USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Jinn]

No need. Just slingshot around the sun.

If I'd slingshot around the sun with a TARDIS, would I get slingshotted back in space instead of time?

As a Gotham-style pseudoprequel, it's fine. As a straight prequel in the same universe and timeline, it's a joke.

From what I understand pretty much every continuity problem between DSC and the rest of Trek has been rationalized in one form or another, so I don't quite agree that it's a joke. Not even a funny one, I don't think I laughed once while watching Discovery which is kinda sad.

 

[F. King Daniel]

From what I understand pretty much every continuity problem between DSC and the rest of Trek has been rationalized in one form or another, so I don't quite agree that it's a joke. Not even a funny one, I don't think I laughed once while watching Discovery which is kinda sad.

The rationalisations I've read here are less than paper thin. Cloaking devices? Enterprise did it first so it somehow doesn't count. Bald Klingons? It's a style choice but you have to ignore the stated intent and reason of the creators as to why they're bald. New Enterprise is too big? Oh the old one was that big, they were just BSing you with a half century of technical books. Even the biggest DSC continuity apologist on this board can't excuse the new Klingon ship replacements.

None of them hold up to the slightest scrutiny. And I say that as a fan of the show.

 

[Jinn]

The rationalisations I've read here are less than paper thin. Cloaking devices? Enterprise did it first so it somehow doesn't count.

Alternatively one could assume that the DSC and ENT versions of the claoking tech were so far removed from technology the Romulans in the 60s use that it would be like comparing technology that hides you from radar to throwing a grass colored sheet over yourself while sitting in the woods. I'll admit this one is problably thinner than paper. I'd be open to moving the two conflicting lines from Kirk and Spock into another timeline or universe or just ignoring them.

Bald Klingons? It's a style choice but you have to ignore the stated intent and reason of the creators as to why they're
bald.

We can completely ignore intent (both that it's meant as a style choice and the reason the producers gave for baldness) as it's not on-screen and rationalize the Klingons as them being Klingons who tried to cure the Augment virus and "overshot the mark" the mark, so to speak.

New Enterprise is too big? Oh the old one was that big, they were just BSing you with a half century of technical books.

From what I can tell there is no evidence for the Discovery's size on-screen but there is very, very flimsy evidence for the Enterprise's size, so for the moment I'm fine with accepting the Discovery as about 300 meters or whatever the Constitution class's size was. Again, screw intent.

Even the biggest DSC continuity apologist on this board can't excuse the new Klingon ship replacements.

Well, considering that both the Romulans and the Klingons had two different designs for BoPs so far I don't see a problem with assuming that it's a sort of ship classification akin to the heacy cruiser or whatever and that DSC BoP was just a different class. The D7 is admittedly a bigger problem, as it's actually identified as a class. A possible rationalization could be that it was a refitted D7 class ship, akin to the refit Enterprise that is still called a Constitution class. Personally, I think they really missed out by not having it be a D6 or something which would have been just as nice an easter egg for the fans, cemented it as a prequel and would have still meant nothing to people who didn't know the D7.

Basically my overall point is that since Trek has a multiverse with an infinite number of universes we can have
A) A universe where all the Trek canon material goes into that makes sense within itself due to rationalizations that we don't see on screen but are possible (and since we have an infinite number of universes I don't see a problem with everything rational happening, even if it's unlikely or not intended by the creators). And
B) A number of universes which all have snippets from Trek canon that would contradict each other without any rationalization and that in and of themselves flow into different and unknown directions.

What I'm saying is that we can literally have it both ways without them conflicting.

 

[Gonzo]

Well dur. Ditto the D7, the Bird of Prey, the Klingons themselves, the Enterprise uniforms, the cloaking devices and god-knows-what-else.

As a Gotham-style pseudoprequel, it's fine. As a straight prequel in the same universe and timeline, it's a joke.

The owners/producers have the power to state that its Prime Timeline.

However they don't have the power to make everyone believe it.

So no surprise that everyone's mileage may vary.

For the love of god fix the Klingon ships, they look like garbage.

 

[Belz...]

From what I can tell there is no evidence for the Discovery's size on-screen but there is very, very flimsy evidence for the Enterprise's size, so for the moment I'm fine with accepting the Discovery as about 300 meters or whatever the Constitution class's size was. Again, screw intent.

Also, "technical books" are non-canon. They used to get the dates wrong before it was settled in the movies, so why would they get the sizes right?

 

[Mudd]

I ran out of patience for trying to rationalize stupid stuff in pop fiction around the turn of the century.

 

[Belz...]

The concern for making money makes imagination and creativity a slave to those who want their current 'future-fiction' to be closely tied to what they see around them every day in the here-and-now.

One more ship will make no difference in the here-and-now. But twenty two years ago, one ship could have stopped this war before it started.

 

[Jinn]

Also, "technical books" are non-canon. They used to get the dates wrong before it was settled in the movies, so why would they get the sizes right?

Well, yeah, that's true but there is also this image from one tech manual on screen from which you can theoretically calculate the size of the Enterprise, so I think there's at least some canon basis for the claim the the Constitution class is canonically ca. 300 meters long. Though, should Saru or whoever say that the Enterprise is actually 600 meters long next season I think I can ignore that background image; until then it's 300 meters for me.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well, yeah, that's true but there is also this image from one tech manual on screen from which you can theoretically calculate the size of the Enterprise, so I think there's at least some canon basis for the claim the the Constitution class is canonically ca. 300 meters long. Though, should Saru or whoever say that the Enterprise is actually 600 meters long next season I think I can ignore that background image; until then it's 300 meters for me.

Nitpick: That's not from a tech manual. It's from a production illustration by Matt Jefferies executed around the time when he designed the original model [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D7_class_model]. But yes, I agree, Jefferies' illustration (or that part of it) was canonized in "The Enterprise Incident."

 

[BillJ]

Nitpick: That's not from a tech manual. It's from a production illustration by Matt Jefferies executed when he designed the original model [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D7_class_model]. But yes, I agree, Jefferies' illustration was canonized in "The Enterprise Incident."

It isn't important. Nothing they chose to overwrite is apparently important from much of what I read here. But it is still "Prime".

 

[Tuskin38]

The rationalisations I've read here are less than paper thin. Cloaking devices? Enterprise did it first so it somehow doesn't count. Bald Klingons? It's a style choice but you have to ignore the stated intent and reason of the creators as to why they're bald. New Enterprise is too big? Oh the old one was that big, they were just BSing you with a half century of technical books. Even the biggest DSC continuity apologist on this board can't excuse the new Klingon ship replacements.

None of them hold up to the slightest scrutiny. And I say that as a fan of the show.

Then believe what you want.

No one here is forcing you to think it is prime.

 

[Mudd]

Well, yeah, that's true but there is also this image from one tech manual on screen from which you can theoretically calculate the size of the Enterprise, so I think there's at least some canon basis for the claim the the Constitution class is canonically ca. 300 meters long. Though, should Saru or whoever say that the Enterprise is actually 600 meters long next season I think I can ignore that background image; until then it's 300 meters for me.

Easier for me to ignore the bullshit that writers put in the mouths of STD actors.

 

[BillJ]

I'd be open to moving the two conflicting lines from Kirk and Spock into another timeline or universe or just ignoring them.

I guess my question is this: if Discovery is supposed to be a prequel to TOS, why do we have to ignore elements of TOS to make it work?

 

[TrickyDickie]

I guess my question is this: if Discovery is supposed to be a prequel to TOS, why do we have to ignore elements of TOS to make it work?

Because we are just not the modern, hip dudes that they are.

We are 'dated'.



It's funny, but that line of Kirk's in TSFS, "Young minds, fresh ideas....be tolerant" did not mean that something like 'old minds, old ideas' should be completely overwritten.

To an extent, their plan to basically ignore design elements of TOS and change it....that is destroying what was, in favor of their new matrix.

Quite ironic, because it's very familiar:

It's The Genesis Project, all over again.

 

[Jinn]

Nitpick: That's not from a tech manual. It's from a production illustration by Matt Jefferies executed around the time when he designed the original model [http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D7_class_model]. But yes, I agree, Jefferies' illustration (or that part of it) was canonized in "The Enterprise Incident."

Oh, I'm sorry I missed that. I have to admit I'm really not knowledgable at all when it comes to BTS/non-canon tech stuff.

I guess my question is this: if Discovery is supposed to be a prequel to TOS, why do we have to ignore elements of TOS to make it work?

Well, the only thing that in my opinion "has" to be ignored are two lines from "Balance of Terror". If they want to tell a story that contradicts such a tiny, tiny part of TOS I don't think it's really worth not telling it per se just because of that two lines. Now, wether the story was worth telling in the first place or its execution was any good is another question and you're of course free to think that it's total shit. But looking at it purely from a "Gain/loss" perspective we get like 11 hours of new material and have to ignore about five seconds of old material.

 

[TrickyDickie]

One more ship will make no difference in the here-and-now. But twenty two years ago, one ship could have stopped this war before it started.

From what I gather, that may end up being the premise of Tarantino Trek.

 

[Belz...]

It isn't important. Nothing they chose to overwrite is apparently important from much of what I read here. But it is still "Prime".

Whether what they choose to overwrite is important or not, is unimportant, since it's overwritten.

Easier for me to ignore the bullshit that writers put in the mouths of STD actors.

How do you know that the BS isn't from TOS?

 

[Mudd]

I guess my question is this: if Discovery is supposed to be a prequel to TOS, why do we have to ignore elements of TOS to make it work?

It's a different continuity.

 

[Jinn]

How do you know that the BS isn't from TOS?

As much as I like DSC it doesn't come close to TOS's quality during its better episodes.

 

[TrickyDickie]

It's been said by Kurtzman that the creative team behind Trek today includes numerous "fans".

Well, that word doesn't really mean much without any context.

What do they like? What don't they like? Are they all aligned in one direction? Is it a roundtable or is Kurtzman more like a dictator?