RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,411
Posts: 5,360,047
Members: 24,630
Currently online: 451
Newest member: DasGeneral


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > The Next Generation

The Next Generation All Good Things come to an end...but not here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 16 2013, 12:41 PM   #16
MarsWeeps
Commander
 
MarsWeeps's Avatar
 
Location: Outside of Space/Time
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Cr031k wrote: View Post
Take it how you will but I presume the conversation between Riker and Picard at the end gave no mention to knowing they had a new ship waiting for them back home.

RIKER: I always thought I'd have a crack at this chair one day.

PICARD: THAT'LL BE THE DAY!!!
Fixed it for ya!
MarsWeeps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 02:48 PM   #17
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Infern0 wrote: View Post
Does anyone know what happened to the Enterprise B?
There's no canonical answer. The only thing we can surmise is that she was no longer in service by 2344.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 03:13 PM   #18
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

MickJo1701 wrote: View Post
I'd always believed that the Sovereign class that became the Ent-E was nearing completion when the Ent-D bought it and Starfleet re/named it to continue the tradition. In regards to the refit the Ent-D had received prior to Generations, I assumed it was due to the seriousness of the Dominion threat after the Odyssey was so easily destroyed.
"Men, we're facing a grave threat. The Odyssey was destroyed. Take the Enterprise and turn down the lights. That way no one will think we're home."

"But, sir. Should we take the hide the shield frequency...or at least not display on monitors?"

"No...but better add a couple of extra stations to the bridge just in case."
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 05:07 PM   #19
heavy lids
Lieutenant Commander
 
heavy lids's Avatar
 
Location: Denver
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

[QUOTE=USS Firefly;7690540]
That was so dumb though. Totally unnecessary. And I like the name Sao Paulo more than Defiant.
I believe it had to do with that the FX would be too expensive to change the new name.

[QUOTE]

I can believe that. But they could have avoided that problem by never showing a close up shot of where the name and starship ID appear.
__________________
"Divine intervention is...unlikely" - The Doctor
heavy lids is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 05:20 PM   #20
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

heavy lids wrote: View Post
GameOn wrote: View Post
The same thing happened when Sisko took command of the Sao Paulo and had permission to change the name to Defiant.
That was so dumb though. Totally unnecessary. And I like the name Sao Paulo more than Defiant.
Aside from the residents of Sao Paulo, you're probably in the minority that do.

But renaming the ship the Defiant was both a morale-raising move for Starfleet forces as well as a message (i.e., raised middle finger) to the Dominion, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 06:09 PM   #21
Ar-Pharazon
Rear Admiral
 
Ar-Pharazon's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
heavy lids wrote: View Post
GameOn wrote: View Post
The same thing happened when Sisko took command of the Sao Paulo and had permission to change the name to Defiant.
That was so dumb though. Totally unnecessary. And I like the name Sao Paulo more than Defiant.
Aside from the residents of Sao Paulo, you're probably in the minority that do.

But renaming the ship the Defiant was both a morale-raising move for Starfleet forces as well as a message (i.e., raised middle finger) to the Dominion, IMO.
I don't know. The Dominion was 1 for 1 against ships named Defiant.

It might have been a morale booster for the bad guys as much as the good guys
__________________
Rimmer, on what period of history to live in-
“Well, It’d be the 19th century for me, one of Napoleon’s marshals.
The chance to march across Europe with the greatest general of all time and kill Belgians” - (White Hole).
Ar-Pharazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 06:36 PM   #22
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Lance wrote: View Post
... but what if, in-universe, the plan was always to launch the Enterprise E anyway, and keep the former Enterprise in service under a different name? Maybe they intended to launch the Sovereign Enterprise the following year, regardless of whether her predecessor was destroyed. What if the changes made to the bridge module in "Generations" (vs the one seen in the series) were because the Enterprise had been recently refitted in preparation for it's rebranding/being handed over to a new crew, while Picard and the rest (and the Enterprise name itself, of course) were going to migrate to a more updated vessel. Under this hypothesis, the 'death' of 1701-D was an unfortunate coincidence, but not a crippling difference to the plan except fo the loss of a Galaxy from the fleet. Because maybe the new Enterprise was already on the starting blocks undergoing final tests, and the crew were readying themselves to move over to the Sovereign Enterprise anyway. The only crew who lost out in this scenario are obviously the ones who might have been intended to take over the former Enterprise-D.
You have an interesting theory there; however, I'm not sure it applies to the Enterprise-D. I just don't think it would have been renamed, and I certainly don't think that that Sovereign class ship would have been an Enterprise had the previous ship not been destroyed. Even "All Good Things" makes it clear that the Ent-D, while considered an old ship in the anti-time future, was still named the same and had been given significant upgrades in its technology over time.

However, I think your theory has merit for a previous Enterprise, namely the Enterprise-A. Here's what I theorize:

In Star Trek III, Admiral Morrow states that the original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned, and that ships like the Excelsior were the future. I believe at this early point there were plans to build a new Excelsior-class Enterprise and have it be the Enterprise-A, which was why Starfleet wanted the former ship mothballed.

However, because of Kirk's actions in STIV, Starfleet decided to give Kirk an "intermediate" Enterprise (since construction hadn't been started on the new ship yet), and let him fly it around for a few years until the Enterprise-B was completed. This would explain why the ship was decommissioned at the end of STVI.

But what happened to the Enterprise-A? While there's no canon confirmation of this, there's every indication that the Enterprise-A was a brand-new ship. So why build a new Constitution class ship just to decommission it a few years later? Well, because there were already plans to build the Excelsior-class Enterprise, the A needed to be out of the picture by the time the new ship was commissioned. It's my personal opinion that the Enterprise-A was then recommissioned with a different name, and lived out its normal lifespan as another ship.

There's also speculation that the Enterprise-A was in fact an older ship that had been renamed the Enterprise. If that's the case, then I would surmise that after those few years as the Enterprise, it was given back its original name, whatever that was.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 06:41 PM   #23
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Ar-Pharazon wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
heavy lids wrote: View Post

That was so dumb though. Totally unnecessary. And I like the name Sao Paulo more than Defiant.
Aside from the residents of Sao Paulo, you're probably in the minority that do.

But renaming the ship the Defiant was both a morale-raising move for Starfleet forces as well as a message (i.e., raised middle finger) to the Dominion, IMO.
I don't know. The Dominion was 1 for 1 against ships named Defiant.
And yet there was still a Defiant to hound the Dominion.
It might have been a morale booster for the bad guys as much as the good guys
Explain, please.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 08:02 PM   #24
Ar-Pharazon
Rear Admiral
 
Ar-Pharazon's Avatar
 
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

^ As in "look, we get to blow up another one!", depending how quick they noticed there was another one.

It wouldn't surprise anyone that it was just another Defiant-class renamed.
__________________
Rimmer, on what period of history to live in-
“Well, It’d be the 19th century for me, one of Napoleon’s marshals.
The chance to march across Europe with the greatest general of all time and kill Belgians” - (White Hole).
Ar-Pharazon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 09:38 PM   #25
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Ar-Pharazon wrote: View Post
^ As in "look, we get to blow up another one!", depending how quick they noticed there was another one.
Um...okay.


But I think it probably still meant more to Starfleet, particularly those forces fighting in the Bajor Sector and to the crew of DS9 in particular.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 10:36 PM   #26
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Should've left it named Sao Paulo.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16 2013, 11:25 PM   #27
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

I'm glad they didn't.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17 2013, 04:10 AM   #28
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Lance wrote: View Post
... but what if, in-universe, the plan was always to launch the Enterprise E anyway, and keep the former Enterprise in service under a different name? Maybe they intended to launch the Sovereign Enterprise the following year, regardless of whether her predecessor was destroyed. What if the changes made to the bridge module in "Generations" (vs the one seen in the series) were because the Enterprise had been recently refitted in preparation for it's rebranding/being handed over to a new crew, while Picard and the rest (and the Enterprise name itself, of course) were going to migrate to a more updated vessel. Under this hypothesis, the 'death' of 1701-D was an unfortunate coincidence, but not a crippling difference to the plan except fo the loss of a Galaxy from the fleet. Because maybe the new Enterprise was already on the starting blocks undergoing final tests, and the crew were readying themselves to move over to the Sovereign Enterprise anyway. The only crew who lost out in this scenario are obviously the ones who might have been intended to take over the former Enterprise-D.
You have an interesting theory there; however, I'm not sure it applies to the Enterprise-D. I just don't think it would have been renamed, and I certainly don't think that that Sovereign class ship would have been an Enterprise had the previous ship not been destroyed. Even "All Good Things" makes it clear that the Ent-D, while considered an old ship in the anti-time future, was still named the same and had been given significant upgrades in its technology over time.

However, I think your theory has merit for a previous Enterprise, namely the Enterprise-A. Here's what I theorize:

In Star Trek III, Admiral Morrow states that the original Enterprise was going to be decommissioned, and that ships like the Excelsior were the future. I believe at this early point there were plans to build a new Excelsior-class Enterprise and have it be the Enterprise-A, which was why Starfleet wanted the former ship mothballed.

However, because of Kirk's actions in STIV, Starfleet decided to give Kirk an "intermediate" Enterprise (since construction hadn't been started on the new ship yet), and let him fly it around for a few years until the Enterprise-B was completed. This would explain why the ship was decommissioned at the end of STVI.

But what happened to the Enterprise-A? While there's no canon confirmation of this, there's every indication that the Enterprise-A was a brand-new ship. So why build a new Constitution class ship just to decommission it a few years later? Well, because there were already plans to build the Excelsior-class Enterprise, the A needed to be out of the picture by the time the new ship was commissioned. It's my personal opinion that the Enterprise-A was then recommissioned with a different name, and lived out its normal lifespan as another ship.

There's also speculation that the Enterprise-A was in fact an older ship that had been renamed the Enterprise. If that's the case, then I would surmise that after those few years as the Enterprise, it was given back its original name, whatever that was.
I've long held the theory that the Enterprise-A was a kind of "reserve ship", rather than being part of an active duty roster, and that the crew were usually off in semi-retirement doing their own things except on the few occasions when Starfleet needs their particular experience for a special mission (ie. Nimbus III and the Klingon peace meeting). But to avoid taking this thread off-topic in that direction, I'll just link to my earlier thread on the subject: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=176002
Lance is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 04:39 AM   #29
tomswift2002
Captain
 
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

Don't forget that some staff at Paramount were also thinking that the Enterprise-E would be another Galaxy, as we saw in the special feature on TNG Season 2 DVD.
tomswift2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25 2013, 07:14 PM   #30
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Do you think the Enterprise D was going to be renamed anyway?

__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.