USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[TrickyDickie]

In the trailer for season 2, the worker bees attending to the Enterprise suggest that there is some kind of a problem.

At this point, we don't know how big that problem might be and whether or not it will have ties to a refit or redesign.

The producers are not obligated to justify their changes, but it nevertheless is no guarantee they will say absolutely nothing about it, either.

 

[BillJ]

In the trailer for season 2, the worker bees attending to the Enterprise suggest that there is some kind of a problem.

At this point, we don't know how big that problem might be and whether or not it will have ties to a refit or redesign.

The producers are not obligated to justify their changes, but it nevertheless is no guarantee they will say absolutely nothing about it, either.

My personal idea to explain why all the Starfleet ships are squat: Space Bigfoot came through and stepped on them all. It took decades to rectify.

 

[Belz...]

One thing (the TOS Enterprise) is iconic, the other (Saavik, though I like the character) isn't.

And yet in the 70s there were several suggestions about redesigning the ship much more radically than what TMP gave us. In fact, it's only Gene's veto that prevented the movie design from being completely different. I don't think the comparatively slight modifications for Discovery are that huge.

It is simply a terrible comparison.

Not if the comparison is based on the need for explaining changes. Iconicity (is that a word?) is irrelevant if that's the topic. I don't think anyone's disputed the groundbreaking or iconic status of the original Enterprise design, just the perceived need for update.

 

[Belz...]

In the trailer for season 2, the worker bees attending to the Enterprise suggest that there is some kind of a problem.

At this point, we don't know how big that problem might be and whether or not it will have ties to a refit or redesign.

The producers are not obligated to justify their changes, but it nevertheless is no guarantee they will say absolutely nothing about it, either.

I just think it's an excuse for Pike to need the Discovery for the mission. The warp nacelles are malfunctioning or something.

 

[BillJ]

...just the perceived need for update.

There was no need to update, at least for artistic reasons. CBS is simply double-dipping. They couldn't sell the Disco Enterprise under the terms of whatever licensing contracts are in place. So they had to change it to a degree. The straight pylons (that Eaves said were on the new version) were likely changed by the licensing department, not anyone on the creative side.

 

[TrickyDickie]

My personal idea to explain why all the Starfleet ships are squat: Space Bigfoot came through and stepped on them all. It took decades to rectify.

Space Sasquatch:

 

[The Lensman]

Yeah, the bridge window. There's not one iota of strategic, tactical, or intrinsic value to having the bridge viewscreen be a window as well. Past 25 miles at best in perfect conditions, the human eye is worthless in military operations.

Ditto for having your command center at the very top of your ship in an easily targetable spot like every Federation ship. Or having an easily destroyed window above you, like the Cage Enterprise and the D. Or having your command center and main forward weapon set in a bulb at the end of a very long, thin and tactically unsound neck like the Klingon D7.
Considering that all of that nonsensical shit has been accepted for decades, I'm not gonna get too worked up about a window.

Also, they're not looking out the window to see a ship miles away. They're looking out the window to see the grandeur of space in all it's wonder. It's the difference between looking at mountains through the view finder on your camera and actually looking at mountains. We're talking about a society that values art and beauty and tries to incorporate that into their designs and daily life, so it makes sense that they'd love to see the beauty of space as well on something other than a view screen.

I'm not sure what I thought of the window / viewscreen in 2009. It's entirely possible I thought it was stupid. Nowadays I love the idea and it seems more futuristic to me.

As far as the DSC Enterprise....like the rest of the show, it's the same world, we're just looking at that universe through a different set of eyes than the ones we used for the original Star Trek. I have neither the time, nor inclination to really give much of a shit beyond that.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Posting that image of the older version of the TMP Enterprise model makes me think of how much that version of the bridge dome reminds me of soft-serve from Dairy Queen.

 

[Belz...]

There was no need to update, at least for artistic reasons.

Well, some of us think there was. How do we reconcile those two viewpoints?

They couldn't sell the Disco Enterprise under the terms of whatever licensing contracts are in place. So they had to change it to a degree. The straight pylons (that Eaves said were on the new version) were likely changed by the licensing department, not anyone on the creative side.

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is that your guess?

As far as the DSC Enterprise....like the rest of the show, it's the same world, we're just looking at that universe through a different set of eyes than the ones we used for the original Star Trek. I have neither the time, nor inclination to really give much of a shit beyond that.

I like the way you think.

Posting that image of the older version of the TMP Enterprise model makes me think of how much that version of the bridge dome reminds me of soft-serve from Dairy Queen.

I think this early version of the bridge dome got damaged early on by a water leak, before filming. What we got is a lot better, so I'm not complaining.

 

[Gonzo]

I think my biggest problem with the new version is how squat it is.

I quite like it, makes the ship look a bit sleeker and less like a giraffe.

They should have shortened the nacelle pylons as well, unless they already did its hard to tell.

Also smaller side on profile for the neck makes it harder for the Klingons to target.

 

[BillJ]

Do you have any actual evidence for this, or is that your guess?

Eaves was the one that said the design had to be changed 25%. Of course, since CBS denied and forced him to take down his Facebook page, he's obviously a liar.

 

[BillJ]

Also smaller side on profile for the neck makes it harder for the Klingons to target.

Both sides likely have very advanced computers that do their targeting. They could likely knock a fly off of a barn at 50,000 kellicams.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Both sides likely have very advanced computers that do their targeting. They could likely knock a fly off of a barn at 50,000 kellicams.

It's Star Trek, so it's a Denebian fly.

 

[Belz...]

Eaves was the one that said the design had to be changed 25%. Of course, since CBS denied and forced him to take down his Facebook page, he's obviously a liar.

He could also simply be wrong, you know? Just because CBS denied it doesn't make it true.

I note that you avoided my first question and I find that unfortunate as I really wanted to know how you squared your declaration with mine and other posters'. You know, to try and find some sort of common ground.

 

[BillJ]

How do we reconcile those two viewpoints?

Do we really have to? Sometimes two different people simply have two different viewpoints.

 

[Belz...]

Do we really have to? Sometimes two different people simply have two different viewpoints.

Yeah but why not try? We never know where we'll meet. I'm in a conciliatory mood right now.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah but why not try? We never know where we'll meet. I'm in a conciliatory mood right now.

I rectify it by treating it as a separate continuity.

 

[Gonzo]

Both sides likely have very advanced computers that do their targeting. They could likely knock a fly off of a barn at 50,000 kellicams.

In the films we always saw the gunner firing manually though.

I have always thought that the Klingons frowned on computer assisted targeting.

 

[fireproof78]

Are we really comparing the appearance of a character that appeared twice (plus a bit part) with a ship that hangs in the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum?

As far as Picard goes, hairstyles change.

Bald to full head of hair at graduation? I figured hazing was done with in the future but maybe I'm wrong

Also, I don't mean it as a direct, 1-to-1, comparison. I am more wondering where the line is drawn for needing an explanation for changes. If a character's appearance is not necessary to comment on, then I am failing to see why so many changes require explanation. But, I'm sure that that will vary with each person.

As a final note, "Iconic" is not synonymous" with "unchangeable."

I'm not sure what I thought of the window / viewscreen in 2009. It's entirely possible I thought it was stupid. Nowadays I love the idea and it seems more futuristic to me.

I have always thought a window felt futuristic. Been part of many future and SF designs I have seen for many years.

Well, some of us think there was. How do we reconcile those two viewpoints?

Some things can be true at once.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Picard chose to be bald.