# Star Trek Discovery



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

No one's talking about this? Ship looks mighty familiar.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

I was just coming here to post about it, I really hope they improve the color scheme, it looks pretty ugly in these early renderings. Not sure about the design either but the bland color scheme might be influencing my opinion too much.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

So they're reaching into the discard bin for the new show? Isn't that basically the Ralph McQuarrie Enterprise (complete with asteroid spacedock) from the early pre-pro to Star Trek The Motion Picture?

I mean, OK, fine, whatever, but really?


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Steve H said:


> So they're reaching into the discard bin for the new show? Isn't that basically the Ralph McQuarrie Enterprise (complete with asteroid spacedock) from the early pre-pro to Star Trek The Motion Picture?
> 
> I mean, OK, fine, whatever, but really?


Totally, and uh... pass, this is a fugly Enterprise.
there's a reason it wasn't used for STTMP.
The reason is still valid.


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

So, JJprise haters...not looking so bad now, is it? :grin2:


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Uh, the ship is the USS Discovery, not the Enterprise.

The more I look at it the less I like it, I doubt that will change with better coloring, I think the nacelles being in line with the lower triangular deck is what makes it look so cheesy, at least the McQuarrie design still had short vertical pylons holding the nacelles, like the Galaxy Class ships ended up being like. Also there are too many straight lines, Federation designs should have curves...


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Nice if they wouldn't charge us to watch it!


-Jim G.G.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Nexus25 reminding us that the McQuarrieprise appeared in STIII....
Board Message


Perhaps this hints at the time period.


----------



## Joeysaddress1 (Jul 4, 2016)

Yeah...think I'll keep watching Star Trek Continues...until CBS/Paramount makes them pull the plug, that is. I would have been perfectly fine with CBS giving Vic M. & his crew the budget for Discovery and let them finish out the original 5 year mission.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Given that fans totally lose their $hmit whenever The Force Awakens or Rebels hauled out old McQuarrie designs, can anyone really blame the producers for giving the McQuarrieprise an update? Geek nostalgia, people! It's all about nostalgia these days (Jurassic World, The Force Awakens, etc.etc.), not original ideas. Of course they made the ship the McQuarrieprise, including asteroid cave dry dock. It's an homage, dotcha know. What, you're going to criticize the great McQuarrie?!?! Turn in your geek credentials and 12-sided dice, nerd!


----------



## Daniel_B (Jun 28, 2016)

Hunk A Junk said:


> What, you're going to criticize the great McQuarrie?!?!


Absolutely. This ship is ugly af.

McQuarrie's style is great for Star Wars, but does not belong in Trek.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

CessnaDriver said:


> Nexus25 reminding us that the McQuarrieprise appeared in STIII....
> Board Message...


"You do not have permission to view this topic."

As for the U.S.S. Discovery, I never thought I'd live to see the day when the NCC-1701-D was the _second_ ugliest Starfleet ship in the Star Trek universe. It's not just ugly, it's Sofa King ugly.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

All I can say is... Bwahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Zombie_61 said:


> "You do not have permission to view this topic."
> 
> As for the U.S.S. Discovery, I never thought I'd live to see the day when the NCC-1701-D was the _second_ ugliest Starfleet ship in the Star Trek universe. It's not just ugly, it's Sofa King ugly.


Peeking over on the left, you can see half the ship....

http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x436/lordJeyl/thediscoverycameo_zps6seftoyd.png


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Fuller Announces New Series Titled ?Star Trek Discovery? Set in Prime Timeline UPDATED ? TrekMovie.com
UDPATES: During the subsequent press interviews producer Heather Kadin exclusively told Trekmovie.com that the design for the U.S.S. Discovery is not final.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CessnaDriver said:


> Fuller Announces New Series Titled ?Star Trek Discovery? Set in Prime Timeline UPDATED ? TrekMovie.com
> UDPATES: During the subsequent press interviews producer Heather Kadin exclusively told Trekmovie.com that the design for the U.S.S. Discovery is not final.


Oh wow. Man, you know, I just...

OK. Look. Stuff costs money. All the work that went into that 'teaser', that's money. Design, rendering, animating, that's all money. I know it looks like something cranked out by someone's home computer but it's not, they probably threw a couple of million Dollars at some group to get that. 

And THEN they say it's not the final design? What, they're gonna change the color on (what I would believe to be) the impulse engines, or maybe dump the bronze-seeming color, or plate over the 'salad shooter in a wok' upper saucer? 

Or just make a whole new ship?

I swear, these people. Do they even know how to make a TV show?

If you wanted to make a teaser clip you could have taken that same background, that asteroid dock, and put the words 'Star Trek' in the slip, and flown THAT out, and people would have gone "coooooool!" and everybody happy.


----------



## whereisanykey (Sep 25, 2011)

This is why they went after Axanar. Jealousy.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

whereisanykey said:


> This is why they went after Axanar. Jealousy.


No, it's because asinine Axanar people broke the law.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

I love the smell of a good fanboy freakout in the morning. :nerd:

I'll give the show and the ship a chance, because it's way too early to really know anything. The fact that Trek is back on TV is good. The Trek concept works best on TV and I like that they're going to tell new stories with a new crew rather than doing some sort of nostalgia reboot. That said, that the show's acronym is "STD" is hilarious. They were obviously trying to capture Trek's essence of exploration and seeking out new knowledge, but c'mon, producers need to think these things through.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Hunk A Junk said:


> I love the smell of a good fanboy freakout in the morning. :nerd:
> 
> I'll give the show and the ship a chance, because it's way too early to really know anything. The fact that Trek is back on TV is good. The Trek concept works best on TV and I like that they're going to tell new stories with a new crew rather than doing some sort of nostalgia reboot. That said, that the show's acronym is "STD" is hilarious. They were obviously trying to capture Trek's essence of exploration and seeking out new knowledge, but c'mon, producers need to think these things through.


It's not a freakout for me so much as just head scratching. Really odd design choice for the ship, followed by that statement "well, it's not final", then, yes, STD is the acronym for the show and geeze, shoot the OTHER foot guys. 

And I'm sure I'm not the only fanboy who groaned a bit on that 'sun/planet/object' stacking ala 2001. "geddit, fanboys? DISCOVERY? HUH? Aren't we soooooo clever? huh? SEE?" 

Did I miss the cast announcements and who is writing for the show and who the showrunner is (we used to just call that guy 'producer' in the old days)? That stuff is kinda important to, you know, actually make a show...


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Steve H said:


> So they're reaching into the discard bin for the new show? Isn't that basically the Ralph McQuarrie Enterprise (complete with asteroid spacedock) from the early pre-pro to Star Trek The Motion Picture?
> 
> I mean, OK, fine, whatever, but really?


So! I'm not the only one who saw the Ralph McQuarrie Enterprise in that design! I immediately recognized it. Not my favorite, but hey, I can't make a better one! The one I like is The Icarus! Seen that? Renegades' ship? Now that would be bad _ASS!_

Aww, but what do _I know..._

Doug


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

They couldn't show up to San Diego empty handed with it being the 50th and all for Trek.
I think this was hey, this is our ship design we have zeroed in on, and intro'ing the name of the show when the lights turn on to reveal it on the saucer. 

So I expect the design will be refined but I do not expect big changes.
I worry more about story content and those things, I am just grateful it is all in the Prime-verse.
So even if you hate the McQuarrie ship, there will be others on the show I'm sure. We always get lots of new ships.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The low registry number may mean that the ship has been around for many decades. This *could* mean the seasonal anthology series idea they've discussed will use the same ship in different time periods of the prime universe which is something I''d personally like to see since it would be an interesting departure from most ST series and allow a lot more flexibility in terms of story telling. 

So far, however, according to the Wiki entry, we only know that it will be "a single story arc across the entire first season" but that could mean that it's got different characters being concentrated on from season to season but all set within the same time period. I'm hoping they push the envelope on changing things up between seasons.

As for the design, I've always liked it after a fashion. Looks like they took away my main complaint about the McQuarrie design: the nacelles didn't seem to work in the ST universe as originally rendered y McQ. The way they're shown in the video works for me, however. 

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the USS Frank Lin look of the depressed area on the top of the primary hull.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ...........
> On the other hand, I'm not a fan of the USS Frank Lin look of the depressed area on the top of the primary hull.



My guess is the saucer section may separate different from what we are used to, more of a donut lifeboat sort of shape leaving the central section and bridge attached to the engineering section. 

At first I saw that design feature and got worried it was going to be JJ Trek verse and thankfully they mercifully tweeted quickly otherwise. 

My hope is they let the usual series suspects that have worked on the shows forever...tweak the ship and refine it into fitting better into the prime-verse ship legacy.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> At first I saw that design feature and got worried it was going to be JJ Trek verse and thankfully they mercifully tweeted quickly otherwise.


That design feature seems to be part of the area around the bridge of the Oberth class ships as well.

Yeah, I'm hoping they do some good tweaking. The font is _really _rubbing me the wrong way right now.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

Registry should be in the three digit range.

Otherwise, I like it.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

As I read on Facebook .... "As long as they don't call the show ST-D"


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Officially they are saying it's "DSC".


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

CessnaDriver said:


> Officially they are saying it's "DSC".


They can "officially" give it whatever acronym they want, people are still going to call it STD. If it's an immediate hit, they'll call it that affectionately. If it's a bomb, they'll use it derisively.

When I first saw the article announcing the title, I mistakenly told my wife the show was called "Star Trek Destiny." She responded, "They're giving Star Trek stripper names now? Does the new bridge have a pole?":laugh:


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I don't mind the new ship at that much- not my favorite design but it does look like early Star Fleet. The only things that perplex me about the design is the weird fan grill around the saucer top and the three eyed bussards.
I have the feeling this is the first ship called 'Discovery' (although be may see an NX class on the ancestor wall somewhere). The way they seem to describe the series, I think we will see a number of refit/variations of this ship- a TOS, a TNG, other time periods where they same basic configuration will be about the same but it will reflect the current state of the art of technology in different time periods.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I will say this much. Given that many feel one of the early Jefferies designs for the TOS Enterprise, the 'ball and cylinders' ship that has generally been retconn'd into canon as the Daedalus class is the predecessor of the Constitution class StarShip, they really dodged a bullet there.

I mean, given the 2001 homage the clip starts with, can you imagine the howls of laughter if the ship, the hero of the show, the first image was that big ol' ball of a primary hull with 'Discovery' plastered on it? 

*whew*

(because, see, if they were really going to play around in 'original timeline' it would be logical for that ship to be...ahhhh, you can figure it out.  )


----------



## edge10 (Oct 19, 2013)

I know it's early but...

Am I the only one who thinks the animation itself looks incredibly phony? It looks like it's full motion video from a ST game 20 years ago.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

edge10 said:


> I know it's early but...
> 
> Am I the only one who thinks the animation itself looks incredibly phony? It looks like it's full motion video from a ST game 20 years ago.


It does, but I'm not sure how much better it's going to get on a TV budget. This show is going to be expensive. I doubt it'd even rise to the level of TOS-R quality and that's a fairly low bar.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

JGG1701 said:


> Nice if they wouldn't charge us to watch it!
> 
> 
> -Jim G.G.


Oofdah! That side profile makes me gag a little bit.


----------



## MisterM (Oct 17, 2009)

I think this guy did a good job with the McQuarrie-esk design.

McQuarrie-esk design


----------



## MisterM (Oct 17, 2009)

And man does the space dock image look like the teaser!

Check out the space dock image


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

MisterM said:


> I think this guy did a good job with the McQuarrie-esk design.
> 
> McQuarrie-esk design


That is a more pleasing design than this Discovery preview.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

The design is actually starting to grow on me, but I understand it is still in development. The teaser was an early prototype so we may see many further changes before the series. That may explain the cheaper look of it as well.


----------



## whereisanykey (Sep 25, 2011)

The saucer reminds me of the saucer from The Thing.

Greg


----------



## Kremin (Sep 26, 2012)

The only thing with the design that feels off for me is that the saucer to engineering section relationship is reversed. What is classed as the primary hull? With that much bulk in the lower decks is the saucer even required or just a throw back saying "Oh but it wouldn't be Star Trek (Starfleet design) without a saucer" 

Half the FASA designs were better than that and the other half had the same problem 

Having said that if the story is there it wouldn't matter as much what it looked like


----------



## JediDad (Dec 5, 2009)

Sigh . . . . 

That's all.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

JediDad said:


> Sigh . . . .
> 
> That's all.


Is that a sigh like a girl makes when in love, or a sigh like a kid makes when getting underwear for Christmas?


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

I'm guessing it's that sigh you make when you realize you've had one or two too many drinks, and puking your guts out will be a certainty in your near future.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Well, ends up we are wasting emotions and conjecture....

Star Trek: Discovery (2017) - Page 14


----------



## electric indigo (Dec 21, 2011)

One does not simply _rush_ a teaser to the most nitpicky fanbase in the UFP...


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

> phase pistol said: I never cared for how lump-like Voyager looked. To me at least.


Then:


> newworld said: Me neither. My son called it the USS Shovel. Never a fan but to each their own.


Good grief! Tough crowd! If they think _Voyager_ sucks...I guess that says it all....

Doug


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

I never liked the Voyager either; looked like a shoe with warp engines.  But that's the point; you're never going to please everyone and some people will love this design and some hate it (and for many who hate it, it will grow on them after a few years). The same people complaining about the VFX in the teaser would be complaining that they had nothing to show had they not shown anything. If you look at the teaser, details like windows and things are clearly pretty rough and blunt; I have no doubt the finished effects will be far superior, particularly on a 13-episode series. What I'm interested in seeing is how this show measures up to "peak television"--the original series was as good as anything on the air at the time. The other shows, while all of them had strong installments, I don't think were on the cutting edge of TV in terms of drama for the most part. That's going to be a big challenge.


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

JeffBond said:


> I never liked the Voyager either; looked like a shoe with warp engines.


(Spits a mouthful of grape soda everywhere, just missing my laptop...some came out my _nose_, too...)

BWAAAHHH hahaha! A hahaa! A _SHOE!_ Jeff! That's..._hysterical!_ OMG! I haven't laughed that hard in..._years!_ -Gasping for breath- Thank you! I needed that! 

Man. I will never look at that ship the same! It's true! And that never occurred to me. I akways loved the sleek design...but a _SHOE!_ It really _does!_ :lol:

Doug


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

JeffBond said:


> I never liked the Voyager either; looked like a shoe with warp engines.  But that's the point; you're never going to please everyone and some people will love this design and some hate it (and for many who hate it, it will grow on them after a few years). The same people complaining about the VFX in the teaser would be complaining that they had nothing to show had they not shown anything. If you look at the teaser, details like windows and things are clearly pretty rough and blunt; I have no doubt the finished effects will be far superior, particularly on a 13-episode series. What I'm interested in seeing is how this show measures up to "peak television"--the original series was as good as anything on the air at the time. The other shows, while all of them had strong installments, I don't think were on the cutting edge of TV in terms of drama for the most part. That's going to be a big challenge.


And this is the thing I keep harping about in other places. OK, nice, show a rough animatic or pre-vis of the ship, cool. Now let's see some cast, let's see some writer's names, let's see some costuming, let's see that there's something to hang on to. 

With a launch of next year, and even if not until Sept. 2017, they still should be ramping up. Sets being designed and constructed. Costumes, same. Props. Actors cast. Writers pitching stories. Heck, a series bible needs to be written. 

Lots of work needs to be done and if they want to do the BEST job they shouldn't wait until, say, December before starting all this process. 

But then again. You can't design costumes until you have a grasp on what the series is going to be and actors cast. Right now the show is nothing more than an 'elevator pitch' and not even an outline. 

I wonder if they're going to follow the JJ mandate of "don't reference Original Trek or you're fired!!"* or be more flexible.

*note: I know that's a kind of blanket statement and obviously it's a variable because, you know, Carol Marcus and Kahn and blahblah, but it seems it was pretty hard line on that first movie.


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

JeffBond said:


> I never liked the Voyager either; looked like a shoe with warp engines.


I always think 'upside down spoon,' but you're not wrong. My complaint about Voyager, and all the TNG era ships, is all the Sternbach details that clutter up the curves and lines -- the phaser emitters, the lifeboat hatches, the transporter whatevers. I like that there are functional details, but I'd prefer them to be more subtle so they blend in until you really get close. 



JeffBond said:


> What I'm interested in seeing is how this show measures up to "peak television"--the original series was as good as anything on the air at the time. The other shows, while all of them had strong installments, I don't think were on the cutting edge of TV in terms of drama for the most part. That's going to be a big challenge.


This. We're in a new TV "golden age." Right now, all the creative juice in the industry is in TV. Game of Thrones, House of Cards, Walking Dead. I want Trek to be true to its roots, but also to be relevant, surprising and to evolve. With both Star Trek and (sadly) Star Wars, fans get really conservative and protective about what "is" and "is not" acceptable in those franchises. First and foremost the show should be top notch drama. The ship's design is way down my list of priorities.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Radiodugger said:


> Good grief! Tough crowd! If they think _Voyager_ sucks...I guess that says it all....
> 
> Doug


I'll do you one better--I don't really care for ANY of the ships from the Next Generation era except for the Klingon ships. But then, I don't think much of _The Next Generation_, and hated what little I saw of _Deep Space Nine_ and _Voyager_, so...


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

BTW the new show exists as more than a bible--from what I understand the entire arc of the first season is planned out, if not actually all generated as teleplays. But for example I don't think it makes any sense to talk about the characters until they've been cast. You could describe James T. Kirk (or Robert April) in all the detail you wanted, but until you put an actor like Shatner in the role you really don't have any sense of what that character is going to be. I do expect that these details will be settled soon, but I don't fault them for rushing to get them in place just because Comic Con was happening.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

JeffBond said:


> ...I don't fault them for rushing to get them in place just because Comic Con was happening.


It's risky, that's for sure. Comic Con is a good venue to promote the new show, but the unimpressive footage they showed might have convinced some fans not to watch it when it finally premieres. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Quite a bit was revealed yesterday about the show, enough that a spoiler warning may be in order: Link to Entertainment Weekly Article

I was ok until I read the part where we get commercials along with our $6 because "This original content is not on CBS, this is extra value.”


----------



## JeffBond (Dec 9, 2013)

According the Les Moonves the show is already profitable and he expects it to run for several years. That's despite all the INCREDIBLE MISTAKES they've made so far according to fans.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

They need to set aside any agendas they might have and just worry about doing a good show. The social commentary will come much more organically from that approach than if they set out with, "we need to a story about this liberal social cause."


----------



## Hunk A Junk (Jan 28, 2013)

Captain Robert April said:


> The social commentary will come much more organically from that approach than if they set out with, "we need to a story about this liberal social cause."


Given that it was Roddenberry's intention from the beginning to have a social agenda, I think planning for it from the beginning is part of the Trek formula.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Hunk A Junk said:


> Given that it was Roddenberry's intention from the beginning to have a social agenda, I think planning for it from the beginning is part of the Trek formula.


That was a much different era for television. That formula would be a tired and trite one today and a sure fire way to get a show canceled fast. Just stick to good stories, and leave the commentary to the commentators, period.




Zombie_61 said:


> I'll do you one better--I don't really care for ANY of the ships from the Next Generation era except for the Klingon ships. But then, I don't think much of _The Next Generation_, and hated what little I saw of _Deep Space Nine_ and _Voyager_, so...


I could have said exactly the same thing! Although the ship designs are not that critical to me, I don't much care for any of the ships of that era. But the shows themselves were all duds to me, particularly Voyager and DS9, what little I saw of them! Now, Enterprise I did really like for the most part. And Enterprise had the coolest title sequence of all since TOS!


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Started re-watching TOS on Netflix with the new effects. Those are pretty good. But what has impressed me the most is the quality of the writing and the character development! Both salt creature (forgot its name) and Charlie X go straight into the relationships as if they had been around a while! Though, the conversation between Uhura and Spock is as though either one had just joined the ship. But, nicely, teasing out details about Spock's emotionless facade and the fact that Vulcan has no moon, which Uhura thought proved her point that Vulcans had no romance or passion! The fact that McCoy was between a rock and a hard place on an emotional level regarding is former par-amour Nancy is something you just don't see in first broadcast episodes anymore. Both The Cage and Where No Man Has Gone Before were oddly resonant with today's arguments concerning religion, arrogance and elitism! 

This is a joy to watch!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I watch TOS every Saturday night on METV.
I've seen these eps god knows how many times over my 50 years.
I still find new things to think about. 
May the new starship Discovery be as bold.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Proper2 said:


> ...Now, Enterprise I did really like for the most part. And Enterprise had the coolest title sequence of all since TOS!


Yeah, but the worst theme song. The song itself isn't horrible--it would suit one of the "nighttime soap opera" type shows they broadcast on the networks just fine. But it's completely wrong for a Star Trek series.



charonjr said:


> Started re-watching TOS on Netflix with the new effects...


I started re-watching them three or four nights ago; finished off with "The Menagerie" last night, and I'll probably watch "The Conscience of the King" shortly and continue from there.

It's pretty clear the concept of "binge watching" never entered anyone's mind while these shows were being produced, because little details on the costumes, props, and sets were constantly being tweaked. I can't imagine anyone involved with the show thought we fans would one day be able to watch them back-to-back whenever we wanted, so they probably thought no one would ever notice. But I have to give the crew that did the remastering some credit, because while watching "Where No Man Has Gone Before" I noticed the Enterprise had the larger Navigational Deflector Array and taller B/C Deck structures just as the physical model did when they filmed the episode; they could just as easily have used the CG model they already had (i.e. the "series" version) and said it would be more consistent to do so. Regardless, even though I've seen these episodes a number of times over the last 50 years they're still as entertaining as the ever were.


----------

