Star Trek: Discovery

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5836
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sun Jul 24, 2016 12:51 pm

At San Diego Comic-Con the 2017 series name has been released and we also get our first look at the new starship which is the series' namesake: U.S.S. Discovery NCC-1031. According to other sources, this does take place in the Prime Timeline, not the Abramsverse, and based on Discovery's look and registry appears to take place sometime pre-TOS.

The ship's design is also very interesting in that it borrows very strongly from Ralph McQuarrie's never-used Enterprise design concepts for the proposed but never made Star TreK: Planet of the Titans movie.
-Mike

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by mojo » Tue Jul 26, 2016 7:15 am

ok, a couple of things.

why is the ship bronze?

did anyone else laugh when the ship was pulling out of the dock and there was a loud screeching noise? i swear, it sounded exactly like Galaxy Quest, when the ship scraped against the wall coming out of the station.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:40 pm

It's bronze coz it's made of sh1t.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:44 pm

Incidentally, I thought it was a weird hybrid between a Klingon ship and a Federal saucer.
And, well, guess wut, it's all too possible that this first ship may, for some reason, be a stolen, retrofitted and pimped Klingon ship.
The entire show will be about the crew discovering that their ship keeps doing stuff that's incomprehensible. Like, go left and it will simply materialize a bowl of soup in appartment 21 on deck F instead.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:45 pm

Oh, besides, the banging on metal pipes (or whatever it is) at the very end of the score used in this trailer is typical of the tunes used for any Klingon warbird's presence on screen.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Aug 04, 2016 4:45 pm

And the ship is sweet stylish btw.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Darth Spock » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:04 am

Bump. Sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere else, but it just dawned on me, if the Discovery's registry is 1031, and it is supposed to be set in 2255, while the Enterprise 1701 was commissioned in 2245, wouldn't that pretty well kill the sequential registry thing once and for all? Unless of course the Discovery is coming out of a refit instead being a new ship getting launched. Just a thought.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:27 pm

It's probably worse than a refit and more like some horrible chimera.
You've got a Klingonesque central hull and some sort of home made nacelles added to it, adapted to the design, plus a typical saucer because the UFP can't drive ships without them.
It's surprising this beast would even get an official registry number at all. I suspect the possible cloaking technology would make things potentially more difficult.

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

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:13 am

Darth Spock wrote:Bump. Sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere else, but it just dawned on me, if the Discovery's registry is 1031, and it is supposed to be set in 2255, while the Enterprise 1701 was commissioned in 2245, wouldn't that pretty well kill the sequential registry thing once and for all? Unless of course the Discovery is coming out of a refit instead being a new ship getting launched. Just a thought.
Not to go all codger, but the proof of this being in an unmodified timeline will be in the pudding. If the pudding is different, then as far as I am concerned this is the same thing as Not-our-Spock from JJ-Trek.

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

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Nov 08, 2016 9:01 pm

Unfortunately, for the "Not-our-Spock" theory, the portrait that Kelvin Timeline Spock is given confirms he's from the Prime Timeline and there will always be slight inconsistencies no matter what anyone does. That's just been an unfortunate reality for Trek productions in general.
-Mike

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

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by Mike DiCenso » Fri Dec 30, 2016 11:06 pm

Darth Spock wrote:Bump. Sorry if this has already been addressed somewhere else, but it just dawned on me, if the Discovery's registry is 1031, and it is supposed to be set in 2255, while the Enterprise 1701 was commissioned in 2245, wouldn't that pretty well kill the sequential registry thing once and for all? Unless of course the Discovery is coming out of a refit instead being a new ship getting launched. Just a thought.

We don't know when Discovery was built. It looks like an older ship than the Constitution-class, one of the designs, like the Kelvin-type, that bridges the gap between the NX-class and the mid-to-late 23rd century starships. But, even if it turns out not to be older, then it's okay since we saw the Constitution-class Constellation with the infamous NCC-1017 registry. Overall we see the registries getting higher over time, not lower, but there are exceptions. With the various starship Enterprise those are straight-forward honorary reuses of the original 1701 number. Could it be the same for other ships? It was originally to be the case for the Galaxy-class USS Yamato, but that got retconned out. So what other reasons for the occasional low number cropping up?
-Mike

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

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:33 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:Unfortunately, for the "Not-our-Spock" theory, the portrait that Kelvin Timeline Spock is given confirms he's from the Prime Timeline and there will always be slight inconsistencies no matter what anyone does. That's just been an unfortunate reality for Trek productions in general.
-Mike
I don't understand the reference to a portrait.

Slight inconsistencies are okay, just not myriad intentional ones.

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

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by 2046 » Thu May 18, 2017 3:13 am

Trailer's out.

Trailer

The production values are fantastic, many of the scenes epic in scope and complexity.

However, what the hell is that quadra-nostrilled Claw-ngon? Looks like a Klingon and Xindi-Reptilian had a night of passion.

And it is sooooo JJ-Trek: The Previous Generation, down to the bridge window and graphic styling. And those uniforms are more ridiculous than the Orville ones, yet not intentionally.

I am actually more excited by Seth MacFarlane's The Orville, which has more Trek actors and sounds and concepts. Indeed, I daresay the timing will kill Discovery.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by sonofccn » Thu May 18, 2017 6:20 pm

I don't know...Discovery still looks ugly to me. Almost what I'd expect a villain's ship to look like. Or maybe something from the Imperium of Man if you added some skulls and religious iconography.

Also, I'm not saying its a bad thing, but for a show called "Discovery" the trailer seemed more conflict focused than filled with the wonder of exploration.

But it does look impressive with very slick visuals.

My thoughts at least.

-Respectfully, Sonofccn

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

Re: Star Trek: Discovery

Post by 2046 » Sat May 20, 2017 5:29 am

Regarding any bronze coloration to Discovery (if applicable now), I would actually like that. I mean, it doesn't fit the TOS style, but the NX-01 had more than a touch of nickelsilver to her. Compare with Columbia:

Image

Post Reply