Spoilers STAR TREK BEYOND

[Goji]

Not having seen the movie yet, obviously, it's impossible to say for sure, but it looks like the destruction of the Enterprise in "Beyond" is serving a similar story purpose to the destruction of the Enterprise in "The Search for Spock", namely to put Our Heroes at a tremendous disadvantage, in an extremely precarious situation, from which they will have to escape. You know... danger, action, suspense, constantly raising stakes. All those things that are fun in movies.

The destruction of the Defiant towards the end of DS9 was used to similar ends, to show that the entrance of the Breen into the war had turned the tides against Our Heroes, making it all the more important that Damar and his rebellion be made to succeed.

Really the only time the destruction of a Hero Ship seemed tacked on and pointless was in Generations, since it happened way towards the end of the film and the two main characters (Picard and Kirk) didn't even find out that it had happened until well after the threat had been resolved (except Kirk, who didn't find out all, because he was dead due to bad screen writing).

As long as the death of the new Enterprise is more exciting and dramatically relevant than that (and it sure looks to be) I'm not seeing a problem.

 

[Khan 2.0]

dead due to bad screen writing

yes thinking about it Kirk never got to see the Ent D or be on the bridge or interact with any TNG characters. (all the stuff fans were expecting a crossover to show)

 

[F. King Daniel]

They're beyond Federation space. They lost the Enterprise, they're stuck on a hostile planet with nobody coming to save them. That sounds like an interesting premise to me, and one IMO worth destroying the ship over

 

[RAMA]

http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/02/star-trek-beyond-writer-doug-jung-talks-script-simon-pegg/

Writer Doug Jung talks about the script

 

[eyeresist]

These JJ films are hard to get used to especially since I've been condition to treat the Enterprise as a character in Star Trek.

I've read this a lot, and I'd like to know HOW the Enterprise was treated "as a character". It didn't have any lines. It didn't have any relationships. It wasn't an active participant in the plot.
The Enterprise may have HAD character, but it wasn't A character.

 

[Kemaiku]

It's a ship, a metal construction to serve a purpose.

The only people to truely treat it like a person were Kirk and Scotty. In Kirk's case it was shown to be an extremely unhealthy fixation that the others were deeply worried over, hurting his career. And Scotty...was well yeah, the same. It was shown as something weird and wrong by the rest of the characters.

All ships are scrapped eventually, it's not a frikkin' person.

 

[HIjol]

I've read this a lot, and I'd like to know HOW the Enterprise was treated "as a character". It didn't have any lines. It didn't have any relationships. It wasn't an active participant in the plot.
The Enterprise may have HAD character, but it wasn't A character.

Hey, eyeresist! I am not surprised that you have often read that people consider the Enterprise a character. Speaking for myself, she is my favorite character in all iterations of Star Trek (except 1701-B). For me, and others, I'd wager, the main reason is certainly borne of a huge emotional attachment to her, but also because she is so integral (so often) to plot lines and dilemma and sequences. Putting aside all the suspension of disbelief, Enterprise is talked to, cajoled, nursed, demanded of, allowed to shine, have arcs, given orders to, hot wired, woman/manhandled, and yes, most of all - loved.

Just like other characters.

She will always be a Leading Lady to me, and I would give everything if she were real!

She is even First in the opening sequences...

"These are the Voyages of the Star Ship, Enterprise..."

 

[eyeresist]

Putting aside all the suspension of disbelief, Enterprise is talked to, cajoled, nursed, demanded of, allowed to shine, have arcs, given orders to, hot wired, woman/manhandled, and yes, most of all - loved.

But it's still an object, not a character. It doesn't have emotions and it doesn't act, it functions. The nearest it comes is by comparison with one of those soap opera characters who spends years in a coma.

 

[HIjol]

So was B-9 and C3PO and R2 and Data...I understand what you are saying, but for me She is a character.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Hey, eyeresist! I am not surprised that you have often read that people consider the Enterprise a character. Speaking for myself, she is my favorite character in all iterations of Star Trek (except 1701-B). For me, and others, I'd wager, the main reason is certainly borne of a huge emotional attachment to her, but also because she is so integral (so often) to plot lines and dilemma and sequences. Putting aside all the suspension of disbelief, Enterprise is talked to, cajoled, nursed, demanded of, allowed to shine, have arcs, given orders to, hot wired, woman/manhandled, and yes, most of all - loved.

Just like other characters.

She will always be a Leading Lady to me, and I would give everything if she were real!

She is even First in the opening sequences...

"These are the Voyages of the Star Ship, Enterprise..."

Well said, and if a so called "Star Trek" fan doesn't understand that... well they know nothing about Star Trek. LOL. I can't believe this had to be explained??? This was an important element of Star Trek.
Does these fans even know Gene Roddenberry, and his military history, and how he entails his creation? The Enterprise was very important to him, just like the Millennium Falcon was important to George Lucas; its treated like a character. Kirk, our hero, treats the ship as a character. If not, then why the hell give it a name, if it's just a ship??? Just call it by it's registry number. Naval officers value, and treat Naval vessels as a person.

To me, I felt in STIII, Harve Bennett wanted the Excelsior class to become the new Enterprise--his creation-- in a later film and on with the new. Destroying whatever was left from Roddenberry and TMP.
When Nimoy superseded his wishes in TVH and gave the crew the Enterprise with an identical exterior design, it soured their relationship. And I am glad, because destroying the Enterprise was a stupid mistake.
Rick Berman had the same idea, like Bennett, in order for Trek to be truly his, the last creation of Roddenberry had to be destroyed in the most embarrassing way possible. In 1st Contact, we get Berman's 1701-E, the ugliest ship since NX-01. He went on to make spin-off shows of Gene's creation: Deep Space 9, Voyager, and Enterprise. All were colossal failures. He even tried to put the proper title Star Trek back on that dud, and still couldn't save it.

As for Star Trek Beyond, I hope the trailer is misleading on the fate of JJ Enterprise.

 

[CorporalClegg]

No.

 

[Tom Servo]

Ya, I don't think anyone has ever referred to DS9 as a "colossal failure". It was so colossal of a failure that they ran it for seven seasons and had two new spin offs start when it was on, and after it had completed. I'm pretty sure most shows dream of that sort of failure.

And for the love of god please don't start with the whole "Let me lecture you on how you are wrong about what REAL Star Trek is" crap. I will grant that the Enterprise has always been an important setting and object to the characters, as it should be, it's their home. Can it be a character itself? I suppose it can, like in TSFS there is that nice moment of reflection with Bones and Kirk about the ship. But JJ and company are doing NOTHING new with how they treat the ship compared to previous incarnations. She's been beat up, blown up, and replaced before. Usually the danger of the ship being destroyed isn't because the captain is afraid to lose his ship, it's because there are people onboard who the characters, and the audience care about. If this Enterprise is wrecked, I'm sure there will be a JJ verse Enterprise-A waiting in the wings. It's now these things go in Star Trek.

The difference between the Millennium Falcon and the Enterprise as well, from an in universe perspective, is that even if there were Star Wars stories where the Falcon is ripped to shreds, Han would put her back together. She's a hot rod, and mixture of parts that is put together in the way that Han wants her to be. The Enterprise is a military (ish) vessel. Starfleet isn't going to lash the thing back together for the sake of sentimentality. They'll just build a new, better one. It's what they do.

 

[M'Sharak]

Well said, and if a so called "Star Trek" fan doesn't understand that... well they know nothing about Star Trek. LOL. I can't believe this had to be explained???

A Star Trek fan is someone who—by their own choice, and by no other criteria—is a fan of one or more incarnations of the show, whether on television or on film. That's the only rule.

Please don't make disparaging or dismissive remarks regarding "so-called" Star Trek fans, or presume to exclude those who may hold opinions which differ from yours. That's not your job to do.

We're all fans here, so let's talk about Trek instead of each other.

 

[Franklin]

It's a ship, a metal construction to serve a purpose.

The only people to truely treat it like a person were Kirk and Scotty. In Kirk's case it was shown to be an extremely unhealthy fixation that the others were deeply worried over, hurting his career. And Scotty...was well yeah, the same. It was shown as something weird and wrong by the rest of the characters.

All ships are scrapped eventually, it's not a frikkin' person.

I think the entire crew had affection for the ship. The idea that Starfleet would give command of (a ship probably renamed) Enterprise to Kirk at the end of TVH rather than simply give him the Potemkin, Kongo, or Lexington shows even the name itself must've become something of a legend around Starfleet, too. That ship, and its name and even registry number, were as much a part of the legend as its crew. They were inseparable.

Crews become very attached to their ships in real life. That vessel defines their world for the time they're on it. They owe it their lives. I think it's why we give them names in the first place (they aren't needed; registry numbers alone would be enough in Trek or real life). It's why we christen them. Why the ship's bell is considered its heart and the figurehead its soul. It's why we refer to ships in a gender pronoun as a person. It's why each ship is considered an individual.

It's why Kirk could look at that "metal construction to serve a purpose" in ST09 and fall in love with it. It's why the crew kept referring to it as "our ship" in STID.

It doesn't have to make sense. It just is.

 

[Kemaiku]

Still an emotional fixation that does not have to be catered to. Come on, we had a huge viral song from that movie about this two years ago...

 

[ralph]

There is a rumor among fans saying that Bones will die in Star Trek Beyond. Is it based on what?

 

[shapeshifter]

Uh, the scene in the teaser of him being left alone on a hostile world?

I don't believe it, though.

 

[M'Sharak]

There is a rumor among fans saying that Bones will die in Star Trek Beyond. Is it based on what?

No idea. Your post is the first time I've heard of it.

 

[Khan 2.0]

well that's just typical..

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

There is a rumor among fans saying that Bones will die in Star Trek Beyond. Is it based on what?

This rumor is new to me. Probably bull.