• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

Please, not the bloody window discussion again! The whole fucking ship is completely different shape. The shuttlebay for example is about half smaller than on the original. It is much more different from TOS Enterprise than the refit was. The window is actually a thing that could easily be added or removed, the hull shape isn't.
You'll get no argument from me! One shuttle would have to suck in just to make it in or out. The secondary hull itself is all wrong. Too shallow, but I could say the same for the rest of their design choices. The only thing they improved upon is having a "skid deck" outside the shuttle bay for emergency landings.

The warp nacelle pylons are a pointless change. Overall, there is nothing substantive gained in the way of structural integrity. It's strictly an "ain't it kewl" bit of visual fluff. It provides no worthwhile failover protection. Just a more spectacular failure when the whole assembly gets ripped away. A secondary set of conduits and whatnot to sputter and flare.

The foreshortened neck. Why? These are the voyages of the Starship Stumpyprise? I know Eaves loves pancaked starships, but this makes no sense whatsoever. The overall balance versus the original Enterprise is gone. We've gone from the Grey Lady to the squatty Frog Prince.

The primary hull is largely a disaster. I don't mind the beefy impulse engines. But the overall top to bottom structure is daft. The bridge has been talked to death, and it's utter shit. But that doesn't compare to the rest of the saucer section missing multiple decks. If we're gunning for Pike's "203 lives", OK. I might buy it. But if this is supposed to be the Enterprise that crews 430, it doesn't work at all. But damn, ain't she got a healthy set of headlights to broadcast her name? The whole forward section of a deck dedicated to being a flying billboard. Ridiculous.
 
Certs....with Retcon.

Tongue4.jpg


:vulcan:
OK...

CERTS is the Last Thing I would think of looking at that pic...
Now on the other hand....

A Horta takin' a leak, would be the first!
:biggrin:
 
The TOS Enterprise is Voq and the TMP refit is Ash. It's pretty much the same level of reconfiguring, in both cases.
There's a nauseating comparison. I'd rather see it as the TOS Enterprise being the flipside of the Lamborghini Urus production car, and the TMP Enterprise as the concept version.
 
They could just call it a refit and I'd be fine with it. Starfleet ships are modular - so goes the popular lore - so it shouldn’t be too difficult to swap out bits like nacelle pylons and engine pods and the ships neck and saucer and secondary hull. They did a whole stem to stern refit in 18 months so they could do the same to the ship in DSC. I just want it acknowledged so that I don’t have to make believe TOS and DSC are the same.
Why isn't this bit from "Despite Yourself" (DSC) already enough?

LORCA: The Cooper!? Isn't she supposed to be undergoing a refit?

refit.jpg


Why exactly do you think that was written in there, and filmed in closeup on Lorca loudly exclaiming it—and moreover, in what we now know with certainty to be mock confusion, no less—if not as a lampshade for what they were about to show us a short while later?

defiant_possible.jpg


How hard do they need to hit us over the head with it? But as if that weren't enough to make their intent clear, Ted Sullivan confirmed it on Twitter. What they were doing there was quite deliberately re-establishing—in a manner I'm sure they thought would be quite sufficient for any of us who would understand the reference, or care remotely, little did they know—the in-universe basis on which a ship we'd previously seen depicted like this...

inamirrordarkly2_084a.jpg


...might come to look like the above. Really, how much of a leap is it from there to the same rationale applying to the Enterprise? (Just as it did in TMP, which apparently we must have all forgotten and simply needed a subtle reminder of, right? Maybe I need a reminder myself, of where the heck in it anyone said that this was the first such refit the ship had during its lifetime?)

To your point about modularity and swapping out parts, that's apparently more or less precisely how John Eaves envisioned the DSC iteration gradually transforming into the TOS design, bit by bit:

"We had the advantage of a ten-year gap in Trek history to retro the ship a bit with elements that could be removed and replaced somewhere in the time frame of Discovery and the Original series..."

"...we split the struts so in time the cooling vent side could be removed to make it more like the Original TOS strut."

(Here, it should be duly noted that the pylons themselves seem to have later been further altered from the initial version to which he was referring in those specific quotes—the first part transcribed here and the second part upthread by none other than @Tuskin38—but the principle remains much the same, just as you say. And according to @Ronald Held above, he has made further comments to this effect at the recent Las Vegas convention.)

If you're holding out for more explicit acknowledgement and explanation than that, I doubt that you'll get it. (Of course, I've been wrong before...I already owe someone a third of my precious bairns, but I guess two outta three ain't so bad!:whistle:)

The whole fucking ship is completely different shape.
You do realize this is exactly what people have said about the TMP refit for decades, right?:rofl:

It is much more different from TOS Enterprise than the refit was.
Nah. Not really. They're all totally different from one another. The refit concept has always been a mere fig leaf used to provide in-universe cover for a desired visual update. Always, I tell you!:scream:

The window is actually a thing that could easily be added or removed
Good thing too, because it sure looks like one was indeed added at some point between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (TOS), and then later removed!:devil:

thecagehd0031.jpg


Oh, and were the nacelles and impulse engines changed too?:eek:

vlcsnap-00027.png

wherenomanhasgonebeforehdalt0792.jpg


Is the shuttle bay smaller now? I thought the whole ship was bigger (thus betterer) than before so the shuttle bay could be massive now?
It is much smaller if we assume that the versions of the ship are roughly the same size, which you obviously have to assume if you're going to pretend any sort of refit explanation for the changes.
And just what size, pray tell, is the TOS Enterprise based on the shuttlebay? (And how much bigger does it get when one considers that the shuttlecraft mockup is both slightly smaller than its stated-in-dialogue size of 24 feet long, and also too small to contain the interior set we see for it?) I'll wait...:vulcan:

journeytobabelhd0037.jpg

journeytobabelhd0046.jpg

journeytobabelhd0061.jpg


Or you could google it, like I did. (And no, that's not a LMGTFY link.;))

Now, then...who's on first?:brickwall:
Enjoy your Friday night rebooty, everyone!:beer:

-MMoM:D
 
Last edited:
And we have no idea why the 1701-D changes completely, proportions included, from one shot to the next. If you think every change requires an explanation in-universe, it must drive you mad. If you're more like me, you just chalk it up to them having two models but being too cheap to re-shoot previous effects shots.

In the case of the 1979 model, there is NO WAY the TOS model can be refit into that one. The proportions are all different. In fact, the ship is 100% different. I'd buy the refit into the Discoprise, actually, but not that one. But it's still not an issue because there is no need to explain all of that in-universe. They redesigned the Enterprise, and that's all there is to it.



That doesn't follow. Also, there haven't always been explanations. Sometimes it just happened for no in-universe reason; like the changes in uniforms from the 3rd season of TNG onward. Again, not everything needs an explanation unless you think Star Trek isn't a work of fiction.

You are hanging your defence one thing looking slightly off, because of a different model, and people changing clothes...it’s not really comparable. You will tell me DS9 never does it next because of that time Sisko wore his badge somewhere different for an episode or two. It’s really not comparable or in the spirit of the thing. Consistent world building shows a creator cares.
 
That doesn't follow. Also, there haven't always been explanations. Sometimes it just happened for no in-universe reason; like the changes in uniforms from the 3rd season of TNG onward. Again, not everything needs an explanation unless you think Star Trek isn't a work of fiction
I could argue that it doesn’t follow that there haven’t always *not* been explanations too.

Ever since they dealt with the Klingon visuals they opened the door for explicitly dealing with visual changes on the show meaning that there is now the possibility for discussing these things in-universe. If they’d not done that in “trials”, “affliction” and “divergence” then I’d totally agree with your argument.

Problem is, since we now know that our characters in-universe are aware of real-world changes, for us to believe fully in those characters and not have their intelligence insulted, some explanation of the visual changes is warranted.

Plus I’m not arguing that everything needs an explanation.

I’m saying that there is now the *potential* for everything to *have* an explanation in the wake of the augment virus.

I like the augment virus explanation too - so would welcome something similarly creative for the Enterprise.

How hard do they need to hit us over the head with it?
Hard enough so that I know they’re taking the source material seriously and not just making changes to make Trek cool so that kids don’t get picked on in the playground for admitting that they like it.

But seriously, I’d not considered your point about the Cooper. It’s a little subtle, but that combined with Eaves’s points is a strong indication that we’re not meant to assume that the discoprise is magically the same ship as in TOS, thanks! :)

And just what size, pray tell, is the TOS Enterprise based on the shuttlebay?
Well that was kinda my point - there is no official size of the Enterprise so the shuttle bay could be the size of Westminster abbey and we’d never know because there’s no recorded dimensions for the thing.

Voyager’s shuttle bay on the other hand... :lol:
 
You are hanging your defence one thing looking slightly off, because of a different model, and people changing clothes...

I'm not "hanging" my "defense" on either of those. I'm giving examples of things that change without explanation, all the time, in Star Trek.

it’s not really comparable.

It is absolutely comparable if something is changed retroactively. That's EXACTLY what we're talking about.

Consistent world building shows a creator cares.

Sure, and I've discussed exactly what I think of Trek and its constant inconsistencies, but that has no bearing on my argument: changes WILL happen, many of them you can't "explain", and there's no need to. It's changed. End of story.

I could argue that it doesn’t follow that there haven’t always *not* been explanations too.

Nobody has claimed this.

Ever since they dealt with the Klingon visuals they opened the door for explicitly dealing with visual changes on the show meaning that there is now the possibility for discussing these things in-universe.

Which is why I said it was a stupid move. They should've not even mentioned it in Trials and Tribble-ations. Now fanboys want explanations for everything. It means that, in the minds of these fans, the showrunners are disallowed to change anything without such an explanation. Don't like the uniforms? You're stuck with 'em. Want to make slight alterations to a set so it's easier to film? Screw you! Think you should update a sound effect for the modern age? Heretic!

Problem is, since we now know that our characters in-universe are aware of real-world changes, for us to believe fully in those characters and not have their intelligence insulted, some explanation of the visual changes is warranted.

But we don't know how much actual change occured. For instance, in TMP they talk about the refit, but we never get to really see what the changes were. Fans assume it went from the classic TOS ship to the new one, but if they had a flashback scene in that movie showing something prior to the refit it might've been a lot closer to the refit anyway. Add to that the fact that the refit is physically impossible unless you dismantle the ship entirely, and you have a small problem.
 
You do realize this is exactly what people have said about the TMP refit for decades, right?:rofl:
Of course. And this change is even more extensive.

And just what size, pray tell, is the TOS Enterprise based on the shuttlebay? (And how much bigger does it get when one considers that the shuttlecraft mockup is both slightly smaller than its stated-in-dialogue size of 24 feet long, and also too small to contain the interior set we see for it?) I'll wait...:vulcan:
Do you understand that I was talking about relative size? DIS Ent shuttlebay is much smaller relative to the size of the ship than TOS one.
 
To your point about modularity and swapping out parts, that's apparently more or less precisely how John Eaves envisioned the DSC iteration gradually transforming into the TOS design, bit by bit:
That was the intent of the designers, we don’t know if the writers/producers are thinking that themselves.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top