Discussion in 'Fan Productions' started by dru, Aug 6, 2012.
I assume that Tobias is the person responsible for bringing Arex to life?
No argument here. He also had just about the best movie in the series.
I meant no offense nor any bad implications in my use of the term, I just meant to neutrally refer to those who did not agree with the decision, whose opinion I respect. Perhaps objectors would be more suitable? I must confess my vocabulary is feeling a bit rusty lately.
A detractor of something tries to discredit it or tarnish its reputation, so that revision is appreciated.
Brian Gross shows a lot of promise. I think he'll be good.
But Drake was a pirate, not an explorer.
He was the second Captain to circumnavigate the Earth by sea, apparently. Would that make him enough of an explorer for you?
No, because he did so as part of a piracy mission and Magellan had already accomplished it.
Strictly speaking, Magellan died and Elcano completed the mission, but I see your point in that regard.
Btw: he did so as part of a privateer mission, which - while technically merely sanctioned piracy of course - was apparently considered a mandated exploratory expedition by Queen Elizabeth I, so not "just" piracy. And the result was still a circumnavigation of the world. If my (admittedly brief) researches are accurate, Magellan was also working with a similar basic premise (go on said expedition to advance interests of sovereign nation) so you could possibly argue that the reason either went on those missions was irrelevant to both's status as "explorers". Bent obviously this is all A) a matter of opinion and B) irrelevant to this thread, so I'll leave that there.
In any case, the question of whether he belongs in Kirk's dialogue is an interesting one. Technically speaking, Kirk's romanticising every name he's using, so whether you accept Drake as an explorer or not in the historical sense, romanticised history does, in fact, treat him as such. I find the names rather apt. There were other historical names that could have popped up - Columbus and Cook perhaps, if we're going with romanticised history - but yeah. Good speech. Nice "Archer" reference. The entire thing's essentially a giant dialogue piece but it showcases Mr Gross very well.
Anyway, I should go back to sleep. Thanks for the discussion.
Sure. Sorry to contribute to the scourge of topic drift.
The vignette served a number of purposes for us.
It was heavy on dialog for Brian Gross--to showcase our new Kirk actor.
It had originally been conceived of a sa epilogue follow-up vignette to "Blood and Fire"--with a memorial service for the late Lieutenant Alex Freeman. In the end, we decided to make reference not only to a number of Phase II characters who had perished in recent episodes, but it also allowed us to acknowlege, by name, a number of important New Voyages/Phase II production crew members who had recently passed away. (It was a way for us to recognize our own fallen family members, and was cathartic for us.)
It was also a way of relaunching not only our re-fit Enterprise, but of relaunching our series, too. It wasa shot-for-shot, note-for-note copy of the Enterprise launch scene from The Wrath of Khan--just for the un of it.
My script notes included a number of observations. Here are a couple of them:
The Longfellow's poem that is the centerpiece of the speech is misquoted.
It all seems a little flowery--more like something Picard would rattle off. My sense is Kirk didn't become such an eloquent orator until the movie era.
If I were attending a memorial service for a fallen comrade, I might be upset/disappointed that the service changed from commemorating the fallen to a "let's go get 'em and explore, boys and girls," "Saint Crispin's Day" speech. I'd want attention to stay on the fallen--who quickly get lost in the speech.
When Kirk gets a boring patrol ssignment, he seems to be arguing "But you can't do that! Didn't you hear that I just gave a big flowery speech?"
Writer Dave Galanter (author of a dozen or so professional Trek novels) gets the credit (or the blame) for the "Boldly Going" script.
Lastly, I note that the U.S.S. Drake was mentioned in the TNG episode "Arsenal of Freedom." Warranted or not, Drake seems to have been a name that endures even into the 24th century. (Maybe a diferent Drake--not Sir Francis?)
In this sense, it was not only a clever use of the medium, but a classy one as well. I applaud the Phase II crew for making just such a gesture. Well done.
My understanding has always been that Drake was no more or less an hero or villain, explorer or pirate than Columbus or Magellan or any of the other sea captains of that age. Referencing him or naming a (fictional) starship after the guy is hardly the worst offense in the annals of history.
Not a big deal at all; just the name Drake caught me off guard because he's not so much a fixture of the "exploration and discovery" list taught in junior high US History. I'm sure the British are justly proud of his circumnavigation thingy.
Columbus was no pirate, though.
No. But he was definitely as much a villain as Drake. And kind of a douche, too.
Love the copious footnotes.
Drake was chosen not as a history lesson but because when we think of early explorers we think of people who navigated the globe early on. Most people of that time--especially people with any kind of power or authority--were brutal and immoral by today's standards. It's not meant to condone anything any of them might done (including Archer, who has some questionable decisions under his belt. *cough*"Dear Doctor"*cough*). :-)
I'm also under the impression that the Drake was also partially named after the Drake Equation.
That might help explain a U.S.S. Drake, but it doesn't really explain Kirk's use of the name in the context of explorers.
I defer to user DaveGalanter (from two posts up) who, having written our script, would probably be in the best position to know how and why the name Drake was chosen.
Eh. If Starfleet is okay with naming the Oberth class after a rocket scientist for the Nazi war machine, they'll certainly be okay with a USS Drake.
Separate names with a comma.