RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,387
Posts: 5,358,199
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 581
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek: Prelude to Axanar Online Debut
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Warp 5.0: Trek Toward Sci-Fi’s Golden Anniversary
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Takei To Host Pittsburgh Symphony PNC Pops’ Sci-Fi Spectacular
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

Kurtzman In Mummy Talks
By: T'Bonz on Jul 31

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies I-X

Star Trek Movies I-X Discuss the first ten big screen outings in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 4 2014, 09:22 PM   #166
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

The Enterprise A is retired a few months before the launch of the Enterprise B, both in 2293. Which means the Enterprise B was already under construction during a great deal of the Enterprise A's service life.

Is was honorary, the ship was never meant to last so long, or get into trouble, just keep Kirk and his crew out of the way of the rest of the fleet, serve their alloted time for their crimes in relative comfort and without seeming to punish those who saved Earth.

The Excelsior and Enterprise B were everything Starfleet wanted and were going ahead with.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 12:30 AM   #167
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
austen_pierce wrote: View Post
I'd also forgotten that Yorktown appears earlier in TVH. Any chance the whale probe damage is responsible for the problems the ship has in TFF, assuming Y becomes E-A?
I would think that if the Yorktown suffered damage from the Whale Probe to the extent of the ship having all the troubles it did in STV, that Starfleet would never have green-lit its launch at the end of STIV.
"'Let's see what she's got' said the Captain. And then we found out, didn't we?"
--Montgomery Scott

Sometimes flaws pop up after launch.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 12:40 AM   #168
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post

"'Let's see what she's got' said the Captain. And then we found out, didn't we?"
--Montgomery Scott

Sometimes flaws pop up after launch.
They do. But that would point to not only a failure of the systems in question, but also the systems that are suppose to monitor those systems. Which I have a tough time believing.

It makes no sense that totally unrelated systems would be faltering, transporters, turbolifts, voice recorders and none of the monitoring systems picked it up until after launch. Plus, it would seem, at the very least, that the turbolifts were working prior to them leaving Spacedock or else they'd have never left.

Maybe the failures had nothing to do with whether it was an old or new ship? DC Comics #37 (post-The Voyage Home) had it that the ship was sabotaged coming out of Spacedock.

__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 03:16 AM   #169
Leto_II
Lieutenant Commander
 
Leto_II's Avatar
 
Location: Room 303, The Heart O' The City Hotel
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

austen_pierce wrote: View Post
But: (from IMDB)
"Captain's Log, stardate 9529.1. This is the final cruise of the Starship Enterprise under my command. This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. To them and their posterity will we commit our future. They will continue the voyages we have begun, and journey to all the undiscovered countries, boldly going where no man... where no *one* has gone before."

Implying that ENT-A is not to be decommissioned, but turned over to new hands. I know this is supposed to be a metaphorical baton passing to TNG, but in-universe, I have to assume this means ENT-A will live on. Uhura's earlier statement about being decommissioned, appears to have been countermanded by this point (we don't know how long after the battle this log is actually recorded). Perhaps Kirk showed that there's life in the Connie after all. ENT-A did after all beat Chang's cloaked BOP, while all Excelsior did was take torpedo hits. YMMV.
The novels set post-TUC indeed took up this position, with the Federation President issuing an official reprieve for the Constitution-class a couple of days after the movie's conclusion, and with the Enterprise-A continuing onto further missions well into 2293 (before meeting its final end in Shatner's The Ashes of Eden).


Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
The Enterprise A is retired a few months before the launch of the Enterprise B, both in 2293. Which means the Enterprise B was already under construction during a great deal of the Enterprise A's service life.

Is was honorary, the ship was never meant to last so long, or get into trouble, just keep Kirk and his crew out of the way of the rest of the fleet, serve their alloted time for their crimes in relative comfort and without seeming to punish those who saved Earth.

The Excelsior and Enterprise B were everything Starfleet wanted and were going ahead with.
Although this would seem to go slightly against Starfleet Command's belief in TUC that Kirk and his crew were the best-suited to "serve as [our] olive-branch" to the Klingon Empire -- it was Kirk's belief that a full ambassador would have been in a far better position to initiate peace talks with the enemy, but clearly the Federation held Kirk in high enough esteem to entrust him with the mission.

Also, as we see in TFF, James Kirk and a malfunctioning Enterprise-A were both still viewed as significant tactical assets by Starfleet Command, enough for Admiral Bennett to task Kirk with the hostage-rescue mission ("I need Jim Kirk"), when there were probably other, better-equipped starships which could've undertaken the job right then.
__________________
"Pablo, please take Chet's corpse into the other room, and then fix Mr. Hallenbeck a drink."
Leto_II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 03:21 AM   #170
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Leto_II wrote: View Post
Although this would seem to go slightly against Starfleet Command's belief in TUC that Kirk and his crew were the best-suited to "serve as [our] olive-branch" to the Klingon Empire -- it was Kirk's belief that a full ambassador would have been in a far better position to initiate peace talks with the enemy, but clearly the Federation held Kirk in high enough esteem to entrust him with the mission.
I don't know. The assignment could've been driven by conspirators who hoped Kirk would do something stupid out there because of his history with the Klingons?
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 11:58 AM   #171
Khan 2.0
Commander
 
Khan 2.0's Avatar
 
Location: earth...but when?...spock?
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

the reason why kirk and co got the same enterprise was so the audience wud love it
Khan 2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 05:38 PM   #172
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Khan 2.0 wrote: View Post
the reason why kirk and co got the same enterprise was so the audience wud love it
No, that was just a side-effect of the real reason, as has already been pointed out.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2014, 09:38 PM   #173
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

BillJ wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post

"'Let's see what she's got' said the Captain. And then we found out, didn't we?"
--Montgomery Scott

Sometimes flaws pop up after launch.
They do. But that would point to not only a failure of the systems in question, but also the systems that are suppose to monitor those systems. Which I have a tough time believing.

It makes no sense that totally unrelated systems would be faltering, transporters, turbolifts, voice recorders and none of the monitoring systems picked it up until after launch. Plus, it would seem, at the very least, that the turbolifts were working prior to them leaving Spacedock or else they'd have never left.
That's what a shakedown cruise is for. A ship can be built or extensively refitted and everything checks out fine while in Spacedock, but then put her out in the field and put her through her paces during her space trials, several problems might crop up which will need fixing with some other things to be tweaked. I think that's exactly what happened with the Enterprise-A in the timeframe between Star Treks IV and V. By the end of Star Trek V, the Enterprise-A was good to go.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:30 AM   #174
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

ST4 2286
ST5 2289

That's a looooong ass shakedown cruise. During which the bridge module at least has been completely replaced.

So the ship...starts out fine as far as we can see, then suffers from constant break downs for three solid years in a way that seems to show no major system aboard is spared, considering that includes warp reactors, gravity etc

Then in ST6 (2293) after 4 more years, the replacement of every major area of the ship from bridge, to shuttlebay, to engineering etc which essentially means they've had to rebuild the entire goddamn ship around the frame at least once, it works, only to retire.

Somethings not right there.
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 12:36 AM   #175
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

I think The Final Frontier is suppose to take place just a few weeks or months after the end of The Voyage Home.

Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
ST4 2286
ST5 2289

That's a looooong ass shakedown cruise. During which the bridge module at least has been completely replaced.

So the ship...starts out fine as far as we can see, then suffers from constant break downs for three solid years in a way that seems to show no major system aboard is spared, considering that includes warp reactors, gravity etc

Then in ST6 (2293) after 4 more years, the replacement of every major area of the ship from bridge, to shuttlebay, to engineering etc which essentially means they've had to rebuild the entire goddamn ship around the frame at least once, it works, only to retire.

Somethings not right there.
__________________
"I had no idea you were so... formidable. " - Anan 7 to James T. Kirk, A Taste of Armageddon
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 01:18 AM   #176
Chemahkuu
Vice Admiral
 
Chemahkuu's Avatar
 
Location: United Kingdom
Send a message via Yahoo to Chemahkuu
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Memory Alpha gives it as 2287 after the cruise, could have sworn it was meant to be longer, what's up with the new bridge module then?

And a 6 year random gap to ST6.

Ugh, that fucking film...
__________________
"But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake."
Chemahkuu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 01:37 AM   #177
FormerLurker
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

The bridge module was probably the first thing they replaced, only to find out they needed an even more different one to get the thing to work correctly, as they learned on the Nimbus III/center of the galaxy mission. I mean, why else would Kirk say, "I miss my old chair."?
FormerLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2014, 05:13 AM   #178
Leto_II
Lieutenant Commander
 
Leto_II's Avatar
 
Location: Room 303, The Heart O' The City Hotel
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

BillJ wrote: View Post
I think The Final Frontier is suppose to take place just a few weeks or months after the end of The Voyage Home.
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
ST4 2286
ST5 2289

That's a looooong ass shakedown cruise. During which the bridge module at least has been completely replaced.
Chemahkuu wrote: View Post
Memory Alpha gives it as 2287 after the cruise, could have sworn it was meant to be longer, what's up with the new bridge module then?

And a 6 year random gap to ST6.

Ugh, that fucking film...
The canon dating of Star Trek V comes from a third-season TNG episode, "Evolution," where Data mentions that it has been 79 years since the last full-scale catastrophic systems failure aboard a Federation starship (back in 2287) -- Michael Piller later confirmed that this was indeed a reference to the fifth movie, which had just been released theatrically only a couple of months prior to the start of TNG's third season.

This dating is also used in the official Okuda chronology, which places Star Trek VI in 2293 as a result, etc., which is also where the Memory Alpha-dating derives.


FormerLurker wrote: View Post
The bridge module was probably the first thing they replaced, only to find out they needed an even more different one to get the thing to work correctly, as they learned on the Nimbus III/center of the galaxy mission. I mean, why else would Kirk say, "I miss my old chair."?
Yup -- going strictly from one film to the next, it's clear that several major structural changes have occurred to the Enterprise-A between movies; the bridge getting renovated being the biggest visual/temporal cue that some time has passed between the events of TVH and TFF.

Harve Bennett postulated something in the neighborhood of a six-month shakedown cruise (or thereabouts) -- however, with TSFS taking place in 2285, and TVH occurring only three months later (in early 2286), it's clear that a much longer timespan separates the two movies; likely between 9-12 months, at the absolute minimum.

As BillJ points out, a bunch of the first series of DC Comics stories set after Star Trek IV took place during that interim period (2286-87), and there are several events there which could be viewed as possibly contributory to the Enterprise-A's eventual widespread systems-breakdown as seen in Star Trek V.
__________________
"Pablo, please take Chet's corpse into the other room, and then fix Mr. Hallenbeck a drink."
Leto_II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2014, 03:21 AM   #179
Mr Pointy Ears
Captain
 
Location: Adelaide,australia
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

I remember reading somewhere that the producers were thinking of giving kirk command of the excelsior for the next movie which would of had been the final frontier.
Mr Pointy Ears is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2014, 04:30 AM   #180
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Leto_II wrote: View Post
The canon dating of Star Trek V comes from a third-season TNG episode, "Evolution," where Data mentions that it has been 79 years since the last full-scale catastrophic systems failure aboard a Federation starship (back in 2287) -- Michael Piller later confirmed that this was indeed a reference to the fifth movie, which had just been released theatrically only a couple of months prior to the start of TNG's third season.
I always thought that was a reference to Scotty's sabotage of the Excelsior, since the E-A never really suffered a "catastrophic system failure" (the turbolift saying "Le -- Le -- Level" doesn't really count, in my book).
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.