IL - wasn’t the Enterprise B from ST:TNG a heavy cruiser? The 1701 and 1701-A were Constitution Classes. (haven’t looked at the images for the show yet, I want to be surprised.)
@CWO:
Interesting.� The part which says that the new show is “set approximately ten years before James T. Kirk takes command of the Enterprise, in the Prime timeline” (which he did in about 2265), places the Discovery series around the same time as the events of the original pilot episode The Cage, which is set around 2254.
Yeah, I was interested by Fuller’s statement: “We�re much closer to Kirk�s universe [than that of Archer�s], so we get to play with all of that [TOS-era] iconography of those ships and those uniforms.”
Sounds good to me, though I hope they don’t riff too hard on the established look.
Also, the perspective being from a non-command officer should be interesting and different. The impression I get is of the TNG episode “Lower Decks” which switches the viewpoint of events from the standard bridge crew to a group of junior officers. It was a pretty compelling shift in perspective. However, Star Trek has never approached a show from the perspective of just one person before. There has always been a general focus on the ‘bridge crew’ with episodes devoted to the entire group and individuals from time to time. This will be quite a change if it follows this woman’s perspective almost exclusively.
@Cmdr:
IL - wasn’t the Enterprise B from ST:TNG a heavy cruiser? The 1701 and 1701-A were Constitution Classes. (haven’t looked at the images for the show yet, I want to be surprised.)
Both the Constitution-refit and the Excelsior class (Enterprise-B) were rated as heavy cruisers in their heyday. By the TNG era they would have been less than that. The way they rate ships in Star Trek is inconsistent and undefined.
Fuller stated that “The lead character will be female Lt. Commander in Starfleet – and human – not the captain of a starship. The rank comes with caveats.” So it’s clear that the lead character won’t be the ship’s Captain, but it also seems clear that she’s one of the senior officers aboard, not a junior officer or an enlisted crewmember. Major surface-combat warships in real navies today typically have a commanding officer / captain who actually does hold the naval rank of Captain and an executive officer who holds the naval rank of Commander. Star Trek has tended to follow that practice, though not consistently; I think that in TOS Spock had the rank of Lieutenant-Commander for a while, even though his shipboard position was that of First Officer (as well as Science Officer).
The role described – from what little we know about it – may have partially been inspired by the Will Riker one on TNG, meaning that TNG adopted the sensible position that a ship’s C/O ought to remain aboard the ship (which is his primary responsibility) and that the more expendable X/O is the one who should handle the potentially risky (and more fun) job of leading missions off the ship. It may also have been partially inspired (based on the cryptic “with caveats” remark) by T’Pol on Enterprise, who as I recall was initially assigned to the ship with a special status (given that she wasn’t Starfleet personnel).
The way they rate ships in Star Trek is inconsistent and undefined.
Yes – and to further complicate the picture, the Klingons in Star Trek III charmingly referred to the Enterprise as a “Federation battlecruiser,” if I remember correctly. In fairness, the Klingons tend to view things from a military perspective, and also may be working from garbled intelligence reports about Starfleet. In the militarized alternate universe shown in Yesterday’s Enterprise, Picard refers to the Enterprise-D as a “battleship”.
@CWO:
Fuller stated that "The lead character will be female Lt. Commander in Starfleet – and human – not the captain of a starship. The rank comes with caveats."� So it’s clear that the lead character won’t be the ship’s Captain, but it also seems clear that she’s one of the senior officers aboard, not a junior officer or an enlisted crewmember.� Major surface-combat warships in real navies today typically have a commanding officer / captain who actually does hold the naval rank of Captain and an executive officer who holds the naval rank of Commander.� Star Trek has tended to follow that practice, though not consistently; I think that in TOS Spock had the rank of Lieutenant-Commander for a while, even though his shipboard position was that of First Officer (as well as Science Officer).�
The role described – from what little we know about it – may have partially been inspired by the Will Riker one on TNG, meaning that TNG adopted the sensible position that a ship’s C/O ought to remain aboard the ship (which is his primary responsibility) and that the more expendable X/O is the one who should handle the potentially risky (and more fun) job of leading missions off the ship.� It may also have been partially inspired (based on the cryptic “with caveats” remark) by T’Pol on Enterprise, who as I recall was initially assigned to the ship with a special status (given that she wasn’t Starfleet personnel).
Possibly. The stated role made me think of “Lower Decks”, however as you pointed out she is not a junior officer. That’s why I said non-command, as in not the Captain. However, Riker certainly was command level. I guess it just depends what her responsibilities aboard the ship are.
@CWO:
The way they rate ships in Star Trek is inconsistent and undefined.
Yes – and to further complicate the picture, the Klingons in Star Trek III charmingly referred to the Enterprise as a “Federation battlecruiser,” if I remember correctly. In fairness, the Klingons tend to view things from a military perspective, and also may be working from garbled intelligence reports about Starfleet. In the militarized alternate universe shown in Yesterday’s Enterprise, Picard refers to the Enterprise-D as a “battleship”.
Exactly. The proper and consistent classification of ships in Star Trek has always irked me. The writers just never seemed to think it that important. It is somewhat tricky to define Federation ships in particularly, since their primary mission exploratory and peaceful in nature. Though the most excitement in the show occurs when they use their weapons.
Playing the various Trek computer games over the years provides a better perspective on the relative classification of ships, but it as all pretty unofficial.
I guess it just depends what her responsibilities aboard the ship are.
Yes, there’s a distinction between line officers (whose jobs involve commanding subordinates) and staff officers (whose jobs don’t necessarily do so). Though it would be pretty boring to build an action-adventure series around the activities of a staff officer. :-)
@CWO:
I guess it just depends what her responsibilities aboard the ship are.
Yes, there’s a distinction between line officers (whose jobs involve commanding subordinates) and staff officers (whose jobs don’t necessarily do so). Though it would be pretty boring to build an action-adventure series around the activities of a staff officer. :-)
Haha, yes. If past Star Trek is any indication we would see a lot of ship tours and communicating with field captains via a computer screen.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/12/star-trek-discoverys-ship-design-still-evolving
Not much new in the way of info, but interesting.
Here is the study model of the McQuarrie design from the 70s. I am not sure how much they plan to retain, but I hope it is more rather than less. I actually like the aesthetic of the model quite a bit. Fits with the 10 years pre-TOS/TOS feel.
While watching the Olympics last night I saw the new trailer for Star Wars: Rogue One. Looks cool for a change, but I noted how much of the aesthetic of the original trilogy they are maintaining. Particularly in ship design, weapons and control panel layouts. It is all very grounded and realistic. Fortunately, they realize that this is what people expect to see from a Star Wars film that is set in the A New Hope era. I can only hope that Star Trek does the same. Tone down the modern flashiness and bring back the simpler, darker look of the 60s and 70s.
There’s an odd parallel here. The Star Trek reboot films (of which so far we have three) and the Star Wars third trilogy (of which so far we have The Force Awakens), both of which have had directorial involvement from J.J. Abrams, have both taken flak from the traditionalist part of the fan base as deviating too much from the originals. And now we have an upcoming Star Trek new series Discovery and an upcoming Star Wars spin-off film Rogue One, both of which are set slightly before the originals in their respective timelines and both of which therefore might (in the case of Discovery) or apparently do (in the case of Rogue One) stick fairly well to what was established in the originals. What makes these convergences even more ironic is that these two competing sci-fi megafranchises with very similar titles (eight letters each, with Star as the first word in both cases) have long been regarded as very different creatures, with Star Trek arguably being more grounded in the hard sci-fi tradition (and in its TV incarnations having a proclivity for exploring social and moral issues) and with Star Wars arguably hailing more from the fantasy sci-fi (and more broadly the action-adventure) tradition.
@CWO:
There’s an odd parallel here. The Star Trek reboot films (of which so far we have three) and the Star Wars third trilogy (of which so far we have The Force Awakens), both of which have had directorial involvement from J.J. Abrams, have both taken flak from the traditionalist part of the fan base as deviating too much from the originals. And now we have an upcoming Star Trek new series Discovery and an upcoming Star Wars spin-off film Rogue One, both of which are set slightly before the originals in their respective timelines and both of which therefore might (in the case of Discovery) or apparently do (in the case of Rogue One) stick fairly well to what was established in the originals. What makes these convergences even more ironic is that these two competing sci-fi megafranchises with very similar titles (eight letters each, with Star as the first word in both cases) have long been regarded as very different creatures, with Star Trek arguably being more grounded in the hard sci-fi tradition (and in its TV incarnations having a proclivity for exploring social and moral issues) and with Star Wars arguably hailing more from the fantasy sci-fi (and more broadly the action-adventure) tradition.
To continue your parallels one more step… These new ‘prequels’ that appear, from what we’ve seen, to be well grounded in their source material, do not at all involve JJ Abrams…. whereas the former examples (new Trek films and Force Awakens) deeply involve that individual.
I think it is obvious what (who) the problem is here.
Eh, I’ll watch all Trek, even bad Trek! Never was a Star Wars fan. (The Starfighter battles sure, but, really, space wizards with flaming swords? Not my cuppa tea)
We also have this gem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4JUxQe4P4g proving once and for all that Trek science is better than Star Wars science! Puny lasers! :evil:
While I continue to watch Voyager, Enterprise and for the 7th time, Deep Space Nine, the series is clearly and deeply tired. Star Trek is a muddled, retconned and threebooted soap opera. Star Wars is “sticking to the script” by copying itself. Enterprise was such a mess in terms of story and characters, I only hope they choose a total unknown for the next lead. New enterprises are put out by replicator and crewed by random assignment; the Enterprise Z has been cloned and promptly blown up as it left space dock. A literal heap of destroyed enterprises stand on the scrap heap of history, being destroyed 2 and 3 times per movie soon the scrapping will outpace the building of faceless waves of inconceivably designated capital ships where battlecruisers are smaller than cruisers and where the most competent and capable officer in the universe flies the flagship into the periphery and corrupt, self-motivated (or alien dominated) idiots run the general staff back on earth.
Kate Mulgrew’s best work is in a prison drama…not at all on Voyager, at least she is capable of offering up something creative and new. The games continue to breathe new life into the franchise; an awesome role reversal.
Relevant to our modern times. Good article by a great author.
I cannot agree more. Would anyone not agree when looking at DS9 seriously? (Not saying you are not allowed to just look at it superficially and not like it, as some do…maybe exactly because it is more difficult just to consume DS9 for pure entertainment than other Star Trek shows; although Star Trek never is without thought, other shows have more light episodes than DS9 does).
DS9…. I’ve watched it, but I’ve never been a big fan, contrary to most of the other Star Trek variants. Instead of “to boldly go where no one (or even: no man, for the purists) has gone before”, their motto seems to be “to boldly skulk in our big well armed space station and hope that nobody unfriendly to us will go where they have not gone before”. It’s a sign of the times…. TOS is like the Apollo program, DS9 is like the ISS. So I suppose that in the end it’s not the quality of the acting or the deeper philosophy behind it, but the spirit of the series that mostly appeals to me.
By the way, thanks everybody for all this information, even if I’ve only been browsing it. I hadn’t even noticed the new series!
Did anyone ever count how many times Kirk and co actually went where no man has gone before in TOS?
My guess would be about 3 times in 79 episodes, though I can’t think of any offhand. Still, more than in No Man’s Sky…
Discovery launch delayed until May 2017
http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/09/star-trek-discovery-sets-new-course-for-may-2017/
For some reason that seemed inevitable.
