What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[Citiprime]

Hot take: Star Trek series should NOT be named after the hero ship of the show.

I think it removes an element of tension, since there's an assumption they're not going to destroy Enterprise (NX-01), Voyager or Discovery because that's the central focus of the series.

To me, it would make more sense to give a series an esoteric title, that way it allows if you want to destroy the hero ship in season 2 or 3, giving the characters an obstacle, and a journey to reassemble the crew aboard something different and possibly change the dynamic of the crew.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Maybe controversial, I don’t know, but further to ruminations on the character of Data…

I’d say Data doesn’t have an equivalent in TOS. As originally presented he’s a mystery. Nobody really knows where he came from. There’s no character on TOS who’s background is presented as enigmatically as Data’s.

I think the only other regular character like that in all of Star Trek is Odo.

Actually, mostly in TNG-VOY they didn’t attempt to emulate the dynamics of TOS. It was only ENT where they really attempted to create a new trinity.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

Hot take: Star Trek series should NOT be named after the hero ship of the show.

I think it removes an element of tension, since there's an assumption they're not going to destroy Enterprise (NX-01), Voyager or Discovery because that's the central focus of the series.

To me, it would make more sense to give a series an esoteric title, that way it allows if you want to destroy the hero ship in season 2 or 3, giving the characters an obstacle, and a journey to reassemble the crew aboard something different and possibly change the dynamic of the crew.

I find this quite strange. It’s like saying they shouldn’t put the Superman’s name in the comic book title because then we know Superman can’t die.

We know Superman can’t die (and yes, I know he did and does, but it never sticks).

Just like we know hero ships can’t be destroyed (and yes I know they have been and do, but it never sticks).

I think the state of tension here is non-existent. Anyone who’s clued in to watching a Star Trek show, anyone who’s seen say, half a season of a Star Trek show surely realises that it’s not that kind of show.

The ship is the environment in which the show takes place.

The tension arises not from the threat of destruction, but from following the drama as the characters figure out how to get out of trouble, surely?

It’s like those episodes of TNG where the cold open has a regular dropping dead. Anyone who is familiar with how Star Trek works knows that isn’t going to stick. The tension comes from the how.

 

[Citiprime]

I find this quite strange. It’s like saying they shouldn’t put the Superman’s name in the comic book title because then we know Superman can’t die.

We know Superman can’t die (and yes, I know he did and does, but it never sticks).

Just like we know hero ships can’t be destroyed (and yes I know they have been and do, but it never sticks).

I think the state of tension here is non-existent. Anyone who’s clued in to watching a Star Trek show, anyone who’s seen say, half a season of a Star Trek show surely realises that it’s not that kind of show.

The ship is the environment in which the show takes place.

The tension arises not from the threat of destruction, but from following the drama as the characters figure out how to get out of trouble, surely?

It’s like those episodes of TNG where the cold open has a regular dropping dead. Anyone who is familiar with how Star Trek works knows that isn’t going to stick. The tension comes from the how.

The example I would use is season 3 of Discovery where they try to "disguise" the ship by calling it NCC-1031-A. Which makes absolutely no sense when you're still calling the ship Discovery. And when I've brought this up before, the usual response is: "well that's the name of the show."

I just think that when you name a series about a place, there's an inherent assumption that this place will be there as the setting. Where if you name the series about the journey or the theme of the journey, then that allows for at some point, if you wanted to, utterly changing the dynamic of the show by changing the setting of the action to see how those characters react and change.

For example, what if Voyager was lost in season 3 or 4, the crew has to find a new ship, new home and continue their journey? What would it mean to no longer be on a Starfleet ship? Might the order of things break down as people have to adjust to a new environment? Could the Maquis members rethink their obedience to Starfleet policies once they're no longer aboard a Starfleet ship?

And I think you lose that once you're committed ostensibly to the series being about "Voyager."

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

The example I would use is season 3 of Discovery where they try to "disguise" the ship by calling it NCC-1031-A. Which makes absolutely no sense when you're still calling the ship Discovery. And when I've brought this up before, the usual response is: "well that's the name of the show."

I just think that when you name a series about a place, there's an inherent assumption that this place will be there as the setting. Where if you name the series about the journey or the theme of the journey, then that allows for at some point, if you wanted to, utterly changing the dynamic of the show by changing the setting of the action to see how those characters react and change.

For example, what if Voyager was lost in season 3 or 4, the crew has to find a new ship, new home and continue their journey? What would it mean to no longer be on a Starfleet ship? Might the order of things break down as people have to adjust to a new environment? Could the Maquis members rethink their obedience to Starfleet policies once they're no longer aboard a Starfleet ship?

And I think you lose that once you're committed ostensibly to the series being about "Voyager."

I can kind of see where you're coming from with the idea that a series is free to tell more stories if it's not chained to one location, though I can think of one science fiction series that carried on with the same name for two seasons after losing the ship it was named after. Discovery didn't even feature a ship called Discovery until episode 3.

But on the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with a series committing itself to being about one ship, especially if it's a ship with very expensive standing sets that cost a considerable amount of the season 1 budget to build. Even shows that aren't named after the ship do that. I don't think I'd even want a version of Voyager which didn't end with Voyager herself making it home at the end. And Deep Space Nine certainly changed its dynamic at the start of season 6 without having to change its name or throw away its sets.

 

[Lord Garth]

The example I would use is season 3 of Discovery where they try to "disguise" the ship by calling it NCC-1031-A. Which makes absolutely no sense when you're still calling the ship Discovery. And when I've brought this up before, the usual response is: "well that's the name of the show."

I just think that when you name a series about a place, there's an inherent assumption that this place will be there as the setting. Where if you name the series about the journey or the theme of the journey, then that allows for at some point, if you wanted to, utterly changing the dynamic of the show by changing the setting of the action to see how those characters react and change.

For example, what if Voyager was lost in season 3 or 4, the crew has to find a new ship, new home and continue their journey? What would it mean to no longer be on a Starfleet ship? Might the order of things break down as people have to adjust to a new environment? Could the Maquis members rethink their obedience to Starfleet policies once they're no longer aboard a Starfleet ship?

And I think you lose that once you're committed ostensibly to the series being about "Voyager."

You're overthinking this. Way overthinking this. If there's no other starship called Discovery already currently serving in Starfleet in 3189, they can still just call the ship Discovery. "It can't be as simple as that!" Yes, it can.

They weren't really trying to hide how old the ship was. They were trying to hide when the crew was born. Slight but important difference. Saru's story was that the ship had been travelling for 930 years and they were the descendants. At least that's what Discovery told Earth. When they reached Starfleet Command, Starfleet retrofitted the ship so it could actually survive in the 32nd Century. After that, they adopted a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, where Discovery wouldn't volunteer the information that they were from another time.

Somewhere between the third and fourth season, Starfleet Command decided to drop the charade. Burnham and Discovery helped stop the Emerald Chain. Saru brought home Su'Kal, who caused The Burn so it wouldn't happen again. Those two things probably earned Discovery a lot of good will. Enough so that they'd be willing to tell people freely, "They come from the past."

 

[Danja]

The example I would use is season 3 of Discovery where they try to "disguise" the ship by calling it NCC-1031-A. Which makes absolutely no sense when you're still calling the ship Discovery. And when I've brought this up before, the usual response is: "well that's the name of the show."

I just think that when you name a series about a place, there's an inherent assumption that this place will be there as the setting. Where if you name the series about the journey or the theme of the journey, then that allows for at some point, if you wanted to, utterly changing the dynamic of the show by changing the setting of the action to see how those characters react and change.

For example, what if Voyager was lost in season 3 or 4, the crew has to find a new ship, new home and continue their journey? What would it mean to no longer be on a Starfleet ship? Might the order of things break down as people have to adjust to a new environment? Could the Maquis members rethink their obedience to Starfleet policies once they're no longer aboard a Starfleet ship?

And I think you lose that once you're committed ostensibly to the series being about "Voyager."

Smallville started out being about Clark Kent's time in Smallville.

After Clark graduated from college and began working at the Daily Planet, Lois Lane would tease him by calling him "Smallville".

 

[Macintosh]

I’d say Data doesn’t have an equivalent in TOS. As originally presented he’s a mystery. Nobody really knows where he came from. There’s no character on TOS who’s background is presented as enigmatically as Data’s.

And they changed their minds on it halfway through the first season too!

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

That's what makes naming ships after concepts rather than people so great - the meaning of the name can continue, even if the ship doesn't. Enterprise, Discovery, Voyager...all ideas or people. Even Deep Space Nine, if there are/were 9 main characters, is still true if the station blows up - it's the story of the people and/or the mission they're on.

 

[Tallguy]

The story goes that Michael Keaton was set to play Jack in Lost with the intention of setting him up as the lead and then killing him off in the first or maybe the first few episodes, passing the "lead" to Kate. I'm not sure how well that would have worked because I'm not sure anyone would have expected Keaton to stay on a TV show.

Blake's Seven eventually didn't have Blake (as I understand it).

But for the most part, I can't think of many shows where I tuned in every week wondering "Hmm. Is this the week that they will blow up the ship and kill off the cast?" And I watched Joss Whedon shows.

The only ship that they ever blew up that STAYED blowed up was the Enterprise D. And then Picard 3 comes along...

What main character did they ever kill off that stayed dead? Tucker, I suppose. Jadzia, but not Dax. (That was pretty much baked into the Trill cake.)

 

[Commander Troi]

There was a UK show called Primeval (dinosaurs!) that killed it's main character off in (I think) the second season. Totally blew me away.

It's definitely a rarity.

 

[BillJ]

Tucker, I suppose.

They brought him back in the novels to work for Section 31.

 

[Macintosh]

There was a UK show called Primeval (dinosaurs!) that killed it's main character off in (I think) the second season. Totally blew me away.

It's definitely a rarity.

I believe it was partway through the third season, though if I recall correctly they didn't intend to kill him off, it's just that the lead actor decided he didn't like the direction the show was going in and quit.

 

[Shawnster]

That's what makes naming ships after concepts rather than people so great -

Which, realistically, is what multi-species space federations would likely do. Some concepts, like Discovery or Reliant are universal. In contrast, not every species will recognize, see the importance in, or agree to naming ships primarily after only after one member species culture. Yorktown? Farragut? Bonhomme Richard? Who or what are these and why should Vulcans or Andorians consent to these names when their culture is just as worthy of representation?

I do get the real world reasons. Naming a ship after a recognizable Earth name like Ghandi or Crazy Horse requires no dialog explanation but a Vulcan or Andorian name does require taking time from the episode story to explain the name to the audience.

Every civilization, on the other hand, will have commonality with names derived from universal concepts, geology, or weather. Explore enough worlds and every civilization will become familiar with names such as Chinook, Tsunami, Enterprise, Voyager, Justice, Mercy, Talon, Fang, Wanderer, etc...

 

[Grendelsbayne]

Which, realistically, is what multi-species space federations would likely do. Some concepts, like Discovery or Reliant are universal. In contrast, not every species will recognize, see the importance in, or agree to naming ships primarily after only after one member species culture. Yorktown? Farragut? Bonhomme Richard? Who or what are these and why should Vulcans or Andorians consent to these names when their culture is just as worthy of representation?

I do get the real world reasons. Naming a ship after a recognizable Earth name like Ghandi or Crazy Horse requires no dialog explanation but a Vulcan or Andorian name does require taking time from the episode story to explain the name to the audience.

Every civilization, on the other hand, will have commonality with names derived from universal concepts, geology, or weather. Explore enough worlds and every civilization will become familiar with names such as Chinook, Tsunami, Enterprise, Voyager, Justice, Mercy, Talon, Fang, Wanderer, etc...

I don't think that's really true at all.

A multi-species federation would have no problem naming things after different historical and cultural aspects of individual member species just like the US - a multi-state federation - has no problem naming things after individual states and cities. It's not like Californians or Louisianans were miffed at the existence of a USS West Virginia or a USS Richmond. They're still all part of the US and - in the context of Federal names - they're all pieces of one whole, just like Vulcan and Andoria relative to the UFP.

Also, you certainly don't have to stop the story to explain a name. You can just make a name, say it and move on. Explain it only if you want to. Which the shows have done from time to time - usually with Vulcan names. The primary reason it doesn't happen more often is probably just because it's easier to come up with a cool reference than a cool sounding original name. Especially when that original name needs to 'sound right' for a particular species - which is probably why we mostly get Vulcan names (which have an already developed and easily recognizable pattern) rather than names from other species that don't really have a well-established sound.

I mean, preferring references over original names is an issue that even goes well beyond just ship names, anyway, with writers leaning on references for the names of entire species (Romulans, Vulcans, Ferengi, Iconians, Borg, etc) or otherwise appropriating various real-world words or things as the basis for something fictional (even the Vulcan salute is stolen from real life).

As for the idea that universal concepts are a much better basis for names generally, that really doesn't make any sense in the actual context of all these species still having their own languages. The USS Dolphin and the ZrMs Dolfijn are not the same name regardless of having the same meaning. Either all of these names are being 'translated' into Federation Standard, in which case you should be able to translate/appropriate anything as a name in Federation Standard, or they're being kept in their original languages, in which case the Vulcan or Human word for 'Reliant' is not going to feel at all relatable to an Andorian or a Bajoran.

 

[Tallguy]

I certainly wanted to hear more about the Justman.

 

[Frontis]

I never had a problem with the names of the ships.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

They've got so many ships that I don't think anyone in the Federation is complaining about not getting some representation. I mean they're so desperate for names that they've had to reuse the name Enterprise like a dozen times.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

What main character did they ever kill off that stayed dead? Tucker, I suppose. Jadzia, but not Dax. (That was pretty much baked into the Trill cake.)

Yar.*

* - Yes, there was the alternate timeline version of her, a metatextual resurrection, if you will, complete with her feeling she shouldn't be there. But it was literally not the same Yar.

 

[Tallguy]

Yar.*

* - Yes, there was the alternate timeline version of her, a metatextual resurrection, if you will, complete with her feeling she shouldn't be there. But it was literally not the same Yar.

Yeah, and it's not the same Enterprise in Star Trek IV. But it's totally the same Enterprise.