sayonara maru wrote:
Something that really bothered me about Voyager is how EXTREMELY CHEAP the interior of the ship looked. The enterprise D was very elegant. The bridge was distinct and all the primary stations were recognizable. The defiant was also very detailed and well designed.
BUT ON VOYAGER:
..Everything seems to be made of this icky fisher price looking gray plastic
..The helmsmen sits in an office depot desk chair
..The captains chair isnt even iconic like it is on the Enterprise A, B, C, D and E... or the Defiant.. That bothered the shit out of me.
..There seem to be at least 4 different "conference" rooms. They are so drab and spartan you dont care if they are deciding the fate of the galaxy or planning a tea party
..No Ten Forward or Bar.. instead the crew spend all their time in a holodeck???
..Engineering is only SLIGHTLY better but not by much. I hate to keep rehashing it but when you were in engineering on geordi's enterprise, you knew and felt it.
..Having the nacelles go into "flight mode" everytime you go to warp is ridiculous. How long does it take to angle the pylons 45 degrees before you engage? Just long enough for someone to take out the warp drive? (which seems to happen constantly)
I dont know why production values on voyager were so thrift shop but I think its one of the major reasons this iteration of star trek faired so poorly. Ive also seen some of the other posters comments about the characters and story writing and have to agree with many of them.
You really think TNG sets look better than Voyager's? You must love 80's hotels. TNG looks dated and pretty bad, especially the bridge. The Voyager sets could still pass for a show made today.
Although yes, the moving warp nacelles were pointless and goofy (and I believe added so the toys would have a cool moving feature) and externally, Voyager was no looker. This early prototype looked far better, IMO: