Your point 2 is a strawman.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Your point 2 is a strawman.
Here's the thing. For me, a window is neither an asset nor a detriment. I find it very odd that there are posts that state "it adds nothing but change" but then the immediate follow up is how detrimental it would be for reasons.
Here's my thinking. As others have mentioned, bridges are modular. So, some modules have windows, and some don't. So, when the refit happened, the bridge module was replaced with a non-window one, due to (insert reason here-better sensor tech, Decker's preference, etc).
I don't feel this should be an all or nothing, black and white, issue. If the Enterprise can change in 3 years from TOS to TMP model, then surely the bridge can change from window to no window.
I guess I hang out with the wrong crowd since the majority do not have that...
It's more ocassional than a value.
It’s a hypothetical argument. I don’t agree that I’m trying to refute an argument that was not presented because I presented the hypothetical problem in the first place.
I’m fine with that too - I was only trying to illustrate that in some circumstances visual changes could later be important in a series that claims to be in the same continuity as TOS. It’s one of the problems with DSC being a prequel for me. But, everyone’s mileage varies - I’m not trying to convince anyone that their interpretation is wrong - only to debate one of the more popular responses to DSC’s visual changes.
We interrupt our regularily-schedule bickering to present Cannikin1701's Deviantart page, now with more Discoprise.
https://www.deviantart.com/cannikin1701/art/DSC-Enterprise-Test-01-743374884
He also has other Trek stuff. Worth checking out.
https://www.deviantart.com/cannikin1701/art/DSC-Enterprise-Test-01-743374884
He also has other Trek stuff. Worth checking out.
His render is very good. Love the clean matte finish on his version.
But, that's the thing for me. Some changes are acceptable and some are not. I find it more baffling that DSC's are not given the same benefit of the doubt as TMP.
For me it’s that TMP comes after TOS so it’s easier to forgive than DSC which comes before TOS (although there are caveats to explain that as well I guess)
Ten years is a long time.
As far as the phaser goes, modify the trigger and add some subtle grips....but what they did was go overboard.
Discovery....you could equate that to the Excelsior. Or even the Edsel here in our universe. An experiment. That didn't necessarily mean that everything thereafter followed its example.
Now, I can appreciate everything in its own right, to an extent.
But continuity is in chaos.
If they intended the series 'Enterprise' to be in a different timeline or universe or whatever, then all well and fine. But then, later on, don't tell us it's really the same one as TOS. Same with Discovery. Do what you choose to do that is from a different vision, but don't try to bash it all together and claim that it's "all one big, happy fleet."
Discovery....you could equate that to the Excelsior. Or even the Edsel here in our universe. An experiment. That didn't necessarily mean that everything thereafter followed its example.
Now, I can appreciate everything in its own right, to an extent.
But continuity is in chaos.
If they intended the series 'Enterprise' to be in a different timeline or universe or whatever, then all well and fine. But then, later on, don't tell us it's really the same one as TOS. Same with Discovery. Do what you choose to do that is from a different vision, but don't try to bash it all together and claim that it's "all one big, happy fleet."
No, it's not the point. The technology is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is what that technology does. And in both instances (the Klingon sarcophagus ship and the Romulan BoP), it makes the ships invisible. So Kirk and Spock should have been aware that ten years before, the Klingons had a ship that could render itself invisible, and not be surprised that the Romulan ship could do the same. But they don't.
Why not?But then, later on, don't tell us it's really the same one as TOS. Same with Discovery. Do what you choose to do that is from a different vision, but don't try to bash it all together and claim that it's "all one big, happy fleet."
Please leave out the personal comments, Belz. If you disagree, then either argue the point, or scroll on by. We don't need the commentary on others' abilities along the way. It's possible, just possible, that they simply don't agree with you.
You can't be serious. First of all, while it's obvious what you think those people would think, unless you've actually conducted such a poll you have no data, so your argument rests on vapor.
Second, who gives a flying fuck anyway what non-Star Trek fans, or people born after 1990, much less the intersection of those two sets, happen to think about the topic? Why is their opinion any more relevant than anyone else's? (Or relevant at all?) Do you think the folks at Disney doing the new Star Wars movies care what non-Star Wars fans (like, say, me) think of the painstakingly faithful ship re-creations in the new SW sequels?
Third, I submit you'd get a very different reaction than what you're imagining if you add one criterion that actually is relevant: poll science fiction fans (regardless of their age and their opinion of Trek), i.e., people who are liable to have some kind of actual opinions about fictional spaceships. They'd support what I said. And I'm actually not saying that without data to back it up, albeit somewhat anecdotal: it's easy to find video online from Neil DeGrasse Tyson's impassioned presentation at Comic-Con a couple years back, in a panel specifically about fictional spaceships, about why the original Enterprise is the Best Ship Ever — with an overwhelmingly enthusiastic response from the audience.
I've debated this to the point of exhaustion with other forum members some months back, so I'm really frustrated to see you bringing this non-argument up again. It's not just nonsense, it's nonsense on stilts. It's utter bullshit. The original doesn't "look like it was made in the 1960s," and no one would even guess that without prior knowledge of when the series was broadcast, because it is genuinely original, an innovation, dramatically unlike anything else designed for any other show or movie before or after.
Moreover, there are no such things as "modern standards of starship design," because there are no such things as starships. They're all fictional. They look like any damn thing the people making any given show or movie want them to look like. The designs from Trek (past or present) are substantially different from the designs from nuBSG, which are different from the designs from The Expanse, all of which are wildly different from the designs from Arrival, and so on and so forth.
Sometimes a fictional ship design seems especially practical and sensible; sometimes it seems especially beautiful. Sometimes a really good design scores on both fronts (e.g., Trek's designs from TOS and the original movies); sometimes it scores on neither (e.g., Star Wars, IMHO). But there are no real-world design standards against which to compare such things. None. Zero.
So all you're really saying here is that Trek's classic designs don't look like whatever happens to be trendy at the moment in other SF-themed franchises, or video games. And to that I say: good! Trek shouldn't ever look derivative of other stuff (although DSC, sadly, does; countless people have compared it to Mass Effect). It shouldn't be a copycat, an also-ran, something indistinguishable from other flash-in-the-pan media projects. It should have and maintain its own distinctive visual identity.
Also, just as a side note, you should really stop using the word "modern" in discussions like this. When the context is visual designs, "modern" has a very specific meaning derived from a very specific 20th-century period, and it isn't really anything that applies either to Trek or to other SF franchises. "Contemporary" or "present-day" would be much better for clarity's sake.
No, they don't. But if you happen to be doing a show set in 1910, then any airplanes featured in it damn well ought to look like that.
Star Trek's version of the 2250s is a specific setting. You can't claim you're using that setting while reinventing it from scratch. It's disingenuous.
This is also an argument I've seen posted time and again, and it still doesn't make a lick of sense to me... any more than all the accusations about this, that, or the other story element somehow being "fanwank." The episodes in question (in TNG, and DS9, and ENT) used elements from TOS because they exist in a shared universe, and those elements were there for the using and offered good story potential. Those episodes depicted those elements a certain way, visually, because that's what things looked like in that era of the Trek universe. And if some viewers enjoyed a nostalgia kick as one of the aspects making those episodes entertaining, well, it's because those elements are still cool and evoke positive feelings.
And all of that is exactly how a shared universe franchise is supposed to work. It's not as if they ran a viewer content warning at the beginning saying "Don't take this episode seriously, it doesn't really count, it's just a bone we're throwing to TOS fans," for heaven's sake.
Again, just as above with reference to designs, you don't offer any actual definition of what "a modern show" is, what its creative constraints and requirements and thematic underpinnings have to be. You can't; it's impossible. For any attempt you might make, in this era of "peak TV," I could come up with successful shows that are counter-examples. So you have no actual argument here.
The fact is, thematically, that the Star Trek universe simply doesn't work if you don't accept the premise of an optimistic future in which technology (in general) and space exploration (in particular) have solved most present-day problems and improved human quality of life. Arguably those particular kinds of SF values are rooted in the 1960s (the era of the space program and the Great Society) far more than in the present day, but regardless of what era one may associate them with, those values are baked into Trek at the conceptual level.
There are plenty of other SF concepts out there in the media landscape, dystopian or merely different, and many of them are quite good, but they're not Trek, and these thematic underpinnings are a big part of what sets it apart. A new ("modern") SF show created now, extrapolating forward from the present day, almost certainly would not envision the kind of future seen in Trek... but that doesn't mean it would be better, and definitely doesn't mean that Trek should change to match it. That's just an exercise in trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. If you think these values don't "hold up" today, that's a damn shame, because what it says is that in your mind Trek is dead and obsolete... but it's safe to say a lot of us disagree with you.
You realize, I hope, that this comparison makes it clear that the original version of the Enterprise design doesn't stand out as conspicuously less "modern" or "futuristic" than its latter-day revisions?The DSC one is clearly the most faithful of the two. Just look at the nacelles and hull on the Kelvin one.
If you think that, then I don't think you're in the same argument as the rest of us. "Most people" probably have enough media awareness that they'd recognize the basic shape of the Enterprise, yes, regardless of version. (Indeed, to borrow @Spaceship Jo's evocative image, "You could paint the original model hot pink and make the windows out of muppet fur while keeping the silhouette the same" and people would probably still recognize it.) But what does that prove? Seriously, what argument does that evidence support? Nobody has argued that the design isn't iconic and recognizable; quite the opposite, in fact.
The actual argument is over whether the design needed "updating." If the opinion of "most people" settled that issue, and if "most people" in fact couldn't distinguish between the versions and considered them all the same ship, then that would support the proposition that any changes to the original were superfluous and unnecessary. And I think that conclusion is right... but for other reasons. After all, "most people" aren't likely viewers of the show, and even more importantly creative decisions (at least the kind with any integrity) aren't made by mass polling anyway, so this thought experiment really amounts to nothing.
Indeed. Succinctly put.
Also this. Yes. Elegantly stated.
Because the studio was throwing a bucket of money at them? Because creative people often feel the urge to revisit, refine, and tweak their own earlier work? Because even if a design is iconic and timeless, that doesn't mean it's completely impervious to improvement?
Seriously, who knows? Or cares? The more important point is that it's damn hard to improve on a design that's so strong to begin with. The people who crafted the refit version, against all odds, did so — although of course it's very closely derived from the original — and I hail them for that. No subsequent version by anyone else has managed that trick, sad to say.
Last edited:
Original Enterprise with finer details. Oops. *Mic drop.* Fit for a modern production standard.
As I said, that’s one of the caveats that could explain the differences. The complicating factor(s) are the cage and the menagerie which establish exactly what this era is supposed to look like.
Now I understand and accept the need to update the visuals for modern tv - 60s production values are obviously obsolete so I’m not suggesting they be replicated.
I’m saying that the visual reboot could (and possibly should) have been subtler because (as with my Spock window hypothetical) seemingly innocuous changes to the visuals could have an important impact later. I don’t think the addition of a bridge window is a subtle change given that every other ship prior to 2009 (Which is complicated by the franklin and the Kelvin but that’s been argued elsewhere too) had a viewscreen. It was a staple of Star Trek.
It’s like if they wanted to change the name of starfleet to “space force” - it’s just not quite subtle enough a change for me. Even “space service” would have been defendable...
The DSC one is clearly the most faithful of the two. Just look at the nacelles and hull on the Kelvin one.
Weirdly enough, I think the JJprise is the more faithfull "update" of the classic Connie. I may harp on those movies a lot - but I love that design.
I think, yes, the Discoprise directly adopts more details from the original 1:1. But the swept back nacelle struts (and to a lesser degree the reduced height) make it a completely different ship. That's why there are so many refit vs. original threads as well - because the refit wasn't just a detail update, this is a massive change of the overall ship configuration! One that many people like (the refit is one of the greatest models all around - as is the original - but they are different).
The JJprise updates all the lines and makes them more curved and organic. But it is super clearly purely an update on the original ship. Not a weird mish-mash/mix-up of original design with the refit.
By that logic, since both bows and guns shoot projectiles, the differences between them are irrelevant.
FYI I do understand that cloaking devices in ENT and DSC are violations of continuity. It doesn't change the fact that they could operate on very different principles which would make one a lot easier to detect than the other.
Aren't you the one who argued that the TMP design had art deco lines that placed it in the late 70s? Well, the TOS design is obviously from the 60s or earlier. No one would design a ship like that in the following periods. What I find frustrating, since we're on the topic, is that after many, many people have told you that they think it DOES look dated and very 60s, you somehow don't accept that a significant number of people actually think so and that it would affect how people enjoyed the show.
No.
I've seen better attempts, and even they fail at this task. The problem's in the ship's shapes, not its textures.
Really? I think there's quite a bit of elements from the refit in the reboot. The structure at the bottom of the saucer, the bridge dome, the plating, the banners, the thruster assemblies, the lighting, the rings around the rim of the saucer, the blue deflector, etc. Even the way the windows are placed on the ship. It might have more from the refit than from the original, in fact.
Oh yeah. They re-used a WHOLE lot of texture mostly, from the refit. IMO way too much. I like the three stripes along the saucer edge. But it's super weird they re-used the same hull aztecing from the refit on their saucer - especially since the rest of the JJprise doesn't have the same aztec texture.
But this is essentially a failure of the vfx-artists texturing the model. The basic design itself - and the cgi model as well - are an extremely good upgrade of the classic TOS Enterprise for a contemporary blockbuster movie.
Apologies if this has already been covered (I suspect it may have so feel free to tell me to do one if so) but are there other examples of “quintessentially 60s” starship/spacecraft designs with which to compare the Enterprise design?
Similar threads
