I doubt one half assed attempt at alliteration has any connection to that even if it was.
Only if you're exceptionally lazy. Earth alone has thousands of languages, and the Federation spans hundreds of worlds. Running out of names isn’t the problem—imagination is.
Recycling of class names for ships happens all the time currently in the real world, and it's often done to honour past vessels. I don't see the problem in Constitution, Intrepid or Excelsior being class names that Starfleet frequently uses because of the history and legacy attached to those names. But I genuinely don;t understand what the problem is when out of all the ship classes in both 23rd and 32nd introduced by Discovery, only two have been used previously.
Care to give some examples?
A bit of googling reveals examples like the Independence-class, which was a United States Navy light carrier that served during World War II and then a combat ship in the 2000s. The Dreadnought-class was a class of battleships in the Royal Navy in the early 20th century and then a class of Royal Navy submarines in the 1990s. In Germany there was the Sachsen-class, first a World War I battleship, and then a class of air-defense frigates in the 2000s.
So yeah, there’s definitely real world precedent. Although it perhaps doesn’t happen quite as frequently as Agony_Boothb made it sound.
I was wrong about that. I thought class names were recycled, but it's really only ship names that are.
Still, I don't see the issue with there being legacy classes as well as legacy ships in Starfleet. And new trek has been relatively solid in regards to coming up with new class names.
New yes but hardly creative. In DIS "Battle at the Binary Stars", nearly all the ship classes were named after North American aviators. Likewise, in Star Trek: Picard, most of the newer classes take their names from a prominent vessel of the class they’re essentially just a redesigned “skin” of.
Diversity would be good, but that is a John Eaves issue and not a Kurtzman issue. Picard just used the existing STO ships. which again is not a new trek problem as STO has been around for 10 years.
That doesn’t change the lack of creativity with the names.
To be specific, they just used the designs. None of the ships’ STO backstory/lore was used. They could easily have given those ships different class names from what they were referred to in STO.
Don't sell yourself short. The amount of alliteration in that post was nearly a whole ass!I doubt one half assed attempt at alliteration has any connection to that even if it was.
Yeah and I'm not arguing that lack of creativity isn't an issue. I'm saying it's not a problem caused by new trek being inherently uncreative. If John Eaves wants to name a bunch of ships after north american aviators then that is an issue with John Eaves.
Also lack of creativity with names isn't exclusive to new trek. Classic trek was equally guilty of having run of the mill, anthropocentric and anglocentric class names. Intrepid, Defiant, Sovereign, Centaur, Prometheus, Ambassador, Norway. That is a lot of white bread.
I'm not sure why it matters that it was John Eaves, Alex Kurtzman, or Chaim Gnipgnop who came up with the names. The end result is the same.
So? That excuses unoriginality? In PIC, there's a ship named the USS Intrepid. Never mind that only a few short decades before, there was an entire new class of starship called the Intrepid class, of which this new ship (Duderstadt class) does not belong. You mean to tell me that they couldn't come up with literally any other name for the ship so as not to be in conflict with another ship of that name that's a class ship, and was the class of ship for Voyager, the hero ship of an entire TV series?
My point, which you seem to be missing, is that unoriginality when it comes to starship class names and the names of ships themselves is baked into Trek DNA. It's not a problem that is endemic to new trek.
You’re forgiving laziness by saying ‘they were lazy before, so it’s ok that they’re lazy now.’ Is that the point I’m missing?
Well, the most successful class of carrier in WWII was the Essex class. There were a bunch of them. Today, there are no more active Essex class carriers but there IS a modern USS Essex - it's an amphibious assault ship.
I was presuming that the Intrepid class was still in operation when the Duderstadt class Intrepid was commissioned. It’s awkward to have a class in operation while another ship of a different class has one of its vessels with the name of that class. If the Intrepid class hadn’t been used in a century, that would be different.
That would certainly be implied with its registry number lower than the Titan which was commissioned and ready to go in 2379 the same year the Intrepid class Intrepid was still around en route to help the Enterprise fight Shinzon.
Looking at you, Yeager!
To my irritation, previews of the upcoming Fanhome kit indicate that U.S.S. Credence (NCC-2604) belongs to the Credence class. I think this is a blatantly-missed opportunity to start off a class name with the more suitable NCC-2600.
I assume because there has been no on screen or behind the scenes confirmation of the actual class name
My point is, Why should there be an expectation on new trek to be different in this regard, when Star Trek has been naming ships after human things since day one? All trek writers are lazy when it comes to ship names. Get over it.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
