USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Yeah, I like the non-TMP struts. I don't understand why the VFX team opted to ignore the designers.I love this version of the design.
My EM version should be arriving this week.
(as well as the Mirror Version of the Shenzhou)
I'll post some pic's from the booklet in the usual place...
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/more-eaglemoss-discovery-starships.294277/
... when it arrives.
(as well as the Mirror Version of the Shenzhou)
I'll post some pic's from the booklet in the usual place...
https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/more-eaglemoss-discovery-starships.294277/
... when it arrives.
I would go back to @King Daniel Beyond's "too many chefs" comment. Too many people being given the ability to make final decisions makes for a level of chaos you shouldn't have in any show.
Yep - this is my thinking also in terms of how the Discoprise looks: overcooked and designed-by-committee (but not in a good way, by way of this example), IMO.
I love this version of the design.
This is a better design. The pylons make the difference.
Closer to TOS is always the better choice when reimagining the TOS Enterprise during its own era.
The "hot and cold running" pylons leave me ... cold.
The "hot and cold running" pylons leave me ... cold.
The gap in between is stupid but on balance this look is a big improvement over what we actually got onscreen.
This pic doesn't highlight it, but that shuttlebay "lip" is my pet peeve, aside from the general squished/stretched proportions*. Honestly, I'd much rather see a version that maintains the TOS proportions and goes crazy with specific features, textures, cutouts, etc than one that maintains those features but not the proportions. Of course, for all its assets and faults, they chose a third path.
*and the ungainly way the impulse deck affects the saucer top, and those forward lightbox/cutouts. I'm fine with the split struts (with a preference for them straight, but fine either way really) and I'm absolutely ok with bridge window situation, and the texturing, and the NX features, and those little fins.
*and the ungainly way the impulse deck affects the saucer top, and those forward lightbox/cutouts. I'm fine with the split struts (with a preference for them straight, but fine either way really) and I'm absolutely ok with bridge window situation, and the texturing, and the NX features, and those little fins.
I think this is part of the approach of this new iteration of Trek though: Just do it.
I think they let their writers a LOT more freedom than during the Berman era. That has both benefits and drawbacks. We most certainly don't have the absolute "canon" we had during the Berman era. Something like S31 using a time-travel suit and magic time-balls on black markets would have never happened during the Berman era. On the other hand, stories like "Calypso" - with it's super vague far future of the Trek verse - neither.
I think we have to come to terms that DIS is only "half"-canon, in the sense that it having it in continuity with the rest of the Trek universe will always take a backseat to any good (or bad) plot the writers want to tell this week. On the other hand, that means this show also feels a lot more "free" and unconstrained, and we will possibly see ideas and stories explored that would never have played out on Berman era Trek for not being "in line" with what Trek is supposed to be.
To be super frank - I kinda' prefer the newer approach. I love TOS also because it's just so damn versatile. They had stories one week that affect whole universes, only to be trapped in a Halloween castle next week. Later Trek always felt a bit constrained about what they could and could not do. DIS seems to be closer to the original approach. It only has to prove that it's using this freedom in a good way by actually delivering stories that are worth breaking continuity for.
My understanding is that the producers asked them to keep tweaking it. I'm fairly sure they didn't specify what, specifically to keep tweaking about it however. My understanding is also that it was felt that it didn't actually frame well from a number of key angles, and the solution of lengthening the neck and sweeping the nacelles was in part meant to fix that, and in part was based on a different design philosophy than Eaves'--namely, that it wasn't meant to represent something that would be refit into the TOS Enterprise as we know it, but was meant to be something that would make more sense of the TMP refit.
Continuing to tweak the design between concept and the final model is a lot more standard than you seem to think.
Last edited:
Unpopular opinion: they should stop having John Eaves design the Enterprise.
Not an unpopular opinion at all. As a matter of fact, I think Eaves should stop designing Star Trek ships altogether. But unfortunately, not only do I think that won't happen (because the DSC producers seem to think he's some super-hotshot ship designer), but he'll probably design the ships for the Picard show as well.
There are tweaks and then there are tweaks. I don't mind the TMP pylons, but straight ones would've made more sense.
Kind of like TOS.
The exact opposite actually. TOS is some kind of super-canon.
No matter which iteration of Star Trek - the TNG/DS9/VOY-era, the TOS-movies, TAS, ENT, the Kelvin-timeline, the DISCO-variant - the one thing they all have in common is they all are in continuity with the original series.
DIS and the Kelvin-movies contradict each other in fundamental historical developments. Yet both of them aknowledge TOS has directly happened (via Nimoy in ST09 and "The cage"). TOS is literally the one thing holding the entire Trek-multiverse together...
How so? TOS is hardly in the same continuity with itself, depending on the episodes
Similar threads
