USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Belz...]

No, it is just that you have outdated (even by today's standards) views about how pads/computers/etc are used. I have told you this several times already. People use multiple devices right now in 2018!

Not that way. You don't read one novel on one ipad and a second one on a second ipad. It makes no sense. The whole point of these machines is to group all those activities and functions on a single machine that fits in your pocket.

You're stretching reality to match your fanwank.

 

[Longinus]

Not that way. You don't read one novel on one ipad and a second one on a second ipad. It makes no sense. The whole point of these machines is to group all those activities and functions on a single machine that fits in your pocket.

It makes sense for things you might want to do pretty much simultaneously or switch your attention from one thing to another quickly. One device plays a movie, second one is running some sort of chat, you're working with the third while fourth has reference material for your work open. You can glance from one device to another easily, without having to tab in or tab out. And of course all that data can still be available from any one device, if you for some reason want to take it with you. You must realise that in professional environments people often use several monitors simultaneously? It is like that.

 

[cooleddie74]

Well, most people wouldn't and don't. That doesn't mean someone somewhere wouldn't if they owned more than one iPad and didn't feel like closing out the screen on one to read the other. People are funny animals. We don't always do what's the most logical and sensible, even in our recreation.

I know, weak argument. But in a world where people do far stranger things with their personal technology and leisure choices it's far from the weakest.

 

[Belz...]

It makes sense for things you might want to do pretty much simultaneously or switch your attention from one thing to another quickly.

I get that, man. I just find it a lot quicker to swipe from one app to the next or tab from one window to the next than having to juggle between two devices that take up their own space and eat up electricity independantly.

For what it's worth, I didn't mean to be rude when I said "fanwank". I got tons of fanwank in my head. :P

 

[JamesRye]

So, John Eaves and Scott Schneider have explained on Facebook that for legal reasons, the Enterprise had to be redesigned to be 25%different to TOS. Incredibly it seems that DSC cannot use legacy designs.

 

[Longinus]

So, John Eaves and Scott Schneider have explained on Facebook that for legal reasons, the Enterprise had to be redesigned to be 25%different to TOS. Incredibly it seems that DSC cannot use legacy designs.

Could you link to it or copy paste here what they said? This seems pretty unbelievable to me...

 

[Belz...]

Same here. CBS owns the TOS Enterprise.

 

[JamesRye]

https://m.facebook.com/john.eaves.526?tsid=0.7111937560537587&source=result

 

[JamesRye]

Plenty of people including Gabe Koener have queried it. Both Eaves and Schneider have said that the reason they can't use the old design is 'legal reasons' prevent them from doing so. They had to be 25%different.

 

[Galaxy]

It is not entirely clear what he meant:

The task started with the guideline that the Enterprise for Discovery had to be 25% different otherwise production would have most likely been able to use the original design from the 60's but that couldn't happen so we took Jefferies original concepts and with great care tried to be as faithful as possible.

I do not get the impression that legal reasons were the hurdle. More like they wanted a 25% change for stylistic purposes.

 

[Belz...]

I can't view Facebook, though. Any excerpt?

 

[Phoenix219]

Yeah, that sounds like commands from up top, but nothing *legal*.

 

[David cgc]

Yeah, that sounds like commands from up top, but nothing *legal*.

The replies (I know, Facebook makes more than five comments a pain in the ass to read) talk a bit about 25% being a common legal requirement (though, as far as I can see, stopping short of saying the requirement was, in fact, for legal reasons).

My guess is that the "25% difference" is so the licensees can't make merchandise of the Discoprise under a TOS license (or, alternatively, if they want to make a Discoprise, they can do it under a DSC license without also getting a TOS license). I don't think I've seen any models or posters or whatnot of the TOS design with ENT or DS9 branding.

 

[JamesRye]

Read the comments further down.
Gabe koerner asks was the 25% mandate creative or legal.

Scott Schneider replies with one word 'legal'.

 

[fireproof78]

Yeah, and I have friends and family thousands of miles away, but my cell phone only has a range of a couple dozen miles, tops. My home wi-fi network has a range of a a few hundred feet. I, as a civilian living in a built-up technological infrastructure, don't actually require equipment capable of transmitting three thousand miles to actually contact someone three thousand miles away.

Likewise, the Human, Vulcan, or Trill on the street won't require a communicator capable of transmitting with crystal clarity to the local moon, or emitting avalanche-causing ultrasonic frequencies, or tying in with foreign or even previously-unknown communications networks. They can talk to the next continent, the next planet, or the next system using local infrastructure without actually having to have a high-power subspace transceiver in their own house (or pocket). A starship doesn't have that luxury.

In a post scarcity society is this barrier reasonable?

 

[Nightowl1701]

So which is more likely here: That somebody in CBS's legal/merchandising department royally dropped the ball, or that some of the producers (most likely Fuller/Kurtzman) were like 'Screw the 60's, we're putting our personal stamp on this and making it our Star Trek..."

Hell. Now that I say it, it sounds like a toss-up.

 

[Gonzo]

This link goes into great detail do describe how Starfleet is not military as envisioned but it also does many things that only militaries do.
So yeah, Starfleet is military and is not at the same time. Happy all?

Yeah some are ok about it being military and some are not.

Every few months the whole issue gets rehashed out yet again.

My thoughts are it is a military because it needs to be, not because it wants to be.

Think of the Enterprise NX01, its weapons were piss poor and barely functional when it was first launched, it didn't take long for Starfleet to learn that lesson and arm it appropriately.

Reality will always defeat idealism sooner or later I am sad to say, some truths are universal and at those times Star Trek is at its most realistic and believable.

Even mentioning this stuff triggers some members really badly.

 

[JamesRye]

There are 186 comments on the page. Many of the people are saying this can't be so, CBS owns the rights to TOS designs and can use them if they want to. Both designers say that the copyright law is complicated and they only know that they are told to either completely redesign or change by 25% for legal reasons.

 

[Nightowl1701]

There are 186 comments on the page. Many of the people are saying this can't be so, CBS owns the rights to TOS designs and can use them if they want to. Both designers say that the copyright law is complicated and they only know that they are told to either completely redesign or change by 25% for legal reasons.

That will end up dooming the show if they can't find a way around it, or at least force them onto the path of alternate universe/total reboot. You can't credibly claim to be the prequel of a series you're legally not allowed to look anything (or even just somewhat) like, less than ten years out from its setting.

 

[Tuskin38]

Maybe it's all in the context? Maybe they're just not allowed to use the design in a TV show.

Because it still appears as a toy and in other merch, like books and video games.

Or maybe they're both completely mistaken and it isn't legal issues, or just don't have the full picture.