Maybe visually, but not lore wise.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Perhaps calling it "drinking the Kool Aid" was a little harsh, but it is basically accepting whatever CBS say as fact and rendering loads of classic Trek lore obsolete in the process.
No major lore has been rendered obsolete.
Based on what we’ve seen so far in DSC I agree.
However, assuming that there were episodes of TOS that depended on the Enterprise being designed the way she was (and I’ll admit that none spring to mind at present - with the exception of “court martial” and that pod, and there’s no evidence yet that the DSC Enterprise doesn’t have said pod) then my question becomes “does the DSC-continuity Enterprise alter facts and events from TOS?”
The answer is- probably not (I’ll show myself out...). But, given the producers’ insistence that this is set in the same universe as TOS, why would they want to take the chance that their visual reboot *could* impact facts and events that we know to have taken place *after* DSC?
This is basically why I think it was designed at the TOS size, period. No "scaling up" involved. It's not as if we're ever going to hear or see "450 meters" in a canonical source.
(I also find it a bit ironic how many posters talk about how "modern" ship designs include lots of extra details to give the ships a sense of scale, but then the people actually doing the designs will wantonly embiggen things with little or no regard for those very design elements and the sizes they imply! It's like some people think the word "scale" means nothing except "looks big"...)
Sounds like part of an interesting discussion. What MA page is this on?
First of all, you seem to be missing the point that people don't want to ignore the TOS designs, because those are classic and what DSC is offering as alternatives are not improvements.
Second, and more importantly, for someone who's taking cheap shots at others for "not understanding the concept of a retcon," you seem a bit shaky on it yourself. The traditional understanding of a retcon is that it's a retroactive continuity implant — some sort of story (often a flashback) that provides additional, previously unknown information about the backstory. (Examples from comics: Doctor Strange was behind the scenes when the Fantastic Four first fought Rama-Tut? That's a retcon. Earth-2's heroes had additional adventures as the All-Star Squadron between the known adventures of the Justice Society? That's a retcon — in fact, it's the ur-example, as it was in the letters column of All-Star Squadron that the term was coined and defined. Example from Trek: Michael Burnham was raised alongside Spock, even though we never knew it before.)
That is not the same thing as a story that changes something we did know — e.g., cloaking devices were in widespread and widely known military use a decade before we were told they were only "theoretically possible" in "Balance of Terror." The latter may be retroactive, but it's not merely that; it has broader implications. TV Tropes has some nicely nuanced taxonomy to clarify this; a retcon that directly contradicts or alters information is what it calls a rewrite. And done on a sufficiently large scale, it can even constitute a reboot.
Last edited:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Constitution_class#Size
The 'size' sub-section if it doesn't automatically go there
Was just about to say but @Tuskin38 beat me to it!
And I agree with this 100%.
The problem with using the prime design is, as we’ve discussed before, it would have looked out of place in the DSC visual continuity. The problem there of course is not with the prime Enterprise design, but with the visuals of DSC...
...although I understand that several trekkers would disagree with me on that point haha!
But as that’s visual evidence, not a fact or event, then the DSC production team are fine to ignore it.
For me the question becomes: does it even matter that the Enterprise looked how she did in TOS on a story level?
If the answer is “yes”, then she should look the same.
If “no”, why does she look so similar?
The Discovery’s design is integral to the story with the spinny bits etc. The Enterprise could have been totally redesigned like the “D-type, class 7”* Klingon ships.
* I’m assuming that D7 now refers to multiple types of Klingon ships - similar to B-type warbirds in TNG.
Sorry I didn’t mean to sound argumentative
We can only hope.
On this, I completely agree. One of the things that drew me to Star Trek, and that I found the most fascinating, were the starships. I think I know more about them than I do about my own car. I have an exhaustive Ship List that I keep updated, and I had a hand in uncovering information and photos from BoBW and the DS9 kitbashes back in the day. I was a huge fan of FASA and all their RPG ship designs based on TOS and TMP. So to me, starship design is serious business.
So, while I like DSC's Starfleet vessels, I do NOT like that they don't even remotely resemble the TOS Connie. And that the Klingon ships look like nothing we've ever seen before. I get that new people want to put their spin on things, but there really isn't anything that's screaming 'iconic' to me. They're just a bunch of the usual type of stuff that we've come to know from John Eaves (i.e. his designs all look the same no matter what time period or organization they're from.) Even the Discovery itself was based on a '70's design that we've all seen before. The Abramsverse Enterprise looked more like TOS (well, at least more than the DSC ships do), and I hate that ship.
Don't get me wrong: I wasn't expecting to see the ships of DSC looking exactly like TOS. Because that's not the visual style of the show. Which was why, for all the little changes they made to the Enterprise when it finally showed up, it still looked out of place to me. But if all the other ships had resembled the new Connie, perhaps it might have worked for me a bit more.
Last edited:
Accepting whatever CBS says? They OWN the franchise. Whatever they say, is canon.
Because unlike fanboys they don't obsess over details like that.
No, I understand that point just fine. I just disagree with it nonetheless. What these fans "want" to do is irrelevant to what I said: all they have to do is ignore the TOS designs and the problem goes away. That they don't want it to go away is not my problem, but theirs. Hell, I might even agree with them and it would still not change what I said. You think I wouldn't want the TOS designs to fit in continuity? Of course I would! I think you underestimate how much of a continuity-nut I am.
The fact of the matter is that Trek has evolved since the 60s, including series set before TOS. Perhaps they should not have done those, but that ship has sailed, and now TOS sticks out like a sore thumb. Updating the look simply ekunubares* that problem.
I will agree that the change to the Klingon ships was unnecessarily extreme. 'Course, that's entirely subjective.
Why the needlessly narrow definition? ANY change to things already established in the franchise is a retcon. Not just timeline events, but designs and tech as well. You're just proving my point that you don't understand what retcons are.
*: That should be "eliminates" but that typo was so awesome I decided to leave it in. In my defense I was looking away from the screen at the time.
Well I have been huge fanboy all my life where Star Trek is concerned
But more seriously, they've said they’re going to reconcile DSC with canon and they keep dropping references in left right and centre (cf Mintaka III reference) so they’re being rather fanboy-esque about the whole thing. Why not go full fanboy?
Like what? What do I keep missing that completely renders lore "obsolete" rather than filling in details? The cloaking device? Well, ENT really should be faulted on that note. Holograms? Technically the rec room, and TOS films showcased some holo tech in TOS era.Klingon redesign? Already got that once with TMP and that was far more jarring. Spore tech? How many magic techs does Star Trek invent and ignore?
Discovery is not ground brekaing in this area. Just the latest player in the game.
Yeah, it's always annoying when people running a franchise can't decide between two paths and try to cut through the middle.
On that we agree. Presumably it’s to try and appeal to everyone, but I don’t think it’s well executed on DSC. Fingers crossed for season 2.
Similar threads
