And you cannot lie?
Cage-SNW-TOS Enterprise
- Thread starter Ronald Held
- Start date
And you cannot lie?
Damn, you beat me to the punch.
It had nothing to do with how 'pretty' she looked. The makeup department indeed tried to use similar prosthetics that Janssen used to keep continuity with the Trills we saw in 'The Host,' but they just couldn't make it look right on Farrell's face. So they opted to break with the continuity for the sake of a makeup change that worked better for her. But they weren't consciously trying to go against the established Trill look in TNG.
I don't think it was as much about what the fanbase wanted as it was the skewed logic of the CBSAA marketing department, who seemed to think that if they couldn't tie their show into the original '60's TOS continuity, nobody would watch it. So they made the claim that 'it all fits! Trust us!' And then proceeded to produce a show that looks and feels nothing like TOS.
The Discoprise sure does look more like a mid-point between the NX class and the TOS Constitution class rather than THE Constitution class to me. So if my mid-point ship is what you're describing as a Republic class ship, then I would agree with you.
I'm looking up actor heights for my White Star model (since I want to have crew in the little rooms I've made behind the windows and getting it right is easier than guessing who should be really tall and who should be really short). I happened to click through from the Google results to www.celebheights.com and saw discussions of comparative scale that seemed weirdly familiar.
I leave that approach to others.
There are reasonable approaches, and there are unreasonable approaches. If there were an objective truth associated with a fictional starship, the reasonable approach would be naturally superior.
As a thought experiment, if we were from 1700 and trying to figure out the size of a Cold War Soviet sub based on the sets and visual effects of some 1960s American TV show, I have no doubt that there would be some ceilings that were too high, some scenes against a fake tower that didn't match the actual curvature so looked flat, et cetera.
If we give the slightest thought to production realities based on experience with plays, these things are easily understood.
If we, instead, try to pretend that everything we see is absolute 100% documentary and damn the contradictions, just let me embiggen!, then sure, you'll end up with Soviet subs a mile long.
That may have been the original meaning, but the term is no longer that limited.
The only one of those that was intentional was the Trill change, unless you count the "dramaturgical" rescalings of David Stipes. That means he was actively rejecting maintaining a consistent scale, and so his contributions, like Michelson's Folly, ought to be ignored.
Changes can happen.
It wasn't that it didn't look right. Terry Farrel has extremely sensitive skin. She physically can't wear prosthetics. Its why Klingon expert Dax didn't get altered to look like a Kingon in Apocalypse Rising.
According to whom? Merriam-Webster defines "period piece" as a work whose special value lies in its evocation of a historical period.
As Star Trek is not documenting a time in history that has or will ever happen, it's therefore not a period piece.
That's all fine. However, it doesn't change my point that they tried to utilize the original TNG Trill prosthetic to maintain continuity with "The Host," when that point was being interpreted by someone as DS9 not trying to maintain continuity with TNG.
Let me stop you there. Language evolves and dictionaries try to keep up. That is the order of things.
I have referenced multiple uses of the term as I described. That's how it is used in the world. You don't have to like it. It has long been said that dictionaries take ten years to catch up . . . some words take longer. Bill Bryson, in "Made in America", tells this tale:
There were dictionaries with "light bulb" or "lightbulb" before 1969 (American Heritage (first edition)) and 1934 (Webster's Second New International), but the fact that there also weren't should adequately cover this point.
Do you want links to the uses that I referenced, or do you need some English professor to grant his imprimatur to the use?
Given your dictionary argument, I didn't really see a point in providing links in reply.
I cannot see NX-01 design elements being used in the mid 23d century. This a a problem with prequels.
Well, I'm also fond of Daedalus style ships. So in my head canon, the cruiser lineage goes like this:
NX Type: Pre-Federation Earth-built explorer, not technically a cruiser (which I define as a ship capable of all of: multi-year duration missions, in-depth scientific research, significant disaster relief support, and success in one-on-one combat with a peer-level power's primary warship).
NX-Refit-with-secondary hull: The first ships built explicitly for the United Star Fleet, with significant Andorian and Tellarite contributions under the hull, but showing its Earth heritage very strongly. In my head canon, though the hulls of the NX and this ship are clearly built to similar specs, these are new-build ships not modifications of old Earth ships. (Starship Mark I in my universe)
Daedalus-style ships: The first ships really built to a multi-national/multi-species standard with a uniquely Federation look. A long-lived design that defines the Second Generation of Starship Technology, but persists well into the Fifth Generation (though by that point they're being built as specialist Transports and Explorers, rather than do-everything Cruisers). I do normally lean on many of the fan designs for Daedalus rather than the very crude model that's been tagged with that name. (Starship Mark III)
SNW Enterprise-style ships: Scaled down to be slightly smaller than the classic Connies, these are Third Generation cruisers. In my mind, the Kelvin-style (but with an SNW styling) came first as a sort of self-propelled space station, and then someone went "y'know, if we put two warp engines on that and rearranged the internal layout that would make a good cruiser." (Starship Mark VI)
TOS Enterprise-style ships: An incremental improvement on the Mark VI, built as the "High" part of a "High-Low" mix (with the "Lows" being the lollipops ships (Hermes, Saladin, etc). TOS style is Fourth Generation, the last few of these are built in TMP style as Fifth Generation starships. Again, in my head, there's no refit from TOS look to TMP look, they're different ships built to the same general mission profile. (Starship Mark IX)
Reliant-style ships: a "light" cruiser, meaning that until these come along there's no such thing as a "heavy" cruiser, built as a lower-cost, lower-capability vessel when the lollipops aren't as effective as hoped. A few of these are Fourth Generation (TOS style) ships, but most are Block 3 and Block 4 versions with Fifth Generation (movie-style) builds. (Starship Mark XI)
Excelsior: My head canon is set around SD8000.0, so there's only the initial pre-production Excelsior for these ships. Intended to be a generational improvement over the Mark IXs, and touted as the Sixth Generation of starships. (Starship Mark XV).
My head canon ends here; I enjoyed TNG when it came out but I'm not tempted to build stories in it.
Anyway, to drag this vaguely back on topic, this is just one example of what I mean by "I enjoy the stories inside themselves, and then pick and choose whatever elements work for me when I build my own version of those stories." And thus why I don't fret over whether the Enterprise as depicted in SNW and as depicted in TOS are the same ship or not. It doesn't matter one whit when watching the show they're in, and trying to figure out how to connect them is only useful as long as you're enjoying the effort.
Maybe it’s a Galaxy-class refit – Galaxy class was mentioned in TNG having existed in the SNW era - refit in the aftermath of the Battle of Rigel VII. That got wrecked in a major disaster involving the Gorn. A disaster so bad that Spock wipes the mind of Uhura, Kirk, and everyone else to forget the trauma. And Starfleet defits the ship afterwards.
Or it’s just how Pike is remembering his adventures while on Talos IV, as the ship’s look in Short Treks predates "The Cage". Otherwise, going back and forth makes no sense.
Though if TPTB remake TOS, as they badly want to do, neither explanation is going to matter as they will’ve written themselves (by extension, DIS and SFA) out of continuity.
Or it’s just how Pike is remembering his adventures while on Talos IV, as the ship’s look in Short Treks predates "The Cage". Otherwise, going back and forth makes no sense.
Though if TPTB remake TOS, as they badly want to do, neither explanation is going to matter as they will’ve written themselves (by extension, DIS and SFA) out of continuity.
Just for fun:
Earth-style ships continued to dominate, but by registry the earliest alien-looking ships that qualify as Federation in appearance are the Oberth Class. That's Earth saucer, vaguely Andorian nacelles, and maybe a whiff of Vulcan cue in the hoop shape. Stretching? Sure.
TOS is still strongly Earth-inspired. TMP with the side grill on the non-round nacelles may indicate some Andorian strain.
Equal in volume and with a far superior planform to earlier Constitutions, plus seriously outgunning the TMP refit version when equipped with rollbar torpedo launchers, these I imagine might have been slower than a Constitution but were generally more useful, and hardly a light cruiser.
In my head, the entire reason for the neck of the Constitution was a lack of ejectable warp core when the ship was designed in the early 2200s (by registries). The Mirandas and her several derivatives presumably didn't have that issue.
Check.
See, these are totally Earth style, to me. The simplistic lines further suggest a focus on rapid construction, which makes these wartime builds, in my head, and in sufficient numbers that they had some longevity thereafter.
Earth-style ships continued to dominate, but by registry the earliest alien-looking ships that qualify as Federation in appearance are the Oberth Class. That's Earth saucer, vaguely Andorian nacelles, and maybe a whiff of Vulcan cue in the hoop shape. Stretching? Sure.
TOS is still strongly Earth-inspired. TMP with the side grill on the non-round nacelles may indicate some Andorian strain.
Equal in volume and with a far superior planform to earlier Constitutions, plus seriously outgunning the TMP refit version when equipped with rollbar torpedo launchers, these I imagine might have been slower than a Constitution but were generally more useful, and hardly a light cruiser.
In my head, the entire reason for the neck of the Constitution was a lack of ejectable warp core when the ship was designed in the early 2200s (by registries). The Mirandas and her several derivatives presumably didn't have that issue.
No they wouldn't have.
They don't want to remake TOS.
Lord Garth brought up something noteworthy elsewhere:
In other words, the situation isn't just going from Cage Enterprise -> SNW Enterprise -> TOS Enterprise, where Held's wartime replacement idea would work.
To use my "same ship hypothesis" list from _elsewhere_, revised:
2245
Look: Unknown
Model: n/a
Length: Unknown
Mass: Unknown
225x (Short Trek "Q&A")
Look: Discoprise
Model: (bridge diagrams only)
Length: No Information
Mass: No Information
... would have to be refit into ...
2254 ("The Cage")
Look: TOS Enterprise (shots reused in TOS)
Model: 33 inch and 11 foot pilot config
Length: Meh ... I haven't scaled the bridge view with its angle issues nor found one in a quick search, but by eyeball we'll say in the neighborhood of 300–ish meters.
Mass: No Information
... would have to be refit (lengthening tremendously) into ...
2257-2258 (Discovery appearances)
Look: Discoprise
Model: CG
Length: Varies
(Displays suggested 289 but comparison with 750m Discovery showed 515 meters)
Mass: 190,000 tonnes
... would have to be refit (shortened) into ...
2259–22?? (Strange New Worlds)
Look: Discoprise Revised
Model: CG
(Windows cut into outer saucer framing, eight headlights on upper saucer instead of six, et cetera, plus neck revised for Season 2)
Length: 442 meters
(Some early displays still indicated 289)
Mass: 190,000 tonnes
... would have to be refit (shortened tremendously and made heavier) into ...
2265–2269 (TOS)
Look: TOS Enterprise
Model: 33 inch, 11 foot, et al., various detail configurations ... oh and CG, too, in other appearances.
Length: ~289 meters displayed on screen
(”The Enterprise Incident"[TOS3])
Mass: "almost a million" tonnes
("Mudd's Women"[TOS1])
... gets refitted into ...
2272 (TMP)
Look: TMP Refit Enterprise (later Enterprise-A)
Model: 8 foot TMP model, various partials, AMT/ERTL
Length: 305 meters
Mass: No Information
(Note that all lengths above are contested via comparison with interior views, though the SNW ship has the largest discrepancy by far thanks to the turbolift caverns of 225x.)
Needless to say, for TNG-era fans who continually saw TMP-era designs in use unchanged (even down to the Stargazer's bridge), all this retrofitting seems absurd. The comparatively simple TMP redesign and refit was an 18 month job, after all.
However, the new productions have been extremely explicit that ships can be refit continually into new appearances, like the Ship of Theseus but with upgrades. In the late 24th Century this could include renumbering (Stargazer 2893 becoming Stargazer 82893, Titan 80102 becoming Titan 80102-A), but that minor administrative difference doesn't negate the explicit refits in canon (and explicitly supported in production commentary).
So, if you believe that the new "Prime" "Star Trek Universe" is inclusive of and respects prior canon, then the Enterprise undergoes a whopping four major appearance-changing refits between 2250 and 2272 (leaving out the relatively minor Disco->SNW changes of 2258/2259, which are roughly equivalent to the pilot->production changes for the TOS ship, and assuming the 515->442 thing is just a little whoopsie). Three of these would involve size changes of 50% (including the Short Trek -> Cage change, which I include thanks to the turbolift caverns).
Alternately, one can assume that "The Cage" and TOS are overwritten in the new "Star Trek Universe" "Prime" canon (with the flipside being that the Original Universe is unchanged by all the Prime stuff).
Good luck.
In other words, the situation isn't just going from Cage Enterprise -> SNW Enterprise -> TOS Enterprise, where Held's wartime replacement idea would work.
To use my "same ship hypothesis" list from _elsewhere_, revised:
2245
Look: Unknown
Model: n/a
Length: Unknown
Mass: Unknown
225x (Short Trek "Q&A")
Look: Discoprise
Model: (bridge diagrams only)
Length: No Information
Mass: No Information
... would have to be refit into ...
2254 ("The Cage")
Look: TOS Enterprise (shots reused in TOS)
Model: 33 inch and 11 foot pilot config
Length: Meh ... I haven't scaled the bridge view with its angle issues nor found one in a quick search, but by eyeball we'll say in the neighborhood of 300–ish meters.
Mass: No Information
... would have to be refit (lengthening tremendously) into ...
2257-2258 (Discovery appearances)
Look: Discoprise
Model: CG
Length: Varies
(Displays suggested 289 but comparison with 750m Discovery showed 515 meters)
Mass: 190,000 tonnes
... would have to be refit (shortened) into ...
2259–22?? (Strange New Worlds)
Look: Discoprise Revised
Model: CG
(Windows cut into outer saucer framing, eight headlights on upper saucer instead of six, et cetera, plus neck revised for Season 2)
Length: 442 meters
(Some early displays still indicated 289)
Mass: 190,000 tonnes
... would have to be refit (shortened tremendously and made heavier) into ...
2265–2269 (TOS)
Look: TOS Enterprise
Model: 33 inch, 11 foot, et al., various detail configurations ... oh and CG, too, in other appearances.
Length: ~289 meters displayed on screen
(”The Enterprise Incident"[TOS3])
Mass: "almost a million" tonnes
("Mudd's Women"[TOS1])
... gets refitted into ...
2272 (TMP)
Look: TMP Refit Enterprise (later Enterprise-A)
Model: 8 foot TMP model, various partials, AMT/ERTL
Length: 305 meters
Mass: No Information
(Note that all lengths above are contested via comparison with interior views, though the SNW ship has the largest discrepancy by far thanks to the turbolift caverns of 225x.)
Needless to say, for TNG-era fans who continually saw TMP-era designs in use unchanged (even down to the Stargazer's bridge), all this retrofitting seems absurd. The comparatively simple TMP redesign and refit was an 18 month job, after all.
However, the new productions have been extremely explicit that ships can be refit continually into new appearances, like the Ship of Theseus but with upgrades. In the late 24th Century this could include renumbering (Stargazer 2893 becoming Stargazer 82893, Titan 80102 becoming Titan 80102-A), but that minor administrative difference doesn't negate the explicit refits in canon (and explicitly supported in production commentary).
So, if you believe that the new "Prime" "Star Trek Universe" is inclusive of and respects prior canon, then the Enterprise undergoes a whopping four major appearance-changing refits between 2250 and 2272 (leaving out the relatively minor Disco->SNW changes of 2258/2259, which are roughly equivalent to the pilot->production changes for the TOS ship, and assuming the 515->442 thing is just a little whoopsie). Three of these would involve size changes of 50% (including the Short Trek -> Cage change, which I include thanks to the turbolift caverns).
Alternately, one can assume that "The Cage" and TOS are overwritten in the new "Star Trek Universe" "Prime" canon (with the flipside being that the Original Universe is unchanged by all the Prime stuff).
Good luck.
Last edited:
The Stargazer, NCC-2893, is at the Fleet Musuem. Ergo, the Stargazer, NCC-82893 would've been upgraded from a different Stargazer that came in-between.
Similar threads
