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

[Leto_II]

It goes beyond just some doors -- there's several lines of dialogue in the movie ("Half the doors won't open," "The ship's in pieces"), plus Scotty having just "fixed [that damn thing]" (the Red Alert notification-system), the turbolifts messing up, and the transporters being completely down, which pretty much point to a massive systemic failure of some form aboard the Enterprise.

Michael Piller confirmed in at least one web chat that Data's line in that episode was indeed a direct reference to TFF ("Evolution" was the very first TNG episode to air after the theatrical release of Star Trek V, and it was a nod to that then-recent picture).

Finally, the dialogue dating also confirms that it was TFF that Data was referring to, not TSFS -- "79 years ago" from 2366 is/was 2287, the year after TVH and the launch of Kirk's second Enterprise (Star Trek III having taken place in 2285).

 

[C.E. Evans]

It goes beyond just some doors -- there's several lines of dialogue in the movie ("Half the doors won't open," "The ship's in pieces"), plus Scotty having just "fixed [that damn thing]" (the Red Alert notification-system), the turbolifts messing up, and the transporters being completely down, which pretty much point to a massive systemic failure of some form aboard the Enterprise.

Some of that could be just off-hand exaggeration by a few crewmembers to drive home their main point that the Enterprise-A isn't quite up to par yet.

 

[Nebusj]

It goes beyond just some doors -- there's several lines of dialogue in the movie ("Half the doors won't open," "The ship's in pieces"), plus Scotty having just "fixed [that damn thing]" (the Red Alert notification-system), the turbolifts messing up, and the transporters being completely down, which pretty much point to a massive systemic failure of some form aboard the Enterprise.

``None of the systems are working! Well, except for the warp drive. And the impulse drive. And life support. And shields. And photon torpedoes. Shuttlecraft. The brig. All right, nearly all the systems are working, but darn it, the doors are glitchy! How can we get under way like that?"

 

[WarpFactorZ]

It goes beyond just some doors -- there's several lines of dialogue in the movie ("Half the doors won't open," "The ship's in pieces"), plus Scotty having just "fixed [that damn thing]" (the Red Alert notification-system), the turbolifts messing up, and the transporters being completely down, which pretty much point to a massive systemic failure of some form aboard the Enterprise.

A ship suffering a "catastrophic systems failure" would be completely non-functional -- not travelling through the great barrier unscathed to the center of the galaxy...

Finally, the dialogue dating also confirms that it was TFF that Data was referring to, not TSFS -- "79 years ago" from 2366 is/was 2287, the year after TVH and the launch of Kirk's second Enterprise (Star Trek III having taken place in 2285).

The dates of the films were established/retconned by this quote, I though, not the other way around.

 

[Leto_II]

A ship suffering a "catastrophic systems failure" would be completely non-functional -- not travelling through the great barrier unscathed to the center of the galaxy...

"Catastrophic" was a misquotation on my part (typing from memory late at night) -- the exact quote from the TNG episode:

Data: The system automatically provides for self-correction, Captain. There has not been a systems-wide technological failure on a starship in seventy-nine years.

(Apologies, there.)

Finally, the dialogue dating also confirms that it was TFF that Data was referring to, not TSFS -- "79 years ago" from 2366 is/was 2287, the year after TVH and the launch of Kirk's second Enterprise (Star Trek III having taken place in 2285).

The dates of the films were established/retconned by this quote, I though, not the other way around.

The dating actually derives from TNG production-office documents (the series bible, etc.) produced leading up to and following "Encounter at Farpoint," in which TNG was set 78 years following the events of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (at that point, the last piece of filmed Trek material), with Data providing the onscreen date of the first season as 2364 in "The Neutral Zone" (placing TVH in the year 2286).

Two seasons later, in the third-season TNG premiere ("Evolution"), Michael Piller inserted the dialogue reference to Star Trek V in the episode, establishing the date of the film as taking place in 2287. This is the date used in the official chronology, as well.

 

[Mytran]

A "systems wide technological failure" would still include things like warp drive though wouldn't it? Those things were still fine and frisky!

 

[Leto_II]

In the episode, Data was referring to computerized control-systems governing a starship, which may or may not affect the warp drive directly. In both stories (The Final Frontier, "Evolution"), both Enterprises' warp drives appeared unaffected, from what I remember.

 

[publiusr]

The best part was the discussion of what folks thought what would be the Ent-A would look like.

I was also pleased seeing the refit back in action, but like Mr. baker, it would have ben nice to see some freshening up.

 

[Maxillius]

I just want to know if I was the only one disappointed by the look of the NCC-1701-A.

Since the refit is my favourite Trek ship ever, no, I wasn't disappointed at all!

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 have to agree with Mr. Laser Beam on this. To liken it to your car analogy, if someone had, say, a 1982 Toyota Camry, it might be too old to maintain cost-effectively. But since the Camry is still being made, you can go get a perfectly good 2014 model... which doesn't change the fact that the 1982 one might not be fit for use.

Actually, I look at that situation as similar to GM's J-body cars that debuted in 1982 and discontinued in 2004. The 1982 Chevy Cavalier, for instance, is like the original Enterprise. It was alright for the task it was designed for, and as time went on it was updated. The 1995 redesign is like the Enterprise refit: almost everything changed. However, toward the end the designers found that they couldn't fit all the gadgets people wanted in it so they had to stop making it, despite its popularity.

So consider the Enterprise-A in that light. It's an old design even if it was brand new (which I doubt). It wouldn't be able to take the new gadgets Starfleet would have wanted to stick on/in it. So the Enterprise A is like a 2004 Cavalier: obsolete when it was new.