How much time passed between IV and V?
- Thread starter Tribble puncher
- Start date
Scotty alludes to it, bickering about the Captain saying "What this ship can do" and then *plop*, they're stuck on Earth due to all the problems being encountered, right down to the independent electronic log device (SMH). I'm torn between "immediately after" or "a couple of weeks". Anything over a month feels increasingly unlikely.
What the hell is a rotary phone?
..jk, I had one as a kid, but we used it as a toy lol.
Given the whole bridge module (at least!) is replaced between movies, it can't have been too close, but also probably not a large gap either.
The original Trek bible specifically forbade writers from showing 23rd century Earth, because it limited scope, potentially dated the series and was a lazy shorthand. Roddenberry wanted the writers to be about the unknown, a ship in deep space. It's ironic that once TMP relaxed this taboo, Earth basically became home base in every movie
The original Trek bible specifically forbade writers from showing 23rd century Earth, because it limited scope, potentially dated the series and was a lazy shorthand. Roddenberry wanted the writers to be about the unknown, a ship in deep space. It's ironic that once TMP relaxed this taboo, Earth basically became home base in every movie
I always thought that was just their polite excuse for "we could never afford to do it justice, so it's out of bounds" and then in the movies they had tons more money and could.The original Trek bible specifically forbade writers from showing 23rd century Earth, because it limited scope, potentially dated the series and was a lazy shorthand. Roddenberry wanted the writers to be about the unknown, a ship in deep space. It's ironic that once TMP relaxed this taboo, Earth basically became home base in every movie
It's a fair point, but the bible does specifically talk about how the concept is of a ship as far from home as possible, exploring strange new worlds. One might argue that the movies repeatedly having the start and end every mission in Earth orbit was scaling down ambition rather than scaling it up.
While I get it, & I can see the point of it, I never had a problem with it. Frankly, it was in response to what fans wanted, & the bible applies to a tv series, not a motion picture franchise, especially one that switched tracks so dramatically from story driven plots to character driven ones. I mean the 2nd two films literally have character names in their titles. You can't tell character driven stories without that they we are shown something of who they are & where they're coming from.The original Trek bible specifically forbade writers from showing 23rd century Earth, because it limited scope, potentially dated the series and was a lazy shorthand. Roddenberry wanted the writers to be about the unknown, a ship in deep space. It's ironic that once TMP relaxed this taboo, Earth basically became home base in every movie
Exactly right I do see that point too. And while TMP has a narrative reason to begin at Earth with the refit Enterprise being launched and is arguably strengthened by being the first time Earth is seen to be in direct threat in Star Trek, the subsequent 2-3 movies at least also have reasons foe circling their narrative around Sol 3. It just feels unfortunate that all 6 movies end up using Earth as a base of operations / home base when Trek conceptually is about being as far away from Earth as possible. (The Abrams movies were both arguably the same; only Beyond has truly presented the idea of the Enterprise as a vessel in deep space in a theatrical sense.)
I wouldn't say they use Earth as a "home base", in all but one film (TVH) it's only used as a launching point. Since TOS is literally during a five year exploration mission, (Wherein the show's bible forbidding Earth stories makes a LOT of sense) & the movies are set during no such mission, that each subsequent mission begins there is pretty reasonable.
Even the show didn't avoid Earth altogether. They just avoided showing the current state of future Earth (Probably cuz it would cost too much, & maybe kill the dream a little if it were done on the cheap) I think they did a fine job in the films. Most of them avoid putting too much emphasis on the future Earth. They focus mainly on Starfleet headquarters, which is really just an extension of the universe we've already been in, & one the fans wanted to see
I don't know. Farting Around London was one of Forester's best Hornblower novels.
I know books are not canon, but in the Star Trek IV novelization, it says that Taylor is going to the U.S.S. Clarke. On Discovery, it became canon that the Clarke was destroyed in 2256, so it couldn't have been that ship.
As for the OP, I always thought it was a few weeks, with the bridge having been changed out.
As for the OP, I always thought it was a few weeks, with the bridge having been changed out.
When a ship gets destroyed in Star Trek, they usually manage to fart out a new one with the same name in about a week.
Harve Bennett stated in interviews that the intention was for the new Enterprise-A to have at a minimum six-month-long shakedown cruise; later sources (including the Okudas) extended this timeframe to just slightly short of a year or thereabouts (including the dating of Star Trek V in 2287 based on the "twenty years since the founding of Nimbus III" dialogue in the film, and probably also Data's reference in TNG: "Evolution" about the last shipwide systems-failure having taken place "79 years ago").
Someone said the gap was seven years but that doesn't sound right to me one little bit! I'm guessing at a two to three years gap of time between the films!
JB
JB
Similar threads
