Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology

[Detached Nacelle]

Didn't one of the animated short treks use the SNW updated Constitution but colour it the bright grey of the TOS version?

All the same ship just viewed through a different lens.

I guess it might need an interior refit as they talk about the old ships being packed and quarters being quite small compared to the TNG days.

 

[Dukhat]

Didn't one of the animated short treks use the SNW updated Constitution but colour it the bright grey of the TOS version?

It was the SNW Enterprise but with TOS interiors during ‘Space Seed.’ (We see Khan in sickbay.)

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

A sickbay with windows.

 

[BillJ]

They’re made 60 years apart. I’m okay just treating them as two different productions.

 

[UssGlenn]

So they would rather have their own people, who they already pay, to come up with something instead.

I was thinking more of a time is money situation. they could have their guys use however many working hours to build the ship. or they could just buy an already completed model, probably for less money.

 

[Dukhat]

I was thinking more of a time is money situation. they could have their guys use however many working hours to build the ship. or they could just buy an already completed model, probably for less money.

Well we saw the ‘time is money situation’ with Picard season 2, where they used some STO and Eaglemoss CGI models as background ships as a cost-saving measure. But all of those ships were the property of CBS/Paramount and were designed by the producers of the game, not by fans.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Well we saw the ‘time is money situation’ with Picard season 2, where they used some STO and Eaglemoss CGI models as background ships as a cost-saving measure. But all of those ships were the property of CBS/Paramount and were designed by the producers of the game, not by fans.

The producers of STO are fans of Star Trek in general.

Same with EagleMoss and their replication of new 3D models of the various Trek ships.

So in a in-direct way, are the STO & EagleMoss CGI models not "Fan Ships"?

 

[Firebird]

A sickbay with windows.

Art doesn't always have to be literal. It's a shorthand to propel the narrative along.

 

[Dukhat]

The producers of STO are fans of Star Trek in general.

Same with EagleMoss and their replication of new 3D models of the various Trek ships.

So in a in-direct way, are the STO & EagleMoss CGI models not "Fan Ships"?

No. The term ‘fan design’ is usually equated with someone who makes their own ship, for their own personal enjoyment, and not for any kind of profit or production like a show, book, video game, physical model/toy company, etc. Basically a ship design that has not been approved or given permission to be created by the holders of the Star Trek IP. Your examples of STO and Eaglemoss do not apply here.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Art doesn't always have to be literal. It's a shorthand to propel the narrative along.

It's Star Trek, you're supposed to take what you see literally.

 

[Firebird]

It's Star Trek, you're supposed to take what you see literally.

Since when?

How is the purposely-abstract time travel sequence in The Voyage Home supposed to be taken literally?

How are any of the Benny Russell scenes in Deep Space Nine supposed to be taken literally?

How are the abstract way the Bajoran Prophets speak supposed to be taken literally?

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Okay, you got me, the dream sequences are dreams.

 

[fireproof78]

. Multiple timelines, when history is changed, the original timeline still exists.
2. One timeline, when history is changed the original timeline is gone until repaired

3. Dramatic presentation where the briar strokes are captured but not perfectly exact.

Insert Kirk quote here. Or Roddenberry.

 

[Daedalus]

Art doesn't always have to be literal. It's a shorthand to propel the narrative along.

I gather this means that any debate over ship specifications (be it ship length, bridge angle, location of lavatories etc) is all a bit pointless?

 

[UssGlenn]

all of those ships were the property of CBS/Paramount and were designed by the producers of the game, not by fans.

Right, but the original thing we were discussing was them doing a faithful 1960s episode, and how they couldn't use the model in the Smithsonian. So to save time they could buy a CGI TOS Enterprise model from a fan, and that design is owned by CBS. They wouldn't want to use the New Jersey model, it isn't quite right.

 

[Dukhat]

Right, but the original thing we were discussing was them doing a faithful 1960s episode, and how they couldn't use the model in the Smithsonian. So to save time they could buy a CGI TOS Enterprise model from a fan, and that design is owned by CBS. They wouldn't want to use the New Jersey model, it isn't quite right.

So why didn’t they buy a model from a fan for the New Jersey?

 

[BillJ]

So why didn’t they buy a model from a fan for the New Jersey?

I know this is highly obtuse, but I find New Jersey an insulting name for a Constitution class starship.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I know this is highly obtuse, but I find New Jersey an insulting name for a Constitution class starship.

Why?
What do you have against "New Jersey" of all states?

 

[BillJ]

Why?
What do you have against "New Jersey" of all states?

Nothing against New Jersey the state.

You have Constitution, Enterprise, Exeter, Potemkin, Republic, Defiant, Hood. Then you have New Jersey.

It doesn’t match the naming scheme of the class, in any way.

 

[Dukhat]

I know this is highly obtuse, but I find New Jersey an insulting name for a Constitution class starship.

Why?
What do you have against "New Jersey" of all states?

USS New Jersey (BB-62) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Well, it does fit most of the TOS naming scheme for using American warship names for Constitution class starships.