Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by EJD1984, Jul 24, 2017.
some screen caps of the enterprise in the new short trek "the trouble with edward":
I'm not a huge fan of Eaves' updates. I like it enough... but it suffers from a lot of Eaves design indulgences. That being said, the opening shot here is gorgeous, the best shot of the new-old Enterprise.
In the Star Trek: Next Generation Technical Manual, it is mentioned that the Bridge module is replaceable. Memory Alpha also says bridge modules are replaceable: https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bridge#Background_information_2 although I don't know where the canon source is for this (it's not listed in the article).
So how come many are insisting the Cage bridge and Discovery Enterprise bridge are the same bridge? The module explanation was provided decades ago to explain changing bridges, how come fewer people seem to accept it now? If the module explanation worked before, logic would indicate it would work in this instance too. That's the entire reason the explanation was created to begin with.
There isn't one.
Then why is it still on Memory Alpha if it isn't canon? The article outright says: "Most bridges on Starfleet vessels were replaceable modules, so that adaptation for special missions or upgrading was expedited." And in the main article body, not the background info section.
Tall Bridge (both TOS pilots) --> Shorter Bridge (TOS Series). It's because they changed the Enterprise Model, and the fans wanted an in-universe explanation.
Spock must have done a Spock walk on top of the Enterprise bridge after the pilots and jumped up and down real hard.
Works for me. Modular impulse decks would also explain the impulse vents on the DSC and then later TOS Enterprises as I could imagine that impulse reactors could be made to slide in and out of a starship hull and integrate pretty quickly into that vessel's engineering network once plugged into position.
Huh.. Didn't the Disco Enterprise have... Running Lights..?? Somebody forget to put them on Automatic again?? ( Happens to me to much! Wonder if they didn't hear the Ding Ding Ding when they took keys out..)
And the Cabot? Guess its painted black.. and the lights turned to 13.. Crew must have a nice suntan..
And the ships are in the sun in the final shots.. but still dark.. Man I don't like the VFX people.. Grr..
So they built the Enterprise as seen in "Q&A"
Changed the bridge, uniforms, corridors, pylons, neck, shrunk it all down and more for "The Cage"
Changed it all back exactly the way it was for Discovery season 2.
Changed it all back again for TOS.
Is there any real-life precedent for this kind of thing? Because it sounds beyond preposterous to me. IMO they're just 2 versions of TOS' world.
I just imagine that the DSC Enterprise is the TOS Pilot Enterprise and just try to ignore the shitty updates that make no sense or don't look right.
For the same reason they "insist" that Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis both played Saavik.
Recasting characters is routine. I don't see this as anything different. In this case it's the bridge that has been recast.
So just as you can imagine Saavik as always looking either like Alley or Curtis, you can do the same with the Enterprise bridge. Me, I have absolutely NO problem imagining that the bridge always looked like it did in DSC. (Looks a hell of a sight better than the TOS one, I tell you what.)
The way I see it:
That was what Trek looked like then. This is what Trek looks like now.
I try not to complicate my fandom anymore than I need to.
So are you saying Kang, Koloth, and Kor had ridges in TOS? Because they had ridges in DS9, and no canon source has ever said the Augment virus is cured. Therefore, going by your reasoning in your post, you presumably feel Kang, Kor, and Koloth had ridges in TOS?
I like to quote Holmes (and Spock used this line in Star Trek 6): When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.
In the context of a fictional universe (ignoring the cast changes of course), then yes, improbable as it is, the bridge was changed around in a short period of time.
When the EU was canon in Star Wars, the official explanation was that Boba Fett fell into the sarlacc 3 times!
Gene Roddenberry once suggested that the Klingons always had ridges.
I wouldn't go quite that far, though. ENT established that cranial reconstruction would be available for smooth-forehead Klingons, so that's what I think happened with Kor, Kang and Koloth.
So why am I being inconsistent here? Because I can.
Hey, at least you're being honest about your inconsistency, and I appreciate that.
we tend to focus so much on the exterior (slash continuity implications), but here's a shot from the short trek showing the enterprise transporter (redress of discovery's transporter):
i'm liking the simplified console design.
For me, different timeline is the least complicated explanation. It kills the need for “what did the Enterprise look like at this point of TOS?” discussions.
They are separate timelines where the broad strokes remain relatively similar.
I like the overall look, but I do wish the control panel were angled upward. That just looks miserable to use standing up.
This is the so called "Prime" Timeline. What is the original Star Trek is the "Alpha" Timeline.
The "Kelvin" Timeline was born out of the Prime timeline, not the Alpha Timeline.
I know that is the first thing that hit me. Why couldn't they have at least gave a nod back to the more functional slanted panel. How difficult for that poor transporter chief. Red Shirts always get the shite end of the stick.
Separate names with a comma.