Five. The piece on the inside of the nacelle is different from the intercoolers. That is quite a lapse.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Five. The piece on the inside of the nacelle is different from the intercoolers. That is quite a lapse.
The Connie, because it is more advanced.
Free to play card game on Steam, iOS and soon Android.
They're the first officially licensed Star Trek product to have the DSC Connie, and any of the Klingon ships other then the Sarc (STO had it first)
Looks like it. Sorry, I don't recall if they were explicitly used in the actual ENT episode. But that's pretty much where the beams usually came from on TOS.
I'm not an expert on what surface features are specifically present on the model (or any version of any production model, for that matter).
Good catch, though; it would seem that these are not just part of the surface texture but actual emplacements of some kind.
If that's their level of accuracy, I don't think we have to worry anymore about the Discoprise's bridge window vanishing anymore.
The Eaglemoss renders of the screen used model are also missing it
Last edited:
Any good or typical pew pew?
It's a turn based card game disguised as Star Trek ship combat.
It's a good time waster.
I played one game. Definitely time wasted . Card games are not my cup of tea.
depends on what source you're looking at.
The "source" in my post is from "Metamorphosis", a second season episode of the original series. The model shown is the definite article, if you will.
Every appearance after TOS has them. So they've been retconned in.
They're there in TOS Remastered, DS9 and Enterprise.
So much so, that they are still selling models of it fifty years later.
They're also selling models of some really obscure ships as well. I'm not going to say TOS doesn't have fans (I'm one), I am saying that the TOS Enterprise looks heavily dated and overly simplistic.
And even with all the excellent CGI and graphics, it still looks like a cheap looking 60's TV model, just in an expensive movie. It simply has too little detail and is made up of simplistic shapes.
For the expectations of the time, yes. Those expectations changed drastically as little as a decade later. A couple of plain looking cylinders attached to a plain looking flying saucer just looks silly. It needed the extra details so it could meet modern expectations.
Hence why they made all the changes for TMP and didn't just make the same model but with more surface details.
Distinctive yes, futuristic no. While the design was a successful attempt at a departure from rocket ships, it still looks like it's firmly part of the Flash Gordon era. Especially when it has the nacelle spikes.
No it isn't. 50-60's sci-fi expectations was a cheap looking action adventure, not something to take all that seriously, like Lost in Space. Star Trek TOS really pushed the envelope by a considerable amount, but it was never that far from those expectations.
The movies of the 70's (not just Star Wars) changed all that and people then expected sci-fi to look high-budget and be "serious". Something which TV sci-fi understandably had real difficulty in achieving at the time.
Hence why when we got a movie, it was so visually and stylistically different. Klingon's had alien makeup (no explanation given), we got special effects for warp, the Enterprise was now a massively detailed model with more complex shapes and details. That first movie tried to take itself so seriously there was no fun whatsoever in it.
Mistakes get made. They are clearly mistakes based on the original article they are supposed to be emulating.
Could you post some pictures comparing the two. Because I've never thought the Enterprise ever looked like anything from Flash Gordon.
How do we know the missing windows on the original were not a mistake?
Yeah, but does it have a window???
Similar threads
