide open.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Wow, Aatrek may have been a pedo but it looks like the real badfan purge has yet to begin. TOS/Connie haters 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Sisko was a Lt. Commander when he was first officer of the Saratoga. Janeway's first first officer in the Voyager pilot was also a Lt. Commander.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:As a reminder, the "curvy like a race car" starfleet aesthetic mostly comes from the movie era on ILM 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Tighclops posted:In contrast this is somebody's work in progress fan design from sci-fimeshes.com: Smooth out the unnecessary greeblies on the nacelles, pylons, and engineering hull and I'm totally fine with this design. Almost like a TOS proto-Galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Wow, Aatrek may have been a pedo but it looks like the real badfan purge has yet to begin. TOS/Connie haters The original looks fine, but the TOS movies are where the ships have always looked the best. Connie refit is like the pinnacle of starship designs. It's not realistic or sensible in any way but give me a break if you think that doesn't look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
You'd think they would make all us nerds happy and build a physical model of it. Can you imagine the positive reactions? I know tv shows (or in this case webisodes) don't do that anymore but it would change the entire way people think of this show. I'm sure CGI is cheaper and easier, but it would be great if they decided to not make it the cheapest and easiest way possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
So one of the new characters is a space mushroom expert. I'm not sure which is funnier, that his expertise will be needed regularly or that it never comes up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Pwnstar posted:So one of the new characters is a space mushroom expert. I'm not sure which is funnier, that his expertise will be needed regularly or that it never comes up. He sounds like a fun guy. A fun guy. A fungi. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Maybe the first season will be about first contact with these guys:
Banana Canada fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Feb 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Sith Happens posted:He sounds like a fun guy. I believe the emote you're looking for is 
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
Sith Happens posted:He sounds like a fun guy. Immediately go to a dungeon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:It's not pre-kelvin. My bad dude, I could have sworn the whole show was going to be about the time frame Anaxar was in and the reason they wanted to kill it was because they wanted to tell the story. Makes sense now that I know Anaxar is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Croatoan posted:My bad dude, I could have sworn the whole show was going to be about the time frame Anaxar was in and the reason they wanted to kill it was because they wanted to tell the story. Makes sense now that I know Anaxar is bullshit. It is, roughly, Axanar was 2251, Disc is about ten years before TOS in 2266.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
And in case anyone has forgotten, gently caress AXANAR.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:gently caress AXANAR. They still haven't learned, by the way. Part of their settlement was that they couldn't do any crowdfunding and any financing for their two 15-minute films had to come from private sources. So now, instead of actively soliciting donations, they're building a mailing list:  This was that page prior to the settlement. Ten bucks says they hit up that list for money within a week, then argue that because it's not a public appeal for money, it falls within the settlement guidelines. Oh, and a choice quote from Alec Peters: quote:It is a shame that the fan film community decided to turn against each other in this process because sticking together would have allowed us maybe to reach a better settlement. (Remember that Peters tried to get other fan film projects like Continues and New Voyages shut down and sent multiple emails to CBS and Paramount about how they might be infringing, later denied doing so, and then wound up with mud on his face when both CBS and Paramount produced email chains proving it during discovery. But, no, the fan community turned on itself.) Timby fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Feb 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
The balls on that guy. If this was 50 years ago Paramount would've sent some goons to his house by now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:The balls on that guy. If this was 50 years ago Paramount would've sent some goons to his house by now. The internet has really made protecting your IP inconvenient. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rKg11tu3HA
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
What mystifies me are the Trek fans outside of this forum who refuse to acknowledge Axanar and Peters are at fault and actively trying to poison the water for other fan projects. Go to the comments on any Axanar article on Trekmovie, io9, etc and they're full of people defending them and decrying Paramount/CBS.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:What mystifies me are the Trek fans outside of this forum who refuse to acknowledge Axanar and Peters are at fault and actively trying to poison the water for other fan projects. Go to the comments on any Axanar article on Trekmovie, io9, etc and they're full of people defending them and decrying Paramount/CBS. Maybe they don't realize that Axanar is the reason why CBS and Paramount hosed fan movies so hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
If they aren't doing everything possible to please me personally and validate my kickstarting decisions, Paramount clearly hates the fans.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:What mystifies me are the Trek fans outside of this forum who refuse to acknowledge Axanar and Peters are at fault and actively trying to poison the water for other fan projects. Go to the comments on any Axanar article on Trekmovie, io9, etc and they're full of people defending them and decrying Paramount/CBS. I think a lot of that is an ingrained sense that the corporate folks must be in the wrong, when people actually hear the details on some of the poo poo the Axanar production tried to pull off they usually at least somewhat reconsider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Hating Paramount when Paramount usually has nothing to do with the shittiest Star Trek things is one of the oldest Trekkie traditions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
Mental Hospitality posted:Star Trek at the bar is how we roll. Dammit, Slim Jim
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Big Mean Jerk posted:What mystifies me are the Trek fans outside of this forum who refuse to acknowledge Axanar and Peters are at fault and actively trying to poison the water for other fan projects. Go to the comments on any Axanar article on Trekmovie, io9, etc and they're full of people defending them and decrying Paramount/CBS. The folks over at TrekBBS are pretty vocal about hating Alex Peters, though some are a bit  and say poo poo like "Well I for one am glad that CBS gave us the guidelines, the fan films were getting too professional anyway."https://www.trekbbs.com/forums/fan-productions.32/
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Fan films that are any good are the exception rather than the rule, and usually the shorter the better anyway, but it still sucks for anyone who liked fan shows that have been kneecapped and pissed on very intentionally by Axanar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
There are good fan films?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Hating Paramount when Paramount usually has nothing to do with the shittiest Star Trek things is one of the oldest Trekkie traditions. Paramount gave us Voyager and Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:There are good fan films? Yes. See what I mean? Shorter the better.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Timby posted:Paramount gave us Voyager and Enterprise. And Nemesis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Yes. See what I mean? Shorter the better. You did not seriously post that piece of poo poo in defense of fan films.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 01:10 |
|
|
Timby posted:You did not seriously post that piece of poo poo in defense of fan films. Look it may not have aged perfectly but it's still pretty decent.  I would have said Damnatus but that'd go against my point since it's practically a feature film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2017 03:18
|
|