Why do people ALWAYS go back to Star Trek IV as an example (in this case an exception) when they later corrected that mistake and made the B an advanced Excelsior design newly built for flagship status? The Enterprise A issue is honestly a bad example of what not to do. It should've been an Excelsior class, but because the fandom LOVED the Enterprise refit design, so they chose to keep it. In this instance, it seemed like the NeoConnie was chosen because TERRY loved the design and wanted it that way. That's contrary to what the people want.Because Star Trek fans need to be broken of the mindset that the Enterprise always has to be the best, fastest, toughest, most clever, most overpowering and extra ship in the fleet.
The Enterprise-A was not the most powerful ship in the fleet, it was actually quite old and weak compared with the Excelsior and other cotempoary ships (IE The Constellation class)..but she was still important and did epic things
Well, he and I were bound to agree on something.it seemed like the NeoConnie was chosen because TERRY loved the design and wanted it that way.
Do you realize the amount of inane questions they probably got??? LolYeah..I wish it was a proper 2 hour AMA where nearly every question gets a response of some kind. This just feels like a tightly controlled dog and pony show
Why do people ALWAYS go back to Star Trek IV as an example (in this case an exception) when they later corrected that mistake and made the B an advanced Excelsior design newly built for flagship status? The Enterprise A issue is honestly a bad example of what not to do. It should've been an Excelsior class, but because the fandom LOVED the Enterprise refit design, so they chose to keep it. In this instance, it seemed like the NeoConnie was chosen because TERRY loved the design and wanted it that way. That's contrary to what the people want.
Wasn't the Galaxy class ALSO considered a joke in the early seasons? Yet look how over the years they perfected the design and its problems and became the working horse for Starfleet for some time. This is like a K-Car being repurposed as a Corvette, even though its still got a K-Car body. The Enterprise needs to be state of the art and sleek, like how the design progression has happened with prior Enterprises It makes no sense to go from a sleek looking ship like the F to be succeeded by a hand me down clunker like the Titan-A renamed Enterprise G.Assuming the Enterprise-A wasn't a factory-fresh ship with all the bells-and-whistles is a fairly revisionist understanding. In the movies, the Excelsior bordered on being a joke. Scotty sabotaged it, they couldn't even get it out the doors in TVH, and in TUC, after the Enterprise spent ten minutes getting the shit kicked out of it, the Excelsior shows up, takes one glancing hit, and everyone on the -A stops and stares as if they're afraid it's made of glass and it's going to fall apart then and there.
Besides, everything is only new until it's not. They've got to make these next four Enterprises last an average of 25 to 50 years, if we're going to be on -J at some point in the 26th century (not guaranteed to take place in this timeline, but most Toyotas last longer than the last three Enterprises, at some point they're going to have to stop burning through starships), so if the -G is decommissioned after a long a storied career, it'll still end up being a mid-sized cruiser compared to the newest ships.
SO basically you're just a 23rd century design guy...that's fine. But that's the past. We're trying to look to the future here, and progressive designs is one of the fundamentals of new Enterprise designs. This is taking a step back to the turn of the 23rd century and trying to make something old new again. I mean, should they also go back to using duotronic computers too? Make it make sense as an in universe reasoning for backtracking to older designs instead of making new ones?Titan-A/Enterprise-G looks way better than C, D, E and F.
Nothing about newer designs felt progressive or futuristic to me. Ugly, ungainly, and forgettable.SO basically you're just a 23rd century design guy...that's fine. But that's the past. We're trying to look to the future here, and progressive designs is one of the fundamentals of new Enterprise designs. This is taking a step back to the turn of the 23rd century and trying to make something old new again. I mean, should they also go back to using duotronic computers too? Make it make sense as an in universe reasoning for backtracking to older designs instead of making new ones?
Didn't answer my question though. I get it...you are a TOS guy. That's perfectly fine. You don't like anything past the Enterprise A and that era of designs. Whatever. It doesn't answer the question in regards to why they would intentionally regress the designs back to that era if they were pushing for more sleeker and advanced designs meant for the 25th Century. Do you see us going back to using Model-T cars here in the real world? No. So if we follow a real world example, then regressing back to an older design and calling it new is detrimental to the future of starship design and technological achievement.Nothing about newer designs felt progressive or futuristic to me. Ugly, ungainly, and forgettable.
Not what I said at all. Twisting my words is not cool, thanks.Didn't answer my question though. I get it...you are a TOS guy. That's perfectly fine. You don't like anything past the Enterprise A and that era of designs. Whatever. It doesn't answer the question in regards to why they would intentionally regress the designs back to that era if they were pushing for more sleeker and advanced designs meant for the 25th Century. Do you see us going back to using Model-T cars here in the real world? No. So if we follow a real world example, then regressing back to an older design and calling it new is detrimental to the future of starship design and technological achievement.
Ok but those ships you listed are all 24th century designs.Not what I said at all. Twisting my words is not cool, thanks.
Don't like the B or NX-01 or Dadelus either.Ok but those ships you listed are all 24th century designs.
Is this a new concept to you?Ships need respect?![]()
Terry said Starfleet was just going for a nostalgic twist to inspire. The ship is still all 25th Century tech.Make it make sense as an in universe reasoning for backtracking to older designs instead of making new ones?
They're inanimate objects. They don't care.Is this a new concept to you?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.