Not sure how accurate it is but given the figures I vaguely recall, this feels pretty accurate.
Realizing that the Discovery is longer than any of these ships really puts shit into perspective
this post was submitted on 31 Oct 2023
193 points (98.5% liked)
Star Trek
10596 readers
134 users here now
r/startrek: The Next Generation
Star Trek news and discussion. No slash fic...
Maybe a little slash fic.
New to Star Trek and wondering where to start?
Rules
1 Be constructive
All posts/comments must be thoughtful and balanced.
2 Be welcoming
It is important that everyone from newbies to OG Trekkers feel welcome, no matter their gender, sexual orientation, religion or race.
3 Be truthful
All posts/comments must be factually accurate and verifiable. We are not a place for gossip, rumors, or manipulative or misleading content.
4 Be nice
If a polite way cannot be found to phrase what it is you want to say, don't say anything at all. Insulting or disparaging remarks about any human being are expressly not allowed.
5 Spoilers
Utilize the spoiler system for any and all spoilers relating to the most recently-aired episodes, as well as previews for upcoming episodes. There is no formal spoiler protection for episodes/films after they have been available for approximately one week.
6 Keep on-topic
All submissions must be directly about the Star Trek franchise (the shows, movies, books etc.). Off-topic discussions are welcome at c/quarks.
7 Meta
Questions and concerns about moderator actions should be brought forward via DM.
Upcoming Episodes
| Date | Episode | Title |
|---|---|---|
| 11-07 | LD 5x04 | "A Farewell to Farms" |
| 11-14 | LD 5x05 | "Starbase 80?!" |
| 11-21 | LD 5x06 | "Of Gods and Angels" |
| 11-28 | LD 5x07 | "Fully Dilated" |
| 12-05 | LD 5x08 | "Upper Decks" |
In Production
Strange New Worlds (2025)
Section 31 (2025-01-24)
Starfleet Academy (TBA)
In Development
Untitled comedy series
Wondering where to stream a series? Check here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, I do like so-called "Nu-Trek", but at the end of the day this is kind of a tail-wagging-the-dog response. You can explain just about anything in lore after the fact, but when the rubber hits the road the real explanation is that someone in a Hollywood design team said "We want it to be BIGGER," and then left it to the people who cared enough to find a reason why it would be justified.
Far easier to just suspend your disbelief a bit further, I think. Yeah, Discovery is weirdly big. It also flies through space by a man infused with a giant tardigrade's DNA sending the whole ship from place to place through willpower and a mushroom trip. If you can accept the second one, it kind of feels like the fact that the ship is a larj boye isn't that much of a stretch.
Is this... is this Dune?
I have not yet watched Star Trek Discovery, so this description just reads like Dune and the good old spice.
Your first point is true but that's true of all Star Trek. Something new comes in that shakes things up and requires some backsplanation to smooth things out. Or they just outright ignore things and move along (see that temp Warp 5 speed restriction in TNG as an example). Considering we've gotten some already ridiculous shit throughout Star Trek, I'm with your second point just as strongly. Who cares. We already have ships that have whales on them to have with three-dimensional course plotting. Is 'the ship being bigger and having classified tech' that much more of a stretch?
I guess I just fundamentally don't agree with the need for a "backsplanation". I am of the camp that I'm totally OK with the Klingons looking different in TMP than in TOS because it wasn't a 1960s TV show anymore and they wanted the aliens to look more alien, and that's all the explanation that I need. The Enterprise is different between SNW and its appearance in Discovery because it's a different show and they wanted to tweak its appearance some to make it more of a "hero" set. Spock and Sarek never mentioned his having an adoptive daughter/sister in spite of being in two series and a half dozen movies because Michael didn't exist until Discovery and the writers thought it would make for an interesting tie-in.
I have enjoyed the series since TNG in the 80s, and I'd love for it to come true some time in the future. But it's a TV show, it's not a history book. It's fine if there are inconsistencies, none of it is real anyway.
God the Klingon thing was silly. Do we need an explanation as to why the TOS ship had plastic, 1960s themed furniture? Do we need an explanation for improved camera resolution over the years? Why did we need a silly explanation for the improvement in makeup artistry so many decades later? And the explanation doesn't even work. Genetics don't work like that. It's taking themselves too seriously. Either ignore it, or hang a lantern on it with an inside joke once, and be done with it.
@VE3MAL @Basilisk Warf's explanation to Sisko in that TOS time travel episode was so perfect. Nothing else was needed.
It's like Lucas making a whole Solo movie to explain the Kessel Run and how he was "right" all this time.
The ENT mini-arc "explaining" the difference between Klingons "then" and "now" was absolutely unnecessary, but I do have to admit to finding it cute that the reason why Klingons became smooth-foreheaded instead of bumpy-foreheaded turned out to be a combination of all three of Bashir's guesses in that scene.