the name enterprise

[Warped9]

I've always preferred ship names that were descriptive rather than being named after a person or city or whatever.

Names like Enterprise, Valiant, Intrepid, Endeavor, Endurant, Fearless, Defiant, Reliant, Resolute, etc.

Names of famous people of distinction like scientists or explorers work for smaller vessels or ships that aren't frontline or capital vessels.

Just my two cents.

The name Enterprise is cool. Despite having financial connotations (and it is a locale in the U.S. I believe) it also means "a difficult undertaking." And the latter meaning I feel suits the ship well considering the many kinds of tasks it has faced.

Alien and exotic sounding names are cool, too.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Maybe a better question would be when will Starfleet retire the NCC-1701 registry? For ships named Enterprise, you have
NX-01
NCC-1701 (Constitution class)
NCC-1701 A (Constitution class, presumably renamed from Yorktown NCC-1704 or NCC-1717)
NCC-1701 B (Excelsior class)
NCC-1701 C (Ambassador class)
NCC-1701 D (Galaxy class)
NCC-1701 E (Sovereign class)

Conversely, for the name Defiant, you have
NCC-1764 (Constitution class)
NX-74205 (Defiant class)
NX-74205 (Defiant class, renamed from Sao Paulo NCC-75633)

So it makes sense that since the DS9-era Defiant was the first of an experimental class, it would have a new registry to reflect that (and not be, for instance, NCC-1764 A). But why wasn't the Sao Paulo renamed USS Defiant NX-74205 A ?? Or, since the Sao Paulo already had an NCC registry, and not an NX registry, why wasn't she renamed USS Defiant NCC-1764 A ? Either of those naming scenarios would've made more sense than just giving the Sao Paulo the exact same registry as the prototype Defiant with nothing to distinguish it from the destroyed ship. I would think that would be confusing to Starfleet as well.

 

[Warped9]

If I recall correctly the TMP was initiallt supposed to be a truly new and different vessel with a new registry number. But somewhere along the line (well after they had committed to a design and/or began making the filming miniature) they changed their minds and wanted to retain a sense of familiarity. So they tagged the TMP design a refit (of the TOS original) and retained the 1701 number. I don't think it was a bad move and I appreciated the sense of continuity.

That said I was never crazy about the "A" suffix idea with the new ship in TVH and thereafter.

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

If I recall correctly the TMP was initiallt supposed to be a truly new and different vessel with a new registry number. But somewhere along the line (well after they had committed to a design and/or began making the filming miniature) they changed their minds and wanted to retain a sense of familiarity. So they tagged the TMP design a refit (of the TOS original) and retained the 1701 number.

See, my understanding of that differs somewhat. I was under the impression that Gene intended the TMP Enterprise to be the "true" vision of what the ship was supposed to look like all along in TOS, just they didn't have the budget during the series (similar to how the TMP Klingons weren't any different than the TOS ones, just more $$ for the film version). Then, someone decided the ship looked different enough that the refit explanation needed to be a necessary component of the film. I could be wrong, though.

In my opinion, ship names and ship registries should be independent of each other. Ship registries should always stay with that vessel, and also reflect other ships of that class, regardless of the ship name. For instance, the name "Enterprise" could be on multiple vessels (not overlapping service times), but the 1701 should only be on the Constitution class, then the Enterprise would later have a registry that would conform to other Excelsior class registries, etc. Also, renamed existing ships would keep the original registry (eg the Sao Paulo NCC-75633 would be renamed Defiant NCC-75633).

 

[Warped9]

I don't think so. I always understood the new TMP Enterprise was supposed to be a different ship until they decided to maintain a sense of continuity and tagged it a refit and retaining the 1701 registry. TMP simply allowed them to do things they couldn't do in TOS. And if the TMP refit was the way it was always supposed to be then why put a picture of the original TOS version in the Rec Room scene?

The remark about the Klingons is really an off-the-cuff response to explain why they now looked the way the did. But note later in other series they tried to explain the change rather than rely on the notion "They've really always been like that."

It would have been far simpler to simply assume/accept that just as there are more than one race of humans there were more than one race of Klingons.

 

[The Wormhole]

So it makes sense that since the DS9-era Defiant was the first of an experimental class, it would have a new registry to reflect that (and not be, for instance, NCC-1764 A). But why wasn't the Sao Paulo renamed USS Defiant NX-74205 A ?? Or, since the Sao Paulo already had an NCC registry, and not an NX registry, why wasn't she renamed USS Defiant NCC-1764 A ? Either of those naming scenarios would've made more sense than just giving the Sao Paulo the exact same registry as the prototype Defiant with nothing to distinguish it from the destroyed ship. I would think that would be confusing to Starfleet as well.

In the real world, the reason for the new Defiant having the same registry as the previous is just a result of all footage of it consisting of stock footage. The intent among the writers is that the new Defiant's registry would be NCC-74205-A but there was no budget to make the change to the ship model.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I don't think so. I always understood the new TMP Enterprise was supposed to be a different ship until they decided to maintain a sense of continuity and tagged it a refit and retaining the 1701 registry.

This was my understanding as well. Weren't they originally going to give the new registry as 1801?

So it makes sense that since the DS9-era Defiant was the first of an experimental class, it would have a new registry to reflect that (and not be, for instance, NCC-1764 A). But why wasn't the Sao Paulo renamed USS Defiant NX-74205 A ?? Or, since the Sao Paulo already had an NCC registry, and not an NX registry, why wasn't she renamed USS Defiant NCC-1764 A ? Either of those naming scenarios would've made more sense than just giving the Sao Paulo the exact same registry as the prototype Defiant with nothing to distinguish it from the destroyed ship. I would think that would be confusing to Starfleet as well.

In the real world, the reason for the new Defiant having the same registry as the previous is just a result of all footage of it consisting of stock footage. The intent among the writers is that the new Defiant's registry would be NCC-74205-A but there was no budget to make the change to the ship model.

I knew about the unfortunate use of stock footage, although I don't think I had heard they had intended to use NCC-74205-A. In my head, the new Defiant is still NCC-75633. (Which counts for just as much as you'd think in the world at large ! ) It bugged me a little bit that Pocket retained the NX-74205 registry in the novels, even though they knew it was only there because of stock footage. Either NCC-74205-A or NCC-75633 would have been better, IMHO, but I would guess they had to stay consistent with what was on screen, even though it was a compromise.

 

[Warped9]

I don't think so. I always understood the new TMP Enterprise was supposed to be a different ship until they decided to maintain a sense of continuity and tagged it a refit and retaining the 1701 registry.

This was my understanding as well. Weren't they originally going to give the new registry as 1801?

Yes, I believe so.

 

[F. King Daniel]

My understanding is that it was always the Enterprise, but since she was "almost totally new" someone thought a new number would be a cool idea - and so some of the TMP concept art (seen in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterpise) has the number NCC-1800.

See, my understanding of that differs somewhat. I was under the impression that Gene intended the TMP Enterprise to be the "true" vision of what the ship was supposed to look like all along in TOS, just they didn't have the budget during the series (similar to how the TMP Klingons weren't any different than the TOS ones, just more $$ for the film version). Then, someone decided the ship looked different enough that the refit explanation needed to be a necessary component of the film. I could be wrong, though.

In Gene Roddenberry's novelization, he has Kirk (writing in the first person) flat-out dismiss TOS as a dramatization of the Enterprise's 5-year-mission and says that from now on if he gets his way, things will be depicted more accurately. Not only explaining why everything looks entirely different now, but he goes so far as to say he's never been so "foolishly heroic" as previously depicted, explaining Kirk's somewhat more methodical way of dealing with the V'ger crisis compared to the similar threats faced on the TV show.

 

[Warped9]

^^ That's all very well, but again it's undermined by the inclusion of a picture of the original TOS E in the rec room.

 

[C.E. Evans]

My understanding is that it was always the Enterprise, but since she was "almost totally new" someone thought a new number would be a cool idea - and so some of the TMP concept art (seen in Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterpise) has the number NCC-1800.

See, my understanding of that differs somewhat. I was under the impression that Gene intended the TMP Enterprise to be the "true" vision of what the ship was supposed to look like all along in TOS, just they didn't have the budget during the series (similar to how the TMP Klingons weren't any different than the TOS ones, just more $$ for the film version). Then, someone decided the ship looked different enough that the refit explanation needed to be a necessary component of the film. I could be wrong, though.

In Gene Roddenberry's novelization, he has Kirk (writing in the first person) flat-out dismiss TOS as a dramatization of the Enterprise's 5-year-mission and says that from now on if he gets his way, things will be depicted more accurately. Not only explaining why everything looks entirely different now, but he goes so far as to say he's never been so "foolishly heroic" as previously depicted, explaining Kirk's somewhat more methodical way of dealing with the V'ger crisis compared to the similar threats faced on the TV show.

It wasn't quite that. He was actually explaining that some of the Enterprise's exploits during his five-year mission had become exaggerated or even just fabricated, making him and his crew seem like fearless superheroes that could do no wrong to the general public. It had nothing to do with the look of the ship (the book indeed acknowledged it had been redesigned), nor did it flat-out dismiss TOS as a dramatization of that mission.

 

[F. King Daniel]

How can he call past records of his missions exaggerated and pehaps fabricated and it not mean that TOS was inaccurate?

 

[2takesfrakes]

The USS George W. Bush!

That name's almost as bad as the unfortunate nick fans gave the Enterprise-A in STAR TREK V: The Lemonprise.

 

[Warped9]

How can he call past records of his missions exaggerated and pehaps fabricated and it not mean that TOS was inaccurate?

Roddenberry was trying to be cute because you could use that gimmick for every Trek series, claiming that what was televised was a dramatization of sorts with creative licence.

You can look at it another way. In the popular media there is the cliche of Kirk getting on with the green alien chicks. In ST09 they even pandered to that cliche. But in TOS we saw he met a green Orion woman only once and he wanted nothing to do with her. The grain of truth is Kirk did encounter a green alien woman. The exaggerated cliche is he was always encountering them and getting it on with them. So what we saw on TOS was the actual occurrence bearing little to no resemblance to the oft repeated exaggerations.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Easily, because it would be a case of refuting things that we didn't actually see during TOS (reported adventures that took place outside the show).

You can look at it another way. In the popular media there is the cliche of Kirk getting on with the green alien chicks. In ST09 they even pandered to that cliche. But in TOS we saw he met a green Orion woman only once and he wanted nothing to do with her. The grain of truth is Kirk did encounter a green alien woman. The exaggerated cliche is he was always encountering them and getting it on with them. So what we saw on TOS was the actual occurrence bearing little to no resemblance to the oft repeated exaggerations.

Exactly.

 

[JarodRussell]

The pandering to pop culture is what annoys me the most about Abramstrek. Reckless womanizer Kirk, redshirts deaths, the needs of the many blabla, Khan. It only lacks someone yelling “Shoot to kill, shoot to kill!“

 

[F. King Daniel]

I believe Gene meant it far more insidiously than that. Remember that he considered season 3 of TOS and later a few of the movies to be apocraphyl. This site takes the concept of canon far too seriously, but the quotes from Richard Arnold, Paula Block and Gene himself make it clear GR did not consider all of Trek's original episodes canon. We know Gene insisted that Klingons always looked as they did in TMP, but they just didn't have the budget for such elaborate makeup.

What "really" happened and how the Trek universe looked were both put into question.

 

[Warped9]

After decades of repeated viewing its easy to see how one or two actual instances on screen can morph into "always."

There's also the famous catchphrase, "Beam me up, Scotty." which was never actually uttered throughout the series. The same thing happens in real life where real events are retold and embellished with each retelling.

I'm also hesitant to put too much stock into some things GR would later say or claim because he could be known for changing his story as time passed and to fit the situation. While TOS was being made he was quite happy with it. Later when he felt squeezed out or overruled by Paramount he started disowning things so to speak. As fans we are not beholden to that kind of capriciousness.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Yup, in the TMP novelization, Kirk lamented in his preface that he and his crew had been made into larger-than-life heroes to the public, when the truth was that mistakes had been made that could have resulted in a lot less deaths among his crew.

 

[Warped9]

Yup, in the TMP novelization, Kirk lamented in his preface that he and his crew had been made into larger-than-life heroes to the public.

Yes. So the Kirk intro at the beginning of TMP works in two ways whether GR meant it that way or not. It's an intro directed at the general public within Trek's universe as well as the actual general public in reality.