The Enterprise-E is so ugly

[Dukhat]

There was simply no good reason for the D to be destroyed. But, if they absolutely had to do it, they could have at least made the E an identical Galaxy class ship.

Well, they certainly could have kept the D's destruction and saucer crash-landing scene. But they could have had Picard and Kirk go back further in time to stop Soran before the ship got destroyed. That way TPTB would still have their crash scene that they wanted, and have the Ent-D still be intact at the end of the movie.

But that was never the plan. Braga stated that they were just tired of seeing the D and wanted something new (the rumor that the E was built because it was easier to film is just hogwash).

I'd have preferred a refit of the D.

I'm never asked.

They could have refit it to look like it did in "All Good Things..!"

I think there'd be a lot more tolerance of the NX-01 had it not simply been an upside-down Akira, something the powers that be acknowledged that that's what it was. They commanded Drexler to just take the Akira and remove the 24th-century elements from it.

Actually, that's not quite correct. TPTB wanted the actual Akira class CGI model, unaltered, for the NX-01. Their thinking was that since it was just a background ship, no one would notice that it's the same as a ship from 200 in the future. Since this was utterly ludicrous, Drexler took it upon himself to make the changes to the model to what it ended up being in the show. That's the real reason why it looks so similar to the Akira.

 

[Mytran]

When I took a close look at all the careful thought and work Drexler did to the Akira shape (which as Cyke101 says, was pretty much forced upon him), I warmed to the NX-01 a lot more.

 

[Ithekro]

Drexler's NX-01, if looked at in detail, shows a lot of references to the NCC-1701. While the shape is still Akira-like, the detail is very much Constitution-class.

The refit I think sets off those detail features even better and takes it even farther from the Akira-like look.

Mind you Drexler has said that if he had his way the Enterprise would have had a sphere primary hull and and been similar to the Daedalus-class in style, based on Justman's early drawing of the USS Enterprise fom 1964 or so.

 

[Mudd]

Eaves's early design for the NX-01 was my favorite. Apparently it looked too much like the original Enterprise for the producers.

 

[Beagleman]

^^^
I would have to agree with them, yet that is one pretty ship!

 

[Cyke101]

I think there'd be a lot more tolerance of the NX-01 had it not simply been an upside-down Akira, something the powers that be acknowledged that that's what it was. They commanded Drexler to just take the Akira and remove the 24th-century elements from it.

Actually, that's not quite correct. TPTB wanted the actual Akira class CGI model, unaltered, for the NX-01. Their thinking was that since it was just a background ship, no one would notice that it's the same as a ship from 200 in the future. Since this was utterly ludicrous, Drexler took it upon himself to make the changes to the model to what it ended up being in the show. That's the real reason why it looks so similar to the Akira.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Smellmet]

Eaves's early design for the NX-01 was my favorite. Apparently it looked too much like the original Enterprise for the producers.

Looks lovely, but also too advanced looking for the NX-01 and probably the original NCC-1701, looks almost like a halfway house between the TOS Enterprise and the refit

 

[Viper78]

The Enterprise-E is built for a different time, for a different set of political problems than the Enterprise-C or Enterprise-D. THe Enterprise-C seems to be built in a flux between Starfleet coming away from the need to defend the borders constantly against the Klingons and Romulans, and towards an era where they can just go explore space. However there were still threats from the Cardassians looming, so the Ambassador-class still has a bit of military utility to it.

The Enterprise-D and the Galaxy-class are designed in the wake of an Alliance with the Klingons (not just a peace), the Romulans are basically quiet, and the Cardassians are more or less contained. There are other issues with races, but they are all minor and isolated by comparison to the days of the Klingons and Romulans being ready to pounce over the Neutral Zones. The Galaxy-class was to be the explorer's explorer. The comfortable ship that takes the Federation out into distance space to spead their culture to a thousand worlds. The relative small number insisted by Roddenbery would means that these would be uncommon luxurty explorers for the best in the fleet.

But things never follow to plan. By the 10 years after the launch of the Enterprise-D there seem to have been at least a dozen Galaxy-class ships and the fleet is able to concetrate into two fleets for combat actions against the Dominion. And withing five years of tha, to have seven parked near Sol for who knows what reason.

The Enterprise-E was built for combat.

Can't argue with that, although I would say that the Galaxy class seemed to be the Federations most adaptable ship. When they were refit for the Dominion war they looked to be by far the most powerful starfleet ships.

 

[Ithekro]

The warp core of the Galaxy-class would seem to be powerful enough to allow for such adaptation and (if the DS9 technical manual is to be believed) removal of much of the interior in favor of more combat related systems results in a more robust ship that has the power to fight with multiple phaser arrays and keep its shields strong. Even against planetary defense arrays that seem to burn Akira and Excelsior class ships down quite quickly.

 

[Mudd]

Well, of course a ship designed in 2000 would look more advanced than one designed in 1964 - the existing NX-01 looks more advanced than the TOS ship, which is just disguised a little bit by detailing that harks back to the pilot version of the Enterprise. NX-01 and even the Constitution class Defiant that eventually appeared on Star Trek Enterprise include cues that were only added to the design starting with ST:TMP.

 

[Lance]

Eaves's early design for the NX-01 was my favorite. Apparently it looked too much like the original Enterprise for the producers.

Hadn't seen that before! Now if Eaves had submitted something more like that as his Enterprise-E, then I'd have been a lot happier with it.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Sorry, but that's incorrect. I presented observations and evidence on behalf of a different theory.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. What you present is not a theory; it's a chain of rationalizations based on premises that are agreeable to you and that are chosen to lead to a desired conclusion.

Despite the fact that the conclusion intends to restore canon continuity (and again, what's wrong with that? I never got a reply from any of you although it was a straightforward public question - instead I get mockery of the worst kind), it would help if guys like you would pay attention to what I actually wrote:

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 [later] 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).

Everybody is entitled to consider the evidence to be too circumstantial and/or too subtle or the ramifications that spring from it too complicated or too difficult to understand. I have absolutely no problem with that.

The problem I’m still having (and will talk about it at any given opportunity) is how supposedly open-minded Trek or TNG fans acted like prosecutors of the Dark Ages bashing, debasing, mocking and mobbing a different rationalization approach (Chemakhu's “dribbling imbecile”, King Daniel’s sick daub).

After others than me re-opened the topic, Ithekro apparently took an interest in the issue, but because the threads had been closed (thanks to the participation of some characters around here) there wasn’t really a place where to continue. Since I’m not really impressed by the mockery, I’m certain that King Daniel’s latest sick daub (just as all the previous mockery) is exclusively designed for one thing: to discourage others to take part in discussing the issue - and THAT’s where I really get upset.

This has no longer to do anything with the Trek ship with the third letter of the alphabet, it’s about how we deal in general with bullies that try to tell you what you are allowed to think and talk about and what not – in a Star Trek message board.

Almost looks to me that the title of this thread should have been different: It’s less about whether the Enterprise-E is ugly or not, but how ugly “fans” can get when they get the opportunity to mob somebody - ranging from juvenile Trekkies to seasoned TNG screenplay writers.

Bob

 

[GalaxyX]

Eaves's early design for the NX-01 was my favorite. Apparently it looked too much like the original Enterprise for the producers.

Hadn't seen that before! Now if Eaves had submitted something more like that as his Enterprise-E, then I'd have been a lot happier with it.

You know, I have to agree. Take that blueprint, work on the nacelles so they look a bit more 24th century, and it would have been a kickass replacement for the D.

 

[Ithekro]

Looks like a compromise between the Ambassador-class and the Probert-C.

 

[BillJ]

Looks like a compromise between the Ambassador-class and the Probert-C.

I don't see it.

But I would've loved for the design to have been the NX-01. I really don't care whether the design fit with the rest of the shows or not.

 

[sojourner]

Hey Bob, I know this has been attempted before in the closed threads, but I'll bring up one point here for you to explain.

Why is the modelon the wall of the conference room of the aircraft carrier, the Ent-B and the Ent-A models perfectly acceptable in they're inaccuracy, but the Ent-C as represented must be the "true" look of the ship? Why the double standard?

 

[Robert Comsol]

Why is the model on the wall of the conference room of the aircraft carrier, the Ent-B and the Ent-A models perfectly acceptable in their inaccuracy, but the Ent-C as represented must be the "true" look of the ship? Why the double standard?

I didn’t say it must be the „true“ look (although of all the ships on the display it most accurately portrays the Enterprise-C according to the side view sketch Mr. Probert provided for the sculptor), but all the ships on the display, despite their obvious roughness, reflect distinctive features and proportions that instantly enable us to identify the ships they are supposed to represent.

As illustrated in post # 213 the roughness of the display wouldn’t enable us to tell which saucer section of both Enterprises-C would be the accurate one.

But the proportions of the engine nacelles, the nacelle pylon angle and the stardrive section are so noticeably different in both designs that the Enterprise-C golden sculpture would be the only sculpture on the display beyond immediate recognition and identification. YMMV.

Bob

 

[sojourner]

But the proportions of the engine nacelles, the nacelle pylon angle and the stardrive section are so noticeably different in both designs that the Enterprise-C golden sculpture would be the only sculpture on the display beyond immediate recognition and identification. YMMV.

Bob

So, what aircraft carrier is that? Surely without the angled flight deck it can't be the Enterprise? It's just too noticeably different.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

^ We're looking at the wrong side of the ship to see the angled flight deck. We're looking at the side with the island/bridge.

The island looks right for the original configuration of the Enterprise, since it's square.

I think all those ships are inaccurate, some more than others.

 

[RandyS]

The more hard-edged angle taken by the Enterprise E's design is such a complete 180 from the 1701-D's design philosophy, that I honestly couldn't help feeling that something iconic about The Next Generation was actually missing in those last three movies. The actors were all there, but the spirit was lacking. The presence of 1701-E (or more particularly some of the decisions made on the drawing board during the design of the ship) was a big factor in that. 1701-D had an unique ambiance all its own which was as much a part of the TV show's success as anything else, and which the 1701-E lacked. IMO.

I agree with all of this. There was simply no good reason for the D to be destroyed. But, if they absolutely had to do it, they could have at least made the E an identical Galaxy class ship.

I am completely convinced that if they reused the "D", fans would be screaming about how they copied the TOS movies and the studio cheapened out.

You just can't win![/QUOTE]

I wouldn't have.