USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
That model isn't in the Smithsonian because it's aesthetically superior. It's there because it was first. And because it was first, it's also primitive and not really fitting with what the franchise developed into. For those reasons, it's never showing up on TV or movies again.
Again, for emphasis, the TOSprise has been replaced. Twice now. Really, thrice, but originalists have convinced themselves that you can plausibly convert the TOS ship into the TMP one. That's never made a lot of sense.
Now there's people trying justify The Cage Big-E is turned into the Discovery E and then back into the TOS E and then the TMP. Madness.
Last edited:
The TOS production model is in the Smithsonian because of the historical significance of Star Trek, as a prominent if not prime example of imagination and fantasizing influencing dreams and realities of people involved in the field of aerospace. Design aesthetics that influenced the creation of the model are a factor, because among numerous other factors no doubt on some level those aesthetics contributed to the show's historical significance, but they are not a primary factor in why the model is on display there.
Stipulated: the most significant (possibly only significant) life event to happen to James Bond across two dozen movies was that he got married, and then his wife got fridged... so it's no surprise that later films have occasionally mentioned this.
That is very different from saying the film series has ever had a "coherent big-picture continuity," as I put it earlier, in a sense even remotely like that of Star Trek. Which was the whole point to begin with.
Fine and dandy. Not like they could deny it: it was obviously a reboot, since it literally told the story of the beginning of Bond's career as 007. But what does "official" have to do with the price of tea in China?
Damn it! If only other Bond fans had thought of watching the films! Can't imagine how that possibility slipped by everybody. Obviously no one is as perceptive as you, otherwise the answers to any continuity questions would all be self-evident!
But seriously. Ask ten different Bond fans about how to make sense of the character's history, and you'll get twelve different answers. There is no obvious solution. Continuity is an intersubjective construct, all the more so when the franchise's creators obviously don't give a hoot in hell about it. Why do you object to that so strenuously?
(Personally I think Bond films should be done as period pieces, as the character just doesn't really fit well outside of a Cold War setting. But hey, the producers never asked me...)
It's useful in a forum like this to convey why it is you like or dislike something, otherwise there isn't much of a discussion to be had, is there?
It seems like you aren't interseted in doing more here than flame-baiting.
Disagreed. The Enterprise was very distinctive for its time and has become iconic multiple times over. Even by the time of TMP the ship's outline had become a pop-culture icon which is why the TMP refit reveal became this monumental "event".
It was not just a crappy throwaway design that people "tolerated" because it just happened to be part of Trek.
The reason why the Kelvin design sucks is it violates the outline. This new Discovery Enterprise stays close enough.
Okay days later I officially hate those bifurcated nacelle pylons. And the red spinners at the front of the nacelles look shit, they're the NX-01 ones with none of the awesome internal movement of the TOS or even Kelvin ones. And I dislike the blue warp nacelles/red bussard combo which we got endlessly in the Berman era.
Otherwise it's fine but uninspired, and I prefer the fan version I posted earlier (and has been by phone wallpaper for about 2 years now)
Otherwise it's fine but uninspired, and I prefer the fan version I posted earlier (and has been by phone wallpaper for about 2 years now)
Where's the thread where people are arguing that Sarek had cosmetic surgery to look like the first Romulan Commander at some point between DSC and TOS?
You can disagree, but it will not change reality. It does not hang there because of its look, but because its the ship from Star Trek. It is because of star trek and its cultural impact that it is displayed, not because of the design aesthetics of the model.
You don't get to interpret entertainment, you can only follow what the suits tell you. You can get nothing out of it that wasn't intended by The Powers That Be.
We're all just morons.
In other words,
Madman is. I'm sure his version will be pretty cool.
OK - Who's working on the 3D render?
Also, has anyone noticed what appears to be a secondary shuttle bay between the impluse engines?
*I now want to see a new series on this Enterprise.
Madman is. I'm sure his version will be pretty cool.
IOW, you made an error in assessing the available information to form your personal opinion.
No. By your own admission you neglected some facts in forming your personal opinion. That personal opinion wasn't particularly well-formed or expressed to begin with, and it's even less persuasive now.
After looking again today, I agree
Please do not presume my intent. It was a genuine question as to why that is a standard that must be adhered to.
Now, if it is a standard to aspire towards, that is one thing. Certainly we would all like our achievements to be enshrined thus. But, if the reason something cannot be changed is because it won't end up in a museum, I find that odd and not appropriate for trying to craft entertainment.
I don't dislike the TOS Enterprise. I think it is a fantastic design. I don't have an issue with changes to it either.
Useful morons, but morons nonetheless
License to Kill WAS his second film. His first was The Living Daylights, with theme song by a-ha. Based upon Ian Fleming's short story of the same title, first published in 1962.
@Serveaux Whether or not the pre-Craig Bond films form a single Shared Continuity is not my "personal opinion"; it's the official status of that portion of the franchise as per the Brocollis, and is demonstrated by the content of the films themselves.
You have a rather weird habit of dismissing any instance in which it is pointed out that your own viewpoints differ from factual reality as simply being "personal opinion".
You have a rather weird habit of dismissing any instance in which it is pointed out that your own viewpoints differ from factual reality as simply being "personal opinion".
To be fair, though, the Kelvin looks far more like a TOS starship than any Starfleet vessel we've ever seen in DSC with the sole exception of the Enterprise. There are things about the Kelvin I'd change in a heartbeat but I like her overall design.
She's a believable evolutionary midpoint between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701. I could see Starfleet designers around 2210 blueprinting a ship like the Kelvin.
We are thinking the same thing
The original model nacelles effect had diff pinks, silvers, oranges, greens
They were never spinning solid orange, that was the cbs remastered interpretation
As I also pointed out it’s missing a dome and it looks a little goofy without it
Fix those two things and we’re good
Colony ship.Just a bit smaller!
We do know it had at least 800 people aboard at the time of the Narada incident. That IS a pretty big crew complement for an early 23rd century Starfleet vessel so maybe it did have colonization duties that the 2009 film never mentioned onscreen.
Similar threads
