There is nothing wrong or dated about the original Enterprise, beyond CBS wanting a new version to sell to suckers.
FIFY. I am no sucker
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
FIFY. I am no sucker
FIFY. I am no sucker
I was for a long time. Not anymore.
So if the majority of the other space ship designs of the 60s look a particular way (I.e. booster rockets, windows in the front, greeblies, based on existing space-race era space tech) and the Enterprise looks nothing like those designs - that is, it doesn’t fit the trend of the era - how is the Enterprise dated within the context in which she exists?
Your description here paints the Enterprise as a trendsetter that stands out from the rest of the era without precedent.
Now, if you were looking to back up an opinion that the Enterprise was dated, you could obliquely compare it to 60s vehicles that have nothing to do with science fiction designs, but I don’t think that conclusively makes your case.
But my entire argument is pointless because the producers of DSC seem to think the prime Enterprise design is somehow deficient - which I have to admit that it is when compared with the rest of the DSC aesthetics.
I’m still going to buy the eaglemoss one eventually heheThere is nothing wrong or dated about the original Enterprise, beyond CBS wanting a new version to sell to suckers like us.
I wouldn't pay $20 for it, much less the $50+ they are charging for the Discovery models.
Ah - well maybe not...
There's one iconic spaceship design being overlooked:
Remember, the TARDIS is a spaceship in addition to being a time machine.
That's your opinion, nothing more. There's plenty that's dated about it, and one thing wrong (the pylons).
You are misrepresenting what I said. It's a far more complex design than its predecessors. This does not change the fact that it fits squarely in its own era of general design.
Everything here is opinions, even yours.
Once again, it is your opinion. Great. We agree to disagree.
The pylons do what they are supposed to do, hold up the nacelles and transfer whatever magical energy back and forth between the nacelles and the rest of the ship. How exactly are they "wrong"?
Was there a particular stated goal for making Discovery in the first place? If it was a desire to explore that time before Kirk, it must have had an attraction approaching nostalgia or it seems they would have just moved ahead and told post-TNG era stories. Same could be said of 'Enterprise'. We're going back to explore this era, but the look is not modern enough. But, in-universe, from the starting point of TOS, it would be. Taking our universe and forcing the very latest aesthetic of our surroundings onto Trek doesn't make much sense.
Make it a different universe, or don't try to shove it in where it doesn't belong in the timeline begun by TOS.
There was talk, back in the 80s after TNG became a success, to make a TOS series that picked up where the original left off. If they had made it, the plan was to keep the very same 'look' as the original....and rightly so.
If aliens somewhere out in the galaxy watched our old tv broadcasts and created a full-scale replica of the Enterprise on the outside, but with their tech on the inside, and brought it here....would people laugh it out of orbit and decry it as being 'silly'? I think not. I think the look would remain just as inspiring as ever.
"No bloody A, B, C, or D!"
Source?
My apologies I certainly didn’t mean to do that. What have I misrepresented? I may well have misinterpreted what you were trying to say.
As long as we don’t compare it with other science fiction space ships of the 60s?
There's one iconic spaceship design being overlooked:
Remember, the TARDIS is a spaceship in addition to being a time machine.
@Groppler Zorn mentioned it.
It's a great example of how a low-budget design needn't sacrifice one bit of charm! It's quite marvelous, really.
I'm not sure why there's a problem with the thickness? If the shields or structural integrity go, making them thicker isn't going to save them from the forces of gravity and inertia, or torpedoes.
Every other ship after the Connie has wider pylons then it, so there must have been a reason why.
Yeah I meant width not thickness.
Don't recall....I read so many books, magazines, articles, etc over the years that I don't know what it was in.
Shaggadelic!
Just a different design style.
Similar threads
