Obviously YMMV, because things like that annoy me. Every time. I understand that fiction is not real as well, of course... but I want to be able to maintain my suspension of disbelief while I'm reading or watching it. A Watsonian explanation is almost always preferable to a Doyleist explanation.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
IDIC, but for me my suspension of disbelief is NEVER so deep that I am not aware of the real world influences on a show. Heck, my favorite game in the world with my wife is "What is that guy doing here?" ie, when watching the plane scene in The Dark Knight Rises, "Good Lord dear, when did Littlefinger join the CIA?!?"
When they are constantly changing things, it crushes my suspension of disbelief. Everyone's mileage will vary.
Which is worse in the canonical scheme of things: the changed look of the 1701 or massive scaled up?
The scale. The scale idea is just laughably annoying. The external appearance can always be explained by periodic refits and overhauls of major propulsion and other systems. The size of the ship can't unless we lazily retcon the NCC-1701 to always be twice as big as she was portrayed.
Still not sure what this means. Can I expect something magical?
The supposed upscaling thing alludes me. It looks like a big ship, as it always has been. It doesn't look bigger or smaller to me.
It means maybe I can make it happen.
Forget previous Enterprise. Compare it to BSG!
Even this I don't even notice in the Abrams films. Unless we get a side by side example in the actual film it looks more or less the same size.
It's true, mileage will vary. But there's also a kind of calculation to this question that showrunners have to consider in terms of an aggregate of viewers: for some viewers, visual changes like this create suspension of disbelief issues. Additionally, for some viewers, the appearance of things like the TOS Enterprise model, its sets, etc., create suspension of disbelief issues. And so, when you're making a show like this--that's operating in very close to the same fictional period as something that had its production design done in 1966--you've got to make a decision about which of these two factors is going to mess with more viewers' sense of immersion.
You're goddamn right I did!!
For God's sake, they gave us 2 Darrens in Bewitched and just expected us to take it. But Dick York is no Dick Sargent! They wanted him to be but he wasn't! And Dick Sargent gave up his health to bring us together with laughter! He was a saint I tell you, a saint!
Forget previous Enterprise. Compare it to BSG!
I thought we were talking about the Enterprise in Discovery?
(also they got the TMP version wrong. It's 305 meters long.)
You can clearly see that it's bigger in the first scene where the shuttles enter the shuttlebay. It's a lot bigger.
Yeah same, never notice these things. I only knew the Kelvin E was bigger when I saw someone complaining about it on this forum. Everything's in proportion to each other in the films so they all looked the same to me. Same with Discovery - the 1701 is similar scale on screen to the Discovery herself, so my mind just registers approximately similar sized ships. Their actual size never registers.
The Kelvin E always looked absolutely gigantic to me, from the shuttlebay to the bridge window down to the way it's shot. The shuttle flyover of the saucer alone convinces me that the saucer alone is almost as long as the TOS E. I've never understood how people can argue to the contrary.
I think you got your Dicks back to front.
G
Gonzo
Guest
Yeah as soon as I saw the shuttle bay with all the stacked shuttles it was blindingly obvious the ship was bloody huge and all the better for it.
We got some great internal action sequences which would not have been possible in a ship the same size as the original, they did a great job.
That's not the correct curvature for the Death Star in scale. Over a thousand Corellian corvettes wide? No freaking way according to that figure.
Forget previous Enterprise. Compare it to BSG!
Similar threads
