USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[ITDUDE]

Here's her cousin:

Poke some holes in the hood and they could sell it as a 2018.

I like this one better:

1982 Chevy Celebrity. The car in which I learned how to drive. It's nice to know they are still around. You always remember your first.
If they made this exact car, same shape, same look, with latest technology inside, I would definitely consider buying it. Something about this design that just works, even 35 years later.

 

[Mudd]

Wasn't long ago when the Discovery design was widely considered a grotesque historical novelty. If it's modern, it is so solely in the sense that we haven't seen it on screen for very long.

Well, rather than continually saying that the Discoprise is supposed to be "modern" perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's intended to be novel or different. It's not really that, either, but it makes more sense.

 

[Jesse1066]

I like this one better:

1982 Chevy Celebrity. The car in which I learned how to drive. It's nice to know they are still around. You always remember your first.
If they made this exact car, same shape, same look, with latest technology inside, I would definitely consider buying it. Something about this design that just works, even 35 years later.

I guess I feel the same way about the 1995 Accord.

 

[Jadeb]

Well, rather than continually saying that the Discoprise is supposed to be "modern" perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's intended to be novel or different. It's not really that, either, but it makes more sense.

Which probably points up the futility of a 50+-year-old franchise constantly trying to satisfy an unending demand for novelty while dragging all of its historical baggage with it.

 

[cooleddie74]

The Enterprise was fine the way she was after DS9 and the way the Defiant was depicted in ENT. Is there really a legal copyright reason why they had to change her for DSC? Maybe, maybe not. Frankly I'm not one to blindly believe a corporate line about most things. But whether or not changes were mandatory and nobody had a choice in the matter (other than not to use her on the show, which, let's face it, was never going to happen in a new series set 10 years before TOS and during the time of Christopher Pike) the fact remains she didn't need to be changed to any radical degree. "Need" implies that the creators had no choice in the matter or that not changing the ship would have resulted in a defection of a significant chunk of the DSC audience because of the way one vessel looks, which would tell you a lot about the people watching the series if they'd react that negatively about the way the most famous and iconic ship in the franchise looks on a 2018 television screen.

If a 2018 audience can't accept an enhanced and more greatly detailed 1968 Enterprise with more surface texturing then maybe they're not the kind of audience the series should want. If an audience is that fickle about everything having to look "sexy" and "modern" then I doubt they were watching primarily for the stories to begin with.

And I say all that as somebody who's generally fine with the DSC Enterprise, at least externally.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

I would have been more happy with this. Good old TOS E with modern detailing. What a beaut.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Wait a second. I'm not sure we ought to conflate the "general audience/fan" dichotomy and the "old design/new design" dichotomy. Can't someone be a TOS fan and nevertheless think that the TOS designs look dated and shouldn't be re-used in a 2017 series?

Neither any such dichotomy nor such conflation was the topic of my post. I was simply attempting to show that the premise being advocated by various posters in thread (for example, as expressed on the previous page from my post by @Belz..., quoted below) would imply that TPTB weren't really making rational decisions. In other words, if you assume that TPTB are making rational decisions, then the Discoprise doesn't look the way it does because the original from TOS looks dated to general audiences. There would have to be some other reason (one possibility already raised upthread: a new line of merchandise).

As to your question about TOS fans, I'll answer it this way: a TOS fan could consider it acceptable to use a new design for the 1701 for a variety of reasons. For example, a TOS fan could believe that the original design could be improved in a variety of ways. Unless I'm mistaken, Eaves himself mentioned one way: access ports like the docking port used in TMP, something which are distinctly lacking on the original except for the shuttle bay. A more fleshed-out impulse drive is something often used in the various reimaginings one sees. Better nailing down of where all the phaser banks and photon torpedo launchers are also comes to mind. That's just the low-hanging fruit, and pretty conservative, and those are all TMP-isms by the way (i.e., improvements to the original introduced in TMP); they're so reasonable that there's no reason why the TOS ship should in the first place suffer from their absence. It's like the lack of secondary exit on the bridge: it's dumb so you kinda squint and imagine it has one anyway, somewhere. My list is not intended to be remotely exhaustive.

But what about swept back potato peeler pylons? No, sorry, there isn't anything to that that actually improves the original.

So, what we also have to avoid conflating is fans not liking what's been done with fans being resistant to change. There are indeed purists who are resistant to change, but there are also plenty of fans who are open to it.

I guess you haven't read any of the thread until later this morning. We've addressed all that several times. There was a reason: the TOS ship looks dated to general audiences.

 

[Belz...]

In other words, if you assume that TPTB are making rational decisions, then the Discoprise doesn't look the way it does because the original from TOS looks dated to general audiences. There would have to be some other reason (one possibility already raised upthread: a new line of merchandise).

"In other words"? How does that follow from what I said? If they're making rational decisions, then they _would_ change it.

But what about swept back potato peeler pylons? No, sorry, there isn't anything to that that actually improves the original.

Except that it looks better.

So, what we also have to avoid conflating is fans not liking what's been done with fans being resistant to change.

Sure, but when some fans are never happy with any change, it's easy to conclude that they're part of the latter group.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"In other words"? How does that follow from what I said?

I didn't say it did follow from your post. I'm editing my post to hopefully make that clearer.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, ok. I get it now. Thanks.

Anyway, it could also be that they just wanted to update the design because they thought it'd be cool. I still say that the casual audience would not respond well to DSC using exteriors and interiors from TOS.

 

[cooleddie74]

Interiors, arguably. The boxy desktop computers with the tiny little slot screen and the blinky buttons that have no labels? Sure. I'm a TOS fanatic and even I think a few pieces of 1960s set technology and some of the early props look goofy. Not terrible in most cases, just goofy. But the exterior? I sincerely doubt most people would have an issue with the exterior at all. The TOS Enterprise is sleek and looks beautiful for the most part, a testament to power with graceful lines and curves.

If somebody would throw a fit about the TOS Enterprise with DS9 or ENT-style texturing and surface detailing (plus some since it's 2018) and not watch the show after seeing a starship that looks like the original just with a little more visual kick and detail then all I can say is: such a sad and limited mindset where everything needs to look "modern" and "sexy" just to placate them.

The original Enterprise would work with some minor upgrades and improvements. I'm fine with what we got, but that doesn't negate the fact that the production designers couldn't leave well enough alone. Even Eaves said they changed his straight pylons at the last last minute and made them angled. They just can't help themselves because, I guess, "kewl."

 

[Jadeb]

I think we should be cautious about assigning fault to the designers. Sounds like there was a lot of meddling. It's probably a miracle it's as faithful as what we got.

 

[cooleddie74]

Oh, she's definitely the best-looking ship we've seen so far. By the standards of DSC she's absolutely gorgeous, but that just goes to show how timeless Matt Jefferies' original design is. Even with the meddling and edict that she had to look different for whatever reasons (merchandise, most likely) the Enterprise is still the most beautiful starship in the new series.

 

[BillJ]

Even Eaves said they changed his straight pylons at the last last minute and made them angled.

I'm not so sure. Because his NX-01 proposal has almost the same exact pylons.

https://www.google.com/search?q=eav...AhWCpoMKHYKuDjUQ9QEITDAA#imgrc=DJmnGH_asY1k1M:

 

[Jedman67]

Oh, ok. I get it now. Thanks.

Anyway, it could also be that they just wanted to update the design because they thought it'd be cool. I still say that the casual audience would not respond well to DSC using exteriors and interiors from TOS.

I think if they'd wanted to throw a bone to TOS purists; they'd do what IAMD did for the Defiant. Start with the TOS bridge and update the buttons, screens and architecture while still keeping the same "feel"; if you will, for a classic design as a guest bridge.
It's doable; but clearly not happening.

 

[Longinus]

I'm not so sure. Because his NX-01 proposal has almost the same exact pylons.

https://www.google.com/search?q=eaves+nx01&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=DJmnGH_asY1k1M%3A%2CHDoCc1oXIfZkqM%2C_&usg=__vOpeQzXmihzgof6q01sZ4Bu7z1I=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjhy6OJmOzaAhWCpoMKHYKuDjUQ9QEITDAA#imgrc=DJmnGH_asY1k1M:

They are of even width and I think that works way better with the potato peeler design. I don't think the gap and narrowing downwards are a good combination.

 

[Tuskin38]

I'm not so sure. Because his NX-01 proposal has almost the same exact pylons.

He said on Facebook that his DSC Enterprise Pylons were straight.

The gap was him though, not the VFX team.

Anyways the pylons on his NX proposal there are pretty straight, nothing like the angle we have on the screen used DSC Enterprise

 

[UssGlenn]

the blinky buttons that have no labels?

This is where I remind everyone that they put labels on the buttons of the Defiant in IAMD and once the lights are turned on the labels are completely invisible on camera.

 

[AlanC9]

As to your question about TOS fans, I'll answer it this way: a TOS fan could consider it acceptable to use a new design for the 1701 for a variety of reasons. For example, a TOS fan could believe that the original design could be improved in a variety of ways. Unless I'm mistaken, Eaves himself mentioned one way: access ports like the docking port used in TMP, something which are distinctly lacking on the original except for the shuttle bay. A more fleshed-out impulse drive is something often used in the various reimaginings one sees. Better nailing down of where all the phaser banks and photon torpedo launchers are also comes to mind. That's just the low-hanging fruit, and pretty conservative, and those are all TMP-isms by the way (i.e., improvements to the original introduced in TMP); they're so reasonable that there's no reason why the TOS ship should in the first place suffer from their absence. It's like the lack of secondary exit on the bridge: it's dumb so you kinda squint and imagine it has one anyway, somewhere. My list is not intended to be remotely exhaustive.

Sounds like there's an implicit assumption that being a "TOS fan" implies an attachment to TOS designs without positive reasons to change them inherent in the designs themselves -- liking the Discoprise design because it fits in with the rest of DSC doesn't count, right?

Who is and who isn't a TOS fan is another one of those things I don't really care about. I'm just curious about whether I'm inside that bandbox.

 

[cooleddie74]

I forget about that. Thanks for the reminder. I'm as big a defender of the TOS aesthetic as anybody but when it comes to a few of those old computers it probably would be for the best to downplay them by putting them in the background or just not showing them at all.

Most of them, though, work just fine with the ENT-era visual upgrades that you mentioned.