USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[cooleddie74]

Most onscreen readouts are canon except when they contain information that blatantly contradicts everything else we see onscreen and is considered official by CBS and Paramount. Though Jonathan Archer's Starfleet bio file from the TOS-era Defiant in "In A Mirror Darkly, Part II(ENT)" was partially unseen it's pretty much accepted now that Archer went on to be elected one of the first Presidents of the Federation and that doesn't necessarily contradict him being called Admiral Archer by Kelvin Timeline Scotty.

 

[fireproof78]

Fair enough, think about it like this, the Oberth wasnt built to be pretty or frighten anyone, it was designed to carry out menial tasks that keep the Federation ticking over.

Again, that's fair, but it doesn't make it any less visually appealing, or outside the design lineage we had seen (up to that point). Which is more my point.

ETA: Also, I prefer the Ptolemy as a workhorse/tug/cargo style ship.

 

[Ronald Held]

Of you can read displays on Blu-Ray is it Canon,or has to be visible being streamed?

 

[Mudd]

Anything that appears onscreen is canon.

Even if it contradicts other things that appear onscreen.

Until someone in charge decides otherwise.

That's what "canon" is. It is not a synonym for "continuity that is consistent."

 

[Jadeb]

I don’t get why tiny text glimpsed on a screen for a second, if you squint, would be considered canon/accurate/whatever when the appearance of the Enterprise and the Enterprise uniforms, unquestioned for 50 years, no longer is.

 

[Mudd]

I don’t get why tiny text glimpsed on a screen for a second, if you squint, would be considered canon/accurate/whatever when the appearance of the Enterprise and the Enterprise uniforms, unquestioned for 50 years, no longer is.

It still is.

All canon versions of the 23rd century are not consistent with one another. They are all still canon.

 

[Jadeb]

Anything that appears onscreen is canon.

Even if it contradicts other things that appear onscreen.

Until someone in charge decides otherwise.

That's what "canon" is. It is not a synonym for "continuity that is consistent."

Clearly, though, these questions are about “how does it all fit together?” And the answer is, it doesn’t, and the showrunners don’t care.

 

[Mudd]

It doesn't, it sorta used to, sometimes,except when it didn't, sometimes it still does.

The STDPrise doesn't bother me because it's different. The JJPrise is different and I love that without giving a fuck about these fig-leaf timelines. The STD version is just trivial and unimaginative.

 

[Jadeb]

Yeah, I don’t really expect them to care, at least beyond offering updated homages to the more iconic designs. But if we accept that Discovery is a visual reinterpretation, as we must, I don’t see why some tiny bit of random text is exempt from that.

Once they abandon the original silhouette of the Enterprise, one of the most iconic spaceships in history, I can’t see sweating the small stuff.

 

[Tuskin38]

Clearly, though, these questions are about “how does it all fit together?” And the answer is, it doesn’t, and the showrunners don’t care.

They care.

Once they abandon the original silhouette of the Enterprise, one of the most iconic spaceships in history, I can’t see sweating the small stuff.

Well they haven't done that yet.

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, I don’t really expect them to care, at least beyond offering updated homages to the more iconic designs. But if we accept that Discovery is a visual reinterpretation, as we must, I don’t see why some tiny bit of random text is exempt from that..

Exempt from what? All that stuff is still canon, including the text.

"The old stuff has been replaced" is something that fans can say, but it carries no weight. The old stuff is still there. What's being done now will be contradicted later but will still be here.

 

[Jadeb]

They care.

This is arguable. But stuff like randomly adding a rear corridor to the bridge suggests that fidelity is not high among their priorities. That said, I appreciate the homages they have given us. I’m not saying that they’re wrong for updating the designs, just that they are updating the designs (and their dimensions).

Well they haven't done that yet.

This, however, is factually incorrect. The outline of the ship is conspicuously different. You may like the new silhouette, but it is not the same.

 

[Jadeb]

Exempt from what? All that stuff is still canon, including the text.

"The old stuff has been replaced" is something that fans can say, but it carries no weight. The old stuff is still there. What's being done now will be contradicted later but will still be here.

This is a silly. Of course it exists. But you’re taking about the real world when the conversation is about making sense of the fictional one(s). And it can’t be done.

 

[DEWLine]

Better to have lots of small ships with minimal crews than a few big ships with large crews, the Oberths can quite literally be everywhere at once and they need to be.

Oberths, Novas, Danubes, and so on, yes...definitely agreed on this point.

 

[Tuskin38]

This, however, is factually incorrect. The outline of the ship is conspicuously different. You may like the new silhouette, but it is not the same.

A saucer, a cylindrical hull, two cylindrical extrusions from the hull. It's pretty much the same.

You show it to any non-fan they'll probably agree it looks like the Enterprise.

But stuff like randomly adding a rear corridor to the bridge suggests that fidelity is not high among their priorities.

It wasn't random, they gave a reason.

 

[Jadeb]

A saucer, a cylindrical hull, two cylindrical extrusions from the hull. It's pretty much the same.

So if I present you with the silhouettes of both versions, you won’t be able to tell them apart? Because if you can, the silhouette is not the same.

 

[Tuskin38]

So if I present you with the silhouettes of both versions, you won’t be able to tell them apart? Because if you can, the silhouette is not the same.

The refit changed the silhouette, but it's still the Enterprise.

Maybe I should have phrased it that it still looks like an Enterprise. It wasn't changed enough to be completely unrecognizable.

 

[HotRod]

So if I present you with the silhouettes of both versions, you won’t be able to tell them apart? Because if you can, the silhouette is not the same.

OMG. talk about splitting hairs. Sorry to get into this convo but I've been following along and arguing that they drastically modify the silhouette of the Enterprise is pretty much the definition of pedantic. As stated above, it's a saucer, and 3 cylinders connected by a neck and two pylons in pretty much the exact same configuration as it was in the 60's, only with the additioa of an angle to the pylons and a slightly shorter neck. You show that to anyone on the street and they will recognize it as the "Star Trek Enterprise".

 

[Jadeb]

The refit changed the silhouette, but it's still the Enterprise.

I’m not arguing about the legitimacy of the design to be called the Enterprise. But it’s not the same design as in TOS, and it’s certainly not the same silhouette.

Once we accept those things, I don’t see why you’d try to make the length of the ship fit the TOS dimensions any more than you’d try to argue the viewscreen isn’t bigger.

 

[Jadeb]

OMG. talk about splitting hairs. Sorry to get into this convo but I've been following along and arguing that they drastically modify the silhouette of the Enterprise is pretty much the definition of pedantic. As stated above, it's a saucer, and 3 cylinders connected by a neck and two pylons in pretty much the exact same configuration as it was in the 60's, only with the additioa of an angle to the pylons and a slightly shorter neck. You show that to anyone on the street and they will recognize it as the "Star Trek Enterprise".

You appear to be missing the point. I’m not talking about whether the Enterprise is recognizable. It’s clearly an homage to the original, with a good bit of refit thrown in.