What's so great about the TMP refit?

Since I've been reading and posting here (a few months now), I've seen that a pretty big fraction of Star Trek fans believe the TMP refit Enterprise to be the finest iteration of the ship, and possibly the best starship design ever. Id like to know...what exactly makes it so great?

I'm not saying that it's not--I'm really just curious to hear what people think about the ship. Does it have more to do with the physical model itself or the design concept? What about the interiors?

 

The model itself cost thousands and was really detailed, compared to the TOS one.

It looked great, in 1980, when we first saw it! Almost real. And, when it when into warp, people jumped!

 

At the time, it was the most detailed version of the ship, and IMHO the most believable. It was also the physically biggest view we ever got, since it was the first one we saw on the big screen.
Everyview or detail was much more detailed than what we had seen up to that time.
It was also just a damn good looking ship. I'm in that bunch that doesn't think they have ever topped it with any other Enterprise design.

 

At the time (which was a good few years before mine!) there were those who hated the TMP Enterprise, just like today there are those that hate the 2009 Enterprise with a passion. I recall reading somewhere that someone was furious at the time because they replaced the warp engines with "Klingon power units" .

IMO the TMP Enterprise is a nice, well balanced design, but it's marred slightly by such feeble nacelle pylons, and a scrawny neck. People can say "magic invisible fields" all they want but it's true.

 

Eh? They're in space. There's no gravity, so who cares if its neck is "scrawny." It's not like it's actually holding up anything.

 

Re: Starfleet rank system?

No gravity except for the planets they orbit around, the stars they slingshot around, the weird anomalies they get sucked into...

(and the gravity of the planet it was built on, according to a certain movie )

One well-placed shot at the base of the pylons could probably break both off.

Don't get me wrong, it looks nice, it just isn't very practical.

 

Ha! The TMP Enterprise wasn't built on any planet. It was built in spacedock in orbit of Earth. The JJPrise may have been built on Earth, but that's in some alternate universe that has nothing to do with the original Star Trek. But yeah, the neck and nacelle pylons were a little thin. But it worked just fine. Who knows what kind of sophisticated metal alloys they used in the spaceframe. Maybe cast rhodidium? Who knows. Fragile as it may look, it was still beautiful. Just not as beautiful as the original. More detailed, maybe. But not as elegant as Matt Jeffries' original design.

 

I don't believe there's anything in canon to suggest where the prime 1701 was built, beyond "San Fran shipyards". If that was on the ground or in a space is left unsaid. All we know was that final preperations for launch were in orbit.

Hell, if you step outside the canon, old novels had the 1701's saucer section refitted on the ground.

 

The refit was very sleek, beautifully detailed and unlike every design which came later, looks great at all angles. All the proportions are just right.

I'm totally mystified by the group that thinks the original looks better. The original looked exactly like what it was - a clunky model built on a limited budget. The design looks dated even when it's done with CGI. The parabolic radio dish is so ridiculously out of place on a ship that is supposed to be hundreds of years in the future.

 

...that has different laws of physics and where everyone is a moron, to boot.

 

You don't need different laws of physics to build a starship on the ground but doing so would make absolutely no sense.

 

To build a giant starship on the ground all you need is the ability to manipulate gravity, and ultra strong, ultra lightweight materials - two things Star Trek has had since the beginning.

But the haters shouldn't let little things like the content of past Star Treks get in the way of finding and inventing fault with the new .

 

You're missing the point - deliberately I think.

There are exactly zero advantages to building a starship on the ground and a plethora of disadvantages. It simply wouldn't be done.

 

Wow, haters really do gotta hate... In every thread possible...

 

That is absolutely substance-less and your grammar is barely intelligible.

 

I totally agree it's impracticle, but people have been doing impracticle things for centuries. And with the pretend technology of Star Trek, it could be done if people wanted to do it badly enough.

 

Fixed it for you. I know it was a tough one to figure out from that one word error that my phone's spell corrector made.

Here's what I was getting at, seeing as you had a difficult time understanding it:

In a thread that had nothing to do with the new movie, someone had to come in and start trashing the new movie for no apparent reason. I was pointing out just how common this is. Hopefully this was simplified enough for you. Any further questions, please direct them my way.

 

Nobody is disputing that. With the tech we see on Star Trek, they could probably build a starship under the Arctic ice cap if they really wanted to. The point is, they wouldn't.

 

Clunky? That classic, timeless, sleek, elegant design is CLUNKY?? Sacrilege!

And it's not a “radio dish” -- it's a sensor-deflector dish.

The San Francisco Navy Yards, actually. According to TMOST, the Enterprise was built in space.

So? Actually the pylons and “neck” are a bit beefier than on the TOS Enterprise.

The Refit/Enterprise-A design grew on me over the years. At first I thought the art-deco-ish nacelles were overstyled and the swept-back pylons were silly. But now I consider it the second-best-looking Enterprise after the TOS-E. It has the majestic beauty and elegant proportions of the original, but with enough believable surface detail to convince me that I'm looking at a 1,000-foot vessel up there on the big screen.

 

Dang right!