The Enterprise-E is so ugly

[Lance]

I got the sense that the E was a deliberate retreat from the idea of the crew taking their whole family aboard, which I was happy to see. Film-era TNG tried to aim for more of a TOS-movie buttoned-down military vibe and to lose some of the laid-back-ness of the show, which kind of had to happen, as we shifted from the 80s into the 90s.

See, the trouble there is that the 'laid-back-ness' was a crucial part of The Next Generation's charm, a show which lest we forget was at the height of its fame when it went off the air in 1994. If you ask me 1996 was far too late for this crew to be going through such a radical change in their visual imprint, and one moderately well-received movie versus three which were only lukewarmly received indicates to me that something happened to stop the audience coming along with them all the way to the end. In my view (it's all just my opinion natch) the muted and 'buttoned-down military vibe' were contributing factors to killing any sense that these movies were still The Next Generation.

The mashed up design of Enterprise-E, like those terrible gray dirge uniforms, was simply one part of where The Next Generation's entire production went into a metaphorical dark alley between 1996 and 2002, IMO. It works in the context of just First Contact as a movie, it fits the whole asthetic vibe of that movie facing up against a Borg cube, but nobody took the five minutes required to ask whether it would actually be functionally appropriate for other types of story. Insurrection was a very different type of movie to FC, not military and not buttoned-down, and the Enterprise-E (for me) feels like it doesn't "belong" throughout that movie.

 

[BillJ]

See, the trouble there is that the 'laid-back-ness' was a crucial part of The Next Generation's charm, a show which lest we forget was at the height of its fame when it went off the air in 1994. If you ask me 1996 was far too late for this crew to be going through such a radical change in their visual imprint, and one moderately well-received movie versus three which were only lukewarmly received indicates to me that something happened to stop the audience coming along with them all the way to the end. In my view (it's all just my opinion natch) the muted and 'buttoned-down military vibe' were contributing factors to killing any sense that these movies were still The Next Generation.

Very well said.

 

[Mytran]

Half the uniforms in INS were ditched fairly quickly anyway, for more colourful (well, earth-tones) attire.

I'll also take this moment to point out how bad I think the Admiral's Uniforms are in the new style. Really - a belt? That's it?

 

[C.E. Evans]

I'll also take this moment to point out how bad I think the Admiral's Uniforms are in the new style. Really - a belt? That's it?

It's a medium-length belted jacket, a slightly longer & gold-trimmed version of the captain's jacket that Picard and Sisko wore.

 

[mos6507]

See, the trouble there is that the 'laid-back-ness' was a crucial part of The Next Generation's charm.

Which, IMHO, works best on TV and not in big-budget films. I'm not saying films have to be JJ-esque thrill-rides, but really, a lot of TNG was very quiet, slow-moving, and dull overall. IMHO, There are probably only about a dozen or so really standout TNG episodes. The rest have some charming signature moments here and there but are surrounded by a lot of padding. Works in a casual TV watching environment but not as well accepted when you plunked down a lot of money on tickets and popcorn and you're rooted in your seat.

Perhaps the best decision would have been not to even try to transition TNG into films. I really think a lot of the politics of doing that was driven by Paramount just feeling like a Trek movie had to keep being pumped out every 2 years like clockwork.

 

[Robert Comsol]

You can mock me all day long if that satisfies your juvenile desires...

Bob, I really wish you'd stop saying things like that.

I really wish it wouldn’t be necessary saying things like that. If you think something is farfetched, doesn’t make sense or else, state the reasons and have it discussed. Just putting a laughing smiley either suggests you hold a personal grudge, don’t understand what it’s about or it’s an attempt to discourage others to join the discussion or the OP because you dislike the topic. This is not constructive criticism, it’s juvenile and pretty immature, and – last but not least – totally incompatible with Star Trek ethics, IMHO.

Believe it or not, I actually enjoy reading most of your posts. You seem like a very knowledgeable person and a true fan of Star Trek, just like the rest of us. You're an intelligent and erudite guy.

Same feeling here when I see your contributions that do not concern the Enterprise-C. If someone comes up with a rationalization where answering questions outweighs raising new ones, I’ll side with this individual, regardless whether I just vehemently disagreed with the same individual concerning another issue (and that happened here in the past two years more than once). I’m interested in the challenge finding rationalization solutions, not personal conflict.

And yet, whenever you bring up the subject of Probert's C (and then inevitably get razzed about it by the rest of us for your..."overzealousness" about the subject), you turn into this arrogant know-it-all who disparages the rest of us for not having the audacity to agree with your opinions. That's a great disservice to you. I'd ask that you please lighten up about that particular subject

Let’s cut to the chase: According to your canon philosophy everything can be rewritten, it’s then the original premise that needs correction, adjustment or erasure while production knowledge (actual intentions of the creators) is irrelevant. According to my canon philosophy “first come, first served” it’s the revision that’s in need of correction or adjustment, and the original intentions of the creators are relevant unless these obviously contradict canon (interesting question: which methodology is the nerdier one?).

When I posted the treatise I first encountered mockery. Obviously that didn’t discourage me from continuing, so next I had to listen to all kinds of “thinly veiled insults” (amazing how you accused me of all the things you actually did). That didn’t impress me neither, nor did it change my tone, so in a last attempt to derail both threads you and a few others had the audacity to ask the moderators to have the threads closed (here is the other one). When I realized how emotional a lot of people where becoming, I simply took inspiration from the Vulcans and – something SPCTRE can relate to – Manuel Neuer. (he went through a similar kind of shitstorm, yet came out clean)

I admit I started off on the wrong foot (i.e. how certain could our protagonists in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” be that they were just in an alternate timeline of our universe and not instead in a parallel universe) but, believe it or not, the raving and ranting compelled me to research deeper and that’s when I noticed the “Redemption II” discrepancy and the plausible premise change intentions of “Yesterday’s Enterprise” creators Ron D. Moore and David Carson which enabled me to rest my theory on a solid canon foundation (and before the threads were closed).

It’s somewhat weird, but I should thank you for your participation in these threads.

Revisiting the issue I think it’s not entirely inappropriate to use an analogy. The geocentric model had been in use for several centuries and when the heliocentric model was proposed as an alternative, many “felt a new, unknown theory could not subvert an accepted consensus”.

What transpired in these Enterprise-C threads is essentially the same, because the “unknown theory” (i.e. Sela’s mother came from another parallel universe but not the one featured in “Yesterday’s Enterprise”) is obviously not compatible with the “accepted consensus” we had for the past 23 years. It has the advantage that it solves several oddities, enables us to enjoy a “guilt-free” pleasure when watching the Conference Lounge scenes in the first four seasons and eventually enriches Starfleet’s diversity with the “Probert Starship Class”.

Which reminds me to ask you again, and especially after revisiting an older thread here at the BBS before my participation, what you could possibly find wrong with this, considering that you are the most vocal opponent of the lack of Starfleet diversity depicted in TNG and DS9.

If you find my writing style offensive, I apologize. But as an intelligent and erudite fan, you should be aware that it’s the content and the arguments that matter at the end of the day, and not the way a presentation is wrapped.

Bob

 

[Kemaiku]

Just drop it already, good grief, no one cares.

 

[BillJ]

Just drop it already, good grief, no one cares.

It's not that I think no one cares. But I'm tired of seeing it pop up in seemingly every thread Robert Comsol takes part in. Somehow it all ends up back at the Enterprise-C.

 

[Kemaiku]

Just drop it already, good grief, no one cares.

It's not that I think no one cares. But I'm tired of seeing it pop up in seemingly every thread Robert Comsol takes part in. Somehow it all ends up back at the Enterprise-C.

We all are, it was an interesting 'what if' for all of a short while in one thread. Had it stayed that way, fair enough.

We have a canon Enterprise C officially endorsed by Paramount (about to be released in the Starship collection as well no less) and that's good enough for me and apparently the majority of the fandom.

 

[Ithekro]

If you wanted there is be ships of like the Probert-C in existance, but not be the Enterprise-C, I would recommend that it was the class between the Ambassador-class and the Galaxy-class. Following the destruction of the Enterprise-C, Starfleet ordered that a new Enterprise is built. At first they order a new ship of the Probert-C design, but technology from the Galaxy-class Project jumps ahead before the ship is too far along. They either cancel the ship (and scrap it), or rename it because Starfleet wants one of the new Galaxy-class ships to be the new Enterprise, rather than the slightly older Probert-C type.

Though this fits better from the discussion about the NCC-1701 being 40 years old thread.


As for the Enterprise-E, I like the design. I was in favor of longer warp nacelles over those on the -C and -D because I liked the nacelles on the -A and -B and noticed that up to that point, the Excelsior-class had the longest warp nacelles.

 

[Mytran]

Although a thread about the Enterprise-E is not really the appropriate thread to go delving back into alternate theories about which Enterprise-C came from which parallel universe, it has to be said that Robert_Comsol was not the one to first mention it this time; that dubious honour goes to Rinceweind (via Youtube implication) and Dukhat (through complaining about subject matter that hadn't even been raised in this thread at the time!)

I'm all for not derailing this thread too much, but can we at least keep deviations from the topic based in fact and what has actually been said? Please?

With regard to what (I think) the original intention of the Enterprise-C mention was, I think this extract can effectively convey the intention:

See? The Sternbach-C's nacelles are proportionally shorter and fatter than the Probert-C's nacelles. That is all.

 

[BillJ]

I like Sternbach's "C" better.

 

[Smellmet]

I like the green one miles better, it looks like a successor to the B whilst being a precursor to the D perfectly. The top one looks like a stumpy toy to me.

 

[Ithekro]

They did say they tried to build an Oval saucer version of the -C, but it was too expensive for just one episode. Or it was just too awkward given what they had experiance with building and filming the -D that they went with a simplier round saucer, a saucer that does fit the Excelsior's roundness.

The stubby secondary hull looks like Starfleet was having issues going bigger while adjusting the hulls to fit the new warp engine style and system with the remade warp scale.

This is also why I like the Enterprise-E, it looks like someone in Starfleet was crafting a ship for high speeds even though that would seem to be a nonsense thing in space or subspace.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Thanks Mytran. Had I really wanted to push the issue I would have posted the picture with the various parallel timelines, instead I merely posted a link to the illustration (where you now isolated the elements mentioned, thanks again).

We have a canon Enterprise C officially endorsed by Paramount (about to be released in the Starship collection as well no less) and that's good enough for me and apparently the majority of the fandom.

If that's what you like to believe that's fine. Good thing nevertheless that we have alternate choice backed by canon. However subtle, Ron D. Moore and David Carson built a bridge in "Redemption II", most likely not with the intention to reconstitute the canon status of the Probert-C, but do give fans an option that could have otherwise felt betrayed that Tasha Yar didn't get her meaningful death suggested for the aftermath of "Yesterday's Enterprise".

It's entirely up to each of you whether you want to walk this bridge or not.

But if a topic arises that concerns some of the issues I mentioned, of course I will provide links to the relevant passages. Unless you seriously feel it should be prohibited because dogma says otherwise.

Bob

 

[Mytran]

They did say they tried to build an Oval saucer version of the -C, but it was too expensive for just one episode. Or it was just too awkward given what they had experiance with building and filming the -D that they went with a simplier round saucer, a saucer that does fit the Excelsior's roundness.

I think budget had a hell of a lot to do with the final result. Probert's design is undoubtably a sleeker ship and to me seems a more natural transition between the long, stretched B and the flatter, curveyer D. But the cost for building a model like that for only one appearance was always going to count against it in a weekly TV show.

I'll also take this moment to point out how bad I think the Admiral's Uniforms are in the new style. Really - a belt? That's it?

It's a medium-length belted jacket, a slightly longer & gold-trimmed version of the captain's jacket that Picard and Sisko wore.

Fair enough, there's more than just the belt. But it still looks botched together IMO.
TBH I'm no great fan of the FC uniforms in general, so there might be some bias

 

[Tarheel]

I've always liked the Enterprise-E. It looked sleek and built-for-speed. I know aerodynamics mean nothing in space, but it still looked like it would be fast.

On a related note, I always thought the Excelsior was ugly. It felt like something designed by committee, very corporate and very 80's. Similar to many of the Enterprise-E complaints above, I thought the Excelsior had no heart or soul. I never understood why it was a fan-favorite.

 

[Kemaiku]

If that's what you like to believe that's fine.

Accepting reality, not "believing", you dribbling imbicile.

 

[Mytran]

"Reality" is that Star Trek is a TV show and thus a form of art. And all art is subject to individual interpretation, isn't it?

...I always thought the Excelsior was ugly. It felt like something designed by committee, very corporate and very 80's. Similar to many of the Enterprise-E complaints above, I thought the Excelsior had no heart or soul. I never understood why it was a fan-favorite.

The bill grilled neck certainly shouts "industrial" to me as well, not what we've previously come to expect from starships

 

[Mytran]

...