Yes, Kirk's log: "This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. " contradicts what Starfleet orders that, in fact, the 1701-A is to be decommissioned, immediately retired."Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, 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 will 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."
Yes, Kirk's log: "This ship and her history will shortly become the care of another crew. " contradicts what Starfleet orders that, in fact, the 1701-A is to be decommissioned, immediately retired.
One story I heard is that Shatner demanded a rewrite, because the original version of that speech was just a little bit too obvious about handing the franchise over to The Next Generation and he bristled against that![]()
True, or based on the events of Search For Spock when Kirk , upon return to Spacedock, was informed that 1701-Refit was going to be decommissioned, period.A ship being decommissioned doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s being retired. It can be recommissioned under a new name and registry. Heck, it’s even possible that the Enterprise-B and the Lakota are the same ship.
.
True, or based on the events of Search For Spock when Kirk , upon return to Spacedock, was informed that 1701-Refit was going to be decommissioned, period.
True.That was the original Enterprise. Morrow made it very clear that the ship was going to be decommissioned for good when he said, “We feel her day is over.” But nothing like that was said about the Enterprise-A. Kirk’s speech seemed to very much imply if not outright state that the ship will get a new crew.
And earlier in TUC, there were references to the crew retiring (apparently all at once, which is a bit odd), rather than the ship. It's odd to refer to a group of people being "decommissioned," but, hey, it's also odd to say a ship without an admiral on it is a "flagship."
While it might undermine Kirk's sentiment some, I always look back on that remark like Kirk was just speaking as someone who wouldn't necessarily know any better, if they were indeed planning to mothball the thing five minutes after that victory cruise. It's certainly possible for him to be under the impression that the ship will carry on, but high command has different intentions."Captain's log, U.S.S. Enterprise, 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 will 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."
Yeah, I believe that the original draft said "a new generation" instead of the more vague "another crew."One story I heard is that Shatner demanded a rewrite, because the original version of that speech was just a little bit too obvious about handing the franchise over to The Next Generation and he bristled against that![]()
It's a pretty disappointing thought though, that Kirk is waxing romantic about the ship being passed on & ultimately talking out his ass![]()
Except, you know, literally having huge hole straight through the hull and massive amounts of other battle damage...If the only reason why the ship was being decommissioned was because a new Enterprise had just finished construction, then it's entirely possible that the Ent-A would then get recommissioned under a new name and registry, and given to a new crew. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the ship.
Except, you know, literally having huge hole straight through the hull and massive amounts of other battle damage...
They way they were so sad about being decommissioned at the end, though, makes me think at least some of the crew had years of adventures between Star Trek V and VI.The rest of the time they either take on other lighter duties, or else are in semi-retirement awaiting official orders to decommission the ship and collect their pension. It might also explain a ship being commissioned then retired so quickly, relatively speaking, if in reality she isn't in 'active service' and only gets rolled out to perform missions every so often, but (like her crew) is otherwise off the active duty list.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.