Discovery Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
It's possible to retcon them as that, although since they are built at the same angle as the wall, any objects placed on the base would slide to the back.
Having said that, the presence of the "double glazing" lines in that last pic with McCoy & Nancy make it pretty clear that they were designed as portholes. There's also the fact that they were covered up once it was realised what a bad idea it was to have windows there, especially ones that just featured a boring black backdrop (even if that is what the view would be in real life).
I didn't say they were good shelves
Mark of Gideon? There's only one window, which has its own room
Official Disco size charts from the forthcoming Star Trek Shipyards books
Odd they've got the classic TV series and movie Enterprises among the Disco ships, when they clearly don't exist in the same version of the world.
Odd they've got the classic TV series and movie Enterprises among the Disco ships, when they clearly don't exist in the same version of the world.
Last edited:
Official Disco size charts from the forthcoming Star Trek Shipyards books
Odd they've got the classic TV series and movie Enterprises among the Disco ships, when they clearly don't exist in the same version of the world.
Those Discovery models together with the traditional designs... Looks like someone trying to push a square pig through a round hole.
It's so obvious they planned to complete reboot the Trek franchise, again, and then halfway through got the jitters and scrapped that plan. And now they are stuck trying to make sense of their rebooted and the original versions and how in the world they could at least superficially pretend to be part of the same universe.
Looking at them side by side like this the DSC era ships do seem somewhat jarring when compared to the classic designs.
But (and I’m not a fan of the visual reboot overall so I’m not defending the visual choice here) if there were more ships of the TOS era in existence (I.e. if they’d had budget to build more than just the Enterprise model as a starfleet ship) the difference between the TOS and TMP era ships may have been more noticeable - even though I find the later (TMP) designs a perfectly logical development from the earlier (TOS) ones, but hey ho.
Tangentially, the Soyuz class kinda looks like a merger of TMP and DSC aesthetics...
I also wonder how stark the differences may be if we considered a WWI tank with a WWII tank side by side - there are similar real world differences in technologies over similar timescales to DSC and TOS (I admit grudgingly).
But —>
I also agree with this.
Unless section 31 was behind the whole DSC era aesthetic this whole time and they made the ships more like warships and after DSC they’ll retrofit all their ships to look like TOS (and some catastrophe beset the Enterprise either before or after the cage meaning she needed extensive cosmetic surgery and will get more damage meaning that she’ll need even more work to look like she did in TOS but that additional work will be done in an era where starfleet wants ships to look like they did in TOS and not in DSC - ow I’ve pulled my head canon muscle)
They look fine to me
Doesn’t bother me one bit.
Also the chart isn’t specifically discovery, it’s the years listed above.
Would have been nice if they were chronological order though.
Doesn’t bother me one bit.
Because they’re prime timeline, they need to stick them together.
Also the chart isn’t specifically discovery, it’s the years listed above.
Would have been nice if they were chronological order though.
Last edited:
Ouch! Poor pig.
I would like to discuss the predicament of this square pig in more detail (perhaps he didn’t like parties?) but I fear the thread would be locked for going too far off topic.
So in order to save my, the thread’s, and everyone else’s bacon, I won’t go any further with my speculation in this area.
But the Discovery ships exist in a version of the world where the Enterprise 1701 looks like this:
and is significantly larger than the other versions depicted, 480m or thereabouts. You can say it's the Prime Universe and that the lore is the same all you want, but this book is specifically about the visuals - the stuff they've changed. The stuff that's directly incompatible. And yet they're featuring the old, incompatible 1701 and putting the Discovery alongside the classic version instead of the one they redesigned and resized to better fit Discovery's world.
The Rights Holders should just admit to the public that it's a parallel world based off the JJ/Kelvin Verse & The Prime Timeline.
If they were just honest with the fans, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
We already know there are multiple "Quantum Realities" / "Parallel Univeres", if Discovery just takes place in it's own Quantum Reality, that would be perfectly valid.
If they were just honest with the fans, it wouldn't be such a big deal.
We already know there are multiple "Quantum Realities" / "Parallel Univeres", if Discovery just takes place in it's own Quantum Reality, that would be perfectly valid.
I still don’t understand why they didn’t just do this the whole time. There’s been a Trek multiverse since the 60s. The last Trek reboot made a ton of money. The Arrowverse is relatively successful on tv and there are multiple earths so it’s a thing that people can understand. Other than brand recognition (which you’d get with a reboot anyway) nobody has been able to explain why DSC isn’t a reboot in a cohesive way from what I’ve seen.
On earth 2 the Enterprise was made of bronze coloured duranium and was somewhat larger than her Earth 1 counterpart.
On earth x she looked like a hotrod and was a mile long but fortunately she didn’t hit r2d2 when they arrived at Vulcan
(The last bit is just banter)
"These are the voyages of the starship Stretchyprise..."But the Discovery ships exist in a version of the world where the Enterprise 1701 looks like this:
and is significantly larger than the other versions depicted, 480m or thereabouts.
It isn't stretched, the neck is just shorter.
If you scale the DSC Enterprise the commonly accepted non-canon TOS length, the nacelles and saucer are nearly the same length as their TOS counter part.
Source: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/discovery_federation.htm
Last edited:
*quotes site that segregates Disco from the rest of Trek trying to prove it fits in*It isn't stretched, the neck is just shorter.
If you scale the DSC Enterprise the commonly accepted non-canon TOS length, the nacelles and saucer are nearly the same length as their TOS counter part.
From EAS
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/discovery_federation.htm
I wasn't trying to argue that it fits in that post.
And I wasn't the quoting the site either, it's just the first place I knew of that had a design comparison image. I was linking it as the source of the image.
To be fair, EAS also notes that the proportions are much the same:
“Although the relative proportions are overall still roughly the same, there are considerable changes to all elements of the ship”
Although I have to admit I’m not a fan of the shorter neck. I wonder whether it retracts into the secondary hull? Battle mode, if you will. Maybe starfleet saw Klingon ships with moveable parts and thought that they needed an equivalent?
It's called a retcon.But the Discovery ships exist in a version of the world where the Enterprise 1701 looks like this:
and is significantly larger than the other versions depicted, 480m or thereabouts. You can say it's the Prime Universe and that the lore is the same all you want, but this book is specifically about the visuals - the stuff they've changed. The stuff that's directly incompatible. And yet they're featuring the old, incompatible 1701 and putting the Discovery alongside the classic version instead of the one they redesigned and resized to better fit Discovery's world.
Maybe you've heard of them?
You can decide not to like it, but you'll have to live with it. It's here to stay for now.
Similar threads
