That's ironic, because that's what Picard essentially says about the Enterprise-D at the end of Generations. Which is a completely and totally unbelievable response from Picard, but then this is Generations we're talking about.
Excelsior Intended to Replace Enterprise
- Thread starter Jeff Tube
- Start date
That's ironic, because that's what Picard essentially says about the Enterprise-D at the end of Generations. Which is a completely and totally unbelievable response from Picard, but then this is Generations we're talking about.
Maybe Starfleet decided to build some more "refit-configuration" constitution class ships from scratch... The refit Enterprise was probably over 90% completely new as it is. Its not unheard of in the real world - BAE systems just built a whole batch of more or less brand new Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft to an essentially 1950's design but using new components. Sadly the contract for the aircraft was recently canceled and all the new Nimrod airframes are currently being scrapped... but that's another story.
Roddenberry, Bennett and Meyer covered lots of bases. If TMP had been a more immediate critical success, the "Phase II" scripts may well have quickly spun-off a TV series, as once planned. ST II was designed as a telemovie, with thought that it might get theatrical release overseas (similar to "Battlestar Galactica" and "Buck Rogers"). Decker, Ilia, Xon, Saavik and David were all planned as possible continuing characters at different stages. Shatner had made it known he probably didn't want to commit to more than 13 episodes of a new TV series, so Decker and Sulu were groomed as possible captain replacements should Admiral Kirk only make cameos after Episode #14. Billy Van Zandt once told me the whole bridge crew of TMP used to joke about moving to an ongoing series. Many of the bridge extras in ST II were recalled for ST III and wore the same uniforms they already had nametags in.
And...why should I care? They can think that, good for them. But it has nothing to do with my perspective, or Star Trek in any way.
^ While I understand/can see your philosophy... The "ship as a character" is VERY appropo in RL.
You just... have to live on a ship for a while to understand. Difficult to explain.
Cheers,
-CM-
You just... have to live on a ship for a while to understand. Difficult to explain.
Cheers,
-CM-
The Enterprise is arguably just as important a character as the humans are because the characters themselves have a deep emotional connection with the ship, especially Captain Kirk. I brought up "Firefly" because there are clear similarities with this sensibility. My point was fans have an emotional connection to the ship because the characters do.
When I saw STIII on opening night, the destruction of the Enterprise didn't bother me; in fact, I thought (and still do) it was an emotional and effective part of the movie, and fit the major theme quite well.
What's ironic is that I do think the Enterprise from the original series was one of the most important characters. I have deep nostalgia for the exterior and interior of that ship, dating back to first seeing the reruns after school on a B&W TV in the 70s.
How do I reconcile these opinions? I'd never really thought about it before now. I realize now that, although I liked the refit Enterprise design, it never really felt like the same ship to me. Therefore, I didn't feel the same ownership for the refit. I understand Kirk's sense of loss for his ship (along with his loss of Spock, David, etc.), but I never felt it as a personal loss to me. Strange, isn't it?
Doug
What's ironic is that I do think the Enterprise from the original series was one of the most important characters. I have deep nostalgia for the exterior and interior of that ship, dating back to first seeing the reruns after school on a B&W TV in the 70s.
How do I reconcile these opinions? I'd never really thought about it before now. I realize now that, although I liked the refit Enterprise design, it never really felt like the same ship to me. Therefore, I didn't feel the same ownership for the refit. I understand Kirk's sense of loss for his ship (along with his loss of Spock, David, etc.), but I never felt it as a personal loss to me. Strange, isn't it?
Doug
I share the love of the Constitution-class Enterprise as deeply as any other TOS fan here can, but that doesn't impinge, for me, upon a decision to replace it with an Excelsior-class after the Constitution's destruction. It's a wholly different ship, in any case, after the replacement. Putting an identical ship in as a replacement seems to me as the equivalent to replacing a regrettably perished family dog with another dog of the same species and coloration just to fill the void in one's heart. Or trying to overcome a breakup by latching onto a new girl (or guy) who happens to strongly resemble your ex. Despite the superficial similarities, they're not the same, so why cling on, klingon?
Heh... the quote could certainly be interpreted that way. I think the writers meant to reassure the audience with that line by saying that our crew's adventures weren't over, but it unfortunately does come across as Picard disregarding the D's loss by saying, 'Meh, they'll just build another one. Get over it!'
@BillJ the reason I would have had Checkov as Sulu's first officer over Uhura is that Pavel has always aspired to be a Captain one day while I never got the impression from Uhura that she was interested in command. She does have more experience but I think Sulu would acknowledge that Checkov is a more natural fit. I'm thinking Hikaru might even consult the two of them on this lol.
Something similar from the Battlestar Galactica finale. 'Galactica has seen a lot of history, gone through a lot of battles. This will be her last. She will not fail us if we do not fail her. If we succeed in our mission, Galactica will bring us home.'
Another example of a Sci-Fi show where the ship itself is as much of a character as any of the people in it.
I always interpreted it as 'the legacy of the Enterprise will continue, and that's what's important.'
No doubt. The reasons for the sacrifice of both the original Connie and the Ent-D are not in question; it's just the treatment of the reaction that's in criticism. In TSFS, we see a number of the primary bridge crew and series mainstays (Kirk, McCoy, Scotty, Sulu, Chekov) gazing up at the burning hulk of the very icon of the entire Star Trek franchise streaking across the sky. 'My God, Bones, what have I done?' 'What you had to do...' etc. The decision to sacrifice the Enterprise wasn't in question, but the emotional impact was addressed appropriately. In Generations, the Enterprise met its end in unavoidable fashion - though not by choice - it's just (arguably) regrettable that nobody was specifically portrayed at being emotionally affected by the affair. Picard's remark of there being 'plenty of letters left in the alphabet' accidentally comes across as dismissive of the Ent-D's service, as it were.
Part of this problem - if it is indeed a problem - is the difference in how Kirk and Picard were written as characters and what their relationship was with their respective commands (ships). Kirk was 'saved' on multiple occasions by his nautical-captain-reminiscent love of his vessel. In The Naked Time, he's brought to his senses when he recognizes his love for his ship ("I'll never lose you..."). In Elaan of Troyius, the magic, intoxicating tears of a mystical female seductress are nullified by his devotion to his command. To draw a parallel, the Best Star Trek Movie ever, 'Master and Commander', portrays Captain Jack Aubrey in the same light - he rises to criticism of his vessel (in respect to challenges of comparisons to a bigger, newer, more 'badass' ship) with a defense of the HMS Suprise: "She has a bluff bow, lovely lines. She's a fine seaboat: weatherly, stiff and fast … very fast, if she's well handled. No, she's not old; she's in her prime."
Kirk and Aubrey both identify with their respective commands as characters; in the tradition of naval captains, the ships are actors of the 'fairer sex' - and treated much the same as a chivalry-painted character would regard a lady: as a fairer sex, as a lofty ideal; as something to be cherished, idealized, and loved.
This is the disconnect between Kirk and Picard, and respectively, fans of either, and the their relative behavior (both the characters and fans) regarding the destruction of their ships: Picard, in TNG, never exhibited the 'love' for the Enterprise in the way Kirk or Jack Aubrey did. Picard's 'plenty of letters left in the alphabet' statement was supposed to reassure the viewers that the saga would continue with a new ship, but it comes across as hollow because nobody demonstrated a care for the Ent-D in the first place - it's more or less treated like a floating office complex. In that light, it feels like Picard is just being flippant about the whole affair by saying, 'who cares, they'll just create another ship with the same name'. Of course, another ship with the same name is not the same thing when considered by a Jack Aubrey or TOS Kirk type - these guys really view the ship as a personality, beyond a name or registration number.
I'm going to even drag The Final Frontier into this. I think Shatner (or/and the screenwriters) understood this quality, and that's why the newcomer - the 1701-A - had faults, difficulties, and shortcomings - they were trying to portray that she wasn't just an empty stand-in for the original ship (which would've degraded the memory of the original). She was a new, funky, borderline defective replacement (and they made that clear), and she had to earn her stripes, as it were.
Anyway, regarding the post I'm responding to - yes, the destruction of a mass of metal is worth it when you're saving a few lives, whether it be Picard's family or David Marcus or Spock's Mysterious Katra or whatever. The point of contention is the exhibited emotional response to the sacrifice made. The TOS movies paid respects to the Enterprise in terms of emotional quotient, due to the fact that TOS set up an emotional link between its characters and the ship from the start. TNG never set up the character of the Enterprise as anything other than the 'Federation's Flagship' and a generally cool place to be, and it's eulogy, as a result, was that there are 'plenty of more letters in the alphabet'. To force a scene in which the characters really grieved over the loss would have seemed out of place without the prior emotional setup that TOS enjoyed, anyway. It's really not a failure of the script of the movie Generations - it's a sort of general failure to ever establish the Enterprise as something more important than the 'floating office complex' it was, which robbed the sacrifice of the sense of sacrifice. This lack of human-relatable sentiment stuff is part of a larger criticism I have about TNG, VOY, ENT, and the later movies, but I won't expound upon it here beyond this brief summary:
TOS had serious heart. TNG and the like was more clinical. Attempts to mirror TOS stuff in TNG-onwards stuff failed to carry the same weight, best exemplified by the fact that most plot elements/movie structure of 'Nemesis' were lifted directly from The Wrath of Khan, but failed to tap into its strengths, because, as is typical for TNG, they lifted the literal framework without capturing the heart.
^ While I understand/can see your philosophy... The "ship as a character" is VERY appropo in RL.
You just... have to live on a ship for a while to understand. Difficult to explain.
Cheers,
-CM-
I agree. Although I have never actually lived on a ship, I feel -as a fan- that I (in a manner of sorts) 'lived' on the Enterprise.
It is often brought up how Kirk's words many times hinted that he had feelings for "her" something like he might towards a woman he loved. In a thread months ago someone with a naval background (if I recall correctly) stated that many in RL who served on a vessel viewed their ship as more like a "mother" (rather than a lover) because "she" provided so much of their needs during their service. I thought it was a very interesting comment.
I feel that this "the ship is a character thing" is misguided. It's the crew, not the ship, in my opinion. "A ship is a ship" says even Kirk in TVH.
Picard had already lost the Stargazer, and then the Enterprise-D, so he's just being realistic. Life goes on, no biggy.
Picard had already lost the Stargazer, and then the Enterprise-D, so he's just being realistic. Life goes on, no biggy.
At this point in the story I think that the danger had passed, a bit of time had passed such that Picard and Riker had some time to reflect on the situation, and they were thankful for the lives that had been spared, and the evacuation was in progress. I think Picard was making a small, reassuring joke/observation in the way the M*A*S*H characters often would in the aftermath of something tragic or disastrous (as we all do in real life).
Kirk and his crew watching their Enterprise's fiery demise were not at some similar point of "safety" after the crisis. They were still in big trouble. Whereas Picard's comment worked for me, an even mildly humorous comment at this point in TSFS would have been wrong, IMO.
I think it depends on the viewer. Depends on what elements of the show a viewer values and what bits are unimportant to them. For me, I have always been fascinated with the ships in a story, whether it is the Enterprise, the Galactica, Seaview or the Tardis, and they are important to me.
Actual characters can even be dismissed as interchangeable if you don't care for them. Don't like the Riker character? Just replace him. After all, there are plenty of other first officers out there in Starfleetl....
Perhaps, though, there is a middle ground between "ship is a character" and "ship is just a ship". Maybe "Ship is Home" would work better as a more acceptable concept for some fans.
After all, I think that if you were looking at the smoldering ruin of the home that you grew up in (thinking of all those memories), you would have quite a large problem with someone strolling up and dispassionately telling you that "It's only a house. There are plenty more out there." It was YOUR house, for cripes sake!
Similar threads
