Talk: USS Odyssey

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the USS Odyssey article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

Odyssey bridge[]

If it recall, the Enterprise-D bridge wasn't used to represent the Odyssey bridge. Excelsior 19:55, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw the episode a couple of weeks back and it definitely doesn't look like the same bridge. It looks like it may have been a re-use of the set for the Enterprise-D battle bridge - the size is pretty similar.--Scimitar 21:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It could mean that only the flagship has the Ent-D style of bridge. It was probably a reuse of the guest bridge used for the Excelsior and the two Prometheous. Excelsior 21:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That theory is mentioned in the Main Bridge section of the Galaxy class article although I don't think that only the Enterprise-D has that particular style of bridge - although we only saw part of it, it looks like the USS Yamato had a very similar style of bridge as seen in "Contagion".--Scimitar 22:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They probably couldn't use the D bridge as production on Star Trek Generations was beginning. Excelsior 22:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Typically when the bridges of two different ships appear in the same show or movie, efforts are made to distinguish them, even when they're ship of the same class. The bridges of Enterprise NX-01 and Columbia were different, as were the bridges of the Defiant and Valiant. (UTC)

The Yamato both times reused the Bridge set built for the ENT-D the set shown in the episode looks like an redress of the TMP bridge set also used as the battle bridge and was redressed twice for use in Star Trek Generations It would make the most sense that the remaining staff would relocate to the battle bridge but it seems that they kept the saucer on to use both of the mounted phaser strips they never consider separating the saucer and have it provide cover fire and use the battle section fight.--206.29.180.51 20:08, August 6, 2013 (UTC)

I am extremely late to this conversation, but production of either "All Good Things..." or Star Trek Generations is the most likely real world explanation as to why the bridges are different. I don't recall when filming for 'The Jem'Hadar' began, but I'm relatively sure it was right around the time work on AGT (and thus TNG as a whole) was completed, and in either case, time would've been needed to modify the set from its AGT future appearance to what we saw in Generations. I also remember that there was a 10 day break for TNG cast and crew following AGT's completion, and I do not know if any work would've been done on the set during that time, and I doubt DS9 would've been allowed to use the set in its AGT future form. DS9's producers and crew apparently (if Ex Astris Scientia is to be believed) made do with a few pieces of the Excelsior bridge set and clever camera work.

As for an in-universe explanation, well...your guess is as good as mine. Captain Spadaro (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

ATG production was complete in early March and this ep was completed in late April. The film was produced from mid-March to late June the same year, so the set was definitely in use in some capacity. –Gvsualan (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Model destruction[]

How can the model they blew up for Cause and Effect have been used to blow up this ship? Wasnt it blown up previously..? Do they mean another hollow model was constructed, LIKE the one they used for cause and effect? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.220.46

Note on destruction[]

A few weeks ago, this background note was added:

The destruction of a Galaxy class starship was used by writers to emphasize that the Dominion were more powerful than anything the Enterprise-D had faced on TNG.

I added an {{incite}} to this note. We should not go around putting words into the writers mouths. It is entirely possible, even plausible that this was the intent, but we need citation to prove it. Now, instead of adding a citation, the note has been expanded, putting more uncited words into the writers mouths:

The destruction of a Galaxy class starship was used by writers to emphasize that the Dominion were more powerfull than anything the Enterprise-D had faced on TNG with the exception being the Borg.

At this point, I am removing the note. Putting these unsourced words into the the writers mouths has gone on long enough, and rather than fix the problem, it has only been made worse. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 13:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It was essentially taken out of the DS9 Companion, where something to that effect was stated by Ira Steven Behr, I don't have it on hand to give an accurate citation, but I recall reading it in the Companion last time I was at the bookstore. --Alan del Beccio 16:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'd like to have us confirm precisely what was said, then put the note back cited. Thanks Alan. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the ds9 companion:

That the stick wielded by the Dominion is a powerful one is brought home in a number of ways. [...] A Galaxy-class starship is clearly not a match for the Jem'Hadar, a fact that the writers came up with to demonstrate that "these guys are not to be taken lightly," says Behr.

"We wanted to show the long-term fans how dangerous these guys were," adds Wolfe. "And it's my belief that if that had been the Enterprise and not the Odyssey, and Picard rather than Keogh in command, that it still wouldn't have survived. [Veteran Writer] Ron Moore may not agree, Patrick Stewart probably wouldn't, but it's my belief that Keogh had just as good a ship, just as good a crew, and he got smoked."

That's from page 154 of the DS9 Companion, in the Jem'Hadar episode background section. -- Sulfur 15:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture removal[]

While removing pictures makes pages easier to load, they enhance the aesthetics of the article, and often help illustrate the points being made. While 2 picture on the USS Majestic may have been a bit excessive, I believe the Odyssey deserves 2, especially since it was the focus of much of an episode, and its final mission had such enormous impacts on DS9 seasons 4-7. If there are no objections, I would like to revert your edit. -- Jaz ^talk 20:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. ;)

First, don't revert, because I did more than just removing an image. Second, if you want to add that image again, please find a way doing that so that the resulting article still has a nice layout/flow. I believe it is too short to have two images without looking "ugly", but feel free to try. :) -- Cid Highwind 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the image I removed from the article is: File:USS Odyssey firing phasers.jpg. Besides its quality (looks blurred somehow), I think it doesn't really show us anything of importance in the context of this article. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nitpick question[]

Someone added the following to the article. It belongs here. So, um... here it is. --From Andoria with Love 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The question remains if Keogh went to the trouble of off loading all civilians and non-essential crew at DS9, why didn't he just leave the saucer section there as well. If there were one instance that saucer separation was most prudent in all of Star Trek, this would have been it.

Being the nice guy I am, I shall answer. The only reason to remove the saucer is if you need to get off civilians quickly, and have no other option. Remember, the saucer section has two impulse drives, at least two large phasers, and possibly a torpedo launcher. This are things you do not want to just give up in battle unless you have no other choice. They knew it was likely they would be heading into a tactical situation, so they kept the tactical advantage, while not putting civilians at risk. In fact, it would have been a very poor choice if the writers had decided to go without the saucer. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

also keep in mind that, when they decided not to seper, the reason stated was that the ship needed the saucer's reactors to be effective in combat. -- Captain M.K.B. 05:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Over analysis[]

I removed:

It is worth noting that while the Galaxy class' shields were ineffective against the polaron beam, the ship was not actually destroyed by the Jem'Hadar weapons-fire. On the contrary, the vessel was able to survive several minutes of brutal assault, taking direct hits to her hull and warp-nacelles. The ability of the Odyssey to survive sustained weapons fire for that duration is a testament to the designers and engineers of the Galaxy class, proving its battle-worthiness. The strength of the class' hull would again be tested at the Battle of Veridian III between the USS Enterprise-D and the Duras sisters.

Additionally, the Odyssey never used her inventory of photon torpedoes against the Jem'Hadar ships for reasons unknown. It could be that the smaller attack ships moved too quick to get a torpedo lock or that it was unsafe to use projectile weapons with runabouts in close proximity. One wonders whether the Odyssey could have inflicted more damage had photon torpedoes been used. (That is, of course, assuming the launchers themselves were not damaged in the initial attack.)

I could spend all night coming up with reasons why this is wrong, but fortunately I don't have all night. Simply put, this type of armchair quarterback analysis is not necessary in an encyclopedia entry, especially when it comes to the point of being speculative. "A testament to the designers and engineers of the Galaxy class" and "never used her inventory of photon torpedoes" are someones best guess. No one here interviewed a GCS designer or engineer to know for sure how much heart and soul they put into designing that ship, nor were we witnessing the battle from the bridge to know that they didn't use a single torpedo in the battle. As I recall, there were several cuts away from the Odyssey to the runabouts, as well as a sequence back on the planet, all while the battle was taking place...--Alan 06:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NCC-71832[]

Where's the registry from? Is it legible in any screenshot? I haven't seen this on DVD yet but I remember noting that the registry was always in shadow or turned away from the camera, and I thought it looked like NCC-1701-D. Was it filmed that way so they didn't have to change the model's registry, or am I off-base? Setacourse 00:20, December 10, 2009 (UTC)

The number can be seen in the show. Some screencaps: [1], [2], and File:USS Odyssey firing phasers.jpg. --130.102.158.16 03:18, November 6, 2012 (UTC)