RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,131
Posts: 5,401,624
Members: 24,746
Currently online: 468
Newest member: retrodynamic

TrekToday headlines

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Retro Watches
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


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 July 5 2012, 06:34 PM   #181
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

I think it's really something that could go either way. Both ideas are plausible, so it's a "which theory do you prefer?" kind of thing, IMO.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2012, 07:06 PM   #182
JudgeDredd
Lieutenant Junior Grade
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Since I've had Kirk's final log entry memorized since 1991, let's see what it suggests about the E-A:

"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 do 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."

I think the issue of the ship's decommissioning stems from one poorly-written segment of an otherwise beautiful bit of writing. "This ship" was likely intended to refer to the legacy of the Enterprise name, not the E-A herself. Even if there was no buzz or indication that there would be an Enterprise-B, Kirk would have known (and anyone else for that matter) that the addition of a suffix meant that there would likely be more ships named Enterprise.

"This ship, and her history" could have been better rendered with something along the lines of "The legacy of the Starship Enterprise will shortly become the care of another crew." This would avoid singling out the E-A in particular and suggest what was intended with TUC, namely, passing the baton; this is most obvious is the line "where no man-where no one-has gone before," i.e., the TNG wording of the Starfleet Charter.

I take this minor problem of association to be at the heart of this argument. I also think the Enterprise-A was in fact a brand new ship though with a different name. She hadn't launched yet and was given the new commission of Enterprise 1701-A.

I also don't think she was either recommissioned for further use after repairs OR put in a Starfleet Museum to make way for the "next generation."

And let's get one thing straight: Captain James T. Kirk was a hero, along with his crew. If anyone at Starfleet hated/disliked him as much as some seem to indicate in this thread, then they were just jealous losers who wanted the glory for themselves.

I prefer to think they were seen as legends. The E-A was a gift, albeit one that had all the problems of a brand-new vessel with experimental tech (going on the Guide to the Enterprise) and was in no way a "punishment."

And it's clear to everyone assembled at the end of Star Trek IV that demoting Kirk was an honor and a reward, not a punishment.

Finally, I think Kirk and Co. went on various missions aboard the E-A, but were also doing other things as well. Kirk did bring a bag to his quarters, indicating he didn't live aboard the ship. However, I think Spock did spend a lot of time there, maybe even live there, going by the painting in his quarters and other decor.
JudgeDredd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2012, 07:25 PM   #183
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Kirk's demotion at the end of TVH was nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 17 2012, 07:34 PM   #184
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

If anything, they were giving Kirk what he'd really wanted for years--command of a starship again. Roddenberry's novelization of TMP even suggested that Kirk didn't really want a promotion to the admiralty in the first place. In TWOK, Spock flat-out told Kirk that it hadn't been a good move for him:

SPOCK: If I may be so bold, it was a mistake for you to accept promotion. Commanding a starship is your first best destiny. Anything else is a waste of material.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."

Last edited by C.E. Evans; July 18 2012 at 01:20 AM. Reason: fragmentation
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 03:58 AM   #185
AggieJohn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Houston Tx
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

This is why I never liked the Enterprise A. I LOVE the NCC-1701, greatest ship of all times, and I have no issues with Starfleet naming other ships after her. But what is the chances of Starfleet naming a ship in the same class after her? Its like a guy losing his wife and marrying someone that looks just like her and forcing her to change her name.

The Enterprise was destroyed saving the crews lives. Honoring it is about moving forward not trying to give us a campy ending to STIV. I wonder what Kirk would have really said seeing the E-A? Now one cavot to this would be what was the service life of the Connie class after STVI, now this would be hard since the treaty may have ended their life span earlier then expected, but that may not be true since the D-7 is seen in TNG.

For one thing, its considered bad luck to rename a ship so if its the Ti Ho or the Yorktown, its just a bad idea, hence ST V. Two, the E-A should have been a Excelsior class. It does just seem that the E-A was about giving Kirk what they thought he wanted. But really Kirk is a CAPTAIN he did not want a token Enterprise, hence his getting the E-A in to some adventures, one being worth seeing
AggieJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 09:38 AM   #186
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

For one thing, its considered bad luck to rename a ship
Umm, no. It's a time-honored custom to rename ships, especially warships that change ownership. You just have to do a silly little ceremony to appease the gods of the sea, if you're into that stuff.

It does just seem that the E-A was about giving Kirk what they thought he wanted.
Or what he deserved. They did give him a ship of somewhat aged type that wasn't working properly and got decommissioned half a decade later. And then they gave him an assured-failure mission to perform with her, in ST5:TFF. And after he succeeded against odds, they gave him another assured-failure mission, in ST:TUC, hoping that he'd die and/or ignite a war. And then it turned out that the ship would be decommissioned, after barely half a decade of service.

Those are the apparent facts; whether they should be interpreted as Starfleet really liking Kirk or Starfleet really hating Kirk is for everybody to personally decide...

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 11:03 AM   #187
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Well one issue in the TFF is that whilst there were other ships in the area they specifically wanted Kirk. Why not just give Kirk temporary command of one of the ships in full working order.
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 11:40 AM   #188
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Indeed. Why not? Unless the intent was to see Kirk fail. Everybody else appeared to send ships or people there specifically to fail...

This Admiral "Bob" seemed to be sympathetic to Kirk, but the decision to send him to the doomed mission in a doomed ship was probably out of Bob's hands.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 07:41 PM   #189
Garrovick
Commander
 
Garrovick's Avatar
 
Location: wallowing in a pool of emotion
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Timo wrote: View Post
For one thing, its considered bad luck to rename a ship
Umm, no. It's a time-honored custom to rename ships, especially warships that change ownership. You just have to do a silly little ceremony to appease the gods of the sea, if you're into that stuff.

It does just seem that the E-A was about giving Kirk what they thought he wanted.
Or what he deserved. They did give him a ship of somewhat aged type that wasn't working properly and got decommissioned half a decade later. And then they gave him an assured-failure mission to perform with her, in ST5:TFF. And after he succeeded against odds, they gave him another assured-failure mission, in ST:TUC, hoping that he'd die and/or ignite a war. And then it turned out that the ship would be decommissioned, after barely half a decade of service.

Those are the apparent facts; whether they should be interpreted as Starfleet really liking Kirk or Starfleet really hating Kirk is for everybody to personally decide...

Timo Saloniemi
There are those who feel it's bad luck to rename a ship, even though it happens all the time. The escort carrier USS Midway had its name changed to USS St. Lo in early October 1944 and then became the first ship sunk by a kamikaze plane just a couple of weeks later.
Garrovick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 25 2012, 08:24 PM   #190
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Then again, the Deutschland was renamed the Lützow and fared significantly better than the rest of the German surface navy in WWII.

Perhaps more relevantly, she was given a "working name" before completion, a custom observed in many navies. Just like she was "Preussen" before becoming Deutschland, the Enterprise could have been anything from an uncompleted Ti-Ho to a barely commissioned Insufferable to an already serving Yorktown.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26 2012, 03:45 AM   #191
AggieJohn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Houston Tx
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Well the renaming is a matter of opinion. One does have to wonder, I mean even Kirk's logbook broke? I mean how do you screw that up?

It just seems that, if they really wanted to honor Kirk they would have given him command of the Excelsior. The future of the Federation commanded by their greatest hero. If they really wanted to rename a ship that would have been the one to rename.
AggieJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 26 2012, 09:04 PM   #192
Timo
Admiral
 
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

...Whereas renaming a surplus older cruiser is a win-win situation if we make the assumption that Starfleet wanted to punish Kirk but was told to reward him instead. It looks like a reward to the rest of the Federation, and Kirk himself might need some time to realize he has actually been insulted, but the end result would be Starfleet sidelining Kirk and preventing him from making much of an impact on anything, what with his substandard hardware and a string of hopeless missions.

Timo Saloniemi
Timo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2012, 05:49 AM   #193
Uxi
Lieutenant Commander
 
Uxi's Avatar
 
Location: Southern California
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

The idea of Starfleet wanting to punish Kirk and sending him on hopeless missions is peculiarly odd... but still entertaining.
__________________
---
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Uxi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2012, 05:49 AM   #194
AggieJohn
Lieutenant
 
Location: Houston Tx
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

That is an interesting point. I always wondered how much Star fleet really appreciated Kirk. I mean if you reward him, its like giving a green light to officers to disobey orders. He stole a command cruiser. Yes he did save Earth but demoting him down was not really punishment, He wanted to be a Captain. He reluctantly accepted promotion in the first place.

It seems they are in a pickle, you want to reward him for his service but at the same time let people know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.
AggieJohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 27 2012, 12:40 PM   #195
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: The operational status of NCC 1701-A...?

Uxi wrote: View Post
The idea of Starfleet wanting to punish Kirk and sending him on hopeless missions is peculiarly odd... but still entertaining.
Not really odd, he made their handling of Genesis look incompetent and then made their security measures look inadequate by stealing the Enterprise and sabotaging the Excelsior.
__________________
"I tell you what you all need, you need to take a thirteenth step, down off your high horse." - Hank Hill, King of the Hill
BillJ 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 01:52 AM.

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