# Which Ship is better looking the Enterprise D or E



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi,Heres an interesting question.Which ship is better looking the Enterpise D or E.Which ship is more attractive.Do people think it was a mistake to destroy the Enterprise D in Generations and Does the Enterprise E fill the D's shoes as its replacement.I may post a follow up thread.Please voice your opinions,Thanks,Guy Schlicter


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

E-E, definitely.

It recaptures some of the classic lines so attractive in the original and refit E's.

It also looks fast standing still.


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

The Enterprise-E all hollow. Such a sexy, sexy starship. The only thing the Enterprise-D had on the Enterprise-E was the built-in capacity to seperate into two different ships and then re-connect, but other than that... the Enterprise-E. While I do think it was a mistake to destroy the ship in Generations (come on, it was only seven years old), the next ship of the line was a good move, especially since--as has already been said--it recaptured a lot of classic lines. Not only does it do that, but the Enterprise-E is the next logical step in the Enterprise legacy; that of no connecting pylon between the saucer and engineering section at all. In each version of the Enterprise following the Enterprise-A, the nacelles have gotten lower until they were totally under the saucer line with the Galaxy-class Enterprise-D. Now the Enterprise legacy has come about--perhaps full circle?--until you toss the NX-01 into the picture. But I'm not doing that.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

1701-E. The D is one one the worst designed starships. I was glad to see it get destroyed.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

D is a graceful, beautiful swan, designed with thought to its mission and artistry.

E is all right, but is basically a bashed-together bastardization of "kewl-looking" parts with a ridiculous paint scheme, thrown together quickly by uncaring fools who just wanted to get rid of Gene's lovely D and make the series "their own."

But I'm not bitter.


----------



## John O (Mar 8, 2000)

Agreed with JP. The D challenged the eye as a sculpture would - awkward from some angles, graceful from others. In her day, the D by herself put a great deal of distance between TOS and TNG. The E is all styling tricks and no substance - looks like what a Cardassian school boy might build as a mock of a Federation ship - horrible engine nacelles, be more at home on a Runabout.

John O.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I like the idea of the E being a warship, as opposed to the D's hotel in space theme.


----------



## Rogue1 (Jan 3, 2000)

E

D is for Dumb looking


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Hands down, the E-E! The E-D is a pregnant whale w/hemorrhoids. Gotta be the fugliest starship design up to that point. Heck, even since! I like the Saber much better when compared w/the E-D design - and I hate the Saber!  

The E-E, on the other hand, seems like a much better balanced between "old and new" to me. The E-D... not so much. 

- - - - - - 

Jeffrey Griffin
Griffworks Shipyards

* * * * * *

Star Trek Scale Modeling WebRing


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

John P said:


> D is a graceful, beautiful swan, designed with thought to its mission and artistry.
> 
> E is all right, but is basically a bashed-together bastardization of "kewl-looking" parts with a ridiculous paint scheme, thrown together quickly by uncaring fools who just wanted to get rid of Gene's lovely D and make the series "their own."
> 
> But I'm not bitter.


Bingo.

With the caveat that the galaxy got a whole lot more dangerous by the time FC rolled around, so a somewhat more assertive design might well have been the way to go.

Doesn't excuse TPTB assassinating the E-D, though.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I will say, that in the Dominion wars,the galaxy class ships kicked major arse. Thats the only reason I tolerate them.


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

John P said:


> D is a graceful, beautiful swan, designed with thought to its mission and artistry.
> 
> E is all right, but is basically a bashed-together bastardization of "kewl-looking" parts with a ridiculous paint scheme, thrown together quickly by uncaring fools who just wanted to get rid of Gene's lovely D and make the series "their own."


I'm with John on this point. It was a great TV series over the 7 years and though the initial showing of the series it took a little time to see such a wonderful vessel on the Tee Vee to get used to it. Afterall it was expanse of 8 decades from the TOS era to TNG in ship design. Of course it was a radical departure from a move set prop fabricated in the 60's and buildt like a piece of furnature. The excuse for the movie producers (B&B) to destory it was the usual Hollywood bovine fecal matter excuse ending. The Soveringe Class was the usual pandering to the usual lower intelect faction of Trekkies.


Don Matthys
dba Don's Light and Magic
http://www.dlmparts.com
Make it Glow!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

F91 said:


> I will say, that in the Dominion wars,the galaxy class ships kicked major arse. Thats the only reason I tolerate them.


Note that all the *good* writers went to DS9 while the hacks wound up on Voyager.


----------



## El Gato (Jul 15, 2000)

John P said:


> D is a graceful, beautiful swan, designed with thought to its mission and artistry.
> 
> E is all right, but is basically a bashed-together bastardization of "kewl-looking" parts with a ridiculous paint scheme, thrown together quickly by uncaring fools who just wanted to get rid of Gene's lovely D and make the series "their own."
> 
> But I'm not bitter.


Had this question been asked in the mid-80s before TNG hit the air I would've picked the E. It retains the lines of the TOS E and E-A while updating some design elements. The E-D was a bastardization to me when TNG hit the air.

But then the E-D grew on me. It grew on me to the point that her destruction was almost as poignant as the destruction of the Enterprise on Star Trek III (almost, not quite). She has a beautiful design, for the reasons JohnP stated: a fusion of art and mission. The E-D's curves give it a graceful look that, I think, will stand the ages. 

For B&B to destroy it in Generations, was utterly stupid. Even worse, her destruction had a Tasha Yar-like feel: pointless and unheroic. 

José


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

I do agree that the Enterprise-D had her cool aspects--the fact that she was a reveolutionary (to us) starship design is a big point in her favor. But I've always preferred the lines of the Enterprise-A, and the Enterprise-E recaptured some of those lines.


----------



## cobywan (Oct 27, 2001)

Rogue1 said:


> E
> 
> D is for Dumb looking


E is for Excreted.

I like the schematic of the E, but there are too many chunky structural features on her. She looks like a large, technological, step backwards. It's too bad we are stuck with a ship that has a lousy paint scheme because the "powers that be" rushed ILM into finnishing the miniature.

My favorite is still the Refit from the first Trek film. My next favorite is the D.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

L.I.F.E- Lower. Intellect. Faction. (for the) E. 
as in, I need to get a......


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

cobywan said:


> E is for Excreted.
> 
> I like the schematic of the E, but there are too many chunky structural features on her. She looks like a large, technological, step backwards. It's too bad we are stuck with a ship that has a lousy paint scheme because the "powers that be" rushed ILM into finnishing the miniature.
> 
> My favorite is still the Refit from the first Trek film. My next favorite is the D.


So....she's not supposed to be white?


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

So, do tell, what's the deal with the paint scheme on the E?


----------



## S-cape (Sep 11, 2000)

Aboslutely Ent-D, The dorsal area just aft of the saucer just seems ugly and non-functional, and the engines just look goofy, like disneyland monorail trains. The only thing I did NOT like about the D were the marine mammal accomadations, that just seemed silly and very wasteful of space. One of my favorite features of the D was the massive shuttle bay complex, wish we could've seen more of that.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Didn't care much for the D in its original configuration. I love the AGT version, however. The extra nacelle balanced the design perfectly between the saucer and the rest of the ship. The D in its original configuration grew on me some and it did, as pointed out above, have some good angles.

The E doesn't do much for me. It has a nice sleek design and all but, perhaps it's just the last couple of movies' lackluster storylines for the most part, I've never gained any affection for it.

The original ST:TOS 1701 production version is my all time favorite with the 1701C in second place.


----------



## MangoMan (Jul 29, 1999)

The D is the elephant man of starships. Head too freakishly big, legs way too small.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

ok from a purely bauhaus point of view, the d is the superior design. however that doent make it pretty. the design hangs together well but it looks squashed and unweildy. on the other hand, from a purly aesthetic p.o.v., the e wins hands down, dispite some incongruous elements. its design implies forward motion, and personally i enjoyed the little bits of the tos e thrown in. so the d pleases the mind, and the e pleases the eye. 

(im ways, the d's pretty consistant with roddenberry's thinking of "making it real", dispite aesthetic (or occasionally practical) considerations. remember how he had the bridge for tmp built as an intact room, forcing the camera to move about it as if they were shooting on location)

when we consider the underlaying needs of each design (the d to make a clear break from the tos/refit e, and the e to harken back to it) then each makes sense. 

and honestly, i think theres a huge attempt among some folks to find fault with the e. its analogous to a new actor taking the place of a longstanding one in the role of a favorite character. to some folks, the new guy is never going to measure up, no matter how good he is.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

F91 said:


> I like the idea of the E being a warship, as opposed to the D's hotel in space theme.


 And which is more appropos to TNGs original stated mission of a 10-year mission of exploration so far from home that the crew was encouraged to bring their families along?

And which more appropos for fanboy explosion-fests that resemble every other crappy SF show?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Griffworks said:


> Hands down, the E-E! The E-D is a pregnant whale w/hemorrhoids. Gotta be the fugliest starship design up to that point. Heck, even since! I like the Saber much better when compared w/the E-D design - and I hate the Saber!
> 
> The E-E, on the other hand, seems like a much better balanced between "old and new" to me. The E-D... not so much.


 Dang, and we were getting along so well... now I'll have to rething our relationship.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

F91 said:


> So, do tell, what's the deal with the paint scheme on the E?


 Try painting it! :lol:


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

The E.

The D does grow on you, but so does a wart.

Edge


----------



## jtwaclawski (Aug 7, 1999)

E is the best of the 2. I agree that the D grew on me but it's no where near as graceful as the E.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

John P said:


> And which is more appropos to TNGs original stated mission of a 10-year mission of exploration so far from home that the crew was encouraged to bring their families along?
> 
> And which more appropos for fanboy explosion-fests that resemble every other crappy SF show?


Ok, How about the E is a Corvette and the D is a Station Wagon. 
Hopefully, no explosions.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

I can't believe there is even a debate on this subject: the D was a thoughtful continuation of the refit design (thanks to Andy Probert) and stood up to 7+ years of being photographed (the 6 ft. model was much more Star Trek-like than the latter 4 ft. model, which had too much ILM influence with all the little greeblies). The E looks like a LEGO kit gone wild, with nothing that makes you go 'woo' like the refit or D does.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Well, apparently I'm a low-intellect fanboy, but I vastly prefer the E to the D. The only thing the D had in common with a swan is that it looks like a huge, mutated egg. Yes, the design grew on me, but only to the point where I no longer feel the need to throw things at the screen (or at my model shelf) every time I see it. I'll never like that unwieldy, unbalanced design.

I will say that when they destroyed it in Generations, my reaction was, "Morons. Don't you know you have to wait until the third movie before you blow up the ship?"

While the E lacks the sheer elegance of the refit, the E is sleek, looks powerful, and I think does a great job of paying homage to every earlier design. The paint job comes off the Defiant; the no-neck lines come from the Voyager; the deflector and triangles on the lower primary hull come from the TOS E; the pylons evoke the refit; the secondary hull's lines and aft shuttle bay bring to mind the Excelsior; the impulse engines, the Enterprise B; the phaser strips come from the C; the smaller touches, such as the lounge behind the bridge, the vertical windows, the captain's yacht, all come from the D. I just like the balanced look of the ship, as well as the balance of the design elements.


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

I much prefer the D. It showed a supreme improvement in Starfleet design, indicating that they had mastered Function to such a degree that Form could enjoy more consideration than before.

The Sovereign is cool but is a huge step backwards. I'd love it as a design to have come about sometime between the Excelsior and Ambassador. But after Galaxy? Doesn't make sense stylistically.


----------



## rossjr (Jun 25, 2001)

I love both ships but prefer the "E" over the "D" for a number of reasons. 

First are we absolutely certain that the "E" is unable to separate? Is it written in the Tech manual someplace? Looking at her I could see where the separation would occur and leave the warp drive and secondary hull in one unit with the saucer section with the shuttle bays and two impulse engines.

Second I have to agree that the "D" I had to grow into, I think the "E" is far more elegant and blending. I can definately agree with John P's statement about blending "Art with Mission" but I do believe some of that "Art" leads to weaknesses, the neck between the saucer and secondary hull come to mind in particular. I think that is why many people didn't like Voyager (the Intrepid class design), while they necks look graceful, I don't think they fit on a ship designed for combat. The galaxy class is best suited for exploration and diplomacy, while I believe the soverign is a design breed more for military purposes.

So are we really trying to compare The Queen Mary II with USS Missouri????


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

By the time _Generations _ came along I had come to respect the _D_ enough that I really thought it was a shame to destroy it though I was relieved in a way that it was gone. 

It was really a great weakness in the script that it was destroyed but it was something that many of the special effects fellows seemed to want to happen. In _STIII_, the sacrifice of the _1701 _ had purpose and meaning + it was an old ship by then. 

I would have rather seen the _D_ get refitted into the three-nacelled version as in _AGT_ than to have it destroyed.


----------



## cobywan (Oct 27, 2001)

RossW said:


> I can't believe there is even a debate on this subject: the D was a thoughtful continuation of the refit design (thanks to Andy Probert) and stood up to 7+ years of being photographed (the 6 ft. model was much more Star Trek-like than the latter 4 ft. model, which had too much ILM influence with all the little greeblies). The E looks like a LEGO kit gone wild, with nothing that makes you go 'woo' like the refit or D does.


 Which is hilarious when you consider that ILM built the large model and Greg Gien built the smaller one.


----------



## beeblebrox (Jul 30, 2003)

justinleighty said:


> The paint job comes off the Defiant; the no-neck lines come from the Voyager; the deflector and triangles on the lower primary hull come from the TOS E; the pylons evoke the refit; the secondary hull's lines and aft shuttle bay bring to mind the Excelsior; the impulse engines, the Enterprise B; the phaser strips come from the C; the smaller touches, such as the lounge behind the bridge, the vertical windows, the captain's yacht, all come from the D.


 So, it's not a DESIGNED ship, it's a nostalgic kitbash. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

I like the D. I think the overall design is very sophisticated. The E isn't a bad design. Workman-like and maybe a little too derivative--a little too art-deco. It's certainly a million miles away from inspiring. IMHO.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Ignatz said:


> I like the D. I think the overall design is very sophisticated. The E isn't a bad design. Workman-like and maybe a little too derivative--a little too art-deco. It's certainly a million miles away from inspiring. IMHO.


One of the special effects fellows in a magazine article described the 1701/1701A as being art deco while the 1701D was art noveau. The 1701E definitely puts the Enterprise back into the art deco style.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

F91 said:


> I like the idea of the E being a warship, as opposed to the D's hotel in space theme.


Yea I noticed there weren't any children on E-E?????????


----------



## Xavadis (Jan 10, 2004)

That seems to be a point people forget when they crap on the E-D: It was a family ship. Your gonna have a big saucer section if crewmembers bring their families along. This was before the Borg threat and all the DS9 stuff. That happened and the E-E was slimmed down and battle-oriented...now, which do you think is going to win over fanboys hearts?. It seems like some people bag on the E-D because it wasn't armed with 20 photon torpedo tubes and such, but it didn't have as much of a emphasis on battle as the E-E had because of what was happening around it.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

The ONLY respect I have for the galaxy class is that they were very capable warships.


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

JGG1701 said:


> Yea I noticed there weren't any children on E-E?????????


 Wesley Crusher was long gone by then, mate!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I've never liked the E in any way whatsoever. And although I've never been a big fan of the D I've come to appreciate certain aspects of it. As such, almost by default, I much prefer the D over the E.

But both are vastly inferior to the TOS era ship as well as the TMP refit with no bloody A, B, C, D, E, NX or whatever.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

F91 said:


> Wesley Crusher was long gone by then, mate!


Yes, but you see him a couple of times at the start of Nemesis at the wedding.


I have no definate preference over the D or E. They both have their positive and negetive points. I like the E because it looks like a powerful warship and mainly dedicated to peacekeeping. The D looks like a large family based science ship. Both forms suit their purpose.

The E can seperate. The design of the Ertl kit is supposed to replicate where the hull seperates into two parts with the Captain's yacht as part of the secondary "battle" section.

If you've read the book about the making of Generations, the filmakers go on about the decision to destroy the D and what they wanted to show. The saucer seperation was supposed to have been an extremely rushed affair and they wanted to show that some latches were still in place when the saucer accelerated off which would have "ripped" off the dorsal neck. Either lack of time or money put paid to that so they show what was supposed to be minute panels being pulled off. I thought it looked like crappy space dust.

The other big pity with the destruction is that they used the "Standard Star Trek Ball of Light" to blow up the hull section. At least they made the saucer crash look fairly good.

That's my two pence worth.

Rob


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

I'm rather surprised that people feel as strongly as they do about this. I like them both, but I think I prefer the E. It just doesn't remind me of an upside-down spoon the way the D does. And some of the windows on the D are so huge they'd span two or three decks.

Brad.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

"E" all the way. It looks great and has the lines and shape of the original TOS Enterprise. That’s what makes it more welcomed to the eye of the trekkers out there. Instead of the Pregnant Starship "D" LOL
And in the words of Zap Branigan if he had the Enterprise “E” to command, “I am going to fly her brains out” :jest:


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

according to the folks that designed the e-e, voyager wasnt an influence in any way


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

And thank God for that. Don't get me wrong, the Intrepid design is cool and all... but for the Flagship of the Fleet? Lol.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Hmmmm.....I'd have to say the D is my least favorite of all Enterprises. I like the E better but it would have to be my runner up for least favorite. I guess that steady diet of TOS has given me the yard stick I measure all starships by.*Enterprise D. . . . . You are the weakest link.*


----------



## FoxTrot (Jan 27, 2000)

Much prefer the E over the D, never really liked the D at all. Fox.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Nighthawk said:


> And thank God for that. Don't get me wrong, the Intrepid design is cool and all... but for the Flagship of the Fleet? Lol.


Somebody say the Intripid design was going to the Flagship?


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Cobywan - I think Greg Jein worked on both models, but the latter 4' version was prompted by ILM-inspired design influences; they always want more surface texture 'cause they think that gives it scale (I never doubted the TOS E was one big ship, so that theory doesn't work for me). I think John Eaves worked on the design for the E, and it has so many bits sticking out it looks like a crocodile.


----------



## Nighthawk (Oct 13, 2004)

John Eaves not only worked on the design, he pretty much designed the entire ship. Looking at close-up shots of the model of the Enterprise-E as it was being constructed and post construction, there really isn't anything 'sticking out.' The overall finish of the ship is smooth with some ribbing just aft of the buzzard collectors on the nacelles, a few notches here and there (notably on the underside of the engineering section just aft of the navigational deflector--torpedo bays, I believe). Also, after watching the special features disc for the Director's Edition of Star Trek: Generations, the bigger model of the Enterprise-D was basically not used again after the beginning of the fourth season; the guys doing the shooting of the Enterprise for the movie said that when the ship was brought out of storage, part of the nacelle had fallen off (I think it was the buzzard collector) and the ship needed to be repainted. But, a convenient excuse for all the surface detail present on the four-foot model is that the Enterprise-D spent six weeks moored to Earth Station McKinley for repairs and refitting after the Borg Incursion of 2366-67. One can always say that the surface texture is a result of upgrades and what not.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Yes but the E is a very tiered design with lots of angles and cutaways. I find the whole ship looks in conflict with itself scale-wise. I don't necessarily hate it, but to me it looks like a step backwards. I find the D to be much more lovely, besides I like the idea of a ship of exploration far more than a warship. To me space battles aren't a defining feature of the Star Trek universe. That's B&B not Roddenberry.

Ironic the comment about the 1701-E being more like the Refit, ala art Deco since the Refit and the 1701-D were designed by the same person and the 1701-E by someone else entirely!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Yes, yes, but what about the E's paint scheme? What was it supposed to be originally?


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

The D and E are both fine (I slightly perfer the D), but my favorites are the Refit/A and C. My least favorite was the B - those weird secondary hull protrusions ruined the Excelcior's graceful lines. :freak:


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Yes but the E is a very tiered design with lots of angles and cutaways. I find the whole ship looks in conflict with itself scale-wise. I don't necessarily hate it, but to me it looks like a step backwards. I find the D to be much more lovely, besides I like the idea of a ship of exploration far more than a warship. To me space battles aren't a defining feature of the Star Trek universe. That's B&B not Roddenberry.
> 
> Ironic the comment about the 1701-E being more like the Refit, ala art Deco since the Refit and the 1701-D were designed by the same person and the 1701-E by someone else entirely!


Well, Probert contributed some to the refit, but it certainly wasn't all his ... a lot of it reflects the Jeffries phase ii influence, and a lot (most of which wasn't good) reflects Richard Taylor, Abel's art director, who was Probert's boss before Abel got ousted and Trumbull came on.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

RossW said:


> Cobywan - I think Greg Jein worked on both models, but the latter 4' version was prompted by ILM-inspired design influences; they always want more surface texture 'cause they think that gives it scale (I never doubted the TOS E was one big ship, so that theory doesn't work for me). I think John Eaves worked on the design for the E, and it has so many bits sticking out it looks like a crocodile.


ILM built the six and two foot models for FARPOINT and Jein was there at the time, but when he did the four footer, that was out of his own shop, he was not at ILM at that time. Except for a few dozen shots and a lot of ship elements for FARPOINT, I don't think ILM did anything for the rest of TNG's run till the movies (though an ILM guy, Bill George, rented them a model he had built on his own that wound up as the PASTEUR in ALL GOOD THINGS.)

I think the bumpier texture on the four footer was mandated by the folks who shot the e-d at Image G; it was probably much faster to be able to light the thing to bring out SOME sense of contrast, and that was very hard to do on the original -D, since most of the detail was drawn/painted on, some by just spraying into stencils to build up areas (which flaked off with handling.) 

Aesthetically the 4 footer feels WRONG to me, but at a glance, a bunch of the shots with it don't have the problems that sometimes crop up with the bigger model (and the shots using the 2 footer are just terrible ... there's stuff in the first FERENGI ep that looks tons worse than anything in TOS, and I'm including the 'nacelle getting eaten' stuff and the ship wiggling stuff from TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY ... the 2 ft -d looks like it is 2 inches, plus it has a bad case of no-blur (probably because one of the vfx coordinators liked shooting at 30fps instead of 24.)


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

razorwyre1 said:


> according to the folks that designed the e-e, voyager wasnt an influence in any way


Eaves had not even seen VOYAGER, so he had no clue about any similarities. Eaves had been on DS9 after GEN ended, so unless he was lying in his teeth to me and everybody else who interviewed him for FC, I think any similarity is just something you take from the notion that the guy approving these designs (berman) liked certain things and allowed the artists to keep them so these are the things that seem similar to folks now.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

RossW said:


> I can't believe there is even a debate on this subject: the D was a thoughtful continuation of the refit design (thanks to Andy Probert) and stood up to 7+ years of being photographed (the 6 ft. model was much more Star Trek-like than the latter 4 ft. model, which had too much ILM influence with all the little greeblies). The E looks like a LEGO kit gone wild, with nothing that makes you go 'woo' like the refit or D does.


Thoughtful? try 'dismal.' Probert's first pass looked more like the -C wound up being, and THAT would have been a thoughtful continuation, instead of a misshapen front heavy guppy (to paraphrase Jimmy Doohan), which is how the -d looks to me from nearly every angle. 

I never liked the cast very much on TNG, so in a sense, I guess they deserved their ship (and yeah, I'm channeling Korax from TRIBBLES here.)


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Yes, yes, but what about the E's paint scheme? What was it supposed to be originally?


As far as I know, the paint scheme wasn't supposed to be any different, but the amount of time available to do a subtle detailed job was not anywhere near enough. The slightest overspray on miniature when you are shooting it from 2 inches away (which was the case in FC for the spacewalk on the hull) can be disastrous. 

John Knoll told me that Kim Smith had something like a week to do the whole ship, when it should have been a month. Of course, if Paramount had signed off on the final design sooner, instead of delaying months, then ILM would have had plenty of time to paint it right, and to finish mocon work on schedule, instead of holding the -E for practically the end of their schedule.

I think they might have used more foils on it if they had the time ... the foils they used on PHOENIX made it look phenomenal, not just on screen but in person (whereas the old FARRAGUT looked almost like cardboard in person, it had this two tone paint job that was awful in person, but fine on film.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I was hoping the answer would be "it was supposed to be a light gray, not white". I'm really beginning to dislike white ships.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

If ILM had still been doing their comps optically, it probably would have been gray, to avoid the blue spill problem, but time marches on and digital comps are easier, so they could make it any color they wanted, I guess.


----------



## SJF (Dec 3, 1999)

I actually like the design of both ships. However, if I had to choose, it would be the Enterprise-D. She was designed to be a deep space explorer vessel, with plenty of room for the dependents of the crew, and as such she remains the largest size vessel in Starfleet. And even though she was primarily designed for exploration and research, the E-D (AKA the Galaxy Class) could also ably defend herself whenever the need arose. So, the Enterprise-D is a better, all purpose starship that's built to handle whatever is thrown at it. 

Sean

http://www.mcfergesondvd.com/


----------

