You'd be surprised at the amount of people who believe exactly that.
Were there other Enterprises between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701?
- Thread starter Dukhat
- Start date
I would be curious to see some compromise between the two looks.
See, I never knew the TOS Enterprise had a length until these debates came up. It was a surprise, to be sure. Not sure a welcomed one.
Didn't one of the Eaglemoss books actually state this (and had a diagram of the different sizes of the Cage verson, the DSC version, and the TOS proper version)?
To my knowledge, the canonical length of the Enterprise in the pre-streaming era depends upon assigning weight to an on-screen graphic in "The Enterprise Incident" whose units were utterly illegible on screen during the pre-home video era, which covers first-run airing and syndication (and only barely visible in HD).
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/al...prise-incident/enterprise-incident-br-103.jpg
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=260&page=5
That's a weak leg to stand on, especially considering the dubious nature of on-screen graphics in general, especially the illegible ones, even when we have behind-the-scenes knowledge of what they were.
Behind-the-scenes knowledge of the graphics published in The Making of Star Trek, which included that graphic used in "The Enterprise Incident," informed fans of what the "intention" was for the Enterprise length. None of this made the length indisputably canonical.
What other points of data are there that assign a number (with units) to the Enterprise length, either before or after the streaming era began, especially canonical points of data?
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/al...prise-incident/enterprise-incident-br-103.jpg
https://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=260&page=5
That's a weak leg to stand on, especially considering the dubious nature of on-screen graphics in general, especially the illegible ones, even when we have behind-the-scenes knowledge of what they were.
Behind-the-scenes knowledge of the graphics published in The Making of Star Trek, which included that graphic used in "The Enterprise Incident," informed fans of what the "intention" was for the Enterprise length. None of this made the length indisputably canonical.
What other points of data are there that assign a number (with units) to the Enterprise length, either before or after the streaming era began, especially canonical points of data?
I'm pretty sure those books are just trying dreadfully hard to make everything work. Well beyond the point of reason.
The idea that the Enterprise started out as the Disco version, as we see when Spock first arrived on the ship in that Short Trek episode, to then be refit as "The Cage" version, to then go back to the Discoprise look, followed by the SNW modifications, to then go back to "Where No Man Has Gone Before" version... Before finally being refit to classic TOS look..... is insanity.
But there are people who believe this.
The Dedication plaque of the Enterprise is visible on-screen in SNW and list the length as 442m.
That's moving the goal posts quite a bit though isn't it?
"No worse than any other Trek"
*provides example of it being worse.
"Yeah but that doesn't count."
That's my biggest question.
It's not.
It goes to the purpose of how they present it.
Or, do we honestly believe a show in 2020s can be made and sold to streamers with the same production style as TOS?
Hardly. Because again... it's not a continuity mistake. It's a very purposely done visual retcon. Because again..... Trek is not a period piece. It's not a historical drama where we can have anachronisms. SNW has a different visual aesthetic than other Trek series. That's it. It's THAT simple.
A purposefully done continuity error is still a continuity error. It's that simple.
Worse, actually. If they got things wrong by accident, I can excuse that. Or if they just owned it and said "This is not connected to the old shows, it's a new reboot.", also 100% acceptable. No concerns at all.
But when they consistently say "the two things happened"... I have eyes, and can confirm 100%, they did not.
Yes, indeed. It's meant to describe an imaginary future with a 2020s lens.
Do they events substantially change? The characters? I would argue, no. But, what does change is the effort to engage the audience and the number of people I know who won't watch TOS or those films because of the production values is higher than those willing to just "go along with it."
The reason for the change is clear. People can take it as a reboot, which the show has made clear (and how I treat TMP and ENT) or argue against the intentionality. Either way, sounds like a lot of work for a show.
I honestly do not understand how it's so difficult to understand how something can be told through a different visual lens, while still representing something preexisting. Yes, you'll need to suspend your disbelief. You may even need to use a little imagination. But it's not a difficult concept.
This all being told through a visual medium. The visuals are critically important. I can use plenty of imagination, but what I can't do is suspend my disbelief that SNW takes places 6 years before TOS.
I COULD believe that it's an unconnected reimagining of it. For sure. But that's not what Paramount is selling.
I'll take Roddenberry's view: TOS is not a strict retelling of in universe events, but a dramatization.
There's a distinct difference between on the one hand one-off sets used a generation ago for special episodes, including the two-parter in a certain lame duck series, and the other hand principle standing sets needed to sell a new series being produced now.
Also, knowing the difference between apples to apples and apples to oranges comparisons can go a long way to understanding the situation. Comparing the sets in SNW to those in "In a Mirror, Darkly" is an apples to oranges comparison, as is comparing the sets in SNW to those in "Trials and Tribble-ations"and "Relics."
By the way, ENT made an adjustment in the Gorn. Their Gorn in "... Mirror..." was not screen-accurate to the Gorn in "Arena." Why?
Also, knowing the difference between apples to apples and apples to oranges comparisons can go a long way to understanding the situation. Comparing the sets in SNW to those in "In a Mirror, Darkly" is an apples to oranges comparison, as is comparing the sets in SNW to those in "Trials and Tribble-ations"and "Relics."
By the way, ENT made an adjustment in the Gorn. Their Gorn in "... Mirror..." was not screen-accurate to the Gorn in "Arena." Why?
Alternate timeline, obviously
Spank!Alternate timeline, obviously
Not to sound like I’m burdening anyone with my own emotional dysregulation but I need a little reassurance because this appears to currently be the main thing updating on the Enterprise forum.
Y’all are doing this for fun, right? This arguing over what the real facts are in a fictional futuristic narrative is a way to maximize your entertainment value, yes?
Y’all are doing this for fun, right? This arguing over what the real facts are in a fictional futuristic narrative is a way to maximize your entertainment value, yes?
More learning opportunities for me.
Similar threads
