The Enterprise-E is so ugly

[F. King Daniel]

Oh dear, is it 1996 again? Here's the scoop: Diehard fans often hate and fear change. Any change. Nothing is a good as whatever it was they grew up with. In the 80's, the movie Ent was too militaristic and too cold compared to the TOS ship (and one unhappy letter liked the nacelles to those on Klingon ships). 1987, the E-D was the ugliest thing ever to TOS and classic movie fans. In 1996, the E-E was. 2001, the NX-01 was both ugly and violated canon. In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

I like the Enterprise-E (IMO looking her best in Nemesis, with the slightly raised nacelles and darker paint job), but as I said in this thread, it doesn't make any sense for the ship to be so streamlined. Or at least, it and other post-TNG ships like Voyager and the Prometheus becoming more and more bullet-like invalidates whatever reason there is(n't) for the original Enterprise shape.

 

[Shat Happens]

In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

AND was built on Earth. Dont forget it was built on Earth.

 

[Robert Comsol]

The only good Enterprise-C is a dead Enterprise-C.

Wonderful, maybe something we can all agree upon? They all got destroyed at the Battle of Narendra III, one way or the other. Let them rest in peace.

Brother that subject is tiresome...

Yes. Because at the core of the subject we are looking at the question whether a premise change that overwrites P-C can itself be overwritten by yet another premise change that reconstitutes P-C. Maybe some would like to have a canon rule that states "the first premise change is irreversible and immune to any further premise changes that could undo the first one".

Bob

@ Shat Happens

Now I can't help but paraphrase the Bruce Springsteen song: Built in the USA...

 

[starburst]

I remember liking it just fine back in 1996, but to be fair, I was about 12 then.

Me too, I remember the excitement of going to the cinema with my Uncle and wanting to see more of the new ship.

Remembering I was 12 makes me feel old!

In retrospect, the movies could have benefited from some fidelity with the series. Visually, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis were Voyager movies, not TNG.

I think this is a very interesting point, -Brett-. The visual comparison towards Voyager apparently happened by accident -- John Eaves designed the Enterprise-E in a particular way and then was astonished to discover that Rick Sternbach had independantly came upon similar designs motifs when coming up with the Voyager blueprints -- but as far as TNG is concerned I do think the Enterprise-E and everything that came with it, inside and out (sets, uniforms etc), creates an unfortunate distance from the TV series of The Next Generation. 'Generations' has got its problems, but if there's one thing I adore about it, it's the way the Enterprise-D was updated for the big screen. The sets feel better than on TV but still retain the same visual blueprint we all loved for seven years. This is what I mean when I say Enterprise-E feels sterile internally. It lacks warmth. So does the USS Voyager in my opinion. But in the case of the three TNG movies the design decisions behind the Enterprise-E hurts more because (again IMO) I think it takes away a lot of the character we all fell in love with about the TV incarnation. We're seeing the same crew operating in effectively the same sorts of enviroments, but something just feels... so very "off" about it all.

First Contact and the Enterprise E and the movies that followed did bring us some excellent prop design; the new Phasers, Phaser Rifles, Tricorders and the space suits. Not to mention some of the best civilian outfits of the franchise up until that point (apart from Picard I didnt like his).

There was also the Engineering set which looked amazing but we never saw enough of and the 'Mark 7' Captains chair from the deleted scenes.... although that looked better on the NX's Bridge.

Oh dear, is it 1996 again? Here's the scoop: Diehard fans often hate and fear change. Any change. Nothing is a good as whatever it was they grew up with. In the 80's, the movie Ent was too militaristic and too cold compared to the TOS ship (and one unhappy letter liked the nacelles to those on Klingon ships). 1987, the E-D was the ugliest thing ever to TOS and classic movie fans. In 1996, the E-E was. 2001, the NX-01 was both ugly and violated canon. In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

Some of that comes with age, I was young when I first started watching TOS and then TMP I was in awe of the 'newly redesigned and upgraded' Enterprise. I actually remember thinking the nacelles looked similar to the ones of the Klingon ships but it never did and never has bothered me.

I dont have a problem with any of the Enterprise's, apart from the B as I love Excelsior and dont see a point to the changes, I find the NX-01 more retro than others in comparison to the TOS E and love the nuE too.

Others mileage will (and I would expect it to) vary

 

[Lance]

Oh dear, is it 1996 again? Here's the scoop: Diehard fans often hate and fear change. Any change. Nothing is a good as whatever it was they grew up with. In the 80's, the movie Ent was too militaristic and too cold compared to the TOS ship (and one unhappy letter liked the nacelles to those on Klingon ships). 1987, the E-D was the ugliest thing ever to TOS and classic movie fans. In 1996, the E-E was. 2001, the NX-01 was both ugly and violated canon. In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

I like the Enterprise-E (IMO looking her best in Nemesis, with the slightly raised nacelles and darker paint job), but as I said in this thread, it doesn't make any sense for the ship to be so streamlined. Or at least, it and other post-TNG ships like Voyager and the Prometheus becoming more and more bullet-like invalidates whatever reason there is(n't) for the original Enterprise shape.

For me it isn't that I "fear change". It's more that... look at it this way, Gene Roddenberry himself once claimed that part of Star Trek's success is that "the Enterprise herself is a character". Something as important as Captain Kirk, Mister Spock, Doctor McCoy; or Picard, Riker and Data. Doesn't matter. The Enterprise is a person, it has a soul which resonates alongside all the other characters.

Now, it wasn't *just* that we'd spent seven years with 1701-D and had gotten comfortable with her. It wasn't (in my case at least) an unwillingness to fall in love all over again with a new Enterprise. Heck, it wasn't even a lack of screen-time for 1701-E which was the issue. It was simply that in three movies, 1701-E failed to 'resonate' for me. It just felt like such a blaise replacement. 1701-D had been a character, it had felt alive, and it had felt like an important part of the other characters' lives. That's what Roddenberry was really talking about. The Enterprise must be more than just a machine that is crewed by military personnel, it's got to have feeling behind it. 1701-E doesn't have any feeling at all. Everything about it is ultilitarian, functional, but without warmth or character. And I don't feel that the crew characters cared about her either, not in the same way one felt that connection on the TV series. When Riker and Troi elope to other shores in 'Nemesis', I kept thinking that "Riker would never have left the 1701-D like this". It's as if even Number One hasn't got the hard-on for 1701-E that he had for her predecessor.

And if 'hard edged military' is the angle they wanted, they could've adjusted the existing sets to do that. We all know how effective "Yesterday's Enterprise" was at suggesting a war ship Enterprise without it adversely affecting our connection to the Galaxy Class that we knew and loved, and all they did there was move a few bits of furniture around and darken all the sets. All it would take to make the Enterprise-D 'cinematic' would've been some subtle tweaks to the filming model and some readjustment of the actual sets. Which is exactly what David Carson achieved so wonderfully well in 'Generations'.

 

[Ithekro]

In the seven years I just never got attached to the Enterprise-D. It just didn't seem to have as much personality as the NCC-1701. That probably has to do with how Kirk and Scott treat their Enterprise over what anyone in the newer ship's crew treats their ship. Picard has moments when he personalizes the ship, but Geordi just doesn't do it all that much. It was just never to the extent that made the ship feel like a character in the show.

This was a problem with all the newer shows for me. Voyager never seemed like a character because it was never allowed any character development (save for the Year of Hell episodes). Defiant has a tiny bit of character to it, but most of that was combat related via Sisko, Dax, or Worf, and sometimes O'Brian. DS9 did have a personality, but it was an ugly one given how much of a pain it was for O'Brian and later Rom.

With the NX-01 there was an attempt to give it personality via Trip, but it wasn't enough of a push since the ship never got character development and Archer never had much time to personalize his ship other that the engine being important in a family sense.

Scotty and Kirk were best at the humanization of the Enterprise. To the point where they and McCoy could make some of us cry a bit when she final was sacrificed for the good of the many. The fall of the Enterprise-D didn't get much more than a laugh/shock at Data swearing and some spectical during the crash. There was no feeling when the stardrive blew.

There was a little feeling with the destruction of the Defiant. She was a good ship.

 

[Timby]

I don't know about you guys, but the Enterprise-E is ten times better than that mess of an Enterprise that is currently filling out theater screens. I honestly think the Abramsverse Enterprise is ugly...not the Enterprise-E.

I'll take the Abramsverse version over the 'E', everyday of the week and twice on Sunday.

I also like the Abramsverse version of the Enterprise....

The Abrams Enterprise would be a thousand times better if the neck were moved forward. I did a quick and dirty Photoshop of it a while back just to illustrate:

 

[BillJ]

You need to move the nacelles and supports forward as well.

 

[Ithekro]

The new Enterprise looks fine from most angles, but looks horrible in the first shot we see her in space, as it makes the nacelles look even more wonky than they are.

 

[Timby]

You need to move the nacelles and supports forward as well.

I would disagree with that; moving the "neck" forward allows for more space for the secondary hull to breathe, and I'm a huge fan of the giant fuck-off nacelles. The biggest issue with the JJprise design is that the neck flows far too quickly into the engineering hull -- as soon as the neck tapers down, the support pylons appear.

 

[Smellmet]

I love the design of the nacelles I just think they are too damn big!

 

[austen_pierce]

You need to move the nacelles and supports forward as well.

I would disagree with that; moving the "neck" forward allows for more space for the secondary hull to breathe, and I'm a huge fan of the giant fuck-off nacelles. The biggest issue with the JJprise design is that the neck flows far too quickly into the engineering hull -- as soon as the neck tapers down, the support pylons appear.

I'm with, you, Timby. Your rough sketch does look a bit better overall, mostly due to the breathing room you describe.

To make you happy, BillJ, maybe stretch the secondary hull a bit to give the ship a bit more tail? IDK

 

[BillJ]

To make you happy, BillJ, maybe stretch the secondary hull a bit to give the ship a bit more tail? IDK

I do like tail!

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

To make you happy, BillJ, maybe stretch the secondary hull a bit to give the ship a bit more tail? IDK

I do like tail!

...and ample nacelles?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Now that this thread has a visitor from the Abramsverse, I really have to wonder what could possibly be wrong with the Enterprise-E.

Sorry, but each time I see the warp nacelles of the Abramsprise I ask myself whether these really help the ship to accelerate or rather slow it down.

I think a fully functional cloaking device could instantly resolve multiple issues with her design.

The Enterprise must be more than just a machine that is crewed by military personnel, it's got to have feeling behind it. 1701-E doesn't have any feeling at all. Everything about it is ultilitarian, functional, but without warmth or character. And I don't feel that the crew characters cared about her either, not in the same way one felt that connection on the TV series'.

A fine and important observation, IMHO. The protagonists must have a connection to their ship to make it pass as a believable character. Even Peter Weir understood that for "Master and Commander": Jack Aubrey makes a few comments about HMS Surprise that sounded like he was talking about his wife, but just those few lines turned the ship into a character.

Bob

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ If that's the case, Enterprise-D had 7 seasons to become a character.

I know I had to grow to like the D.

 

[trevanian]

In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

AND was built on Earth. Dont forget it was built on Earth.

I'd like to be able to forget that.

 

[Lt. LaForge]

The E had plenty of character, especially in Nemesis. I love the D more, but the E is classic too.

 

[austen_pierce]

In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

AND was built on Earth. Dont forget it was built on Earth.

I'd like to be able to forget that.

I would have like to see more. But then, I am a starship porn junkie, and seeing the new E pieced together (anywhere) would have had me drooling.

 

[BillJ]

In 2009, the nuE was ugly, violated canon and was too big.

AND was built on Earth. Dont forget it was built on Earth.

I'd like to be able to forget that.

Your brain must have exploded when she rose out of the ocean at the beginning of Star Trek Into Darkness!