USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I don't have a problem with a brief but intense Klingon War. There's nothing in TOS or TOS Movie canon that said there wasn't a major conflict a decade before TOS and Spock himself said in Star Trek VI that there'd been a period of unremitting hostility dating back to about the year 2223, which would sort of fit in with what we've been told about the scattered Klingon terror raids across the border during the early 23rd century.
The problem is a war THAT devastating that consumed a third or more of Starfleet, occupied a significant chunk of Federation space and even reached as far as Earth's solar system before it ended. You'd think a war that bad would have been referenced or at least vaguely alluded to at least once by the "later" series and films.
The problem is a war THAT devastating that consumed a third or more of Starfleet, occupied a significant chunk of Federation space and even reached as far as Earth's solar system before it ended. You'd think a war that bad would have been referenced or at least vaguely alluded to at least once by the "later" series and films.
Junior High was brief but devastating. I try to reference it as little as possible.
I imagine most folks don't know real history as well we know Star Trek.
Yeah, but you know I think part of the appeal of Star Trek for hardcore fans who make a hobbyist's study of it is that its "universe" is self-contained, and very orderly as compared to reality, and limited in scope. Even after a thousand hours of the thing there is so much less to know to completely comprehend all of Trek "history" than there would be in the study of, oh, European history in the first three decades of the 20th century.
Indeed, retroactive canonical revisionist history is a mainstay of this new series. Its sanctioned by CBS who felt they could cash in on the IP and Star Wars success, and yet they fell into the same problems with canon, character development, and writing. Its hard for people who want something different to adhere to a standard of practice that has been established for more then 50 years. The problem is they make these changes, play fast and loose with why, and then try to tell us this is canonical and merely a stylized realization of that TOS universe.
Its the arrogance the producers of the show and CBS management's micromanaging of the new series that ultimately brought us what we have now. A desire to bring Kelvin fans in, while trying to cater to and reassure the long time fans that their new presentation is correct and part of the original continuity. I still believe if they had just not said TOS canon, or started off after TNG maybe they would have gotten a different reception, especially with canonical changes and problems raised by STD.
a message to CBS; just call it a reboot and we can ALL move on.
^^^
How often did you see the War of 1812 (where the British burned parts of Washington DC) brought up a century or more after the fact in modern military conversations by active duty personnel?
If you've read the news in the past month or two, you'd know that the War of 1812 probably isn't a great example to prove your point.
Junior High was brief but devastating. I try to reference it as little as possible.
I can never forgive it...for the death of my gym suit.
How about "it can't reasonably be 300 meters long"? Is that "reasons" or an actual reason? Measuring the ship in order to put two full decks on the edge of the saucer yields about 420 meters, even on the TOS model.
But why? Why is this particular retroactive change to the appearance of the franchise any different than the previous ones?
I have also been wondering about a testing of the waters. If they trotted out a Pike-Enterprise show alongside Discovery, and the ratings were solid and Discovery's didn't stay high enough, they could go with Pike and crew on the Enterprise and end Discovery. It all comes down to viewership. The numbers are what ultimately count.
I see no problem with Spock in Star Trek 4 and also in a series. Movies only come out every two or three years or so. Doesn't seem like it would matter.
Much less take the "Cage" Enterprise, refit her into the Discoprise, then de-fit her back to the TOS Enterprise. It's a foolish corner for them to have painted themselves into.
As someone who writes historical fiction, I've lost track of how many hours I've spent researching individual topics to ensure they fit in with actual events as closely as possible. It's a lot of framing to hang a compelling narrative on, but worth the effort.I imagine most folks don't know real history as well we know Star Trek.
I know plenty of people who have chucked aside novels that get the history wrong because it jars you right out of the story. In many ways, history nerds are worse than Trek fans. But not by much.
Last edited:
And so I did!
Monk - LOL out loud
Yes and no. Or rather, quite possibly yes, but with caveats that make other variations on the scenario equally possible. If, in-universe, transforming the TOS ship into the TMP configuration could be effectively accomplished in only eighteen months, then of course there's enough time for the first pilot version to have been transformed into the DSC version, and in turn for the DSC version to be transformed into the second pilot version and/or the series-proper version as well. "Will You Take My Hand?" is not "the next year" after Talos IV. It's more in the neighborhood of three years later, isn't it? And then we'll probably have something like seven years before "Where No Man Has Gone Before"! Now, whether such a progression would withstand rigorous nitpicking is ultimately irrelevant, because it's not intended to be a main focus of any of the stories. Not as yet, anyway. So why should more than a mere "fig leaf" be required in this context?
Alternatively, we could dismiss the "Menagerie" version entirely and simply assume it "really" looked like the DSC incarnation all along, because that was only ever depicted as an illusion within an illusion there, anyway. (True, we were initially assured, once already unwittingly held in the sway of one illusion, that the further illusion contained within was supposedly accurate to reality. But by the time "Mendez" winks out and all is said and done, can we really still trust that assessment?) Then the WNMHGB and/or series versions could eventually follow on from there, whether in two big bites or gradually, bit by bit, as John Eaves envisioned during the redesign process.
Or we might rather have it as the WNMHGB model that is to be identified with the DSC rendition instead. After all, several notable features which distinguished that unique version from her predecessor and successor are recognizably present in this latest incarnation. For instance, the vents on the back of the nacelles, the dark strips around the running lights on top of the saucer, and even the bridge dome window (though the corresponding feature on the WMNHGB version doesn't seem to have been intended as one originally). And surely pilots are, if anything, more fudgeable than subsequent productions, not less! James R. Kirk and lithium crystals, anyone?
But in any case, the point is there's no reason the ship's appearance in DSC need preclude it from one way or another ending up looking essentially as we saw during TOS and later cameos—plus or minus details that could not have been logistically accomplished by a 1960s production, and/or could never have been discerned on a 1960s television screen anyway, of course. (For example, the redressing of a set with a new paint job or the addition of some new greebles to a model could well be taken as visual shorthand representing a greater change/difference than that in-universe, if such be called for.) Moreover, we should remember that in actuality, TOS itself depicted the Enterprise through a mishmash of stock shots that switched back and forth between multiple versions within the same episode...so why should this pose any more of an issue, or create any greater cognitive dissonance?
Not at all. The scale(s) of the exterior models of both the TOS and TMP versions never matched the scale(s) of the interior sets, with the latter generally being too large to fit within the former. Besides, whatever size a given ship was designed to, or "really" is in-universe, this has never stopped the VFX artists from "cheating" and re-scaling it to whatever size looks aesthetically and dramatically pleasing to them and their overseers for a given shot, and it never will. That's only par for the course. Name me a single previous Star Trek production that has not repeatedly indulged in this to one degree or another. Where do you think all those countless "size argument" threads that have been going on for years came from? When has that level of consistency ever been lived up to in this franchise? (BTW, you will find that Drexler's cutaway of the Defiant from "In A Mirror, Darkly" is scaled up too! Not that we'd have noticed this any more than the illegible-even-on-today's-HD-transfers scale bar on the graphic from "The Enterprise Incident" without doing our own form of cheating by peeking at the raw elements!)
-MMoM
Last edited:
Or, and just hear me out here...perhaps instead of coming up with convoluted scenarios to justify what my eyes show me, I'll just assume that DSC is just a reboot. Wow, that was easy!
Okay, then let's not discuss scale. Let's discuss the inherent and fundamental differences between the interior of the TOS Enterprise and the interior of the DSC Enterprise. Well, actually, we haven't seen the interior of the DSC Enterprise, but no doubt we will. And how much do you want to bet it will look nothing like what we see in TOS? So again, there will be a difference in chronology between the interior of the Cage-era E, the DSC-era E, and the TOS-era E, which undoubtedly cannot be reconciled.
Humor: It's a gift. ...and a curse.
Monk - LOL out loud
Similar threads
