Enterprise E

[Atomic_Monkey]

Jus because producers say something in an official documentary doesn't make it accurate.

Like I said, I understand their memories may be faulty after 40 years, but having the details and timing wrong doesn't mean the essence of what they're saying is untrue: there was a concerted effort to ensure the interior of the D didn't look like a "battleship".

In fact, throughout the blu-ray extras, many producers and designers make this point over and over again. And they specifically use the word "battleship". So even if you dismiss this particular anecdote about repurposing the corridor sets, there are dozens of other examples to take its place. I doubt all of these people were completely misremembering their fundamental approach to the show's design. Actually, some of the documentaries contained contemporaneous footage from the 1980s, so they were talking about their actions in the present, not recalling 40-year old details.

Anyway, I can't remember exactly who made the claim about modifying the corridors. It might have been David Livingston or Herman Zimmerman. Regardless, whoever said it was not relaying a second-person anecdote. They claimed to the person tasked with de-militarizing the corridors. The first-hand nature of their claim adds some weight to it. Again, I'm not saying that makes it 100% accurate, but if they personally handled an issue, it suggests something along these line happened, even if their version of events is mixed up.

 

[F. King Daniel]

When I first saw the Enterprise-E bridge I thought two things:

The side and back consoles are the Star Trek V/VI ones again but with (then) modern LCARS

They'd ditched the TNG minimalism entirely for a rule of cool movie approach

 

[Tomalak]

Worth noting that Generations already did away with minimalism by adding those side stations, and also raised up the captain and senior officers on a platform with impractical steps!

The GEN bridge is a great update IMO, giving the room more presence on a wide cinema screen.

The FC bridge is really an iteration of that, with the same basic configuration. The main difference is the lack of the Ent-D's iconic horseshoe.

 

[Takeru]

I think TNG's minimalism approach for the bridge was also partially fueled by Roddenberry wanting to save money by using fewer extras for the bridge scenes. Even a big budget still has its limits and thinking of ways to spend less is always smart, with the minimalism approach they could fill all relevant stations with the regulars and use extras on the bridge only when necessary. Which allows for more extras in engineering, down on planets etc.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I'm concerned some of my later posts may have given a false impression that I dislike the Enterprise-E. For the record, and as I wrote in my original post, I really like it. The things I've nitpicked (e.g. the giant impulse engines, the bridge design, etc.) are simply meant to explain why I don't like it as much as the Enterprise-D. "Here's why I'd grade it B instead of A." In trying to draw that distinction, I hope I've not overstated my case.

One thing I'm conflicted about is the lack of a neck. From a practical standpoint, it makes sense to me to not have a neck. Unlike some fans, I'm not concerned about it being a structural liability in battle (by the 24th century, I trust we'll have developed materials with almost supernatural tensile strength). Nevertheless, it seems to me that a neck would result in impractical design or use of interior space. On the other hand, the neck is something that distinguishes the Enterprise from other fictional starships and adds to its personality, so I regret its loss.

 

[B.J.]

I prefer tall ships over all the recent flattened ships. But for the Enterprise, at least the F made up for the E's lack of a neck by having two!

 

[Brannigan]

I think TNG's minimalism approach for the bridge was also partially fueled by Roddenberry wanting to save money by using fewer extras for the bridge scenes. Even a big budget still has its limits and thinking of ways to spend less is always smart, with the minimalism approach they could fill all relevant stations with the regulars and use extras on the bridge only when necessary. Which allows for more extras in engineering, down on planets etc.

I always liked the E-D bridge because of its minimalism.

To me it gave the impression of a highly advanced and nearly fully automated ship compared to the 1701 Bridge. Fewer people were needed to monitor and run the systems and basically the personnel there were just overseeing and making sure everything was running properly.

But it seems that the producers wanted more people and more crowded bridges..

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

I think TNG's minimalism approach for the bridge was also partially fueled by Roddenberry wanting to save money by using fewer extras for the bridge scenes.

I don't believe Roddenberry's minimalist approach to the D's bridge had anything to do with money.

I've posted about this a few times and I don't want to beat a dead horse, but in a nutshell he believed 24th century starships would be so advanced that nearly everything would be automated. He initially wanted everything to be operated by voice command. He eventually agreed to have two primary consoles, con & ops, with the understanding everything would be run through them. The aft stations were for ad hoc situations, not to be permanently manned. He was adamantly opposed to a bunch of crew standing around the bridge pressing buttons because he thought that looked old fashioned, not futuristic. The artist who designed the D's bridge, Andrew Probert, has spoken about this at length.

The fact that Roddenberry needed to be persuaded that viewers would want to see crew flying the ship shows just how strongly he felt about a minimalistic design for the D's bridge. Cost savings might have been an added bonus, but they don't appear to be the reason he wanted a small bridge staff.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

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.

The producers' memories were correct.

The corridors that travel around the circumference of the D's saucer (the ones that are square-shaped with a continuous LCARS strip and wooden handrail) were purpose built for TNG.

However, the corridors that travel along the radius of the D's saucer (the ones with k-frames that lead to turbo lifts) were built for TMP and later repurposed for TNG. A google search will pull up multiple sources verifying this. Those are the corridors that the producers widened and softened.

Here's a comparison of the two different styles of D corridors to illustrate what I mean (concentric corridors on the left, radial on the right).



And here's a photo of the TMP Enterprise corridors that were repurposed to be the D's radial corridors:

 

[The Wormhole]

I never disputed the claim the corridors were originally built for TMP, indeed, I even acknowledged it. I disputed the claim they were originally built for the Enterprise A, which they weren't, as that wasn't the Enterprise A in TMP, and as I originally stated, we don't see the Enterprise A's corridors until TFF, released in 1989, in which they did use the TNG corridor set with no modifications at all.

Also, you consider the TMP corridor a "battleship corridor"? Really? That's pretty funny, given it was TMP where Roddenberry first began minimizing the military side of Starfleet, due to cultural sentiments against the military in US in the 1970s. When you were talking about "battleship corridors on the Enterprise A" I assumed you were referring to how we saw them in TUC which is why I made the comments I did.

Some clarity in your original posts would have been nice.

 

[Atomic_Monkey]

Also, you consider the TMP corridor a "battleship corridor"? Really? That's pretty funny, given it was TMP where Roddenberry first began minimizing the military side of Starfleet, due to cultural sentiments against the military in US in the 1970s.

Perhaps Roddenberry didn't see them as "battleship corridors" while TMP was filming, but he obviously grew to feel that way by the time he started up TNG 8 years later. It's not unusual for a person's opinion to evolve over 8 years. When he started up TNG he was at his most sensitive to the militarization of Star Trek, so it makes sense he'd be more critical about this stuff.

I kind of see what he's saying. I don't think they're excessively military, but the gray color, metal floor, lack of overhead light and narrow width aren't overly comfortable like the rest of the D.

 

[Ithekro]

I seem to recall that the TMP corridors had different light colors per deck. And that the plan was that they had emergency equipment under the side panels to help avoid some of the problems that had happened in the original series (force the writers to come up with better ideas).