NationStates Jolt Archive

For those who don't know, within the television series Stargate: SG-1 the recent seasons have progressively involved more and more Human-controlled spacecraft of rather large size. The first combat craft was a Human/Goa'uld hybrid device, incorporating technology taken from Goa'uld Death Gliders, and served as a two-person fighter craft. The second was completely Human built and, as the first, was a two-man fighter designed for dogfighting and the like. It was only with the third, the USAF Prometheus, that Humans began to enter the realm of Inter-Stellar battleships. However, there was initially some controversy over the name if the ship (It was launched before the official completion of its construction) and Col. Jack O'Neill was thought he might be able to whisper a few words into the right ears and get his own particular favorite slapped onto the side. Unfortunately, Major Carter informed him that 'We can't call it the Enterprise'. My question is: Why not?

Okay, I know why the show can't call it the Enterprise, it would probably infringe on existing copyrights and, more importantly, it's already hard enough to keep people from thinking it's Star Trek related, by why can't the characters within the show? Their actually is a vessel named the Enterprise (I believe it to be an aircraft carrier) and there has been for centuries, so it's not because the name came from a TV show. In fact, one of the initial test modules for the space shuttle was named the Enterprise (However that particular vessel never did leave the atmosphere), so it's clear that NASA has at least given it some thought. Why was it shot down so completely?

Now, I can think of a few reasons, but nothing really concrete. The most logical of the reasons is that there already is a ship named the Enterprise (The aforementioned aircraft carrier) and there might be some regulation against having two vessels in service with the same name (It could lead to some pretty unpleasant confusion during a critical moment). However, considering how drastically different their duties and deployment are, I can't see that as being to much of a problem. The other reason I could think of was that the name itself might somehow be connected to the Navy and, within SG1 at least, all the battleships and the like have been Air Force vessels. However, I really doubt that the Navy has the name copyrighted and I doubt that they'd make such a big deal about it that the Air Force couldn't use it.

Is there anything that I don't now about that would cancel out the name?

My only guess is that they don't want to draw a parallel with Star Trek and there unique show. I think they want to keep it a unique series. Probably more to do with the writers/producers wants than anything else. I can't think that it would be a copyright infringement for the reasons you already stated.

Their actually is a vessel named the Enterprise (I believe it to be an aircraft carrier) and there has been for centuries, so it's not because the name came from a TV show. In fact, one of the initial test modules for the space shuttle was named the Enterprise (However that particular vessel never did leave the atmosphere), so it's clear that NASA has at least given it some thought. Why was it shot down so completely?

The first nuclear carrier was called Enterprise, which was named after the Enterprise of WW2, which was one of a very long line of Enteprises. The Enterprise of the tv show was named after the nuclear Enterprise. And then the Space Shuttle was named after the one of the tv show.

Why they can call it Enterprise on the TV show? Perhaps because the TV signals are still traveling through space and don't want to get anyone confused.

Okay, I know why the show can't call it the Enterprise, it would probably infringe on existing copyrights and, more importantly, it's already hard enough to keep people from thinking it's Star Trek related, by why can't the characters within the show?
I think you're dealing with a writer's joke here--it's a way of winking at the audience and saying "we know we're not supposed to act like we know you're there, but we know you're there."

The first nuclear carrier was called Enterprise, which was named after the Enterprise of WW2, which was one of a very long line of Enteprises. The Enterprise of the tv show was named after the nuclear Enterprise. And then the Space Shuttle was named after the one of the tv show.

Why they can call it Enterprise on the TV show? Perhaps because the TV signals are still traveling through space and don't want to get anyone confused.

It's older then that. I think there were 12 HMS Enterprises and 8 USS Enterprises....

Because it's fucking cheesy.

It's probably the writers way of saying 'we're better than star trek'. They did something similiar in a different episode, possibly the one where O' Neal flew the stargate into space, Carter was listing off all the systems as she was turning them on/checking them/whatever. I think it was something vaguely like:
Carter:......Inertia dampeners
O' Neal:Phasers?

It's older then that. I think there were 12 HMS Enterprises and 8 USS Enterprises....
Yes, I know, but I wasn't about to list them all. That's why I wrote "which was one of a very long line of Enteprises."

I'm sure Google would know.

The USS Enterprise from Star Trek deserves better than to be associated by name with the one-dimensional garbage that is Stargate.

The USS Enterprise from Star Trek deserves better than to be associated by name with the one-dimensional garbage that is Stargate.

Huh? You think? :mad:

Paramount is a big ginormous company that wants to make sure it's intellecutal property is not infringed on.

Any TV show that created a space ship named "Enterprise" (while a perfectly valid name for a space craft) would be sued so fast by Paramount lawyers that it wouldn't even be funny.

It's a funny line, "How about Enterprise..." "We can't call it that." And that's about as close as they could ever legally come to it.

Just like you'll never see the names: Kirk, Spock, or McCoy used in a Sci Fi movie/show. Or even Picard, Riker, or LaForge. Or Luke, Han, and Chewbacca.

These names have been copyrighted and trademarked by Paramount. (Or in case of the Star Wars names, by Lucasfilms.) They created the characters and only they can use the names.

For example, look at Tom Clancy and his Jack Ryan character. When Clancy sold the movie rights to "The Hunt for Red October" he actually lost the right to use the Jack Ryan name. He was pissed the way Ryan was played by Alec Baldwin. After the move came out he paid massive amounts of money to get the rights to the name back, so that he could have more control over how his character was portrayed in the following movies.

The easy answer to your question: it's all about the money.

The USS Enterprise from Star Trek deserves better than to be associated by name with the one-dimensional garbage that is Stargate.
Fanboyism=bad
Nobody wants to hear why star trek is better or vice versa.

Fanboyism=bad
Nobody wants to hear why star trek is better or vice versa.

Nobody cares what you think. Oh, wait, maybe some do. However, others don't, including myself. Speak for yourself.

I think you're dealing with a writer's joke here--it's a way of winking at the audience and saying "we know we're not supposed to act like we know you're there, but we know you're there."

yup. it has also included a line like "can't you just macgyver something up?" in its first episode.

Is there anything that I don't now about that would cancel out the name?
That it's a joke? O'Neill suggests Enterprise as a joke, and Carter points out that it's serious. SG-1 is full of jokes like this - remember Carter mentioning inertia dampeners and O'Neill asking if it had photon torpedoes?

The USS Enterprise from Star Trek deserves better than to be associated by name with the one-dimensional garbage that is Stargate.

"You sir, you lose the thread!"

In response to the original poster's question: actually, having a character suggest a name for a new spaceship (which promptly gets shot down by another character who then suggests the name that sticks) has become a running gag on Stargate (Atlantis even more so than SG-1), especially when the name "Enterprise" is involved. In addition to Carter shooting down O'Neill's name suggestion for the Prometheus, also note that Sheppard shot down Ford's suggested name ("Gateship") for what became known as the Puddle Jumper in the Atlantis pilot, and that Sheppard then got to shoot down McKay's suggested name for the Orion just this season ("Enterprise", of course).

If you want an example of a topic that the Stargate shows really have to work to avoid at times... think of the Ancients, then think of Ascension, then think of a certain Jesus Christ. Stargate cannot afford to mention Jesus Christ despite the similarities between Ascension and descriptions of Christ's supposed resurrection and ascension into heaven... after all, they can't afford offending their fanbase.

Yes, I know, but I wasn't about to list them all. That's why I wrote "which was one of a very long line of Enteprises."

I'm sure Google would know.
Or Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Enterprise_%281705%29

Nobody cares what you think. Oh, wait, maybe some do. However, others don't, including myself. Speak for yourself.
Fine. I don't want to hear why you think star trek is better than stargate. I doubt anyone else in this thread about why they couldn't call the ship in stargate 'The Enterprise' does either.

The USS Enterprise from Star Trek deserves better than to be associated by name with the one-dimensional garbage that is Stargate.
One-dimensional? Isn't Star Trek that show where each episode ends with Kirk having a hand-to-hand fight on a random planet with some god-like alien whose girlfriend he kissed earlier in the episode?

One-dimensional? Isn't Star Trek that show where each episode ends with Kirk having a hand-to-hand fight on a random planet with some god-like alien whose girlfriend he kissed earlier in the episode?

And thats the genius of it. What other sci-fi show is in the position where people who have never watched it know the characters etc?

its Just class. Stargate is ok, but no Star Trek, but then its not trying to be star trek.

These names have been copyrighted and trademarked by Paramount. (Or in case of the Star Wars names, by Lucasfilms.) They created the characters and only they can use the names.

I didn't think you could copyright a name.

One-dimensional? Isn't Star Trek that show where each episode ends with Kirk having a hand-to-hand fight on a random planet with some god-like alien whose girlfriend he kissed earlier in the episode?

I'm sure you've watched enough Star Trek to come to such a knowledgeable conclusion. Or not. Star Trek tackled major issues and themes that other shows wouldn't dare to go. All five of the series, my favorite being TNG, had important messages to get across to the audience, done intelligently and with passion. This is glaringly absent in the vast majority of sci-fi shows, or attempted halfcocked, focusing instead on mindless action and cheap humor.

I'm sure you've watched enough Star Trek to come to such a knowledgeable conclusion. Or not. Star Trek tackled major issues and themes that other shows wouldn't dare to go. All five of the series, my favorite being TNG, had important messages to get across to the audience, done intelligently and with passion. This is glaringly absent in the vast majority of sci-fi shows, or attempted halfcocked, focusing instead on mindless action and cheap humor.

Well... The Original Series is rather one dimensional. IN a fun way certainly, and it does address some serious issues, but you can pretty much guess how an episode is going to go from the beginning. Not that I have a problem with that.

And while TNG is good, some of the early episodes are awful. You can just go "This is the anti-death panalty episode, and this one is the anti-drug one". It improved as it went on, and I do like it.

Personally my favourite of the 4 (I dont count enterprise here. It just doesnt feel like Star Trek) is Deep Space 9. Darker, and more morally dubious things going on there. Blowing up a diplomat and blaming it on your enemies to get them to side with you in a war? Excellent.

Well... The Original Series is rather one dimensional. IN a fun way certainly, and it does address some serious issues, but you can pretty much guess how an episode is going to go from the beginning. Not that I have a problem with that.

And while TNG is good, some of the early episodes are awful. You can just go "This is the anti-death panalty episode, and this one is the anti-drug one". It improved as it went on, and I do like it.

Personally my favourite of the 4 (I dont count enterprise here. It just doesnt feel like Star Trek) is Deep Space 9. Darker, and more morally dubious things going on there. Blowing up a diplomat and blaming it on your enemies to get them to side with you in a war? Excellent.

Morally dubious actions? Darker atmosphere? If you really want to see these, then you need to see Babylon 5 (or Battlestar Galactica, if you want a really dark and dubious atmosphere)... but I digress.

I'm sure you've watched enough Star Trek to come to such a knowledgeable conclusion. Or not. Star Trek tackled major issues and themes that other shows wouldn't dare to go. All five of the series, my favorite being TNG, had important messages to get across to the audience, done intelligently and with passion. This is glaringly absent in the vast majority of sci-fi shows, or attempted halfcocked, focusing instead on mindless action and cheap humor.
Actually I have watched Star Trek (all of the later four series and parts of the original). The only series with any depth was Deep Space Nine, which happens to be the one most like SG-1. The others, while entertaining, never strayed far from the arrogant notion that humans would be able to solve any alien problem just by looking at it from a human perspective. In both DS9 and SG-1 the humans have to accept that there are races far more experienced than our own, that we cannot fathom, and cannot teach but can only learn from (both also have the idea that we can become like them - Sisko and the wormhole beings and Daniel with the Ancients).

Morally dubious actions? Darker atmosphere? If you really want to see these, then you need to see Babylon 5 (or Battlestar Galactica, if you want a really dark and dubious atmosphere)... but I digress.

Well, it is darker than the other star Treks, but still feels like Star Trek (which as a whole thing is my favourite television programme(again exluding Enterprise... and maybe Voyager in this particular case)). Babalyon 5 never really caught my imagination. Havent seen Battlestar Galactica though... unless you mean the original, but I am guessing not.

Personally my favourite of the 4 (I dont count enterprise here. It just doesnt feel like Star Trek) is Deep Space 9. Darker, and more morally dubious things going on there. Blowing up a diplomat and blaming it on your enemies to get them to side with you in a war? Excellent.

In the Pale Moonlight was one of my favorite DS9 episodes. Sisko finally got his hands dirty. There was a constant sense of impending failure, that his deceit would be discovered - Vreenak strolling into the room and hissing out that the rod was a fake, what a climax. So much to gain, so much to lose.

Is it sad I recognized what this thread was about just from reading the thread title?

I literally was raised on TNG. Yet, I really like Stargate. In many ways, it's a nice partner to Star Trek. I'd have to say I like them equally. Further, Stargate often borrows plots from Star Trek, yet even when they do that they approach it in a nice new way. I'm not saying that it doesn't tend to have more action in it than Star Trek did, because it does. (I especially don't like the fucking "making of/behind the scenes" stuff they do, because THOSE are what's full of ridiculously cheap humor and crudeness, not the actual show.) But that's not a bad thing, because while the action is there, it's still balanced--most of the time--with decent stories, unlike a certain other popular sci-fi universe.

Further, let us not do a Stargate vs. Star Trek thing here. Please. Stargate and Star Trek are nice bosem buddies.

Okay, I know why the show can't call it the Enterprise, it would probably infringe on existing copyrights and, more importantly, it's already hard enough to keep people from thinking it's Star Trek related, by why can't the characters within the show? Their actually is a vessel named the Enterprise (I believe it to be an aircraft carrier) and there has been for centuries, so it's not because the name came from a TV show. In fact, one of the initial test modules for the space shuttle was named the Enterprise (However that particular vessel never did leave the atmosphere), so it's clear that NASA has at least given it some thought. Why was it shot down so completely?

Come on, doesn't one person read the entire opening post? We're on the second page and there hasn't been even one single attempt to answer my question.

As I said quite clearly in the opening post, I know why the show didn't name it as such, I know the history of the name, and I know all about Star Trek. What I'm asking is why the characters refused the name. Not why the writers refused it, not what they were implying when they added the line, or even what legal reasons there are. To use role-play terminology, what was the IC reason?

Come on, doesn't one person read the entire opening post? We're on the second page and there hasn't been even one single attempt to answer my question.

As I said quite clearly in the opening post, I know why the show didn't name it as such, I know the history of the name, and I know all about Star Trek. What I'm asking is why the characters refused the name. Not why the writers refused it, not what they were implying when they added the line, or even what legal reasons there are. To use role-play terminology, what was the IC reason?
General Hammond and the rest of the SGC wouldn't accept it, most probably. It might be due to the whole name copyright thing, since they already have an Enterprise in service(you'll note that the other names are also names that are not of ships currently in service.) Further, O'Neill is the only Star Trek fan on the cast. The rest don't like it that much.

For those who don't know, within the television series Stargate: SG-1 the recent seasons have progressively involved more and more Human-controlled spacecraft of rather large size. The first combat craft was a Human/Goa'uld hybrid device, incorporating technology taken from Goa'uld Death Gliders, and served as a two-person fighter craft. The second was completely Human built and, as the first, was a two-man fighter designed for dogfighting and the like. It was only with the third, the USAF Prometheus, that Humans began to enter the realm of Inter-Stellar battleships. However, there was initially some controversy over the name if the ship (It was launched before the official completion of its construction) and Col. Jack O'Neill was thought he might be able to whisper a few words into the right ears and get his own particular favorite slapped onto the side. Unfortunately, Major Carter informed him that 'We can't call it the Enterprise'. My question is: Why not?

Okay, I know why the show can't call it the Enterprise, it would probably infringe on existing copyrights and, more importantly, it's already hard enough to keep people from thinking it's Star Trek related, by why can't the characters within the show? Their actually is a vessel named the Enterprise (I believe it to be an aircraft carrier) and there has been for centuries, so it's not because the name came from a TV show. In fact, one of the initial test modules for the space shuttle was named the Enterprise (However that particular vessel never did leave the atmosphere), so it's clear that NASA has at least given it some thought. Why was it shot down so completely?

Now, I can think of a few reasons, but nothing really concrete. The most logical of the reasons is that there already is a ship named the Enterprise (The aforementioned aircraft carrier) and there might be some regulation against having two vessels in service with the same name (It could lead to some pretty unpleasant confusion during a critical moment). However, considering how drastically different their duties and deployment are, I can't see that as being to much of a problem. The other reason I could think of was that the name itself might somehow be connected to the Navy and, within SG1 at least, all the battleships and the like have been Air Force vessels. However, I really doubt that the Navy has the name copyrighted and I doubt that they'd make such a big deal about it that the Air Force couldn't use it.

Is there anything that I don't now about that would cancel out the name?
I wank over any such copyright issue.
I would find it highliy disbelievable copyright is the answer but fear of confussion with Star Trek.

As you say actual war vessels have and have had that name and even across countries names for ships can be the same.

Jack is hilarious and i reckon there should be an 'Enterprise' and the Teal'c hair cut comment was absolutely hilarious!!

Come on, doesn't one person read the entire opening post? We're on the second page and there hasn't been even one single attempt to answer my question.

As I said quite clearly in the opening post, I know why the show didn't name it as such, I know the history of the name, and I know all about Star Trek. What I'm asking is why the characters refused the name. Not why the writers refused it, not what they were implying when they added the line, or even what legal reasons there are. To use role-play terminology, what was the IC reason?
Star Trek exists IC, so naming a spaceship after a TV spaceship still sounds rather stupid.

Star Trek exists IC, so naming a spaceship after a TV spaceship still sounds rather stupid.
And that brings us to the episode in the episode where a tv show made about the members of SG-1 and at the end they were saying i am blah blah playing the role of Dr Jackson who is blah blah blah...
Pirate ship babah!

And that brings us to the episode in the episode where a tv show made about the members of SG-1 and at the end they were saying i am blah blah playing the role of Dr Jackson who is blah blah blah...
Pirate ship babah!
I remember that,
'I play some guy who plays some guy who is played by some guy who replaced some guy who played some guy in the movie'
I wanted to hit that guy.

The word guy was used seven times in this post, including this time.

I remember that,
'I play some guy who plays some guy who is played by some guy who replaced some guy who played some guy in the movie'
I wanted to hit that guy.

The word guy was used seven times in this post, including this time.
LOL, i tremember it too.

---------------------------------------------------------
I just did a search and there have been 8 Enterprises, 10 Victories(Sub) and 3 Sir Gallahads(Current one is a Frigate or Destroyer i think it served in East Timor)

IS NS busted?...

WHy
is the British Royal Navy called the Senior Service? Because it was started in the 9th century by King Alfred the Great, before Britain had a national Army and long before the Royal Air Force.
No shit sherlock the Britocopter wasn't invent 'til the 111th century.:rolleyes:
http://www.navynews.co.uk/youngreaders/facts.asp

what
is the oldest commissioned warship still afloat? Well, it isn’t HMS Victory! Although still in commission, Victory sits in dry dock at Portsmouth. The oldest ship still afloat is the American USS Constitution, accepted into the US Navy in 1797 for use against the Barbary pirates.

General Hammond and the rest of the SGC wouldn't accept it, most probably. It might be due to the whole name copyright thing, since they already have an Enterprise in service(you'll note that the other names are also names that are not of ships currently in service.) Further, O'Neill is the only Star Trek fan on the cast. The rest don't like it that much.

The whole thing was an "in" joke, and the real reason they couldn't use "Enterprise" was so obvious they never gave an IC reason, but your explaination sounds as good as any.

The first nuclear carrier was called Enterprise, which was named after the Enterprise of WW2, which was one of a very long line of Enteprises. The Enterprise of the tv show was named after the nuclear Enterprise. And then the Space Shuttle was named after the one of the tv show.
Er, you're slightly off. There have been 8 American ships to carry the name Enterprise ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise ). The starship U.S.S. Enterprise (NCC-1701) was named after the WWII carrier (CV-6), as was CVN-65.

But yes, the space shuttle Enterprise (OV-101) was nammed after a write-in campaign by shows fans convinced NASA (which had a lot of closet Trekies) to name it after the starship.

As far as I know, the copyright extends to the Starship Enterprise and not USS Enterprise (as the Navy would probably have a huge hissy fit over that).

Because referring in one Television series to another is breaking some sort of barrier and that line makes the whole situation way more funnier than actually naming a ship Enterprise when it's not the Enterprise (aircraft carrier aside).

My only guess is that they don't want to draw a parallel with Star Trek and there unique show. I think they want to keep it a unique series. Probably more to do with the writers/producers wants than anything else. I can't think that it would be a copyright infringement for the reasons you already stated.
They already even use SUBSPACE!
They're already infringing. I don't know why they won't use "Enterprise" - perhaps an inside joke, perhaps a warning.

yup. it has also included a line like "can't you just macgyver something up?" in its first episode.
isn't the guy from macgyver in that show? Or am I wrong?

Because referring in one Television series to another is breaking some sort of barrier and that line makes the whole situation way more funnier than actually naming a ship Enterprise when it's not the Enterprise (aircraft carrier aside).The Great Barrier?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Barrier_(Star_Trek)

isn't the guy from macgyver in that show? Or am I wrong?
That was .... another life. Sacrifices were made. Hairstyles were changed. Metrosexuals moved into the limelight. Swiss-army knives were made passe' to The Leatherman. Cannell stopped writing/producing. The show became a subtle sexual inneundo mainstay for The Simpsons. It was buried with the last vestiges of my childhood hopes.

The name Enterprise is not originally from Star Trek so I doubt copyright is the problem, but I think it was a gag any way. I doubt they'd want to take the name and apply it, and as pointed out, the series has made cracks at other such things too from other tv shows. They can because of the way the genre is set.

SG1 though is a good show and saying Star Trek is better is rather ridiculous, considering you can't really compare the two accurately with one another. If it was a serious consideration, I am sure the reason they did not use 'Enterprise' was more along the lines of keeping the show from seeming to duplicate Star Trek in any way or offending anyone who would assume they were.

They couldn't name it Enterprise becasue in the Stargate universe they already have a ship named Enterprise, the CVN-65 USS Enterprise Aircraft Carrier, just like we do still in realife.

And the Enterprise Shuttle was just the prototype.

And there wereno HMS Enterprises they were HMS Enterprizes with a Z.

The End.

They couldn't name it Enterprise becasue in the Stargate universe they already have a ship named Enterprise, the CVN-65 USS Enterprise Aircraft Carrier, just like we do still in realife.

And the Enterprise Shuttle was just the prototype.

And there wereno HMS Enterprises they were HMS Enterprizes with a Z.

The End.
Touche.
Very good point, the Enterprise still exists in RT.

Crazy british.

Because it's not the Enterprise.

Everybody knows that to bear the name Enterprise, a spaceship has to look like a tea saucer with two utensils sticking out the back.