This was my line of thought, as well.
NCC -1701 (TOS).....
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
This was my line of thought, as well.
Actually, I did, mostly.
You're the one that keeps repeating the same declaratory sentence 'it's not a character' over and over like it's a fact of life.
Then I wasn't speaking of your post.
Because others repeat the opposite like it is a fact of life.
For me, the TOS Enterprise was probably the most important character in the show, though I've never felt that way about the rest. When you keep slapping letters on ships, they kinda lose what makes them special. "Plenty of letters left in the alphabet".
Probably comes down to the original show's Western roots. The ship felt more like a horse than a mechanical object.
Probably comes down to the original show's Western roots. The ship felt more like a horse than a mechanical object.
He started a whole fight over it...
Talking about Kelvin Scotty.
I don't believe that the Enterprise rises to the level of being an actual character. It's a beloved setting.
I really got the feels when HGTV made the actual Brady house inside the Brady house.
https://www.hgtv.com/shopping/news-and-trends/the-brady-bunch-house-reno-hgtv-magazine-pictures
It's also an excellent practical, more than theoretical case study of matching a set as authentically as feasible inside an exterior.
But the house is not a character.
Character means person in a story. These days, character doesn't just mean played by an actor. Yoda is a character, for certain. C-3PO and R2-D2? I'd have to call it as "yes" to both, because of their dialog (whether in a recognized language or not) and their autonomy. Lassie? Well, yeah, I think so, which reinforces R2-D2's status.
Being integral to the dramatic conflict and having the agency to influence the outcome by their choices seems to be an essential attribute of a character.
Where is the Enterprise's agency? It isn't there. She does not make decisions on her own. She does not even have feelings. So, not a character, but a beloved setting.
I really got the feels when HGTV made the actual Brady house inside the Brady house.
https://www.hgtv.com/shopping/news-and-trends/the-brady-bunch-house-reno-hgtv-magazine-pictures
It's also an excellent practical, more than theoretical case study of matching a set as authentically as feasible inside an exterior.
But the house is not a character.
Character means person in a story. These days, character doesn't just mean played by an actor. Yoda is a character, for certain. C-3PO and R2-D2? I'd have to call it as "yes" to both, because of their dialog (whether in a recognized language or not) and their autonomy. Lassie? Well, yeah, I think so, which reinforces R2-D2's status.
Being integral to the dramatic conflict and having the agency to influence the outcome by their choices seems to be an essential attribute of a character.
Where is the Enterprise's agency? It isn't there. She does not make decisions on her own. She does not even have feelings. So, not a character, but a beloved setting.
Because it is.
Hell, the TOS E even had a voice and probably had more lines during the run of the show than Uhura did.
I see.Because it is.
Hell, the TOS E even had a voice and probably had more lines during the run of the show than Uhura did.
Because it thinks, feels, and can respond to my wishes and desires like a regular character?
You know what? Don't answer. It's clear to me the irrational is preferred over the rational in this case.
In my opinion.
Exactly.
Thank you.
I still think of her as a character, she delivered people to the action and her limitations often decided where a story was going. The crew's affection for her pushes her beyond just being a conventional setting.
Obviously, a mileage may vary type of situation.
It is all make believe, so why does it need to be rational?
@fireproof78 "COMPUTER: Computed and recorded, dear." 
Yeah, it's probably not rational, per se, to be emotionally attached to any of the fictional elements of Star Trek. But we all apparently are in some fashion or another.
It would be nice if it was at least acknowledged as irrational.
Also, in a franchise that supposedly espouses rationality and logic and celebrates characters who show these facets (Spock, Data) the full embracing of irrationality and demanding others fall in line strikes me as very strange.
They were both characters who were presented as acting irrationally quite a bit.
The Enterprise looking like "X" one day then "Y" on another day doesn't come across as rational, yet a whole lot of people have bought into the concept.
And that's acceptable?
Interesting. Following a rational course is now considered odd. Fascinating, if strange.
Acceptable? Who cares? If I want rational, I sure ain't looking for it in Star Trek. It is a franchise that has had a thousand different hands in it across six decades.
Definitely mileage and all that goes with it. But many of the best episodes of Trek (TOS/TNG) are where Spock or Data are coloring outside their perceived lines.
Heck, I think the best episode of SNW is the one where Spock and T'Pring switch bodies.
That it creates best drama does not mean it acceptable or to be applied in day to day life.
And the less said about body switching the better.
It just kinda blows the idea of the shows being rational or promoting it, out of the water. TOS had Gary Mitchell turn into a God right off the bat, and didn't slow down from there.
The weird and wild episodes of Trek are the one's that I relish and revisit the most. As Trek lost this vibe, wanting to be treated seriously, my interest took a nose dive.
