USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Groppler Zorn]

I guess what I'm saying is that I want them to tell the best science fiction stories they can. FUCK the Prime timeline.

If they’re following the CW model of making multiple shows (of which DSC would be the first) then screwing the timeline is something straight out of the flash.

But in reality, yes - the hell with the prime timeline. There’s so much of it and so little of it makes sense then why the frak not make DSC its own universe so they can do what they want?

That way the Enterprise is actually a new ship altogether - which would actually be kinda cool. I still don’t get what the benefits are of insisting it’s the same ship and people and whatnot.

 

[BillJ]

Then pretend that this is the case.

That it isn't "Prime" really is the case. Beyond some names and dates Discovery is nothing like TOS. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is holding their own story hostage to names and dates that people can't let go of.

 

[BillJ]

But in reality, yes - the hell with the prime timeline. There’s so much of it and so little of it makes sense then why the frak not make DSC its own universe so they can do what they want?

That way the Enterprise is actually a new ship altogether - which would actually be kinda cool. I still don’t get what the benefits are of insisting it’s the same ship and people and whatnot.

Marketing to a select few who can't let go.

 

[cooleddie74]

One solution(which the producers would likely never have gone for)would have been to have most of the DSC look be new with the kinds of starships and uniforms we see now but keep the Enterprise the way she looked in TOS and DS9 the way it appeared on the Enterprise-D library computer screen in TNG. Take the Connie design from "In A Mirror Darkly" and just upgrade and tweak it a little for a 2017-18 HD audience. Have Pike and his crew wear much crisper and more neatly-sewn and decorated pullover tunics with black trousers and service boots and just do what author David Mack did in his first DSC-era novel: have the Constitution-class starships more or less keep the TOS aesthetic while most of the rest of Starfleet looks the way it does in the new series.

You can't please everybody but that route would have pleased far more people than the actual choices the producers have taken. You can keep your DSC design aesthetic and keep it going for however long you like but acknowledge that the Enterprise and her sister ships are kind of a special and unique branch of Starfleet's exploratory services that get to wear their own uniforms.

There's no federal law set in stone that says you have to make the Enterprise that much different to fit in with an aesthetic, in part since we know the 25% Rule is largely if not entirely corporate wiggle room to earn more studio profit off the show with their own lines of merchandise.

 

[BillJ]

Have Pike and his crew wear much crisper and more neatly-sewn and decorated pullover tunics with black trousers and service boots and just do what author David Mack did in his first DSC-era novel: have the Constitution-class starships more or less keep the TOS aesthetic while most of the rest of Starfleet looks the way it does in the new series.

If I had a voice in the process in the creation of the series. I would've went the opposite route. Discovery and Shenzhou would've been part of a special science branch of Starfleet, explaining why the uniforms are different and blue. But having all the Admirals wearing the same blue uniforms kinda kills that idea.

 

[Lord Garth]

That it isn't "Prime" really is the case. Beyond some names and dates Discovery is nothing like TOS. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The bad thing is holding their own story hostage to names and dates that people can't let go of.

Except they're not holding it hostage. They're already doing what they want. You just don't like what they're doing. There's a difference.

 

[BillJ]

Except they're not holding it hostage. They're already doing what they want.

Except for they're not. Do you think they are going to do anything dramatic that affects the status quo of TOS? You know, blow up the Enterprise, or kill Pike, or Sarek, or Mudd, or Amanda, destroy Vulcan and on and on...

They are so stuck to TOS, that they've really killed any real drama in their own show. They killed Culber and everyone pretty much just shrugged.

 

[ITDUDE]

Marketing to a select few who can't let go.

If they really wanted to market to original TOS fans, then they wouldn't have made it 25% different. Their finance department decided to make it 25% different, and that's fine. CBS wants more money, I get it. But you can't have it both ways. You can't say it's different and same at the same time.

 

[Lord Garth]

Except for they're not. Do you think they are going to do anything dramatic that affects the status quo of TOS? You know, blow up the Enterprise, or kill Pike, or Sarek, or Mudd, or Amanda, destroy Vulcan and on and on...

No. But if you think that's good storytelling in and of itself, then more power to you. There's more to creative freedom than just death and destruction.

They are so stuck to TOS, that they've really killed any drama in their own show. They killed Culber and everyone pretty much just shrugged.

No they're not. They can do whatever they want to their own characters. They can also add new twists and dimensions to characters we thought we knew.

 

[XCV330]

Except for they're not. Do you think they are going to do anything dramatic that affects the status quo of TOS? You know, blow up the Enterprise, or kill Pike, or Sarek, or Mudd, or Amanda, destroy Vulcan and on and on...

They are so stuck to TOS, that they've really killed any drama in their own show. They killed Culber and everyone pretty much just shrugged.

I found the death of Culber jarring. It was fast and brutal and it affected me more than the usual death on a show. Not everyone liked the character. I did. I hope they find a way to bring him back without messing up the gravity of that death.

It also was another reason that Tyler could not be allowed to stay on the ship, and probably bad judgment of Saru go let him wander around. It was cruel enough allowing a situation where Stamets had to confront his spouse's murderer.

 

[BillJ]

No. But if you think that's good storytelling, then more power to you.

Good storytelling is about possibilities. Possibilities they've all but eliminated because they rely so heavily on TOS. Spock can't find/do anything that actually changes his character in any meaningful way.

If you eliminate the Prime non-sense, then you open up possibilities that anything can happen in the show.

 

[Dukhat]

Speaking for myself, it's not that I "don't like what they're doing." I'm pretty happy that we have a new Star Trek show to watch. My issue is that I'm pretty sure CBS doesn't care about the "prime" universe anywhere near as much as some people here believe.

 

[Lord Garth]

Speaking for myself, it's not that I "don't like what they're doing." I'm pretty happy that we have a new Star Trek show to watch. My issue is that I'm pretty sure CBS doesn't care about the "prime" universe anywhere near as much as some people here believe.

For the record: I don't care if it's set in the Prime Timeline or not either. It's just a marketing label at this point. Some other people will disagree with me, but I can only speak for myself.

Good storytelling is about possibilities. Possibilities they've all but eliminated because they rely so heavily on TOS. Spock can't find/do anything that actually changes his character in any meaningful way.

If you eliminate the Prime non-sense, then you open up possibilities that anything can happen in the show.

First, I don't think we'll see much of Spock. That's why they're searching for him. When they actually do find him, I'll be surprised if we see much of him after that. Spock and Pike will probably just go back to the Enterprise and part ways. But that's only speculation on my part.

Second, what if the possibilities don't include destroying everything? Are you open to those possibilities? And, with Pike in command of the Discovery, it's not like we'll probably see much of the Enterprise anyway. If they were really as creatively restrictive as you say, they'd never have Pike in command of Discovery at all.

 

[Ronald Held]

Might believe the 1701 was refit for the War and then back. Not enlarged and then shrunk.

 

[BillJ]

Second, what if the possibilities don't include destroying everything? Are you open to those?

Of course. But at the same time, Discovery is basically a big budget Pocket Books novel at this point: they have to put all the toys back in the box they way they found them.

 

[BillJ]

Might believe the 1701 was refit for the War and then back.

Even that doesn't make a lick of sense. You just fought an all out war, you aren't going to put your military away.

 

[Dukhat]

For the record: I don't care if it's set in the Prime Timeline or not either. It's just a marketing label at this point. Some other people will disagree with me, but I can only speak for myself.

I agree with you.

 

[Lord Garth]

On another note: I have a feeling they wouldn't kill off Pike here not just because of TOS but also because I agree with others who say they might want to do a spin-off with his Enterprise. I'm not saying they will, but they might want to. I have nothing to back this up, just a gut feeling that they want to test the waters.

The only wrinkle here is the character of Spock. I think they want to save Spock for movies. "Why see him in the theater when you can see him on TV?" might be the best argument against it. And the best argument for why he's missing in S2 of DSC. Unless having some form of the Spock character on a TV show and in the movies isn't an issue for CBS and Paramount... Don't mind me. I'm speculating out loud.

 

[Longinus]

Good storytelling is about possibilities. Possibilities they've all but eliminated because they rely so heavily on TOS. Spock can't find/do anything that actually changes his character in any meaningful way.

If you eliminate the Prime non-sense, then you open up possibilities that anything can happen in the show.

I really don't agree. People have managed to create engaging fiction that takes place in actual historical setting just fine. You could treat TOS era like that. But then it might be best to avoid inventing major wars or setting altering supertech or involving important 'historical' characters...

Besides, in a lot of fiction you know that certain things really are not going to happen. Did you think that in any of those past episodes or movies where Earth was threatened by various space menaces, it was ever really going to be destroyed? When an evil mastermind leaves James Bond to die in an ingenious trap, is there really any doubt that he is going to escape and foil said villain's plans?

 

[BillJ]

On another note: I have a feeling they wouldn't kill off Pike here not just because of TOS but also because I agree with others who say they might want to do a spin-off with his Enterprise. I'm not saying they will, but they might want to. I have nothing to back this up, just a gut feeling that they want to test the waters.

That just creates another problem for the spinoff. You have two characters and a ship that you can't really do anything with. You can't marry Spock off, or give him children, or create anything that conflicts at all with what comes later and you have to leave Pike and the Enterprise in tact for TOS (can't give it the Spore Drive or other outlandish tech).