Origin of the name Defiant

[MatthiasRussell]

In the original draft of “The Tholian Web”, the USS Defiant was named the USS Scimitar. However, neither of these names are listed among the 14 original names for Constitution class ships in The Making of Star Trek.

For DS9, the new ship was originally going to be the Valiant but it was decided to not have another “V” name for a main ship so Defiant was chosen.

There has never been a USS Defiant or HMS Defiant in naval history, the closest are an HMS Defiance and a fictional HMS Defiant.

So why was this name originally chosen in TOS? Was the DS9 Defiant named for its Constitution class namesake?

 

[Uxi]

I do wish they had used something else for DS9.

 

[Captain Tracy]

This is an interesting point you are making regarding the origin of the name DEFIANT, as most of the original ship names were based on old world naval war ships.

A few potential theories:

A) GR simply got the name DEFIANCE wrong

B) Some research assistant got the name wrong and it made its way into the Writers Guide that way, and no one ever noticed.

C) GR simply liked DEFIANT better than DEFIANCE

D) Some brilliant forward-thinking young guy from the Rand Corp Think-Tank already knew the assaultive "T" sound at the end of DEFIANT would sound MUCH better through a little 4" TV speaker than the historically accurate DEFIANCE, with its soft and airy "S" sound at the end.

Here is the theory I like the best:

Someone, not Coon or GR, in thinking about continuity foresaw the need to create a detailed list of these "other starships' in the fleet after someone submitted a story which used the names of other starships (out of the writers imagination)- for the reference of all future writers, and so forth,... Coon said: "Good, you generate it", the "kid" wrote it from his memory of 7th Grade British History - using the name DEFIANT - showed it to Coon (who had already forgotten about the minor thing), told the "kid" to get it okay'd by GR, GR glanced through it with the 'good old executive once over', saw no conflicts or problems, and said: "fine, fine, so that will be the name of the other ships, thanks." The "kid" took it to mimeo, and had it inserted into the Writers Guide as "Cannon",... Sounds "logical" to me LOL!

As I said, it is an interesting question, as the HMS DEFIANCE is pretty common to come across in research, so one could also assume GR et al, came across it this way too, IF they did the hard research, and heaven forbid,.. didn't just make it up as they went along LOL!

 

[MatthiasRussell]

Defiant just seems like an odd choice, especially since Roddenberry had a list of ships' names he intended to use. It seems like the choice to go beyond would have been intentional and done for a reason.

Interestingly, I discovered one of the Miranda looking ships in ST09 was the Mayflower class USS Defiant.

 

[Mysterion]

There has never been a USS Defiant or HMS Defiant in naval history, the closest are an HMS Defiance and a fictional HMS Defiant.

There was also a USS Defiance (PG-95), an Ashville class gunboat in service from 1969-73. And next closest was a USS Point Defiance (LSD-31) which was in service 1955-83.

 

[Christopher]

A few potential theories:

A) GR simply got the name DEFIANCE wrong

B) Some research assistant got the name wrong and it made its way into the Writers Guide that way, and no one ever noticed.

C) GR simply liked DEFIANT better than DEFIANCE

D) Some brilliant forward-thinking young guy from the Rand Corp Think-Tank already knew the assaultive "T" sound at the end of DEFIANT would sound MUCH better through a little 4" TV speaker than the historically accurate DEFIANCE, with its soft and airy "S" sound at the end.

Here is the theory I like the best:

Someone, not Coon or GR, in thinking about continuity foresaw the need to create a detailed list of these "other starships' in the fleet after someone submitted a story which used the names of other starships (out of the writers imagination)- for the reference of all future writers, and so forth,... Coon said: "Good, you generate it", the "kid" wrote it from his memory of 7th Grade British History - using the name DEFIANT - showed it to Coon (who had already forgotten about the minor thing), told the "kid" to get it okay'd by GR, GR glanced through it with the 'good old executive once over', saw no conflicts or problems, and said: "fine, fine, so that will be the name of the other ships, thanks." The "kid" took it to mimeo, and had it inserted into the Writers Guide as "Cannon",... Sounds "logical" to me LOL!

First off: This was the third season, at which point Gene Coon had left the show and Gene Roddenberry had stopped participating in the writing process. Neither of them would've had anything to do with the selection of the name Defiant. If it was changed from Scimitar to Defiant in rewrites, it might've been Fred Freiberger, Bob Justman, or story editor Arthur H. Singer who was responsible for the change (assuming it wasn't the credited screenwriters' idea).

Second: The Making of Star Trek reproduces (on pp. 163-4) a memo that D. C. Fontana sent to Roddenberry and Bob Justman after "Tomorrow is Yesterday" established that there were 12 ships like the Enterprise in the fleet. She offered 22 candidate names. In reply, Justman narrowed the list to 11 of Fontana's candidates and added one more (Saratoga, as it happens). Not all of them were used, and other names were introduced in various episodes. Neither list included Defiant. Although Fontana's memo did suggest putting these names in the writers' bible, we don't know if that was ever done. The copy of the bible that's generally available is from April 1967, before Fontana's memo. However, the Phase II bible from 1977, which is largely just an updated version of the TOS bible, does not contain a list of ship names, so it seems likely that the TOS bible never did.

And really, a list of names like that is not the sort of detail that you'd include in a writers' bible. A bible is a primer on the fundamentals of the show -- the characters, the premise, the world/setting they occupy, the basic terminology. An aspiring screenwriter for TOS would've needed to know what a phaser or an impulse engine or a briefing room or a Vulcan was, but they wouldn't have needed to know the names of all the ships in the fleet, because that was a detail that could easily be invented by the scripter or tweaked in rewrites by the staff.

 

[Captain Tracy]

Hey there Christopher,

I guess it wasn't evident that my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I put forth my 'theories'.

Did you miss the tag-line at the end: "Heaven forbid they just made it up as they went along!" ?

Are you telling me that my tag-line presentation needs a re-write? LOL!

Interesting that you mention the list of Starships contained in 'The Making of Star Trek', and state that such a list would not be part of the Writer's Guide,... yet, by what you write in your post, the impetus of motivation behind the list was DCF, Treks story editor; and as she was the one, from what I understood, originally was responsible for compiling the very first 'Star Trek Writer's Guidelines', presumably while still pulling double-duty as GR's Secretary.

So why then would an story-editor go to the trouble of compiling a list if Starship names, and then not include it in the the very document she created?

Also, it was always my understanding that the core of 'The Making of Star Trek' WAS the Writer's Guide; expanded and reproduced, albeit with annotations, commentary, old memo's and all the like to 'beef it up' to book length for the retail market.

Is that also not correct?

 

[Christopher]

So why then would an story-editor go to the trouble of compiling a list if Starship names, and then not include it in the the very document she created?

For the benefit of the show's regular staffers, as part of the material they shared among themselves to keep track of the details of the universe they were building. As I said, the purpose of a writers' guide is to be a primer for freelance writers and directors, an introduction to the basics of the show for the benefit of newcomers. It's not meant to be an exhaustive listing of every established detail about the show's universe. That's stuff that the writing staff keeps track of with their own notes, memos, and other such behind-the-scenes references.

For instance, when Robert Hewitt Wolfe was a producer on Deep Space Nine, he started drawing a map of Bajor on the dry-erase board in his office, as a way of keeping track of all the locations that got mentioned in scripts. After Robert left the show, story editor Bradley Thompson took over the task of maintaining and adding to the map. But the map was never put in the writers' guide. It was just a sketch on a whiteboard in the production offices, something the staff could just pop in and consult. It wasn't something that novice writers needing an introduction to the show and the universe needed to have detailed information about.

Also, it was always my understanding that the core of 'The Making of Star Trek' WAS the Writer's Guide; expanded and reproduced, albeit with annotations, commentary, old memo's and all the like to 'beef it up' to book length for the retail market.

Is that also not correct?

Sorry, that's not even close to correct. The Star Trek Guide (the series bible) is only 31 typewritten pages in its April 1967 edition; TMoST is over 400 pages long. TMoST does reproduce most of the content of a draft of Roddenberry's 1964 series pitch (about 8 pages of the book), and Part II, "An Official Biography of a Ship and its Crew," contains a few excerpts from the bible taking up maybe 3-4 pages. But that's it.

What The Making of Star Trek is, in fact, is pretty much the richest, most detailed description and analysis of the television production process that had ever been published up to its point, the pioneer of the whole genre of behind-the-scenes books about TV and film production, and one of the best books on the subject ever written. It's an exhaustive discussion of the production process from the perspective of an author who was given regular access to the set and the cast and crew of the show.

 

[Mr Silver]

I always assumed that it meant something along the lines of "defiant in the face of battle/war/danger" - and reused later in the franchise, relating to the Defiant-class function as ships built for battle.

 

[jayrath]

Why "Defiant"?

Because the staff anticipated the rise of the internet. It's a subtle message to future generations to refrain from reading meaning into every last proper noun.

My own axe to grind is the use of "star" in everything. It's so nonsensical that it was unintentionally mimicked in "Batman." Instead of the Batmobile, Batbelt, Batplane, Batcave and so on, on TOS we could have had the Batship, Batfleet Command, etc.

Batbase!

 

[Captain Tracy]

CHRISTOPHER - very informative reply, thanks for sharing your knowledge!

JAYRATH - You have me laughing so hard, I may signal a Red Alert,... or perhaps a "Clean-up in aisle #3" LMAO

,...My own axe to grind is the use of "star" in everything. It's so nonsensical that it was unintentionally mimicked in "Batman." Instead of the Batmobile, Batbelt, Batplane, Batcave and so on, on TOS we could have had the Batship, Batfleet Command, etc.

Batbase!

 

[J.T.B.]

I've always guessed the choice of the name was influenced by the 1962 movie Damn the Defiant with Alec Guinness and Dirk Bogarde. Someone may have wanted a Royal Navy name and thought that sounded good, never knowing that there wasn't a real vessel by that name. I have no evidence to back that up, though.

Really good movie, BTW.



Justin

 

[Captain Tracy]

J.T.B. - Woah,.. Nice Pull!

You know that just makes so much sense!, and the timing would be real good as well,... I really like that idea,.. is just feels right if you know what I mean.

And thanks for the movie recommendation, I will definitely check it out!

Have you ever watched the 1957 film, 'The Enemy Below'? I understand it was the source inspiration for TOS 'Balance of Terror'.

 

[J.T.B.]

Have you ever watched the 1957 film, 'The Enemy Below'? I understand it was the source inspiration for TOS 'Balance of Terror'.

Sure. "Source inspiration" is putting it mildly, most of the BoT plot points are lifted straight from the movie, it's almost like a one-hour abridged star-remake. It's pretty interesting to watch them closely together.

Another interesting pairing is Run Silent, Run Deep and TMP. Both directed by Robert Wise, there are some definite similarities in the captain/exec relationships.


Justin

 

[Captain Tracy]

Sure. "Source inspiration" is putting it mildly,...

Okay, now I have to watch them back-to-back, and check out 'Run Silent' as well,.. Damn you Justin, you just blew my Pizza and YooHoo budget for this weekend!! LOL!

 

[J.T.B.]

Okay, now I have to watch them back-to-back, and check out 'Run Silent' as well,.. Damn you Justin, you just blew my Pizza and YooHoo budget for this weekend!! LOL!

I'm glad you didn't say beer or I might have felt bad.


Justin

 

[MatthiasRussell]

I've always guessed the choice of the name was influenced by the 1962 movie Damn the Defiant with Alec Guinness and Dirk Bogarde. Someone may have wanted a Royal Navy name and thought that sounded good, never knowing that there wasn't a real vessel by that name. I have no evidence to back that up, though.

Memory Alpha speculates this being the source as well but no documentation.

I know it no big deal where the name comes from. It is just odd since neither Defiant nor Scimitar seem to fit in with any of the names theorized by the production staff. However, often names DO carry symbolic, historical, or theatrical meaning so perhaps the name was significant to those who chose it.

 

[Vulagr]

The Boulton Paul Defiant was a British interceptor aircraft that served with the Royal Air Force (RAF) early in the Second World War. The Defiant was designed and built by Boulton Paul Aircraft as a "turret fighter", without any forward-firing guns. It was a contemporary of the Royal Navy's Blackburn Roc. The concept of a turret fighter related directly to the successful First World War-era Bristol F.2 Fighter.

Maybe this one.

 

[MatthiasRussell]

The Defiant fighter is a possibility but I somehow doubt it. Though a great idea, the plane was extremely uneffective and proved to just be a target for German fighters in the Battle of Britain. I don't believe it even made any kills, but I'll have to check that.

If any of the TOS staffers was a fan of fighter planes, which they no doubt were, you'd have thought they would have picked the name of a plane that had more distinction. Of course since the USS Defiant had a nonheroic ending (in the prime universe) and was ineffective in the situation it found itself, perhaps the name would be appropriate.

Appended: The Defiant did have initial success shooting down Stukas and bombers and even fighters who pounced them from behind thinking they were Hurricanes. However, the Germans learned quickly and even during its initial success Defiants suffered comparable losses.

I certainly don't think the Defiant class got its name from the fighter.