RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,914
Posts: 5,641,091
Members: 25,498
Currently online: 413
Newest member: Knight

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek ReActions Second Wave Figures
By: T'Bonz on Mar 30

Pegg Addresses Trek 3 Rumors
By: T'Bonz on Mar 30

Nimoy Documentary To Be Produced
By: T'Bonz on Mar 30

Retro Review: The Dogs of War
By: Michelle on Mar 28

Takei Calls For Boycott
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

April-May 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

Quinto TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Shatner Remembers Nimoy
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Star Trek Delta Coin Pouches
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Takei Museum Fundraiser In Progress
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 1 2014, 01:40 PM   #31
The Old Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

^^Something along those lines would have been a better "movie upgrade" to the D. The problem with TNG's movie replacement ship was that it was a completely new and different ship. TOS's movie replacement did a credible job of pretending to be the original with a makeover.
The Old Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 01:53 PM   #32
SPCTRE
 
SPCTRE's Avatar
 
View SPCTRE's Twitter Profile
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

The Old Mixer wrote: View Post
The problem with TNG's movie replacement ship was that it was a completely new and different ship.
Well, that aspect of it is a matter of personal preference. I liked the E-E a lot because it was a completely new and different ship (I also really, really like the Probertprise E-D).
__________________
“I don't know if I agree with you, but my eyes are reading what you are typing”
— TharpDaddy
SPCTRE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 02:38 PM   #33
Brutal Strudel
Rear Admiral
 
Brutal Strudel's Avatar
 
Location: Here, frozen between time and place, not even the brightest lights escape...
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Can we hate them both? Coz I do.
__________________
Once every lifetime, we're swallowed by the whale.
Brutal Strudel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 03:06 PM   #34
Ar-Pharazon
Rear Admiral
 
Ar-Pharazon's Avatar
 
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

RoJoHen wrote: View Post
I loved the E in "First Contact." It was new and different, and it looked so badass going up against that Borg cube.

But in INS and NEM, it just seemed...off. It had no character, and it was just too damn big. The bridge is overwhelmingly large, and the way it was filmed never really gave a good sense of its design. It just felt like a giant room with too many damn work stations.
Well, for INS & NEM, the E had the engines and nacelles moved back about a foot. That's probably what's bothering you.

In universe, the flatter shape was probably for better warp dynamics, after the warp speed limitation went into effect.
__________________
Rimmer, on what period of history to live in-
“Well, It’d be the 19th century for me, one of Napoleon’s marshals.
The chance to march across Europe with the greatest general of all time and kill Belgians” - (White Hole).
Ar-Pharazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 03:26 PM   #35
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

I do think the plating was overdone on the E, and the main dish is too small. Other than that, I think it's a huge improvement over the D, and the bussards with the lava-lamp effect in them are awesome.

I don't find the E sterile, but maybe too glamorous. The D was too much of a lumbering cruise-ship and the E is maybe too much of a sports-car. The sweet spot for the Enterprise is something in the middle, which is the refit.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 03:42 PM   #36
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

I think the sports-car analogy fits. I prefer the D because it had the balls to visualize "form follows function" and represented a credible technological evolution, i.e. smaller but powerful warp engines that would allow to increase the mass of the ship for larger crew accomodation.

When every starship has more or less the same proportion-ratio of warp nacelles, engineering and saucer section, it starts to look stale. Where is the credible evolution, where do we see a visual proof of a technological breakthrough? This remains the Enterprise-D, IMHO.

Bob

P.S. John Eaves deliberately went for a "Porsche" look, here is an interesting article on the design story of the "E": http://ottens.co.uk/forgottentrek/de...gn-enterprise/
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein

Last edited by Robert Comsol; July 1 2014 at 03:58 PM.
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 03:53 PM   #37
TheSubCommander
Captain
 
TheSubCommander's Avatar
 
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

BillJ wrote: View Post
This is the ship I imagine as the Enterprise-E whenever I read the TNG novels now (which is rare).

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...postcount=1460

Designed by Vektor.
I REALLY dike that design. It is very reminiscent of the Star Trek Online Excalibur class http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Excalibur_class

I think either of those designs would have been a great Enterprise-E and a return to a more classic Constitution Class-style ship.
TheSubCommander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 04:26 PM   #38
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

TheSubCommander wrote: View Post
BillJ wrote: View Post
This is the ship I imagine as the Enterprise-E whenever I read the TNG novels now (which is rare).

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?...postcount=1460

Designed by Vektor.
I REALLY dike that design. It is very reminiscent of the Star Trek Online Excalibur class http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Excalibur_class

I think either of those designs would have been a great Enterprise-E and a return to a more classic Constitution Class-style ship.
I actually see the Grandeur as an evolution of the Galaxy-class for a Federation that now has the Borg to deal with.
__________________
Self-appointed Knight of the Abrams Table! - Thanks Marsden!
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 04:29 PM   #39
Richard Baker
Captain
 
Richard Baker's Avatar
 
Location: Warrior, AL
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

One sure sign you have a weak design is that for it to look 'right' you have to put stripes or color panels on it. A ship should look good without any embellishment- an unpainted hull shape with only a single light striking it.
There are elements of the E-E I do like, the 'no neck look and inset ring under the primary hull with windows (I always wondered what he view would be like from those). Other parts I do not care for much at all- the racing wedge on the top of the primary hull is too heavy handed and the swooping cut out from the deflector dish forward reminds me of my favorite part of female anatomy.
What the designers called 'homages' (like the two triangles underneath reflecting the TOS saucer detail) to me give it a mash up look of all the different ships preceding it.

The Nemesis refit looks better with the shuttlebay chines and reworked engine/pylon setup, but it is not my favorite ship.

The Newer bridge (once they got rid of that stupid holographic floated viewer (imagine flying the ship all day staring at a wall until the viewer was activated), was functional, but I never could get a feel for its shape. As mentioned, lots of workstations and fancy lighting, but no direction. IMO nothing to date has even matched the TOS Bridge in design, even the refit. The interiors did not bother me much, I felt the D's looked a bit too much like a hotel chain, especially in the first season when you had flower planters in places (Encounter at Farpoint).
Richard Baker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 04:51 PM   #40
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Richard Baker wrote: View Post
One sure sign you have a weak design is that for it to look 'right' you have to put stripes or color panels on it. A ship should look good without any embellishment- an unpainted hull shape with only a single light striking it.
I think that puts the finger on why I never cared much for E-E. Other Enterprises (well TOS, A, and D) look good from almost any angle and there aren't a lot of distractions to taking in the overall design. "Grace" was always the word that came to my mind when I thought of the Enterprise's look. E is sleek, but does not have any grace. The nacelles don't work for me on the E, either.

I gotta say I like it better than B and C, however. They truly look cobbled together with odd proportions, and have no grace, either.

Mainly because it looked so different than the TOS Enterprise and A, it took me a while, but D grew on me over time because it had it's own style and grace, was simple in shape and detail, and looked good from a lot of angles.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 05:01 PM   #41
Smellmet
Captain
 
Smellmet's Avatar
 
Location: Yorkshire!
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

I think the saucer section is the best aspect of the 'D', it has a very sleek unique design to it, if the nacelle pylons were pointing the 'right' way and were a bit longer I'd like it a hell of a lot more
Smellmet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 05:15 PM   #42
Franklin
Rear Admiral
 
Location: In the bleachers
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Smellmet wrote: View Post
I think the saucer section is the best aspect of the 'D', it has a very sleek unique design to it, if the nacelle pylons were pointing the 'right' way and were a bit longer I'd like it a hell of a lot more
Yeah. It's about the saucer. Shot from the front and below at about three quarters (a typical beauty shot angle for many Enterprises), the ship reminds me of a hooded cobra about to strike. To me, it's a sense of restrained power. Compared to that, the E looks rather static.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain
Franklin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 06:44 PM   #43
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

Smellmet wrote: View Post
I think the saucer section is the best aspect of the 'D', it has a very sleek unique design to it, if the nacelle pylons were pointing the 'right' way and were a bit longer I'd like it a hell of a lot more
But what about the U-shaped pylons? Straight pylons at a 45' angle like TOS or the refit are much more fetching, I think. (This is also part of the reason why the JJ-prise has issues, the bow-legged aspect of the curved pylons.)

Also, the shuttle-bay area on the D is weak, as is the way the hull just pinches into a narrow tail. A curved and segmented observatory-like gate that opens like TOS and the refit is much more dramatic and iconic than a simple up-down door. The E restored that, but then proceeded to emphasize the bays on the main hull (which really were unnecessary).

Also, the D's rounded-off-rectangle nacelles really have a mid-80s Braun shaver vibe to them. They're far more dated looking than the angular nacelles of the E. Trek ships tend to avoid straight parallel lines in favor of tapers and the D's nacelles are all parallel.

I wonder how much the love of the D here is not so much its look but the fact that it was "lived in" for years via TNG, whereas with the E the only screen-time it got was in the movies, which by their nature, are more action-oriented and the crew really didn't make it their "home" to the same extent. The D therefore carries the weight of the memory of all the episodes that took place there.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 07:05 PM   #44
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

I didn't mind the Enterprise-E, but I felt it was unnecessary to destroy the Enterprise-D in Generations just to have a new ship in First Contact. The Enterprise-D could have been badly damaged in Generations, perhaps even losing an entire warp nacelle, and then brought back in the next movie as a new upgraded version with maybe sleeker nacelles & support pylons, and even another redesigned bridge.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1 2014, 07:17 PM   #45
Cyke101
Rear Admiral
 
Cyke101's Avatar
 
Re: The Enterprise-E is so ugly

BillJ wrote: View Post
It never worked for me. It looked like they took elements of the Connie-refit, the Excelsior and Voyager and put them in a bag and then stomped on it.
Ding ding ding! Perfect description right here. Also, the lack of a neck really disturbs me for some reason. I understand the need to make it sleek and cinematic, but it just didn't gel together for me.

bbjeg wrote: View Post
I thought the ship fit the design of its time. Each era had their unique design. Kirk's era had the Constitution, Miranda, and Excelsior-like ships; followed by TNG's Ambassador, Galaxy, Nebula-like ships; to the darker/sleeker/war time ships like the Defiant, Voyager, and the Sovereign.
I've never ever seen the Intrepid/Voyager as a darker or war-based design. She looked like what she was meant to be: a speedy (possibly recon) vessel. Not a powerhouse like the Galaxy but comfortably at home at warp more than any other ship. Her small size and sleek but non-threatening designs, I felt, added charm to the show's central theme. But she's not padded with armor like the Defiant nor as angular and sharp as the Sovereign. Even her hull is a brighter tint.

TheSubCommander wrote: View Post
I am one of those who wished they had just kept the Galaxy class for the movies.
Me, too. I've always thought it odd that the Sovereign was supposed to be a step up from the Galaxy, but we never saw anything truly visually innovative within her; even Generations had that mostly pointless but still neat looking scene in Stellar Cartography. They could've kept the Galaxy, maybe refit the Enterprise a bit more.

Lance wrote: View Post
The 1701-E, it didn't have any of that. Nor did it replace it with anything else. It just felt... sterile. Functional, but without character.
I think the E-E's bridge looks actually a bit too Cardassian for a Federation ship: brownish-gray colors akin to DS9, panels and black marks everywhere, a bridge with less ceiling space. The brightest spots were under the stairs with neon lighting, and that's very 90s.

-----

On a side note, with Eaves, fan artists, and the Star Trek Online designers, I have to ask: what's this obsession with the "turkey" design of ships? The E-E almost had it, where the nacelles would angle forward and connect near the front of the nacelles, creating the image of the ship looking like a turkey in a pan. But many Starfleet ships in STO have those reverse nacelles built into their default designs.
__________________
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP" -- Leonard Nimoy
Cyke101 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.