USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Groppler Zorn]

It's a TV show, a fiction based one at that, not a science experiment. Not sure the scientific method applies. Fiction is mutable that's why it's not a science.

True but I’m talking about the rationalisation of the changes made to DSC in terms of coming to a conclusion (as a viewer) when confronted with visual evidence (the science fiction television show).

On the one hand if I believe that DSC is in the same continuity as TOS then that’s fine.

On the other, if I base my conclusions on what my eyes tell me, I may not hold the same belief as regards DSC and TOS.

Ultimately this debate - which encompasses the Enterprise redesign - comes down to how strong my belief is that DSC is in the same continuity as TOS.

Personally, the strength of my belief is influenced by the visual evidence. For others the visual evidence is less important.

It would be awesome to see this reflected in DSC s2. What Michael believes to be true versus what her eyes tell her.

Heck the writers could use this thread as inspiration.

 

[TrickyDickie]

I just read an article that talked about how the spore drive is impossible because animals are incapable of accomplishing horizontal gene transfer.

In defense of Discovery, that is a weak argument because it is based upon what we think we know at this point in time.

 

[fireproof78]

I totally agree. I just find it interesting that the strongest argument for DSC being in the same universe as TOS is essentially the belief that it is so, versus the scientific approach of coming to conclusions based on visual evidence.

No one is denying visual differences. It is more a matter of how one approaches that evidence. If TOS is the only benchmark for starship design, then DSC, and even the TOS films, fail on that regard in maintaining continuity.

However, the story is more than just the visuals for me. It's a matter of the characters and the events as well as delving further in to details that TOS simply could not do.

Heck the writers could use this thread as inspiration.

Please, no.

 

[Longinus]

I just read an article that talked about how the spore drive is impossible because animals are incapable of accomplishing horizontal gene transfer.

In defense of Discovery, that is a weak argument because it is based upon what we think we know at this point in time.

Yeah, that is not the reason why the spore drive is implausible...

 

[Groppler Zorn]

No one is denying visual differences. It is more a matter of how one approaches that evidence. If TOS is the only benchmark for starship design, then DSC, and even the TOS films, fail on that regard in maintaining continuity.

I’m not denying visual changes either - nor am I saying anyone else is simply that, as you say, it’s how one deals with those changes.

As for DSC failing based on TOS alone I agree - for me the whole aesthetic update, although necessary, could have been more subtle and closer to TOS.

The TOS films is more murky I think. I see why you’re saying that it’s a continuity fail based on TOS alone as it is a drastic departure from TOS. As is DSC...

But, on a fundamental level, the changes from TOS to TMP have more similarities to them than DSC to TOS. For instance: tactile controls on the consoles and no (observed) touchscreens appear on both pre and post refit eras. Viewscreens on the bridge, not widows also occur. Displays that simply look like flashing lights to us, but presumably signify some complex operation of the ship in-universe (requiring the viewer to use their imagination). A relatively small bridge and a feeling of it being a well lit and functional workspace. These are all things that are carried over from TOS to TMP. It feels like the same ship/universe on a fundamental level.

Compared to DSC’s updates to make it look more modern to us (despite the fact that we actually have no idea how the Enterprise consoles worked in the 60s and they may well have been holograms that looked like jelly bean buttons that were multifunctional and reconfigurable), it’s as though some of the fundamentals have been changed. More touchscreen consoles, hologram communication with sophisticated tactile interfaces that can interact with surroundings lightyears away (echoing Rimmer’s hard light drive in Red Dwarf). Windows at the front of the bridge. Much larger bridges that look like they’re more about style than substance in their design - the larger distances between colleagues mean that communication is less straightforward than it once was. Complex LCARS graphics that bear no resemblance to the simple displays of yore, showing little reverse engineering from the TOS look to reflect the situation 10 years prior to TOS - an iPhone from 10 years ago would have fundamentally the same software as a modern iPhone. As would windows look fundamentally the same 10 years ago as it does today.

Based on this evidence, I don’t believe that DSC is set in the same universe as TOS, but I have a much easier time believing that TMP onwards is set after TOS.

However, the story is more than just the visuals for me. It's a matter of the characters and the events as well as delving further in to details that TOS simply could not do.

I totally agree with this. I hope that the new writer situation gives us better stories in s2 as s1 didn’t live up to my expectations story-wise. But I remain cautiously optimistic. Every Trek show has had to start somewhere.

 

[Mudd]

There are two creation stories in Genesis. Later, redactors stitched them together and now it’s hard to pull them apart.

The inconsistencies are still there.

Anyway, whenever folks start bringing in analogies from history and religion the discussion of this stuff jumps the track. These are a couple of hundred pop entertainment stories that there is absolutely no reason to try to stitch together into "the truth."

 

[fireproof78]

But, on a fundamental level, the changes from TOS to TMP have more similarities to them than DSC to TOS. For instance: tactile controls on the consoles and no (observed) touchscreens appear on both pre and post refit eras. Viewscreens on the bridge, not widows also occur. Displays that simply look like flashing lights to us, but presumably signify some complex operation of the ship in-universe (requiring the viewer to use their imagination). A relatively small bridge and a feeling of it being a well lit and functional workspace. These are all things that are carried over from TOS to TMP. It feels like the same ship/universe on a fundamental level.

That's where you and I will disagree. On a fundamental level, I don't see TOS connecting with TMP. It took me a while to really reconcile the differences from TOS to TMP.

I'll not understand the constant objection to the windows on the bridge as if that can never be changed.

Perhaps this is the difference. As you note, the controls on TOS are rather non-descript, and left to the viewer's imagination. Except, we are not in the day and age where things are left to the viewer's imagination. That might be the highest point of difference. I am willing to acknowledge that the updates are designed as visual imaginations of a possible future. Mileage may vary and all that.

 

[Mudd]

I used to believe that was a good rule of thumb, then THIS happened.

Which was, as a matter of artistic design and inspiration, so vastly better than anything that's appeared on STD that it's hard not to laugh when it's brought up as a good example of a bad example.

That redesign mattered big-time to the Franchise. The STDPrise is a footnote, cobbled together by a good artist who's a boring and derivative designer.

 

[Longinus]

The inconsistencies are still there.

Anyway, whenever folks start bringing in analogies from history and religion the discussion of this stuff jumps the track. These are a couple of hundred pop entertainment stories that there is absolutely no reason to try to stitch together into "the truth."

Sure. But the Bible is fiction as well, and at least Star Trek makes more sense and has better moral lessons.

 

[fireproof78]

Sure. But the Bible is fiction as well, and at least Star Trek makes more sense and has better moral lessons.

Mileage will vary

 

[CorporalCaptain]

whenever folks start bringing in analogies from history and religion the discussion of this stuff jumps the track

Case in point:

Sure. But the Bible is fiction as well, and at least Star Trek makes more sense and has better moral lessons.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

That's where you and I will disagree. On a fundamental level, I don't see TOS connecting with TMP. It took me a while to really reconcile the differences from TOS to TMP.

Fair enough do you see DSC connecting with TOS or TMP more easily? Out of curiosity what was it about TOS that you didn’t feel evolved into TMP? Or is that one of those discussions that’s been done to death elsewhere? (Sincerely - I know these threads go round in circles a lot of the time! )

Perhaps this is the difference. As you note, the controls on TOS are rather non-descript, and left to the viewer's imagination. Except, we are not in the day and age where things are left to the viewer's imagination. That might be the highest point of difference. I am willing to acknowledge that the updates are designed as visual imaginations of a possible future. Mileage may vary and all that.

That’s true - television seems to want to engage viewers’ dopamine centres rather than their imaginations. For me that’s one of the disappointing things about DSC overall - enterprise included (desperately trying to stay on the topic of the thread lol!) - it doesn’t fire my imagination. I don’t want to project myself into that world (the Red Letter Media guys make this point more eloquently than me in their series review). But, as I say, maybe s2 will show an improvement in this area...

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Mileage will vary

Amen to that

 

[TrickyDickie]

On a fundamental level, I don't see TOS connecting with TMP. It took me a while to really reconcile the differences from TOS to TMP.

Are you referring to the exterior design of the Enterprise, or the entire 'look' of the series versus TMP?

Personally, I could reconcile the changes to the Enterprise on the outside more than I could the design of the bridge or the uniforms and communicators. And I'm kind of neutral on the phasers.

 

[fireproof78]

Fair enough do you see DSC connecting with TOS or TMP more easily? Out of curiosity what was it about TOS that you didn’t feel evolved into TMP? Or is that one of those discussions that’s been done to death elsewhere? (Sincerely - I know these threads go round in circles a lot of the time! )

Are you referring to the exterior design of the Enterprise, or the entire 'look' of the series versus TMP?

Personally, I could reconcile the changes to the Enterprise on the outside more than I could the design of the bridge or the uniforms and communicators. And I'm kind of neutral on the phasers.

Ok, I'm going to try and address these points, hopefully succinctly.
One, the uniforms do not track at all. In my opinion, it feels highly disconnected from prior designs. Same thing with the phasers and communicators. The don't feel like naturally projections or imaginnings of the technology. It's either a change for the sake of change (something levelled against DSC constantly but not TMP).

The transporter feels far more limited than in TOS, like the technology devolved.

That’s true - television seems to want to engage viewers’ dopamine centres rather than their imaginations. For me that’s one of the disappointing things about DSC overall - enterprise included (desperately trying to stay on the topic of the thread lol!) - it doesn’t fire my imagination. I don’t want to project myself into that world (the Red Letter Media guys make this point more eloquently than me in their series review). But, as I say, maybe s2 will show an improvement in this area...

I guess that's why I am different. I find TOS, ENT and DSC far more easy to imagine being a part of that world than TNG and forward.

 

[Jinn]

I totally agree. I just find it interesting that the strongest argument for DSC being in the same universe as TOS is essentially the belief that it is so, versus the scientific approach of coming to conclusions based on visual evidence.

Well, if I understand the Trek multiverse correctly both DSC and TOS being and not being in the same timeline are correct, as long as there is any flimsy explanation as long as it is logical, even if unlikely. Or am I missing something or commiting a logical fallacy here? I'm honestly not quite sure, I don't really think about the Trek multiverse that much

This should be reflected in DSC in s2 with the whole “science versus belief” theme they want to address

I'm not totally sure if I'd want to see that but if it were executed well...

 

[GNDN18]

The inconsistencies are still there.

Anyway, whenever folks start bringing in analogies from history and religion the discussion of this stuff jumps the track. These are a couple of hundred pop entertainment stories that there is absolutely no reason to try to stitch together into "the truth."

That was my point and I appreciate the clarification. Internal inconsistencies needn’t distract from well-told stories, whether those are found in creation myths or the ultimate location of Dr. Watson’s jezail bullet. The story ought to be greater than the background.

 

[Jadeb]

Roddenberry would do this very thing himself, let alone new showrunners. He was no more or less saintly than CBS.

Yes, but he at least had some artistic and authorial claim to the work-- an investment in the fictional narrative, sometimes to the show's great detriment. On the other hand, we have zero idea who is actually calling the shots these days, how the decisions are being made and whether anything other than money factors into decision-making. In that regard, caring about CBS's view of "canon" is, to me, like worrying about reconciling all the adventures of the Geico lizard.

Personally, I don't care about Gene's Vision, either, but I can understand why people would place value in that. Certainly more so than Trek as work by ever-changing corporate committee.

 

[TrickyDickie]

The transporter feels far more limited than in TOS, like the technology devolved.

Agreed. And yet from a production standpoint, it seems like they tried to make it 'bigger'....more showy, more dramatic, and even the sound effects had much more of an 'I Dream of Jeannie'-esque quality to them. Completely unnecessary.

One quite annoying thing that comes to mind about the TOS movies is that all the way through them we get the 'We-aren't-really-ready' thing:

TMP: Untested ship.
TWOK: Crew of trainees.
TSFS: Enterprise not repaired, set to be decommissioned.
TVH: Forced to use a commandeered Klingon vessel.
TFF: Enterprise not fully functional.
TUC: Enterprise set to be decommissioned, crew ready to retire or be reassigned.

Even in Generations, the ship was not going to be 'ready' until Tuesday.

Now, it was good to see everyone overcoming the problems and getting the job done. But....that ever-present lack of readiness across that many movies kind of grates a bit. It is one story element used to excess.

Not one time, in any of those movies, did we see Enterprise and crew as we did in TOS....completely ready to face a crisis, with everything up and running as normal. In that sense, TOS had a range of stories with all kinds of different situations from the get-go. The movies kept returning to one basic scenario, when you think about it. There really was not a variety to the movies like we had with TOS. Even with 7 movies versus 79 episodes, there should have been more variety to the stories in the movies.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

One, the uniforms do not track at all. In my opinion, it feels highly disconnected from prior designs

I completely agree with this. And I’m one of the weird ones who likes the TMP uniforms.

And yet - the TWoK uniforms are even more of a departure - and into the tng era the uniforms change again in weird spandex directions. Starfleet be strange when it comes to uniforms. At least we didn’t get half the crew in the old unis and the other half in the new ones like another film we could mention (but shouldn’t)

The transporter feels far more limited than in TOS, like the technology devolved.

How do you mean limited? Don’t mean to sound snippy btw I’ve just never thought about the TMP transporters at all really.

I guess that's why I am different. I find TOS, ENT and DSC far more easy to imagine being a part of that world than TNG and forward.

Fair do’s. I’ve never had the imagination issue until DSC unfortunately but everyone’s mileage varies I guess

as long as there is any flimsy explanation as long as it is logical

I’ll take a flimsy in-universe explanation any day I just don’t like being told “it is like it is because we say it is” in a very ipse dixit manner... since we live in a world where in-universe changes have explicitly been addressed - c.f. Augment virus - i’d just prefer a flimsy explanation given to us by the characters rather than the producers.

TSFS: Enterprise not repaired, set to be decommissioned.

I’d not thought about this theme before - that’s a good point when you think about the TOS films that way.

I’d be tempted to argue that in TSFS the crew manage to get to Genesis in spite of the Enterprise not being ready (a chimpanzee and two trainees, etc.) and that illustrates how competent the crew actually were - but the overall theme remains. Hmm... *reevaluates ideas*

Even in Generations, the ship was not going to be 'ready' until Tuesday.

In the 23rd century the starfleet quartermasters and corps of engineers deadline days were always Tuesdays. The rest of the fleet sympathetically aligned their schedules to match. Thus, every interesting event that happened between jan 1 2200 and dec 31 2299 happened on literally any other day of the week except Tuesdays.

On Tuesdays everything ran like clockwork.

And that don’t make for good tv.