"Original" opening to the film

[Broccoli]

problem is there has been other contradictory info out there about how old enterprise was..

The only other direct referance on screen to the Enterprise's age was Admiral Morrow calling the ship "20 years old" in TSFS. But that line is a clear mistake anyway, since The Cage takes place 30 years prior.

Actually, that is the only reference we have for the Enterprise's age. "The Cage" dating is deductive reasoning, of course.

 

[The Wormhole]

problem is there has been other contradictory info out there about how old enterprise was..

The only other direct referance on screen to the Enterprise's age was Admiral Morrow calling the ship "20 years old" in TSFS. But that line is a clear mistake anyway, since The Cage takes place 30 years prior.

Actually, that is the only reference we have for the Enterprise's age. "The Cage" dating is deductive reasoning, of course.

Isn't there a line in The Menagerie which states The Cage as eleven years prior, or something like that? Besides, modern day Treks have firmly established TOS as being in the 2260s, with exact dates being given in DS9 and Voyager, therefore meaning The Cage would have to be in the 2250s, making the Enterprise at least 30 years old in the 2280s, when TSFS takes place. Therefore Admiral Morow is very wrong when he says the Enterprise is only 20.

 

[Kelso]

Isn't there a line in The Menagerie which states The Cage as eleven years prior, or something like that?

Thirteen.

 

[The Wormhole]

My point still stands.

 

[Agenda]

There would be one problem with this opening. They still would have had to change the set design of the original Enterprise. There's no way they would have gone with the 60s look, even for a few minutes. That would have made it a major discrepancy. At least with the Kelvin bridge, they could have the excuse that it was a different ship and that's why it had different design sensibilities.

 

[npsf3000]

Would not of worked well, and the pre-credit sequence was IMO, one of the best pieces of film to date.

 

[HaplessCrewman]

There is absolutely an interview online where Orci & Kurtzman said they were told that they could not blow up the Enterprise, but they didn't say anything to this extent.

There is also a comment to that effect from Orci(?) on the DVD commentary - so this is not a 'bullshit' story. At any rate, it sounds like the idea was not developed as it was vetoed pretty early on.

Wonder what else got vetoed...?

 

[Aragorn]

Besides, April's not His Supreme Awesomeness. Robau is.

Can I get an "amen"?

I would also NEVER post on a "Facts about Captain April" thread on principle alone.

 

[JarodRussell]

I read this ages ago.

I'm glad they didn't do it, simply because I want Kirk in charge of the 1701 Enterprise (albiet bigger and shinier), not the -A.

LOL, what difference does the -A make?

 

[Broccoli]

The only other direct referance on screen to the Enterprise's age was Admiral Morrow calling the ship "20 years old" in TSFS. But that line is a clear mistake anyway, since The Cage takes place 30 years prior.

Actually, that is the only reference we have for the Enterprise's age. "The Cage" dating is deductive reasoning, of course.

Isn't there a line in The Menagerie which states The Cage as eleven years prior, or something like that? Besides, modern day Treks have firmly established TOS as being in the 2260s, with exact dates being given in DS9 and Voyager, therefore meaning The Cage would have to be in the 2250s, making the Enterprise at least 30 years old in the 2280s, when TSFS takes place. Therefore Admiral Morow is very wrong when he says the Enterprise is only 20.

Exactly. Which is why I said "deductive reasoning" was used to figure out when "The Cage" takes place. No year for Star Trek was ever specifically put in place until TNG's "The Neutral Zone", I believe. From there, everything was backdated.

Still, none of this suggests when the Enterprise was launched.

 

[ncc-1017-e]

I actually think it would have been really cool to destroy the original Enterprise in this way. Not only do I suspect that the original Enterprise in the film would have looked a lot like the TOS Enterprise which would have been nice to see on film. But it would have been a classic symbolic image that the old Star Trek is being replaced. Destroying the classic Enterprise in such a heroic, but final act and changing history, erasing a timeline (for all intents and purposes) would have been such a direct and explicit message to the viewers that this film would be a true rebirth and a new image of Trek... but holy shit, would the Trekkers have gone ballistic. It would be seen as a slap in their faces, but I would've fuckin' loved that !!

I do not think it would have been a slap in the face, infact I would have like this idea. It may have aloud me to except and like this new film better!

 

[Hartzilla2007]

There would be one problem with this opening. They still would have had to change the set design of the original Enterprise. There's no way they would have gone with the 60s look, even for a few minutes. That would have made it a major discrepancy.

How would changing the bridge design be a major discrepancy, we're talking about the original Enterprise in the year 2233 not 2264. Remember the bridge in 1979 wasn't an exact copy from 1967 and the Cage bridge was different from the regular series bridge. Heck they could probably alter the design of the ship and get away with it by saying the TOS design was after a refit.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

There would be one problem with this opening. They still would have had to change the set design of the original Enterprise. There's no way they would have gone with the 60s look, even for a few minutes. That would have made it a major discrepancy.

How would changing the bridge design be a major discrepancy, we're talking about the original Enterprise in the year 2233 not 2264. Remember the bridge in 1979 wasn't an exact copy from 1967 and the Cage bridge was different from the regular series bridge. Heck they could probably alter the design of the ship and get away with it by saying the TOS design was after a refit.

Big problem: Enterprise was launched in 2245 under Captain Robert April. 2233 is a number of years too early.

 

[Sector 7]

There would be one problem with this opening. They still would have had to change the set design of the original Enterprise. There's no way they would have gone with the 60s look, even for a few minutes. That would have made it a major discrepancy.

How would changing the bridge design be a major discrepancy, we're talking about the original Enterprise in the year 2233 not 2264. Remember the bridge in 1979 wasn't an exact copy from 1967 and the Cage bridge was different from the regular series bridge. Heck they could probably alter the design of the ship and get away with it by saying the TOS design was after a refit.

Big problem: Enterprise was launched in 2245 under Captain Robert April. 2233 is a number of years too early.

April was never canon.

According to the DVD commentary by JJ Abrams, et. al. the original opening scene was to be the birth of Spock. Only much later was the decision made to start with the birth of Kirk. I thought the idea of using a transporter for C-section delivery was revolting because the mother dies in the process. I am glad they steered away from that one!

 

[Aragorn]

Big problem: Enterprise was launched in 2245 under Captain Robert April. 2233 is a number of years too early.

Oh, wait, were you being dead serious?

 

[The Wormhole]

I thought the idea of using a transporter for C-section delivery was revolting because the mother dies in the process. I am glad they steered away from that one!

Didn't we already see the transporter being used for a C-section in Voyager?

 

[Broccoli]

There would be one problem with this opening. They still would have had to change the set design of the original Enterprise. There's no way they would have gone with the 60s look, even for a few minutes. That would have made it a major discrepancy.

How would changing the bridge design be a major discrepancy, we're talking about the original Enterprise in the year 2233 not 2264. Remember the bridge in 1979 wasn't an exact copy from 1967 and the Cage bridge was different from the regular series bridge. Heck they could probably alter the design of the ship and get away with it by saying the TOS design was after a refit.

Big problem: Enterprise was launched in 2245 under Captain Robert April. 2233 is a number of years too early.

This has already been discussed earlier in this thread. In short, there is nothing in canon that specifically states when the Enterprise was launched.

Fandom doesn't count.

 

[shapeshifter]

I am happy with what we got.

 

[Data Holmes]

Big problem: Enterprise was launched in 2245 under Captain Robert April. 2233 is a number of years too early.

That date has been called into question. the launch date for the enterprise was established by many trek-tech and novel sources as having been sometime around 2220. So having the enterprise active in 2233 would not have been a problem. Under this same dating method TMP was placed at 2267 and TWOK/TSFS/TVH/TFF was placed as happening in 2287/88, and TUC happening some time in the mid 2290's. This was the accepted timeline until the mid 90's.

 

[CaptainDonovin]

I thought the idea of using a transporter for C-section delivery was revolting because the mother dies in the process. I am glad they steered away from that one!

Didn't we already see the transporter being used for a C-section in Voyager?

I thought that was DS9 when Keiko's baby had to be carried by Kira, I thought they used the transporter to do that.