Spacedock in Discovery

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:21 am

2046 wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:49 am
Here's how we fix that. I will reconstruct my exact response below, then you delete and repost your response after, then I will reply.
You gonna do your part or just leave the mess as-is?

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Mar 28, 2018 10:28 pm

I was actually going to wait and hear back from JMS on what happened. After all, no matter what admin tools Trinyoa and I get, he's the only one who can actually potentially recover lost posts or the whole website, as was the case just a short while back.

So give it a few days, please.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sun Apr 01, 2018 11:56 pm

Well at this point there's no purpose, since you've let your reply sit out there for days and apparently wish for that to continue. The idea was to fairly resolve having your post sit unchallenged after you ate mine.

I started this reply a couple of days ago, now, then stopped in disgust. But let's find a way to finish this mess off.
Mike DiCenso wrote:
Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:55 am
no longer about debating anymore just scoring points.


I'm not interested in points, but facts. I also have an interest in not letting smeary nonsense go unchallenged. Perhaps you don't think painting an ally as an obsessed crusadey hating lying hater is rude, but I do.
Oh yeah, though, I am *totally* being the crusade-y badguy.
You've been on this kick against New Trek for a while. I understand you don't like the Kelvin Timeline or Discovery and that's all right,


For the record, I like the JJ-verse alright for what it is. As I've noted, the opening of the 2009 film is some of the best Trek ever made, and I enjoyed Beyond. The Discovery-verse is not without desirable highlights, either, and I'm not just talking about the prevalence of attractive redheads.

But neither has any continuity whatsoever with the TOS-ENT universe, whether pre-Narada or otherwise. It's like the EU . . . the facts of one simply don't translate to the other.

And even if I were on a kick because I didn't like it, how the hell does that justify your campaign? How's a pro-Wars debater supposed to walk in here if someone can't even have a contrary opinion about JJ-Trek or Discovery without getting slammed with personal attacks?

Hell, even SDN has a stickied thread right now about toning down their usual BS. Perhaps this isn't the best time to emulate them?
trying to prove that Old Spock was not from the Prime universe because of some inconstancy without it being tongue-in-cheek is a little "crusade-y".


Devil's in the details, whether or not you wish to accept them . . . which seems to be a running theme, at the moment.

Assessment of details is kinda the basis of this hobby. Frame-by-frame is a thing, here, along with pixel-counting measurements, word-by-word quote parsing, et cetera. That's how our side successfully challenged the SW biggaton crowd and their BS canon beliefs.

Sure, you can say that it's supposed to be identical Spacedock at a "glance", and maybe that's accurate for you, but it was obviously different to me at a glance, and once a more thorough check occurred it turned out I was correct (and had even missed some differences).

I'm not an ass for applying the same usual rigor that defines this place. In a visual reboot environment, especially, noticing visual differences is not controversial, eye-pokey, crusadey, or whatever. It is what it is.

As I mentioned in the other thread, there's basically three groups of detail-oriented fans when it comes to Discovery:

1. Those who acknowledge it's just a reboot
2. Those who think a "visual reboot" is a thing, but that it doesn't mean reboot-reboot
3. Those who insist it all fits in Prime as-is, rejecting even visual rebooting

The second group is confused but salvageable, and you were part of the second group a month ago when you talked about the new "version" of the Enterprise. Now you've decided to take up the banner of the third group, though, and that way is madness . . . those folks are the Flat Earther SW Biggatonners of Trek fandom.

You claim my OP was insulting, a late argumentative retcon to try to justify your own initiation of insult-slinging, but it made fun of the weird people who reject the visual reboot aspect and didn't touch on the broader continuity issue. "It looks different, naturally, but I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material." Indeed, nowhere in that OP of mine is a claim on my part that it isn't Prime storyline, as you claim. Now, naturally, I believe it isn't . . . "visual reboot" is a nonsense phrase, after all . . . but instead of even having that conversation that was clearly so near and dear to your heart, you decided to get angry . . . there were no design differences, you said, merely differences in completion level, and as soon as I proved that conclusively wrong it was insult city.

Perhaps if you'd like to have that conversation instead of declaring me a crusading hater and liar we can do so, once you calm down.

In any case, no reasonable person would need to explain the discrepancies, because no reasonable person thinks it has to look like Prime Spacedock . . . either the show's a reboot so it doesn't matter except to reinforce the point, or it's a visual reboot and doesn't matter except to reinforce the point. The meaningful detail here is that for a visual reboot adherent . . . a potentially reasonable person, but one I disagree with fervently . . . the fact that Spacedock isn't the same shouldn't have been offensive. Indeed, for anyone not blinded by anger, the differences should've simply been acknowledged without all the irrational resistance you displayed.

Do you think the latest Substitution-Class Enterprise needs explanation? You didn't before, but may I presume you now believe there was a refit after "The Cage" to make the Enterprise look like STD-1701 then another refit to look like she did in WNMHGB?
There wasn't enough difference to care about


*You* don't care, but your sudden lack of concern about details doesn't make people of the kind you used to be wrong or evil.
you brushed off any idea that the station still under construction could be a factor or that it could be changed.


Yes, because we see the outer hull being installed. It looks no different than the parts with outer hull that actually do match Prime Spacedock. Additionally, the very structure is very different. By analogy, it's like seeing what is claimed to be a 1965 Mustang under construction yet you can clearly see that it's the frame and a partial outer body of a modern Mustang, instead. I'm the guy pointing out that's no '65 and being yelled at as a crusading hating lying nitpicky hater.

This whole thing is absurd. It's similar, but substantially different, and the rebuild that would be needed for no other reason than to make it look like ST3 is an utterly pointless, unjustifiable expense.

It's structurally dissimilar. Just accept the fact and move on if you think it's not worth caring about . . . except obviously you don't think that 'cause otherwise you wouldn't have started tossing insults.
you even went so far to misconstrue my own statements about it.


Bullshit. You said it was the same exact design, the *only* discrepancies being explained by incompleteness, which is exactly what I said of what you said.

I don't mind if you wanna change positions, but don't pretend your first position is somehow a lie on my part.
Bullshit. You said it was the same exact design, the *only* discrepancies being explained by incompleteness, or "remaining differences {not again but the first time} being chalked up to it being incomplete", which is exactly what I said of what you said.
And I say bullshit back to you. Pretty much the same exact design meaning the same layout we saw in ST3, the other TOS movies, and the later TNG-era starbases. That the angle of this or that isn't exactly the same or the top is a bit wider or smaller doesn't change that. And given the station is still under construction is a factor.


Sooooo . . . in other words, you claimed I was dishonest because you think "same exact design" means 'basically the same layout, maybe some angle changes and different widths of different huge parts, et cetera… in other words, all the structural differences 2046 mentioned and which I derided him at length for pointing out.'

*That* is bullshit. "Same exact design" means what it says. That you fought tooth and nail to resist my noting of differences, compounding it with personal nonsense, means you knew that, too.

I honestly can't believe that statement, Mike . . . this is such a disgusting notion, because if you believed that structural differences could exist in "same exact design" then you had no basis to disagree or attack for me pointing them out. And if you didn't believe it, which you didn't, then you're saying "bullshit back to you" then lying.

Dear god this is all so sad.
The Kelvin and Prime Timelines for TOS are spun right out of the same technologies, the same number of planets, resources, etc. That the Prime Timeline doesn't have a reason (that we know of) to have a starbase like Yorktown isn't proof against it. It's the other way around.


Wrong. Everything should be assumed to be different, especially considering how much is known to be already. Hell, even the galaxy isn't the same . . . Delta Vega is now in the Vulcan system, for instance, apparently a moon. Warp's faster and other tech works differently, even inconsistently (e.g. transporters and falling). The vessels are much embiggened, even pre-Narada.

It's not our universe at all. The only reason we can assess the mirror universe facts as comparable is because we're literally told by Scotty in "Mirror, Mirror" that the ship is the same but for some instrumentation differences, along with McCoy's point of the acid spill in Sickbay. Discovery and the JJ-verse make no such connections, and on the rare occasion they try to hint that way, they fail.
And a second Spacedock would make sense, really. {…} That's what DISC is doing when they dropped the Spacedock easter egg, they are showing a vast infrastructure that was only hinted at previously and now is realized.


Great! Can you stop cranking out the hate now that I have proposed a compromise you like?
You also seem to be bringing a lot of your Twitter frustrations over here as well, too.


I have history, not frustration. I've already seen how STD fans of the JW persuasion get so invested in it they'll attack TOS every which way they can, insult, flame, dox, et cetera.

Discovery is poison to the Trek community, as demonstrated by the fact that you've launched your attacks over it against an ally of long standing. I've seen that before, too. There are even nuts out there who argue non-fans *shouldn't be allowed* to discuss Discovery, which . . . given your anger over my "crusade" . . . sounds like you might not find that idea as disgusting as you should.
But why drag that here?


It's the mindset and behavior you're allying yourself with. That's not guilt by association, just a warning regarding your present course. It's a dark road you've embarked on. Don't be that guy.
I wasn't being anti-chronological. You took it as such.


Ahem. "You handwaved away the explanation and even in a surprising turn denounced anyone putting forth an explanation as "I can bet that STDJWs (of the type who insist it'll all fit perfectly and ignore the "visual reboot") are going to claim that it could totally have been refurbished despite literally costing thousands of ships worth of material.""

How can something old be a surprising turn referenced after something more recent? That's like saying "The Union Army repelled the attack at Gettysburg and even in a surprising turn put up resistance to an attack at Fort Sumter." Or, "Chevrolet performed a recall on the 2013 Impala and even in a surprising turn requested all Bel Airs be brought in for service."

That was anti-chronological. You know that's a button of mine. Why press it? And why then claim not to have done what you so clearly did, which is another button?
Come on, the model has enough differences that when you posed it can throw off the comparison.


I superimposed it on the actual model as seen in ST3 and noted the minor differences myself. The secondary mushroom cap was identical, by the way.

And oh, hey, why are you concerned with differences all the sudden? It's the "same exact model", per your new definition, isn't it?

In any case, don't pretend variations of my model from the real one . . . variations I myself pointed out when I posted an overlay comparison to the real one . . . rendered mine unusable. That's just refusing to accept evidence out of spite. Were my variations critical to the comparison I made that'd be one thing, but they aren't. I wasn't damning the Discovery station over its rim thickness differences or flat-top differences versus the 3-D model, but versus the real thing with the 3-D model as proxy.
I showed you in turn a photo of the actual freaking physical model built by none other than the ILM staff and used it to illustrate the points I made.


You rage-posted a bunch of non-canon pics on the grounds that my model was itself non-canon, you mean. It was weird and nonsensical.

You did post a shot from TSFS but only to claim perspective effects. Then at the very end you posted a link to a model shot, but that was only to claim the variations I had already pointed out.
But regardless, your overlay only showed helped my case because it showed that portions of the station in DISC were still under construction and thus my original point was still valid about how you can indeed use the construction angle to explain some, if not all the discrepancies away.


The Discovery station has outer hull being placed on it on the parts that match amd the parts that don't match, both. If the mismatch parts didn't have that we wouldn't be having a dispute.

And really, continuing to say that it's the same exact design (in the proper sense of the phrase) but for incompleteness, which is what you're saying again above, is obnoxious. First, you're just repeating yourself after having been disproven. Second, you're saying exactly what I said you said again, despite the fact that you previously called me a liar ("surprisingly dishonest out of context thing you've done here") for pointing out what you said.

I don't know why you thought picking a fight with me was a good idea, but it isn't.
And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge what you don't wanna hear, then insulting the person saying it.

Show me on the doll where the mean Trekkie hurt your Discovery-love and made it okay for you to repeatedly insult him, Mike.
You are going down the same route. You may not realize it, but you are. Saxton plugged his ears and didn't want to acknowledge that Lucas and Lucasfilm at the time had a different vision about the construction of the Death Star, from who started designing and building it, to how the Empire picked it up and continued with it.

This is you right now. The insults won't change that, Robert.


1. Then stop slinging insults.
2. Saxton noticed the physical difference between the perfectly round CGI model in RotS and the not-quite-round ANH Death Star and expanded it into an escape route allowing him, in his mind, to keep all his EU nonsense in spite of Lucas, who of course made both RotS and ANH.

I already knew Discovery was separate. I don't need Spacedock to get there. It could be identical and I'd be unaffected.

In other words, I don't need this. There was no reason for you to pick this fight. It's wrong, stupid, and futile.
You haven't given me a reason so far to doubt my assessment.


You haven't tried. It's been all attacking all the time, and as we know from above it's not in good faith, on your part.

I wish you'd come out and say this was all some ill-considered long-lead-up April Fool's joke.
Ah, now I am *subtly* up to nefarious and self-contradictory things? So I am not mistaken, or smarter than what I am saying, or even disagreeing because you've failed to explain adequately . . . nosirree, I am dishonest and trying to hide it, willing to be every bit the Saxton and Warsie-esque to achieve my insidious goal of . . . what? What's my angle, Mike?

Again, whose crusade is this, Mike? It sure doesn't smell like mine.
As explained previously. You don't want New Trek. So you've been picking at it. Old Spock wasn't "Our Spock", whatever that means, because of some discrepancies and now you're trying to use the visual reboot aspect of DISC to make the claim this isn't Prime.


Uh-huh. I, alone, on a board read by perhaps dozens, will topple Les Moonves once and for all! First, argue with Mike DiCenso, and then… take over the world!

That's just nonsense. One would think that if I had suddenly gone all goatee-wearing badguy that I'd have a purpose to it, but the one you have assigned me is utterly nonsensical. Perhaps, then, instead of assigning me a stupid goal and reimagining everything to create the illusion I am being wicked in support of it, you should realize your assessment is wrong and (gasp!) conclude I am simply being honest about my opinion of Discovery, an opinion borne of the same detail-oriented, continuity-minded conceptualizing we have been doing the whole damn time.

In other words, I haven't changed, Mike. As made clear by this thread and post, though, you have . . . and it isn't pretty.

I mean, look what happened when you tried to say you didn't say it was Prime Spacedock because the showrunners say so:
Mike wrote:That is another out of context assigning to me.


Again, bullshit.

"this is, as you ironically point out, is a show that is based around visually rebooting things, but has made it clear this is a visual reboot, and like it or not, set in the Prime Timeline. The showrunners and staff have been honest by and large about that since day one."

You don't whip that out in the middle of your apologetics unless it applies in some way. But if you wish to abandon the claim . . . oh wait, here it comes again:
Mike wrote: "Star Trek: Discovery is a reboot, and this is obviously not Prime Spacedock"

But it is supposed to be the Prime Spacedock.


See? Same thing. But where does it end? Was one of the ships from the pilot "supposed to be" a Miranda despite looking nothing like one?

So I guess instead of your fallacious assumption you should bust out a quote specifically about the new Spacedock. I'll wait.
Your response is pitiful here:
It ends where you end it. There is a ship that has some elements of a Miranda, but it is not even generally the same enough that we could do the same for it the way we clearly can with Spacedock.


There's a lot more jawing full of pretense but you never deal with the point, and instead focus on the rhetorical questions. You insist it is Prime Spacedock because the showrunners say this show is Prime, but that has nothing to do with the existence of differences given the "visual reboot" the showrunners also discuss.
You took to fighting with Mr. Oragahn over planetary shielding when you made your points and could have walked away from it at any time.


And I didn't walk away because the troll kept engaging in all sorts of bad behavior and dishonest argumentation, most notably his escalating personal attacks (e.g. falsely claiming dishonesty on my part, claiming I was acting like some Warsie or other, et cetera), but also evasively ignoring facts, attacking the show when it didn't agree with him, never ever ever changing his main claim despite every argument of his (for he kept changing positions on sub-claims) being destroyed from multiple angles, admittedly trolling at times, and generally being a wildly dishonest trolling sonofa.

Come to think of it, I guess there is some similarity, after all.

In any case, then as now, I am not required to just lie down and take the abuse, and the notion that I would do so is strange in the extreme.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Apr 03, 2018 2:16 am

2046 wrote:Well at this point there's no purpose, since you've let your reply sit out there for days and apparently wish for that to continue. The idea was to fairly resolve having your post sit unchallenged after you ate mine.
You may want to chill for little while longer. It seems that something has come up regarding you that I may have to deal with, unpleasant though it may be, if neither JMS nor Trinoya fail to respond to my queries.
-Mike

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by Khas » Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:45 am

You know, all of this is bringing back memories of when Brian Young mentioned believing that ENT was in an alternate reality due to Klingons having head-ridges in early ENT (though he accepted that ENT was Prime when they explained the whole Augment-virus thing).

The main difference here, however, is that Robert is being far more aggressive than Brian ever was when it came to alternate reality/continuity shenanigans/whatever.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Spacedock in Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:42 am

That would be because I have more evidence than Brian did.

Had Discovery merely shown TMP/TNG Klingons, gently updated designs, and so on, my position would be weaker and I would behave accordingly, assuming I even held the position at all. Indeed, in such a circumstance, the Spacedock differences really would just be a "YATI" event.

Post Reply