The characters and universe post-TOS

[BillJ]

but Kirk and Spock could've went onto other duties within Starfleet

Spock left Starfleet at some point previous to the movie, McCoy said " ... apparently for good."

Roddenberry's novel said Spock was on Vulcan for 2.8 seasons (however long that is) and that he left basically immediately after the Enterprise returned to Earth after the five year mission. So, Spock either resigned his commission, or he went into the reserves.

Theoretically, Spock could've continued working with Starfleet in a civilian capacity. But we're not really stuck following the novel and nothing in the film precludes Spock continuing to work after the end of the five-year mission.

 

[JRoss]

I never cared for the backstory of Saavik as an orphan on Hellgaard. Personally, I liked the idea of her being the daughter of Spock and the Romulan Commander from "Enterprise Incident." The way the Commander spun around in her chair when Kirk and Spock first met her is remarkably similar to how we are introduced to Saavik in STII as she spins around in the Captain's chair. Like mother, like daughter maybe in habits? Kirstie Alley said that she always practiced being like Spock and wanting to play his daughter but playing Saavik was the next best thing. Maybe closer than she thought? I like that idea.

Ever seen Search for Spock? Think about why that is a bad idea.

 

[1001001]

I never cared for the backstory of Saavik as an orphan on Hellgaard. Personally, I liked the idea of her being the daughter of Spock and the Romulan Commander from "Enterprise Incident." The way the Commander spun around in her chair when Kirk and Spock first met her is remarkably similar to how we are introduced to Saavik in STII as she spins around in the Captain's chair. Like mother, like daughter maybe in habits? Kirstie Alley said that she always practiced being like Spock and wanting to play his daughter but playing Saavik was the next best thing. Maybe closer than she thought? I like that idea.

Ever seen Search for Spock? Think about why that is a bad idea.

 

[KeepOnTrekking]

I never cared for the backstory of Saavik as an orphan on Hellgaard. Personally, I liked the idea of her being the daughter of Spock and the Romulan Commander from "Enterprise Incident." The way the Commander spun around in her chair when Kirk and Spock first met her is remarkably similar to how we are introduced to Saavik in STII as she spins around in the Captain's chair. Like mother, like daughter maybe in habits? Kirstie Alley said that she always practiced being like Spock and wanting to play his daughter but playing Saavik was the next best thing. Maybe closer than she thought? I like that idea.

Ever seen Search for Spock? Think about why that is a bad idea.

That's why Saavik can't look Spock in the eyes at the end and looks down instead! Maybe a little Romulan shame from applying the Vulcan principle of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?" Saavik saved Spock's life at the cost of her own shame while doing so? (But, yes, I agree the pon farr thing is hard to explain if Spock was Saavik's father.)

 

[T'Girl]

Ever seen Search for Spock? Think about why that is a bad idea.

Vulcans may have no cultural prohibition against incest, like those illogical Human do.

I like the idea that Saavik is "only" Spock protege, and that he may have been the one who gave her a recommendation for admissions to Starfleet academy.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Problem is in canon we don't exactly know when the TOS five year mission took place, which years. That part is loose conjecture.

Between the time the Enterprise returned to Earth and the events of TMP, up to a decade easily could have passed.

Even if the 5-year mission ended in 2270 (by the way, in my personal continuity, TAS was the 5th year in '70), there's no writing on or off screen to explain the physical changes of the characters (actors) from "Turnabout Intruder" to TMP. As in real life, we witnessed the actors grow older throughout the 1970s, on par with the near decade of time between TV and film production, so the only rational explanation cannot have less than six, maybe seven years of time passing to sell the characters' physical appearance.

Still I think canon must be forced into accepting a ten year gap between TV and TMP, as Kirk sets a fixed date in TWOK, when he tells Carol he had not seen Khan in fifteen years, which--considering the real life 1967 airdate of "Space Seed" to the 1982 release date of TWOK--is exactly fifteen years. There's not much phyisical difference between the actors from TMP to TWOK (aside from Doohan gaining a few extra pounds), so we have to assume TMP occured only a few years earlier---probably three.

If that's the case, then any published dates of TMP occuring a mere 2 years after TOS cannot be taken seriously.

 

[BillJ]

Still I think canon must be forced into accepting a ten year gap between TV and TMP, as Kirk sets a fixed date in TWOK, when he tells Carol he had not seen Khan in fifteen years, which--considering the real life 1967 airdate of "Space Seed" to the 1982 release date of TWOK--is exactly fifteen years. There's not much phyisical difference between the actors from TMP to TWOK (aside from Doohan gaining a few extra pounds), so we have to assume TMP occured only a few years earlier---probably three.

If that's the case, then any published dates of TMP occuring a mere 2 years after TOS cannot be taken seriously.

I think a shorter gap between TMP and TWOK makes sense. It doesn't require Kirk to be repromoted to Admiral and the Enterprise could have never returned to frontline service. Merely being a testbed vehicle for new technologies and then being demoted to training-ship status.

The theory of a longer gap between TOS and TMP has grown on me over the years. Also, if there's a seven to ten year gap between the two, it makes it easier to explain the radical changes we see in TMP.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Even if the 5-year mission ended in 2270 (by the way, in my personal continuity, TAS was the 5th year in '70), there's no writing on or off screen to explain the physical changes of the characters (actors) from "Turnabout Intruder" to TMP. As in real life, we witnessed the actors grow older throughout the 1970s, on par with the near decade of time between TV and film production, so the only rational explanation cannot have less than six, maybe seven years of time passing to sell the characters' physical appearance.

Do the actors' physical changes need explaining at all? There is no real justification for the complete change in visual aesthetic between TOS and the movies either, except to say the producers changed and updated how Star Trek looks. An Enterprise refit doesn't cover the complete change in the Klingons, for example. Or that not a single computer console, keyboard layout or screen readout in any way resembles those seen in TOS.

Still I think canon must be forced into accepting a ten year gap between TV and TMP, as Kirk sets a fixed date in TWOK, when he tells Carol he had not seen Khan in fifteen years, which--considering the real life 1967 airdate of "Space Seed" to the 1982 release date of TWOK--is exactly fifteen years. There's not much phyisical difference between the actors from TMP to TWOK (aside from Doohan gaining a few extra pounds), so we have to assume TMP occured only a few years earlier---probably three.

If that's the case, then any published dates of TMP occuring a mere 2 years after TOS cannot be taken seriously.

But in TMP, everyone's active and it ends with them warping off to new adventures (the apocraphyl second 5-year mission - after all, TMP began life as the pilot episode for Star Trek Phase II). Then, in TWOK, the crew are split and those remaining are in the twilight of their careers, training the next generation of Starfleet. They only reunite on the Enterprise for "a little training cruise"

Back in the old Best of Trek books, there were fans who believed TWOK deliberately ignored TMP, and others that felt the movies were incompatible.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Do the actors' physical changes need explaining at all? There is no real justification for the complete change in visual aesthetic between TOS and the movies either, except to say the producers changed and updated how Star Trek looks. An Enterprise refit doesn't cover the complete change in the Klingons, for example. Or that not a single computer console, keyboard layout or screen readout in any way resembles those seen in TOS.

...the very reason the only sensible explanation is a ten year gap; in that time, actor/lead characters' physical appearance and technological changes can be easily explained (for example, think of car design in 1959, then jump to 1969, or rocketry in 1947, then think of the advances in use by 1958). Major changes happened in real 20th century decades of growth, so it should not be an impossible feat at all in the fictional late 23rd century.

On top of that, audiences simply cannot forget what is seen in front of their faces, which is why fans in '78 (one year before TMP release) assumed the film was as removed from the series in the same amount of years as real life. The actor and design changes would be plausible in a stretch of ten years.

The Klingon issue is another matter--one so going against a natural explanation of evolution (and at the the time, no one thought of the retconning created decades later in "Trials and Tribble-ations") that it stands as the one issue that cannot be easily explained away. That is, if Roddenberry, et al, did not think of simply saying the species was hit with some form of radiation--even genetic experimentation were responsible for the physical changes. That would have been the easy put-away for the Klingon issue.

But in TMP, everyone's active and it ends with them warping off to new adventures (the apocraphyl second 5-year mission - after all, TMP began life as the pilot episode for Star Trek Phase II). Then, in TWOK, the crew are split and those remaining are in the twilight of their careers, training the next generation of Starfleet. They only reunite on the Enterprise for "a little training cruise"

Back in the old Best of Trek books, there were fans who believed TWOK deliberately ignored TMP, and others that felt the movies were incompatible.

That was their choice, but it was not on screen. At the end of TMP, with Kirk's "thataway" line, I feel that was more for the audience (a "we will be back, fans" tease) than any official, hammered in stone notice of Kirk and company all reassigned to the Enterprise for another 5-year mission. It is not said, and V'Ger was the only reason they were together again.

There's no official post-TMP 5 year mission, so i'm assuming the Enterprise returned to spacedock to complete its renovation, or perhaps it was destined to be what it was in TWOK: a training vessel. After all, one film later in TSFS (same period of time), the Enterprise is considered too old, and is destined for mothballs, which means both details (training ship and its age) probably means it was not used as an exploration ship post TMP.

 

[Timo]

In terms of "hard" onscreen facts, there's no particular reason to think that the entire universe underwent a significant change between TOS and TMP. All we really saw change was the Enterprise. And naturally a near-total modernization (from the technological angle) would invite the total total modernization (for sheer aesthetics, or PR purposes, whatever you call it) of insignificant details from intercom buttons to onboard cutlery - there would be no reason to leave something like that unchanged when the very point is to introduce a new thing.

For all we know, Starfleet HQ had looked like that for the past twenty years or so, and it just so happened that the hero ship in TOS was ten years behind the times, and the hero ship in TMP was built (and decorated) to be ten years ahead of them.

On the other hand, "hard" onscreen facts include Voyager 6 being more than three centuries old. That pushes TMP to 2278 at least, considering Voyagers 1 and 2 date back to 1977, and forces an eight-year gap between TOS and the movie. Unless we assume the Voyager program of Star Trek was different from the real one in some details.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[T'Girl]

All we really saw change was the Enterprise.

During the entirety of TOS, the Enterprise and her sister connies might have been hopelessly obsolete by general Starfleet standards. The refit instead of advancing the Enterprise's technology by eight some years instead could have brought the Enterprise forwards twenty plus years in technology.

The Enterprise we saw in WNMHGB might have been one step away from a gunnery target.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

For all we know, Starfleet HQ had looked like that for the past twenty years or so, and it just so happened that the hero ship in TOS was ten years behind the times, and the hero ship in TMP was built (and decorated) to be ten years ahead of them.

I doubt that; during the TOS, it would be safe to say the "connies" were each at different points of their 5-year missions (no one ever said they were all launched at the same time), so ships could return to the shipyards, or spacedock whenever necessary for technological improvements. We do not know how much in-series time passed between "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and "The Corbomite Manuver," but the ship did recieve many exterior and interior changes after that 2nd pilot. Then, the Enterprise had its engineering section remodeled after the events of season 1--no small undertaking--so its not as though the ship was a floating dinosaur so far out that the rest of of Starfleet tech passed it by to reach TMP levels while the Enterprise was away.

I think Enterprise was always recieving updates as required (or demanded), but by the end of Kirk's 5-year mission, Starfleet was getting around to changes to the "connie's" entire structure--which would not be addressed in a mere two years.

On the other hand, "hard" onscreen facts include Voyager 6 being more than three centuries old. That pushes TMP to 2278 at least, considering Voyagers 1 and 2 date back to 1977, and forces an eight-year gap between TOS and the movie.

There you have it. ST has always married itself to real world events, so your information serves as a fixed period of time between TV and film, and 8 years is certainly a more believable amount of time to justify the lead character's physical changes than what would be a shocking two years after TOS.

 

[BillJ]

There you have it. ST has always married itself to real world events, so your information serves as a fixed period of time between TV and film, and 8 years is certainly a more believable amount of time to justify the lead character's physical changes than what would be a shocking two years after TOS.

Not really.

We had no orbiting nuclear weapons platform in 1968, no Eugenics War and I doubt we see a manned trip to Saturn in my lifetime. So it's just as easy to say that in the Trek universe, the Voyager probes followed a different timeline.

It's all up to how an individual wants to interpret it.

 

[Timo]

during the TOS, it would be safe to say the "connies" were each at different points of their 5-year missions (no one ever said they were all launched at the same time), so ships could return to the shipyards, or spacedock whenever necessary for technological improvements.

Kirk's ship was refitted at Earth; perhaps that was the only place capable of anything of the magnitude? Significantly, none of the TOS ships was ever indicated to have been to the 23rd century Earth either during the adventures or even at any previous timepoint (not even in connection with adventures involving Earth such as "Tomorrow is Yesterday" or "City on the Edge of Forever"). Obsolescence might have plagued the entire frontier fleet as a phenomenon.

Then, the Enterprise had its engineering section remodeled after the events of season 1

Or we just started seeing a different set of rooms and angles out of the maze-like, at least fifty-room whole.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Kirk's ship was refitted at Earth; perhaps that was the only place capable of anything of the magnitude? Significantly, none of the TOS ships was ever indicated to have been to the 23rd century Earth either during the adventures or even at any previous timepoint (not even in connection with adventures involving Earth such as "Tomorrow is Yesterday" or "City on the Edge of Forever"). Obsolescence might have plagued the entire frontier fleet as a phenomenon.

Why would they fail to visit earth at any point during their 5-year missions? In fact, the time travel mission in "Assignment: Earth" required the Enterprise to be in that system in order to use the "light speed breakaway" effect to travel to the earth of 1968.

After the Gary Seven busniess concludes and Enterprise returns to the 23rd century, there's no reason to think the ship simply warped out to some other location without any number of reasons to orbit or simply be in the general area (for shore leave, Starfleet business, reporting Seven's alien influenced presense--or even tech upgrades).

Or we just started seeing a different set of rooms and angles out of the maze-like, at least fifty-room whole.

Timo Saloniemi

The series never lays out the section's entire deck plan. All we ever see is the main engineering room where Scotty conducted most of his business. We were to assume the same room seen in season one was modified to its two-story configuration in season two, since we never see the 1st season version again.

 

[Timo]

Why would they fail to visit earth at any point during their 5-year missions?

Any number of reasons could be invented (tight schedule for a mission performed so far away from Earth that there simply isn't time for such visits, say), as the storylines do allow us to assume that Earth is never visited, and this further allows us to believe the ships are way behind the times when it comes to fashion.

In fact, the time travel mission in "Assignment: Earth" required the Enterprise to be in that system in order to use the "light speed breakaway" effect to travel to the earth of 1968.

Debatable - in "Tomorrow is Yesterday", this was achieved at a wholly different star system (the one with the "black star"). And neither episode made mention of the ship being in any contact with the 23rd century version of the planet, even though we can of course assume the heroes would have wanted a pit stop in "TiY" and would have done a debriefing and a quick visit home after "A:E".

All we ever see is the main engineering room where Scotty conducted most of his business.

And even that is a bit to the small side for such a big ship. Quite possibly we might be dealing with something like two or four such side-by-side rooms of near-identical looks, plus the never-seen, brewery-sized remainder of the facilities. Certainly the ship offers the necessary internal volume for choosing the "multiple rooms" interpretation over the "changed rooms" one.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[newtontomato539]

I do prefer the First Five year mission ending with Where No Man, The Second Five year mission starting with The Corbomite Man and ending with Counter Clock, The Third Five year mission starting and ending with the comics and novels, The Fourth Five year mission starting with TMP and ending with the comics and novels.

I am using what is in the show and the movies.

It's true, any story set during the Fourth five year mission is usually better in the comics than the novels. I'm trying to remember any of the novels that are good. . . Off the top of my head, 'Time for Yesterday' and 'The Romulan Way'.

Then there is the Kobyashi Alternative game set during the fourth five year mission and the Starfleet Academy set during the fifth.

I don't like would happened in TFF and TUC. Most of them should have been transfered to the Excelsior. Shake things up.

 

[BillJ]

I don't like would happened in TFF and TUC. Most of them should have been transfered to the Excelsior. Shake things up.

Not sure how transferring them from one ship to another shakes things up?

 

[Timo]

I do prefer the First Five year mission...

Except Kirk in ST:TMP seems to be saying that even one five-year mission is a big deal that makes him uniquely qualified to deal with V'Ger.

Quite possibly there never was another five-year mission in the history of Starfleet, much less in the history of the Enterprise. At least such things are never referred to in the aired episodes and movies, and the very concept of an X-year mission really only exists in the opening credits of TOS. For all we know, the opening credits speech is something Kirk dictated for his memoirs, decades after the mission, with the unique knowledge that the mission would involve him for five years; all starships would have missions of indeterminate length, and Kirk calling this one a five-yearer is just marketing for the memoirs.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[AggieJohn]

Ever seen Search for Spock? Think about why that is a bad idea.

That's why Saavik can't look Spock in the eyes at the end and looks down instead! Maybe a little Romulan shame from applying the Vulcan principle of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?" Saavik saved Spock's life at the cost of her own shame while doing so? (But, yes, I agree the pon farr thing is hard to explain if Spock was Saavik's father.)

I would love to see this as her back story. The relationship between the Romulan Commander and Spock would nicely parallel Kirk-Carl-David story. Especially since we never meet Dr. Marcus in the TOS.

AS far as the Pon Farr aspect of STIII, that was just odd no matter how you slice it. I mean Spock was aging like a year an hour or something, shouldn't he have passed through the whole stage too quickly to have even felt the effects?