Also a lieutenant.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
What if being the "Flagship". Was just a general term. We know from Chain of Command that the Enterprise was going to be the command ship in case of a Cardassian attack.
What if she were to be the command ship in any battle she was in? The Admiral in overall command would put his flag on the E-D and run the battle from there.
The E-F could have been in a similar position seeing how Picard was able to take command of the fleet in FC.
There would still be other flagships that admirals used, but once the E-D or E-F arrived the Admiral would transfer his flag to Enterprise.
What if she were to be the command ship in any battle she was in? The Admiral in overall command would put his flag on the E-D and run the battle from there.
The E-F could have been in a similar position seeing how Picard was able to take command of the fleet in FC.
There would still be other flagships that admirals used, but once the E-D or E-F arrived the Admiral would transfer his flag to Enterprise.
Right, I included the Discoprise.
Statements that any Enterprise was ever the oficial permanent flagship of all Starfleet or of the Federation don't make any type of naval sense. In an ocean navy a flag ship is a ship a flag officer or admiral sails in when in command of a group of ships In the old days when ships sailed close together in battle formations, an admiral would fly their (often exteremely large) command flag on thiee ship, so that other ships in the fleet could where the admiral was, and look for any command signals coming from that ship. Thus the phrase "flagship"..
In current civilian use "flagship" something or other is the best, or the most prominent and well known, one in the organization. Thus a chain of retail stores may have a "flagship store". Or a cruise company's greatest cruise ship may be their "flagship", and often the senior captain or "commodore" of the line has the privalege of commanding her.
In TNG "The Neutral Zone":
And I can't help thinkng that writers who describe a starship as being the "flagship" of Starfleet or of the Federation seem to be thinking of it as like a cruise ship, as Ralph does.
In current civilian use "flagship" something or other is the best, or the most prominent and well known, one in the organization. Thus a chain of retail stores may have a "flagship store". Or a cruise company's greatest cruise ship may be their "flagship", and often the senior captain or "commodore" of the line has the privalege of commanding her.
In TNG "The Neutral Zone":
And I can't help thinkng that writers who describe a starship as being the "flagship" of Starfleet or of the Federation seem to be thinking of it as like a cruise ship, as Ralph does.
Last edited:
I was literally thinking the same thing and about to post (albeit much less clearly and without the back up referencing) what you have.
It certainly feels like they mean it in the same way that people used to talk about the HMV on Oxford Street, or John Lewis/IKEA/Next will announce every few years or so the opening of a flagship store - it includes their best and most attractive lines of products (or for the Ent the best science labs or tech or whatever) but it isn't as if there is an Admiral of Billy Bookcases and Swedish meatballs setting up at the new IKEA to oversee it
Starfleet: More retail than military
Yeah, if Enterprise had been an actual flagship (in the real-world navy usage of the term as I understand it, at least) Picard & crew rarely would have been free to do their thing, as he would have a higher-up on board (say, an Admiral) in charge of the mission, with Picard 'only' being in charge of the ship. And since we know most Starfleet admirals are either Evil or Stupid it would have been a very different series...
V
Vale
Guest
Interestingly that accurately describes the relationship between Picard and Riker in TNG, which is a marked change from how the captain/first officer relationship worked in TOS. We might conjecture that Picard, as captain of "the Federation flagship", is actually "first among equals" with regards to everyone else of the rank of captain – hence why he can just assume command of the fleet defending Earth in the Battle of Sector 001 from the moment he arrives – with what we might consider an actual rank of fleet captain, as Pike had at the time of his accident.
It may also be worth considering that before Strange New Worlds there was no onscreen reference to any Enterprise prior to the D being a flagship. Though as with the HMS Victory for the Royal Navy and USS Constitution for the US Navy, there is also a ceremonial type of flagship. It's hinted that this may be what the Enterprise is in The Undiscovered Country – sending the Enterprise to meet with Gorkon is symbolic of the importance the Federation attaches the mission, whereas of course the Excelsior is the superior ship. Describing the Enterprises as "flagships" just means that Starfleet sends them on the most high-profile or critical diplomatic missions.
Regarding Picard taking command of the fleet at Earth in FC, it may simply be that all the captains knew about his previous Borg experience, since the admiral's ship was destroyed, they were all likely thinking, "Starfleet should have given us Picard to help to begin with."
Another possibility is simply length of time as a captain. He's likely one of the longest as captain ranked officers in all of Starfleet. (20 years on the Stargazer, 8 on the Enterprise-D, a year on the Enterprise-E, time in between all those commands. Easily between 30-40 years in total.)
Another possibility is simply length of time as a captain. He's likely one of the longest as captain ranked officers in all of Starfleet. (20 years on the Stargazer, 8 on the Enterprise-D, a year on the Enterprise-E, time in between all those commands. Easily between 30-40 years in total.)
Of course. Plus he's basically a celebrity. His exploits should be pretty well known.
AND we can take what was established in the VOY episode 'Equinox':
Regulation 191 (Article 14): In a combat situation involving more than one ship, command fell to the vessel with tactical superiority, should there not be a higher ranking officer present.
Picard had the Enterprise-E, a fresh a Sovereign-class starship. Clearly, he was in command of the vessel with tactical superiority.
All of the Kelvin movies are superior to all of the TNG movies. They did everything better. The Kelvin stuff has a very strong narrative thread running through it, much like the TOS movies have their recurrent themes.
What would anyone say that the TNG movies, as a whole, were about?
TNG movies brought back a beloved TOS character and shot him in in the back. Kelvin movies brought back a beloved TOS character and gave him a meaningful and recurring role, followed by a respectful in-universe send off after the actors death.
Say what you want about Into Darkness, which I realise is a problematic movie for many, but on screen-presence and charisma alone, no villain from a TNG movie is as menacing and impressive as Cumberbatch's Khan.
There's no feeling in the TNG movies that there was any kind of plan or serious effort to link them together meaningfully. The attitude seems to have been:
"Well, we've done that one. What shall we do next?"
"Huh? I dunno... haven't thought about it"
Whereas we feel the main cast grow over the course of the Kelvin movies. There are clear themes of loss, recovery, hubris and how a person can stand up to tragedy and either become stronger, or fall into a darker place altogether.
What are TNG movies about? As a whole?
One more controversial one. I love Ronald D. Moore and greatly enjoy his work on so many shows outside of Star Trek, but at the point when he was allowed anywhere near TNG movie scripts he was still a lucky chancer who'd jumpstarted a screenwriting career by means of a few sequential strokes of luck. All respect to Michael Piller, et al, but they had TV people writing movie scripts. Movies are a different medium altogether.
So there's that. TNG movie scripts. Amateur Hour.
Even down to the scripts, Kelvin movies are better than TNG movies. Even when they are just words written down, Kelvin movies are superior.
TNG movies. You suck. A bad way to end a great series.
TNG movies.
You suck.
You.
Suck.
What would anyone say that the TNG movies, as a whole, were about?
TNG movies brought back a beloved TOS character and shot him in in the back. Kelvin movies brought back a beloved TOS character and gave him a meaningful and recurring role, followed by a respectful in-universe send off after the actors death.
Say what you want about Into Darkness, which I realise is a problematic movie for many, but on screen-presence and charisma alone, no villain from a TNG movie is as menacing and impressive as Cumberbatch's Khan.
There's no feeling in the TNG movies that there was any kind of plan or serious effort to link them together meaningfully. The attitude seems to have been:
"Well, we've done that one. What shall we do next?"
"Huh? I dunno... haven't thought about it"
Whereas we feel the main cast grow over the course of the Kelvin movies. There are clear themes of loss, recovery, hubris and how a person can stand up to tragedy and either become stronger, or fall into a darker place altogether.
What are TNG movies about? As a whole?
One more controversial one. I love Ronald D. Moore and greatly enjoy his work on so many shows outside of Star Trek, but at the point when he was allowed anywhere near TNG movie scripts he was still a lucky chancer who'd jumpstarted a screenwriting career by means of a few sequential strokes of luck. All respect to Michael Piller, et al, but they had TV people writing movie scripts. Movies are a different medium altogether.
So there's that. TNG movie scripts. Amateur Hour.
Even down to the scripts, Kelvin movies are better than TNG movies. Even when they are just words written down, Kelvin movies are superior.
TNG movies. You suck. A bad way to end a great series.
TNG movies.
You suck.
You.
Suck.
Last edited:
TNG movies. You suck. A bad way to end a great series.
TNG movies.
You suck.
You.
Suck.
So, correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that you didn't really enjoy the TNG movies?
It's an honour to be in the company of the world's most famous detective, Mr Holmes!
How do you do it? There has to be some trick?
Last edited:
V
Vale
Guest
While they're undoubtedly powerful, I'd debate a Sovereign-class having tactical superiority over an Akira-class. Fifteen torpedo launchers and a through-deck launch bay with a standard complement of forty fighters packs quite a wallop. Even with all the extra launchers added in Nemesis, the Enterprise-E still only has at most eight. The Sovereign seems to be a lean, fast, multipurpose cruiser; the Akira is undoubtedly a dedicated battleship-carrier.
The Enterprise did just arrive at the scene, and therefore had no damage. I guarantee not a single other ship in that armada had no damage when she appeared. That might also be a factor in tactical superiority.
Just common sense. Yes, some people actually still have it, even these days.
Common sense no longer exists. It was on the Endangered Species list for decades, and was put on the Critically Endangered list recently. It will likely be Extinct In The Wild by 2025.
(I have, however, upgraded 'common sense' to 'Rare Sense', since so damned few people have it. This classification has elicited some laughs now and then.)
(I have, however, upgraded 'common sense' to 'Rare Sense', since so damned few people have it. This classification has elicited some laughs now and then.)
I have limited love for TNG but All Good Things will be my preferred ending for those characters. Beautifully done as opposed to the films.
I can't argue that the TNG series finale was a better sendoff than NEMESIS. That's not even a contest. NEMESIS was so bad a sendoff that we're about to get a real one, over 20 years after the movie.
Pactrick Steward had a higher paying contract.
Similar threads
- Locked
