... them?
To prevent how someone reacted before, of course. Defuse it before it becomes inflated.
You, on the other hand, did not have to respond to what is not even the point (the video is).
Okuda makes so much sense there, for example.
Spoilers Starship Design in Star Trek: Picard
- Thread starter pst
- Start date
To prevent how someone reacted before, of course. Defuse it before it becomes inflated.
You, on the other hand, did not have to respond to what is not even the point (the video is).
Okuda makes so much sense there, for example.
Starships in shows are vehicles for storytelling. Yup, agree with that. So offended.
(The opening might trigger certain people. Keep in mind it's not me saying this, and reach out to them if you wanna tell them to stop saying things)
I think you completely missed the point of what Okuda was saying.
Okuda: "Gene was always aware that the starship in his shows were vehicles for storytelling, so he knew that the ships had to reflect the characters and the nature of the stories." (emphasis mine)
He is not brushing off the ships as unimportant. On the contrary, he's pointing out that they are an integral part of the show in the way that the characters and story relate to the ships in question. He is saying that the ships are not in fact just inanimate objects, but rather they are as much a part of the show as the actors and the scripts.
And the statement that 'starships in shows are vehicles for storytelling' is a slap in the face to the people whose job it is to painstakingly design all the ships, sets, props, etc. I highly doubt they consider all their hard work just 'vehicles for storytelling.'
Speaking of misunderstanding. The idea that vehicles for storytelling should be taken as an insult is ridiculous.
Speaking of misunderstanding. The idea that vehicles for storytelling should be taken as an insult is ridiculous.
It’s not what was said. It was how it was said. Context. And way to completely gloss over the larger point I was making.
Last edited:
I followed it along just fine and even agree with Okuda for the most part. What I find frustrating is the implication that I was making a statement that was a "slap in the face" to the people who work on it. Having an iconic vehicle to tell stories presents a visual language that is helpful and a part of the storytelling process. I don't think that's insulting.
And here is where I was confused, because I didn’t get the impression that you were saying anything of the sort. I got the impression that you felt the ship isn’t to be treated as a character and isn’t important to the story, and that you were assuming Okuda felt the same way because you took his statement out of context. Maybe I just misunderstood you.
I think ships are important.
I don't think they are characters.
I don't think Okuda was agreeing with me, but I agree with most of what he says in the idea of the ship should reflect the character of the characters. Not as a character in of itself, but a reflection of those people in the show. A distinction without a difference but a point I actually appreciated.
Not treating a ship as a character doesn't mean it's not important. Only that I don't give it the same regard as actual people.
[Sarcasm]Ships are so non-integral and unimportant to the story as supporting characters, that they named three whole series after them[/Sarcasm] - Voyager. Enterprise. Discovery. Four if you count Deep Space Nine in the larger "named after space vehicles" category.
Many episodes were named after ships in nearly all the series as well (except TAS & LDS, so far):
Many episodes were named after ships in nearly all the series as well (except TAS & LDS, so far):
- The Galileo Seven (TOS)
- The Return of the Archons (TOS)
- The Doomsday Machine (TOS)
- The Enterprise Incident (TOS)
- Yesterday's Enterprise (TNG)
- The Pegasus (TNG)
- Defiant (DS9)
- Empok Nor (DS9)
- Valiant (DS9)
- Dreadnaught (VOY)
- Think Tank (VOY)
- Relativity (VOY)
- Equinox (VOY)
- Barge of the Dead (VOY)
- Alice (VOY)
- The Voyager Conspiracy (VOY)
- Nightingale (VOY)
- Friendship One (VOY)
- Shuttlepod One (ENT)
- Kobayashi Maru (DSC)
- Kobayashi (PRO)
Yes. Just like Cheers, the bar, is a character... /s
I do not understand why this is hard to parse but apparently inanimate objects being like people is just something I don't feel.
I do not understand why this is hard to parse but apparently inanimate objects being like people is just something I don't feel.
The clip begins with the revelation that (again) production people confirm they see ships as being like characters.
Where Okuda is quite right is the point he makes at the end of small gesture interfaces making more sense than Minority Report orchestra conductor interfaces.
Don't let the character ship debate join the excessive heights of the money and military debates... perhaps the trigger warning really was necessary XD
Where Okuda is quite right is the point he makes at the end of small gesture interfaces making more sense than Minority Report orchestra conductor interfaces.
Don't let the character ship debate join the excessive heights of the money and military debates... perhaps the trigger warning really was necessary XD
so... there you go!
Like characters doesn't make them characters. They are a reflection of the main characters, like a house can reflect the resident. Is my house a character? Does it feel, does it think, does it react, does it grow or avoid? I built it myself. Perhaps it has a attachment to me,yes? It misses me when I'm gone, right?
Unless the ship is taken over by some sentient disembodied alien entity. Then it’s a character. It’s all those things. And what about Zora? She’s the “soul” of Discovery. Hmmm… The quandary…
Do you care about your house? You built it yourself, so obviously you took pride in your work and made it special just for you and/or your family, yes? It works the way you want it to work, yes? And you would be sad if it was destroyed, yes? And living in your house is preferable to living out in the street, yes?
No, it won't miss you when you're gone, just like the Enterprise wouldn't miss Kirk or Picard if they left it. That's not the point. Nobody is trying to anthropomorphize your house, or a particular hero ship. The point is that the audience should care about the ship almost as much as they care about the characters. Because if you don't care about the ship, then what's the point of having it in the first place? The characters might as well just beam to each planet-of-the-week instead. I remember seeing the Enterprise blowing up over the Genesis planet on the big screen in STIII, and it was an emotional experience, just like it was when Spock died. And I remember seeing the Enterprise-D blowing up over Veridian III and recall being extremely pissed off that this ship that I had been invested in for the last seven years was destroyed in the stupidest way possible. Just like how annoyed I felt when Trip Tucker died in the stupidest way possible. The only difference in those examples is that one thing is an object, and the other thing is a person. That doesn't change the similarity in which I viewed those things. If I didn't treat the ships like characters, then I wouldn't have cared that they got destroyed, no matter how it happened. But I did care, because they are just as integral to the story as the people are.
No, it won't miss you when you're gone, just like the Enterprise wouldn't miss Kirk or Picard if they left it. That's not the point. Nobody is trying to anthropomorphize your house, or a particular hero ship. The point is that the audience should care about the ship almost as much as they care about the characters. Because if you don't care about the ship, then what's the point of having it in the first place? The characters might as well just beam to each planet-of-the-week instead. I remember seeing the Enterprise blowing up over the Genesis planet on the big screen in STIII, and it was an emotional experience, just like it was when Spock died. And I remember seeing the Enterprise-D blowing up over Veridian III and recall being extremely pissed off that this ship that I had been invested in for the last seven years was destroyed in the stupidest way possible. Just like how annoyed I felt when Trip Tucker died in the stupidest way possible. The only difference in those examples is that one thing is an object, and the other thing is a person. That doesn't change the similarity in which I viewed those things. If I didn't treat the ships like characters, then I wouldn't have cared that they got destroyed, no matter how it happened. But I did care, because they are just as integral to the story as the people are.
Last edited:
Well, at this point we're talking cross paths and I just disagree with all of it. We all hear what we want and that much is clear.
Nope. I did it myself because it was cheaper, and I did the best I could to not piss off the inspectors. That's all. If it burned down I would be sad because my family no longer had a warm place to live. So, the emotional attachment is all in how the house the serves me and my family, not as important as my family.
Then I won't bother wasting my time and energy continuing this discussion. I will simply stand by what I wrote whether you agree with it or not.
Your answer was appreciated. But, it's clear to me that my regard for ships is pretty much the opposite of anyone else here. Which is not a fun place to be. Thank you for trying to explain your view. I just don't share it.
"A ship is a ship." James T Kirk
