Hey- I took issue with a post. You are insulting a poster. There was a time that was considered warning-worthy. Or has that changed, too?
THAT Enterprise. Not THE Enterprise.
Hey- I took issue with a post. You are insulting a poster. There was a time that was considered warning-worthy. Or has that changed, too?
THAT Enterprise. Not THE Enterprise.
Oh, so telling someone that they're wrong is an insult now? Well in that case, you're wrong.
Wrong? Proudly so. At least from a point of view so completely averse and inimical to everything you say.
Look, I am not saying whoever owns Star Trek this week can’t say the Enterprise is a Ritz cracker if they want. I’m just saying it is what it is - so wholly detached from what was established in TOS that if you were going to say it is a different reality, you could do no more to prove your point. I am saying that when you see something, call it out for what it is- what your brain and powers of reason tell you it is. Not what someone holding the power of money and influence tell you it is.
I swear to Christ, I don't understand why this is so difficult for some fans to grasp. Strange New Worlds is TOS with a modern visual aesthetic. That's it. It's that simple. Trek is supposed to be our future, and our future isn't going to look like the 1960s.
I think they're doing a marvelous job of making it feel like TOS while still making it look futuristic.
It's really not a complicated concept.
I think they're doing a marvelous job of making it feel like TOS while still making it look futuristic.
It's really not a complicated concept.
The only one here who is having difficulty grasping anything - by his own admission - is you. YOU think they’re doing a marvelous job. That’s fine- for YOU. If YOU want to toe that line drawn out for you, have at it. I don’t. Many others don’t. Apparently enough don’t for this particular line of wackadoodle reimagining to continue. I admire you taking pride in your minority position- of having the courage of your convictions. Good on you for that. But I do not admire obsequious groveling before people telling you what to think, when the evidence is right there staring you in the face that it is wrong. You said it yourself. It is an entirely new take that abandons any 1960s sensibility. What more proof do you need to get the fact it is a different thing? Do you need those IP owners to put that in your head, too?
Let’s just agree to disagree. To me, being a fan means being true to the thing you fell in love with. It certainly doesn’t mean just mindlessly saying “wooooweee! This sure is some good fixins!” when somebody put pig slop in front of me.
But if you like pig slop, I’m all for IDIC.
While that graphic may indicate size, it's very, very hard to see. The graphic from SNW's "What Is Starfleet?" is much larger and very clearly visible. (And also far more recent.)
But for the sake of argument, there is something else to consider. The Enterprise has had multiple refits in its lifetime. The interior of "THE CAGE" is not fully in line with TOS. Hell, there's even differences in "WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE" and the first pilot and the TOS series itself.
So any differences in appearance can be attributed to a refit between "What Is Starfleet?" and TOS. Especially since Kirk's command has double the crew of Pike's command.
They are definitely meant to be the same ship. SNW is just a modern look of her.
Oof, I think you’re both wrong. The ship is clearly both. It’s whatever it is in whatever series it is. This is a TV show, one that both reinterprets its own universe and gets its own universe wrong all the time. Ship sizes, distances, speeds, colors, etc are wrong in every episode. The viewer is left to interpret what they’re seeing as best they can, and to expect to have to reinterpret it again. And Hell, in SNW’s “Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow,” they basically gave themselves an out, telling us that the universe is perpetually in flux as a result of the Temporal Cold/Hot War, among other things.
There’s actually a grace in that, as whatever is going on on screen can be whatever you want it to be (including whatever it actually is) whether you like that in the moment or might later. Whether the issue is ships sizes, money in the Federation, Starfleet as a military organization, shield bubbles, forehead ridges, or ten thousand other things.
I mean, that’s what the show itself does. Hell, TOS TMP and the rest of the TOS movies are themselves pretty different from each other and could easily each be their own different universes. But we still like the whole and overlook the apparent differences. They didn’t lose much sleep playing fast and loose with their reality; why should we in interpreting it?
And we get to share our different interpretations of their realit[ies] with each other to conjure even more Star Trek. There’s loads I don’t like about contemporary Trek and loads I don’t about classic Trek. My head canon jumps from one to the other and to a dozen other places in between, incorporating material from all that and the lit and concept art and more as well. I’m not giving that up because of what finite Trek was or is or will be.
It’s a TV show, and it’s all of it depending on whatever mood I’m in. The rest is trying to force a kind of control over a thing that is not possible.
There’s actually a grace in that, as whatever is going on on screen can be whatever you want it to be (including whatever it actually is) whether you like that in the moment or might later. Whether the issue is ships sizes, money in the Federation, Starfleet as a military organization, shield bubbles, forehead ridges, or ten thousand other things.
I mean, that’s what the show itself does. Hell, TOS TMP and the rest of the TOS movies are themselves pretty different from each other and could easily each be their own different universes. But we still like the whole and overlook the apparent differences. They didn’t lose much sleep playing fast and loose with their reality; why should we in interpreting it?
And we get to share our different interpretations of their realit[ies] with each other to conjure even more Star Trek. There’s loads I don’t like about contemporary Trek and loads I don’t about classic Trek. My head canon jumps from one to the other and to a dozen other places in between, incorporating material from all that and the lit and concept art and more as well. I’m not giving that up because of what finite Trek was or is or will be.
It’s a TV show, and it’s all of it depending on whatever mood I’m in. The rest is trying to force a kind of control over a thing that is not possible.
Last edited:
This. If Trek is our future as postulated then the 60s aesthetic will not remain. And we see that being updated.
I don't have an issue with the ENTERPRISE though. The characters are definitely the part that I appreciate more. If one needs it to be a separate continuity then I'm ok with that too because one thing about STAR TREK is that people can just enjoy it.
How time travel often works in Star Trek:
This is where I mostly come down as well, with the exception of definitely not disliking loads about TOS. It's an interesting discussion, and ultimately everyone has their own opinion. I just found that when I watched SNW's first season, I immediately started enjoying it more the second I stopped worrying about how to reconcile SNW's depictions of (e.g.) Spock, Chapel, T'Pring and the Gorn with TOS. It struck me as an exercise I didn’t need to undertake, and I made the personal decision to abstain. Heck, SNW doesn’t even have rank stripes that make any sense, which is a big deal for me, and I let that go too. The result? I enjoy the show, and TOS remains.
Admittedly, it's fun when everyone or most everyone agrees, but it's not necessary. I'm glad enough that my beloved, forever-favorite show Star Trek (1966-1969) lives on, so much so that I watched episodes of it on massive modern movie screens just two and four days ago.
Oh, I grasp the idea just fine. I just simply reject it.
And this is why.
Matt Jefferie's design is the one I fell in love with, the one that fueled my imagination, the one I'm a fan of.
If we were only talking an appearance on the original show, yeah.
But that's not the only place fans encountered that graphic. It was in The Making of Star Trek, as was mentioned up-thread.
And it (or its just-Enterprise counterpart) was also on just about every version of the Enterprise AMT model box for decades.
That size was there for any fan to see and it informed the productions that came after.
Like the docking ports on the refit and the size of peeps on the wingwalk scene.
And the display wall in the Ent-D's observation lounge.
So no, I don't have to listen to what some johnny-come-lately says about the size.
The Enterprise is whatever you see on the screen. Its not real, there is no 'THE'
WTF?
I posted the SNW images because the argument has been "The new stats make more sense because this size would actually house what we have seen on screen."
The weakest part of the argument for a 289m Enterprise is that it doesn't fit some elements seen on screen. (Chiefly the shuttle bay.) But we now see (and I've long suspected) that that same visual representation doesn't work for 442 either. Not in SNW anyway.
On those grounds it's interesting to see people work their way around those ideas. Which is a fun part of this board and this fandom.
@HotRod "It's this size because they told us. And if they change their minds in the next show or even this show, they own the IP and we don't and why can't you just accept that?" is boring.
The "scorch" is an original piece of the Enterprise on the lead of the saucer section. We were told about it in the first season of SNW. The IP owners showed us that piece of the saucer being explosively removed from the ship at the end of Discovery's second season. Not to go all Galaxy Quest, but explain the contradiction?
The IP owner's tell us a lot of things.
The bridge in SNW is clearly a "different visual representation" of the same thing. But it isn't the same SIZE as TOS. So "different visual representation" means shape AND size. So why does that suddenly apply to the size of the ship just because they attached a NUMBER to it? You could put a number on the screen of how wide Spock's console is. It won't match what we CLEARLY saw on screen in three seasons of TOS.
That on screen image in The Enterprise Incident is so small and blurry, how do we even know what those ships ARE?
I posted the SNW images because the argument has been "The new stats make more sense because this size would actually house what we have seen on screen."
The weakest part of the argument for a 289m Enterprise is that it doesn't fit some elements seen on screen. (Chiefly the shuttle bay.) But we now see (and I've long suspected) that that same visual representation doesn't work for 442 either. Not in SNW anyway.
On those grounds it's interesting to see people work their way around those ideas. Which is a fun part of this board and this fandom.
@HotRod "It's this size because they told us. And if they change their minds in the next show or even this show, they own the IP and we don't and why can't you just accept that?" is boring.
The "scorch" is an original piece of the Enterprise on the lead of the saucer section. We were told about it in the first season of SNW. The IP owners showed us that piece of the saucer being explosively removed from the ship at the end of Discovery's second season. Not to go all Galaxy Quest, but explain the contradiction?
The IP owner's tell us a lot of things.
The bridge in SNW is clearly a "different visual representation" of the same thing. But it isn't the same SIZE as TOS. So "different visual representation" means shape AND size. So why does that suddenly apply to the size of the ship just because they attached a NUMBER to it? You could put a number on the screen of how wide Spock's console is. It won't match what we CLEARLY saw on screen in three seasons of TOS.
That on screen image in The Enterprise Incident is so small and blurry, how do we even know what those ships ARE?
Excuse me? There is an Enterprise deemed significant enough in its impact on American and world culture to be featured as you enter the National Air and Space Museum in Washington. THAT is THE Enterprise. THAT Enterprise is the one that is very real in its profound historical importance. THAT Enterprise is the one that the president deemed sufficiently noteworthy to be the namesake of what launched the shuttle program. It may only be a fictional thing onscreen to YOU, but that is because YOU are limiting yourself to what is onscreen. Go study some history and gain a little perspective before attempting to put the issue into perspective, because you are mixing up every other Enterprise onscreen with the one that exists in the real world - THE Enterprise - the one that launched millions of imaginations including those of the geeks like Steve Jobs who made the world you inhabit. And the one that every one of those geeks could tell you was 947 feet long.
This is what I mean by using your powers of reason and not blindly accepting what is dished out to you. And I mean that as a fellow Trekker- not disparagingly. Everyone of us who comes at this with a willingness to accept whatever we are given, gives permission for them to give us whatever they want. Creative freedom and all that, but some reasonable tether to the thing that made the show so important is likely to at least get a little of its glimmer.
Does it make sense to you that the ship looks 98% the same in The Cage as in TOS, then doubles in size and looks entirely different, and then goes back to half that size when its crew is more than doubled?
No. Of course not. And if it were just admitted that were the case, the decision could be respected as an exercise in creative control. As it is, it looks like what it is- disrespect for the minds of the fans and for common sense itself. And THAT then colors everything else on that new show.
Now look at the image I created and have linked to below. It is a total reimagining that doesn’t change a thing that was already established in TOS. I’m not saying making Star Trek 60 years after the fact has to be this respectful, but damn… look what you can do being this respectful.
Last edited:
U.S American culture - possibly. World Culture - NO
It's a TV show. THE Enterprise, as inspiring as some find it, is a fictional item of pop culture. you and some other fans might find the changes disrespectful, but you don't get to gate keep.
(You must have freaked out when TMP Klingons came on the scene).
I’m not the one who put it in the Smithsonian. And I’m not the one who named the space shuttle for it. And I’m not the one who said everything done at Apple was born on that ship.
So no. You’re quite mistaken. It is exceedingly impactful on both American and world culture, and exists quite separate from its fictional children. You are stubbornly refusing to see that influence and in service to your point keep trying to reduce it to the same limited parameters the others have. The fact you want that to be so does not make it so.
Honestly, I'm OK with changes. I'm even OK (ish) with the Gorn. I'm not OK with "Oh no, silly boy, it's ALWAYS been this way."
That's the disrespect. "We felt that this (plot, character, statistic) served our story telling better so we had to make some changes." Good grief, why is that so hard?
There's no "gate keeping" here. Star Trek is a world wide phenomenon. And these silly little ships hold world wide cultural impact. "Oh ya, it's only in America that they care about the ships that we all know are really models. We only care about the actors and the dialog here. Americans obsess over tiny trivia." What?
FOR Q'S SAKE CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE SHIP?!? The IP holders or someone licensed by them just dropped the largest view of where everything goes in the current vision of the Enterprise that literally pertains to the thread subject "How big was the Enterprise?" Nobody finds that interesting?
Heck, even wondering "Who made this? Do the IP holders have an opinion? Does it confirm their vision? Contradict it? Is this the Franz Joseph of the 21st century?"
Over the decades many fans’ minds have turned to mush trying to reconcile continuity inconsistencies between series. There have been long debates, discussions and heated arguments about it. I’ve participated in quite a few myself before accepting no one ever convinces anyone of anything.
That said I’ll elaborate, just a little, on a point I made earlier.
In TOS we were given at least two instances of alternate or parallel realities: “The Alternative Factor” and “Mirror, Mirror.” Both episodes established there are alternate/parallel realities to the one we knew throughout three seasons of TOS. I could stretch this point by offering up “The City On the Edge Of Forever” wherein it’s established that classic film actor Clark Gable was an established celebrity in 1930 when in our reality he was not. If I include TAS then we have a fourth example in “The Counter-Clock Incident.” Indeed we could even argue TAS itself as being an alternate continuity even though it was supposedly just an extension of TOS.
In TMP we accept it’s supposed to be the same continuity as TOS and we squint and/or find rationales to paper over inconsistencies. The Klingons look way different, the tech and hardware look too different for only a few years to have passed, and a few bits of dialogue don’t ring quite true. We were so glad to have live-action Trek back we didn’t strain too much over it. But then we got the rest of the films with a growing number of historical/backstory inconsistencies including a more militaristic take on Starfleet. I watched all those films when they premiered and enjoyed them all to varying degree, but the inconsistencies began to naw at me.
Along comes TNG and the “canon/continuity wars” really heat up. This was bolstered by Gene Roddenberry himself telling the TNG writers they needn’t be beholden to TOS in terms of established continuity. And from there on, with each successive series and film, the argument raged hotter. And these debates are given weight with the episode “Parallels” wherein Worf is shifting from one parallel universe to another.
Before I joined the TrekBBS I largely just shrugged off and ignored the successive series and films I didn’t care for. But after I joined and it came to the subject of ENT and ST09 and the JJverse I got in on the arguments. Looking back it was a waste of breathe, but I did crystallize a notion I had had for quite a while.
Instead of getting worked up over glaring inconsistencies it’s just simpler to accept every new version of Trek is essentially a reboot. And that view is even easier to accept today with the existence of JJtrek and the Discoverse.
It’s all canon, unto itself, but not in relation to each other.
We could even argue TOS is a (soft) reboot of “The Cage,” and if production pressures hadn’t given them the idea to reuse most of “The Cage” footage in TOS as a two-part episode we might never have seen “The Cage” until many years later, if ever. Even so there are little inconsistencies we still rationalize. But by and large we can accept the first pilot as established TOS prehistory.
In the end I broke it down like this.
- TOS
- TAS (wherein you could accept it, or not, as an expansion of TOS’ live-action continuity)
- TMP (yes, you could accept it as an extension of TOS or it’s a slightly different continuity, a soft reboot)
- TWOK-TUC (Nick Meyer’s more militaristic take on Trek definitely feels like an alternate version to me. Is it even an extension of TMP because they seem to go out of their way to not even acknowledge those events happened.)
- TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT (Berman era Trek where they can’t seem to make up their mind whether they’re in continuity with what came before or not. So I just accept this era’s prehistory was something like TOS, but not exactly. And in extent TOS’ future and past might be something like TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, but not exactly.
- ST09 and the JJverse (definitely a hard reboot. This bears very little resemblance to what came before. It’s more easily accepted now as a reboot wherein back then it was hotly argued.)
- DSC/SNW (definitely another reboot. They might not say it aloud, but they’re going out of their way to do their own thing and ignore so much of what came before. You can argue it, but you’d be wrong.)
I have little idea where PIC fits in this. Is it TNG’s future or is it in the Discoverse? Ditto with SFA.
How does this relate to the ship? Simply, it’s been depicted differently throughout different productions. They’re canon unto themselves, but not unto each other.
That said I’ll elaborate, just a little, on a point I made earlier.
In TOS we were given at least two instances of alternate or parallel realities: “The Alternative Factor” and “Mirror, Mirror.” Both episodes established there are alternate/parallel realities to the one we knew throughout three seasons of TOS. I could stretch this point by offering up “The City On the Edge Of Forever” wherein it’s established that classic film actor Clark Gable was an established celebrity in 1930 when in our reality he was not. If I include TAS then we have a fourth example in “The Counter-Clock Incident.” Indeed we could even argue TAS itself as being an alternate continuity even though it was supposedly just an extension of TOS.
In TMP we accept it’s supposed to be the same continuity as TOS and we squint and/or find rationales to paper over inconsistencies. The Klingons look way different, the tech and hardware look too different for only a few years to have passed, and a few bits of dialogue don’t ring quite true. We were so glad to have live-action Trek back we didn’t strain too much over it. But then we got the rest of the films with a growing number of historical/backstory inconsistencies including a more militaristic take on Starfleet. I watched all those films when they premiered and enjoyed them all to varying degree, but the inconsistencies began to naw at me.
Along comes TNG and the “canon/continuity wars” really heat up. This was bolstered by Gene Roddenberry himself telling the TNG writers they needn’t be beholden to TOS in terms of established continuity. And from there on, with each successive series and film, the argument raged hotter. And these debates are given weight with the episode “Parallels” wherein Worf is shifting from one parallel universe to another.
Before I joined the TrekBBS I largely just shrugged off and ignored the successive series and films I didn’t care for. But after I joined and it came to the subject of ENT and ST09 and the JJverse I got in on the arguments. Looking back it was a waste of breathe, but I did crystallize a notion I had had for quite a while.
Instead of getting worked up over glaring inconsistencies it’s just simpler to accept every new version of Trek is essentially a reboot. And that view is even easier to accept today with the existence of JJtrek and the Discoverse.
It’s all canon, unto itself, but not in relation to each other.
We could even argue TOS is a (soft) reboot of “The Cage,” and if production pressures hadn’t given them the idea to reuse most of “The Cage” footage in TOS as a two-part episode we might never have seen “The Cage” until many years later, if ever. Even so there are little inconsistencies we still rationalize. But by and large we can accept the first pilot as established TOS prehistory.
In the end I broke it down like this.
- TOS
- TAS (wherein you could accept it, or not, as an expansion of TOS’ live-action continuity)
- TMP (yes, you could accept it as an extension of TOS or it’s a slightly different continuity, a soft reboot)
- TWOK-TUC (Nick Meyer’s more militaristic take on Trek definitely feels like an alternate version to me. Is it even an extension of TMP because they seem to go out of their way to not even acknowledge those events happened.)
- TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT (Berman era Trek where they can’t seem to make up their mind whether they’re in continuity with what came before or not. So I just accept this era’s prehistory was something like TOS, but not exactly. And in extent TOS’ future and past might be something like TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, but not exactly.
- ST09 and the JJverse (definitely a hard reboot. This bears very little resemblance to what came before. It’s more easily accepted now as a reboot wherein back then it was hotly argued.)
- DSC/SNW (definitely another reboot. They might not say it aloud, but they’re going out of their way to do their own thing and ignore so much of what came before. You can argue it, but you’d be wrong.)
I have little idea where PIC fits in this. Is it TNG’s future or is it in the Discoverse? Ditto with SFA.
How does this relate to the ship? Simply, it’s been depicted differently throughout different productions. They’re canon unto themselves, but not unto each other.
Last edited:
