It's always nice to name ships after people, places, etc., but I've noticed that certain ships that are destoryed in Star Trek are named after people and things that either died or failed.
For example:
USS Grissom, Oberth-Class "Named for Virgil Grissom killed in the Apollo 1 fire" Ship destroyed by Klingons.
USS Odyssey, Galaxy-Class "Named for Apollo 13 command module" Ship destroyed by Dominion.
USS Malinche, Excelsior-Class "Named for Mexican princess 'offered' to Spanish conquistadors " Ship disabled by Maquis.
One notable exception is the USS Challenger. Perhaps the event is too sensitive? Anyway, I find it odd and a little disrespectful, even a little sick, with this type of name choosing. If the Odyssey was named for the original naval ship that the Apollo 13 module was named after, I'd understand but TPTB specifically state it was named after the module. Perhaps the greatest disrespect is to Virgil Grissom. Name a ship after him just to blow it up?
Thoughts?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
You're reaching.
Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Ditto what Mal said. And where did you hear that Odyssey was named after the module? It's more likely it was named after Homer's Odyssey.
As for Grissom...an astronaut (or scientist if you will) for a science ship.
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
It makes more sense for the USS Odyssey to be named after the epic poem by Homer. Consider that the names of the Galaxy-class starships are named for grandiose things (excepting the Yamato, I imagine). You have the Galaxy, the Enterprise, the Challenger, and the Venture. Some would include the Magellan, but there's not much to make a definite determination. You have a big place, a big idea, the worst American space disaster, and another big idea. The epic poem fits in better with the scheme than the failed moon landing.
Now, I can see some disrespect with naming two ships Grissom and having them both destroyed by Klingons, but I highly doubt that there is anything intentional about it. It just seems to be a repetition of names (like the Farragut and Lexington, for example).
Now, as for Malinche and Cortez, I have to wonder who the heck is researching the names. You have the Native American women offered to Cortez (I believe) and who is seen a huge traitor and deserving of nothing but disrespect and dishonor by many of the natives of the former Aztec area. And then you have Cortez, the man who conquered the Aztecs at too big a price. Those were certainly two poor choices for ship names.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
The Star Trek Encyclopedia specifically states in the entry for USS Odyssey that the ship was named for the command module of Apollo 13. It makes no mention that it was named after Homer's epic (a much better reason to name it Odyssey). All my info is coming from the Encyclopedia which is where I noticed these wierd reasons to name ships. I like the name Odyssey, but I don't like the idea that they specifically chose it to "honor" Apollo 13. The starship blew up! Did they really think they were being "cool"?
Just who is choosing these names?
[ January 27, 2002, 20:40: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by USS Vanguard (Member # 130) on :
I doubt its on purpose. Odyssey is just a cool name. Sometimes a duck is just a duck rather than a chicken in disguise.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
What did they name the Yamato after, the same thing that the Japanese battleship was named after?
The Yamato seem to fit in more with your theory, after all it was the first galaxy to blow up LOL.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Obviously we've hit upon the secret hegemonic subtext of the "Star Trek" mythology.
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
Yamato is certainly named for hte WWII battleship. Alternatively she could have been named specifically in reference to the 1970s anime of the same name, which is likely considering the strange number of anime references in the early TNG seasons.
Typically though, ship names are determined by (duh) the writers. I seriously doubt any writer woudl check on the ship lists in the Encyclopedia or online; heck, given the chance most writers would rather add a name of their own to the canon rather than copy some other guy's previous work.
Mark
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
But why name the galaxy Yamato after a overgunned warship that [fought for the expansion of an empire] during a time period where aircraft carriers were surpassing battleships. and eventualy got slagged?
If there is a Hood, I guess there is a Bismark[sp?].
Posted by Mark Nguyen (Member # 469) on :
The Yamato has the distinction of having been the largest battleship EVER. Ditto for mounting the largest-bore gun ever, at 18.1 inches (Iowa-class ships mounted 16-inch guns).
Given that a large number of the ships mentioned are destroyed somehow, I doubt it factors into the naming process. They probably say "We need a ship. What's a good name?", not "We need a ship to blow up. What's a bad name?".
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
I remember from the Ron Moore AOL days, there was a lot of flack kicked up about the naming of the Malinche and how it was disrespecful to Mexicans and how the writers were therefore morons. Moore kindly reminded them that Rene Echevarria named the ship and that he is Mexican.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I've heard this reservation about Grissom before, probably on this board. I think it's unfortunate, but I think they intended to honor Gus by naming a ship after him. If they were intending to blow that ship up, any name attached to it is going to be disrespected somewhat. Anyways, what percentage of named ships seen on screen get blown up in Star Trek? I bet it's pretty high.
Regarding naming starships after Japanese ships in service of imperialist expansion, we also have Kongo and Akagi, of course. Yamato is an ancient name for Japan. Playing devil's advocate, I ask what would you all think if they had starships with the names of vessels used by Japan's ally, Nazi Germany. Would people get upset if we had USS Graf Spee or USS Bismarck? But one could argue that these ships were named after the pre-Nazi persons rather than the earlier ships.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Reguarding the Odyssey - I too think Homer's Odyssey. Magellan - he was the first to cicrumnavigate the Earth... a fitting name for a Galaxy class starship.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Consider also that the Odyssey's ded plaque doesn'tr say "Houston, we have a problem" but instead says "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery." 8)
Posted by Proteus (Member # 212) on :
I think you thought a little too hard. These names arnt disrespectful. A ship destroyed in battle is the most honorable way for one to end its service.
Qapla'!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Are the Syrians going to be pissed that I named a ship Ashurbanipal or the neo-Nazis annoyed because I chose Maimonides for a name? No, of course not. It's history, & barring any "air of horridness," anything is up for grabs.
Granted, there are some grey areas; for instance, I had no problems with using Fidel Castro & Mao Tse-Tung as starship names, but someone else might due to ideological differences. Similarly, I don't much like the idea of imperialistic names--Conqueror, Enforcer, Vengeance & the like. I'll use them, yes, becasue they have history (the Royal Navy's MAD fond of them), but it's sparingly.
[ January 28, 2002, 06:35: Message edited by: Shik ]
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I don't know why more Alien names aren't used...
U.S.S. Ziyantara anyone? (SP? you know - from "Equilibrium")
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
USS Cortez--mentioned to be destroyed in "Far Beyond the Stars." For a killer of Native Americans, that sounds like a reasonable name for a destroyed vessel.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I seem to remember a thread back in 1999 where someone opined that naming a ship Sao Paulo was disrespectful to a fine ship of the Defiant-class, seeing as it's the name of a city in South America and therefore full of wetbacks, dagoes and spics. . . and that instead it should be named after a decent American town full of God-fearing white people.
The case against Grissom is largely based on the sinking of his Mercury capsule, he's not widely held to blame for the Apollo 1 fire. Consider however that Scott Carpenter is generally regarded as the failure among the Mercury astronauts, far more so than Grissom or even Slayton (who never flew due to a heart condition). There's no ship named after him (or Slayton, come to think of it). In fact only one other Mercury astronaut has had a Starfleet ship named after him that we know of, and that's Shepard.
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
Don't forget the horrible U.S.S. Kai Winn from the "Whispers" list. Thankfully it was nearly invisible on screen.
I agree it would be fitting to see more alien (and not just the occasional Vulcan T'Someting) or at least less American/European centered names.
Posted by TheF0rce (Member # 533) on :
Next ship would be....the USS Titanic Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Um.. yeah.. wasnt it disrespectful for them to name the ship Enterprise and then just blow it up in ST:III with no respect for the people who have served on ships named Enterprise?
This thread is bullshit
Posted by Reverend (Member # 335) on :
Concerning the percentage of known ships that have been destroyed...I make it about 36% Roughly 89 out of 246, thats including a handfull known to be MIA, assimilated or abandoned. My math isn't great so feel free to double check me on that, plus my ship list is debateable.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
Wow. I ask for some thoughts, and I get another enlightening comment from CaptainMike... You realize that the Enterprise is a series ship? The Odyssey, Grissom, Malinche, etc. were all meant for one episode/movie. Also, we are not talking about names like Enterprise, Hood, etc. We're talking about naming something TPTB knew was going to be destroyed in the story (like the Grissom) after a person who he himself died in a violent disaster. It would make sense to name a ship Grissom (they later had another one) to honor him, but to name a ship after him that you know will be destroyed in the same episode/movie that the ship was introduced seems odd, even a form of cruel irony.
In the Odyssey case the writers know they plan to blow the ship up. Odyssey is a fine name, but the Encyclopedia states they named the ship after the Apollo 13 command module. Were they trying to make a connection between the two events (both missions failed)? If the Odyssey had been called Challanger, and still was destroyed would it make a difference to anyone?
Anyway, thanks to the other guys who shared their thoughts. It was nice to read some interesting opinions on ship naming.
[ January 28, 2002, 15:19: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
i just think this is kind of reaching.
Not that I pretend to know how TPTB plot these things, i cant imagine for a minute they really care what the name of the ship they destroy this week is, unless its something really taboo, like nobody is going to blow up anything called Challenger for a little while after the real tragedy, i hope. And even in real life, we have to face the possibility that if you name something after something tragic, something else tragic could happen.
And about Grissom being dead.. actually i think without exception EVERY starship that is named after a person seen on Trek has been named after a person who is dead. Presumably many of these people were unwilling to die. Is it disrespectful to name something after them that could blow up eventually? No. I have never ever interpreted any signifigance to a ship named after a dead person being destroyed. Gus Grissom died in an accident. The USS Grissom was destroyed by Klingons. So what? Francis Drake died of tropical fever. the USS Drake got blown up by L'Eggs pantyhose glued to a shampoo bottle. Sarek died of Bendii syndrome. The USS Sarek got smoked by the Jem'Hadar. Pavel Chekov died of rectal hemorrhaging, the USS Chekov was destroyed by an exhaust leak caused by a Borg torpedo. OH wwait... that one is kind of disrespectful. now if the USS Jesus H Christ was struck by long pointy asteroids and fixed against an asteroid i'd say.. 'Hey now.. what this?' but otherwise these are just fairly normal starship namings and comings and goings in the Star Trek universe.
BTW, the Zhian'tara is a Trill ritual, i cant see naming a ship that. maybe analogous to USS Bar Mitzvah or USS Christening. Doesnt seem incredibly appropriate.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
LOL about Chekov. I guess I see your point about the Grissom.
This brings up a funny thing with Starfleet's naming policy. In the U.S. Navy, the ships named after people are usually given full names like USS George Washinton, USS Carl Vinson, USS Ronald Reagan, and the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (though the USS Nimitz is the exception for some reason).
In Star Trek, we have a USS Thomas Paine, but only a USS Grissom, Zhukov, Brattain, etc. as opposed to a USS Virgil Grissom and so on. Is there any reason for this, and why does the U.S. Navy have one exception with the USS Nimitz?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
USS Ronald Reagan
Does this ship just go around aimlessly until the "USS Nancy Reagan's Astrologer" tells it where to go?
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: U.S.S. Ziyantara anyone? (SP? you know - from "Equilibrium")
wha?
Care to elucidate what this thing is you speak of? Do tell...
-MMoM Posted by Dat (Member # 302) on :
Mim, there was no ship named that. It was just an example of what a ship with an alien name could be. And generally, the US Navy has no policy or pattern with how they name ships after people. Many ships have the full name of a person, while possibly an equal number of ships only have the last name. I assume this is true of Starfleet was well.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
"I seem to remember a thread back in 1999 where someone opined that naming a ship Sao Paulo was disrespectful to a fine ship of the Defiant-class, seeing as it's the name of a city in South America and therefore full of wetbacks, dagoes and spics. . . and that instead it should be named after a decent American town full of God-fearing white people."
Though I stay up every night praying that in the morning I will wake up and somehow some tiny aspect of Leeness will have rubbed off on me, I must point out that it was you who made said comment in the first place, much to our bewilderment. (Though, as careful consumers of all things postmodern we were quick to assimilate your cultural criticism within its intended ironic context.)
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
mmmm..
postmodern
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
But I wasn't the one who made this vehement attack on the whole idea of naming a starship after a South American city. Whoever it was, though, declined to give his reasons and scuttled out of that thread with his tail between his legs, leaving me to speculate freely and, I suspect, quite accurately.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: the Odyssey's ded plaque says "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery." 8)
Humm.... that sounds like a description of the XGP from Outlaw Star.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You realize that the Enterprise is a series ship? The Odyssey, Grissom, Malinche, etc. were all meant for one episode/movie. Also, we are not talking about names like Enterprise, Hood, etc. We're talking about naming something TPTB knew was going to be destroyed in the story (like the Grissom) after a person who he himself died in a violent disaster. It would make sense to name a ship Grissom (they later had another one) to honor him, but to name a ship after him that you know will be destroyed in the same episode/movie that the ship was introduced seems odd, even a form of cruel irony. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)