Enterprise E

[Atomic_Monkey]

The bridge just isn't a very practical design and that's a shame because there's a lot about it that looks really good. I like the rows of consoles along the sides, and the colour scheme. And the carpets.

Those are all excellent points I hadn't noticed. I agree it's an impractical layout.

I also don't like the way the captain's chair on the E is raised slightly above, and spaced farther apart from, the two other command chairs (Riker's and Troi's). That's very hierarchical and militaristic. I prefered the more collaborative feel of the D's design with all three chairs on the same level and right next to each other. I realize I keep beating this drum and it's likely getting tedious, but I prefer when the Enterprise is presented as vessel of science and diplomacy, not a battleship.

 

[The Wormhole]

By having a separate a distinctive Captain's Chair, which the Enterprise D totally does is still being hierarchical. The Captain's chair might be on the same level as the other two, but it is a very distinctly different style to say nothing of the fact it's dead center of the bridge, making it rather throne-like to be honest. If they wanted something collaborative, they'd have done what Voyager's bridge did by giving the Captain and XO the exact same style of chair with both sharing a central position.

 

[Takeru]

I realize I keep beating this drum and it's likely getting tedious, but I prefer when the Enterprise is presented as vessel of science and diplomacy, not a battleship.

I'd argue that this isn't true. The Enterprise-D is covered with phaser banks and torpedo tubes and in the very first episode dumps the saucer and Picard moves to the battle bridge and a few weeks later we see them hunting down Ferengi also clearly ready to fight.
Being a battleship might not have been the primary purpose but the D was clearly designed and intended to serve that purpose. Starfleet is also hierarchical and militaristic, that aspect carried over from TOS and Roddenberry did nothing to change that.
The E's captain's chair being 10 inches higher than the other two and how that makes the bridge feel regarding hierarchy is pretty much irrelevant when the Enterprise E first appears in First Contact in which we see Picard barking orders and arguably being at his most militaristic ready to send his crew to fight the borg with their bare hands if they have to.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

By having a separate a distinctive Captain's Chair, which the Enterprise D totally does is still being hierarchical. The Captain's chair might be on the same level as the other two, but it is a very distinctly different style to say nothing of the fact it's dead center of the bridge, making it rather throne-like to be honest.

You're framing the question as a binary: the captain's chair is either hierarchical or it's not.

I'm framing the question in terms of degrees. The D's central, fancier chair is certainly hierarchical to a degree. No argument from me. But clearly it's less hierarchical than the E's raised chair spaced away from the other command officers.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Starfleet is also hierarchical and militaristic, that aspect carried over from TOS and Roddenberry did nothing to change that.

That is not correct. Roddenberry did many things to move away from the military feel of TOS and the movies. In fact, the design aesthetic of TNG was an explicit rejection of the militarism in the films. That's not my interpretation; he and the other producers who created TNG openly talked about it. For example:

• He softened the interior of the D to have carpet, earth toned colors, organic materials (wood), wide spaces, bright lightening, etc.
• He instructed the costume designer to avoid the military style of the films' uniforms and go in the opposite direction, which is how they wound up with the spandex pajamas.
• He instructed the prop master to design phasers that didn't look like guns, to downplay weapons, which is how they ended up with the cricket and dustbuster.

I understand there were still some militaristic aspects in TNG. Yes, the D was heavily armed with phasers and torpedoes. And yes, Starfleet used rank like a military service. But this isn't a binary question: Starfleet is either a military organization or it's not. It's a question of degree.

And in terms of degree, Roddenberry permitted Starfleet to serve a defensive function, but he made that secondary and de-emphasized. In other words, his vision allowed for there to be some militarism in TNG; but it was meant to preclude defense from being Starfleet's primary function. Consequently, pointing out a few ways in which Starfleet had military qualities in TNG doesn't refute the fact that Roddenberry didn't want the Enterprise to be portrayed as a battleship.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

In fact, I just watched one of the blu-ray extras that covered this topic. When TNG's production started up it was given the corridors from the interior of the Enterprise-A to repurpose as the D's interior. This was meant to save costs so that TNG didn't have to build its own corridor sets. But Roddenberry hated how cold, metallic, and industrial they looked, like they were from a battleship. He instructed his staff to find ways to soften and "demilitarize" them. They achieved this by widening the corridors, removing the k-frames, painting, adding carpet, and turning up the lights.

 

[Tomalak]

Gene wanted to do the opposite of the later films because he had nothing to do with them. It was about putting his stamp back on Star Trek.

He was also the producer of the film (and aborted TV show) that built all those sets to start with! If he supposedly had a big deal with steel and aluminium in TNG, he sure as shit didn’t in the late seventies.

Fans need to take Roddenberry’s pronouncements with a bucket of salt.

 

[The Wormhole]

In fact, I just watched one of the blu-ray extras that covered this topic. When TNG's production started up it was given the corridors from the interior of the Enterprise-A to repurpose as the D's interior. This was meant to save costs so that TNG didn't have to build its own corridor sets. But Roddenberry hated how cold, metallic, and industrial they looked, like they were from a battleship. He instructed his staff to find ways to soften and "demilitarize" them. They achieved this by widening the corridors, removing the k-frames, painting, adding carpet, and turning up the lights.

No. That would be quite the trick considering we didn't see corridors on the Enterprise A until TFF, released after TNG finished its second season. And they were just a straight up reuse of the TNG corridors, righ down to the 24th style door labels.

Okay, yes, I realize you were obviously referring to the refit Enterprise from the first three movies. Even then, the corridors in TNG are more or less identical to as they were in those TOS movies. Some modifications were made due to the fact that at that point the sets were used off and on for eight years and there was some wear and tear as a result, so they needed to be touched up if they were going to be in regular every day use for at least another year. Since they were making updates anyway they decided to alter the colors to match the aesthetic of the bridge, but otherwise, it's basically the same. The cramped industrialized battleship look is what Nick Meyer turned the sets into in TUC, filmed in between TNG's fourth and fifth seasons. That was mostly done as an attempt to disguise the fact they were using redressed sets, though it is true the nautical feel is something Meyer tried to inject into his Trek movies.

 

[YouAreDooomed]

The EntD and EntE are different ships performing different roles using different technologies. Their form follows function.

What different roles?

 

[Tomalak]

What different roles?

Enterprise-D was designed to be a deep-space explorer with a large civilian contingent. In the event, this rarely actually happened and they pootled around known space, thus not really using their full capabilities.

From what little we know of the Enterpris-E, it barely even left the Federation's borders. There are no civilians on board as far as we know. Picard wryly reflects that he used to be an explorer, but current duties don't allow for this.

 

[YouAreDooomed]

Yes, they fulfil other duties at that time because circumstances demand it. In TNG, the Ent-D performs military tasks when needed. I do not see a difference concerning the roles; they do whatever needs to be done. It is also funny that Picard, in the middle of an existential war, plans an archaeological expedition.

Both ships and probably all their predecessors are actually general problem solvers. They perform exploration and research, but also diplomacy, investigations, act as military (command) vessels, first contacts, protect worlds from natural disasters... sometimes even supply runs or serving as a glorified space taxi.

There appear to live no regular civilians/ families on the Ent-E, even though there is no definitive answer here, but in any case, it has no impact on the ship's purposes. Having children on a ship facing all those dangers is also insanely stupid.

 

[Dukhat]

It's true that most ships in Star Trek do not have mission-specific profiles. I mean, we saw an Oberth both as a science vessel and a cargo ship (although things like that probably have more to do with the reuse of stock footage/cheapness in not building new studio models/etc. than anything else.)

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Fans need to take Roddenberry’s pronouncements with a bucket of salt.

I never claimed fans need to agree with Roddenberry's vision. It's a matter of taste. I happen to agree with it. If you don't, that's fine.

However, someone claimed that Roddenberry made no effect to tone down the militarism in TNG. That's factual untrue. If that person prefers Starfleet to be portrayed as an army in space, fair enough. But they can't project that opinion onto Roddenberry.

In other words, if people want to argue "This is how I feel" who am I to disagree? But if people argue "This is how Roddenberry felt" I can point to the factual record to refute it. (EDIT: To clarify, I recognized Roddenberry's feelings on this topic evolved over time, but we're talking specifically about his approach to TNG.)

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

No. That would be quite the trick considering we didn't see corridors on the Enterprise A until TFF, released after TNG finished its second season.

This story was relayed by producers themselves in an officially released TNG documentary. I'm not offering fan speculation. I realize their memories can be faulty and they may have the details/timing wrong, but I trust the essence of what they're saying is true. The bottom line is Roddenberry insisted the TNG corridors not look like a battleship.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Enterprise-D was designed to be a deep-space explorer with a large civilian contingent. In the event, this rarely actually happened and they pootled around known space, thus not really using their full capabilities.

From what little we know of the Enterpris-E, it barely even left the Federation's borders. There are no civilians on board as far as we know. Picard wryly reflects that he used to be an explorer, but current duties don't allow for this.

I understand the in-universe reasons for the E having a different design. I also understand the out-of-universe reason: the general movie-going audience, and even a lot of Trek fandom, prefers the Enterprise to be a badass battleship.

Neither of those two things negate my point: changing the Enterprise to a battleship changed the premise of TNG (that they were explorers and diplomats first and foremost, with defense as an ancillary function).

I appreciate that Roddenberry was dead and no one was beholden to his vision. And I appreciate this is a matter of taste: whether one likes or dislikes the change in premise is up to each person. But I don't think anyone can deny that giving the new Enterprise a military-first mission changed the premise.

TLDR, making the Enterprise a battleship inarguably changed the premise of TNG. We can debate whether that change in premise was for better or worse, but I don't think we can argue that it happened.

 

[Tomalak]

I never claimed fans need to agree with Roddenberry's vision. It's a matter of taste. I happen to agree with it. If you don't, that's fine.

I think you misunderstand - I’m disagreeing with the notion that such a thing as “Roddenberry’s Vision” existed.

He had lots of visions, and they changed over time. Roddenberry in 1964 was very different to Roddenberry in 1976, and even more so in 1987.

A lot of his rules were invented to discredit the works of others, be it Franz Joseph or Hal Sutherland, Harve Bennett or Nick Meyer, or even Leonard Nimoy.

However, someone claimed that Roddenberry made no effect to tone down the militarism in TNG. That's factual untrue. If that person prefers Starfleet to be portrayed as an army in space, fair enough. But they can't project that opinion onto Roddenberry.

Clearly he did, but in effect he was arguing against himself. He pitched “Hornblower in space”, in the sixties, but twenty years later when Nick Meyer did exactly the same thing, Gene somehow had a problem with it. TNG’s aesthetics were a clear reaction against the Bennett-produced films.

 

[Tomalak]

I understand the in-universe reasons for the E having a different design. I also understand the out-of-universe reason: the general movie-going audience, and even a lot of Trek fandom, prefers the Enterprise to be a badass battleship.

Neither of those two things negate my point: changing the Enterprise to a battleship changed the premise of the show (that they were explorers and diplomats first and foremost, with defense as an ancillary function).

I appreciate that Roddenberry was dead and no one was beholden to his vision. And I appreciate this is a matter of taste: whether one likes or dislikes the change in premise is up to each person. But I don't think anyone can deny that giving the new Enterprise a military-first mission changed the very premise of Star Trek.

TLDR, making the Enterprise a battleship inarguably changed the premise of Star Trek. We can debate whether that change in premise was for better or worse, but I don't think we can argue that it happened.

I agree with you on an aesthetic level - I think the comfy, soft, organic chintziness of the Enterprise-D is a great look, and it’s very unique in sci-fi. But it’s also unique in Star Trek! There’s no other Enterprise or main ship that has the same kind of look. The TOS and TMP Enterprises - Gene’s visions! - are very spartan in comparison.

This is the guy who literally gave the Enterprise-D a “battle bridge”, the most intrinsically militaristic thing ever seen to that point. That’s Gene’s Vision. And this follows on from the dedicated weapons station on the Phase II and TMP bridges, and the giant tactical station dominating the TNG bridge. He didn’t even have a security officer in TOS, but by TMP and TNG, he considered the role important.

I don’t think you’ve identified how the Enterprise-E is any more a battleship than the D, or the TOS ship for that matter. It’s got a ballroom, a bar, holodecks, carpets. Functionally they serve the same purpose, which is to carry our characters around on adventures, and quite often get into fights with enemies. Aesthetically it’s a much warmer palette than Voyager. The Defiant is a badass battleship, and looks it. The Enterprise-E is just a regular multipurpose starship.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Clearly he did, but in effect he was arguing against himself. He pitched “Hornblower in space”, in the sixties, but twenty years later when Nick Meyer did exactly the same thing, Gene somehow had a problem with it. TNG’s aesthetics were a clear reaction against the Bennett-produced films.

That's true, of course. In fact, I made that very same point in an earlier post. But this conversation, at least as it started, was specific to his vision for TNG and how the movies moved away from it. The fact that Roddenberry's approach to TNG was a express repudiation his TOS vision, and the vision of the movies even more so, doesn't undermine my point that the movies moved in a different direction.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

This is the guy who literally gave the Enterprise-D a “battle bridge”, the most intrinsically militaristic thing ever seen to that point.

The battle bridge supports my point, it doesn't refute it. Remember, I'm not claiming that Roddenbery wanted the Enterprise to have zero defensive role. He made it clear in the TNG series bible and interviews that the Enterprise would serve a military function, but that it would be subsidiary.

What better way to indicate that defense was a subsidiary function than to locate the principle battle stations on a secondary, rarely used bridge, separate from the day-to-day functions of the ship? In other words, by carving out the battle bridge and tucking it off to the side, he was carving out the idea of militarism and setting it off to the side.

I don’t think you’ve identified how the Enterprise-E is any more a battleship than the D, or the TOS ship for that matter. It’s got a ballroom, a bar, holodecks, carpets. Functionally they serve the same purpose, which is to carry our characters around on adventures, and quite often get into fights with enemies.

I agree that the E's interior is largely comfortable. The bridge is perhaps the exception. To be clear, I'm speaking in terms of degree. I'm not claiming the E's bridge is overly militaristic. But relative to the D, it's a move in that direction. Perhaps only a small move, but a move nonetheless. For example, the captain's chair is more hierarchically located, all stations are facing the front to signal alertness, the consoles have pointed edges, etc.

As for the exterior, they made the E look like a dart, and pointy objects convey aggression. The D was designed to be all soft curves specifically to avoid looking aggressive. That's not my personal interpretation. The designer, Andrew Probert, has spelled this out in many interviews.

 

[The Wormhole]

This story was relayed by producers themselves in an officially released TNG documentary. I'm not offering fan speculation.

Kay. And I'm referencing facts that can be observed from watching the movies themselves, as well as the objective reality that it was in fact TUC which turned the TNG's corridors into battleship like corridors over four years after TNG started rather than TNG converting it from a battleship's corridors in the beginning. Jus because producers say something in an official documentary doesn't make it accurate.