USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Belz...]

As I've argued elsewhere, though, it doesn't need to be such an expensive series.

That's probably true but irrelevant to my point, which is that since the series _IS_ expensive, it can only be sustained by a wider audience. And even if it cost a little, why would you want Trek to be made just for a dwindling core of old fans? What's the point in that?

False dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy if it contains the set of all possible scenarios. What's the other possibility outside of "change" or "no change"?

You seem to have some real disdain for fans here.

Pointing out what people actually do isn't disdain, it's a statement of fact.

The only fans I have disdain for are those who set themselves up to be unable to like anything new in the franchise, and that's true for all other franchises as well. And that disdain only applies to that topic.

I think by and large they only complain (at least in significant numbers) about things that deserve to be complained about.

In their minds, which is my whole point: whatever new stuff is made, they'll complain, because they set for themselves standards impossible to meet; the show has to be made for them personally. I've actually read one of them say that "Trek wasn't made with me in mind" or somesuch. Talk about hubris.

Moreover, the producers clearly aren't ignoring them.

Irrelevant. I said they should.

There is nothing inherently "'60s" about the original Enterprise design

Sure there is. It screams 60s, both the interiors and exteriors. There are some leftovers from the 50s in the ship's design but it's definitely from the 60s just by looking at it.

certainly not in any way that doesn't also apply to the DSC version.

The DSC Enterprise doesn't look like it's from the 60s. At worst it looks like something out of ENT. So you're wrong.

The original was already very detailed, and very sleek.

Sleek yes, but detailed? Where? The hull was a flat, featureless surface.

Give it (perhaps) some chamfered edges at the pylon joins, and a little surface texturing, and the underlying design is good to go. There are countless online demos that demonstrate how true this is.

I've ever only seen one that manages to not look like it's from the 60s, and only barely. The ship just needed an update. Hell, they knew it needed a major update back in the 70s, and produced a much better version, so why do you suddenly think they're wrong?

The changes made for DSC seem mostly arbitrary.

That's one way to rationalise the simple fact that you don't like it, I guess. I think they fit very well together. Not a huge fan of the "lip", but it doesn't bother me.

Sheer nonsense. It looks absolutely beautiful in TNG "Relics" and DS9 "Trials" and ENT "IAMD."

Only in a nostalgic kind of way. No one but a die-hard Trek fan would think so, and even as part of that group I thought they shoul have gone with the movie designs instead. Those aren't anywhere near as dated, especially from TWOK onward.

A window viewscreen makes no sense

I'm not particularily fond of it, myself, but it works, and it's such a small detail as to make me wonder why people spend so much energy complaining about it.

 

[lawman]

Nah, not everyone. Some people are blinded by nostalgia goggles.

Not nostalgia. Perspective. It's the single most innovative, groundbreaking, downright iconic design in the history of fictional spaceship designs. And it's beautiful in its own right.

 

[Belz...]

I would hope that many trekkers would think she still looks futuristic because she was designed *not* to date

That's ridiculous. That it was designed that way doesn't mean it succeeded. I'll take a more neutral, general audience opinion over that of nostalgic fans who have an emotional stake in the old design.

 

[Belz...]

Not nostalgia. Perspective. It's the single most innovative, groundbreaking, downright iconic design in the history of fictional spaceship designs. And it's beautiful in its own right.

And that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether it looks dated. Again, you're letting your love for the design overwhelm your reason. Talk about perspective.

 

[lawman]

And even if it cost a little, why would you want Trek to be made just for a dwindling core of old fans?

I never posited that as the alternative; you're offering a false dichotomy. What I want is for Trek to be made well or not at all. As I said earlier, that means quality storytelling that builds on (not undermines) the existing Trek fictional universe. (If the producers want to play by looser rules there's always the reboot option, and I'd be game for that, as I've already mentioned, but that's not what they did... and it still wouldn't move the bar on "quality storytelling.")

If you really think that would appeal to nobody but diehard fans, then you must have just as much disdain for other audiences as you apparently have for fans. Your logic here so far seems to be: you can't please the diehards no matter what, so you might as well go for big "general audiences"... but if you go for those they won't appreciate Trek on its own terms, so you have to offer them spectacle and schlock. Seems like a catch-22.

I've actually read one of them say that "Trek wasn't made with me in mind" or somesuch. Talk about hubris.

How is it hubris to question whether one is part of the intended target audience?

Sleek yes, but detailed? Where? The hull was a flat, featureless surface.

That's just nonsense. The original Enterprise was designed with all kinds of detailing. As I've posted before: on the saucer it had a bridge module, impulse engine module, and sensor module. It had visible deflector grid rings, and running lights, and emergency landing-gear triangles. It had identifying lettering, and windows, and painted Starfleet pennants, and a deflector dish with intricate concentric layering around it. It had outlines indicating ports and cargo holds. It had shuttle bay doors. It had nacelles with intricate lighted caps, and intercoolers, and vents, and rear cowling. And so on, and so forth. It even had tiny functional lettering too small to be read on screen. And all of these things were in scale with one another, even! What it didn't have were lots of pointless greebles and overdone aztecing, the identifying marks of so much "contemporary" ship design.

Hell, they knew it needed a major update back in the 70s, and produced a much better version, so why do you suddenly think they're wrong?

In the '70s they knew they could improve on it, and they did. I agree that the refit ship is even better than the original. (I particularly like the art deco touches.) It is the only version of the Enterprise about which I've ever been able to say that, however.

That's one way to rationalise the simple fact that you don't like it, I guess. I think they fit very well together. Not a huge fan of the "lip", but it doesn't bother me.

I'm obviously not the only one who thinks they're arbitrary. Beyond the surface texturing, there's nothing in particular about the new design that marks it as more "modern" or "futuristic" or "sophisticated," so the changes really do seem exceedingly arbitrary, just change for change's sake. (Why the shorter neck? Why the bridge window? Why the topside row of saucer lights? Why the landing bay lip? Why the ventral fins on the nacelles? Why the added cowling on the nacelle caps? Why two spurs instead of three on the Starfleet pennant? And so on.)

 

[Tuskin38]

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

 

[Groppler Zorn]

That's ridiculous. That it was designed that way doesn't mean it succeeded. I'll take a more neutral, general audience opinion over that of nostalgic fans who have an emotional stake in the old design.

Well I don’t agree, but the discussion is moot since they’ve made the changes anyway even in light of the whole of the last 50 years of Star Trek. I guess everything that came before was a pilot for DSC.

Out of curiosity is there any evidence of the “general audience” response to the Enterprise we’re discussing, or is the very fact that they’ve changed the design all the evidence we need?

Also, if the opinion of nostalgic fans with an emotional stake in elements of the franchise are dispreferred, why would the writers of DSC go to such lengths to reference Star Trek to the extent they do? Who in the “general audience” would know about Mintaka III? Where does DSC draw the line between appealing to the “general audience” and appealing to “nostalgic fans”? Personally i don’t think they’re very good at walking that line.

But... in spite of all that, I maintain that the prime Enterprise design would have looked out of place in the DSC continuity, as the visual changes are so drastic to (what is effectively) DSC’s pilot material.

 

[Belz...]

I never posited that as the alternative; you're offering a false dichotomy.

Again I ask you: what's beyond "change" and "no change"? What's outside this set? If you can't name anything, then it wasn't a false dichotomy. Perhaps you don't know what the phrase means.

What I want is for Trek to be made well or not at all.

No, what you want is for Trek to be made for you or not at all. What you consider good is not a universal standard.

If you really think that would appeal to nobody but diehard fans, then you must have just as much disdain for other audiences as you apparently have for fans.

What does that even mean? It's only the core fans you can't please, not general audiences. General audiences are, in fact, rather easy to please.

Your logic here so far seems to be: you can't please the diehards no matter what, so you might as well go for big "general audiences"

If you want to make money, that is. If you make fan projects like Star Trek Continues, knock yourself out with the fanwank.

... but if you go for those they won't appreciate Trek on its own terms, so you have to offer them spectacle and schlock.

Speaking of disdain for people, you seem to disdain more people than I.

That's just nonsense. The original Enterprise was designed with all kinds of detailing. As I've posted before: on the saucer it had a bridge module, impulse engine module, and sensor module.

That's not what I mean by detailing. There's virtually nothing on the hull that shows scale. No docking port or fueling port or exhausts for excess heat or whatever. Nothing. There's scant detailing on the ship. And the "sensor" module was never called that way. As far as you know it's just a light.

It had visible deflector grid rings

Not visible on TV anyway. Maybe if you look at the actual model in the Smithstonian.

And all of these things were in scale with one another, even!

What does that even mean? You can't tell how big they _should_ be!

In the '70s they knew they could improve on it, and they did.

Not just could, should.

I'm obviously not the only one who thinks they're arbitrary.

So what?

Why the topside row of saucer lights?

Why the lights at the top of the saucer? Why the art deco grilles on the TMP model? Why this, why that?

 

[Belz...]

Out of curiosity is there any evidence of the “general audience” response to the Enterprise we’re discussing, or is the very fact that they’ve changed the design all the evidence we need?

My evidence isn't statistical, but anecdotal, but non-fans I know or read about generally find the TOS ship downright silly.

Also, if the opinion of nostalgic fans with an emotional stake in elements of the franchise are dispreferred, why would the writers of DSC go to such lengths to reference Star Trek to the extent they do?

Presumably because they believe (wrongly) that they need to keep the fans on their side, if only to avoid the constant negativity of the internet and the effect it can have on general audiences.

 

[Ronald Held]

The Discoprise can always be modified back either gradually or right before WNMHGB.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

My evidence isn't statistical, but anecdotal, but non-fans I know or read about generally find the TOS ship downright silly.



Presumably because they believe (wrongly) that they need to keep the fans on their side, if only to avoid the constant negativity of the internet and the effect it can have on general audiences.

The academic in me says “consider the reliability of your sources” but if your sample is indeed representative of the larger audience more broadly then let’s hope the visual reboot including the design changes to the Enterprise make for the longevity of the show and the rejuvenation of the franchise.

I wonder whether nontrekkers are reacting to the design of the Enterprise specifically or whether they’re reacting to TOS more generally. Presumably the producers at DSC agree that TOS was inadequate visually as they’ve changed it so much (a view clearly not shared by the Berman era producers who presided over the most successful era of Star Trek and its preboot demise...).

Also I see where you’re coming from regarding the opinion of needing fans on-side as being “wrong”.

Too much of anything, lieutenant, even fan service, isn’t necessarily a good thing... (see what I did there?)

But as I said I don’t think they’re walking the fan service line very well at DSC. In my opinion if they’d wanted to bring in new fans, make the show a reboot proper. Leave the Enterprise out of it altogether and let DSC have its own identity. I think they’ve succeeded in that regard in some ways, but not in others. For me, the Enterprise redesign is one way in which I think DSC fails at fanservice - which is why I think they should do away with fanservice altogether. Otherwise make DSC all about adhering to canon right down to the self sealing stem bolts holding the Enterprise together - in which case only I would watch it and the show wouldn’t last ten minutes haha!

 

[Belz...]

The academic in me says “consider the reliability of your sources”

Oh, I won't claim that my perspective here is objective entirely, but my experience is that this is the case for general audiences.

But as I said I don’t think they’re walking the fan service line very well at DSC. In my opinion if they’d wanted to bring in new fans, make the show a reboot proper.

I can't really disagree. Personally I think the reboot movies were a wasted opportunity. The first one was excellent, in my opinion, and Into Darkness was pretty good, but they failed to really exploit the gold mine they opened up with the first one. I feel DSC should've been part of that reboot, which would've made including the Enterprise that much easier, but that wasn't to be.

 

[Belz...]

The Discoprise can always be modified back either gradually or right before WNMHGB.

That'd be quite a modification. Like the transition to the TMP model, the ships don't even have the same proportions.

Again, it's just so much easier to just take the Discoprise as a full retcon.

 

[Tuskin38]

the ships don't even have the same proportions.

Other then the height an distance between the nacelles, they're actually quite close.

 

[Belz...]

Well, moreso than most other interpretation, yes. But it's still pretty hard to refit one into the other without taking it apart.

 

[DaveyNY]

As much as I'd like to pick up an Eaglemoss ship or two, there's no way I'm dropping fifty-plus bucks a pop on their Discovery line.

Wait awhile.
They will all pop up eventually on WISH for $20 bucks anyway.
That's how I'm picking up the few that I want.

 

[Prax]

Picture time!

 

[DaveyNY]

This may have popped earlier but I just found it...

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

Pretty cool, and a tiny bit similar to what Discovery is giving us.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

So, if we accept the premise that the Discoprise exists because general audiences would find the TOS original too dated, then that raises the question: who is subscribing to CBSAA? Is it a general audience, or is a majority of it self-described Star Trek fans tuning in just to watch the new ST series?

I mean, to spell it out, if it's the latter, then the original premise doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[lawman]

My evidence isn't statistical, but anecdotal...

The plural of anecdote is not data.