www.ditl.org

Well, to be fair, we have worked out an extremely nebulous and vague system of deciding what makes sense to debate about here. If the discussion begins as an in-universe question or concept, we treat it as such, and while a lot of material is open to interpretation, some of it isn't, in that context.

Still sounds like a recipe for "this is what I think." At any rate certainly saying something like "x class is clearly a replacement for y" is way out there in the "we're just giving opinions" arena. No one ever said anything on screen, ever, about when the Akira was produced, what role it performs, or what classes it was designed to replace. Even for that matter, there is no canon to say the Mirandas and Excelsiors ARE being replaced! We still see them in front-line duty regardless of their age! (In Best of Both Worlds, for instance, the Admiral's ship was an Excelsior.... hardly a strong argument that Starfleet considers the Excelsior an obsolete class they are only keeping around until their replacements roll out of the shipyards.) The whole topic is in the realm of making up what seems to make sense. And that's where things start to get subjective.

I'll probably be excoriated for this, but I've always been skeptical of the proposed early origin (c. 2363) for the Akira. I mean, yes, there are the registry numbers, but the ship seems to share design esthetics with the Sovereign, and it has those newer triangular escape pods, for example. Wouldn't it have looked out of place in a TNG episode?

Lazar wrote:I'll probably be excoriated for this, but I've always been skeptical of the proposed early origin (c. 2363) for the Akira. I mean, yes, there are the registry numbers, but the ship seems to share design esthetics with the Sovereign, and it has those newer triangular escape pods, for example. Wouldn't it have looked out of place in a TNG episode?

*Wouldn't excoriate ya*

This is my opinion. I think that the out of universe explanation is that from First Contact onwards (and most especially in Enterprise) art and design considerations were made on making full use of new CGI technology and effects which looked way more flashy and advanced and out of step with what we saw in the TNG television era, without serious constraint with regards to whether or not the appearance of the new ships conformed to the era in which they belonged or were meant to belong. Heck the Enterprise (Archer's) looks like the Akira and it's hundreds of years older.

In universe, I think that it could still make perfect sense for the Akira to look out of step with the Galaxy and Nebula and more in step with the Sovereign because I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the geometry and technology improvements ultimately culminated in the Sovereign would have been testbedded piecemeal in earlier designs. I also think the Sovereign would have had a substantially longer development time than a simpler/smaller ship, so there would have been a wider window of time in which to update the Sovereign's finished design incorporating the best of the new design elements which came into use over the ten or more years prior to the Sovereign class's completion.

Additionally whereas the Galaxy and Nebula are stated to be primarily explorers, and the Akira is PRESUMED to have been designed more towards the combat role, it would make sense for the Sovereign to have more in common with the Akira in general appearance or design style than with the Nebula or Galaxy.

I guess that could make sense. On a somewhat related note, it does seem like there's a trend for Starfleet to couple their top-level ships with related smaller designs that are more torpedo-heavy - the Connie has the Miranda, the Galaxy has the Nebula, and the Sovereign has the Akira.

To the extent that the Sov represents a leap in tech over the GCS, I'd agree that this tech would have had to have been in development during the lifetime of the GCS (a sudden leap wouldn't be feasible otherwise). So then, we'd have the GCS representing a stand-off threat built with the best (proved and tested) existing tech while the new wave was being developed.

In the case of escape pods, the outward "look" is something that can be excused fairly easily, since it has no direct ties to function.

Lazar wrote:I'll probably be excoriated for this, but I've always been skeptical of the proposed early origin (c. 2363) for the Akira. I mean, yes, there are the registry numbers, but the ship seems to share design esthetics with the Sovereign, and it has those newer triangular escape pods, for example. Wouldn't it have looked out of place in a TNG episode?

Somebody forgot to check the registry numbers they put on the models...

Oh, right, SOD... They may have been the among first ships to use those design elements, and field tested them for use on the later models. Or, they might have been a competing design from the same time period that ended up proving superior. Or, they might have been too expensive to field in peacetime because of the advanced tech, and were only mass-produced right before the Dominion War.

Hell of a lot of maybes...

CPH - good points.

Then again we could always say the explanation is much simpler, and that the appearance similarity between Akira and Sovereign is merely aesthetic/coincidental, with no real relation on similar age of design or similar components. After all the Defiant was produced in the same span of time, and it bears no similarity whatsoever to the Galaxy, Nebula, Excelsior, Akira OR Sovereign. Yet it shares a lot of technology components with the Sovereign.

Duskofdead wrote:Then again we could always say the explanation is much simpler, and that the appearance similarity between Akira and Sovereign is merely aesthetic/coincidental, with no real relation on similar age of design or similar components. After all the Defiant was produced in the same span of time, and it bears no similarity whatsoever to the Galaxy, Nebula, Excelsior, Akira OR Sovereign. Yet it shares a lot of technology components with the Sovereign.

You and CPH have a good point with that, for sure. That could just as easily fit, IU.

Going strictly OOU for a moment, one thing that I do find appealing about the new movie is the prospect of having more of a unified design esthetic. I think whenever a franchise breaks into multiple series or movies over a significant span of time, you run the risk of having some jarring transitions or inconsistencies in this area. If you look at the SW prequel trilogy, for example, the ships, interiors and gadgets all seemed to have a 21st century CGI awesomeness about them that outshone the original movies.

Lazar wrote:Going strictly OOU for a moment, one thing that I do find appealing about the new movie is the prospect of having more of a unified design esthetic. I think whenever a franchise breaks into multiple series or movies over a significant span of time, you run the risk of having some jarring transitions or inconsistencies in this area. If you look at the SW prequel trilogy, for example, the ships, interiors and gadgets all seemed to have a 21st century CGI awesomeness about them that outshone the original movies.

That's not at all an insignificant point you raise. Although an extremely casual viewer is probably just like "whatever" about it, anyone paying attention probably does notice that, even if only subconsciously. One of my immediate rejections of Enterprise (the series) was how everything felt just like TNG+.... sometimes things looked and felt even more advanced. It didn't help that Braga didn't give a crap about continuity and had Enterprise going from point A to point B in as much or less time than it would have taken the Enterprise-D. But the Vulcans having like, Ambassador sized ships running around? Come on. Everything should have had more of a scaled back, early space feel, and it didn't at all.

Figures I get back and topic has already changed...

Topic and topic! What is topic?!

Deepcrush wrote:Figures I get back and topic has already changed...

Did you miss the part where I called you a dumbshit? That was great.

Well its not like you had anything to add so you had to say something. Better that you typed it so you weren't wasting air...

Deepcrush wrote:Well its not like you had anything to add so you had to say something. Better that you typed it so you weren't wasting air...

Of course. That and the fact that you can't hear me talking at my computer.