USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Belz...]

For the TOS Connie I just ended up using Star Trek Online which is a really accurate model of it. Couldn't match the angle exactly, but I think I got close.

It has a moon on its ass.

Somehow, personally, I think the Discoprise looks even more menacing than the Vengeance - and her whole schtick basically was "evil Enterprise". I can't put my finger on why exactly that is, though.

The Vengeance was black, blocky and angular, huge, and menacing. The Discoprise doesn't come close.

 

[Rahul]

The Vengeance was black, blocky and angular, huge, and menacing. The Discoprise doesn't come close.

Still, the overall proportions of the Vengeance aren't actually that menacing.
Maybe because it looks as if she has more curved lines? Or the thinner pylons? Whatever it is, the Discoprise looks a lot more brutalistic than the Vengeance, combined with the hunked-down pose the Discoprise seems to look more aggressive, at least from this perspective:

 

[TrickyDickie]

It has a moon on its ass.



The Vengeance was black, blocky and angular, huge, and menacing. The Discoprise doesn't come close.

I'm wondering if color and lighting quite significantly come into it. The side-by-side comparison of the TOS version and the Discoprise, from farther up in the thread, with both of them shown in white, drastically cuts down on the impression of menace....for me, anyway.

This brings up another point: What are the current producers of Trek trying to convey in terms of optimistic or pessimistic view of the future? Gene Roddenberry seemed to go toward a more positive take on things, where those who have been working on Trek since his passing have seemed to have a somewhat darker take. Does that influence how things appear? Is there a clear intention, or does it come down to individual perception? For the record, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment because I have not had the opportunity to watch the episodes of Discovery yet, so I have no feel for the mood, tone, etc.

 

[Rahul]

This brings up another point: What are the current producers of Trek trying to convey in terms of optimistic or pessimistic view of the future? Gene Roddenberry seemed to go toward a more positive take on things, where those who have been working on Trek since his passing have seemed to have a somewhat darker take. Does that influence how things appear? Is there a clear intention, or does it come down to individual perception? For the record, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage at the moment because I have not had the opportunity to watch the episodes of Discovery yet, so I have no feel for the mood, tone, etc.

One of the main noticeable differences is, that in previous (Roddenberry, Berman-era) Trek, starships were usually a symbol of human progress. Being a representation of a humanity that managed to "solve" it's problem via social and technological progression.

On Discovery, the starships are a given. In this regard, it's much closer to Star Wars, where no actual human or technological development takes place. They are essentially "us" (viewed throug the lense of Hollywood writers) with starships, but no further thought given on how humanity managed to create such fantastic marvels of technology. Starships on DIS look dark and gritty (like on Enterprise), but that comes across as a purely cosmetic choice, it's not indicative of a "darker" tone, just "looking kewl". But there is a distinctive lack of "wonder" or even establishing shots they were given in all previous Trek. Whereas before the main starships were almost treated like individual characters of the show, now they are merely tools to serve the plot (DIS is generally very plot- and not much character focused, although the plotting is arguibly the weak spot of the show).

It's not exactly pessimistic or anything. But not optimistic either. There seems to be little to none thought given to this subject on DIS.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well that was the point of the first Season, it was meant to be dark and then end in the light.

They've said Season 2 will be more, familiar.

 

[Belz...]

Still, the overall proportions of the Vengeance aren't actually that menacing.
Maybe because it looks as if she has more curved lines? Or the thinner pylons? Whatever it is, the Discoprise looks a lot more brutalistic than the Vengeance, combined with the hunked-down pose the Discoprise seems to look more aggressive, at least from this perspective:

Huh, well, to each his own, I guess. I find the Vengeance positively scary, which is why I liked her, despite the ship being otherwise unattractive. I still hope we'll see a Vengeance-class Excelsior in a Kelvin timeline story. Just with a different paintjob.

(DIS is generally very plot- and not much character focused, although the plotting is arguibly the weak spot of the show).

I don't know. I found Burnham and Tyler had complete arcs, and that characters play an important part. There are fewer important characters on the show, however. I think the impression you're getting may stem from the fact that the season's a single story, rather than 15 as it would've been back in the day.

What are the current producers of Trek trying to convey in terms of optimistic or pessimistic view of the future? Gene Roddenberry seemed to go toward a more positive take on things, where those who have been working on Trek since his passing have seemed to have a somewhat darker take.

Well, if you go too much in the positive side you might get downright naive stories like the first season of TNG, or stuff like TMP, which most people dislike. TWOK was definitely not very positive, and is regarded as the best Trek movie.

I think the best way to showcase Star Trek's positive outlook is to deconstruct it, and build it up again. I think Discovery actually does a good job of that, starting out downright bleak and then ending on a last stand on Federation principles.

 

[Vger23]

Well that was the point of the first Season, it was meant to be dark and then end in the light.

They've said Season 2 will be more, familiar.

Not TOO much familiar, I hope. I have 700+ hours of familiar, plus The Orville (which I like and watch, but is totally treading the exact same ground as prior Trek series).

I loved DSC for its willingness to present something different.

 

[fireproof78]

Still, the overall proportions of the Vengeance aren't actually that menacing.

I always thought it did. To each their own, I guess///

It's not exactly pessimistic or anything. But not optimistic either. There seems to be little to none thought given to this subject on DIS.

There is thought given, just that they are setting up what will become more optimistic in TOS. At least, that's my reading as I watch the show.

Again, to each their own...

 

[Gonzo]

I'll guess they use some mix of the two - slight upscaling, but always having the ships in clear foreground/background configuration if together in one shot. So that you can't clearly make out the size difference.

I don't think they dare to change the official size of the connie too much, and they are already 'locked-in' with their official size of the Discovery.

I do expect the size to change as the disparity in relative size is just ridiculous even when just on paper never mind actually on screen and next to each other.

I just don't think the Enterprise will be as big as some think, after all the Discovery's nacelles make up a large proportion of its total length.

I would think no more than +50% which would make it no more than 450m or so.

 

[Belz...]

I do expect the size to change as the disparity in relative size is just ridiculous

I don't understand what you mean.

 

[Prax]

It's easy to determine size comparisons on paper, but much more difficult to be able to tell on screen, especially with how they depict ships in space on discovery.

 

[Tuskin38]

I don't understand what you mean.

Probably means how big the Shenzhou and Crossfield are compared to the TOS connie

 

[Gonzo]

Probably means how big the Shenzhou and Crossfield are compared to the TOS connie

Yeah, also just look at the silhouette of the much older Walker class and the up to date Crossfield class, the Constitution class should fit in between but it really doesn't, not at all.

The dimensions don't work as the Crossfield is easily twice the tonnage of the Constitution class, nor does the Constitution fit in the design lineage of either ship when it should be a mid point between the earlier Walker class and the new Crossfield.

Now if the Enterprise was the larger ship it would be understandable as it would need to hold enough personnel, provisions and spares for a full five year mission on the edge of known space.

If the Constitution fit in with the other ships we saw during the pilot episode it wouldn't be so bad as we could just say that the Crossfield is a brand new concept, but the nacelles and overall texturing don't match in the slightest with the ships we saw during the battle.

It really makes me wonder what the designers are playing at, either they cant make up their minds or big changes to the story or designs were made very late on in development/production and they ended up having to bodge things together.

I fully understand the reasoning behind having the Enterprise kept recognisable for the show, its a no brainer really, yet if they knew that the Enterprise was going to be shown then why not at least have the older Walker class and ships at the battle share a clear design lineage as the Crossfield could be kept as it is as we know there will never be any more of them.

It makes me think that having the Enterprise on the show was something they added very late on, it looks great don't get me wrong but it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Its the odd one out and I haven't seen a single adequate reason given by anyone on this forum for why that should be, there just doesn't seem to be any advantage to it whatsoever.

 

[Tuskin38]

The Enterprise being brought in may have been decided after the Shenzhou was finalized.

After Bryan Fuller left perhaps.

 

[Belz...]

Who says that the more recent ships have to be bigger? I don't understand the argument.

 

[fireproof78]

Its the odd one out and I haven't seen a single adequate reason given by anyone on this forum for why that should be, there just doesn't seem to be any advantage to it whatsoever.

A unique design, that even Kirk remarks "there are only 12 like her." For what, purpose? I would say being out on the front lines, with minimum requirements of servicing or operational support unless some drastic happens.

 

[Belz...]

Not TOO much familiar, I hope. I have 700+ hours of familiar, plus The Orville (which I like and watch, but is totally treading the exact same ground as prior Trek series).

I loved DSC for its willingness to present something different.

Indeed, though would've rather they set Discovery post-Hobus so we wouldn't have to deal with continuity.

Now, from your signature:

Complain about Star Trek: Discovery all you want...it's still leaps and bounds better at this phase of its lifecycle than any of the previous spinoff series ever were.

I have to agree. TNG and DS9 didn't have great first seasons, and VOY was never great. So at least DSC is off to a good start. TOS is the only Trek series so far that has essentially the same level of quality throughout, though of course DS9 simply got better with each passing season, so there's that.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

Whether the Discovery is new or not, I'm not convinced the class is, so it doesn't really need to fit between the others.

 

[Nightowl1701]

It really makes me wonder what the designers are playing at, either they cant make up their minds or big changes to the story or designs were made very late on in development/production and they ended up having to bodge things together.

More like it's the showrunners who can't make up their minds. Is this a prequel to TOS? (The writers seem to think it is.) Is this a reboot? (The designers seem to think it is.) Is this the prequel to an eventual remake/reboot of TOS? (Depends on if the fans accept it and keep watching, maybe.)

 

[Tuskin38]

It’s a visual reboot, not a lore reboot so they’re both right