RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,522
Posts: 5,512,347
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 464
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 3 2014, 09:54 PM   #151
JJohnson
Captain
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

publiusr wrote: View Post
I think that Aridas and other postulated an non-Stargazer Constellation class that came before the consitution class. I might consider the three footer with the flat top and bottom saucer to be part of this. Shaw showed alternative nacelle mounting points where the naceles were swapped . Datin had them high on the mounts, where others had it lower down. The AMT model shown on screen might be considered a refit.
I don't see any evidence there was any Enterprise between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701. Absence of evidence doesn't mean it didn't exist. Just look at evolutionary biology. We didn't know that dinosaurs had feathers till recently. But as for Star Trek, I tend to go with:

*NCC-1700 is the USS Constitution, launched in the 2240s
*NCC-1701 is the USS Enterprise, launched in 2245 under Robert April. Then Pike had 2 5-year missions (Spock served under him 11 years, so some time for refit there before Kirk). then Kirk.
*USS Constellation, Exeter, Excaliber, Potemkin, and Intrepid were upgraded from a prior ship's class to Constitution class; or the registries were reserved and for various reasons, re-assigned to new-build Constitution-class vessels. Starfleet was either in need of ships in the 2240s to refit to a new class, or their numbering system was not managed well.

To me, that seems to be the simplest explanation, contrary to yenny's hypothesis of a new, unknown, Enterprise with a registry between NCC-01 and NCC-1701.
JJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 3 2014, 09:58 PM   #152
Ru ru, chu
Fleet Admiral
 
Ru ru, chu's Avatar
 
Location: Mr. Laser Beam is in the visitor's bullpen
View Ru ru, chu's Twitter Profile
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

JJohnson wrote: View Post

I don't see any evidence there was any Enterprise between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701.
In the Abramsverse, there was.
__________________
"A hot dog at the ballpark is better than a steak at the Ritz." - Humphrey Bogart
Ru ru, chu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 04:04 AM   #153
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

There were also plans for a pre-TOS Enterprise in the unmade movie Star Trek: The Academy Years. Cadets Kirk, Spock, Scotty and McCoy would have ended up taking over on a training cruise gone wrong and save the day. Click for story. Click for concept art.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 05:59 AM   #154
OpenMaw
Commander
 
OpenMaw's Avatar
 
Location: Everett, Washington
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Has anyone ever fleshed that concept out into an actual design?
__________________
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 09:29 AM   #155
Devon
Fleet Captain
 
Devon's Avatar
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

OpenMaw wrote: View Post
Has anyone ever fleshed that concept out into an actual design?
Yes, they made a whole series out of it called "Enterprise"
__________________
Follow my Star Trek Model builds, music, art and more at Devon's Corner.
Devon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 10:30 PM   #156
OpenMaw
Commander
 
OpenMaw's Avatar
 
Location: Everett, Washington
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Devon wrote: View Post
OpenMaw wrote: View Post
Has anyone ever fleshed that concept out into an actual design?
Yes, they made a whole series out of it called "Enterprise"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFGfWrJR5Ck

Damn you, sir.
__________________
"Paradise protests too much." SFDebris
OpenMaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 4 2014, 10:59 PM   #157
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Early plans for ST'09 had the TOS Enterprise be destroyed in the opening, which would have cemented it's construction pre-2233. Perhaps the class is that old?
I agree that there is no canon source for the christening of the Enterprise, so it's entirely possible that it could have been built pre-2230. This would have made for a better opening, rather than using an unknown ship, and would have offered some explanation for why the nu-E doesn't look like the old one. They also missed the opportunity to canonize Robert April beyond TAS (given the absurd number of nods in each film, I find it odd they didn't).
The rumor was that the ship that the Narada destroys at the start of the film was supposed to be the original TOS Enterprise under April's command (and the nuEnt would then have been the Enterprise-A), but Paramount had an edict that they didn't want any ship named Enterprise to be destroyed, so they changed the ship to the Kelvin and changed April to Robau.

However, I personally have never seen any quotes from production personnel or related proof that this rumor is actually true.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 12:31 AM   #158
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Early plans for ST'09 had the TOS Enterprise be destroyed in the opening, which would have cemented it's construction pre-2233. Perhaps the class is that old?
I agree that there is no canon source for the christening of the Enterprise, so it's entirely possible that it could have been built pre-2230. This would have made for a better opening, rather than using an unknown ship, and would have offered some explanation for why the nu-E doesn't look like the old one. They also missed the opportunity to canonize Robert April beyond TAS (given the absurd number of nods in each film, I find it odd they didn't).
The rumor was that the ship that the Narada destroys at the start of the film was supposed to be the original TOS Enterprise under April's command (and the nuEnt would then have been the Enterprise-A), but Paramount had an edict that they didn't want any ship named Enterprise to be destroyed, so they changed the ship to the Kelvin and changed April to Robau.

However, I personally have never seen any quotes from production personnel or related proof that this rumor is actually true.
Copy/pasting from last time this came up:
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
some other poster wrote:
some poster wrote:
That being said, I'd also have settled for the ship that's destroyed in the opening of ST XI being the original, TOS-era Enterprise (with Robert April in command). That's what was supposed to happen, but Abrams was ordered to remove it because TPTB would not under any circumstances allow him to destroy an Enterprise. So he had to change it to the Kelvin.
That's the first I've heard of this. Do you have a link?

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_...ing_the_Kelvin says only this:
In early stages of the film's development, the ship was named the USS Iowa. [4] While known by this eventually unused name, the vessel was given a registry number of 1201. [5] In a later interview with screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, Kurtzman explained that the ship's initial name was to have been "our nod" to the fact that the prime universe James T. Kirk had been semi-established as having been born in Iowa. "Then we decided that was too radical," Kurtzman said of the reference. Technically statements in Star Trek IV stated that Kirk was from Iowa and only worked in outer-space (indicating he was not born there).
The part about destroying the Enterprise came from this 2009 Newsarama interview, if I'm not mistaken:
NRAMA: The script took six to eight months to bang out so what other ideas did you bandy around?

Kurtzman: There was no other macro idea. We knew we wanted to do an origin story with Spock Prime coming back. Obviously, details within the story changed wildly. We had a draft with Carol Marcus meeting Kirk as a child and goes on to be the mother of his son. We had Nurse Chapel have a potentially budding romance with Spock that we explored. At one point, we were bandying around the idea of destroying the Enterprise mid-battle.

Orci: That was actually the only time the studio even put the brakes on us. Please dont destroy the Enterprise. We said Okay, youre right. Vulcan fine. Enterprise no. There were a few million things like that along the way.
If the part about Robert April commanding was ever anything more than rumor or fan speculation, I don't know what its source might be.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 12:42 AM   #159
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

^Thanks for that clarification, M'Sharak. So from how I read that Newsarama interview, it was the nuEnterprise that Orci & Kurtzman were considering to get destroyed halfway through the battle with Nero, not the ship that would eventually become the Kelvin. What Paramount then stated about not wanting the Enterprise destroyed makes way more sense.

So it sounds like some fan took what was said out of context, and the Internetz ran with it. Gee, that never happens with Star Trek fans...
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 01:18 AM   #160
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Dukhat wrote: View Post

So it sounds like some fan took what was said out of context, and the Internetz ran with it. Gee, that never happens with Star Trek fans...
Oh, never ever.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 05:42 AM   #161
Set Harth
Rear Admiral
 
Set Harth's Avatar
 
Location: Distant Thunder
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

I miss the days when the studio would let ST films destroy the Enterprise.
__________________
Do you know what this is? What this means?
Set Harth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 5 2014, 03:51 PM   #162
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

Set Harth wrote: View Post
I miss the days when the studio would let ST films destroy the Enterprise.
But that led to the days where it was required, like with Generations.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 16 2014, 10:00 PM   #163
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

I remember folks wondering what the Enterprise would look like in ST IV. I was hoping it wouldn't be Excelsior, but it would be a refit, with some minor changes to freshen it up a bit.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17 2014, 01:48 PM   #164
Khan 2.0
Captain
 
Khan 2.0's Avatar
 
Location: earth...but when?...spock?
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

from imdb trivia -
"The original opening for the movie was going to feature the Enterprise NCC-1701 under the command of Robert April, with George Kirk second in command. At the climax of the scene the Enterprise would have been destroyed, and the Enterprise featured through most of the movie would have been its successor, the NCC-1701-A (which didn't debut until Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986) in the original timeline). However, Paramount told Kurtzman and Orci that the one thing they absolutely could not do was destroy the Enterprise, even if they were going to replace it with a newer one, and so the "original" Enterprise was rewritten into the USS Kelvin, with Captain April becoming Captain Robau. "
dunno if all thats true or not but it would seem the 'logical' choice - to have had April in command of the original Enterprise (im talking pretty much the same model as used in TOS) and some big star as April (Hanks or Ford etc)
it would have certainly established clearly why the enterprise looked alot different to how it did in TOS! It would have firmly established that this IS an "alternate" timeline, and thematically set up the notion that this is a totally "new" Enterprise that will have "new" adventures. And would have explained Kirk’s infatuation with the Enterprise–it was his father’s ship.
i know the NCC1701 wasnt launched until 2245 (according to the 'official' Chronology) but im sure they couldve just ignored that and had it launched earlier to serve the need of the story
Khan 2.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 17 2014, 01:59 PM   #165
Khan 2.0
Captain
 
Khan 2.0's Avatar
 
Location: earth...but when?...spock?
Re: Kirk Enterprise - the Enterprise(a)?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Set Harth wrote: View Post
I miss the days when the studio would let ST films destroy the Enterprise.
But that led to the days where it was required, like with Generations.

id have liked to have seen Nero wipe out TNG at the start of ST09…sort of a tie in with the Countdown comic. start off straight in the thick of the action with Patrick Stewart and the TNG guys on the Ent E in a desperate battle with the Narada then blown up trying to prevent Nero from killing Spock Prime before they both get pulled into the blackhole...then the opening credits 'S T A R T R E K'.....then Spocks birth (from the deleted scenes)....then the Kelvin destruction/birth of Kirk

it wouldve established just how powerful Neros ship was in the face of 24th century Federation technology and really wouldve hammered home just how badass Kirk, Spock etc are in eventually stopping Nero…plus itd have given TNG a proper send off/passing the baton after the lame one in Nemesis going out in a blaze of glory stopping Nero destroying Spock (its not as they would be coming back in another film now anyway) and there would have been some revenge there for TNG killing off Kirk Prime! (plus in the alternate timeline Picard and Co could have a different outcome so not really dead)

Last edited by Khan 2.0; March 17 2014 at 02:22 PM.
Khan 2.0 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 11:20 AM.

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