quote:

---

Originally posted by lasuvidaboy:
What can I say?

---

Not much to say is there? If HAL's objective is to turn these ships into boxes, then I would consider the design a roaring success. Carnival Shipbuilding are truly the masters at botching up existing designs. Add a deck here, extend one there, tack on a balcony, etc. etc., all with little regard to the original aesthetics of the ship. Since when did Carnival's bean counters become marine architects? The core of these enhancements are purely revenue driven.

For me these "upgrades" make HAL even less appealing.

In 2011 she will be operating a pair of "traditional" crossings, Rotterdam-New York and return, which would normally be very appealing, notably the opportunity to stay aboard the previous ROTTERDAM and then sail back home in this one, but sadly the modifications HAL has made have diminished the appeal of the ship for me. Likewise, I was also delighted to learn VEENDAM would be doing the traditional New York-Bermuda run, which I have always thought HAL should return to - but that was announced the same day as this refit program. I literally read the first press release and thought, "That sounds great," and then the second one and thought, "That sounds awful!"

Some of the changes made the last time around (e.g. the horrible Crow's Nest half-redecoration) were bad enough, but at least they were balanced out by some positive ones and overall the ships still had a lot more good than bad. But this round of "enhancements" just leaves me shaking my head. The very nice aft pool area has been destroyed in favor of this ghastly-looking "Retreat," the delightful Tropic Bar replaced by something called Mix, which looks like NCL's Bar Central but with video games (!), the much-appreciated promenade deck greatly altered by these Lanai cabins, and so on. OK, so some of the features that made her appealing are still intact, but at some point the ship looks so mangled that one just loses interest altogether. And VEENDAM has had serious problems since her refit, to the point where it was rumored that HAL was scrapping the whole plan for the rest of the ships (I wish!), but apparently all we are getting is a somewhat less ugly version on ROTTERDAM and maybe (?) the other S-class ships.

This ship, at age twelve, has had more changes made to her than the previous ROTTERDAM had in her entire career. While I am not sure her design would stand the test of time nearly as well as her predecessor's, I really do not understand what HAL has in mind with all these changes ... what is the point? I understand the financial advantages of adding more cabins, but the other changes...? (If HAL wanted to properly add more cabins, it should have copied the arrangement of AMSTERDAM over to ROTTERDAM and the S ships.) It is certainly not upgrading the older ships to match the newer ones, since none of these new "features" exist on the new ships anyway. Nor do the changes seem at all geared towards HAL's audience. ROTTERDAM mostly does long cruises so the expansive kids' and teens' facilities added last time around are a waste (not objectionable in their own right, just evidence of fuzzy thinking) and does anyone really think a big video screen over the aft "non-pool" or touch-screen video game tabletops are going to appeal to HAL's core clientele? (Does the idea of a huge video screen even mesh with the idea of a "Retreat?" It is exactly the kind of thing I'd want a retreat from.)

[ 12-17-2009: Message edited by: dmwnc1 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
This isn't as hideous as the Sensation/Ecstasy balconies or the Veedam extension, and really appears to be a little more thought out.

---

I assume the design from ROTTERDAM will be repeated on STATENDAM, MAASDAM and RYNDAM.

My problem is really not so much with the exterior aesthetics - it's ugly, but not that - but with the other changes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
I still don't see how the alterations would keep me from wanting to sail in her again.

---

Most of the changes made are minor on their own but all added up, the ship is substantially less appealing to me now.

I certainly would not categorically refuse to sail in her but I am less likely to now.

[ 12-17-2009: Message edited by: dougnewman ]

I dont understand why the appearance of a ship is important? I know that it is important to some people to pull into port on the most attractive ship but, thats not what cruising is all about. Cruising is picking a ship you like, with the destinations you like, not about the exterior looking the best. Take for instance the Norwegian Epic, yes she is very very ugly but it wont stop me and many of you from sailing her because of the experience we will have on her.

OK, so you may sail on a ship, inspite of her looks, but to most people, looks are still important. People do like to drive a nice looking car & live in a nice looking house, not to mention wearing nice looking clothes, so why not sail in a nice looking ship? To see a ship like QE2, the Saga Sisters or the Prinsendam in port & to know that that is 'your' ship, is nice!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cam J:
I dont understand why the appearance of a ship is important? I know that it is important to some people to pull into port on the most attractive ship but, thats not what cruising is all about.

---

Anyway, for me it is not mainly the external appearance of the ship that makes her much less appealing to me. Sure, I would prefer it if she looked nicer outside but it is what is on board that counts and unfortunately that seems to have been diminished.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cam J:

I dont understand why the appearance of a ship is important?

---

It's important to some people otherwise every cruise ship today would be ugly as opposed to just most of them In the past, a passenger ship's exterior appearance was just as important as the interior. The interiors were often arranged to actually compliment the exterior-they were designed from the outside-in as opposed to the inside-out of today's ships. That also went for automobiles (even inexpensive models) and residential architecture.

That started to change when the cost to build something 'pretty' became more and more expensive. Pretty costs alot more to make than ugly and that is why so much around us today is just plain old ugly

[ 12-17-2009: Message edited by: lasuvidaboy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
Not to turn this into 'one of those threads' but ocean liners of past weren't all particularly attractive, just maybe a dozen or less from each decade or the grand dame standouts. I never thought the Queen Mary attractive at all when compared to Normandie, one looking like a work horse, the other a lady.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:
Even in the early 60's comparing Oriana to the Leonardo da Vinci was like Beauty and the Beast.

---

I agree with that though. Leonardo da Vinci was really beautiful. Oriana on the other hand was not at all. I always though she was really ugly for her day.

They really have made a porky pie out of what was once a rather good-looking rear end on the Rotterdam. Now it looks like Elmer Fudd as opposed to Marlene Dietrich!

And I agree with Cunard fan that the reborn Veendam looks better. Those blind corners on Rotterdam aft make her look really ugly.

I also agree with Doug that I'd be less likely to book her, just as I would not really want to be seen afloat on something idiotically called Adonia. Following the logic that she is named after Adonis (the British transport minister by the way) rather than the ADults ONly theme, it follows that Artemis should really have been called Artemia. Of course, now she will be called Artania anyway!

Curiously, those pirate ship balconies on the Fantasy class, Elmer Fudd sterns on the Rotterdam class and silly names for P&O ships all emanate from the same group.

[ 12-18-2009: Message edited by: Kevin Griffin, London ]

With all due respect, I think you should go back and check out your liner books. In nearly every book about Normandie and QM, there is a comparison of the two ships; and it's far from apples and oranges. CGT, Cunard, the media and the public in general had a field day comparing the look and specs of both ships (not to mention countless others) and the contest continues to this day.

As much as I like QM (mainly because of her incredible career and not her looks), it is Normandie's name that is almost always followed by something like, 'possibly the greatest ocean liner ever'.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of QM; I love the ship. But the fact is, between Lusitania to QE2, not one Cunarder was built that can be considered modern or innovative. Truth is, from a technical standpoint, QM was a major step backwards...especially when compared to Normandie (or even Bremen or Europa).

I've no doubt that with Normandie being so completely over-the-top it intimidated many people. That's the main reason her passenger numbers couldn't compare to QM....I suppose most people just preferred the cozy, club-like feel of QM over Normandie's ultra-modern, perhaps pretentious atmosphere.

For me, I would have taken the pretentious route....I could have always joined a country club at home if I wanted.

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:

I've no doubt that with Normandie being so completely over-the-top it intimidated many people. That's the main reason her passenger numbers couldn't compare to QM....I suppose most people just preferred the cozy, club-like feel of QM over Normandie's ultra-modern, perhaps pretentious atmosphere.

-Russ

---

The people who took first class on Le Normandie, Queen Mary-Elizabeth, Bremen/Europa, Ile de France were the equal of today's billionaires who fly in private jets. It is a venue rarely seen by the general public.

I think the idea of Le Normandie failing because she is too intimidating and QM1 more clubby is urban legend. QM was more successful because her cabin and tourist facilities were far better than the Normandie's.

Too many of the liner books and movies of 1939 gloss over how the mortal class travelled.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KevinGriffinLondon:
They really have made a porky pie out of what was once a rather good-looking rear end on the Rotterdam. Now it looks like Elmer Fudd as opposed to Marlene Dietrich!

---

Here interior looks brighter then before and I like it. I always found these ships a bit dark (the same fore S class) Notice that she have in picture 4 no less then 4 Microsoft touch screens as tables.

Interior pictures look here.

Greetings Ben.

[ 12-18-2009: Message edited by: Maasdam ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of QM; I love the ship. But the fact is, between Lusitania to QE2, not one Cunarder was built that can be considered modern or innovative.

-Russ

---

quote:

---

The people who took first class on Le Normandie, Queen Mary-Elizabeth, Bremen/Europa, Ile de France were the equal of today's billionaires who fly in private jets.

---

Sorry but I have to disagree. While some first class passengers were folks who obviously had the unlimited means to travel anyway they wanted, I suspect first class was made up of mostly ordinary people who weren't filthy rich but were simply well off enough to afford it. On any given sailing only a handful of first class passengers had any notoriety.

I also suspect that Normandie's passenger list was made up of a lot more high brow folks than QM's.

quote:

---

QM was more successful because her cabin and tourist facilities were far better than the Normandie's.

---

Sorry Dave, there was nothing about QM that was superior to Normandie; her tourist class dining room, for example, was stunning.

quote:

---

Too many of the liner books and movies of 1939 gloss over how the mortal class travelled.

---

True. That was the era of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers; that's what people wanted to see. No one want to see a movie about a cabin class romance that takes place in a cabin with upper and lower berths.

quote:

---

QE is my all-time favorite Cunarder and she did have several modern touches that were of course inspired by Normandie.

---

Agreed. Next to Lusitania and QM2, QE is my favorite Cunarder.

-Russ

[ 12-18-2009: Message edited by: linerguy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:
"Both ships are amazingly beautiful (IMO) but comparing them, to me, seems like comparing apples and oranges."
With all due respect, I think you should go back and check out your liner books. In nearly every book about Normandie and QM, there is a comparison of the two ships; and it's far from apples and oranges. CGT, Cunard, the media and the public in general had a field day comparing the look and specs of both ships (not to mention countless others) and the contest continues to this day.

---

I am sorry. I should have explained what I meant. Your right both ships are indeed compared quite offen and there is reason for that. I however don't think you can compare them very much. Both ships while they had lots of similaritys, were very different. Their interiors for example were both beautiful Art Deco but they were different kinds of Art Deco. The Normandies was ulta glamorous Frence glitzy Art Deco while the Queen Marys was ulta glamorous British cozy Art Deco. Normandies was beautiful but in some ways imposing. Queen Mary's was also beautiful but was also more cozy and comfortable. I always compare them to 1930 clothing. The Normandie would be one one of those ulta glamourous, diamond and gold studded, red carpet, movie star dresses like this or this or this.
The Queen Mary on the other hand would one of those glamorous, simple but oh so sexy, movie star, chic dresses like this or this or this or this.

Also the feeling aboard the to ships seems like it would have been completely different. Personally I would have rather have sailed on the Queen Mary
(even though I LOVE LOVE LOVE the Normandie!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by linerguy:
As much as I like QM (mainly because of her incredible career and not her looks), it is Normandie's name that is almost always followed by something like, 'possibly the greatest ocean liner ever'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NAL:
Actually from what I've seen in photos, the cabin class interiors were very nice on Normandie. Very sleek and modern. I think Normandie's lack of success when compared to QM was very much the time in history. QM's most successful years were those after the war. Had they both survived the WWII, the numbers race could have been quite different. .

---