Favorite Enterprise and why?
- Thread starter PhaserLightShow
- Start date
Spockboy
Definitely. That third nacelle is horribly awkward. Galaxy has a flowing organic shape that doesn't really support kitbashing. This is why Nebula is hideous as well.
If I absolutely needed a combat capable vessel, I'd take Sovereign. It can kick ass without looking terrible.
I'll take a dozen
That's what happens when you front load all your stats in to combat.
Agreed.
From the massive saucer, weird oval engineering section and tiny nacelles, what grace are we talking about? I've been looking at that ship since 1987, she's never been that well balanced.
I always found the design graceful. I love the proportions and don't think the Galaxy has a bad angle.
I've owned enough models to say that there are several.
Hard for me to answer since the ships had a personal investment. The Starship Enterprise is a beautiful, sleek, and simplistic vessel; a dream ship for space travel, and it can take a lot of stress and other significant circumstances.
The warship refit was interesting in it's limitations. Not as fast as the original design-I KNOW IT HAD TO DO WITH THE LIMITS OF MOTION PICTURE SFX BUT IT WAS STILL SLOW ON FILM- and I felt the ship was clunky and needed hazmat suits to prevent radiation leakage of whatever was going on with the refit ship. In Star Trek, the original design, didn't require those suits for engineering. All that clunkiness created a lot drama for The Wrath of Khan movie. Still don't understand if the ship went into full impulse or warp before the Reliant exploded; it wasn't as if Genesis was creating a new solar system??? Full impulse would be enough to get out of range from the shockwave. I just dismissed this as part of the new clunky function of the refit Enterprise.
The Enterprise D was a beauty to behold, returning was the sleek, and fast starship from the Star Trek 1966 series, but unfortunately bringing along a lot of the working parts from the movies which were tedious and spawned a lot of technical manual Treknobabble nonsense. Something, to this day, I don't give a sh*t about. But the ship presented a sense of adventure, and it was always a thrill to see it on TV or Netflix on my phone. The Enterprise should've remained in the movies instead of being destroyed... by an old bird of prey for that matter, there was nothing wrong with the model besides the limited thinking from Rick Berman and his disciples but oh well. The ship will always have a special place in my heart.
1701-A, the new Starship Enterprise at the time of the Voyage Home, was a ship which moved how the Enterprise should always move, fast, and it had a pretty decent adventure in it's final appearance in The Undiscovered Country. It was not bad in battle as well which I know a lot of fans love a lot instead of the story, and substance. But the ship carries a warm feeling of investment for me and I will remember that version of the Enterprise.
JJ Abrams 1701 took some time to accept but, even my stubbornness, I had to admit this ship was a lot better than anything Rick Berman Productions could ever create, and that ship brought back the simplistic operations of the Starship without all of the redundant treknobabble I've hated. Well... definitely NOT the simplistic operations after seeing the soda plant which was called an ENGINE ROOM, but at least it didn't have much treknobabble.
The Enterprise was sleek and didn't have teeth or an edge or whatever the writers thought to give Ben Sisko something to say about a warship. Abrams brought back the beauty in a starship while giving the blood thirsty fans enough violence and destruction that fitted so appropriately on DS9. It was the best of both worlds, and in the first trailer of Beyond I didn't like what I saw; seeing the Enterprise shredded as appeared. So I have an investment now for this ship as well, something I never had for the very ugly 1701-E, or the uglier, wannabe prequel NX-01.
So as long as an Enterprise have the functions I appreciated in the stories told holds my investment. So I can't choose a favorite, but I could definitely choose several ships I detest.
The warship refit was interesting in it's limitations. Not as fast as the original design-I KNOW IT HAD TO DO WITH THE LIMITS OF MOTION PICTURE SFX BUT IT WAS STILL SLOW ON FILM- and I felt the ship was clunky and needed hazmat suits to prevent radiation leakage of whatever was going on with the refit ship. In Star Trek, the original design, didn't require those suits for engineering. All that clunkiness created a lot drama for The Wrath of Khan movie. Still don't understand if the ship went into full impulse or warp before the Reliant exploded; it wasn't as if Genesis was creating a new solar system??? Full impulse would be enough to get out of range from the shockwave. I just dismissed this as part of the new clunky function of the refit Enterprise.
The Enterprise D was a beauty to behold, returning was the sleek, and fast starship from the Star Trek 1966 series, but unfortunately bringing along a lot of the working parts from the movies which were tedious and spawned a lot of technical manual Treknobabble nonsense. Something, to this day, I don't give a sh*t about. But the ship presented a sense of adventure, and it was always a thrill to see it on TV or Netflix on my phone. The Enterprise should've remained in the movies instead of being destroyed... by an old bird of prey for that matter, there was nothing wrong with the model besides the limited thinking from Rick Berman and his disciples but oh well. The ship will always have a special place in my heart.
1701-A, the new Starship Enterprise at the time of the Voyage Home, was a ship which moved how the Enterprise should always move, fast, and it had a pretty decent adventure in it's final appearance in The Undiscovered Country. It was not bad in battle as well which I know a lot of fans love a lot instead of the story, and substance. But the ship carries a warm feeling of investment for me and I will remember that version of the Enterprise.
JJ Abrams 1701 took some time to accept but, even my stubbornness, I had to admit this ship was a lot better than anything Rick Berman Productions could ever create, and that ship brought back the simplistic operations of the Starship without all of the redundant treknobabble I've hated. Well... definitely NOT the simplistic operations after seeing the soda plant which was called an ENGINE ROOM, but at least it didn't have much treknobabble.
The Enterprise was sleek and didn't have teeth or an edge or whatever the writers thought to give Ben Sisko something to say about a warship. Abrams brought back the beauty in a starship while giving the blood thirsty fans enough violence and destruction that fitted so appropriately on DS9. It was the best of both worlds, and in the first trailer of Beyond I didn't like what I saw; seeing the Enterprise shredded as appeared. So I have an investment now for this ship as well, something I never had for the very ugly 1701-E, or the uglier, wannabe prequel NX-01.
So as long as an Enterprise have the functions I appreciated in the stories told holds my investment. So I can't choose a favorite, but I could definitely choose several ships I detest.
Holding my Hot Wheels version in my hands now. Don't see a bad angle. Guess this is why art is in the eye of the beholder.
The D looks like shit in profile.
I tend to agree. I love the stardrive section but cannot stand the saucer. I think it is way to big for the rest of it. Also, don't like the Ambassador for the same reason.
People complain about Abrams' Enterprise having oversized nacelles but I'd rather have that than the large saucer.
There is no evidence the AGT Enterpise cannot. Care to provide any? (That it never seperated does not work because it never came into a situation when it should have)
1.) My question referred to the variations of the Enteprise-D, not some other class of starships. Oh, and when you say one bugillion photon torpedoes (bugillion is not a number and why not Quantum Torpedoes?), do you mean warheads or launchers? Also, the Schimitar has more Disruptors than your imaginary class has phasers (52 disruptor banks).
2.) What would the arrangment of nacelles be? 3 on one side, 3 on another, 1 centered, or something else?
Charisma of a starship does not help you in battle. More Phaser Banks does.
@PhaserLightShow
That indeed is the weakest angle. Many ships have weak angles. Both Sovereign and NX look bad in the profile. Connie (both original and the refit) is a great design, as it looks good from any angle.
I'm probably a minor heretic. I love both the TOS Enterprise and the refit. I give a slight edge to the refit as it is a bit more refined with a touch more grace and artistry there. (If only good photos of its original paint could be found!) The TOS ship is a much more industrial design, and wonderful for it. I actually think the Matt Jeffries Phase II refit design is slightly superior to the TMP and TOS ones.
Also on my list of liked ships are the D and C. Both exceptionally well designed with grace, presense and majesty. I especially love how the Ambassador class C so grabs your attention with so little screen time. Sure we love the D. After 7 years and a movie who wouldn't. But the C grabbed us at hello.
I have a strange combative relationship with the NX01. I originally hated it. But it has grown on me. I still think it is a little busy and cluttered. But it moves well on screen.
I can't explain exactly, but I find the Enterprise-E incredibly boring. I mean it's sleek. It's sexy. It's everything we should want in a ship. But it feels too expected. It's the safe design. Nothing challenging. Nothing exciting. It's Voyager up scaled. And Voyager did it better. (Love or hate the show Voyager remains one of the better Star Trek designs.)
And then there is the JJprise... Ugh! It's like a version of the Enterprise as interpreted by a Cargo Cult. All previous versions of the Star Trek flagships were largely brought to life by skilled Industrial Designers. Often people who started out in Aerospace. Form followed function. It gave the designs weight and believability, and in doing so it increased their grace and beauty. You could look at the ships and see the thought process. The designs worked on multiple levels and depths. Whereas with the JJPrise it is clear that somebody handed a bunch of Apple wielding hipster graphic artists a picture of Kirks ship, and told them "we need something like that". No thought was given to how things worked. How things fit. It was just a bunch of pixels in a video game. No attempt made at believability. Just "make it look something like what the unwashed masses expect or they will eat us". It was lazy, sloppy disrespectful and crude. It lacks elegance, and seeks to replace it with artificial ginned up style. With an Apple logo slapped on top.
Also on my list of liked ships are the D and C. Both exceptionally well designed with grace, presense and majesty. I especially love how the Ambassador class C so grabs your attention with so little screen time. Sure we love the D. After 7 years and a movie who wouldn't. But the C grabbed us at hello.
I have a strange combative relationship with the NX01. I originally hated it. But it has grown on me. I still think it is a little busy and cluttered. But it moves well on screen.
I can't explain exactly, but I find the Enterprise-E incredibly boring. I mean it's sleek. It's sexy. It's everything we should want in a ship. But it feels too expected. It's the safe design. Nothing challenging. Nothing exciting. It's Voyager up scaled. And Voyager did it better. (Love or hate the show Voyager remains one of the better Star Trek designs.)
And then there is the JJprise... Ugh! It's like a version of the Enterprise as interpreted by a Cargo Cult. All previous versions of the Star Trek flagships were largely brought to life by skilled Industrial Designers. Often people who started out in Aerospace. Form followed function. It gave the designs weight and believability, and in doing so it increased their grace and beauty. You could look at the ships and see the thought process. The designs worked on multiple levels and depths. Whereas with the JJPrise it is clear that somebody handed a bunch of Apple wielding hipster graphic artists a picture of Kirks ship, and told them "we need something like that". No thought was given to how things worked. How things fit. It was just a bunch of pixels in a video game. No attempt made at believability. Just "make it look something like what the unwashed masses expect or they will eat us". It was lazy, sloppy disrespectful and crude. It lacks elegance, and seeks to replace it with artificial ginned up style. With an Apple logo slapped on top.
NCC-1701 Refit. I grew up on the films and not the original series (didn't get around to it until I was in my 20's), so that's always what I think of when I think of the Enterprise. Although I do love the old ship. As much as I enjoy TNG I've never been all that crazy about the design of the D. Interior or exterior.
This is actually by design. The oversized oval saucer on the D with the undersized nacelles sitting below its leading edge? There is a reason for it. Look at the D, Voyager, and the NX01. All three designs are intended for television. Smaller screen. Smaller aspect ratio. Much more limited use of depth. You can't really do the whole ship slowly coming at you and growing bigger trick that you can on a movie screen. So the ships were designed to convey the illusion of motion and speed on the small screen. They do this by giving the designs a bit of forced perspective in their shaping. The shape and size of the D's primary hull help give you the illusion of its scale and its motion, while remaining relatively still on screen.
Similarly the Defiant was designed as a compact frisbee shape as that saucer is easier to communicate maneuverability on a small screen while still filling the framing.
The refit and Enterprise-E were purpose designed for the movie screen. So they are longer. Without the forced perspective. They are more designed to be seen in motion. With the refit in particular meant to give an on screen impression of a ship under sale.
The designs and the specific shapes were matched to the medium, they were intended for how the finished shots would be perceived by the viewer. Not how the actual filming models looked.
While hardly cannon, doesn't one of the toy versions of the AGT Enterprise-D feature the saucer separation gimmick? That is at least a sign that it might exist somewhere in the design docs? (Technicaly most of the ST hero ships had saucer separation baked into their design docs. It was just only the D had the model built that would do it. The 1701, Refit, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereigns all had it thought about. The Soverign in particular is easy to see that it would separate much like the USS Promethius seen in Voyager. With the secondary hull keeping a delta shaped primary hull.
Well, the phaser lance on the underside of the saucer attaches directly to the secondary hull which to me suggests separation isn't possible. Also, the third nacelle hovers just above the separation line on top, which would make maneuvering the saucer after separating, or even while reattaching very tricky. Besides, given saucer separation was mostly meant to keep the families safe during combat, a combat focused ship, which this seems to be probably doesn't have families aboard. We saw no indication of any in AGT anyway.
But then, we need to consider:
You are correct there is such a toy. I think it's mostly an idea the toy makers came up with. At the very least, I doubt anyone considered separation when making the modifications for AGT. Hell, the modifications were done to the four-foot filming model, which really couldn't separate.
The phaser lance may be taking primary power from the nacelles but then would attach to the Primary Saucer Hull during seperation. Yes, the third nacelle makes maneuvering difficult, but not impossible so I do not really see a point their either.
@PhaserLightShow
the 3rd nacelle has nothing to do with maneuvering, right?
Similar threads
