RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,163
Posts: 5,597,470
Members: 25,396
Currently online: 658
Newest member: mxadam

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: When It Rains…
By: Michelle on Feb 27

Nimoy Dead At Eighty-Three
By: T'Bonz on Feb 27

Breaking news: Leonard Nimoy – ‘Mr Spock’ – dies aged 83
By: AntonyF on Feb 27

Hurley Passes
By: T'Bonz on Feb 26

USS Excelsior Model Coming Soon
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25

Hemsworth To Host SNL
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25

Quinto To Guest Star On HBO Comedy
By: T'Bonz on Feb 25

Wheaton To Voice Firefly Game
By: T'Bonz on Feb 24

Nimoy Health Scare
By: T'Bonz on Feb 24

Star Trek #42 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Feb 23


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 May 18 2014, 05:45 PM   #61
Hartzilla2007
Vice Admiral
 
Hartzilla2007's Avatar
 
Location: Star Trekkin Across the universe.
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Leto_II wrote: View Post
It doesn't really contradict anything from the films, though;
Woopie shit. It still doesn't mean they would give Kirk Excelsior just because the novelization said so.
Hartzilla2007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2014, 07:16 PM   #62
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Captain Nebula wrote: View Post
Dukhat wrote: View Post
It was also originally intended for Kirk and his crew to get the Excelsior at the end of STIV for exactly this reason: For any future TOS films, the model would be easier to manipulate for ILM.
Not according to the novels. All the way back to the novel of The Wrath of Khan, Sulu was slated to take command of the Excelsior, after a little training cruise. Then in TSFS, his Captaincy was put on hold over the Genesis Incident.
Not quite, because that cut scene in TWOK where Sulu's command of the Excelsior was mentioned had nothing to do with the Bill George-designed, "Great Experiment" transwarp prototype in STIII, since that idea didn't come until years later. The "Excelsior" mentioned in that scene and in the novel was just supposed to be a random ship that Sulu was going to get. Once STIII came along, they decided to use the name for the transwarp prototype, and in an ironic twist of fate, Sulu ended up commanding her.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 18 2014, 07:18 PM   #63
Leto_II
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?

Hartzilla2007 wrote: View Post
Leto_II wrote: View Post
It doesn't really contradict anything from the films, though;
Woopie shit. It still doesn't mean they would give Kirk Excelsior just because the novelization said so.
I wasn't even talking about Kirk getting the Excelsior -- I was referring to Sulu's captaincy getting rescinded. For the record, there was nothing in the novels about Kirk ever even being considered for that job, either.
__________________
"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 May 19 2014, 05:13 PM   #64
Galileo7
Fleet Captain
 
Galileo7's Avatar
 
Location: U.S.A.
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Seeing the 1701-A as a Constitution class refit was awesome in '86, albeit that was the moment when they should have introduced the 1701-A as then next class. Maybe, a class that was beyond the Excelsior that had so many problems in SFS.
Galileo7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 19 2014, 05:50 PM   #65
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Galileo7 wrote: View Post
Maybe, a class that was beyond the Excelsior that had so many problems in SFS.
For the umpteenth time, the Excelsior was NOT plagued with problems. Scotty sabotaged it. To this day, I still don't understand how the "Excelsior/transwarp is a failure because it broke down" story was adopted by fans, when the movie makes it crystal clear what happened.
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2014, 07:13 AM   #66
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Galileo7 wrote: View Post
Maybe, a class that was beyond the Excelsior that had so many problems in SFS.
For the umpteenth time, the Excelsior was NOT plagued with problems. Scotty sabotaged it. To this day, I still don't understand how the "Excelsior/transwarp is a failure because it broke down" story was adopted by fans, when the movie makes it crystal clear what happened.
Yeah, I made the same point a little earlier in this discussion too. Admittedly Starfleet might've had a public relations fiasco after Excelsior so spectacularly crapped itself just outside space dock, and maybe they had to pull back the Excelsior project for a bit to give the impression to the public that they were working to fix some problem which in reality didn't actually exist, but why some sections of the Star Trek fandom seem to have so readily accepted that Excelsior's transwarp drive was always doomed to failure anyway despite it being explicitly stated on-screen by Scotty himself that the transwarp drive only malfunctioned because Scotty screwed about with it is anyone's guess.

I mean, I think people only assume transwarp failed because (obviously) subsequent Star Trek ignored it. But even the 'conventional wisdom' that Sulu's Excelsior was fitted with a conventional warp drive is really not supported by anything on-screen. Maybe TNG's new warp scale *is* what the 23rd century engineers referred to as "transwarp", maybe the Enterprise-D and all other ships of her era are fitted with Excelsior style warp drives. They just don't call it transwarp.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2014, 09:45 AM   #67
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Which would be awesome, except for the fact that warp speed is portrayed as many orders of magnitude faster in TOS and the classic movies than it usually is in the TNG era
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2014, 07:02 PM   #68
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

^ Therein lies the rub (to paraphrase The Bard).
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2014, 07:11 PM   #69
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Galileo7 wrote: View Post
Maybe, a class that was beyond the Excelsior that had so many problems in SFS.
For the umpteenth time, the Excelsior was NOT plagued with problems. Scotty sabotaged it. To this day, I still don't understand how the "Excelsior/transwarp is a failure because it broke down" story was adopted by fans, when the movie makes it crystal clear what happened.
Reminds me of Jurassic Park. The catastrophe happened ONLY because the terrorist hacker sabotaged it, and NOT because of any of the stuff Ian Malcolm talked about.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 20 2014, 10:28 PM   #70
WarpFactorZ
Captain
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Lance wrote: View Post
Yeah, I made the same point a little earlier in this discussion too. Admittedly Starfleet might've had a public relations fiasco after Excelsior so spectacularly crapped itself just outside space dock, and maybe they had to pull back the Excelsior project for a bit to give the impression to the public that they were working to fix some problem which in reality didn't actually exist,
I think the people stealing the Enterprise were the ones suffering a PR fiasco. All Starfleet would have to do is publicly accuse Scotty of exactly what he did to gain sympathy. But, that being said, they could have taken advantage of the moment to "fix" things, as you suggest (maybe the Federation threw more quatloos their way to toughen up "security").
WarpFactorZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2014, 12:06 AM   #71
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Galileo7 wrote: View Post
Maybe, a class that was beyond the Excelsior that had so many problems in SFS.
For the umpteenth time, the Excelsior was NOT plagued with problems. Scotty sabotaged it. To this day, I still don't understand how the "Excelsior/transwarp is a failure because it broke down" story was adopted by fans, when the movie makes it crystal clear what happened.
Reminds me of Jurassic Park. The catastrophe happened ONLY because the terrorist hacker sabotaged it, and NOT because of any of the stuff Ian Malcolm talked about.
Well, the hacker thing is kind of in keeping with his expectations, because this kind of thing just happens. Human nature is enough to mean the system is going to screw up or be screwed up by interference.

By virtue of the system being so automated and not needing human monitoring at all points, it pretty much BEGS to be hacked ... but you could say that about any system, I guess.

The Newmann guy from SEINFELD is the monkey in the wrench like Bruce Willis in DIE HARD, but it could have been a butterfly flapping its wings and knocking a fly into a moving part piece of equipment (a la BRAZIL) that led to a partial system failure. Nothing works right out of the gate and for forever anyway. Look at how the autopilot was going to put Armstrong & Aldrin down in a crater on 7/20/69.
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2014, 12:14 AM   #72
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

Anything can be destroyed with just enough criminal effort. Using this as an general argument against something (as Malcolm did), is wrong. We didn't abandon airplanes and skyscrapers after 9/11, we did increase security efforts. And believe me, it is going to happen again.

There is absolutely no reasonable connection between "hacker shut down security systems" and "cloning dinosaurs is a bad thing".
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2014, 12:21 AM   #73
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

WarpFactorZ wrote: View Post
Galileo7 wrote: View Post
Maybe, a class that was beyond the Excelsior that had so many problems in SFS.
For the umpteenth time, the Excelsior was NOT plagued with problems. Scotty sabotaged it. To this day, I still don't understand how the "Excelsior/transwarp is a failure because it broke down" story was adopted by fans, when the movie makes it crystal clear what happened.
Blame TNG.

Up until then, the story that was adopted by fans was that transwarp drive was going to be incorporated throughout the Starfleet, with even the Enterprise-A getting transwarp engines. But when TNG premiered with no mention of transwarp drive and a warp scale that might as well have been indistinguishable from that in TOS, the idea began to circulate that "the Great Experiment" didn't quite work out. The TNG Technical Manual cemented this for many with a line that this was indeed the case, but with lessons learned from it resulting in a redrawn warp scale for TNG-era ships.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2014, 12:27 AM   #74
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

When the Enterprise traveled to the center of the galaxy in days with its transwarp drive, everybody started bitching, called it worst movie ever and apocryphal. Blame the fans.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21 2014, 12:46 AM   #75
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

I don't recall anyone bitching about the Enterprise-A having or not having transwarp drive in STV. I recall them bitching about every other aspect of the movie though.

However, if they had bothered to explain in STIII that "transwarp drive" means "traveling to the center of the galaxy in days," then it would have made more sense. But they didn't, so no one knows what transwarp drive actually does.
__________________
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is online now   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 05:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.