Theory for TOS Enterprise and Disco Enterprise differences

[Amasov]

The reason for the differences is just an artistic choice by the production designers, I have to assume. Whether that was the "right" or "wrong" decision is just a matter of opinion. Until I hear that CBS flat out told them to not make it look like TOS, that's the theory I am sticking with.

You could lose your mind over Discovery looking different from TOS, visually, but the basic framework is still intact. The bridge layout conforms to what we've seen in the past, Discovery's exterior itself (though I'm sure those will get hung up in this because they have their cynical opinions), follows the established look of a Starfleet vessel (a saucer section, warp nacelles, impulse engines, deflector), the Starfleet delta is present on all uniforms, hand phasers and communicators (moreso the phasers) look almost exactly as they do in TOS. When things like that start getting changed, then maybe I'll get on board with some of the whining, but, don't try to convince me that Discovery can't be in the same timeline as TOS when it clearly adheres to established design lineage.

At the end of the day, I don't care that they look different. That's not what I'm watching the show for. I'm watching Discovery to be entertained by a good story and good characters; not for whether it visually matches up with a show from the 1960s or how it slots into canon. And if they want to make little side jabs at the canon sticklers by making jokes about the difference in their appearance, go ahead! I love it.

Also, the reason Rogue One does it so well is not because the look is timeless or that it doesn't take place in the future; the movie takes place, literally, MOMENTS BEFORE the original film. There's no way you could get away with changing the design of something because no in-universe explanation would ever be able to account for how something changed so rapidly. Of course, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan so, tell me if I missed something on that front.

 

[TrickyDickie]

There was a bank in Ohio that, as of circa 2005, had all of their advertising in TNG font.

I still laugh at the Chinese company that used 'Made in Usa'....to get around the problem of U.S.A.

Gene was....corny, it would seem

 

[lawman]

As I recall, Discovery is a TV series, not an extended gaming session of Star Fleet Battles.

Of course we get wild varying information about the war, Disco wasn't Starfleet Strategic HQ. Individual ships get their orders, not the whole story. That is actually a realistic depiction of war and an individual ships place in it. When you aren't the ones on top, war is a pretty confusing experience that often does not make sense.

I've never played Star Fleet Battles, nor would I care to; Star Trek for me has never been primarily about military conflict. (Which is a whole separate issue with the focus of DSC S1, but let's not go there right now.)

You are, nevertheless, engaging in special pleading here to rationalize something that really just amounts to bad writing. The writers weren't attempting to be "realistic," much less to capture the "fog of war" for the participants; that's not what any of the stories were about, and it's quite a stretch to pretend otherwise. The information they (and we) were given at any given moment was treated as accurate. It just wasn't logically consistent.

Besides, even if the goal had been to show that the characters were struggling to deal with incomplete or contradictory information, that doesn't mean it would make narrative sense to force the viewers to struggle with incomplete or contradictory information. The war wasn't structured as a mystery story, so there was no point in concealing relevant context from the audience.

 

[Alan Roi]

Besides, even if the goal had been to show that the characters were struggling to deal with incomplete or contradictory information, that doesn't mean it would make narrative sense to force the viewers to struggle with incomplete or contradictory information. The war wasn't structured as a mystery story, so there was no point in concealing relevant context from the audience.

Nothing forced viewers into anything. The focuse was on the characters not the tactical maps of the conflict, the minutae of where the battle lines were and what ship was more powerful than another. It wasn't structured as a mystery because it wasn't a mystery series. There was no need to struggle if you were following the focus of the narrative instead of wanting it to be a different story than what it was.

 

[DaveyNY]

I've never played Star Fleet Battles, nor would I care to; Star Trek for me has never been primarily about military conflict. (Which is a whole separate issue with the focus of DSC S1, but let's not go there right now.)

You are, nevertheless, engaging in special pleading here to rationalize something that really just amounts to bad writing. The writers weren't attempting to be "realistic," much less to capture the "fog of war" for the participants; that's not what any of the stories were about, and it's quite a stretch to pretend otherwise. The information they (and we) were given at any given moment was treated as accurate. It just wasn't logically consistent.

Besides, even if the goal had been to show that the characters were struggling to deal with incomplete or contradictory information, that doesn't mean it would make narrative sense to force the viewers to struggle with incomplete or contradictory information. The war wasn't structured as a mystery story, so there was no point in concealing relevant context from the audience.

You must not enjoy much of what's on TV nowadays, if you have to break everything down to a fundamental conclusion.
Me, I just watch a few Sci-Fi and Fantasy shows to be entertained, not educated.

 

[lawman]

The focuse was on the characters not the tactical maps of the conflict, the minutae of where the battle lines were and what ship was more powerful than another.

That's not remotely what I was suggesting, of course. Once again you argue not against what I actually wrote, but against a straw-man parody of it.

There was no need to struggle if you were following the focus of the narrative

Are you suggesting that DSC s1's war narrative was focused? Because I'm hardly the only one to point out the myriad ways it wasn't.

You must not enjoy much of what's on TV nowadays, if you have to break everything down to a fundamental conclusion.

I have no idea what you mean by a "fundamental conclusion"... but in fact I enjoy lots of what's on TV nowadays. That's because, fortunately, there are lots of things much better written than DSC s1.

 

[FreddyE]

Actually yes and no..

You see everyone has been looking at this all wrong. It makes sense this way..

1. TOS Enterprise exists in the Original Timeline. Which CBS owns.
2. KELVIN Enterprise is the alternate universe era owned in part from Bad Robot and Paramount.
3. PRIME Enterprise or STD/DISCO is the TOS knock off universe which is where the Spock in The Kelvin Movies came from. Not Original Spock, but Prime universe Spock owned by Paramount.
.

I don´t get the endless tiring discussions about this. We have "Word of God" that Disco is in the SAME Timeline/Universe as TOS. "Klappe zu, Affe tot", (Lid closed, Monkey dead)...as we say in Germany.

 

[Hythlodeus]

1. TOS Enterprise exists in the Original Timeline. Which CBS owns.
2. KELVIN Enterprise is the alternate universe era owned in part from Bad Robot and Paramount.
3. PRIME Enterprise or STD/DISCO is the TOS knock off universe which is where the Spock in The Kelvin Movies came from. Not Original Spock, but Prime universe Spock owned by Paramount.
Paramount bad robot are producing STD/DISCO for CBS. Merchandise can only be licensed and monitized by CBS if 25% toneally different. So what Star Trek Discovery is ultimately a clever ruse, it is not Original Trek, it is Prime trek which is the universe that preceded Kelvin, and also the new Picard show will also be set in Prime universe not the Original. CBS has new trek, and is sitting on Old Trek, basically because merchandise licensing reasons and to control Paramount since the Kelvin line was cancelled.

Oh, FFS. Can we please stop with this bullshit?

 

[Brainsucker]

Let's the original version rest. And enjoy the new Prime version of Star Trek.

 

[Qonundrum]

Inefficient. Consolidation and buyout of companies until only one exists and have numerous designers within saves for a lot of confusion.

sounds awfully close to that nonsensical Midnight's Edge conspiracy theory bullshit

They've said some nasty things before (including the who's the one whose seemingly favorite catchphrase involves a certain act because only cool hip and/or really boring people apparently say such things or "superchat$" are sent by people who enjoy such phrases being uttered?)... But keep in mind they do say they're responding to rumors, even if they tend not to like rumors. They are, to their own perception as they see it, keeping it real. (Right now, they and their friends all think there's substandard scripting going on. I'm still in the mindset the scriptwriters have something big under the covers that explain what otherwise would be asinine, the painfully obvious one being Spock as a mass murderer who later becomes second in command on the flagship and behind the scenes, is DSC season 2 as chaotic as season 1 was?) Their beliefs and opinions are no less valid than ours and we're all not going to agree on everything. But as Trekkies, we all do believe in IDIC, yes? Tolerance is not illogical. There's no need for cusswords, but IDIC can apply to me as well as pointing out the pottymouthed ones from that gestalt that think they're outdoing "South Park"'s crass style. They're exactly not hurting anybody, so what's the problem anyway? Or if they might have, let me know then I might say how South Park and others might have hurt people. But neither of us cares, I suspect.

 

[Qonundrum]

Oh, ***. Can we please stop with this ********?

Can the feeling be mutual?* Stating known facts is not a crime and I can think of more important things to actually lace profanity over. If it's that important, why not simply refute the other person's beliefs with countering evidence, or at least provide perspective that goes above and beyond the basic facts instead since even I found an article that claims it's not necessarily as simple as those restrictions (which are facts nonetheless). Just badmouthing or hollow blaming (the latter you did not do) solves nothing and doesn't often help anyone's beliefs.

* Am referring to the other person, I often tend to bring up POVs that are not my own, but if I may be so bold I will say (again) that the profanity seems needless. I'll be happy to start swearing if that helps, but does it really help? (Nor will I end this with a lame joke...)

 

[Hythlodeus]

Can the feeling be mutual?* Stating known facts is not a crime

Sure, as soon as facts are involved. Which was not the fucking case in the text quoted by me

 

[Qonundrum]

DIS and TOS are set in different timelines so both ships are different. Any other explanation makes sense.

Producers stated this show is in official canon. I will not provide a pointless one word response that doesn't contribute to anything. I will, however, reflect the opinions that DSC is either trying to build the TOS universe, or that DSC is the real Trek universe and 60s Kirk - like JJ's - is a parallel universe one. It's both creative and lamentable as a reason, but works nonetheless.

After all, most fans think the timeline they started out with is the only prime one.

And if Shakespeare's' works' attributes have been altered by others then so will everyone else's.

Even Wonder Woman got changed to a completely different war. Which seems just as pointless, just make a new hero with the new origins instead - the cast and storyline were clearly strong enough and didn't need to piggyback on a decades-old established character to alter on what's arguably a whim. Then again, if a character origin is so bad, out of respect for the character can a reboot tweak the origin if some thought and tact are applied.

Then again, we have superheroes all wearing drab muted colors - because everyone forgot the use of bright bold color was meant to show heroics and saving the day and nobility and optimism and all that other vile filthy stuff. But I digress.

 

[Qonundrum]

Sure, as soon as facts are involved. Which was not the fucking case in the text quoted by me

Thank you.

 

[saladdays]

Then you must have seen a different movie than I did, because I thought it had the feel of ANH just fine.

Like I said, I haven't watched it for a while. I know that it does feel like a prequel for sure, but I remember it not being as perfect as you claim. But a lot of that is probably just personal opinion too.

Again, I’m not sure why you think K-2SO does not fit with the overall feel of a ANH prequel. You mean because he wasn’t a guy in a robot suit, but a CGI robot?

In ANH or any of the other original trilogy films there wasn't a large contingent of those types of droids. The only human-like droids we see are ones like C-3PO or other random ones like medical droids. To me, they included them in Rogue One because they could do it now as opposed to the late-70s/early 80s.

 

[Dukhat]

In ANH or any of the other original trilogy films there wasn't a large contingent of those types of droids. The only human-like droids we see are ones like C-3PO or other random ones like medical droids. To me, they included them in Rogue One because they could do it now as opposed to the late-70s/early 80s.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/EV-9D9

 

[saladdays]

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/EV-9D9

Which is why I said "or other random ones."

 

[Dukhat]

Which is why I said "or other random ones."

So let's look at this another way: ENT showed both Tholians and Gorn, which were both CGI creations based on an inanimate head and a guy in a rubber lizard suit from TOS, respectively. Would I rather have seen an inanimate head and a guy in a lizard suit on ENT, even though that's what they were in TOS? No, of course not. I would want the producers of ENT to utilize their production values to create something better than that, but having it be close enough to the source material where it's believable that they are the same things. This, in my opinion, is not what DSC is doing. They're deliberately making everything look different, while at the same time saying it's exactly the same. That doesn't compute with me. If you want to make everything look different, fine. But don't say it's the same thing, and now the thing it's supposed to look like is now invalidated. Just call it a reboot. How hard would that be?

 

[fireproof78]

I don´t get the endless tiring discussions about this. We have "Word of God" that Disco is in the SAME Timeline/Universe as TOS. "Klappe zu, Affe tot", (Lid closed, Monkey dead)...as we say in Germany.

Because there are individuals who feel that CBS is lying to them when the "Word of God" is applied.

For my part (and money) I have no problem with the 10 year swing explaining differences. But, that's me.

Spock as a mass murderer who later becomes second in command on the flagship

Point of fact-TOS Enterprise was never identified as the flagship.

Then again, we have superheroes all wearing drab muted colors - because everyone forgot the use of bright bold color was meant to show heroics and saving the day and nobility and optimism and all that other vile filthy stuff. But I digress.

I don't need bright colors for heroics.

 

[Dukhat]

Because there are individuals who feel that CBS is lying to them when the "Word of God" is applied.

No offense, but that's a bit belittling to people who clearly see a major difference between DSC and TOS, and more than just what the sets look like.