Maybe this has been discussed in other threads. How you you justify in canon, the changes in size between Cage Enterprise, SNW Enterprise and TOS Enterprise. Could it be SNW 1701 is a new build for the war? For whatever reason, when SNW is done, the Cage 1701 is recommissioned and upgrade to the TOS one?
Cage-SNW-TOS Enterprise
- Thread starter Ronald Held
- Start date
In Discovery, we get flashbacks to "The Cage" looking as-was. In Short Treks, we get flashforwards to TOS with the Enterprise looking as-is. Thus one can't swap with the other (or be a refit) unless very, very silly back-and-forth occurs.
The official line is seemingly it's the same as swapping out an actor. How long is the Enterprise is the same as asking how much Kirk weighs or how tall is Spock?
the size of the ship isn't a problem, she was always 442m even in TOS. blurry unreadable computer screens are optional where canon is concerned, and the sets never fit in 947 feet. The actual aesthetics are the same as an actor recast. The SNW Enterprise is Robin Curtis.
That is actually the best hypothesis I've ever heard.
It is not just the raw size, but the morphology.
Everyone recognizes that different models were used to represent the Enterprise, even in "The Cage", but traditionalists tend to view the 11 foot model as the primary one, and we know the modelers did their best to match the two in details. The TMP refit design was initiated by Jefferies before Minor and Probert took over, and, while opinions vary, there are strong points of matching between the TOS and TMP Enterprises, _even down to deck levels, certain hull curves, and even in the secondary hull_. This is exactly what one would expect out of a refit . . . major elements like decks and spaceframe retained where possible, with new elements cut in or built atop.
The Discoprise allows for none of this. It evokes the original design, sure, but nothing more. We may as well try to work with JJ's Monsterprise. We have to assume massive component replacement in order to forgive the short neck, different nacelles, and funky pylons. Even then we're left with a remaining ship that just doesn't match up very well with either version.
(And, that's even if we go with the rescaling of the old ship far beyond its canonical size (which I consider to largely be an absurd conspiracy-theory-level belief system bent on ignoring the messy realities of production by those who cared, acquiescing to the failings of those who didn't (cough Michelson cough), and generally serving as a muddying of the analysis waters.)
That is why I am strongly in favor of your new-build/replacement idea. If you think that the Discoprise has to fit in the continuity of TOS, the alternatives are less plausible.
Canon is silent on this. As all versions are canon.
As was said you cannot scale up the TOS 1701, and have it look like the SNW 1701. Need at least two separate ships.
It doesn't need to look like the SNW 1701 even scaled up to be the same ship.
if Saavik can be played by two different actors, than the Enterprise can look different in two different productions.
And the size of the TOS Connie was never canon on screen, so the SNW Connie being 442m doesn't contradict any on screen lore.
or data for that matter.
Size of the TOS Connie:
Matt Jefferies created the TOS Connie with a specific set of dimensions, even if it was never spoken on screen.
The knowledge about his dimensions and his TOS Connie still exist and have been spread throughout the Trek fandom for over 50 years.
Even Memory Alpha states:
Both sets of sizes can be true.
They're both Constitution Classes, for different Era's of Trek & potentially a different Storyline Worlds within Trek.
One doesn't have to Over-Write the other.
Trek isn't Highlander.
There doesn't need to be "Only One".
I don't quite agree with that logic, but this argument is so old it's got mold growing on it.
Production necessity versus intended change is not the same thing.
Come now.
It's not much of anything.
"SCALE IN FEET" means the canonical length of the ship is established. One can quibble over the angle of the shot potentially leading to slight variance of conclusions, but 1450' is right out.
Not legible to me unless I get inches from the screen.
That was virtually invisible on a 60s TV. Besides, even if it wasn't, you can chalk it up as a one time mistake, same as James R. Kirk. Same as deck 78 in STV. Same as the phaser out of the Torpedo tube in TNG. 442m has for years now been consistently shown as the length of The Enterprise, even before they put it in big bright letters on screen.
The 289 meter length is the canonically established value, within shot angle margin of error. It was even quoted in Discovery as an easter egg before they intentionally changed it.
Everyone is at liberty to believe whatever they like about the length of the original ship . . . I recall a fellow who insisted the Sovereign class was 16 kilometers long based on his questionable scaling of the ST:FC hull walk, for instance . . . but the simple fact is that the scale is stated in the canon. Therefore, whatever one's preferred length, it must entail by necessity an effort to disprove or disregard this canonical value.
We see quoted above two examples of simple disregard, one as refusal to see it and another as refusal to accept it. If that's the standard of evidence and reasoning to be applied then that's okay, as far as it takes you, and good luck. With apologies, it does not work for me.
It was but now it's not. That's pretty much how continuity works. The most recent data is the "correct" data. And all of the data is canonically correct.
Similar threads
