USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Markonian]

If you ascribe to Trek's age old policy of "what happens on screen, is canon", then like @RedDwarf said, the evolutionary history of the Constitution class is now something like this:

It's getting silly, but for those of us who grew up with the Encyclopedia, or the many people who construct models and love the starship aspect of fandom, I guess it's not impossible they are the same design being refit several times, even if highly implausible by today's standard.

For those here who don't know, there was already a difference between Pike's Enterprise and Kirk's, which we generally attribute to a refit. I guess maybe it underwent another one in between.

Thank you for the composition of styles. I’ve been waiting for somebody to manage one.

And, yup, I’m perfectly fine with that refit history. The ship is modular, so the entire saucer or engineering hull may have been swapped a few times. In STO, you can do that at every major shipyard. In the novels - ST: Department of Temporally Investigations: Book 2: Forgotten History - the 1701’s engine assembly are grafted into another ship during the refit of 2270-73. nacelles, pylons warp core and all.

 

[Q2UnME]

I guess they needed to change the Enterprise so they can sell it to me for the umpteenth time!

Hey, I resemble that remark ....

 

[Tuskin38]

I don't vouch for the provenance of that.

It looks about 90 percent right. There are obvious differences.

This could be completely fan work. it could be a design that was further revised.

If it's fan work, it was done quickly and with quite a bit of skill. In some respects this is more interesting than what was shown.

You could try following the link on the watermark.

 

[PixelMagic]

if the producers had been up front and said, "Well, we're re imagining some of the look..."

They did. They said exactly that.

but if you'rte going to show a ship from that time and claim it's not a reboot, said ship[ SHOULD LOOK LIKE IT DID on the screen during that time (as was the case with DS9 - "Trials and Tribble-ations" and ENT - "In a Mirror Darkly".

Fans have taken it upon themselves to decide how things look fall into the definition of canon, but it does not. Even according to the official Star Trek website, canon is the People, events, stories, and timeline. Not the look of anything.

ST: D is a reboot, I have zero issue with the design.

It's isn't.

 

[BillJ]

Visual aesthetics are not Canon.

What exactly is canon? Is DNA canon? Is computers that need the mothership canon? Are Klingons that can speak fluent Klingon canon? Please, let me know...

 

[BillJ]

Even according to the official Star Trek website, canon is the People, events, stories, and timeline.

So women mostly hiding behind men in less than eight years is canon? Respected women being referred to as "girls" is canon? All the bad science of TOS is canon?

Cloaking devices being a new thing in TOS sure in the Hell isn't canon now...

 

[Butters]

I like it. For the first time in, like, maybe, twenty five years, I might consider buying a Star Trek kit.

What year are we up to? Is there time for a five year mission before Kirk takes command? The finale could have a handover to a CGI Shatner, before a second remaster of the original series to swap in the new Emterprise.

 

[DigificWriter]

What exactly is canon? Is DNA canon? Is computers that need the mothership canon? Are Klingons that can speak fluent Klingon canon? Please, let me know...

I'm not sure if this is a serious question, but I'm going to respond anyway. For Star Trek, the Canon comprises anything that is shown onscreen via film and/or television.

Before somebody goes "that means visual aesthetics ARE Canon", let me stop you: the reason visual aesthetics aren't Canon is because there's never been a single unified visual aesthetic in the entire history of the Trek franchise.

 

[Mudd]

So women mostly hiding behind men in less than eight years is canon? Respected women being referred to as "girls" is canon? All the bad science of TOS is canon?

Well "canon" never means "consistent and sensible." There are half-century old entries in the canon that are, well, half a century old. And they don't fit with contemporary portrayals of the same setting and characters.

There is no way to resolve such contradictions that's meaningful or, IMO, worth the effort that could be expended on other time-binding pursuits like Suduko (which I also don't do).

Just accept that they exist as contradictions within canon.

Now, why as Trek ages and television becomes more sophisticated the stories must become more simpleminded and disposable rather than more ambitious - well, there's not a good answer to that.

 

[BillJ]

Before somebody goes "that means visual aesthetics ARE Canon", let me stop you: the reason visual aesthetics aren't Canon is because there's never been a single unified visual aesthetic in the entire history of the Trek franchise.

There was a single unified visual aesthetic for the mid-23rd century. As seen in Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise. Care to try again?

Even the film Star Trek: Generations has a picture of Kirk's 1701 hanging on the wall of his cabin in the Nexus.

 

[BillJ]

Just accept that they exist as contradictions within canon.

Or, it's a reboot.

 

[XCV330]

This thread has been a real eye opener. Will Enterprise-D ever suffer this same level of revulsion? Maybe in twenty years.

It may take 20 years for 1701-D to NOT look dated. Right now those nacelles look like they got pulled off the sides of a galaxy hopping 86 Ford Taurus. but I never liked D anyway. I first saw it in a Starlog before the show premiered and I just didn't think it looked very good. I don't hate it. I don't experience revulsion for it. But I was glad when the 1701-E design came out.

 

[DigificWriter]

There was a single unified visual aesthetic for the mid-23rd century. As seen in Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Enterprise.

Nope.

 

[Tuskin38]

I like it. For the first time in, like, maybe, twenty five years, I might consider buying a Star Trek kit.

What year are we up to? Is there time for a five year mission before Kirk takes command? The finale could have a handover to a CGI Shatner, before a second remaster of the original series to swap in the new Emterprise.

9 years before Kirk now.

 

[Tuskin38]

Nope.

You're wrong. TOS has been consistent in previous series.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Clearly Kurtzman and co don't believe it is a different universe, irrelevant of what a few fans do, they are insistent this is not a reboot.

 

[Tomalak]

Sounds almost like you're saying TOS isn't the Prime Universe

My standpoint isn't that CBS won't always say it's prime and market it as such (I did a poll months ago, 10% of whom said they'd cancel their subscriptions if the TPTB said it wasn't prime, and they want to keep every subscriber they can get), just that common sense says it obviously "really" isn't.

It's only a small minority of fans who really care about prime or reboot anyway, and only 10% of those responding to an online poll said they would cancel. Would they really? It must be a few dozen people worldwide for whom it would actually make a difference. I really don't think that would factor into the decision making process!

 

[BillJ]

It may take 20 years for 1701-D to NOT look dated. Right now those nacelles look like they got pulled off the sides of a galaxy hopping 86 Ford Taurus. but I never liked D anyway. I first saw it in a Starlog before the show premiered and I just didn't think it looked very good. I don't hate it. I don't experience revulsion for it. But I was glad when the 1701-E design came out.

I'm the exact opposite. Love the "D", hate the "E". The "E" is just so uninspired in its design.

 

[XCV330]

I'm the exact opposite. Love the "D", hate the "E". The "E" is just so uninspired in its design.

And that's ok. there are a lot of letters in the alphabet.

 

[BillJ]

Nope.

So what exactly wasn't unified about it? You're making the claim. Back it up.