USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I think he was talking about visuals, mostly.

Those examples KingDaniel gave can be explained:

- Pike supposedly being sexist: Remember, in "The Cage", Pike's just coming off that fight on Rigel VII where his own yeoman and a lot of others were killed. Perhaps that yeoman was female, and Colt's presence was reminding him of that loss, which is why he's uncomfortable with having her on the bridge. (If Pike was really sexist, he wouldn't like Number One being there either.)

- The cloaking device: I assume this refers to the Klingon sarcophagus ship as we saw in DSC. There's good reasons why Spock might not know about that. It could have been classified, and/or Spock's trauma re: the Red Angels could have affected his memory.

In any case, since TOS was often inconsistent with itself, these discrepancies with DSC are not really that serious in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Belz...]

The bridge is on the underneath of the saucer, it looks like the whole ship is upside down.

Would have been nice to have found out why that particular design choice was made, whether that was an in universe choice or just a flight of fancy by the designers.

Mind you at least it makes the bridge less of a target.

Ok I thought you were talking about Enterprise.

Anyway I don't dislike the underslung bridge. It's different.

 

[Belz...]

Those examples KingDaniel gave can be explained:

- Pike supposedly being sexist: Remember, in "The Cage", Pike's just coming off that fight on Rigel VII where his own yeoman and a lot of others were killed. Perhaps that yeoman was female, and Colt's presence was reminding him of that loss, which is why he's uncomfortable with having her on the bridge. (If Pike was really sexist, he wouldn't like Number One being there either.)

- The cloaking device: I assume this refers to the Klingon sarcophagus ship as we saw in DSC. There's good reasons why Spock might not know about that. It could have been classified, and/or Spock's trauma re: the Red Angels could have affected his memory.

In any case, since TOS was often inconsistent with itself, these discrepancies with DSC are not really that serious in the grand scheme of things.

Hummm.. Pike did say he wasn't used to have a woman on the bridge. I assume the previous yeoman was male.

As for the cloaking device, that's one of the most egregious continuity problems in Star Trek. ENT made the same mistake. At some point the tech must be known by TOS. Section 31 now have a cloaked ship, a decade before Kirk steals a Romulan device.

 

[fireproof78]

Because it means you basically give up trying to reconcile it with the previous Trek, which is kind of a chore given the lackadaisical attitude to the continuity this show has embraced.

If one finds it a chore then by all means go for it. I do not.

Plus, the only reason to call it a reboot is specifically to avoid "polluting" the original franchise with the new stuff, because one doesn't fully enjoy that new stuff. I admit that I watched ENT as a reboot in order to avoid getting annoyed at the continuity issues, but it's still prime canon, whether I like it or not.

I may not have liked ENT but I had no problem with it in continuity,

Here's a thought:

When watching DSC, imagine that the TOS to come will happen just like we orginally saw, but looking like DSC makes things look.

And when watching TOS, imagine DSC happening exactly like we're seeing now, but with a TOS aesthetic.

The events are independent of the visuals.

This!

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think he was talking about visuals, mostly.

And I was pointing out that the discrepancies go far further than just visuals.

Those examples KingDaniel gave can be explained:

- Pike supposedly being sexist: Remember, in "The Cage", Pike's just coming off that fight on Rigel VII where his own yeoman and a lot of others were killed. Perhaps that yeoman was female, and Colt's presence was reminding him of that loss, which is why he's uncomfortable with having her on the bridge. (If Pike was really sexist, he wouldn't like Number One being there either.)

Number One is "different". And no, you don;t suddenly decide you can;t get used to women on the bridge for a short while because of a violent battle. TOS as a whole is very sexist, Discovery far less so. They don't fit, because the attitudes of the characters are so different. Can you see Pike holding Tilly tight as Kirk did Rand when danger was coming in TOS? Or Michael saying, "I'm scared, Captain!"

It's painful. In TOS, it's just part of the 60's universe which we accept as a product of it's time. Including that as part of 2019's Discovery drags the whole thing down.

- The cloaking device: I assume this refers to the Klingon sarcophagus ship as we saw in DSC. There's good reasons why Spock might not know about that. It could have been classified, and/or Spock's trauma re: the Red Angels could have affected his memory.

I refer to the majority of the Klingon fleet, which was equipped with cloaking devices by Kol. And Spock, the walking encyclopedia, would not forget that.

In any case, since TOS was often inconsistent with itself, these discrepancies with DSC are not really that serious in the grand scheme of things.

We expect more of our fiction now. TOS was made with the expectation they'd be watched once and forgotten. But we live in a world where shows are expected to be rewatched and binge-watched. We have resources at our fingertips to keep things consistent like they never had back then. The only reason things aren't consistent is because they're not trying.

 

[Belz...]

I may not have liked ENT but I had no problem with it in continuity

One example: Ferengi, and very, very early Klingons. Two examples, actually.

And I was pointing out that the discrepancies go far further than just visuals.

I don't disagree with you. Just clarifying how I understood his comment.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

And no, you don't suddenly decide you can't get used to women on the bridge for a short while because of a violent battle.

That's easy for you to say, because you have never been in a violent battle.

 

[F. King Daniel]

That's easy for you to say, because you have never been in a violent battle.

I know people who have and although the incidents had lasting repercussions, they didn't suddenly want women off their bridge.

 

[Gonzo]

Ok I thought you were talking about Enterprise.

Anyway I don't dislike the underslung bridge. It's different.

Oh no the Enterprise NX01 is fine.

Its definitely different and its not exactly that I dislike it, I just don't see the point of it, no other ships would ever use it again which makes me think its a failed experiment, if it was a success other ships would be using the same approach.

 

[Belz...]

Oh no the Enterprise NX01 is fine.

I meant Enterprise from Discovery.

 

[TrickyDickie]

Pike holding Tilly tight

 

[Dukhat]

JJprise is also very 50's, it's just inspired by muscle cars in a rather wholesale way. It's also very anachronistic. It's a 2000's take on 50's design, which unless you're careful can come off cartoonish. They,IMO, weren't that careful (or it's a deliberate attempt to be fantastical) so the massing ends up like a cartoon.

Details on the JJprise were otherwise cribbed from other Enterprises, all of which came from different design eras and therefore the assembled whole looks kinda kitschy and postmodern. Which is inline with how those movies treated the source material, for better and worse.

The main problem with the Abramsprise is that its proportions are all wrong. It’s like it was designed by three different people; one guy was given the saucer to design (and just shamelessly copied 90% of the TMP saucer), one guy was given the secondary hull, and one guy was given the nacelles and pylons. But each guy didn’t know what the other guy was doing until someone else fit all the parts together. ( And before anyone yells at me, yes I’m aware that the ship was designed by one guy, Ryan Church.) And to make matters worse, nobody even knew just how big the damn thing was supposed to be, so we have contradictory sizes for the ship in the same film.

 

[Belz...]

The main problem with the Abramsprise is that its proportions are all wrong.

I've got no problems with the proportions per se but I can see why it would bother some people, and in fact from certain angles you can see how tiny the engineering section is. The 1701-A from Beyond solves some of the proportion issues but also runs into weird shapes that make it awkward under some other angles. Neither of them are perfect but I do like them, although now it seems we'll never see either of them ever again.

It’s like it was designed by three different people; one guy was given the saucer to design (and just shamelessly copied 90% of the TMP saucer), one guy was given the secondary hull, and one guy was given the nacelles and pylons. But each guy didn’t know what the other guy was doing until someone else fit all the parts together.

Actually it was all designed by Ryan Church--

( And before anyone yells at me, yes I’m aware that the ship was designed by one guy, Ryan Church.)

DAMMIT!

 

[fireproof78]

One example: Ferengi, and very, very early Klingons. Two examples, actually.

Never mind. You are correct and I hate ENT all over again

However, from a visuals standpoint I do not mind.

I know people who have and although the incidents had lasting repercussions, they didn't suddenly want women off their bridge.

Trauma impacts people in different ways. Just sayin'

 

[Gonzo]

I meant Enterprise from Discovery.

That escalated quickly didn't it.

 

[Ronald Held]

Bad enough the DSC ships don't seem to look preTOS. Why any NX-01 design features in the 2250's? Same with the Discoprise, with the addition of some TMP features decade+ in the future?

 

[fireproof78]

Bad enough the DSC ships don't seem to look preTOS. Why any NX-01 design features in the 2250's? Same with the Discoprise, with the addition of some TMP features decade+ in the future?

Just like my office doesn't use fax machines any more...wait.

Technologies do not just spring from nowhere nor did they disappear overnight.

 

[Belz...]

Bad enough the DSC ships don't seem to look preTOS. Why any NX-01 design features in the 2250's? Same with the Discoprise, with the addition of some TMP features decade+ in the future?

Design cycles? We know the 2260s will look like the 1960s.

 

[Tuskin38]

Section 31 now have a cloaked ship, a decade before Kirk steals a Romulan device.

Their cloak doesn't seem to work like the Romulan and Klingon cloaks though. If you look carefully the hull panelling is changing colour or something, it isn't being surrounded by an invisibility field like we've seen Klingon/Romulan cloaks do, or even Federation cloaks in TNG (The Pegasus)

It looks like a completely different tech. It looks more like what the Helicarrier does in Marvel films, or James Bond's car in 'Die Another Day'

 

[cooleddie74]

Longinus isn't completely wrong. The Shenzhou is(mostly)better-looking than the Discovery. Her nacelles may be a weird shape but she has a very NX-class feel to her that hints that the designers of the Walker-class starship may have looked at Archer's Enterprise and other NX-class vessels of the previous century as more than just a passing influence on how their own starship would look. The ship would be a lot better-looking with cylindrical or at least less jagged nacelles but there are echoes of previous Starfleet designs in her lines and overall shape.