Flare Sci-Fi Forums: The Defiant is NOT the Enterprise! ($)

This is topic The Defiant is NOT the Enterprise! ($) in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/175.html

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Yes, it's a Star Trek flame!

Now, there are spoilers ahead, so be warned. There's also me getting in a good old tiff, and you know how good I am at THAT. }B)

Let's start at first principles: The Defiant is no more. Current rumours suggest she will be replaced in "The Dogs Of War" with another Defiant-class ship, the USS Sao Paulo, and that Sisko will rename her on the spot as the Defiant-A.

I've made my feelings plain how I feel about the Sao Paulo and her fall from grace. . . but what I'm pissed at now is the mere existence of the Defiant-A! What I contend is that this ship doesn't particularly deserve to be so honoured.

Let's review the suffixed starships we know of:

USS Enterprise, NCC-1701-A/B/C/D/E: I don't think anyone is going to quibble over this. . . all the bearers of the name have served with honour, and even the maiden voyage of the B and the last flight of the C (which are all we know about them) are part of the legend.

USS Yamato, NCC-1305-E: Hastily re-registered because it was decided that only the Enterprise should be so honoured, and also maybe because 'Yamato-E' sounds like something you scream when a heavy weight falls on your foot.

USS Relativity, Something-Something-C or G: Who knows? I suspect the decision to make this the fourth, seventh or eighth to bear the name was more to emphasize how far from the future she is than to suggest that the Relativity is as honoured as the Enterprise.

So, effectively only one ship bears a suffix. And what has the Defiant done to join her illustrious company? 'Been cool?' 'Had lots of neat weapons?' We've seen her in a scant handful of military engagements, few of which stand out. "Sacrifice of Angels," you say? I counter with her wet-blanket debut in "The Search." Sector 001? How about her unnecessary participation in the Romulan-Cardassian rout in "The Die Is Cast." Then there's the sheer unreliability. . . crashing on planets, transporter malfunctions sending people back in time or into holodeck programs. . . thank Christ she didn't have a holodeck of her own, or they'd have been really f***ed. . .

Sure, the Defiant is a survivor, coming through while all around get trashed. But then you can say the same for Switzerland. . . But no. They destroyed the Defiant-null for sheer shock value ('shock' being a relative term, let's face it - her exit matched her entrance in wet-blanket terms), and will now introduce a token replacement just so the goodies have a cool ship again for the big battle at the end.

And where WILL it end? We now have the Defiant-A, the Defiant-er as it were. No doubt she'll feature in the DS9 movies, cloaking device somehow intact. . . And it all seems rather pointless.

Posted by Trinculo on :

The death of the USS Defiant is meaningless. Writers and producers of Star Trek like destroying or damaging the lead ships repeatedly and with a final flourish obliterating the ships-the USS Defiant, USS Enterprise D. For instance, within a few weeks of the USS Defiant's death, there is the death of the USS Voyager by a temporal inversion. How many times have a USS Voyager been destroyed?

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

The Defiant is like the USS Constitution, the Monitor, or the Merrimac. It is ship that served with honor throughout a time of war. It should be remembered like these have been; if anything else.

------------------
I still need help with getting a new sig. file, but I have two days of class left, then three days of finals, WOOHOO! Now, if I could just my girl to lighten up a bit.

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

*glares@Lee* Don't make me get out my Yamato theory! *L*

------------------
"Sew, very old one! Sew like the wind!"
-Martin Short, The Three Amigos

Posted by Warped1701 (Member # 40) on :

*taunts TSN* Go ahead, I dare you!

------------------
"Angels and Ministers of Grace, defend us"
-Hamlet, Act I, Scene IV

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Yeah, go on 'TSN'.

------------------
there's a bird in the chimney,and a stone in my bed
when the road's washed out,they pass the bottle around
and wait in the arms,of the cold cold ground

Posted by bear (Member # 124) on :

I would have like to see Sisko get the very first ship available, so maybe a Miranda that isn't named the Defiant.

Runs for cover........
.-.. --- .-..

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

It is my belief anyway that the Enterprise is only a 'great' ship cause it had Kirk & Co. as its crew for so long. I don't think Starfleet would have made the E-A if Kirk & Co. hadn't asked, whined, or whatever.

OOOHHH... thought!

I bet the only reason they continued making Enterprises was because of its battle and rescue at the Kitomer conference. That would have only happened with Kirk's crew too.

*DUCKS*

------------------
1 day of class, college is taken care of, summer job; check, now if I could get that girl back to her old self.

Oh, and that sig.file. :)

Posted by bryce (Member # 42) on :

And your trying to say the Enterprises have not had any transporter or holodeck problems.

------------------
1 day of class, college is taken care of, summer job; check, now if I could get that girl back to her old self.

Oh, and that sig.file.

[This message was edited by bryce on May 18, 1999.]

Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :

I'm gonna agree with Lee on this.
Only the big E's should get a letter because whilst the other ships are good, and have top crews, the Enterprise is THE best ship with THE best crew. Always has been, and damn well always better be.

Come on, the E's have saved the Federation more times than Cap'n Kate's had hot coffees!

You want to rename it "Defiant"? well knock yourself out Benjy, but no bloody A, B, C or D!

------------------
"You're wrong, and you're a grotesquely ugly freak."

- Chris Morris, Brass Eye

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :

Ummmmm...... no. I have always been against only the Enterprise ships having suffixes and such. There ARE many illustrious vessels out there, some may be more illustrious than perhaps one of the Enterprises. Besides, it wouldn't be fair to the Reliants, the Yorktowns, the Lexingtons, etc.

All ships should be treated as equal. If the writers think that the Enterprise should get letters at the end like A/B/C/D...... then all of the Starfleet vessels should be treated the same way. If not, then the Enterprise should ditch it's 1701 and get a new registry number, like all the others.

------------------
I can resist anything.......
Except Temptation

Posted by Montgomery (Member # 23) on :

8P

------------------
"Now then, I believe Random Pavarotti disease is a psychological ailment and we should find it in the otherworldliness of Vince's brain."
"Ohw, rubbish. I reckon Random Pavarotti disease is a physical condition......
Let's go and look at 'is bum!"

-Rex the Runt

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :

Not fair to the Reliants, Yorktowns, Lexingtons etc.?! Let's see:

USS Reliant: hijacked, instrumental in the deaths of Starfleet personnel, civilians, and acts of terrorism. Name not heard used again.

USS Yorktown: either destroyed by a giant metal space dildo, or renamed the Enterprise-A. The stuff legends are made of, anyway.

USS Lexington: the only interesting thing about this ship is the Excelsior/Nebula confusion in the Encyclopaedia.

The Enterprise is special. That may not be logical, but this is Star Trek and there is no Star Trek without the Enterprise.The Defiant is little more than a glorified shuttle with lots of weapons. It wasn't even a decently-used plot device - it got to the point where whenever there was an episode where they were going somewhere, you knew that:

1) If they were in a runabout or some other ship (like the Nebula in "Waltz") you knew they wouldn't get there but would get sidetracked.

2) If they were in the Defiant you knew they'd be OK.

Posted by Michael Dracon (Member # 4) on :

Hmm.. I always thought it was better if they had given the Ent-D the registry: NCC-71701.

------------------
"Isn't Y2K year 2048?? I mean last time I checked 1K was 1024.
Now that Y1.953125K, that's where the real problem lies..."

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

The only reason the Enterprises are so "great" is because three of them were the main ships in two of the series and the movies. You say that w/o the Enterprise, there's no Trek, but there are two series in which an Enterprise appears a grand total of once. Assuming that a starship is the greatest thing since sliced bread, just because somebody painted the word "ENTERPRISE" on its hull is stupid. The only reason the E-B did anything good was because Kirk was there at the very beginning. After that, they had John "not 'til Tuesday" Harriman commanding. What are the chances he did anything more spectacular than probably eventually get the ship blown up or something?

My point is: The fact that two of the "greatest" crews in Starfleet happened to both serve on ships named Enterprise is a coincidence, at least in the Trek universe. And, since Sisko's crew is right up there alongside them (hell, they're probably going to end up getting credit for single-handedly saving the alpha quadrant, or something), why shouldn't their ship get something as utterly trivial as a reused registry number?

------------------
"Sew, very old one! Sew like the wind!"
-Martin Short, The Three Amigos