USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[starsuperion]

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

Yep me too. Sometimes less is more. For me, at least, the less techie looking and sleek, the more advanced it is to me. The most advanced tech in my mind would look simplistic, not so much bits and bobs as in modern aesthetics..I believe the saying is that tech that seems like magic and is hard to define is mostly more advanced or something like that..

I prefer sleek and solid looking as advanced tech would most likely be. Take early cell phones from the late 80s, to now. A Good example.

 

[cooleddie74]

Doug Drexler thinks along similar lines. To him the TOS Enterprise just looks more advanced and powerful than the NX-01 of a century before, and he designed the NX-01 so he should know!

 

[Belz...]

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.

<clank clank clank> WORKING!

 

[CaptainMurdock]

Doug Drexler thinks along similar lines. To him the TOS Enterprise just looks more advanced and powerful than the NX-01 of a century before, and he designed the NX-01 so he should know!

While I'm not a fan of the ENT NX-01, I love this fan made version for Pacific 201. This really fits in as a pre-TOS ship.

 

[Jadeb]

Funny that people want the future to look so busy when the amazing miracle computers in our pockets look like featureless flat slabs.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Funny that people want the future to look so busy when the amazing miracle computers in our pockets look like featureless flat slabs.

Exactly this.

Which is why even given 60s design, the Enterprise model (and bridge set which has relatively few buttons and monitors) suggests the future more to me than all the Apple store you can fit into deck 1...!

 

[Prax]

 

[CorporalCaptain]

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?

I never implied any such thing, not even remotely.

 

[cooleddie74]

<clank clank clank> WORKING!

Although the ship's computer on the Discovery does say "WORKING" after making electronic sounds, so the creators DID give classic fans that nice little nod to the old TOS Enterprise library computer.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

Three iterations of the same ship, all with some manner of striping/checkerboarding running the length of the inner nacelle struts, and the DISCO chuckleheads turn it into a potato peeler for their take on it. Bravo. [insert desultory golf clap here]

 

[Tuskin38]

Three iterations of the same ship, all with some manner of striping/checkerboarding running the length of the inner nacelle struts, and the DISCO chuckleheads turn it into a potato peeler for their take on it. Bravo. [insert desultory golf clap here]

John Eaves designed that to be a cooler or something like that. Since his Facebook is gone I don’t have a screen cap.

he invisoned the outer part being removed later when it was turned into the TOS Connie for Kirk’s run.

Mind you his design also had straight TOS like pylons, not Refit style

Also the DSC Connie does have the checker board design, the fan model in the above picture is missing it.

 

[BillJ]

Also the DSC Connie does have the checker board design, the fan model in the above picture is missing it.

It is there, just very faint.

 

[Tuskin38]

For comparison

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

John Eaves designed that to be a cooler or something like that. Since his Facebook is gone I don’t have a screen cap.

he invisoned the outer part being removed later when it was turned into the TOS Connie for Kirk’s run.

Mind you his design also had straight TOS like pylons, not Refit style

Also the DSC Connie does have the checker board design, the fan model in the above picture is missing it.

Neato. But since nearly none of that made it on screen, it pretty well means bugger all, doesn't it?

 

[AlanC9]

I never implied any such thing, not even remotely.

Then where were you going with "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....." and so forth?

Put another way, what does being a TOS fan have to do with liking or not liking the Discoprise? What are we actually talking about here?

 

[GNDN18]

Back when all we had was re-runs on Saturdays and Sundays of the same seventy-nine, we sated our desire for more Trek by reading the novelizations. Most covers showed a starship Enterprise, but each artist had a unique take on it.

That’s the purpose of art, even commercial art, isn’t it? To find the truth in a subject and exhibit that according to capabilities of the artist.

Which is to say, after reading page after page on this subject, I’ve determined that I can respect the choices made by DSC, even if I would prefer the original. The existence of those cover illustrations does not cancel out the 11-footer captured forever on 35mm film.

 

[BillJ]

Back when all we had was re-runs on Saturdays and Sundays of the same seventy-nine, we sated our desire for more Trek by reading the novelizations. Most covers showed a starship Enterprise, but each artist had a unique take on it.

Those all look a lot alike to me.

There is some minor variations, but nothing like the Discovery version.

 

[GNDN18]

Those all look a lot alike to me.

There is some minor variations, but nothing like the Discovery version.

Philistine.

 

[Mad Jack Wolfe]

Those all look a lot alike to me.

There is some minor variations, but nothing like the Discovery version.

I'd almost forgotten about the one with the Big E and flames coming out of her hangar deck. Good times, good times.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Then where were you going with "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....." and so forth?

Perhaps you could look up what the word "could" means in what you quoted. Maybe also you could think about what "My list is not intended to be remotely exhaustive" means. To clarify, I was not attempting to speak for all TOS fans or all Star Trek fans, and nor did I purport to.

Put another way, what does being a TOS fan have to do with liking or not liking the Discoprise?

You're the one who injected "TOS fans" into this in the first place, with this post here. I hadn't even been talking about them. When it comes to the audience, I had been talking about Star Trek fans generally and general audiences.

You asked whether "a TOS fan" could believe that the TOS original shouldn't be reused. I engaged in that hypothetical, even though it had nothing to do with what I had been talking about in the first place. Now it's looking like that was a waste of time.

What are we actually talking about here?

My interest in this conversation is waning, so....