Spoilers Which Enterprise went out with the most style?

[B.J.]

For style, I'd have to say the original in TSFS. But for purely gorgeous visuals and emotional gut-punch, I'm going against the grain here and going with the E-D in Generations. For me, the D was the ship I had watched the most since TNG came out when I was in middle school, so I was sad to see her go. Plus, the whole evacuation sequence with the children really showed the impact of what was happening, and then showing the crew having to ride the saucer down and not being able to do a thing about it was very tense.
(Difficult to put this into effective words. I'm an engineer, not a writer!)

 

[RandyS]

Kirk's ship in Star Trek III. The loss of the D was pointless, unecessary and still annoys me every now and then.

 

[Scotchy]

NCC-1701-C USS ENTERPRISE under command of Captain Garrett. Also, in the same episode, NCC-1701-D for fighting the Klingons to the death. Picard at the phaser controls with the bridge on fire - there's some gravitas. Even the "destruction" -D suffered in All Good Things was better than being shot down by that lame Klingon ship in Generations.

 

[The Old Mixer]

The Enterprise-B, for not being such an attention whore.

 

[kirk55555]

Emotionally, the D. The 1701 in STIII was very intense, but I'm a bit more of a tNG guy.

When it comes to how it looked, Beyond wins.

 

[malchya]

Tough one. The emotional impact of the scene in TSFS was harsh. I literally stood up in the theater and said, "You sodding bastards!" I wasn't the only one vocal, either. The loss of the E D in Generations was an excellent effect. I'll even give kudos to the actors "riding her down." But no emotional impact for me at all, as I had never, ever liked the design of the D. Beyond? I was actually thrilled to see the JJprize when Beyond began. I found that I had managed to get over my disgust at her design and had formed an emotional attachment to the poor, ugly ol' thing. When she was torn asunder, I found a lump in my throat and moisture in my eyes. She fought so hard; she did her best and she went down with dignity. My wife cried....

 

[Joel_Kirk]

Definitely Star Trek Beyond. it's not just a ka-boom like the rest, she dies piece by piece and our heroes fight valiantly for her every step of the way. They don't give up until the saucer is seconds from crashing.

And as a lifelong Trek fan, seeing the nacelles (and then entire secondary hull) amputated is a powerful visual.

I love that after everything...

Spoiler: Beyond

After Kirk and Chekov ignite the thrusters, she flips over and squelches the one who led them into Krall's trap.

Definitely Star Trek Beyond. it's not just a ka-boom like the rest, she dies piece by piece and our heroes fight valiantly for her every step of the way. They don't give up until the saucer is seconds from crashing.

And as a lifelong Trek fan, seeing the nacelles (and then entire secondary hull) amputated is a powerful visual.

I love that after everything...

Spoiler: Beyond

After Kirk and Chekov ignite the thrusters, she flips over and squelches the one who led them into Krall's trap.

So much emotion for the crew that was lost as well as a ship that is a character of her (or his) own. I was waiting for payback later in the film.

 

[Griffeytrek]

The real gut punching loss in ST III. "What have I done?" As others have said it had the same resonance as the death of a main character.

The worst was easily the Enterprise-D. In part because we knew it was coming. We knew it was not a true story beat, rather it was a technical requirement to move the TNG era into the movies. The D design was not a good option for the big screen and the studio models were heavy awkward and aging badly. So it needed to go. And their approach for doing it? "Hey let's let Troi drive!" Boom!

The 1701-C died well. But we didn't see it. It wasn't a ship we had deep attachment to.

The destruction and resurrection of the Defiant felt rather pointless. Just an unnecessary story beat.

Spoiler

as for the new one? Honestly? It's glorious looking disaster porn. Visually spectacular, but not a ship most of us had much emotional attachment to. At best it looked like a Star Trek soap carving that had been left in the sun. The destruction sequence was great. A marvelous visual set piece. But I was kind of happy to see it go. It's horrible already dated Apple Store aesthetic and awkward lines. It never felt like a member of the cast the way the other ships did. I actually think the little Franklin had more soul and screen presense.

 

[BJ Wagner]

Easily the death of the refit in STIII. That ship had been with us since the beginning. She always managed to bring the crew home, and it was something new. We didn't know if there would ever be another Enterprise. Now, we're so used to it, even the writers mention a new ship is being built even before the current one leaves dock.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

^This. As others have mentioned, this was the ship that traveled to Talos IV, traversed the galactic barrier, navigated back and forth through time and more than held her own against V'Ger. The idea that she wouldn't be coming back from Genesis is still hard for me to wrap my head around--even after having seen TSFS so many times.

 

[OpenMaw]

-- AWAITING FINAL CODE FOR ONE MINUTE COUNTDOWN --

... Code 0, 0, 0...Destruct, 0...

-- DESTRUCT SEQUENCE IS ACTIVATED --

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"My God, Bones... What have I done?"
"What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live."

 

[SpaceLama]

Star Trek III for me - one character, the Enterprise, is sacrificed so Spock may live again.

She has been their companion for 20 years and never once failed them.

"My god Bones, what have I done?"

 

[BJ Wagner]

-- AWAITING FINAL CODE FOR ONE MINUTE COUNTDOWN --

... Code 0, 0, 0...Destruct, 0...

-- DESTRUCT SEQUENCE IS ACTIVATED --

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

"My God, Bones... What have I done?"
"What you had to do. What you always do. Turn death into a fighting chance to live."

You monster! Don't you care about the dangers of reopening old wounds?

Why don't you post clips of Spock's sacrifice? Or Han Solo's death at the hands of Kylo Ren? Or what about Superman verse Doomsday?

You've ruined my Thursday!

 

[retroenzo]

Maybe it's because it's fresh in my mind, but I will have to say the alternate Enterprise in Beyond. I loved the reason given above in that the ship just keeps on going despite being practically ripped apart. Although the Enterprise-D's destruction in Generations comes close.

Honorable mentions should probably also go to the Saratoga in Emissary, and Voyager in Timeless.

However, and I know this will probably be controversial but I'd also include the Kelvin.

 

[B.J.]

The D design was not a good option for the big screen and the studio models were heavy awkward and aging badly. So it needed to go.

Boo. I thought the D looked GREAT on the big screen!

 

[Griffeytrek]

Boo. I thought the D looked GREAT on the big screen!

The problem was it did not move well on screen. This is hard to explain, so bear with me. I'm not sure if I can get this quite right.

Have you ever noticed that when you have a model or miniature of the Enterprise-D in hand, to your eye it always seems off? Slightly out of proportion? Like the disk is to wide and oval, and the nacelles and drive section a little too reduced from how you perceive the ship on screen. Something similar happens with Voyager. The Primary hull often seems a bit bulbous and the nacelles a bit to small when you get a physical model in hand. Your eyes keep telling you something is off, even though you know the models were built precisely from the studio or 3D filming models. So what's going on?

Television, particularly old school 4:3 aspect ratio television has some negatives over a theatrical movie. One of the biggest was traditional tv did not provide for a lot of depth. Because of limits to the resolution, the screens and the aspect ration it was very hard to portray front to back movement well for something like a spaceship. But you really need at least an illusion of that front to back movement in order to create both a feeling of true or believable space travel and to give a sense of proper scale to your shooting models.

The way they created the illusion of depth and scale for TNG and Voyager was to design the ships so they had just a touch of forced perspective built in. The front is slightly oversized with regard to the back. (It's not that they made the models oversized, or distorted. it's just that the ships were designed from the ground up to have greater depth on the small screen.) When you see it on screen your eyes and brain mentally adjust things so it looks like a more sleek ship coming more or less at you. It's really brilliant and clever design work. But it doesn't work as well on the big screen.

On the big screen you use different shapes and design tricks to fool the eye and convey motion. Thus the rearward and elevated sweeping nacelles on the 1701 refit and the E. They are designed to convey sleekness, power and motion on the big screen. With the D design greater care has to be taken when shooting it to avoid its elements from seeming awkward. It's just the nature of the media each was designed for. On a smaller 4:3 tv the refit or E will feel very flat and static. The D and Voyager will feel more alive. On a big screen and hi res wide aspect ration the refit and E becomes sleek and graceful, while the D and Voyager look oddly proportioned inelegant and dumpy. It's just the nature of how the designers use shapes to trick your eye. When they transitioned TNG to the big screen they weren't going to long term hobble themselves with the design meant for a 4:3 aspect ration.

 

[B.J.]

^ I understand what you're saying, but I still disagree.