I'm fine with ignoring throwaway lines, but at the point when I'm ignoring an entire look of a show including the most iconic Trek ship as well as central plot points of several episodes it is just easier to treat them as separate things.
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
There's a sadistic part of me that hopes DSC ends with the ship and crew returing to the 23rd century and changing the timeline so that it becomes the TOS aesthetic right down to the uniforms and ship appearances. That all of DSC up to the final season or even finale is retconned and we end the series heading straight for TOS. But that's not likely to happen.
Break out the mini-skirts!
At least VOY and ENT established that UESPA was a real thing and established that it existed as far back as 2067. That was a workable problem with in-universe continuity.
Yes, I never had an issue with that particular thing. At least in TOS era EUSPA is a part of the Starfleet. It's like NATO.
Even United Earth didn't go away after ENT. It still clearly exists as a planetary government and separate political entity in DSC and TOS.
I think that stuff is mutable. As I've said before this is the Enterprise
The "details" don't matter as much as long as it fit this general layout. Forest v Trees
They don't matter to you. I'm very visual person, the looks matter to me a great deal.I think that stuff is mutable. As I've said before this is the Enterprise
The "details" don't matter as much as long at is fit this general layout. Forest v Trees
The first person to mention that the Horizon in ENT and the Horizon in TOS were separate ships though ENT went so far as to include a book about Chicago Gangs of the 1920s in Travis' personal library gets thrown out the airlock. 
I consider that to be another example of a "soft reboot"--there's no obvious resetting of the series, but the sudden implicit deaging of the character makes it unlikely that he had Connery's adventures when they originally took place.
I imagine United Earth should still actually exist, even in the time of Picard. The Federation is an interstellar body, I don't think it governs on the planetary scale. Now, they may have some sway on Earth policy because of being headquartered there, but there should still be an Earth body controlling Earth.
I know DS9 mucked that up a bit in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost".
I've never pretended otherwise. Of course there were hiccups, hiccups are different from total redesigns being plopped in the middle of a known time period.
I'm visual too. Art Degree.
But I can't latch on to one version of the ship based on nostalgia. Art is always evolving and pushing towards the future. Star Trek's "art" should always reflect that.
The first person to mention that the Horizon in ENT and the Horizon in TOS were separate ships though ENT went so far as to include a book about Chicago Gangs of the 1920s in Travis' personal library gets thrown out the airlock.
Didn't the books actually have two different names? *runs*
In comics they call that a sliding timeline.
YouTube Bond fan and reviewer Calvin Dyson calls the 1962-2002 Bond movie timeline a "non-linear timeline." The same man with the same experiences, just with a big suspension of disbelief that all five actors are literally the same man.
A sliding timeline is one way of attempting to explain it away, but it requires reimagining the earlier adventures to have taken place in a different era than they actually did. And in the case of the Bond films, the character's apparent age was consistent up until the Dalton casting, with the exception of the brief Lazenby hiccup. There was no need for a "sliding timeline" in the Moore years because he was two years older than Connery, and thus easily could have had the same adventures when they originally took place.
And even George Lazenby looked old and mature enough even at 29 and 30 that he could pass for James Bond in his late thirties. Bond from 1962 through 1985 is a believable aging of the character. Dalton is the first moment when you go: "Huh? Oh well, if you say so."
