"Jim, the Enterprise is 20 years old, we feel her day is done." My thoughts when seeing that scene.

[apepa]

I did a thread about HMS Victorious a couple of weeks ago that pretty much covers a lot of the things discussed here.

HMS Victorious was commissioned as a state-of-the-art Aircraft Carrier for the Royal Navy in 1941. She went in for refit 10 years later, and because military and propulsion technology had advanced so much in that time, the refit ended up taking over 5 years and the ship was so heavily modified (even her hull was enlarged) she might as well have been a brand new vessel.

And after all that, she ended up being decommissioned just over a decade after the refit was complete due to budget cuts and changing requirements.

All the other Illustrious-class ships were scrapped just 10 years after being commissioned because the heavy damage they took in the war shortened their lifespans.

In contrast to this, HMS Hermes/INS Vikraat was a younger contemporary of Victorious that was only decommissioned in 2017 and outlasted much newer ships in service.

In short, ships have an estimated lifespan, not a set one. Some ships of the same time period might last longer than others, and there are a lot of other administrative, technological and economic factors in play that might mean they are retired early or are held in service longer than planned.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

A great idea, could have been used to explain what the probe's purpose was, and how Earth and the whales fitted into that purpose.

Instead the audience got meaningless whale noises.

Then the probe left.

Not a big fan of ambiguity, I gather.

I like the lack of subtitles from the probe. Nothing they could have said is as interesting as what we imagine they might be saying. And since Kirk & crew didn't know what was being said by them, it seems appropriate that we the audience don't, either. It's not relevant to the plot, after all. All we really need to know is that they talked to each other and the probe went away.

And just because you don't understand something, that doesn't automatically make it meaningless. Whale song is obviously language of some kind.

 

[Marsden]

INTERGALACTIC PROBE TRANSLATION: You cut off transmission right before the end, why did the chicken cross the road?

 

[SpyOne]

The 'prise is old and just got a bigger batterin' than most other ships would. So 40+/- years is enough to do it in.

They only made a small number of Constitution class ships. A good deal of them were lost before there time, fell into another universe, etc. The admiralty might have decided the rest were just on borrowed time and not easily upgradeable to the changing needs of Starfleet. Rip it up and start again.

This is basically what I thought was happening: the Enterprise was fairly old, and the Excelsior was designed to do the exact same job but better. Then the Enterprise got seriously messed up in combat and was goong to need expensive repairs.
And somebody pointed out that they could save the cost of those repairs and make her a museum piece.
I believe FASA suggested that by Wrath of Khan the Enterprise was the only pre-refit Constitution Class ship left. (That is: all other Constitution Class ships had been built since TMP and were built to the refit design.)
The Enterprise had reached a point where its historical value outweighed its operational value.

Come on, by the time Kirk and Co. were on films, Star Fleet is making ships as fast as Airplanes.

If Starfleet could build new ships "as fast as airplanes", why did the Enterprise undergo a refit that took more than a year?
On-screen evidence is that building ships takes months and maybe years, and therefore implies that if the Enterprise-A was newly built, construction on it began significantly before Kirk's trial.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

If Starfleet could build new ships "as fast as airplanes", why did the Enterprise undergo a refit that took more than a year?

I’ve often wondered if Kirk himself made that possible, as being CSO would have given him considerable authority with respect to ship assignments, repairs, refits, etc. Maybe Starfleet was planning to build refit Constitution-class ships from scratch, and Kirk convinced them to use the Enterprise as testbed for the new design.

 

[FormerLurker]

That falls in line with a fan scenario that events in TMP indicate is not the case: that Kirk was heavily, even personally involved with the refit of Enterprise. Comic writer/artist John Byrne has scene in one of his Doctor McCoy comics of Kirk using an early generation holodeck to supervise design progressions that would eventually be included in the refit. But if that were the case, he would never have gotten lost as we saw him do, nor would Decker have needed to remind him that the ship was so new, and different, from the one he commanded for five years.

 

[Captain Clark Terrell]

That falls in line with a fan scenario that events in TMP indicate is not the case: that Kirk was heavily, even personally involved with the refit of Enterprise. Comic writer/artist John Byrne has scene in one of his Doctor McCoy comics of Kirk using an early generation holodeck to supervise design progressions that would eventually be included in the refit. But if that were the case, he would never have gotten lost as we saw him do, nor would Decker have needed to remind him that the ship was so new, and different, from the one he commanded for five years.

Not necessarily. That Kirk could have ordered the refit doesn’t mean that he’d have paid that much attention to it. He likely had more on his plate than a single ship.

 

[FormerLurker]

Which is exactly my point. The fan scenario has Kirk personally involved with the refit, through the entire process. Yet we have canonical, onscreen proof that Kirk has very little idea, initially, how the ship is laid out, or what its capabilities are. The fan scenario, were it to be the case, would make such proof make Kirk look like a fool and an idiot, as well as the petulant child screaming "Mine, mine!" we see at the beginning of the film.

 

[Tenacity]

The fan scenario has Kirk personally involved with the refit, through the entire process. Yet we have canonical, onscreen proof that Kirk has very little idea, initially, how the ship is laid out, or what its capabilities are

Kirk getting disoriented in the corridor after the transporter incident and having to ask for directions, could be attributed to one of the people killed in the transporter being his wife/girlfriend.

 

[FormerLurker]

Kirk getting disoriented in the corridor after the transporter incident and having to ask for directions, could be attributed to one of the people killed in the transporter being his wife/girlfriend.

But there's no onscreen evidence to support his knowing either one of them, beyond his knowledge of Sonak by reputation. The meeting between Kirk and Sonak at the spaceport/shuttle station may well be the first face-to-face meeting between the two. And the other is never identified, and therefore has no bearing on Kirk's disorientation. He just doesn't know which way the turbolift is.

 

[Tenacity]

You did refer to "fan scenarios."

 

[GNDN18]

Which is exactly my point. The fan scenario has Kirk personally involved with the refit, through the entire process. Yet we have canonical, onscreen proof that Kirk has very little idea, initially, how the ship is laid out, or what its capabilities are. The fan scenario, were it to be the case, would make such proof make Kirk look like a fool and an idiot, as well as the petulant child screaming "Mine, mine!" we see at the beginning of the film.

I agree with your assessment, as do Decker and Kirk:

DECKER: Admiral, this is an almost totally new Enterprise. You don't know her a tenth as well as I do.
KIRK: That's why you're staying aboard. I'm sorry….

And later, after Kirk nearly destroyed the ship before they left the solar system:

DECKER: Sir, you haven't logged a single star hour in two and a half years. That, plus your unfamiliarity with the ship's redesign, in my opinion, sir, seriously jeopardises this mission.
KIRK: I trust you will ...nursemaid me through these difficulties, Mister?
DECKER: Yes sir. I'll do that.
KIRK: Then I won't keep you from your duties any longer, Commander.

 

[J.T.B.]

The fan scenario has Kirk personally involved with the refit, through the entire process. Yet we have canonical, onscreen proof that Kirk has very little idea, initially, how the ship is laid out, or what its capabilities are.

Yeah, it doesn't seem likely that Kirk would be involved like that. If his title of chief of operations is anything like we would use "operations" today, it would mean keeping apprised of the current strategic situation, what assets are available and where to deal with immediate issues and activity, and the communication and/or sensor networks that allow all that to be controlled. A building or refitting ship would not be fall under "operations" until she is ready to be assigned regular operational duty in the fleet.

 

[Roundabout]

This is basically what I thought was happening: the Enterprise was fairly old, and the Excelsior was designed to do the exact same job but better. Then the Enterprise got seriously messed up in combat and was goong to need expensive repairs.
And somebody pointed out that they could save the cost of those repairs and make her a museum piece.
I believe FASA suggested that by Wrath of Khan the Enterprise was the only pre-refit Constitution Class ship left. (That is: all other Constitution Class ships had been built since TMP and were built to the refit design.)
The Enterprise had reached a point where its historical value outweighed its operational value.


If Starfleet could build new ships "as fast as airplanes", why did the Enterprise undergo a refit that took more than a year?
On-screen evidence is that building ships takes months and maybe years, and therefore implies that if the Enterprise-A was newly built, construction on it began significantly before Kirk's trial.

I had similar thoughts.

I remember the movie made a point of showing the Enterprise's battle scars as she flew into the space dock and of the reactions of the space dock personnel as they saw the damaged ship. Then Kirk described the "great experiment", the Excelsior, as the Enterprise flew by that ship.

When the Admiral said that the Enterprise's day was done, I actually thought he made sense. And I thought the next ship to be called Enterprise would be Excelsior class and that would be what Kirk and crew would be given. I had no idea Starfleet had another (refit) Constitution class ship available to be (re)named Enterprise.


Btw, I found the line spoken by the Excelsior captain, "Kirk, if you do this, you'll never sit in the captain's chair again" to be more dramatic and had a more significant impact to the Trek story, at least for me.

How was Kirk going to get out of this jam? You can replace the Enterprise, but you can't replace James Kirk. That was what went through my mind.

As a side matter, I thought it was amusing that the Excelsior captain carried that stick around.

 

[Lt. Tyler]

I will always put TOS on a higher pedestal because what was on the series was true. Retconned stuff I'll state them for what they are, after the fact jargon based on zero evidence to prove it. I felt the series wasn't continuity conscious when it was in production. The Enterprise was given an open history giving the impression the ship has been around a long time, definitely before 2245 since Space Seed and Tomorrow is Yesterday suggest Kirk and crew was in the 22nd Century.

I love The Wrath of Khan and I'm willing to accept what was mentioned because the movie was great. I'm open to the believing TOS was set in the latter part of the 22nd Century and in the movies they were in the 23rd Century, but those chronology books from Fans turning pro are all wrong on the timelines. The Enterprise was older than 40 years old.

Exactly! And very well said. Also don't forget, Scotty states in The Savage Curtain that Abraham Lincoln died 3 centuries ago.

 

[Bad Robot]

I agree with some others, the 20 year old line was probably referencing the age of Star Trek more than the ship. The movies were generally more catered to a wider audience and they probably didn't give much thought beyond that.

They probably didn't give it any thought at all, actually. Even though he watched all seventy-nine episodes before making the previous movie, Have Bennett probably just never caught the discrepancy. I would even play devil's advocate and argue that one can't realistically expect him to, or Nimoy for that matter. Bennett really went above and beyond on his research as it is, inevitable discrepancies notwithstanding.

I'm also of the unpopular opinion that the current films really aren't any more loose canon than the prior Bennett/Meyer/Nimoy/Shatner installments. During both periods productions were being approved on a case-by-case basis, without really a long-term franchise custodian or series bible to keep them anchored. And I even think that's a healthy thing.

Not a big fan of ambiguity, I gather.
I like the lack of subtitles from the probe. Nothing they could have said is as interesting as what we imagine they might be saying. And since Kirk & crew didn't know what was being said by them, it seems appropriate that we the audience don't, either. It's not relevant to the plot, after all. All we really need to know is that they talked to each other and the probe went away.

I completely agree. In fact The Voyage Home has come back around as my all-time favorite ST movie in recent years. It's a movie made from the heart, by a director who loved his co-stars, and the whole crew obviously had fun with it. I love that they don't figure out the "whale probe", and I even love the time-travel dream sequence (it frustrates me how many people don't). I hate to imagine how a movie like this would have eluded the Berman team if they'd tried to make it.

That falls in line with a fan scenario that events in TMP indicate is not the case: that Kirk was heavily, even personally involved with the refit of Enterprise. Comic writer/artist John Byrne has scene in one of his Doctor McCoy comics of Kirk using an early generation holodeck to supervise design progressions that would eventually be included in the refit. But if that were the case, he would never have gotten lost as we saw him do, nor would Decker have needed to remind him that the ship was so new, and different, from the one he commanded for five years.

I think you could very easily make a wrong turn to the elevator on any random day of the week, especially if Circumstance already has it out to make you appear like an @$$hole at that particular moment. Kirk has just completely ruined Decker's career, perhaps for life. He knows it, Decker knows it. And he knows that Decker knows he's being treated unfairly. It's just the dramatic truth at the moment that Kirk's left wondering whether Decker thinks anything of his having just made an example of Decker's point. It may not mean anything at all, except that Kirk can't help being self conscious of what Decker sees and he knows it.

 

[Damian]

They probably didn't give it any thought at all, actually. Even though he watched all seventy-nine episodes before making the previous movie, Have Bennett probably just never caught the discrepancy. I would even play devil's advocate and argue that one can't realistically expect him to, or Nimoy for that matter. Bennett really went above and beyond on his research as it is, inevitable discrepancies notwithstanding.

I'm also of the unpopular opinion that the current films really aren't any more loose canon than the prior Bennett/Meyer/Nimoy/Shatner installments. During both periods productions were being approved on a case-by-case basis, without really a long-term franchise custodian or series bible to keep them anchored. And I even think that's a healthy thing.

I'm of two minds on that and I go back and forth. I love original stories and don't want to see writers hampered in what they are trying to do. However at the same time I like some consistency in the overall storyline as well. It's sometimes hard for me to explain. I guess some balance is nice.

I'd probably say if you are going to reference something from Star Trek history you should try to make it consistent with what you are referencing. The 20 year old line is a good example of that. Changing that to the more accurate 40 years would have fixed that issue and had no effect on the rest of the story---HOWEVER...it's not something I lose sleep over because it is minor. It's more a very minor nuisance to me in an otherwise good movie. Khan's recognizing Chekov was a bigger hurdle since it was a bigger plot point, however it's easy to assume that Chekov was assigned elsewhere on the ship at the time and happened to run into Khan at some point.

I think in general Star Trek has done a decent job of an overall history though. And our resident novel writers I find do a good job fixing inconsistencies.

 

[XCV330]

I'm of two minds on that and I go back and forth. I love original stories and don't want to see writers hampered in what they are trying to do. However at the same time I like some consistency in the overall storyline as well. It's sometimes hard for me to explain. I guess some balance is nice.

I'd probably say if you are going to reference something from Star Trek history you should try to make it consistent with what you are referencing. The 20 year old line is a good example of that. Changing that to the more accurate 40 years would have fixed that issue and had no effect on the rest of the story---HOWEVER...it's not something I lose sleep over because it is minor. It's more a very minor nuisance to me in an otherwise good movie. Khan's recognizing Chekov was a bigger hurdle since it was a bigger plot point, however it's easy to assume that Chekov was assigned elsewhere on the ship at the time and happened to run into Khan at some point.

I think in general Star Trek has done a decent job of an overall history though. And our resident novel writers I find do a good job fixing inconsistencies.

It's easy to assume that what you see in a story is not the entirety of a tale, so Khan recognizing Chekhov never bothered me. "The Enterprise is 20 years old" for me could have simply been a ballpark figure or only counting time spent in powered flight when the ship might have been most subject to stresses (like counting the engine hours on a plane) , as it has been shown in the episodes and films that warp travel is stressful on the hull.

 

[mos6507]

Worrying about the age of the Enterprise is a game for the young.

It's just a case of lazy writing insofar as confusing the age of the Enterprise with the age of Star Trek itself, being a product of the 60s decade vs. the (then current) 80s decade.

Thematically it works but you can't take it literally. It's all about the above generation gap, with the Excelsior symbolizing a critique against what was shaping up to be an increasingly technophile culture that values gadgetry over people.

 

[Bad Robot]

I'm of two minds on that and I go back and forth. I love original stories and don't want to see writers hampered in what they are trying to do. However at the same time I like some consistency in the overall storyline as well. It's sometimes hard for me to explain. I guess some balance is nice.

I'd probably say if you are going to reference something from Star Trek history you should try to make it consistent with what you are referencing. The 20 year old line is a good example of that. Changing that to the more accurate 40 years would have fixed that issue and had no effect on the rest of the story---HOWEVER...it's not something I lose sleep over because it is minor. It's more a very minor nuisance to me in an otherwise good movie. Khan's recognizing Chekov was a bigger hurdle since it was a bigger plot point, however it's easy to assume that Chekov was assigned elsewhere on the ship at the time and happened to run into Khan at some point.

Certainly it would have been preferable if someone could have caught these discrepancies; I can agree with that. I just don't know how realistic it is that that's always going to happen. Even the Berman era spinoffs had numerous discrepancies, and those shows were so slavishly faithful to each other that they eventually became recycled and boring.

Meyer's DVD commentary (the solo one) is a very interesting listen, in fact one of the best movie commentaries I've ever heard even just from a DVD commentary (forget about ST) perspective. And he does address the issue with Chekov, citing an instance in which Sir Conan Doyle similarly apologized for similar discrepancies between his Sherlock Holmes stories.

Back to ST, I find that every incarnation of it disagrees with every other on some level. The podcasters over at Trekmovie.com describe it as having to put on a different pair of glasses for every ST, and I have to say I've always agreed with that (though I couldn't have verbalized it as well as they did). I think it's the right attitude. Because what works in the Bermanverse, for example, doesn't necessarily agree with (to count them all off) what worked in the NBCverse, the Bennett-Meyerverse, the (god forbid) Shatnerverse, the Abramsverse or now the CBSverse... each with its own re-interpretation of what details were important to canon moving forward.

It's just a case of lazy writing insofar as confusing the age of the Enterprise with the age of Star Trek itself, being a product of the 60s decade vs. the (then current) 80s decade.

Thematically it works but you can't take it literally. It's all about the above generation gap, with the Excelsior symbolizing a critique against what was shaping up to be an increasingly technophile culture that values gadgetry over people.

I would say it's more understandable than "lazy". Bennett and Nimoy probably both thought they remembered it as 20 years (as did perhaps many fans at the time, even ones who on any other day of the week might recall having seen 'The Menagerie').

It's infuriating to me just how quick a lot of fans are to use terms such as "lazy" when describing the creative efforts of people who write for, produce or direct their beloved franchises. It's already established that Bennett watched all 79 eps before producing The Wrath of Khan; he could even have stopped at 30 and that would be more than most producers taking on his job would have done. He actually did his research, and he still missed this one two years later. It happened. I would have missed it too most likely, even with most of 'The Menagerie's saved inside my head.