How big was the Enterprise?

[Warped9]

They have said the Enterprise is 442 meters and we know it's the same ship from The Cage and TOS,

No, we don’t “know” that. Rather than endless arguing it’s far easier to accept a far simpler explanation. You’re seeing totally different continuities that are canon within themselves, but not in regard to another previous continuity. They’ve done this in comics forever.

Time barrier was broken. Meaning that the previous system was a 'make do' system.

Under the line of thought for 2236, how did they get to the stars, without warp drive????

Always made sense that way.

Don't worry, they spelled it wrong on the sign on set too!

When I modelled the hanger in 3D it was pointed out I had spelled hangar incorrectly in regard to what was seen onscreen. Actually I spelled it correctly and onscreen evidence shows it had been spelled (or misspelled) both ways in different episodes.

289 meters. 442. Doesn't matter really. Both the TOS and SNW versions are the same ship just a decade or less apart.

Except they’re not. See above reply to first quote.

 

[Takeru]

No, we don’t “know” that.

Yes, we do. Discovery did a flashback to The Cage using the 60s footage. This is the same continuity.

 

[Warped9]

Yes, we do. Discovery did a flashback to The Cage using the 60s footage. This is the same continuity.

Goodie for them. I stand by my assertion.

 

[HotRod]

No, we don’t “know” that.

Except they’re not. See above reply to first quote.

We do and it is. Why? Because they say it is. They own it. It's their decision to make. Plus, as mentioned by @Takeru, they've made a point to show that the two ships are one and the same.

 

[cooleddie74]

I mean, there are visual discrepancies because Kurtzman and the other producers wanted to use the new streaming era aesthetic for the NCC-1701, but it's the same continuity and timeline. Would I have designed the SNW ship to be considerably closer to the TOS look? Hell, yes. But I wasn't employed on the show.

The producers say it's the same and enough of the narrative and character details jibe with or at the very least don't violently conflict with TOS that I can easily buy this is the ship Kirk commands in TOS, just before a 2264-65 refit.

 

[UssGlenn]

When I modelled the hanger in 3D it was pointed out I had spelled hangar incorrectly in regard to what was seen onscreen. Actually I spelled it correctly and onscreen evidence shows it had been spelled (or misspelled) both ways in different episodes.

it's both ways the The Making of Star Trek too. Interior cross sections with A, exterior diagrams with E.

 

[HotRod]

Goodie for them. I stand by my assertion.

Your assertion would be wrong.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yes, we do. Discovery did a flashback to The Cage using the 60s footage. This is the same continuity.

Yeah, I think this is sufficient evidence to conclude that this is the intent.

 

[Lord Garth]

The SNW Enterprise will still look like the SNW Enterprise when its version of TOS rolls around. It won't look like the TOS Enterprise, and anyone who thinks it will is lying to themselves.

If the Temporal War can change when Khan was born (see "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow"), then it can change the way the Enterprise looks. It's not that hard to figure out.

It's a third timeline. Also, not that hard to figure out. Doc Brown explained the concept on a blackboard in Back to the Future, Part II, I got the concept when I was 10.

As far as the TOS Footage in the DSC Recap for "If Memory Serves", it was artistic license. Something that's lost on people who are so literal-minded. I even said I thought it was artistic license and said so in 2019.

Quoting myself:

I'm glad they did the recap the way they did and showed the footage from "The Cage". I'm aware the footage was from 55 years ago and it looks retro. Through my 2019 lens, I take it as artistic licence. And, because of that, I'm glad they didn't do the recap straight like they usually do but put it together in a quirky, "Hey look at this old footage!" way. If they'd done a standard recap, it wouldn't have worked at all. It would've felt jarring. But they way they did it makes it work for me. "Yeah, we know this is silly, quirky, and whimsical but just go with it!" It recapped what went on during "The Cage" and it gets the point across in a fun way. That's good enough for me.​

Anyone who can't get passed the difference between 1964 footage and 2019 footage and who couldn't take the recap in the spirit it was intended in needs to loosen up. I'm sure a Disco Version of "The Cage" would look like it fits with the rest of DSC. They just did this for fun.​

And it's a nice acknowledgement that "Hey! Guess what? Star Trek existed before Discovery!"​

​

Before someone responds, bear in mind that I'm a Discovery Fan. I like it more than most of you. If I can accept it as a Third Timeline, so can you.

As far as the graphics of the TOS Footage of the Enterprise with the specs in "Day of the Dove", maybe it was hard-to-read on a 1960s TV, but it didn't stop some people from getting it, and while I haven't paid attention to the read-outs that closely, I have a feeling it's still the same in the TOS-R episodes, which were intended for HD. So, I'll still go by what it says about the size of the Enterprise in TOS.

Since I watch TOS from time-to-time, and no longer watch SNW, I'm going with what TOS says.

That killed some time. Onto more interesting things.

 

[DSG2k]

Yes, we do. Discovery did a flashback to The Cage using the 60s footage. This is the same continuity.

That's not entirely accurate. They did show "Cage" footage, intentionally choosing the unremastered version, and did all kinds of transition maneuvers treating it like a comic book rendition complete with flipped pages and cutouts rather than actual canonical footage. No other episode flashback was ever treated that way.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"The Cage" was thus treated like an inspiration. If anything, it seemed to me to be a riff on the black-and-white opening to the 1978 Superman movie with the curtain opening and the kid reading Action Comics, right up until you get the first blue streaking warp-driven credit flyby.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

The 1978 Superman movie certainly wasn't beholden to any Action Comics continuity.

That said, Kurtzman et al. have insisted that the Discoverse of 2017-current shows, starting with the "reimagine" of Star Trek in the form of Discovery, is still within the Prime continuity, and this is a correct assessment. The Prime continuity was created for the 2009 film as the origin point for that film's old Spock. Policy-wise, it takes all the previous live-action stuff other than the "Kelvin Timeline" (though it takes inspiration therefrom, e.g. bridge windows), then adds TAS, novels, and comics, and includes the JJ film additions like the destruction of Romulus. It further allows for any number of Goldsman's "opportunity to retcon" maneuvers or similar things like the John Eaves report of being told to keep things "25% different" (for whatever reason) or Tamara Deverell's "cheat" to fit within "the world of our Discovery", et cetera.

It seems apparent, however, based on the "Cage" footage treatment and the so-called "visual reboot" at large, that the connection to TOS continuity is more tenuous and hazy than was seen in the 1987-2005 Star Trek productions where all the details were maintained, right down to set design, as best folks could, with only rare exception (cough Drexler cough).

 

[DarrenTR1970]

And size doesn't matter.

To quote Michael Caine in "Goldmember" - "It's not the size mate. It's how you use it."

 

[Lord Garth]

That's not entirely accurate. They did show "Cage" footage, intentionally choosing the unremastered version, and did all kinds of transition maneuvers treating it like a comic book rendition complete with flipped pages and cutouts rather than actual canonical footage. No other episode flashback was ever treated that way.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"The Cage" was thus treated like an inspiration. If anything, it seemed to me to be a riff on the black-and-white opening to the 1978 Superman movie with the curtain opening and the kid reading Action Comics, right up until you get the first blue streaking warp-driven credit flyby.

Yup. To back you up further, that's also something I said at the time:

There's nothing wrong with the Enterprise in TOS-R from a technical end. From an artistic end, they wanted the footage in the recap for this episode to look old. They did it on purpose. [Using footage from "The Cage".] It's supposed to look old-fashioned.​

 

[DSG2k]

The SNW Enterprise will still look like the SNW Enterprise when its version of TOS rolls around. It won't look like the TOS Enterprise, and anyone who thinks it will is lying to themselves.

Indeed. As mentioned before, I'm old enough to remember when certain Discovery fans were angry about folks saying the Discoprise had been enlarged and thus couldn't possibly be refitted into the TOS ship, declaring the enlargement claim as false and coming from the evil anti-Disco crowd who rejected the retcons. Then it was maybe happening but just by Eaglemoss, then it was on background text, then it became official. Now the size change is good and no one ever disliked the idea and only haters think it's bad.

It was literally the deny->mock->acknowledge->defend Gaslighting Flowchart for Happenings:

This is why I hope Goldsman gets his TOS show, even though the chances are slim, and that it runs for multiple seasons at minimum. I want them to just get the overwriting over with so folks can stop pretending otherwise.

Before someone responds, bear in mind that I'm a Discovery Fan. I like it more than most of you. If I can accept it as a Third Timeline, so can you.

This is the way.

 

[Mudd]

Except they’re not. See above reply to first quote.

Yes, they are. That's established in canon.

You don't have to like it, of course. But claiming that it's not true within Star Trek continuity is simple error. It's false.

 

[Firebird]

Story continuity is not and has never been the same thing as visual continuity. The Enterprise looked one way in 1966, and it looks a different way in 2025.

Does any of that affect the stories that have been told? Of course, it doesn’t.

 

[UssGlenn]

Now the size change is good and no one ever disliked the idea and only haters think it's bad.

Insert any trek concept in that and it plays out exactly the same. Fandom needs time to adjust to any concept.

Other things that took time to be accepted:
ridged klingons
Picard and Crew
Space Station setting
Voyager in general
Enterprise in general

 

[Sketcher]

Borg. Nobody ever complains about the visual update done for the Borg, or try to shoehorn an explanation for it. I don't know why.

 

[cooleddie74]

The Romulans have no forehead ridges in TOS or the TOS Movies, then every single one of them in the TNG Era has ridges. And in Trek 2009 and PIC they are smooth heads, TNG-style and bumpy headed.

 

[Daedalus]

Borg. Nobody ever complains about the visual update done for the Borg, or try to shoehorn an explanation for it. I don't know why.

You don't really need one for a species that constantly upgrades.

(Although, it doesn't quite explain the Raven incident..)

 

[DSG2k]

No, we don’t “know” that.

Officially, it is the same ship, but also officially, ships can radically change in ways that would have struck us as completely absurd a few years ago. That's how the Titan-A and Stargazer 82893 are explained as being reworks of a Luna Class and a Constellation Class, respectively, and so under the present ownership that is the explanation required . . . unless we acknowledge the discard of previous Trek facts.

Story continuity is not and has never been the same thing as visual continuity. The Enterprise looked one way in 1966, and it looks a different way in 2025.

Does any of that affect the stories that have been told? Of course, it doesn’t.

Of course it does.

I have a stump speech about television and movies being audio-visual storytelling mediums. The words, the actions, the sets, the visual effects . . . everyone's efforts come together to create the complete tale we see and hear and experience. Star Trek has taken pains to try to present its episodes as stories that are real within the universe it inhabits. Otherwise the money to build the orbital drydock and film scenes involving it would not have been necessary . . . otherwise the holodeck recreation from "Relics" or the Defiant bridge from "In a Mirror, Darkly" could've been created in any way the showrunners 'wished to visualize'.

Add to that the DS9 writers freaking out and reworking the opening of "A Time To Stand"[DSN6] because they saw what the VFX guys had done at the end of "A Call To Arms"[DSN5]. Rather than just the Defiant and Rotarran sadly linking up with the fleet a la the end of The Empire Strikes Back, the VFX folk had included the fleet in motion toward the direction where the Defiant and Rotarran had come from, with the two turning around to join the fleet and bombastic music suggesting an imminent asswhooping.

More to the point, the story of Star Trek changes if I start replacing video with Battlestar Galactica visuals. Or, consider those times when, although no character explicitly states who's likely to kick who's ass (e.g. "we're no match for them!" in Generations), the simple scales of the ship and how they're presented help convey the tale as much as the actor's words and delivery. If I take some weenie ship that's readily tossed aside and instead stick a Borg Cube there . . . "maybe the weenies found it or whatever, I don't care, you'll explain it in your heads, losers" . . . then I've changed the story quite a bit.

Visuals matter ... details matter. Visual continuity and story continuity go hand-in-hand in an audio-visual medium. Both tell the story. The current producers telling Star Trek fans, who are notorious for noticing things, not to notice things? That's just crazy.

Has it been perfect continuity? No, but for forty years and despite the probably thousands of hands that touched the property it was extraordinarily well maintained, even with what little flubs there were. Folks are keen to grab any YATI they can find or make up and crow about it rather than harmonize or rationalize it ("James R Kirk LOL I can do what I want"), but that and the "ermagerd cardboard sets" nonsense are just weak sauce evasions of the fact that for decades the fictional reality was carefully maintained and cherished (even by the unwilling "canon is a straitjacket" hacks), not discarded.

Rather than endless arguing it’s far easier to accept a far simpler explanation. You’re seeing totally different continuities that are canon within themselves, but not in regard to another previous continuity.

This is partially true. As I noted previously:

Actually, it *is* Prime.

To summarize, the "Prime Timeline" continuity was an invention of the guys (especially Orci) making the JJ Abrams films. The traditional continuity of the live action stuff from TOS-ENT had TAS, novels, and comics added to it (per Kurtzman saying so for over a decade), thus creating a "Prime" continuity. (This is, of course, logically distinct from the Original Universe continuity which explicitly didn't include that stuff, but that makes some folks mad.) The "Kelvin Timeline" continuity splits off from that "Prime" continuity, and Kurtzman brought that "Prime" concept to Fuller's "reimagine" of Trek as its setting, which was initially quite vague during development.

I think you'll find it a lot easier to interact with producer comments and any fan foot-stomping by not trying to wrest the "Prime" moniker away from them. It is theirs. They should keep it.

Or, in graphical form (updated with Campe's correction to my leaving out the Spock Helmet last time):

The 2017+ productions are based on a revision of the shape of the green box from the get-go . . . it is, logically, distinct from the Original Universe, but it is also what is canon to the current production folk and therefore it is officially the current version of the Star Trek-branded entertainment product.

You can reject it, but . . .

Canon, however, is not shaped by consensus. The "company line" is the final arbiter, a third-party point of view. Modern transmedia marketing PR has cheapened the concept as entertainment companies seek to maximize sales of licensed material also, but the fact remains that the owners/creators get to decide what is valid in the universe they create.

In the case of Star Trek, that tends to be the purview of the executive producer for all the shows . . . Kurtzman, in the present case. He and those under him have made it abundantly clear that the new "Star Trek Universe" / "Prime Timeline" they've created includes the previous Original Universe shows and films and is a "reimagine" of them.

It is thus pointless to argue that the new universe, explicitly a combination of the previous on-screen canon plus things that were previously not, should come to resemble the old. It does not have to, and, even if they end up making it look the same, it is objectively a new thing . . . but the official new thing.

If you want your old Original Universe, you can of course keep it. If you want the "Prime Timeline", then you get to have it all.

Isn't validation for all the best outcome?