Yes, you can come up with explanations. But my point is that if some odd bit of dialog contradicts events actually seen later on, then the bit of dialog is what I'd drop. I'd throw out the reference to Alpha Centauri, which had no actual effect on plot, rather than everything in First Contact with Zefram Cochrane. And I wouldn't feel compelled to make their 20th century so different from ours just because of a line about the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s.
"That doesn't count!"
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Yes, you can come up with explanations. But my point is that if some odd bit of dialog contradicts events actually seen later on, then the bit of dialog is what I'd drop. I'd throw out the reference to Alpha Centauri, which had no actual effect on plot, rather than everything in First Contact with Zefram Cochrane. And I wouldn't feel compelled to make their 20th century so different from ours just because of a line about the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s.
Yeah, we all know that "U.S.S." stands for "United Star Ship." But what's silly is, the point of those prefixes is to give you a quick identification of the vessel's nationality -- hence, say, "ARA General Belgrano" (with "ARA" standing for "Armada de la Republica Argentina"), or SAS Spioenkop (with "SAS" meaning "South African Ship"). So "Federation" really ought to appear somewhere in the prefix.
Around stardate: 48314, USS Voyager docked for a short time at DS9 before departing for the badlands in search of lost Maquis raider.
She, nor her crew was ever seen or heard from again...
She, nor her crew was ever seen or heard from again...
Speaking of the first episode of Voyager. I randomly decided to re-watch Caretaker last night, and noticed something I hadn't seen before: The shuttle that Paris and Stadi are taking to Deep Space 9 (which is a problem in and of itself... it was a class 6 shuttle, what was it doing out in the middle of nowhere? It certainly didn't come from Earth) changes registry numbers not once, but TWICE! The first time, it's a random 5 digit number starting with 7. The second time, it's registry is 1701-D. The third time it reads 74656, which I would imagine to be the correct number, as that's Voyager's hull number.
Yeah, that's been pointed out before. Pretty amusing all the same.
I ignore the Voyager episode Threshold most of the time, though I do occasionally poke fun at it because it's utterly ridiculous.
I completely ignore any of the C/7 stuff that happened in the Voyager finale. That had no development or background at all! Seriously, where did that even come from?
The novels... well I really try to ignore a few ridiculous events that happened in a certain book involving Pluto and the Sun and a Borg cube.
I completely ignore any of the C/7 stuff that happened in the Voyager finale. That had no development or background at all! Seriously, where did that even come from?
The novels... well I really try to ignore a few ridiculous events that happened in a certain book involving Pluto and the Sun and a Borg cube.
But it has also been referred to onscreen as "United Space Ship" in several episodes.
I believe the U.S.S. designation was created solely as a means of honoring the U.S. Navy, since Starfleet is headquartered in America and likely was established there. It's just another Earth naval tradition that Starfleet observes, albeit from a particular Earth navy. Otherwise, I don't believe it's any coincidence that both U.S. Navy ships and Starfleet ships have the same prefix letters.
However, by that same token, had Starfleet been headquartered out of Britain (just as an example), then Federation starships might have had a "H.M.S." designation instead, IMO. I think it certainly would have been the case had Star Trek been a BBC production rather than a NBC one back when it first started.
Remember, it was ~50 years ago when the "USS" designation was first used on Trek. I'm guessing it was just because audiences back then expected it. They weren't used to any ship having a designation other than USS. Now, though, they can deal with it, so we get B5's EAS (Earth Alliance Ship), Firefly's IAV (Interstellar Alliance Vessel), Wing Commander's TCS (Terran Confederation Ship), etc. That would have confused audiences in the 60's, but not now.
If Trek really was being rebooted right now, we'd probably get UFS or something similar.
If Trek really was being rebooted right now, we'd probably get UFS or something similar.
Not unless they plan to reboot it with a starship other than the Enterprise, anyway. The term "U.S.S. Enterprise" is a registered trademark of CBS now (earlier, it belonged to Paramount for a number of years).
Apparently the U.S. Navy was allowed to continue using the name.
Seriously.
They wouldn't change something that iconic. Everyone knows what the U.S.S. Enterprise is.
Despite the crossover of actors, I generally just think of each trek series as being totally apart from from the others. Its like in sci-fi how you'll see people in different dimensions, and they'll be a bit different; they might use the same time and places, but they arent the same. For example, DS9 and TNG are two shows that I really enjoy, I also enjoyed the 2009 movie. However, the tone, structure and basic intention of all three are quite dissimiliar.
This is why I generally dont mind canon change, although I can argue that the change is good or bad. Its also generally why I dont like the crossover of characters, concepts, or races to other treks. Sometimes it works well (a good example is Bashir on TNG), but usually it works poorly(a good example is Q on both DS9 and VOY). A lot of times people kick around ideas for new trek, and someone wil invariably say it needs to take place on a klingon ship, or focus on the cardassians or something. No. I think trek has to be different each time.
This is why I generally dont mind canon change, although I can argue that the change is good or bad. Its also generally why I dont like the crossover of characters, concepts, or races to other treks. Sometimes it works well (a good example is Bashir on TNG), but usually it works poorly(a good example is Q on both DS9 and VOY). A lot of times people kick around ideas for new trek, and someone wil invariably say it needs to take place on a klingon ship, or focus on the cardassians or something. No. I think trek has to be different each time.
Either way, it's ridiculous and ethnocentric -- irrationally so.
What's ridiculous is this post.
If Star Trek had been made in Britain lil' BillJ wouldn't have given a second thought to the ship being the H.M.S. Enterprize, no more than lil' BillJ ever gave a second thought to it being the U.S.S. Enterprise. Fuck, are Kirk and McCoy too American as well?
People really need to get over themselves, this criticism you lob at Star Trek is no different than me trying to complain that Space Battleship Yamato is too Japanese.
What's ridiculous is this post.
If Star Trek had been made in Britain lil' BillJ wouldn't have given a second thought to the ship being the H.M.S. Enterprize, no more than lil' BillJ ever gave a second thought to it being the U.S.S. Enterprise.
Well, you've got to ask yourself -- is the intent to depict a future where one particular culture dominates others, or one where all cultures are equal?
If it's the former, then, hey, fine. USA all the way, and let's show a McDonald's opening on Vulcan and a GAP store on Tellar.
But Star Trek is supposed to be about a future where all cultures are equal and no one culture dominates others -- not on Earth, and not between Earth and its other Federation partners. So, no, it shouldn't be "U.S.S." From a creative standpoint, it violates the idea that all cultures are equal; it reduces Star Trek to "America rules the world and rules other planets, too." From an in-universe standpoint, it makes no sense that the Federation would favor the naval tradition of one particular culture out of 200 cultures on one particular Member world out of 150 Member worlds.
Similar threads
