The Enterprise-E is so ugly

[Ithekro]

Excelsior only gradually become accepted. Part of this was because some didn't care for the Galaxy-class and this the Excelsior became better by comparison. Others started to like it after it became Sulu's ship, and thus started to become a hero ship in its own right. Also the shots of it in Star Trek VI made it seem better than what we saw in Star Trek III and the small model next to the big Galaxy model in TNG. The big powerful Excelsior next to the Enterprise-A made a better impression than it did as "the Great Experiment" that stalled, with a satisfying clunk, trying to enter transwarp after the Enterprise was stole from spacedock.

 

[Shat Happens]

I read somewhere the C is what it is because it was easier (so cheaper) to make a model from Sternbach's design than Probert's.

Also, as the thread title says, the Enterprise-E is ugly; but the B (I like the Excelsior, but not B's appendages), C1 and C2 are ugly too.

Frankly, when I first saw the Enterprise-D I didn't like it too. NX01 is ok.

That Gabriel Korner NCC1701 reimagined is atrocious. I can only stand JJ's design and that's it.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

If that's what you like to believe that's fine.

Accepting reality, not "believing", you dribbling imbicile.

Chem, that's a flame. You have earned an infraction. Comments to PM.

 

[dub]

My ranking in order of most favorite to least favorite, although there are none that I "don't like."

NCC-1701 Refit and 1701-A (I just think this one is impossible to beat)
NCC-1701 NuTrek (To me this is an excellent modernized version of the original. I'm talking about the ship, mind you.)
NCC-1701-C (I remember the first time I saw this I had chills. I loved it. Tthe one I saw on "Yesterday's Enterprise," that is.)
NCC-1701-D (all of the "top heavy" comments never crossed my mind when I watched it originally.)
NX-01 (this one took some time to grow on me, but it did eventually)
NCC-1701-E (my immediate reaction was "way too busy." It worked well though and it grew on me, but something about it felt somewhat cold and it certainly would have benefited from some simplification. I personally wouldn't call it "ugly" though.)
NCC-1701 TOS (I admire the original design, but as far as my personal favorites go I believe there were improvements simply with advances in television and cinema)
NCC-1701-B (I didn't understand why the Excelsior class continued beyond TSFS. I thought it was an interesting design, but I didn't think the name "Enterprise" belonged on it)

Now favorite bridges...that's another story.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I didn't understand why the Excelsior class continued beyond TSFS. I thought it was an interesting design, but I didn't think the name "Enterprise" belonged on it)

I think the Excelsior-class was ultimately the successor (directly or indirectly) of the Constitution-class, so one of them ultimately being an Enterprise was kind of a no-brainer, IMO. At the time the Enterprise-B was commissioned, it might have been viewed as Starfleet's top-of-the-line design.

The only Enterprise I've never liked was the so-called Enterprise-J (it still looks like a NX-01 that was rolled over by a giant rolling pin to me). Fortunately, I relegate that as a product of an alternate future like the bulked-up three-nacelle Enterprise-D from "All Good Things..."

Now that I think of it, I'm not that fond of that Enterprise either...

 

[dub]

The only Enterprise I've never liked was the so-called Enterprise-J (it still looks like a NX-01 that was rolled over by a giant rolling pin to me).

I don't remember much about that one. But I've only seen Enterprise once so far. It obviously didn't have much of an impact on me one way or the other.

Fortunately, I relegate that as a product of an alternate future like the bulked-up three-nacelle Enterprise-D from "All Good Things..."

Now that I think of it, I'm not that fond of that Enterprise either...

I'm just guessing that they either ran out of $ in the budget or ran out of time, so they threw another nacelle and a few other bits onto the existing D model and called it a day. I can hear the producers right now, "It's not part of the real timeline anyway." Does anyone know the real story behind that model? The ship didn't bother me really. The episode was so good, I can forgive them cutting corners on that one.

 

[Cyke101]

Now favorite bridges...that's another story.

Well?

 

[Robert Comsol]

If that's what you like to believe that's fine.

Accepting reality, not "believing".

Then how do we define reality? Everything that's in the Star Trek Encyclopedia according to which the Romulan crest from "The Enterprise Incident" isn't really the Romulan crest, and according to which the time difference between "Space Seed" and ST II:TWOK is 18 years, although both Kirk and Khan stated in the film it's 15 years?

According to my experience here at the BBS "reality" considers onscreen information (both in word and image) as binding and the information we can conclude from it (= canon). And premise changes / overwrites are accepted (although that constantly causes me headaches because it's sometimes at the expense of the original creators).

According to these (unwritten) rules I presented a conclusion based on canon information (onscreen dialogue), with the conclusion being backed by the director of "Yesterday's Enterprise" describing the location of this episode as a "parallel universe" (2008).

If the results acquired by the application of aforementioned (and Trek BBS approved?) canon finding methodology are not to your liking, then you apparently prefer to "believe" in something else instead (like the book mentioned on top?).

Bob

 

[BillJ]

I like the TOS Connie, the Galaxy and the Abramsverse versions of the Enterprise. The rest can be dumped into the sun at Qualor II.

 

[Maurice]

The only good Enterprise-C is a dead Enterprise-C. Brother that subject is tiresome...

Back on-topic: just as "a camel is a horse designed by a committee", "the E is a model designed by a committee", or at least it feels that way.

 

[Mudd]

You can mock me all day long...

Sure, whatever.

 

[austen_pierce]

The only good Enterprise-C is a dead Enterprise-C. Brother that subject is tiresome...

Back on-topic: just as "a camel is a horse designed by a committee", "the E is a model designed by a committee", or at least it feels that way.

I don't hate the E-E. I never liked the E-D, and IMO I always saw the E as a big screen return to the look and feel of the TMP refit. Flattened.

 

[Lance]

Back on-topic: just as "a camel is a horse designed by a committee", "the E is a model designed by a committee", or at least it feels that way.

It does, it definitely does. Whereas the Enterprise-D had a design process which was organic and came entirely from the viewpoint of Andrew Probert sitting down and asking himself "What would be a logical future point for the technological advancements of Starfleet a century after the TOS era?", the Enterprise-E by contrast was always designed from the viewpoint of "We're making a movie here, so let's design a ship which incorporates elements from past ships and mash them up into something which looks cool". It's a bit Connie refit, a bit Galaxy, a bit Excelsior, but as a complete entity I'd argue that it hasn't got the benefits of any of the above. It's utterly soulless, as things designed by committee are wont to be.

 

[Dukhat]

Back on-topic: just as "a camel is a horse designed by a committee", "the E is a model designed by a committee", or at least it feels that way.

It does, it definitely does. Whereas the Enterprise-D had a design process which was organic and came entirely from the viewpoint of Andrew Probert sitting down and asking himself "What would be a logical future point for the technological advancements of Starfleet a century after the TOS era?", the Enterprise-E by contrast was always designed from the viewpoint of "We're making a movie here, so let's design a ship which incorporates elements from past ships and mash them up into something which looks cool". It's a bit Connie refit, a bit Galaxy, a bit Excelsior, but as a complete entity I'd argue that it hasn't got the benefits of any of the above. It's utterly soulless, as things designed by committee are wont to be.

I don't know if I'd go as far as saying that the Ent-E looks like it was designed by a committee. While my enthusiasm for this "new" Enterprise has definitely faded over the years (and while John Eaves is a pretty cool guy, his ship designs tend to all look the same no matter what time period they're from), it at least holds together for me.

Now the Abramsprise, that's a different story. I know only one guy designed it (Ryan Church), but it literally looks like one person designed the saucer, one the secondary hull, one the pylons and one the nacelles. And one person didn't know what the others were doing, so it looks completely out of proportion.

 

[-Brett-]

I remember liking it just fine back in 1996, but to be fair, I was about 12 then.

In retrospect, the movies could have benefited from some fidelity with the series. Visually, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis were Voyager movies, not TNG.

 

[Destructor]

I like the E, I think it's attractive, I'm sorry we didn't get 1-2 more movies out of it.

 

[Ithekro]

The future Enterprise-D was interesting to me. I thought the third nacelle improved its look as the rear area looked full for once. Also one of the nacelle was over the saucer with was more like I liked them from the TOS days. The extra stuff on the saucer itself could take or leave aside from the powerful phaser cannon it was armed with. That was all kinds of awesome back when it happened. Now only does the Enterprise have three nacelles and a cloaking device, it has a massive cannon that can punch right though Klingon shields and hull in one shot.

The oddity of course was the question "what is Warp 13?" I liked the daystrom Institutes site's transwarp speed chart answer to that question.Not a way around the Warp 10 limit, but a lower power way to get higher speeds as the Warp 9.99999999+ stuff required more and more energy to mass. Skip past Warp 10 to Warp 10.1 or Warp 11, and suddenly you are going something like Warp 9.98 but using only the energy needed to go Warp 7 (or something like that). The site's power curve chart make Warp 13 the power equivalent of the older Warp 9.6 if I remember correctly, but the speed is about six times faster than Warp 9.995. So instead of taking four days to cross a sector you could do it in about three hours.

 

[Mytran]

I've not heard this before, and it's not a bad justification either.

Of course, it also means that Tom Paris was never going to reach the infinite speed he craved, just travel faster and more efficiently. Maybe no-one on Voyager really understood what the "Warp 10 Barrier" actually was, and just took Tom's word for it that W10=infinity?

 

[Lance]

In retrospect, the movies could have benefited from some fidelity with the series. Visually, First Contact, Insurrection and Nemesis were Voyager movies, not TNG.

I think this is a very interesting point, -Brett-. The visual comparison towards Voyager apparently happened by accident -- John Eaves designed the Enterprise-E in a particular way and then was astonished to discover that Rick Sternbach had independantly came upon similar designs motifs when coming up with the Voyager blueprints -- but as far as TNG is concerned I do think the Enterprise-E and everything that came with it, inside and out (sets, uniforms etc), creates an unfortunate distance from the TV series of The Next Generation. 'Generations' has got its problems, but if there's one thing I adore about it, it's the way the Enterprise-D was updated for the big screen. The sets feel better than on TV but still retain the same visual blueprint we all loved for seven years. This is what I mean when I say Enterprise-E feels sterile internally. It lacks warmth. So does the USS Voyager in my opinion. But in the case of the three TNG movies the design decisions behind the Enterprise-E hurts more because (again IMO) I think it takes away a lot of the character we all fell in love with about the TV incarnation. We're seeing the same crew operating in effectively the same sorts of enviroments, but something just feels... so very "off" about it all.

 

[Ithekro]

Well the theory is that Tom Paris did hit Warp 10 with the modified shuttlecraft and was everywhere at once. And that is bad. The idea is similar to the idea that you can't actually travel at the speed of light due to the the energy needed being ridiculously high. Warp 1 actually being a fraction over the speed of light as something with the warp field knocks the energy requirements down to managable after light speed is past, so jumping to warp is skipping light speed to get around the Light Barrier.

Warp 10 is similar in the power ratio causes the speeds to got to infinity. But the proper transwarp speeds jump past the barrier and redefine the warp power curves to a lower energy setting for higher speeds. The Daystrom Institute version has these warp barriers at every factor of 10, so there is one at Warp 10, one at Warp 20, one at Warp 30, and one at Warp 40. Each one taking nearly infinate power to move at infinity. Different generation of transwarp drives skip the next barrrier to the higher speed, with the distances between areas becoming shorter as the ship travels faster and faster without needing infinate power.

For that version of the charts, transwarp 11 - 19 bring crossing sectors of space from six hours down to about a half hour. Transwarp 21 - 20 bring crossing the Federation in 7 hours to 1 hour, and travel to the Andromeda Galaxy from two months down to two weeks. Transwarp 31 - 39 brings Andromeda down to being hours away form the Milky Way.

They still require more and more power from starships compared to their pervious generation, but the first three or so factors of transwarp in the next generation are roughly equal to the top two major warp factors of the previous generation. (meaning a Galaxy-class starship fitted with a Transwarp driver could go at Warp 11 with the power it needed to go Warp 8, and Warp 13 with the power it needed for Warp 9.6). Transwarp 11 being functional faster than Warp 9.999, and roughly Warp Factor 32 in the old TOS scale. Warp 13 being somewhere between Warp Factor 40 and 41 on the old TOS scale.

Source:
http://www.ditl.org/scitech-page.php?ScitechID=36&ListID=Sci-tech