Because it makes no sense. 'The Cage' design and the models used in the rest of the series are nearly identical. DId Starfleet refit the Enterprise between '54 and '56 then decide 9 years later that nah the older design was better?
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
If the first image of the Discoprise bridge that we see is in through the top of the dome, I want to see some damn goose necks in there! 
Even though many, MANY folks did not care for The Temporal Cold War from "ENTERPRISE", it is a perfectly legitimate explanation for the visual changes seen in "DISCOVERY".
That and the events from "FIRST CONTACT" (in a convoluted manner), are all I need to explain the differences.
That and the events from "FIRST CONTACT" (in a convoluted manner), are all I need to explain the differences.
"Nearly identical" is not "identical."
So you are content to believe that an obvious difference indicates no change in-universe...but at the same time cannot believe that a subtle difference might be taken to indicate a greater one?
How does that make sense?
Further, you're content to believe they've visually retconned the entirety of TOS (plus "Trials and Tribble-ations" [DS9] and so on) in one great bite, without so much as a fig leaf of in-universe rationale, but not that they've retconned only the rejected pilot that went unseen by audiences—except as a Talosian illusion within a Talosian illusion—for decades? (And even when it was finally released officially, it was always with framing segments of Gene Roddenberry or Patrick Stewart frankly discussing its nature as a "television document" or early draft. That is, until it was visually reb...oh whoops, I mean "remastered"!)
All that aside, as for why two different configurations separated by more than a decade might resemble each other more closely than one falling in between them, there could be any number of reasons, but they would all be speculative, and likely deemed as inadmissable by Memory Alpha as the nitpick they would be in answer to. (And yet, there again, it would hardly be a wholly unprecedented situation in-universe.)
-MMoM
[P.S. -- if that came off as overly cranky, I apologize. I haven't had my breakfast yet.
]FC did not appear to make noticable changes in the latter 24th century.
I'm hoping the new Star Trek stays as far away from the other series as possible. I understand the "why" for pursuing a Patrick Stewart/Jean-Luc Picard project, however, it shouldn't go any farther than that. I don't want a George Takei as Admiral Sulu mini-series. I want something offensive, bold and new. I want a fresh, diverse group of young filmmakers and writers using this franchise to tell relevant stories. So please, no Enterprise.
This is a fair point and a great interpretation of the reboot imho.
We can’t deny a retcon has taken place because the visuals are different. How we interpret the retcon is the important bit.
Personally I have no problem believing that this is a previously unseen config of the Enterprise. A “war variant” or some such.
Do I like the retcon? Nope. Can I live with your take on it? Totes. Far more than I can just shrug and say “ah heck nothing that came before mattered!”
Now - to name the new variant. I’m cool with “discoprise” but how about “warterprise” because war variant?
Haven't we been through this before? Discovery just RETCONNED the look of the Enterprise. There is NO NEED for an explanation when the in-universe data has been changed from the outside.
Why do people have such a hard time understanding this simple concept?
I agree with you. I wasn't saying I wanted a reason.
I'm trying to trying to get my head around the people who think that.
Because that doesn’t work, particularly in Trek. Almost every other similar change in Trek history gets an in narrative explanation. Because it’s part of the world building since at least 1979.
It works for some and not for others, and neither side is totally unjustified in their beliefs. *shrug*
Because there are rather glaring counter-indications, both onscreen and behind the scenes, as to the conclusion of that being their definite and resigned intent. At present, they've left it so that people who want to see it that way can, but people who don't needn't. And that's a good and clever thing for them to have done. I highly doubt they will be undoing it as things move along. But we'll see.
-MMoM
Sure. Why not?
Because it makes zero sense.
Of course it works. How does it not work? You see the new design and assume that, from now on, it was always that way. Trek is no different than any other franchise in this respect.
Just like the Klingon change. It didn't need an explanation but fans became so obsessed with it that we were given one, which I find to be one of the stupidest things Trek has done.
Well, the 1979 explanation doesn't work, and even from shot-to-shot the Enterprise keeps changing, both in TOS and TNG, and also in DS9 and in the movies. The "explanations" were essentially rationalisations by the fans who couldn't just accept the change as an out-of-universe fact.
TOS yes. Tng? The four feet model is a bit Shonda comparered to the six foot, but it’s not really the same thing is it.
1979 had them writ an eighteen month refit into TMP so we knew why the ship was different.
And Trek always gets round to an in universe explanation eventually. Even DSC has said they will. Dunno if we will like it.
Makes sense to me
why would they revert to an old design?Makes sense to me
If they found it was more stable, offered a benefit previously undetected until the changes. A different type of nacelle used. Increased capacity for the hull design. I am in an industry were things are constantly being tweaked to determine the best possible design, only for it to be changed back a year later.
Firstly yes we have been through this before.
Secondly there have been explanations given for visual changes in Trek before so there’s a precedent - hence a current need.
As for your final question, if I was to hazard a guess I’d say that the apparently “simple” nature of the concept is that it is in conflict with all existing Star Trek to date in an overall general sense.
If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it.
Most any explanation would include time travel/alternate universes, which they don't want to bring up. Because it would indicate this and TOS aren't the same universe.
Similar threads
