Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Farewell to thee, beloved NCC-1701

This is topic Farewell to thee, beloved NCC-1701 in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/708.html

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

TNN (The National Network) aired Star Trek III: The Search for Spock tonight. Had I known about it ahead of time, I definitely would have watched it. However, I did catch the final hour of the movie. More to the point, I witnessed the destruction of the Enterprise.

Now, I've watched The Search for Spock many times. I helped wear out my mom's betamax copy of the movie. I since the destruction sequence more times than I could count using my hands, feet, and the appendages of the people near me. This time, though, was a bit different. I must be getting a bit more insightful in my "old age."

The destruction of the Enterprise was clearly an emotion scene. It touched me a lot since I grew up on The Original Series and the TOS movies. I cannot begin to think about how it affected the people who grew up in the 1960's and watched and nurtured the ship for twenty years. This clearly ranks near the top of the list of enduring Star Trek moments (right next to the death of Spock, in my opinion).

The Enterprise had become a member of the Star Trek family with an importance as high as the cast. And here, in a two minute sequence, she died in a blaze of glory. She died so that James Kirk and his loyal crew and friends could save another member of their family. To echo Kirk from the ending of the movie, "The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many."

The scene was eerily beautiful. Her caregivers had abandoned her. It almost seemed like she willingly gave herself up to be used to trap the Klingons onboard her fiery soul and send them to Hell. For a brief second between the departure of her family and the arrival of her captors, she was alone in the universe. At peace, actually. When her captors arrived at the bridge, she started speaking to them. She crisply counted off the second remaining until her own death.

The Enterprise seems to be so at peace and wholly supportive of her ultimate fate. When Kirk, Scott, and Chekov set her destruct sequence, there is no delay, no pause, no real emotion. But there is a forcefulness to the words. She doesn't speak as a soul resigned to her fate. She seems to be making this course of action her decision. She willingly gives herself up. And in the ten-seconds down to her death, she sounds almost happy to know that she is losing her battle to give her family the chance to "turn death into a fighting chance to live."

The destruction of the original Enterprise is a very emotional and well-scripted and well-choreographed scene. This is something that will be sorely lacking when her successor, the NCC-1701-D, is destroyed years later. The original Enterprise made a dignified exit on the big screen. Her destruction had a purpose to it. The Enterprise-D's death was cold and served little to advance the story or conclude his adventures, sadly.

Posted by MeGotBeer (Member # 411) on :

Her.

Ships are always "her."

Anyway, I agree. The -D's death was stupid and pointless. I loved that ship, and I don't think the -E fills her place.

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

Now it just gimmick, with no impact. I know it's been said, but did anyone feel the same kind of emotion when the Defiant blew up as they did when the Enterprise did? No. Nor did I for the E-D, and I liked that ship. Berman simply wanted to pave the way for his own type of Enterprise as quickly as possible. So gone was the majestic Roddenberry Enterprise, replaced by the sleek ultra-powerful Sovereign-class with teh quantim torpz!!

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

I was 9 when ST3 came out. I still remember gasping when the ads ran...the white text on black that read "The final voyage of the Starship Enterprise" following by a shot of the bridge exploding. Wow.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"So gone was the majestic Roddenberry Enterprise, replaced by the sleek ultra-powerful Sovereign-class with teh quantim torpz!!"

Although amusing Hobbes, calling the Ent-D the "Roddenberry" is taking possessionism a bit too far.

Posted by Anduril (Member # 654) on :

I totally agree Siegfried. I had been up for about 40 hours assisting my wife who was giving birth and had just gotten home and turned the tube on to veg a bit before going to bed. (long enough sentence?) Got the tube on just as they found spock on Genesis. Watched for a bit and decided I really needed to crash but then remembered what was going to happen in a bit and had to stay up just to watch that sequence. I felt the same way I felt watching it the first time in the theatres. That OMG feeling of finality.

Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :

Siegfried, that was a wonderful post. To give her this 'humanity' - it ads a whole new dimension to the scene! (Even not having seen it in a while (OK, last year)

)

Andrwe

Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :

I remember that scene...I cried when I saw the ship's upper saucer section collapsed taking the NCC-1701 on the hull into the fire.

But I do agree that after Gene's death, the starship death scene's we've seen were pointless and cold. The Enterprise-D's didn't make me cry, only wonder how the hell did the fish do in the tanks. The Defiant's pissed me off since there was no real reason for destroying the damn ship if not for the shock value and high ratings.

Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :

I remember reading that the only reason TPTB wanted the Enterprise-D destroyed was because they were simply tired of the same ship for 7 years and wanted a new one (that, and also because they needed a saucer crash scene). However, I agree that the D's destruction was as pointless as Kirk's death.

I too watched TSFS on TNN last night, and felt exactly the same way I did when I first saw the Enterprise blow up. You just can't shake the feeling, the way it was presented.

I will admit that I still had some of that old feeling when the Defiant was destroyed. I thought the scene worked well. However, TPTB then went and totally ruined whatever dramatic effect the ship's death caused by hauling out an exact duplicate two episodes later. It was as if the ship had never been destroyed at all, just so they could re-use Defiant stock footage for the final ep. A cheap cop-out, in my opinion.

Don't even get me started about the whole Delta Flyer bullshit...

Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :

Actually, I think there was another reason for the E-D's destruction: the Galaxy-class and its detailing just didn't look good on the big screen. They tried to tart it up, added the mosaic texturing and so on (and maybe it's a reason for: the extra bridge stations - the bridge looked to spacious and empty; and the much-darker lighting as well).

Then, they designed a ship that didn't look like it was wallowing in space, with a lot more surface detail (and a darker interior lighting layout too, although that could just have been habit, going the way DS9 was going). Since then, all the new classes have generally had more exterior detail.

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

I liked the great commentary by Siegfried. You probably got more out of that sequence than the writers intended!

Ships are always "her."

I've been told Russian ships are referred to as "he", but I cannot confirm this.

the Galaxy-class and its detailing just didn't look good on the big screen.

I thought it actually fared pretty well on the big screen. It seemed much more massive and sleek than what we usually see on our TV sets. The new bridge was nice, and the new details on the model were nice. I didn't care for the "lights out" mood the whole ship had during the movie, however. Later, Voyager cuts lights whenever they go to Red Alert status. Why?!

Since then, all the new classes have generally had more exterior detail.

Well, the Constitution refit seemed pretty nice on the big screen, and it was made before these new classes were even thought about. In addition, the Excelsior looks nice, and it has a pretty sleek and "clean" exterior. A good ship design is determined by its overall shape, not by how much surface detail they can put on it is it not?

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Ace ]

Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :

When they blew up the Delta Flyer, I cried...

Yes, the way they destroyed the E-D was inadequate, along with Kirk. Those two are the things that doomed Generations to mediocrity.

And German ships are referred to as 'him', like their homeland. Father Deustchland as opposed to Mother Russia

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

"Ships are always 'her.'"

Until they build a boat w/ a vagina, I think I'm going to stick w/ the neuter pronoun, personally...

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Shuttlebays?

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :

Thanks for the replies everyone! And Anduril, congratulations on the new baby! Boy or girl?

I have to agree that the starship death scenes we've seen since haven't had the same scope and intensity of emotion that the original Enterprise's death had. I don't think it's so much that the idea is overused, I think that's just the execution has been handled very poorly.

The Enterprise-D destruction sequence was continually interrupted by segues to Picard on the planet surface. You'd get a few seconds of what's happening to the Enterprise followed by a few seconds of what's happening on the planet. It was a bit jarring. In The Search for Spock, the Enterprise's death sequence was not interrupted until she fell towards the planet. Then she get the reflection of the crew on Kirk's decision.

Another thing lacking with the death of the Enterprise-D is emotionless. In The Search for Spock, we see the Enterprise die. We see her bridge module explode. We see the outer hull of the saucer section collapse in on itself revealing the fiery torment going on inside. Then the saucer shatters in a gigantic explosion that propels her into Genesis' atmosphere, where she eventually burns up. Generations had none of that. The stardrive section blew up very quickly and then the saucer crashed. It was cold, in my opinion. The crew didn't really reflect on her death.

As for the Defiant, that sequence had some emotion in it. Sisko's reluctance to leave his ship, and O'Brien finally convinces him to leave. We see the agonizing death as the Defiant is slowly ripped apart by the Dominion's weapons. The Defiant herself shows some hints of humanity as she turns over on her back. It seems like she's almost protecting her crew as they eject in the escape pods. Then we get the agonizing final shot which splits her in half and kills her.

The Defiant's death was emotional but no where near the same level as the original Enterprise's death. With the original Enterprise, so many adventures took place on her and (for many fans who started on Trek in the 1960s) she was all there they had ever known. Her death really was the death of a family member. The Defiant we only knew for a short four years before she died. I for one know that I didn't form the same sort of bond with her as I did the original Enterprise.

Going off on another tangent, has anyone else noticed how truly dark The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock were? I mean, they were really dark and serious films. The recurring themes through them were sacrifice, friendship, death, and changes. We saw a lot of death and destruction, but it served a purpose. We saw the power of friendship as the aging friends considered their past and their future. This dark quality to these two films is what makes them exciting to me.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

It seems to me that comparing the destruction of the two ships is somewhat hampered by the vastly different set of circumstances they were in. I think much of the power of the ST III sequence comes from the intentional nature of that ship's end. The Enterprise was sacrificed, while the Enterprise D hit a spot of really bad luck.

As for the Defiant, I got the impression that this was forming a nice link with the pilot and the destruction of the Saratoga. Only this time Sisko had more of his life off the ship than on it. If that makes any sense.

Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :

I my opinion I think Berman and Braga love blowing up ships. If you watch the DS9 battles all ships except for ones that have the main and supporting characters blow up or disengrate in boring way. Though I did like where the two Mirandas blew up.

With them if they want to crash the saucer despite making it seem cold and boring they'll do it. Why? Because they have power and we don't, all that matters to them is that the initial shock of a important ship going to be destroyed. Examples:

Enterprise-D: People went to go to see Kirk die and the E-D be destroyed.

Defiant: People tuned in to see the Defiant get destroyed. (I have to admit the scene was better than the E-D)

DeltaFlyer: Didn't really help ratings just more explosions that's all. The ship reappeared a few episodes later.

As Braga once said during the filming of 'Cause and Effect' "I got to blow up the Enterprise many times. It was alot of fun" (or something like that.)

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Of course, "Cause and Effect" is generally a well liked episode of TNG. I'd put it as one of my favourites actually, for sheer fun.

[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: PsyLiam ]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

The funny part is how much you think Braga had to do with DS9. It makes me chuckle.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Berman too, seemed to generally leave things to Ira Behr, so I doubt he had much influence.

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :

Actually, Liam, that's one little assumption that I'm not entirely sure is rock-solid. Both The Making of DS9 and The DS9 Compendium certainly imply Berman had plenty to do with the show (admitted the former example was of pre-Voyager DS9). The temptation to make Voyager "Berman and Braga's show" and DS9 "Behr's show" is one little thing that rubs me the wrong way.

But Braga was indeed never a member of the DS9 creative staff.

Posted by Tahna Los (Member # 33) on :

Ya want a good destruction of a Galaxy Class ship? Try the destruction of the Oddysey. Really, a pride and joy of the Federation wiped out in spectacular fashion by the Jem Hed'ar.

As O'Brien said, there was no need to destroy the Oddysey as the Feds were retrieving. But Sisko would hit it right in the button in order to prove what the Jem Hed'ar were capable of doing.

There's also the destruction of the Valiant, brought down by a group of snotty brats and their self-centredness.

Sure, the destruction of famed starships is supposed to generate ratings. All of them were, even the E-nil. But what really matters is how they go down and the shock value that is left behind.

E-nil: Sadness indeed, watching her fry in the atmosphere.
Oddysey: Shocking. Shows us how much trouble the Feds are in.
Valiant: Disappointment. Destroyed due to poor leadership and self-centredness in a group of brats.
Defiant: Shocking too, but two things bother me. First, is the ressurrection of the EXACT SAME Defiant eps later. Second, the destruction of the Defiant is supposed to demonstrate how things have turned bad for the Feds, and yet, eps later, Feds whip some Dommie ass.
Enterprise: Hushed. Too fast. Captain Picard never even saw the ship go down. The way I see it, the only reason they destroyed the E-D was to give some superb graphics over the Saucer Crash Scene.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Fair enough Tom, although I wasn't actually saying that DS9 was Behr's show and Voyager was B&B's show, so much as saying that Berman probably didn't have as much of a direct influence on both shows as Behr and Braga respectively. Oh, I'm sure he had a lot to do with bringing in both Worf and Seven, for ratings, but I doubt he had much to do with the Defiant's destruction, as ratings were a bit of a moot point by then, and it was more a story thing that anything else.

Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :

The Odyssey's destruction was pretty potent in the shock value. The Valiant's destruction was pretty gruesome with the lifeboats being shot down trying to escape.

Then, there's Voyager's destruction in "Year of Hell", but they just had to push the reset button at the end, so nothing mattered. One other ship destroyed prominently was the Saratoga. Pretty well done with Sisko seeing the destruction from a lifeboat with his wife's corpse still on the ship.

Posted by Stingray (Member # 621) on :

I always thought that the E-D would have been much more potent if we saw some long static shots of engineering/sickbay/transporter room/hallway looking exactly like they did during the series. Just like three seconds each. Similar to the E-nil but to a greater effect (to make up for the lack of shock value that E-nil had and E-D did not).

Posted by Wes1701E (Member # 212) on :

The destruction of the Enterprise wasn’t exactly emotional for me. Nor was the Ent-D, or the Defiant. It was a ship that was blowing up. Perhaps it was a bit saddening to see it go, but nothing worth pointing out. The Enterprise-D was destroyed because it was time for a new Enterprise. The Ent-D had more screen time then any other Trek ship, and although the design was a good one, it was time for a new, longer and sleeker version to take advantage of the wide screen, which is where all of the adventures of the new enterprise would take place.

The Ent-E is my favorite ship, not because it can 'kick the crap out of those other ones' but because I truly like the design. The longer nacelles and sleeker two tone saucer is very nice looking, IMO. Perhaps when its destroyed the current apparent favorite sci fi design elements will be added to the next Enterprise.

[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Wes1701E ]

Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :

The_Tom

Ouch!!! Freudian Slipstream!

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :

What I meant about the E-D being Roddenberry's Enterprise was that it was closer to his idea of Star Trek. The E-D I think, in my opinion, symbolized the Federation; large, powerful, and dedicated towards exploration. However, since then you have small ships covered with phaser arrays and torpedo launchers such as the Akira-class with it's 15 launchers. It's as if everything has to be a gunship now. Personally I love the design of the Galaxy-class and Excelsior-class. The Sovereign is cool looking, but that's about it. The Prometheus...I think is ugly.

The Sovereign and Akira-class ships are meant to appeal more to the fan boys. Sure I thought all the Dominion War battle scenes were cool, but when it comes to Star Trek itself it should more than just explosions. When I think of Star Trek, I think of adventure and exploration, ships like the Defiant and Akira seem be only geared towards battle. With the Enterprise-D though, I think the designed pulled it off perfectly.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

HOW exactly is the Sovereign class mean to appeal towards the fanboys who want the TPYEXXXIIII phazors!!???

I can understand lumping the Defiant in there, it has Big Scary Cannons. And the Akira with it's 5 million torpedo launchers. But what exactly does the Sovereign have that then Ent-D doesn't? Quantum torps? Whoop-bloody pee.

Ships in Star Trek have always got more powerful. Refit Constitution saucer has 6 pairs of phaser banks. The Excelsior had 10, and a read torpedo launcher. The Galaxy is faily overloaded with phaser arrays.

I just don't see the Enterprise-E=big gunship thing. Sorry.

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

"...ships like the Defiant and Akira seem be only geared towards battle."

Seem? The Defiant is geared towards battle. They admit it as much themselves. However, it was suppossed to be a special case, bought about by the Borg.