Why didn't Berman and Braga think that Ent-D looked good on the big screen?

It started with a runabout landing in the main shuttle bay, right? I was actually quite impressed with it and would have been happy seeing that on-screen.

 

Actually, what really looked nice on the big screen was the Nebula class ship at the end of the movie. That scene really did that design justice, moreso than the shows ever really have.

For what it's worth, the novels go with that interpretation, with it even being a plot point in a very recent one.

 

Probert's Enterprise D was the last brilliant Star Trek ship design.

 

The Nebula was stunning in that scene!!

And what do you mean? From what I gathered from the novels, and I keep up with all the current 24th century ones, the Sovereign is seen as a multi-explorer, capable of defending itself for sure, but not a warship. There are even some children aboard again.
Are you refering to Dayton Ward's latest novel?

 

Wasn't there suppose to be something like 300 starships in a running fight from the Typhon sector to Earth, with Enterprise finally arriving from the Romulan Neutral Zone as the Borg cube was closing on Earth's orbit? Not telling how long that all took really...aside from a jump cut that is.

 

I have no clue as to where that was mentioned, but I have read that. Part of the script, perhaps? Or the novel based on the movie/script? But I do recall reading that basicly, the cube basicly encountered a big fleet of starships (not sure how many) in the Typhon Sector, didn't even stop and was then basicly chased by the entire fleet, shooting them down in the proces. What we see as the cube nears Earth, is the remainder of the fleet still trying to shoot it down.

 

I think it was the novelization. But it has been a long time now.

 

I don't know. I liked the Defiant,Runabout,Voyager and DS9 though that isn't a ship it is the main setting like most of the ships listed.
Jason

Just remembered to add the Shuttlepod from "Enterprise" as well.

 

Ward's Headlong Flight, I seem to remember there being a lot of details being provided about how the Sovereign class was a more combat-oriented design.

 

I just read that... There weren't "a lot of details," but there was a passage talking about how the Sovvie was originally planned as an explorer but was revamped after Wolf 359. "People like Lieutenant Commander Elizabeth Shelby were putting those hard lessons to good use in the next generation of Starfleet vessels, ensuring they could stand against adversaries like the Borg while still being equipped to carry out their primary mission of pushing ever outward the boundaries of knowledge and discovery." (p. 193)

So not a warship, just an explorer with improved combat/defense capabilities.

 

Because the TNT-D always looked like a bad modern art disasterpiece? (I NEVER liked the interior or exterior design of the 1701-D myself. They shoulk have killed that fugly thing sooner.)

 

I had a reply planned, but it was basicly what Christopher said.

 

Yep. Unfortunately that's standard operating procedure in Hollywood. Everyone thinks they can improve on things that in many cases never needed fixing. We're seeing it play out now with Discovery's pricey but tacky production design.

 

Fiction is an art form. Artists are never going to be as good at imitating someone else's artistic style than they're going to be as expressing their own. That's why actors who take over existing roles usually develop their own way of playing them rather than trying to slavishly imitate the previous actor. That's why comic-book artists who take over a book redesign the characters in their own art style rather than pretending to draw like someone else. Imitation is always going to be inferior. You can't do your best creative work unless you're free to create in your own style. It's not about "improving" or "fixing," it's just about being true to oneself. After all, these are just works of imagination, so there is no one "true" version of them. Art is a process of interpreting ideas, and every artist brings a different interpretation. That variety of approaches is a good thing. Think of all the great comic book artists whose distinctive styles we'd never have been able to appreciate if they'd all been trying to draw Spider-Man just like Steve Ditko did or to draw Wonder Woman just like H.G. Peter did. And would we have appreciated Christopher Reeve's Superman nearly as much if he'd just done a half-assed Bud Collyer impression instead of making the role his own?

Sure, yeah, some productions tend to stick more faithfully to recreating what's been done before, like The Force Awakens and Rogue One. Imitation can be done, and sometimes it can even work. But it's narrow-minded to insist it's the only acceptable way of creating.

 

Agreed. I disliked the "D" for many years, but came to realize that it made a statement and was consistent with Roddenberry's "kinder, gentler" vision for TNG (I'll assume the story I've read about him wanting the nacelles shortened is true). Same goes for the ship interiors. In my opinion, the exterior and interiors of the "E" were uninspired and don't inspire.

 

That's different than redesigning the uniforms or the look of the characters. Curt Swan and Neal Adams drew the same Superman in their own styles. When John Byrne took over the X-Men he didn't redesign them he used the model set by Dave Cockrum. (Though he did give Wolverine new costume, eventually)

 

I'm one of those who never got to like the Enterprise D design. Part of that has to do with it not fitting in as a logical evolution of the ships in the fleet that came before it. The ugliest design of all, the Enterprise C, is obviously an attempt to bridge the gap between two very different design philosophies - an awkward "missing link", if you will. I thought it was interesting that the Enterprise E brought the design back around so that it *did* look like it was an evolution of the Enterprise A and B before it.

Personally, I think there is a unique, clean elegance to the TMP Enterprise and the rest of the fleet ships of that era that was sadly lost in subsequent generations.

The Enterprise D always looked to me looked like it belonged in an alien fleet.

 

Different in specifics, not in nature. They're the same in that they're both examples of artists exercising their prerogative to bring their own creativity to a work. This is fiction, not history. There is no "right" answer -- there's just what previous creators made up. New creators doing their own variation on someone else's work have the right to keep something or change it as they see fit. (Well, if they're taking over the core work, or doing a separate adaptation/reboot of it. Tie-in writers like me are obligated to stay consistent with the core work because what we do is merely a supplement. But tie-in work is a specific type of creative endeavour with its own distinct limits that don't and shouldn't apply elsewhere. Creators need freedom.)

 

The D looked fine on the big screen. The E looked terrible; it looked more like a bigger budgeted 1990's one-season and cancelled science fiction series ship. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

If there is a manual lever to pull that jettisoned the whole E, I'd be for it. ;-)

 

Who is calling for restrictions to creator freedom? It's just that artists need to accept the reality that when they put something out there people might simply not like it. You can't guilt people into liking something purely out of respect for the level of their effort.