USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Because military=war=evil and we can't have that in the idealistic future of Star Trek.Yeah some are ok about it being military and some are not.
Every few months the whole issue gets rehashed out yet again.
My thoughts are it is a military because it needs to be, not because it wants to be.
Think of the Enterprise NX01, its weapons were piss poor and barely functional when it was first launched, it didn't take long for Starfleet to learn that lesson and arm it appropriately.
Reality will always defeat idealism sooner or later I am sad to say, some truths are universal and at those times Star Trek is at its most realistic and believable.
Even mentioning this stuff triggers some members really badly.
OK, I've read the Facebook thread now. And a comment from one Dave Combe jumped out at me:
"Gabe [Koerner] has a point when saying CBS are free to pump out models of [the TOS Enterprise] for Toys, comics and games etc, but when it comes to a TV show it's out of the question.
That leaves me to assume its someone not playing ball. I'm going to assume its the same someone who wanted to shitcan all pre [Star Trek 2009] consumer products in order to make it all about the new universe, then when CBS said fuck no decided not to play ball with their plans and stall[ed] production of [Star Trek Into Darkness] for 4 years.
Honestly, if they signed an agreement to make movies based off TOS AND they wanted to make TV shows too, I'm going to assume Bad Robot got the movie and TV rights to the TOS [Enterprise] design for x amount of years as part of their contract with Paramount/CBS. It's honestly the only thing I can think of that makes sense."
IOW, do we have JJ Abrams to thank for the forced visual reboot of the pre-TOS universe?
"Gabe [Koerner] has a point when saying CBS are free to pump out models of [the TOS Enterprise] for Toys, comics and games etc, but when it comes to a TV show it's out of the question.
That leaves me to assume its someone not playing ball. I'm going to assume its the same someone who wanted to shitcan all pre [Star Trek 2009] consumer products in order to make it all about the new universe, then when CBS said fuck no decided not to play ball with their plans and stall[ed] production of [Star Trek Into Darkness] for 4 years.
Honestly, if they signed an agreement to make movies based off TOS AND they wanted to make TV shows too, I'm going to assume Bad Robot got the movie and TV rights to the TOS [Enterprise] design for x amount of years as part of their contract with Paramount/CBS. It's honestly the only thing I can think of that makes sense."
IOW, do we have JJ Abrams to thank for the forced visual reboot of the pre-TOS universe?
I think the copyright being complicated by licensing for merchandise is one plausible explanation. I cant really see both being wrong that they have to change the design for legal reasons though. Its very likely that they don't have the full picture, all they know is that legal reasons have blocked them from doing so. Other designers that went for interviews were told no cylinder nacelles on ships. So that fits.
Into Darkness did have a TOS style Connie in Marcus' office in a deleted scene.
Graphics of the TOS phaser and communicator that are 100% TOS were in the opening credits of season one, so color me skeptical that the 25% different thing for the 1701 is precisely a legal requirement for the ship to be present on the show. Perhaps the intent is t to avoid paying someone or some entity some fee at some point in the pipeline, e.g. as speculated upthread for licensing, royalties, or whatever, even if for toys, replicas, etc., and the 25% different is the legal threshold to achieve that goal.
G
Gonzo
Guest
It would be so simple if the issue and answer was as black and white as that.
Alas it is not.
Well, that's the point. But that often appears to be the logic, flawed though it may be.It would be so simple if the issue and answer was as black and white as that.
Alas it is not.
Here are couple a comments on the design
Scott Schneider - "...We had straight pylons. We never considered the swept because we felt it would be jumping forward in time for one element. Having said that there are elements of the refit design that really should have been in the original such as an airlock/docking port. I also added hatches to the bottom of the saucer that slide open to reveal additional airlocks. These werent added so much as copying the refit but rather that they just make sense as a functioning ship. I like to approach things from the standpoint of practical application"
Also John Eaves gave explanation for the split in the struts:
John Eaves - "...we split the struts so in time the cooling vent side could be removed to make it more like the Original TOS strut."
Scott Schneider - "...We had straight pylons. We never considered the swept because we felt it would be jumping forward in time for one element. Having said that there are elements of the refit design that really should have been in the original such as an airlock/docking port. I also added hatches to the bottom of the saucer that slide open to reveal additional airlocks. These werent added so much as copying the refit but rather that they just make sense as a functioning ship. I like to approach things from the standpoint of practical application"
Also John Eaves gave explanation for the split in the struts:
John Eaves - "...we split the struts so in time the cooling vent side could be removed to make it more like the Original TOS strut."
Last edited:
The word "clusterfuck" comes to mind for some reason....
On the other hand, at least someone knew what they were doing.
I cannot either. Can the entire conversation be PMed to me, if it is not allowed to post it all, here?
Scott also said in another comment that he designed a 'fail safe' for the view screen window, didn't expand on it though.
Eh? You mean between the two of them, or them and the production team?
Scott and John designed the ship together, along with a third person.
That could be the case - originally he was going to blow up the TOS Enterprise with April on it instead of the Kelvin, from what I have heard..... which implies the movie reboots DID have rights to the ship.... FML.
Last edited:
I mean overall. The swept pylons were a mistake (IMO). Putting holes in them is just incredibly wonky (IMO).
At least it shows they were thinking about how it could possibly turn into the TOS Enterprise.
Though it also shows that they were ignoring 'The Cage' Enterprise.
Yep.
That is so strange. I wonder how that works. I thought CBS owned the whole deal, except the Kelvin movies.
Nonsense. As we've seen, they can make the TOS stuff as different as they want; a visual reboot. Nothing's stopping them.
And that's the issue with being too obsessed with canon.
For just at home, sure. But in a work environment you might need eight set to an existing page, app, or any assorted function, instruction, or literature so you can reference and function without having to load new screens, change apps, or cycle pages to get what you need..
At my own workplace, if we can get our hand on two Androids we have one set up to process outgoing product with an Bluetooth printer for labels while the other one is setup to identify and scan incoming orders. If we had a third we would have of setup to look up inventory.
Similar threads
