They had no problem constructing a Constellation model at the beginning. They should have built the Akira model earlier on too and used that in more scenes. And being a 2340s ship there should be more of them around than Excelsiors.
Maybe a 24 century Excelsior still packs a lot of firepower?
- Thread starter Matt4511
- Start date
The Akira existed only as a CG model. It was too curvacious (
) to build affordably as a Next Gen guest ship. Just look at how the bulky, TOSish Enterprise-C from "Yesterday's Enterprise" differs from the far more organic looking original design.
IIRC, the Constellation-class was made from two ERTL Enterprise refit models and some random greebles.
) to build affordably as a Next Gen guest ship. Just look at how the bulky, TOSish Enterprise-C from "Yesterday's Enterprise" differs from the far more organic looking original design.IIRC, the Constellation-class was made from two ERTL Enterprise refit models and some random greebles.
Knight Templar
Commodore
The real life reason that the Ambassador class only appeared four times in Star Trek (the last being ) DS9s "The Emissary" was that the physical model suffered serious damage IIRC.
The footage from "Redemption II" was cropped from "Yesterday's Enterprise".
From what I've read about so many Excelsior and Miranda appearances was that both were originally made for the movie screen and thus were much more highly detailed than the typical "tv model" and much more "filmable". I'm not sure how this applies to CGI but I've read that it helps to have a highly detailed real life model to make a good CGI model.
IIRC, in Independence Day, the CGI F/A-18 Hornets were made in part by scanning the images of actual F/A-18s both on the runway and in flight.
Note, of the four "new" starships made for Star Trek: First Contack, the Akira was specifically designed with greater detail because the FX crew wanted at least one of the new ships they could feature in close up shots during the battle.
The footage from "Redemption II" was cropped from "Yesterday's Enterprise".
From what I've read about so many Excelsior and Miranda appearances was that both were originally made for the movie screen and thus were much more highly detailed than the typical "tv model" and much more "filmable". I'm not sure how this applies to CGI but I've read that it helps to have a highly detailed real life model to make a good CGI model.
IIRC, in Independence Day, the CGI F/A-18 Hornets were made in part by scanning the images of actual F/A-18s both on the runway and in flight.
Note, of the four "new" starships made for Star Trek: First Contack, the Akira was specifically designed with greater detail because the FX crew wanted at least one of the new ships they could feature in close up shots during the battle.
YARN
Fleet Captain
The Akira existed only as a CG model. It was too curvacious (
I know you're joking here, but this raises an important point.
The Akira was not designed by ILM until 1996, two years after TNG completed it's series run.
TNG was largely shot using physical models. The CGI starships came later (Generations and beyond).
That's a popular myth, but the model was still usable until it was sold off at the Christie's auction.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/_...mbassador_class_studio_model_at_Christies.jpg
The Ambassador-class never appeared again after "Emissary" because no CGI model of the ship was ever made.
It was a viable idea to have Excelsiors serve as an Admiral's personal taxi which was the case when they showed up.
So in essence, you have nothing to contribute, and try to make it sound as if that were your winning entry in a pissing contest? Well, I won't pretend surprise.
In-universe, we start from what we see, accept it, and try to figure out how it might be. Out-universe, we can use conventional logic as applies to real things of material consistency. But one usually has nothing to offer to the other. And trying to sidestep the prominent role of Excelsiors in the 24th century (and, interestingly, the negligible role of designs "contemporary" to the TNG hero ship in aesthetics) is like trying to dismiss the existence of transporters as a "production issue" we should ignore and pretend the heroes are always using shuttlecraft.
Timo Saloniemi
Knight Templar
Commodore
Well said. Explaining things in a favorite television show are a major part of the fun to me.
There's also the fact that the Excelsior class was a propulsion systems testbed vessel, and probably still have that ability thanks to the design of the engineering hull. A design that might make it much easier to replace components from the reactor itself to the engines than any other class.
I'd say a lot of the Excelsior's have been used to test everything from new computer systems, propulsion to weapons, sensor platforms etc. Building new ships or rebuilding vast portions of them would be too resource and time comsuming for each new system, the Exelsiors somewhat "plug and play" design works out much better.
I'd say a lot of the Excelsior's have been used to test everything from new computer systems, propulsion to weapons, sensor platforms etc. Building new ships or rebuilding vast portions of them would be too resource and time comsuming for each new system, the Exelsiors somewhat "plug and play" design works out much better.
Knight Templar
Commodore
In Deep Space Nine the Lakota was armed with quantum torpedos. Definitely some of the most advanced Star Trek weapons.
^Exactly, the class seems to be able to swap out all it's major systems and take on new up-to-date versions, not only for testing purposes but to become standard loadouts at the next refit.
If the Miranda class can do something similar for long range sensor packages and computer components then I can see why Starfleet operates such numbers of them.
If the Miranda class can do something similar for long range sensor packages and computer components then I can see why Starfleet operates such numbers of them.
YARN
Fleet Captain
To the contrary, I do have something to contribute.
1. The best explanations have already been offered (quality and quantity).
2. We should not exceed those explanations because.
a. We lack adequate in-universe data.
b. There is much stronger evidence that the contingent
necessities of running a TV were the cause of this
feature and not the specific intentions of the makers of
the show. This rejoins the implicit intention argument.
A major test of theories is to look for defeaters. Did you look for contrary evidence? Is your explanation, in principle, falsifiable? A clever explanation or extrapolation can stand the test of critical questions, counterexamples, and counter-arguments. This one, it seems, cannot.
The word "usually" necessarily implies that sometimes they do have something to offer each other. And indeed, I have detailed such an instance here.
Others (on side opposition) have speculated that it is "no accident" that the makers of the show featured the Excelsior design (they must've wanted it there!). In short, others have already supported the in-universe explanation by appealing to external considerations. By refuting the external explanation, I undermine the in-universe point my opponent used to support it.
Knight Templar
Commodore
I"ve read that entire post twice and I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say.
I'll say that though I disagree with some of the continuity and story arc decisions over the years regarding Star Trek, overall the whole thing holds together remarkably well in my opinion.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Tell me which parts you find unclear and I will explain.
That's OK, but it really does not have anything to do with what I am saying in this thread.
In this thread posters are responding to an apparently curious feature of TNG and the period which follows it:
Why are there so many Excelsior-class ships?
This is the question that is driving our discussion.
a. Some have speculated that the ship must be well-designed.
b. Some have speculated that it may be the case that a lot of these ships were produced, hence many of them are still around.
NOTE: "a." and "b." are not mutually exclusive.
By my lights, both of these are reasonable, if somewhat obvious, guesses as to why we see so many Excelsior-type ships.
Others, however, not content with the obvious extrapolation have attempted to go beyond the text.
We've heard, for example, conjectures about the modular adaptability of these ships. The Excelsior could always get newer phasers, sensors, or warp coils installed, thus giving her a long service life. The problem with this explanation is that other ship designs should also be adaptable. The Constitution class, for example, had a major refit, and during the course of TOS we saw updates to systems and subtle changes in the ship design. This explanation does not address the question of why this ship (the Excelsior), in particular was so uniquely adaptable that her service life extended for so long.
One analogical explanation has been offered - a poster suggested that the Excelsior is like the workhorse B-52 bomber and not too high-tech for it's own good B-58 Hustler. The funny part here, is that when we are introduced to the Excelsior she is more like a B-58 Hustler. She was too high-tech for her own good - an experiment which proved that the more you overtake the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drains. And that was the last we heard of transwarp drive. So AGAIN, what we have on screen does not explain why this ship was like a B-52. Why it was like a B-52 allegedly explains why it is long lived. Hence, we have no rationale as to why this design succeeded.
What we do know (in-universe) is that the design did succeed.
Conjectures are great and all, but they should be supported by evidence. To play the game well. To really pull off a coup, you have to play by the rules.
The reason why 6th Sense, for example, was considered to have a great "twist" rather than a "cheat" or an ad hoc embellishment, is that everything in the movie supports the conclusion which follows. It's an earned surprise. Wild conjecture about the Excelsior which departs from the text travels to unearned surprises about her longevity.
Knight Templar
Commodore
Actually the 6th Sense is not flawless in its presentation. For example, Bruce Willis's character being occasionally able to interact with the world of the living.
As for the rest, what do you expect? To have a character on a future Star Trek series reading excerpts from Jane's Fighting Starships about the Excelsior class?
YARN
Fleet Captain
What matters is whether or not you get the point I am making with the comparison. Are you going to quibble about length of the knuckle or actually look at what the finger is pointing at? I am not surprised that you don't get the point if you refuse to look at that which is being pointed at.
For the purposes of our discussion, it does not matter whether the 6th Sense was "flawless," but whether an explanation or move (be it a plot twist by a writer or extrapolation by a fan) has to do enough work with what is already established to be earned.
Why would I be committed to any extreme position?
I simply maintain that an explanation must be earned. It must not only fit with what we see on screen, but it should add clarity and insight into why a given feature exists. Good examples of this are the "Deckard is a Replicant" theory of Blade Runner and the Fredian reading of the Turn of the Screw. Both theories appeared after the artwork had been in circulation for a while. Both not only fit with the facts of the case, but also explain why other features appear in the text. They are earned surprises because they do more than merely conjecture.
It is fun to play the game, but not all of our attempts can succeed. Some hypotheses deserve to be rejected.
I, for one, would love to actually have someone reference Jane's in Star Trek. It would just be fitting and proper....
I've always leaned toward the simple explanation for the ubiquitous nature of the ship: the film makers (and the fans) find it visually pleasing. It works.
I've always leaned toward the simple explanation for the ubiquitous nature of the ship: the film makers (and the fans) find it visually pleasing. It works.
YARN
Fleet Captain
Is it? How do you know this?
In other words. It's a big ship. Well, the Bismark was a big ship. The Vasa was a big ship. The Titanic was a big ship. The Exxon Valdez was a big ship. The mere fact that it's big doesn't prove much.
This is just the upgrades argument again. OK, haven't we seen other starships get upgrades? Why did this ship succeed?
It's reasonable to think the Excelsior's hull is over-engineered compared to a Miranda or Connie class. The Excelsior was at the time a very ambitious project, the pinnacle of 23rd century starfleet engineering. High 'transwarp' speeds takes the crew to greater distances, and hence further risk against the unknown - so it would have made sense the hull design emphasised durability.
The Excelsior's considerable size increase over the Constitition class could easily have been about showboating to the Klingons and Romulans, aswell as offering greater crew capacity , housing of more powerful and redundant systems - as far as trek logic goes, bigger is regarded as better.
The Excelsior's considerable size increase over the Constitition class could easily have been about showboating to the Klingons and Romulans, aswell as offering greater crew capacity , housing of more powerful and redundant systems - as far as trek logic goes, bigger is regarded as better.
