posted
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
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.
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
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 ]
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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
Next ship would be....the USS Titanic
Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
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.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
![[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)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
