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.
