All Good Thing's Enterprise
- Thread starter Photon
- Start date
It was a refitted version of the Enterprise-D.
Ditto.
The most fanboy design in all of Trek canon.
Let's put a KEWL third nacelelle on it!
Let's put a kick-ass fazor cannon on it! (Isn't the Federation supposed to be peaceful)
Let's put all sorts of wings and widgets on it!
They took a beautiful, elegant, design and pissed all over it. I'd rather seen the Enterprise-D destroyed than ever become that monstrosity.
Well, more like the USS "It's the last episode so let's break all the rules."
Ron Moore and Brannon Braga freely admit that the tried to cram into AGT all the things they weren't allowed to do in the series -- i.e. Crusher and Picard being married and divorced, three-nacelles on the Enterprise.
I refuse to buy this year's ST Hallmark ship ornament because it is the horribly ugly ship.
Now, the TWOK ornament...I might get that...
Now, the TWOK ornament...I might get that...
I kind of liked the phaser cannon too, but I was like 15 at the time what did I know? Hell, even today it's "kind of" cool. I just kind of wish it was such a prominant feature on the underside of the saucer. Something more subtle and less agressive would be nice.
The third nacelle, the "air conditioner" on top of the shuttlebay and all of the widgets on the ship are crap though.
The third nacelle, the "air conditioner" on top of the shuttlebay and all of the widgets on the ship are crap though.
The alternate D wasn't the first three-nacelled ship used on the show. The USS Princeton wreckbash built for BOBW had triple nacelles. Considering how readily people ignore the so-called "Roddenberry Rules", it's no big thing. Since when was it established that having Picard and Crusher marry was taboo?
As for the big phaser cannon, personally I always liked Tigger's description over at the ASDB. The design was meant to be a new warship, and the Galaxy spaceframe doesn't have a lot of space to mount multiple torpedo launchers. So instead it relies on much heavier phaser armament.
As for the big phaser cannon, personally I always liked Tigger's description over at the ASDB. The design was meant to be a new warship, and the Galaxy spaceframe doesn't have a lot of space to mount multiple torpedo launchers. So instead it relies on much heavier phaser armament.
Well, the kitbashes in the Wolf 359 where hardly supposed to be "true" classes that we where supposed to take seriously or scrutinize all that closely. I'd take any designs that we see as a "chunk of twisted metal" floating in a debris feild on a view screen or, scarcly, in a flyby for two seconds with a grain of sodium chloride.
IIRC, the extra third nacelle could be explained away by the fact that each nacelle on that and other similar class ships actually all had twin warp coils (which was why they were so wide compared to older nacelle designs), as exemplified by dual bussard collectors under the main forward dome, and as later actually seen in the TNG S7 ep "Eye of the Beholder". That means that Roddenberry's "warp drives are always in pairs" is undisputed, as the Galaxy-class actually has four warp coils, and not two, just like the Stargazer. The upgraded Ent-D from AGT had six warp coils, never breaking the law.
That's the on-the-record explanation. Off the record, piss on Roddenberry's laws. I personally think it's a cool design.
Blueicus said:
Ok, I disliked the third nacelle, but I admit I liked the fanwank phaser cannon back when I first saw it. I feel dirty.
I always called it the wave motion gun.
Trekker4747 said:
Well, the kitbashes in the Wolf 359 where hardly supposed to be "true" classes that we where supposed to take seriously or scrutinize all that closely. I'd take any designs that we see as a "chunk of twisted metal" floating in a debris feild on a view screen or, scarcly, in a flyby for two seconds with a grain of sodium chloride.
Not according to Mike Okuda, who helped design and build the wreck models. As far as he is concerned, they are official classes. And on a personal level, I tend to consider them canonical because his details match up with the specific models.
In any case, those are not the only designs to ignore the "Roddenberry Rules." The only rule that Roddenberry himself mentioned was that there had to be even numbers of nacelles. Other "rules," like Andrew Probert's rule that the nacelles need line of sight to each other, are broken by designs like the Defiant and Intrepid.
Which gets me thinking: why, when tensions with the Klingons are so high, is Starfleet retiring the Enterprise-D, a massive, multi-capable Starship fitted with a cloak and a cannon capable of punching a hole straight through a Klingon battlecruiser? It was a 35 year old ship at the time! Doesn't the Galaxy class have a design life of 100 years according to the tech manual? The present day CVN 65 USS Enterprise is due to be taken out of service after a 52 year life.
I always hated that line, it was just a throwaway that could have easily been replaced by Riker saying "I had to wrestle it away from a shipyard that was about to do another refit on it" or something.
I always hated that line, it was just a throwaway that could have easily been replaced by Riker saying "I had to wrestle it away from a shipyard that was about to do another refit on it" or something.
Similar threads
