I doubt the Enterprise will show up again after this season.
I said I remember seeing it, not exactly where. This thread has nearly 500 pages lmao.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I meant seeing it once a season until 2264.
Yeah, that's hilarious, alright. But by posting a request for a link as I did, maybe—if it exists—someone else can provide it.
I'll admit, the idea of the same "platform" having numerous wheelbases does confuse me.
I think nacelles and saucers might be the only shared components in Starfleet vessels (Enterprise & Reliant and Galaxy & Nebula being the obvious ones). And forgetting the ST09 Enterprise being built on the ground, I reckon they build them in space, section by section, then add those modular components that were built elsewhere.
We certainly build aircraft carriers much differently than long ago. Big slices are built, then brought in and welded to the previous sections, rather than a "keel up" approach.
Yes, actually.
If you look at the Enterprise as it was during the pilots, it only had a single row of windows on the saucer rim. That would fit Jeffries' idea of a ship below 300m (it might even fit within 200). Once they added a second row for the full series, the ship would have to be bigger, but for some reason everybody clings to the earlier figure.
Does no one remember or appreciate Shaw's fantastic work? His research was pretty much the end of the "it couldn't fit" conversation. The sets fit just fine as designed and sized by Jefferies.
If that's what the poster was talking about, then I must have made the "mistake" of reading his post literally.
The words "originate from" implies that 947' was the length originally given to an early design that had a saucer only 1 deck thick.
If what @Tuskin38 meant was that the length of 947 feet was assigned to a design that was originally scaled to be smaller, with the rim of the saucer (and not the entire saucer, by the way, as his post also literally indicated) one deck thick, then yes absolutely.
But this is also why I asked for a link, to clarify intent of the post.
I'm sorry, what are you refering to?
For myself, I think the sets from TOS indicate a 3m, deck-to-deck height. They're just really tall. I've done numerous measurements, admitedly from drawings, models and pictures, not the original model directly, and I can't get anywhere below 380m without the saucer rim getting extremely cramped. The issue is even worse with the TMP model. So given the choice between some figure from a behind-the-scenes document, and stuff I can see in the show, i'll choose the latter. However, I'm more than open to someone else proving me wrong with their own analysis.
First of all, if you want to have an intelligent and civilized conversation, fine. But if you decide that you're going to continue to act like an ass, then I have no desire to continue this conversation.
Second, please quote me where I ever said anything about budget, because I'm pretty sure I didn't. Again, all I said was that I would have done things differently had I been the one tasked with creating a show taking place ten years before TOS. You were the one who assumed I meant that I would make a show that looked like a Star Trek Continues fan film, which I never said. I also said nothing about recreating TOS props; that was you again making an assumption.
As for target audience? Again you seem to think that I would want a show that caters to a small demographic of people (your words, not mine) which again I never said or even hinted at. Please quote any posts I made which says this.
As for size? It doesn't matter that sizes were never mentioned on screen. I was referring to what Eaglemoss put in their book (specifically that they clearly show two radically different sizes for the same ship while at the same time not mentioning this discrepancy in the text) not what was shown on the shows. If they really felt that the TOS Enterprise was a different size than what has been generally accepted, why didn't they make the TOS and TMP Enterprise side views the same size as the DSC Enterprise?
As for what I would have done had I been in charge? Focusing solely on creating a ten-years-before-TOS prequel show (since a prequel would not have been my choice to begin with), I would have made the look of the show as close to what we saw with the U.S.S. Kelvin crew as possible. Primitive by TNG standards, but still more technologically advanced than, say, what we saw in Babylon 5 or nuBSG. I could elaborate more, but that depends on your continued behavior in this discussion. I'll just conclude by saying that perhaps you should do better at rereading other people's posts before accusing others of the same thing.
Last edited:
I think we need a forum or something for fan pitches. I know that's technically under "Fan Fiction" but I love hearing these descriptions.
Also, extremely biased as I think the USS KELVIN design is among the best prequel ideas out there.
The Kelvin looks better than almost all of the DSC starship designs. Say what one will about the JJ films but the Kelvin - at least from the outside - would definitely fit into the pre-TOS era right down to the font of the name and registry on the hull.
For myself, I don't get caught up in these mental gymnastics to make everything fit into canon, Prime Timeline, or whatever you want to call it.
This is how the Enterprise looks in this version of Star Trek. For me, it's that simple. It's OK but not great. I prefer the original, the TMP and the Kelvin Timeline versions. But it doesn't bother me that it's not a 1:1 with the Big E in the two TOS pilots.
I've also accepted—this is Star Trek now, and that was Star Trek then.
But then again, I stopped caring about canon years ago. I enjoy each show or movie for what it is rather than making all the wrong jigsaw puzzle pieces fit.
This is how the Enterprise looks in this version of Star Trek. For me, it's that simple. It's OK but not great. I prefer the original, the TMP and the Kelvin Timeline versions. But it doesn't bother me that it's not a 1:1 with the Big E in the two TOS pilots.
I've also accepted—this is Star Trek now, and that was Star Trek then.
But then again, I stopped caring about canon years ago. I enjoy each show or movie for what it is rather than making all the wrong jigsaw puzzle pieces fit.
Last edited:
It's not acting like an ass to point out that your response had nothing to do with the thing being responded to.
Sure thing:
Here you talk about production values vs a fan production. If you didn't mean budget, then you communited poorly, and/or I interpreted similarily poorly. So what did you mean, then, by production values, if not by the available funds to make something _not_ look like a fan production?
No, see, I didn't say that. I took Continues as an example of how fan productions look like they're tailored for fans rather than general audiences, and why that's bad for the franchise.
I wasn't quoting you or attributing words to you. But designs and stories by fans typically aim at something the fans would enjoy, without regard to the wider issues. Again, this is exactly what I said in that post, speaking of making assumptions.
Same reason everybody else does: because they take it at face value which, in my mind, is not justified for the reasons I've explained in this thread several times over. That doesn't contradict my argument that their figures derive from the design they made without reference to, say, Star Wars (besides, 450m is a far cry from a mile long Star Destroyer). I'm really wanting someone to show me some work showing that the Enterprise can be 300m meters long, including the window spacing, etc.
Sounds reasonable to me. I'm not sure Paramount would let CBS go too close to their own designs, however, which is a crap situation because of the split rights.
Speaking of behaviour, you're being needlessly condescending here. Attacking your arguments is not the same as attacking you.
Oh please, I've had about enough of this nonsense. I'l let the mods deal with it.
It's more enjoyable that way, I think. If I am sitting there worrying over what the Enterprise looks like from the Cage to DSC to WNMHGB then I'm not engaging the material-at all.
Yep. The classic and TMP Enterprises need to be about 400m long for the decks and rooms as they're shown on screen to make sense. Same is true for Excelsior, unless it is manned by keensers, it must be over 600 metres long. So whilst I am not a fan of the extent they redesigned the Enterpise, the new size is just the size it always should have been. And personally I trust what I can see on the screen over some non-canonical background numbers.
In terms of design aesthetics, things come and go, are on the scene very briefly or linger longer, go back and forth, get revived at a later date, etc, etc.
Here is a little something from one of my other interests. (This is not mine, just shown to illustrate a point.) :
A 1960s Ford, right?
Nope. That's a 1983 Ford Landau from Brazil.
In Brazil, the 1966 Ford Galaxie from the U.S. was retained in basic form, with quite minor styling changes, right through the 1983 model year.
I'm really not having a problem fitting the Discoprise or TMP Enterprise into the lineage. I am okay with what they have done.
2003
1950s
What's my point?
I see you took the easy way out, ignoring my points and storming out because you didn't like my tone. You read all of my post and found something that could give you an excuse to avoid discussion.
I'll be here if you ever feel like manning up and actually having that discussion.
Probably no more or less of a point than this:
1967:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Soyuz_7K-OK(A)_drawing.svg
2016:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...S.jpg/220px-Soyuz_MS-01_docked_to_the_ISS.jpg
Not to be that guy but does ship size really impact enjoyment?
Similar threads
