This wasn't intended to be a political debate, and you don't have to go to Wikipedia to read the same definition, as it is posted everywhere. Simply Google it.
This is the accepted, and established definition of what a "Flagship" is. We in the US, are not the only ones in the world, and naval history predates us by a few thousand years. Just trying to point out the obvious.
I wasn't making it a political debate. I was pointing out that in the navy there is more than one usage for the word flagship.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I can see why you are saying this. I cannot say you are wrong, but most of what was shown was shown due to, well, show something It would be a boring show without conflict, yet when egnaged in conflict the message has always been to think and put the damn stick away. Besides, the utopian future was only concieved for Humanity on earth. Darker shades and conflict where everywhere else, even in human colonies. This was exploread even in the very first season of TNG (Tasha Yar, for example).
Yes, they do all of that but they are not a military. Starfleet is a concept that is fictious. It is 400 years in the future. It's not military nor civilian, it's "Starfleet". they do all of that but their very credo is exploration and broadening of knowledge while of course also defending the UFP. I am really sorry if I come around as stubborn, but it that concept so alien and hard to grasp? I don't mean to be disrespectful, really. And I do know that militaries today perform other duties except shooting. But the concept behind Starfleet is a different one.
Factually stated on screen "Starfleet is not a military. It's purpose is exploration." - you cannot fight that. It's said in the show. It was written this way. This is the truth in regards to that show. If you say "No, Picard is wrong" you are arguing against a brick wall.
Believe it or not, we are on the same side regarding the rest of your statement, however Even on TMP
Hate to say it, but Picard must have relented on the issue later in his career, because he uses battlefield commander (I've led men into battle) as one of his accomplishments. Besides, Picard is the only Trek character to have said We are not a military. In TOS, the actors assumed that Starfleet was the successor to NASA to the point that Nichelle Nichols ranted about it to Nicholas Meyers, the Director of TWOK and TUC, and in her book.
There was an exact same disagreement over at the TrekBBS, and one of the posters stated that Starfleet was more like the JMSDF, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, Japan's not-navy. I think that applies very much to Starfleet.
There are a couple of "Flagships" in the Navy, none of them are the biggest and best. they are actually older Amphibs, that have been fitted with more command and control systems than weapons.
The traditional flagship, currently, is still the U.S.S. Constitution, it is a ceremonial title only.
The two actual main command ships are actually from the 70's. The Blue Ridge and the MT. Whitney.
When I mention that it's the best ship is has nothing to do with size or firepower...it has more to do with the crew. Sailors who go to flagships are the best of the best...being stationed on USS Constitution is not an easy thing. Anyone going there is the best of the best.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
You are absolutely correct. Starfleet as envisioned by Rodenberry is a mixture of NASA and Navy, with the former taking precedence. It is also in many ways comparable to the Coast Guard and other such organizations that fall between military and civilian much like law enforcement does. Police also use ranks derived from the military and have the authorization to use force when necessary, but no one confuses police with the military. Starfleet is much closer to that kind of organization than a full military. Rodenberry even insisted that Starfleet consisted entirely of officers, who attended an Academy to be trained before going on duty. Does that sound more like the armed forces, or more like police forces?
It is especially notable that Starfleet's charter is an inherently pacifistic one, like that of the Japanese Defense Force, which is capable of waging war but is legally prohibited from it. They are defensive in operating philosophy, they only fight when attacked or under threat. Is the JDF a military? The answer is kind of, but not really. They would insist they're not. Starfleet similarly has defensive military capability, but insists they are not a military.
Much like the JDF, Starfleet functions in place of a military but it is not a military. It encompasses many roles in it's mission, with security and protection among them --serve and protect, you might say. But that is far, far from their only role. Starfleet is like NASA, the Navy, NOAA, the Coast Guard, and many other things all rolled up in one. They do it all.
That is in my mind why you don't see "warships" from Starfleet often if at all, not because they're anti-force but because they don't favor any ship design that is only good for any one thing. Starfleet likes it's independent heavy cruisers that operate alone and can do it all. A Starfleet vessel is a warship, a freighter, a diplomatic courier, a search and rescue ship, a medical relief vessel, a patrol boat, a scientific survey vessel, a communications and command hub, and anything else they can conceivably be used for. They cram every piece of equipment and capability they can into those hulls and man them with every expert in every field they can. They want every ship to be completely versatile and flexible in what it can do because they need their ships to answer any call at any time from the most pressing and dangerous to the most mundane. They are expected to be ready for anything at any time.
Calling them a military is to do a disservice to all the many duties they perform, of which the role of armed forces is only one.
Hate to say it, but Picard must have relented on the issue later in his career, because he uses battlefield commander (I've led men into battle) as one of his accomplishments. Besides, Picard is the only Trek character to have said We are not a military. In TOS, the actors assumed that Starfleet was the successor to NASA to the point that Nichelle Nichols ranted about it to Nicholas Meyers, the Director of TWOK and TUC, and in her book.
No, why must he have? He is a Starship Captain, he served in wars, he fought and led people into battle. He doesn't need to be ashamed of it, he is a very capable tactician. None of that neglects anything we talked about.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
My misinterpretation, sorry. It is generally agreed then. It's not always the biggest and the best, it's simply a designation.
Agreed it's not the biggest but it is the best...but that has more to do with the capabilities of the crew and the condition of the ship...not having the most advanced weapons.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
You are absolutely correct. Starfleet as envisioned by Rodenberry is a mixture of NASA and Navy, with the former taking precedence. It is also in many ways comparable to the Coast Guard and other such organizations that fall between military and civilian much like law enforcement does. Police also use ranks derived from the military and have the authorization to use force when necessary, but no one confuses police with the military. Starfleet is much closer to that kind of organization than a full military. Rodenberry even insisted that Starfleet consisted entirely of officers, who attended an Academy to be trained before going on duty. Does that sound more like the armed forces, or more like police forces?
It is especially notable that Starfleet's charter is an inherently pacifistic one, like that of the Japanese Defense Force, which is capable of waging war but is legally prohibited from it. They are defensive in operating philosophy, they only fight when attacked or under threat. Is the JDF a military? The answer is kind of, but not really. They would insist they're not. Starfleet similarly has defensive military capability, but insists they are not a military.
Much like the JDF, Starfleet functions in place of a military but it is not a military. It encompasses many roles in it's mission, with security and protection among them --serve and protect, you might say. But that is far, far from their only role. Starfleet is like NASA, the Navy, NOAA, the Coast Guard, and many other things all rolled up in one. They do it all.
That is in my mind why you don't see "warships" from Starfleet often if at all, not because they're anti-force but because they don't favor any ship design that is only good for any one thing. Starfleet likes it's independent heavy cruisers that operate alone and can do it all. A Starfleet vessel is a warship, a freighter, a diplomatic courier, a search and rescue ship, a medical relief vessel, a patrol boat, a scientific survey vessel, a communications and command hub, and anything else they can conceivably be used for. They cram every piece of equipment and capability they can into those hulls and man them with every expert in every field they can. They want every ship to be completely versatile and flexible in what it can do because they need their ships to answer any call at any time from the most pressing and dangerous to the most mundane. They are expected to be ready for anything at any time.
Calling them a military is to do a disservice to all the many duties they perform, of which the role of armed forces is only one.
I agree with this...however the military does more than one duty.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Here is Kirk's line about Starfleet: I'm a soldier, not a diplomat.
Garak referenced that O'Brien was a former soldier turned engineer during his tenure aboard the USS Rutledge fighting in the Cardassian Wars.
What Star fleet was in TOS changed in TNG under GR and changed once again after he departed
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I like to point out that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, and many other navies operated pretty similar to Starfleet in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. They set up colonies, coaling stations, showed the flag, transported diplomats, went on scientific/research missions, and so on.
I like to point out that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, and many other navies operated pretty similar to Starfleet in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. They set up colonies, coaling stations, showed the flag, transported diplomats, went on scientific/research missions, and so on.
We do some of that now still
Diplomatic courier, warship, search and rescue ship, medical relief ship, a patrol boat are some of the things the navy still does
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Is Starfleet a military or not? Well I think its far from being a clear cut.
Certainly the whole Fleet isnt all Military. There must be Devisions for certain purposes. And there are most definitly Combat related Missions for ships that are equiped to do so. However it depends on the Situation.
Ships like the Defiant or Akira were stated to be primarily warships with the defiant being a pure warship.
Certainly it can perform courier missions and probably has more sciene equipment than a runabout.
But there are better ships for that role.
Combat ships will be deployed in zones of conflict or potential conflict if neccesary.
It also makes sense that those ships are grouped in more combat oriented devisions in starfleet forming the backbone of starfleets defence.
Still those Groups can do other missions to a limited extend.
Other general purpose ships do have tactical abilities some more some less, they may from the bulk of starfleets exploration groups and may have limited tactical roles in a conflict situation.
Quite like frigates of the old days wich were the cruisers of their day. Armed well enough to fight its equal or less, fast enought to get away when something bigger comes along.
Sure there are situations when a ship and crew are pressed into combat because there is no other option. Voyager wasnt built to fight the borg. It was a long range Explorer, medium sized meant for short to midterm duration Missions. And it was fast too. So long range it ment get there fast , not neccesaryly stay there long.
There were no intrepids or sovereigns n ds9 fighting the dominion (for production reasons among other things, they didnt want to waste the Sovereign for the small screen etc.)
The ships shown were probably those meant for combat, mirandas albeit old were still in use , excelsiors were the bulk of the fleet , galaxies,steamrunners and akiras along with the defiant. took the role of combat. Sometimes pretty old ships, because thats what they had, those were their warfleet. And they took quite a beating.
Shortly after that Sovereign is outfitted with more phasers and torpedo tubes. They didnt want to be caught of gard a third time. So Equipment shiftd more towards combat. That doesnt mean its mission is a different one, only that it can perform that mission better than before.
Flagship itself is a soft term meaning different things to different people. The hms hood was the flagship of the british fleet, still the true battleships were bigger and ultimatly better warships.The concept of battlecruisers was controvertial at that time, big guns but lighter armoer for more speed. By design it was meant to destroy cruisers and alike , not battleships.
It was also used for propaganda, to inspire the british people, the proud of the fleet. And thats was the Enterprise due to the history behind those ships is. The pride of the fleet. That does not mean the best combat ship ever.
Some TNG admirals were shown to be on excelsior class ships. They dont mention a reason in the show but there might be explaination. They were availably in short order to take the admiral to the frontlines, it may be more surviveable than other designs, it may be equiped with communications gear to relay orders to the more combat oriented ships.
It may be that type X phasers on the galaxy were harder hitting than the excelsiors phasers, however an admiral usualy is not in the middle of combat, he or she needs to be able to oversee the situation and take multiple things into account, something not idealy done on a ship thats tries hard to survive. When the admiral is in combat himself the situation is already out of hand or he deliberatly decided to get into combat.
The STO Enterprise F is still the one Fed Hero ship in the game and i think it will stay that way. Shon has special abilities and an ultra epic elite whatever crew that modifiy and improve his ship and being the captain of the enterprise most definitly has the benefit of sooner or later getting the good stuff.
Do the new Command cruisers relegate the Oddy from that role? No.
Do they outperform her in combat? Yes.
Do they outperform the Enterprise under Captain Shon and his crew? Plotwise...Never.
Btw. Speaking of captains. The Rank of Captain in some Services is below that of a Commander in the real world. In starfleet terms its the one Rank that flies ships (most of the time)
That isnt true to the real world either.
The Rank of captain was chosen for ST because were used to refer to the commanding officer aboard a ship as captain. They didnt want to confuse the audience so it stayed that way in ST for the most part.
Ther were very little exeptions:
In TNG we see data (Lt commander) as acting captain of a nebula. In Ds9 and first contact commander worf flies the defiant. And picard although a captain suddendly apears in First contact and commands the fleet although im certain there are some Admirals on Earth. So hes an "acting Admiral"
In that moment the Ent-E was the real Flagship no matter its role in Starfleet in general.
Btw. Speaking of captains. The Rank of Captain in some Services is below that of a Commander in the real world. In starfleet terms its the one Rank that flies ships (most of the time)
That isnt true to the real world either.
The Rank of captain was chosen for ST because were used to refer to the commanding officer aboard a ship as captain. They didnt want to confuse the audience so it stayed that way in ST for the most part.
Ther were very little exeptions:
In TNG we see data (Lt commander) as acting captain of a nebula. In Ds9 and first contact commander worf flies the defiant. And picard although a captain suddendly apears in First contact and commands the fleet although im certain there are some Admirals on Earth. So hes an "acting Admiral"
In that moment the Ent-E was the real Flagship no matter its role in Starfleet in general.
Its all shades of grey sometimes.
Army and Navy ranks are different.
an Army Captain is an O-3 comparable to a Navy Lieutenant
Star Trek is loosely based on US and UK navies.
In the US Navy their are two usages of the word Captain
1) The person holding the rank of captain (O-6)
2) The person commanding a ship. On big ships usually a Captain commands a ship. On smaller ships Commanders command ships and are called Captain.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
The late 60s was a terrible time for the military in the usa because of Vietnam and that is when TOS was created so the lack of military attention to Starfleet ships and crew was intentional and nessary for the time it was created or the show would have failed on the 3rd episode from anti military sentiment
very little calls to attention or saluting or overt military themes or military uniforms for Starfleet e the Bad guys Klingons romulans ect it was ok ...they were the bad guys !
Gene R lived thru this time and it imprinted on him forever making him anti military themed about star trek........In the 80s when star trek board games and PC games were being created he relented a little and we started seeing a more military side of star fleet
Again it was about the mood in the country and it was more trendy to do so than it was in 1967
That's why starships were not warships in TOS or were there Flagships in TOS
It was 1967 people, and the USA was a different place than what it is now...Very differnt
I believe we should show the same respect to Roddenberry we would want afforded to us in this very discussion: namely that we should presume what he said he believed and what he demonstrated he believed was nothing more or less than that. He stated and acted in accordance with the belief that Star Trek was set in an era where mankind was no longer primarily focused on warfare. They were prepared to fight and would fight to defend themselves, but their primary purpose was to avoid conflict where possible. That would make defense Starfleet's secondary purpose not because defending the Federation was less important, but because it was a mission that was rarely performed and not optimized for.
To imply that his vision of Starfleet was more imposed upon him rather than genuine is something that we ourselves would complain about if the same logic was applied to our own postings on the subject. We are all a product of our times and experiences but none of us would appreciate being told our attitudes were just the product of what was imposed upon us.
As to the specific question of what the priority was even during TOS, the way I look at it is this. A priority of Starfleet was obviously safeguarding the Federation. Commodore Decker asserted such to Spock who, even though it was stated during an emotional outbursts did not contradict him. However, there were countless cases where Kirk demonstrated his primary objective was, as his mission statement implied, to explore and contact by taking risks no current military commander in a modern military would take. Given a choice between being cautious and defensive and maximizing the protection of the Federation or taking chances with unknown and potentially dangerous new species he tended to take the chance. He let the Gorn captain go even though destroying him and his ship might have been the safer option. He was willing to extend an olive branch to the captain of the First Federation ship even though that captain had threatened to destroy his ship (albeit as part of a ploy). And on a smaller scale even when he knew the Horta to be dangerous Kirk still behaved like contact was his first priority and protection his second, when he had an opportunity to do so.
I believe the *primary* mission of Starfleet, if it had to be encapsulated into a single statement, was to be best possible representatives of the Federation and its principles since it was often the outward facing face of the Federation and often the first thing other species encountered. That sometimes meant Starfleet had to defend the Federation against threats. But it also meant Starfleet had to do so only when there was no choice, and only after other options had been explored, and that the *presumption* in any situation was that there was generally an opportunity to avoid conflict. Starfleet had to protect the Federation, but it could not project a jingoistic or overly defensive attitude towards the other species it encountered while doing so, because that would subvert its primary mission to represent the Federation.
I believe we should show the same respect to Roddenberry we would want afforded to us in this very discussion: namely that we should presume what he said he believed and what he demonstrated he believed was nothing more or less than that. He stated and acted in accordance with the belief that Star Trek was set in an era where mankind was no longer primarily focused on warfare. They were prepared to fight and would fight to defend themselves, but their primary purpose was to avoid conflict where possible. That would make defense Starfleet's secondary purpose not because defending the Federation was less important, but because it was a mission that was rarely performed and not optimized for.
To imply that his vision of Starfleet was more imposed upon him rather than genuine is something that we ourselves would complain about if the same logic was applied to our own postings on the subject. We are all a product of our times and experiences but none of us would appreciate being told our attitudes were just the product of what was imposed upon us.
While his vision wasn't imposed on him it was filtered through other people...namely writers. Star Fleet became as militaristic or as peaceful as the plot needed it to be.
When TMP didn't perform as well as it should have he was moved from creative control on WOK...which explains why several time in the movie Star Fleet is referred to as a military.
When he was back in control for TNG his vision of Star Fleet was slanted towards a non military to counter the movie version.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
While his vision wasn't imposed on him it was filtered through other people...namely writers. Star Fleet became as militaristic or as peaceful as the plot needed it to be.
When TMP didn't perform as well as it should have he was moved from creative control on WOK...which explains why several time in the movie Star Fleet is referred to as a military.
When he was back in control for TNG his vision of Star Fleet was slanted towards a non military to counter the movie version.
And honestly, it was the the popularity of Star Trek 2-4 that gave the momentum to allow TNG to come into existence. Most of the people I know that saw TMP (mostly in the theater mind) still refer to it as "The Motionless Picture".
I respect GR cor the work he dis for Star Trek, especiallyTOS, but something seemed to change him and his vision in the late 70's , early's that wasnt there before, and I really think it did 't help the franchise. Every time they go back towards EOL Roddenberry, it seems to not do as well.
And honestly, it was the the popularity of Star Trek 2-4 that gave the momentum to allow TNG to come into existence. Most of the people I know that saw TMP (mostly in the theater mind) still refer to it as "The Motionless Picture".
I respect GR cor the work he dis for Star Trek, especiallyTOS, but something seemed to change him and his vision in the late 70's , early's that wasnt there before, and I really think it did 't help the franchise. Every time they go back towards EOL Roddenberry, it seems to not do as well.
I am an TOS fan and I do enjoy TNG but that first season is painful to watch. There are two moments in the first season that really bother me. The first one in which we see the Ferengi for the first time. They are chasing the fearing for stealing something and the fearing fire on them...Picard doesn't return fire....he says something like "well we provoked them because we're chasing them"
It's all good to want to solve things peacefully but not when someone is shooting at you.
The other one was where they thawed out people from the 90's and the proceeded to preach to them about how bad they are and how good people are in the future..all while never getting to the bottom of what happened to the star bases.
I respect what GR did for the IP but Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country and Balance of Terror will always be my favorite Star Trek offerings
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Well yes. It was send because of KIRK not because of the ship beeing so awesome.
Additionally: no where in tos was mentioned that the enterprise was the flagship (only the jar jar film did say that but that does not count for our version of the universe)
Neither was mentioned that the ent a, b, c or e were flagships, only the d was officially the flagship.
And while in real life a ship would not be replaced because of a newer version... Some other ship might be declared flagship.
And in game... Well.. That rule doesn't count here because in game we need balance in a way that does not exist in the real world. And here the odysee is obsolete.
Isn't a flagship the ship with the Flag Officer and staff on board? Are captains flag officers? I want my ship to have flags and motorcycle escort and trumpets!! My ship needs a full band with a few trumpets, and another admiral with staff and servants.
All the discussion of the first 4 Trek films [...] does is prove that the mainstream audience has little taste for cerebral science fiction, a bit more taste for action sci fi, and a strong liking for light hearted dramedy.
I think that's pretty accurate of the audiences' tastes. I think it also shows you have a lot of wiggle room inside "Trek" as a genre to still explore various facets. ST6, for example, has the combat, the intrigue, the double agents, the assassination plots, the drama and escape from prison, and so forth. Say what you will about how you liked it or not, it's definitely "Trek" but it covers a lot of genres.
I think that's pretty accurate of the audiences' tastes. I think it also shows you have a lot of wiggle room inside "Trek" as a genre to still explore various facets. ST6, for example, has the combat, the intrigue, the double agents, the assassination plots, the drama and escape from prison, and so forth. Say what you will about how you liked it or not, it's definitely "Trek" but it covers a lot of genres.
The Voyage Home worked because it came out at the perfect time and it is a complete reflection of mid-80s culture. Though I wonder how much more popular if Eddie Murphy accepted the role in the film. Then again, I wonder if The Final Frontier would have been if Sean Connery accepted the role of Sybok and the same for Tom Hanks as Cochrane in First Contact.
Star Trek 4? You mean the most popular and profitable of the whole damned thing among mainstream audiences, the one where nobody fires a single shot and most of it takes place in modern day San Fransisco with the sci fi and space settings kept to a bare minimum?
All the discussion of the first 4 Trek films in terms of their monetary success does is prove that the mainstream audience has little taste for cerebral science fiction, a bit more taste for action sci fi, and a strong liking for light hearted dramedy.
For me it's more important to keep Trek pure to being Trek (aka a vision of a better future with a focus on science and intellect as primary virtues, a franchise by and for nerds) than diluting it to chase a fickle mainstream audience that would probably rather be watching some mindless romcom anyhow.
ST4 is a good movie. No one said that all of the ST content has to be an action/shooter. Profit? With less special effects, of course it was more Profitable, but not all of ST has to be peaceful or violent. WOK set the to e and put rears in seats and built up the momentum to a serious revival of Star Trek, the cast didnt even think it was going to go far until the reaction to WOK. It was the over sanitized content that was my issue (and sounds like some others). Utopias only last/stay interesting for so long for a reason.
As far as what you call "pure Trek" , what future does a society have when everything is perfect and sanitized? Honestly, its the challenge of survival and necessity that makes and breaks society, not its golden ages. Movies like WOK added to the survival instinct of the viewer. Seing Scotty's nephew die (and Spock: spoiler alert lol) feel real. Khans actions and presence made it even moreso real. The first two seasons of TNG were missing realism and only showed squeeky cleanmperfection.
The Ferengi were supposed to be a serious threat but they made them so weak and flawed that they couldnt be taken seriously. It took making the universe and the Federation dirtier to make the show click.
I am an TOS fan and I do enjoy TNG but that first season is painful to watch. There are two moments in the first season that really bother me. The first one in which we see the Ferengi for the first time. They are chasing the fearing for stealing something and the fearing fire on them...Picard doesn't return fire....he says something like "well we provoked them because we're chasing them"
It's all good to want to solve things peacefully but not when someone is shooting at you.
The other one was where they thawed out people from the 90's and the proceeded to preach to them about how bad they are and how good people are in the future..all while never getting to the bottom of what happened to the star bases.
I respect what GR did for the IP but Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country and Balance of Terror will always be my favorite Star Trek offerings
Dont forget about the episode with the three roque Klinks with the arrival of a D7 with it Captain talking to the Enterprise with the flag of the Federation on his ship directly behind him.
Star Trek 4? You mean the most popular and profitable of the whole damned thing among mainstream audiences, the one where nobody fires a single shot and most of it takes place in modern day San Fransisco with the sci fi and space settings kept to a bare minimum?
"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." When adjusted for inflation, the 1982 film made $190.3 million domestically and $234.9 million worldwide. This fell considerably short of what "The Motion Picture" made three years before. However, "Wrath of Khan" also had the smallest budget of any Star Trek film. Even adjusted for inflation, it cost just $26.6 million to produce. Paramount kicked up the budget a bit for "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" (to $38.4 million), but then the budget would hover in the $50 million range until "Star Trek: First Contact" in 1996, which had a budget of $67.1 million after adjustment.
This gave "Wrath of Khan" a whopping 615 percent profit margin, just in North America. When the rest of the world was factored in, the final tally put Paramount 783 percent in the black -- the difference between the nearly $27 million budget and the $235 million total haul.
The only other film to come close to those numbers, and this might really surprise you, was "Search for Spock." Its $152 million domestic take created a nearly 300 percent profit margin.
Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Domestic - Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $190.3 million 615%
2. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $152.0 million 296%
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $144.8 million 172%
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $128.5 million 150%
5. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $264.6 million 135%
6. Star Trek Generations (1994) $119.4 million 116%
7. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $137.1 million 104%
8. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $98.5 million 88%
9. Star Trek (2009) $280.7 million 84%
10. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $100.6 million 21%
11. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $228.8 million 20%
12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $56.0 million (-28%)
Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Worldwide - Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $234.9 million 783%
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $283.6 million 432%
3. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $195.9 million 411%
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $446.9 million 297%
5. Star Trek Generations (1994) $189.3 million 243%
6. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $223.5 million 233%
7. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $161.2 million 213%
8. Star Trek (2009) $420.2 million 176%
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $132.5 million 152%
10. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $467.4 million 146%
11. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $170.7 million 105%
12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $87.5 million 12%
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I knew there was no damned way TVH had a higher budget than TWOK. Space battles and explosions are expensive.
Even Wiki lists WOK budget as 11.2 million
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Sooner or later we're likely to get a T6 version. Probably once we have a 3rd Specialization, so that they can squeeze all 3 into the Odyssey (and the other 2 Flagships). Probably with the Eng Cmdr on the Oddy and Bort being Eng/Hybrid Command, and the Lt. Cmdr Universal being Universal/UniSpec. Or making the Eng version across all 3 change depending on sub-class (Tac/???, Eng/Command, Sci/Intel).
If they ever do this, then the different types of Tier 6 Odysseys will probably go like this:
Tier 6 Odyssey Operations
Engineering (or whatever they end up calling it) Seating
Comments
I wasn't making it a political debate. I was pointing out that in the navy there is more than one usage for the word flagship.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Hate to say it, but Picard must have relented on the issue later in his career, because he uses battlefield commander (I've led men into battle) as one of his accomplishments. Besides, Picard is the only Trek character to have said We are not a military. In TOS, the actors assumed that Starfleet was the successor to NASA to the point that Nichelle Nichols ranted about it to Nicholas Meyers, the Director of TWOK and TUC, and in her book.
There was an exact same disagreement over at the TrekBBS, and one of the posters stated that Starfleet was more like the JMSDF, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force, Japan's not-navy. I think that applies very much to Starfleet.
My misinterpretation, sorry. It is generally agreed then. It's not always the biggest and the best, it's simply a designation.
When I mention that it's the best ship is has nothing to do with size or firepower...it has more to do with the crew. Sailors who go to flagships are the best of the best...being stationed on USS Constitution is not an easy thing. Anyone going there is the best of the best.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I can completely agree with this posting
EDIT:
No, why must he have? He is a Starship Captain, he served in wars, he fought and led people into battle. He doesn't need to be ashamed of it, he is a very capable tactician. None of that neglects anything we talked about.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Agreed it's not the biggest but it is the best...but that has more to do with the capabilities of the crew and the condition of the ship...not having the most advanced weapons.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Garak referenced that O'Brien was a former soldier turned engineer during his tenure aboard the USS Rutledge fighting in the Cardassian Wars.
I agree with this...however the military does more than one duty.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
What Star fleet was in TOS changed in TNG under GR and changed once again after he departed
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
We do some of that now still
Diplomatic courier, warship, search and rescue ship, medical relief ship, a patrol boat are some of the things the navy still does
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Certainly the whole Fleet isnt all Military. There must be Devisions for certain purposes. And there are most definitly Combat related Missions for ships that are equiped to do so. However it depends on the Situation.
Ships like the Defiant or Akira were stated to be primarily warships with the defiant being a pure warship.
Certainly it can perform courier missions and probably has more sciene equipment than a runabout.
But there are better ships for that role.
Combat ships will be deployed in zones of conflict or potential conflict if neccesary.
It also makes sense that those ships are grouped in more combat oriented devisions in starfleet forming the backbone of starfleets defence.
Still those Groups can do other missions to a limited extend.
Other general purpose ships do have tactical abilities some more some less, they may from the bulk of starfleets exploration groups and may have limited tactical roles in a conflict situation.
Quite like frigates of the old days wich were the cruisers of their day. Armed well enough to fight its equal or less, fast enought to get away when something bigger comes along.
Sure there are situations when a ship and crew are pressed into combat because there is no other option. Voyager wasnt built to fight the borg. It was a long range Explorer, medium sized meant for short to midterm duration Missions. And it was fast too. So long range it ment get there fast , not neccesaryly stay there long.
There were no intrepids or sovereigns n ds9 fighting the dominion (for production reasons among other things, they didnt want to waste the Sovereign for the small screen etc.)
The ships shown were probably those meant for combat, mirandas albeit old were still in use , excelsiors were the bulk of the fleet , galaxies,steamrunners and akiras along with the defiant. took the role of combat. Sometimes pretty old ships, because thats what they had, those were their warfleet. And they took quite a beating.
Shortly after that Sovereign is outfitted with more phasers and torpedo tubes. They didnt want to be caught of gard a third time. So Equipment shiftd more towards combat. That doesnt mean its mission is a different one, only that it can perform that mission better than before.
Flagship itself is a soft term meaning different things to different people. The hms hood was the flagship of the british fleet, still the true battleships were bigger and ultimatly better warships.The concept of battlecruisers was controvertial at that time, big guns but lighter armoer for more speed. By design it was meant to destroy cruisers and alike , not battleships.
It was also used for propaganda, to inspire the british people, the proud of the fleet. And thats was the Enterprise due to the history behind those ships is. The pride of the fleet. That does not mean the best combat ship ever.
Some TNG admirals were shown to be on excelsior class ships. They dont mention a reason in the show but there might be explaination. They were availably in short order to take the admiral to the frontlines, it may be more surviveable than other designs, it may be equiped with communications gear to relay orders to the more combat oriented ships.
It may be that type X phasers on the galaxy were harder hitting than the excelsiors phasers, however an admiral usualy is not in the middle of combat, he or she needs to be able to oversee the situation and take multiple things into account, something not idealy done on a ship thats tries hard to survive. When the admiral is in combat himself the situation is already out of hand or he deliberatly decided to get into combat.
The STO Enterprise F is still the one Fed Hero ship in the game and i think it will stay that way. Shon has special abilities and an ultra epic elite whatever crew that modifiy and improve his ship and being the captain of the enterprise most definitly has the benefit of sooner or later getting the good stuff.
Do the new Command cruisers relegate the Oddy from that role? No.
Do they outperform her in combat? Yes.
Do they outperform the Enterprise under Captain Shon and his crew? Plotwise...Never.
Btw. Speaking of captains. The Rank of Captain in some Services is below that of a Commander in the real world. In starfleet terms its the one Rank that flies ships (most of the time)
That isnt true to the real world either.
The Rank of captain was chosen for ST because were used to refer to the commanding officer aboard a ship as captain. They didnt want to confuse the audience so it stayed that way in ST for the most part.
Ther were very little exeptions:
In TNG we see data (Lt commander) as acting captain of a nebula. In Ds9 and first contact commander worf flies the defiant. And picard although a captain suddendly apears in First contact and commands the fleet although im certain there are some Admirals on Earth. So hes an "acting Admiral"
In that moment the Ent-E was the real Flagship no matter its role in Starfleet in general.
Its all shades of grey sometimes.
Army and Navy ranks are different.
an Army Captain is an O-3 comparable to a Navy Lieutenant
Star Trek is loosely based on US and UK navies.
In the US Navy their are two usages of the word Captain
1) The person holding the rank of captain (O-6)
2) The person commanding a ship. On big ships usually a Captain commands a ship. On smaller ships Commanders command ships and are called Captain.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
I believe we should show the same respect to Roddenberry we would want afforded to us in this very discussion: namely that we should presume what he said he believed and what he demonstrated he believed was nothing more or less than that. He stated and acted in accordance with the belief that Star Trek was set in an era where mankind was no longer primarily focused on warfare. They were prepared to fight and would fight to defend themselves, but their primary purpose was to avoid conflict where possible. That would make defense Starfleet's secondary purpose not because defending the Federation was less important, but because it was a mission that was rarely performed and not optimized for.
To imply that his vision of Starfleet was more imposed upon him rather than genuine is something that we ourselves would complain about if the same logic was applied to our own postings on the subject. We are all a product of our times and experiences but none of us would appreciate being told our attitudes were just the product of what was imposed upon us.
As to the specific question of what the priority was even during TOS, the way I look at it is this. A priority of Starfleet was obviously safeguarding the Federation. Commodore Decker asserted such to Spock who, even though it was stated during an emotional outbursts did not contradict him. However, there were countless cases where Kirk demonstrated his primary objective was, as his mission statement implied, to explore and contact by taking risks no current military commander in a modern military would take. Given a choice between being cautious and defensive and maximizing the protection of the Federation or taking chances with unknown and potentially dangerous new species he tended to take the chance. He let the Gorn captain go even though destroying him and his ship might have been the safer option. He was willing to extend an olive branch to the captain of the First Federation ship even though that captain had threatened to destroy his ship (albeit as part of a ploy). And on a smaller scale even when he knew the Horta to be dangerous Kirk still behaved like contact was his first priority and protection his second, when he had an opportunity to do so.
I believe the *primary* mission of Starfleet, if it had to be encapsulated into a single statement, was to be best possible representatives of the Federation and its principles since it was often the outward facing face of the Federation and often the first thing other species encountered. That sometimes meant Starfleet had to defend the Federation against threats. But it also meant Starfleet had to do so only when there was no choice, and only after other options had been explored, and that the *presumption* in any situation was that there was generally an opportunity to avoid conflict. Starfleet had to protect the Federation, but it could not project a jingoistic or overly defensive attitude towards the other species it encountered while doing so, because that would subvert its primary mission to represent the Federation.
While his vision wasn't imposed on him it was filtered through other people...namely writers. Star Fleet became as militaristic or as peaceful as the plot needed it to be.
When TMP didn't perform as well as it should have he was moved from creative control on WOK...which explains why several time in the movie Star Fleet is referred to as a military.
When he was back in control for TNG his vision of Star Fleet was slanted towards a non military to counter the movie version.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
And honestly, it was the the popularity of Star Trek 2-4 that gave the momentum to allow TNG to come into existence. Most of the people I know that saw TMP (mostly in the theater mind) still refer to it as "The Motionless Picture".
I respect GR cor the work he dis for Star Trek, especiallyTOS, but something seemed to change him and his vision in the late 70's , early's that wasnt there before, and I really think it did 't help the franchise. Every time they go back towards EOL Roddenberry, it seems to not do as well.
I am an TOS fan and I do enjoy TNG but that first season is painful to watch. There are two moments in the first season that really bother me. The first one in which we see the Ferengi for the first time. They are chasing the fearing for stealing something and the fearing fire on them...Picard doesn't return fire....he says something like "well we provoked them because we're chasing them"
It's all good to want to solve things peacefully but not when someone is shooting at you.
The other one was where they thawed out people from the 90's and the proceeded to preach to them about how bad they are and how good people are in the future..all while never getting to the bottom of what happened to the star bases.
I respect what GR did for the IP but Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country and Balance of Terror will always be my favorite Star Trek offerings
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Isn't a flagship the ship with the Flag Officer and staff on board? Are captains flag officers? I want my ship to have flags and motorcycle escort and trumpets!! My ship needs a full band with a few trumpets, and another admiral with staff and servants.
I think that's pretty accurate of the audiences' tastes. I think it also shows you have a lot of wiggle room inside "Trek" as a genre to still explore various facets. ST6, for example, has the combat, the intrigue, the double agents, the assassination plots, the drama and escape from prison, and so forth. Say what you will about how you liked it or not, it's definitely "Trek" but it covers a lot of genres.
The Voyage Home worked because it came out at the perfect time and it is a complete reflection of mid-80s culture. Though I wonder how much more popular if Eddie Murphy accepted the role in the film. Then again, I wonder if The Final Frontier would have been if Sean Connery accepted the role of Sybok and the same for Tom Hanks as Cochrane in First Contact.
ST4 is a good movie. No one said that all of the ST content has to be an action/shooter. Profit? With less special effects, of course it was more Profitable, but not all of ST has to be peaceful or violent. WOK set the to e and put rears in seats and built up the momentum to a serious revival of Star Trek, the cast didnt even think it was going to go far until the reaction to WOK. It was the over sanitized content that was my issue (and sounds like some others). Utopias only last/stay interesting for so long for a reason.
As far as what you call "pure Trek" , what future does a society have when everything is perfect and sanitized? Honestly, its the challenge of survival and necessity that makes and breaks society, not its golden ages. Movies like WOK added to the survival instinct of the viewer. Seing Scotty's nephew die (and Spock: spoiler alert lol) feel real. Khans actions and presence made it even moreso real. The first two seasons of TNG were missing realism and only showed squeeky cleanmperfection.
The Ferengi were supposed to be a serious threat but they made them so weak and flawed that they couldnt be taken seriously. It took making the universe and the Federation dirtier to make the show click.
Dont forget about the episode with the three roque Klinks with the arrival of a D7 with it Captain talking to the Enterprise with the flag of the Federation on his ship directly behind him.
actually the most profitable Star Trek movie is WOK
http://1701news.com/node/527/what-most-profitable-trek-movie-all-time.html
"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan." When adjusted for inflation, the 1982 film made $190.3 million domestically and $234.9 million worldwide. This fell considerably short of what "The Motion Picture" made three years before. However, "Wrath of Khan" also had the smallest budget of any Star Trek film. Even adjusted for inflation, it cost just $26.6 million to produce. Paramount kicked up the budget a bit for "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock" (to $38.4 million), but then the budget would hover in the $50 million range until "Star Trek: First Contact" in 1996, which had a budget of $67.1 million after adjustment.
This gave "Wrath of Khan" a whopping 615 percent profit margin, just in North America. When the rest of the world was factored in, the final tally put Paramount 783 percent in the black -- the difference between the nearly $27 million budget and the $235 million total haul.
The only other film to come close to those numbers, and this might really surprise you, was "Search for Spock." Its $152 million domestic take created a nearly 300 percent profit margin.
Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Domestic - Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $190.3 million 615%
2. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $152.0 million 296%
3. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $144.8 million 172%
4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $128.5 million 150%
5. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $264.6 million 135%
6. Star Trek Generations (1994) $119.4 million 116%
7. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $137.1 million 104%
8. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $98.5 million 88%
9. Star Trek (2009) $280.7 million 84%
10. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $100.6 million 21%
11. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $228.8 million 20%
12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $56.0 million (-28%)
Most Profitable Star Trek Films, Worldwide - Adjusted For Inflation (revenue, profit margin)
1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) $234.9 million 783%
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) $283.6 million 432%
3. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984) $195.9 million 411%
4. Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) $446.9 million 297%
5. Star Trek Generations (1994) $189.3 million 243%
6. Star Trek: First Contact (1996) $223.5 million 233%
7. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) $161.2 million 213%
8. Star Trek (2009) $420.2 million 176%
9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) $132.5 million 152%
10. Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) $467.4 million 146%
11. Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) $170.7 million 105%
12. Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) $87.5 million 12%
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Even Wiki lists WOK budget as 11.2 million
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Maybe the nuclear wessels at Alameda were really expensive
If they ever do this, then the different types of Tier 6 Odysseys will probably go like this:
Tier 6 Odyssey Operations
Engineering (or whatever they end up calling it) Seating
Tier 6 Odyssey Science
Intel Seating
Tier 6 Odyssey Tactical
Command Seating