Should "Star Trek IV" have introduced a different NCC-1701-A?

[austen_pierce]

They could have and arguably should have stopped with Star Trek IV. They were simply too old in the later films. No need for a new Enterprise. Saving Earth one last time could've been their last adventure.

I don't necessarily think the cast was too old to continue making films after TVH. I don't much care for the attitude that all our movie stars have to be young. But I think it would have been a good idea to allow the characters to progress and age more than they were permitted to do.

While I agree that they should have stopped making TOS films after IV, I also agree that there was nothing inherently wrong with the age of the crew. The cast being old was not what made STV fail.

But then TFF comes along and what do we have? Kirk is mountain climbing. Chekov is back at the navigator's station. The Enterprise is back. Everything has returned to the status quo, and the status quo is now 30 years out of date and doesn't make a lick of sense. At least TUC had Valeris and Sulu off commanding his own ship, and tried to justify the rest by tossing in lines about the crew being called on for this one super-important mission. But it was still basically a film that represented the TOS status quo.

Bottom line: If TFF and TUC had been as willing to introduce new character dynamics as TMP-TVH had, I think they could have gone on just fine regardless of the characters' ages. But by shoehorning these people all back into their old, familiar roles (again, Sulu excepted), it made those films far less believable than the earlier four. IMHO, of course.

Honestly, I think that at that point, we had TNG to blame for STV. What you describe (introducing new character dynamics, allowing the older characters to grow and change) would probably have happened if it was going to lead to something bigger (i.e. a new TV series with a new crew, or a mix of the new and old crews). But TNG was already on the air and the focus was on that. There wasn't any more "new" story for the TOS crew, so instead we got the status quo again because that's what TNG was doing. No, I agree that it didn't make any sense, and it certainly didn't help that STV was so damn bad (unless you ascribe to the "STV as Kirk's dream" interpretation that was brought up in another thread...)

STV as Kirk's dream, yes, was covered in another recent thread, and I liked the concept and reality bending explanations offered there.

But I like what was said earlier about having the journey to the center of the galaxy be explained by Transwarp drive. IMO playing lip service to this technology would have helped tie this film in with its predecessors, whereas it feels left out in the cold as is.

Finally, to the OP, as a kid, I was let down by the ENT-A reveal. I was hoping for Excelsior and still feel like they (both the writers and the TOS crew) could have made that work. Heck, Sulu/Takei made it work just fine two films later.

 

[drt]

There was no transwarp in TNG because that was a Bennett-era addition that Rodenberry didn't give a second thought - plus, I'm sure he considered none of those films to have actually happened when putting TNG together (shoot, he was on record saying the same about episodes of the original series as well).

Although, I have no idea why he thought they needed to redefine Warp speeds, as well as add that ridiculous "Warp 10" bullshit.

 

[Lance]

There was no transwarp in TNG because that was a Bennett-era addition that Rodenberry didn't give a second thought - plus, I'm sure he considered none of those films to have actually happened when putting TNG together (shoot, he was on record saying the same about episodes of the original series as well).

The Excelsior class appears frequently in early TNG, as does an Oberth Class in one episode. So Roddenberry, whatever his misgivings about those movies, certainly didn't completely ignore what Bennett had already brought to the table.

 

[YARN]

I was let down by the ENT-A reveal. I was hoping for Excelsior and still feel like they (both the writers and the TOS crew) could have made that work. Heck, Sulu/Takei made it work just fine two films later.

Meh, the Excelsior is an ugly duck. The refit Enterprise is one of the most beautiful and iconic space ship designs in American cinema.

For Star Trek VI it might have been neat to destroy the Excelsior with Sulu in command to put the Enterprise crew into a rage, and get caught up in a political plot.

 

[M-Red]

From an in-universe perspective, it would have certainly made more sense for the E-A to be Starfleet's new Excelsior class flagship, awarded to Kirk and crew for as an extra cherry on top of his "demotion."


From a marketing and fan point of view, they probably made the right choice.


But put me in the camp that would have liked to have seen the E-A as an Excelsior class. It would have provided a clean break from the TOS/TMP era and given an added finality to the Enterprise's destruction at the end of TSFS. It could have also given a new added weight to the themes and conversations of TFF and TUC --- an old crew in a new ship --- all good things, etc.


I would have liked to have seen that, but it worked out pretty well though.

 

[M-Red]

Was glad to see it as a kid, but as an adult it's unsatisfying. The Enterprise was destroyed in Star Trek 3. At the end of Star Trek 4 they just give him a new or different (whatever) ship that they slap the same name on.

In retrospect, I would've left the Enterprise destroyed. She's a character. She died. Move on.

Isn't that real the major flaw of the TOS movies, though? And, don't get me wrong, I like the TOS movies and find them highly enjoyable. But, in the end, they're totally unwilling to change the status quo in any measurable respect, with the possible lone exception of Sulu getting the Excelsior in TUC.

Think about it. Ilia and, especially, Decker shake up the original crew dynamic, but are conveniently gone by film's end. Spock dies. But he comes back. The Enterprise is destroyed. But it comes back. Kirk and crew defy Starfleet and become renegades. But end right back in the same command. Kirk has been promoted chief of Starfleet operations, but ends up right back in the same starship command position. By TFF and TUC, pretty much everyone is right back in the same spots they were in during TOS.

Like I said, I enjoy the films. But for what were supposed to be big events, they really stayed bound to the original TV series and ultimately weren't willing to take any big risks.

I understand your detailed points but that broader description is really the definition of the TNG films.


The brilliance of the TOS films is they actually did provide realistic in-universe changes to the characters' stories but then cleverly wove those narratives back into the familiar roles for which the wider audience was most comfortable, which was good.


A possible hypothetical counter-example for TNG would have been Riker getting command of his own starship in FC, but it being destroyed by the Borg and Riker and his bridge crew being saved by the E-E, only to go on the ensuing time-traveling adventure with the Enterprise crew.


But nothing like that happened in the TNG films. The TNG characters literally stayed in the same positions rather than moving around and being reunited realistically though events and circumstances.


Worf excluded of course, but that already happened with DS9.

 

[Jeyl]

I think the problem, if there even *is* a problem, is simply one of credibility for me: TWOK and TSFS are emphatic about Enterprise being in her twilight years. TSFS especially basically hangs a plot thread on "She's an old ship Jim, we don't need her anymore". So seeing a new Connie being wheeled out at the end of TVH, although a punch-the-air moment on an emotional level, ultimately contradicts Starfleet's previous stance on them not being fit for service any longer. You don't have an obselete car, but still continue to roll them off the production line just because a minority of people have an emotional affection for that particular make and model.

I believe it was Gene Roddenberry who came up with an idea that I think makes a lot more sense. The Enterprise A isn't a brand new ship, but actually the Yorktown "re-christianed" as the Enterprise. As Lance said, the Constitution Class ship is a very old design and newer designs are starting to become the norm. Giving them an already existing ship also cements the idea that even though the Federation is grateful to Kirk and his crew for what they've done in saving Earth, they're not going to let them have the most advanced ship in the fleet.

We've seen ships in Star Trek be re-christianed to other names such as the second Defiant, so doing the same to the Yorktown makes a lot of sense. The only problem with this theory is that it contradicts "The Final Frontier"'s statement that the Enterprise A is a brand new ship. But than again, who wants to hold The Final Frontier as a go-to source for reliable information?

 

[Spider-Man]

I just want to know if I was the only one disappointed by the look of the NCC-1701-A. Not because it was terrible, but that the studio simply recycled the same prop in order to save money.

Someone more knowledgeable can correct me if I'm wrong, but the reuse of the Constitution class model had nothing to do with being cheap about money.

ILM always hated filming the Constitution model. It was large and unwieldy, and very hard to get good camera angles for it. That's why the Excelsior was originally built: Because the design was more film-friendly for the handlers and cameramen.

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.

However, fan disgruntlement about this idea at the time made the producers change their minds at the last minute and not use the Excelsior for Kirk's new ship. Unfortunately there wasn't time to built an all new model, and even if they had it would have been cost-prohibitive, as they would have spent a ton of money on a brand-new model that would have only been seen at the end of the movie for just a few seconds before being put in a crate for three years. So they were literally forced to use the original model, much to the dismay of ILM, who would again need to film a model they hated for any future Trek movies.

So NOT having a new model built was actually the best move financially, but not the best move logistically.

As for my opinion on the subject, I think that stylistically, reusing the Constitution model was the best thing to do, because that's what the viewing audience would relate to, not some new ship seen for five seconds that they'd have no attachment to (which is also why I've always hated that they callously destroyed the Enterprise-D just to replace it with the soulless Enterprise-E). But I also feel that for that to really have worked the way it should have, that no more TOS movies should have been made after Voyage Home. Then that would have been the last time we saw the ship right before the start of TNG, so the focus could be 100% on the new Enterprise-D while the ultimate fate of the Ent-A and her crew would remain a blissful mystery.

I agree completely about the Enterprise-E. I hate that design, both the ship and its interiors. I loved the E-D, but liked the idea of a change for the movies. My "fanon" idea was that the stardrive section of the E-D would have survived Generations, was given new nacelles and a few other cosmetic changes, and then joined with a new saucer. Another refit to mirror what happened with the original Enterprise when she made the jump to the big screen.

As for ending with TVH, that's something I've never considered. I enjoyed TFF and TUC, but agree a send-off without closure would have been more mythic, in a sense. Kirk and Co. should have gone into that "sunset" in TUC and, outside of Spock and Scotty, that should have been the last we saw of them.

I think that stylistically, reusing the Constitution model was the best thing to do, because that's what the viewing audience would relate to, not some new ship seen for five seconds that they'd have no attachment to (which is also why I've always hated that they callously destroyed the Enterprise-D just to replace it with the soulless Enterprise-E).

I am glad that I'm not the only person who feels this way. I've seen loads of people saying how much 'cooler' and 'kick-ass' they all thought the 1701-E was... but my God, I've always hated it. As a viewer I feel absolutely no emotional connection to that ship, not like I do to good ol' 1701-D.

I don't necessarily think the cast was too old to continue making films after TVH. I don't much care for the attitude that all our movie stars have to be young. But I think it would have been a good idea to allow the characters to progress and age more than they were permitted to do.

In TMP and TWOK, we had new characters (Decker, Ilia, Saavik, Carol, David, etc.) who came and shook up the familiar confines of TOS. Our heroes were still front and center of the story, but they were later in their careers, higher in rank, and generally doing things that made sense. Yes, in both TMP and TWOK, the overarching message of Kirk's promotions is that he's meant to be a starship captain and that anything else "is a waste of material." But, still, we're not expected to believe that these are the same people doing the same things as they did in TOS.

TSFS and TVH were unique animals because our crew were in "fish out of water" scenarios. They were renegades separated from Starfleet and operating on their own. So that made sense as well and, again, changed up the TOS dynamic.

But then TFF comes along and what do we have? Kirk is mountain climbing. Chekov is back at the navigator's station. The Enterprise is back. Everything has returned to the status quo, and the status quo is now 30 years out of date and doesn't make a lick of sense. At least TUC had Valeris and Sulu off commanding his own ship, and tried to justify the rest by tossing in lines about the crew being called on for this one super-important mission. But it was still basically a film that represented the TOS status quo.

Bottom line: If TFF and TUC had been as willing to introduce new character dynamics as TMP-TVH had, I think they could have gone on just fine regardless of the characters' ages. But by shoehorning these people all back into their old, familiar roles (again, Sulu excepted), it made those films far less believable than the earlier four. IMHO, of course.

I like to apply the old Marvel "What If?" scenario to various stories, including many in Trek. I sometimes think that "The Next Generation" should have involved the crew of the Enterprise-A after the legends have left and retired. New crew, same ship, no Enterprise-B. Keep the Enterprise-A going for seven years of a new series, then give the new cast movies if they managed to be successful. There's a lot of interesting story between Generations and TNG that we never got to see. I was hoping "Star Trek Enterprise" would be set on the Enterprise-B for the same reason. The movie era still had a lot of potential.

 

[Dukhat]

The Excelsior class appears frequently in early TNG, as does an Oberth Class in one episode. So Roddenberry, whatever his misgivings about those movies, certainly didn't completely ignore what Bennett had already brought to the table.

But Roddenberry wasn't in charge of the VFX personnel. They were kinda forced to reuse the movie models and stock footage from the films because there was no budget to build new ships. And I doubt Roddenberry would have cared about what models were used anyway.

From an in-universe perspective, it would have certainly made more sense for the E-A to be Starfleet's new Excelsior class flagship, awarded to Kirk and crew for as an extra cherry on top of his "demotion."...

...But put me in the camp that would have liked to have seen the E-A as an Excelsior class. It would have provided a clean break from the TOS/TMP era and given an added finality to the Enterprise's destruction at the end of TSFS. It could have also given a new added weight to the themes and conversations of TFF and TUC --- an old crew in a new ship --- all good things, etc.

I'm almost convinced that in the fictional universe of ST, that was probably the intention.

Morrow states that the Enterprise 1701 would be decommissioned because it was too old. The original plan was most likely that the next Excelsior-class ship would be the Enterprise-A, with a new captain and crew. However, due to extenuating circumstances, these plans were slightly changed so that Kirk and crew were awarded another Connie with the A designation temporarily as a gesture of thanks until a newer Enterprise (now the B) was built.

I like to apply the old Marvel "What If?" scenario to various stories, including many in Trek. I sometimes think that "The Next Generation" should have involved the crew of the Enterprise-A after the legends have left and retired. New crew, same ship, no Enterprise-B. Keep the Enterprise-A going for seven years of a new series, then give the new cast movies if they managed to be successful. There's a lot of interesting story between Generations and TNG that we never got to see. I was hoping "Star Trek Enterprise" would be set on the Enterprise-B for the same reason. The movie era still had a lot of potential.

I've often felt exactly as you've described above. I would have loved for TNG to have taken place right after TVH (although if that was the case I would have preferred a new class of ship for the Ent-A). That way there could be more crossovers between the old crew and the new crew, and not have had a huge span of time pass (70 years) that we essentially know nothing about.

But two things nixed that idea. One, the film producers planned on making more TOS movies after TVH, which was the first mistake. And two, Roddenberry was given creative control of TNG, and he wanted to distance it from the TOS movies as much as he could; ergo, setting it in the late 24th century, while at the same time hiring all his TOS friends like Robert Ware Theiss and Bob Justman and giving TNG a look and feel similar to TOS (almost in an effort to erase the existence of the TOS films as someone stated above).

I was also hoping that ENT would have been about the Ent-B, for the same reasons you state: There were hardly any stories they couldn't have told in ENT using the NX-01 that they couldn't have told using the B. And we wouldn't have had this new Enterprise that nobody knew anything about previously.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

The 1701 wasn't just old but severly damaged--Starfleet may have deemed it cost effective to retire her while still turning out new builds based on externally identical specifications but with under-the-hood elements that would have been difficult to incorporate into a ship that was pre-existing and compromised. Think of the 1701 as a car that had been in accident. Even if it is repairable, the cost might be such that Starfleet considered her a total loss.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

There was no transwarp in TNG because that was a Bennett-era addition that Rodenberry didn't give a second thought - plus, I'm sure he considered none of those films to have actually happened when putting TNG together (shoot, he was on record saying the same about episodes of the original series as well).

The Excelsior class appears frequently in early TNG, as does an Oberth Class in one episode. So Roddenberry, whatever his misgivings about those movies, certainly didn't completely ignore what Bennett had already brought to the table.

For all the noise Roddenberry originally made about ignoring his past work, they're pretty bad about seeing it through. Story-wise, TOS is referenced right out of the gate in the first two episodes of TNG. In "Encounter at Farpoint," Data giving the purposefully-nameless-yet-familiar "Doctor" a tour of the ship. In "The Naked Now," they review the 1701's log entries and Picard explicitly notes "USS Enterprise, Captain James T. Kirk commanding" (or something like that).

 

[Dukhat]

The 1701 wasn't just old but severly damaged--Starfleet may have deemed it cost effective to retire her while still turning out new builds based on externally identical specifications but with under-the-hood elements that would have been difficult to incorporate into a ship that was pre-existing and compromised.

While it's true that the Enterprise was damaged, that wasn't the reason Morrow gave for her decommissioning. He simply said that she was 20 years old and that her time is over. Now considering for a moment that Morrow definitely got his timing wrong for the lifespan of the ship (it's more around twice that), his statement seems to imply that Starfleet considers all Connies to be outdated (especially given the prevalent attitude that the Excelsior is the wave of the future); hence the ship christened the Enterprise-A would also soon be decommissioned as well because of its age, a fact borne out in STVI. Perhaps if he said something to the effect of "Yeah, the Enterprise is too damaged from your battle with Khan to salvage," then it would make more sense that the class itself is not considered in total to be past it.

 

[drt]

For all the noise Roddenberry originally made about ignoring his past work, they're pretty bad about seeing it through. Story-wise, TOS is referenced right out of the gate in the first two episodes of TNG. In "Encounter at Farpoint," Data giving the purposefully-nameless-yet-familiar "Doctor" a tour of the ship. In "The Naked Now," they review the 1701's log entries and Picard explicitly notes "USS Enterprise, Captain James T. Kirk commanding" (or something like that).

Well, they obviously wanted to tie it in to what came before to some extent, and doing it as soon as possible makes the most sense - as far as I can recall, there weren't any other callbacks to the original series or movies while Rodenberry was in charge.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Using the There were still a lot of unsold STAR TREK models out there and besides ... it's all about Product Identity. The Constitution Class is what Kirk rides around in and there was no point in trying to change it now that the crew was so elderly. HOWEVER ... they really should've brought back the pearlescent finish to the model's paint job! The flat paint they used looks bad ...

 

[austen_pierce]

I can't find fault with the "Enterprise is 20 [PLUS!] years old" argument in and of itself. But the "we feel her time is over" never set well with me. BECAUSE the universe seems FULL of Miranda class vessels, which other than their shape, are freaking identical to the refit Connie.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I can't find fault with the "Enterprise is 20 [PLUS!] years old" argument in and of itself. But the "we feel her time is over" never set well with me. BECAUSE the universe seems FULL of Miranda class vessels, which other than their shape, are freaking identical to the refit Connie.

One would assume the intent of the line was "the Enterprise is 20 years out of date," which would jive better with established chronology. That is, by the end of TOS, it was assumed to be at least 40 years old (if you buy the Robert April fannon stuff). Bring it to post-TWOK and it's just shy of 60 years old.

Also, there's nothing to establish that the Miranda class vessels were as old as the Enterprise. In fact, it's easy to imagine they were build around (or slightly before) the time of TMP as a test-bed for the "refit" designs.

What has always bugged me is that there are at least six Constitution class ships still buzzing around the galaxy at the time of TMP. Why is it we never see or hear from any again?

 

[Nebusj]

What has always bugged me is that there are at least six Constitution class ships still buzzing around the galaxy at the time of TMP. Why is it we never see or hear from any again?

Well, heck, six Connies would last Star Fleet about a year, maybe fourteen months tops, before they were all destroyed or lost. Didn't you see the second season of the Original Show?

 

[Dukhat]

What has always bugged me is that there are at least six Constitution class ships still buzzing around the galaxy at the time of TMP. Why is it we never see or hear from any again?

You mean the TOS Connies? One would assume that they too were all refit. We know at least that the Yorktown was (unless that ship in STIV was a new Yorktown). But it's also possible that Starfleet retired all the TOS Connies except for the Enterprise, so she could be the testbed for the TMP refit.

 

[BillJ]

What has always bugged me is that there are at least six Constitution class ships still buzzing around the galaxy at the time of TMP. Why is it we never see or hear from any again?

Well, heck, six Connies would last Star Fleet about a year, maybe fourteen months tops, before they were all destroyed or lost. Didn't you see the second season of the Original Show?

 

[austen_pierce]

I guess my problem is Decker's statement in TMP. "This is a completely new Enterprise" or something to that effect. The technology is updated, the shape is different... Heck, Kirk gets LOST trying to find the turbolift.

We see Reliant looking identical inside (due to set reuse, obviously) and take-apart/put-back-together outside. That design lasts through several seasons or DS9 and First Contact. But in TSFS it's time for Enterprise to call it quits? To quote/bastardize nuMcCoy, there's nothing left of TOS Enterprise but its bones. If that.

Is there a thread somewhere that discusses the practicality of refitting the TOS design into what we see in TMP? Gotta be...

And someone mentioned that in TFF it's mentioned that ENT-A is a new ship. Is there a canon source for this?