Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
01-15-2012, 11:28 PM
Part of what made the original Starship Enterprise a character was Captain Kirk. He was in-love with command of the starship and it was reflected in the writing over many years. Viewers grew similar affection along side these stories. As slow and prodding as some say The Motion Picture was, IMO, that film went out of its way to make sure we knew that the Enterprise herself mattered. I know many fans who mourned the passing of that starship in The Search for Spock as badly as we mourned the death of Spock in the previous film. After almost twenty years (for fans) with the Enterprise, it was a devious trade-off to get Spock back.

We had only seven years with the Enterprise-D when it bit the dust in her first movie outing. I was mad about that. As it made loss of the starship cliche from that point forward. But it was still fresh in the minds of newer TNG fans. So that was shocking to them, more than it was for me. It was the loss of a beloved character. DS9's Dominion War arc had starships blowing up left and right. Including the beloved Defiant. I groaned out loud when Admiral Ross gave Sisko the privilege of renaming the Sao Paulo to Defiant. No point becoming too attached to anything, right? We never had opportunity to feel that loss since her replacement showed up almost immediately.

This is one reason that some STO player's try so hard to hold on to a favorite starship throughout the career of one of our Captain's. We want that sense of starship as character. We actually want our starship to matter. Thankfully, the popping of our starships doesn't result in perma-death. Except, maybe, for a few Common Doffs.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
01-16-2012, 05:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
Because the Defiant was really just a THING most of the time, like a big runabout to get them to a location. It had its moments, but most of the time, DS9 was the character. And honesty, one of the stronger "ship characters," especially in the early seasons when entire plot arcs basically boiled down to "The Cardassians sure ****ed this place up good when they left," either things breaking, vital things not being there at all, or one of Dukat's leftover booby traps.
I agree with this statement; Deep Space Nine was the character in the series. The Defiant was simply an auxiliary craft for the station (even if she was a little more independent than the runabouts).

Quote:
Originally Posted by deamond63 View Post
While i also feel simaler i did feel like voyager and the defiant were charters in there own right i feel the need to point out that both ships were both extreamy experamentl...
I don't think Voyager was all that experimental. The Defiant was the lead ship of her class, so to call her experimental (especially during the her early years) is entirely accurate. Voyager was (I believe) one of 12 ships of the Intrepid design; Voyager may have have technological advancements that the original prototype lacked, but she was still based on an existing design, so I hesitate to call her "experimental."
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
01-16-2012, 05:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commadore_Bob
The Enterprise was designed to be warm. It was essentially a flying hotel. Because of that, people got very comfortable on it and thought of it as home quickly. The Defiant was always meant to be a glorified shuttle. It allowed the writers to move some of the action off the station which is, well, stationary. Voyager was hindered by that industrial metallic design and poor writing. While I could see Riker reluctantly leaving the Enterprise, I could see Harry Kim jumping out of Voyager in a space suit the moment it hits Earth gravitational field.
I don't think the Defiant was a glorified shuttle. I think the reality was DS9 took place during a time of war and people simply don't care about trivialities like a ship getting destroyed during bad times.

Sure it sucks that the Defiant was destroyed, but it was war, it was expected to happen. And it could be replaced, unlike a person who died.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
01-16-2012, 05:48 AM
To be honest, I think the whole description of the ships as character is just wrong. They are locations and/or objects. You can be attached to them, but that doesn't make them characters. If you totaled a car that you really loved, you might be unhappy about it, but that still doesn't mean it's a character.

Calling the ships characters strikes me as a combination of over simplification and outright exaggeration.

I don't think DS9 was a character either. DS9 was the setting and things that occurred in the show obviously revolved around it. That doesn't mean it's a character. Same with the Enterprise.

By that line of thinking, the city of Miami is a character in CSI Miami or Miami Vice. See how ridiculous that sounds? That's the setting of the show, not a character.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
01-16-2012, 05:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psi'a Meese
This is one reason that some STO player's try so hard to hold on to a favorite starship throughout the career of one of our Captain's. We want that sense of starship as character. We actually want our starship to matter. Thankfully, the popping of our starships doesn't result in perma-death. Except, maybe, for a few Common Doffs.
There are people out there who get attached to a car and keep it pretty much forever. This is especially true of classic car collectors. They really like their car and are proud of it. But that doesn't mean the car is a character. It's just a prized object. The same is true of the ships.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
01-16-2012, 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
To be honest, I think the whole description of the ships as character is just wrong. They are locations and/or objects. You can be attached to them, but that doesn't make them characters. If you totaled a car that you really loved, you might be unhappy about it, but that still doesn't mean it's a character.

Calling the ships characters strikes me as a combination of over simplification and outright exaggeration.

I don't think DS9 was a character either. DS9 was the setting and things that occurred in the show obviously revolved around it. That doesn't mean it's a character. Same with the Enterprise.

By that line of thinking, the city of Miami is a character in CSI Miami or Miami Vice. See how ridiculous that sounds? That's the setting of the show, not a character.
There are a lot of people across various space -based scifi that would disagree with you. There are several episodes in Star Trek where Spock, Data, T'Pol, Tuvok, or Odo mention how they don't understand why humans get attached to "things", in reference to the ship/space station. The reason those exchanges occur in multiple episodes is that it's true. We do get attached to things. We can discuss the definition of "character" as much as you want, but regardless - viewers get attached to some ships, and not others, and there must be a reason for that. THe only explanation is the writing of the show, and how they handle the existence of the ships. Writers making a point to handle the starships in Star Trek in a certain way indicates to me, that they are themselves, characters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
01-17-2012, 03:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
There are people out there who get attached to a car and keep it pretty much forever. This is especially true of classic car collectors. They really like their car and are proud of it. But that doesn't mean the car is a character. It's just a prized object. The same is true of the ships.
Early seafarers spoke of their ships in the feminine gender for the close dependence they had on their ships for life and sustenance. Star Trek carries this concept further. Hence, the starship as character theme.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
01-17-2012, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nagorak View Post
There are people out there who get attached to a car and keep it pretty much forever. This is especially true of classic car collectors. They really like their car and are proud of it. But that doesn't mean the car is a character. It's just a prized object. The same is true of the ships.
Watch any show where the main characters keep the same car, that car is a character. Shows where the main characters just ride in whatever product is being placed that week you don't even remember what they were in. The Mach 5, the Batmobile -any of them, Black Beauty, Kitt, The General Lee, B.A.'s Vandura, Magnum's Ferrari 308, The Munstermobile, The Striped Tomat0 (Starsky and Hutch), Dan Tana's T-Bird from Vegas, The Impala from Supernatural, the list goes on and on, but all of them were characters.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
01-17-2012, 12:38 PM
I think part of the reason the Enterprise is considered a character, is because the registry number is so familiar, also, thanks to TNG we got to see a lot of the interior of the Enterprise D.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
01-17-2012, 01:17 PM
Serenity doesn't have a show-published registry number, yet she is as strong as a character as the Enterprise.

Albeit one not nearly as closely explored.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:09 PM.