ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

How do u feel about the death of the enterprise D?

Ali88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 889

Report this Dec. 02 2009, 9:51 am

I HATED IT

It was such a meaningless and undignified death and I thought it was an insult to all TNG fans and to TNG itself

When the Klingons opened fired on the enterprise D, Riker should have remodulated the shield frequency or just fire like 20 aft torepdoes at them

Honestly who wants to hear technobabble about "deflector plasma coils" during a space battle

And I hate the warp core breach and how it causes the saucer section to fall down to the planet's service and crash in a forest and it becomes unsalavagable and so they just abandon it there on the planet like with Kirk's body

kvlc

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 306

Report this Dec. 02 2009, 2:44 pm

Good riddance.  Could have used the Enterprise-E years earlier.

Commander_Zelkar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7250

Report this Dec. 02 2009, 2:55 pm

How would they salvage it? Other than tearing it apart and using the scrap. I'm sure all the technically sensitive stuff was removed.

quantumstring12

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 826

Report this Dec. 02 2009, 8:38 pm

It was the only scene that kept that horrible movie from being a complete and total disaster. Enterprise E is sweet!

lostshaker

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2293

Report this Dec. 02 2009, 9:24 pm

Personally, Ali88, I enjoy the technobabble, but I do agree with you to an extent on the destruction of the ENT-D. I loved that ship. It was a great blend of earth tones and technology. I don't care for the ENT-E so much. I'd rather the D just have gotten an upgrade between movies to explain design/room expansion, since that's what they were obviously going for (other than the fact that they had wanted to use the saucer crash back at the end of season 6).

Prior to Generations they never went too much into shield modulation. They mentioned it once or twice, even showed a display readout, but never really said that it could be easily changed. It wasn't until VGR came along that shield frequency could be reset at the drop of a hat.

I'm okay with the destruction, I certainly don't take it as an insult, but it was a beautiful ship.

Eternal7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 777

Report this Dec. 05 2009, 6:30 pm

I didn't like the destruction of the Enterprise-D because it was my favorite starship.

clactonradio

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2049

Report this Dec. 14 2009, 5:55 am

The D was my best ship on all of Star Trek and found it sad that it was destroyed and it was the nicest looking in side of all ships.

But the E is much more advanced.

I was ok with it.

stovokor2000

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2683

Report this Dec. 14 2009, 9:39 am

Quote (Ali88 @ Dec. 02 2009, 9:51 am)
I HATED IT

It was such a meaningless and undignified death and I thought it was an insult to all TNG fans and to TNG itself

I thought it was done well

Quote
And I hate the warp core breach and how it causes the saucer section to fall down to the planet's service and crash in a forest and it becomes unsalavagable and so they just abandon it there on the planet like with Kirk's body


The wreckage of the Enterprise D and Kirks body would have hads to been removed as per the Prime Directive.

So its doubtful either were "abandoned".

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this Dec. 14 2009, 12:28 pm

Well, honestly, I didn't feel much of anything when the D was destroyed.  I'd already seen the original, the real Enterprise, die in TSFS and that was a big deal to me and other fans I think.  It was like killing Spock, it was something completely unexpected and untenable.  How can you have ST without the Enterprise?  See, there was no precedent for this.  At the end, the crew were outlaws, it wasn't clear if Spock had all his mental faculties, and the Enterprise was destroyed.  Also, I really thought the death of the Enterprise was done really well in TSFS.  Dramatically, it was a hit, with Kirk, Scotty, and Chekov executing the destruct sequence.  You can hear the shock and disbelief in Chekov's voice, the anger in Scotty's, and the sadness in Kirk's.  Then, you have the crew watching the ship burn up in the atmosphere of the Genesis planet (although that fireball should have been incandescent based on the Mir reentry).  It was just so well done.  

So, when the Ent-D was destroyed in GEN, it was kind of an empty experience for me.  After all, although I really liked the ship, it was never THE Enterprise to me.  Everyone knew there would be an Enterprise E.  I mean, Picard pretty much told Riker at the end of GEN there would be one.  

Also, although the death of the Ent-D was certainly spectacular and probably the big action sequence in that film, I don't think it had the quite as much dramatic punch as the death of the original Enterprise.  Not to mention, I still find the sequence of events leading to its death to be pretty contrived.  I mean, Geordi's visor was already compromised before in a TNG episode.  You'd think Worf and Riker would've checked it out when he was returned to the D based on that.  Then the Klingons get a lucky shot on a fully operational ship that has many times their strength to cause a warp core breach.  Plus, the destruction of the Klingon ship was all done via more TNG technobabble.  Not cool.  

But the crash sequence was really spectacular.  I have to admit that.  I thought it was cool.  

But again, I didn't feel much sadness at all when the D went.  I knew they would all be on another Enterprise for FC.

So, the question was, I think, was destroying the D worth it?  Did they really need a new starship for the films?  I don't think so.  The Ent-D models were fine.  If they needed a new, bigger, more detailed model, they could've just made one (they were using a smaller, more detailed model in the later seasons of TNG anyway).  It was a great looking starship that, according to the TNG Technical Manual, had a 100 year lifetime.        

How well did the destruction of the D work out as a dramatic device?  Pretty well, imo, but not as well as the death of the original Enterprise, both in execution and wrt the aforementioned precedent.  The film already did have Kirk death as it's dramatic centerpiece so did it also need for the D to be destroyed?  I'm not sure it did.  But, then again, GEN needed some big action set pieces and the destruction of the D certainly fit the bill in that regard.  If you didn't have that, you would've needed something else to take its place.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Dec. 14 2009, 1:05 pm

I do think it's sad that the D was destroyed. I liked the ship and I wish they'd just sailed off into the sunset at the end of "All Good Things..." The movies really weren't necessary. Its destruction was another one of those contractual issues with "Generations", like killing Kirk and including a meeting between the two captains. That movie was such a muddle to begin with it would have been inconsistent for the destruction of the Enterprise to actually have some emotional resonance. It doesn't even seem to affect the crew.

What does bug me is the Enterprise-E. There was no introduction to it. We didn't get any time to get to know it as we did with the D. The interior of the new ship seems to consist only of the bridge, the engine room, and some dark hallways -- all of it in metallic shades of gray like the inside of a walk-in cooler. It may have looked really sleek and sexy, but there was no substance to that ship.

The crash of the Enterprise-D was pretty #### spectacular, though.

DNA7077

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 299

Report this Dec. 14 2009, 9:07 pm

Quote (Pooneil @ Dec. 14 2009, 10:05 am)
What does bug me is the Enterprise-E. There was no introduction to it. We didn't get any time to get to know it as we did with the D. The interior of the new ship seems to consist only of the bridge, the engine room, and some dark hallways -- all of it in metallic shades of gray like the inside of a walk-in cooler. It may have looked really sleek and sexy, but there was no substance to that ship.

I wish we'd seen a lot more of the Ent-E as well; and to answer the OP's question, I didn't like the D's destruction when it happened, but the E was just too cool looking to stay upset over it.

But again, I wish we'd seen more of the E, if for no other reason than to have some more reference shots in my mind when I read the current novels...  :cool:

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Dec. 14 2009, 9:40 pm

Quote (starbase63 @ Dec. 14 2009, 1:42 pm)
Quote (Pooneil @ Dec. 14 2009, 1:05 pm)
I do think it's sad that the D was destroyed. I liked the ship and I wish they'd just sailed off into the sunset at the end of "All Good Things..." The movies really weren't necessary. Its destruction was another one of those contractual issues with "Generations", like killing Kirk and including a meeting between the two captains. That movie was such a muddle to begin with it would have been inconsistent for the destruction of the Enterprise to actually have some emotional resonance. It doesn't even seem to affect the crew.

What does bug me is the Enterprise-E. There was no introduction to it. We didn't get any time to get to know it as we did with the D. The interior of the new ship seems to consist only of the bridge, the engine room, and some dark hallways -- all of it in metallic shades of gray like the inside of a walk-in cooler. It may have looked really sleek and sexy, but there was no substance to that ship.

The crash of the Enterprise-D was pretty #### spectacular, though.

What do you mean there was no introduction to the E? What do you call that beauty shot at the beginning of ST:FC?

Didn't get the time to get to know it? A movie is only two hours roughly, can't waste time giving tours of the ship...unless it somehow moves the plot along.

:logical:

I call that "beauty shot" of the Enterprise-E in "First Contact" an establishing shot. It was no different from the first shot of nearly every episode that showed the Enterprise flying through space. That's not the same thing as an introduction. A proper introduction would have been like in "The Motion Picture", "Encounter at Farpoint", etc. Characters and audience alike should have been given time to get to know the new ship. As it is, it feels like there's a story missing between "Generations" and "First Contact".

The Enterprise-E fulfilled the plot requirements of the starship, but it could easily have been any other ship. It just happened to look kinda cool. The destruction of the original Enterprise in "Search for Spock" is not emotional because the Enterprise was a cool-looking ship, but because it had some significance to the audience. It was the same with the D -- except they lost some of the impact by stuffing it into a rather garbled movie. The Enterprise-E had none of that, and never got a chance.

PhantasmX

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 87

Report this Dec. 15 2009, 4:05 am

I hated it but the crash scene was nicely done though.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Dec. 16 2009, 9:30 am

People need to deal with reality.

Saying "I HATED IT!!! ARRRGGHHHHH!!!" is kind of foolish, don't you think? It was an exciting and suspenseful scene that was well done! H3ll, it damm near blew me out of the movie theater the first time I saw it!

I never understand the Trek fans who have these strong NEGATIVE obsessive emotions around turns in the franchise that they are opposed to:

Death of Spock
Destruction of the original Enterprise
Death of Kirk
Death of Tasha Yar
Destruction of the Enterprise-D
Death of Data

I mean, I don't HATE any of these things. It's a story! It's drama! And drama has no meaning if life just marches on in every episode and every series and every movie without acknowledging change and mortality.

Not only that, but these events took place a long time ago! I can see someone who is really attached to the characters or the ships being very upset on a first or second viewing...but how can you still be filled with rage over something that happened 15 years ago?

I don't know...maybe it's just me.

Pooneil

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1023

Report this Dec. 17 2009, 12:01 pm

Quote (Vger23 @ Dec. 16 2009, 9:30 am)
People need to deal with reality.

Saying "I HATED IT!!! ARRRGGHHHHH!!!" is kind of foolish, don't you think? It was an exciting and suspenseful scene that was well done! H3ll, it damm near blew me out of the movie theater the first time I saw it!

I never understand the Trek fans who have these strong NEGATIVE obsessive emotions around turns in the franchise that they are opposed to:

Death of Spock
Destruction of the original Enterprise
Death of Kirk
Death of Tasha Yar
Destruction of the Enterprise-D
Death of Data

I mean, I don't HATE any of these things. It's a story! It's drama! And drama has no meaning if life just marches on in every episode and every series and every movie without acknowledging change and mortality.

Not only that, but these events took place a long time ago! I can see someone who is really attached to the characters or the ships being very upset on a first or second viewing...but how can you still be filled with rage over something that happened 15 years ago?

I don't know...maybe it's just me.

Agreed. The only trouble is that the destruction of the D felt less like an event and more like a footnote -- "Oh yeah, and the ship crashed." I mean, not the crash itself, which was spectacular, but the reaction of the crew afterwards.

The first sight of the new Enterprise should also have been more of an event than what we got.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Drunkin Druid

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum