I'm forced to agree with Warped9 here... the Enterprise being mothballed after only 20-30 years is beyond absurd, especially considering how Trek has shown the freaking MIRANDA-Class to still be in service by the end of DS9...
TOS Purists of TrekBBS - Unite!
- Thread starter TOS Purist
- Start date
I'm forced to agree with Warped9 here... the Enterprise being mothballed after only 20-30 years is beyond absurd, especially considering how Trek has shown the freaking MIRANDA-Class to still be in service by the end of DS9...
They're not saying the Enterprise's class is being mothballed. They're saying the Enterprise is being mothballed. Big difference. Heck, again we don't know the rationale behind the decision other than Admiral Morrow's dumbass statement. And if the Enterprise were heavily damaged in some unshown event, well, it just might make sense to make her a training vessel and to retire her before her time.
And if I remember correctly, weren't most of those Miranda class ships numbered in TNG terms, e.g NCC-31850 and the like? That's a NEW ship, not one from 2260's.
And if I remember correctly, weren't most of those Miranda class ships numbered in TNG terms, e.g NCC-31850 and the like? That's a NEW ship, not one from 2260's.
I was a fairly harsh critic of ENT when it was running, but now that it's been off a few years and we've gained a bit of perspective, it's easier to deal with. Either way, it's a damn sight better than ST09.
As for Morrow's comment, the only way to reconcile that without making him out to be a complete moron is to figure he's talking about the ship since it was refit in TMP, and being rather loose in his numbers.
And the "Planet of Galactic Peace" is just a part of Kirk and McCoy's drunken ghost story; pay it no mind.
As for Morrow's comment, the only way to reconcile that without making him out to be a complete moron is to figure he's talking about the ship since it was refit in TMP, and being rather loose in his numbers.
And the "Planet of Galactic Peace" is just a part of Kirk and McCoy's drunken ghost story; pay it no mind.
I'd never say that. Other than "North Star" and two Andorian/Vulcan episodes, I found the show unworthy of the name Star Trek. Star Trek '09 at least is entertaining, if badly written.
Or he could have referred to the refit that occurred after Pike gave command of the Enterprise to Kirk (which is why it went from 203 to 430 crew), or perhaps even a refit after the events of WNMHGB (bye-bye goosenecks). Either way, I still don't think it's a big deal at all.
Naw, it's a good plot point, and kinda ironic. Here are these three galactic empires, and they create this crappy little colony with a bunch of losers. None of the three give a rat's ass about the colony; it was just a publicity stunt. And with bureaucracies being what they are, it just keeps getting its miniscule funding from each empire for fear of the fallout from letting it collapse on its own.
These rationalizations ignore the subtext and intent of what is being said onscreen. And the intent is born of error and sloppily not getting the facts right.
This isn't a debate about convincing someone else. You believe what you want. If you like it as one big happy continuity than good for you. I don't buy it as such and I never will. Over the years the inconsistencies just pile too high for me.
I can see TWOK-TUC being of the same continuity as TNG/DS9/VOY and possibly in extent then ENT. But none of it works with TOS as far as I'm concerned.
Yet back to TWOK the other thing that I disliked from the first time I saw the film was that they were no longer on the frontier boldly going. They painted the original crew as old farts not from being put out to pasture and only good enough to train snot nosed cadets. And the pride of Starfleet is painted as a creaking bucket only waiting to be cut up. The whole thing stank and Bennett and Meyer can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.
People cut up TMP because it's not run-and-jump action. But in overall tone and style it was more like the TOS I remember. The story was about facing something really unknown and dangerous. And in the end the crew is back together and ready to hit the frontier again. Things feel off in the beginning. but then everyone has been apart and no one is in their groove anymore. A subplot of the film is everyone getting back into their grooves. TWOK resembles TOS in another respect in terms of character moments and some of the action, but the rest is just off.
This isn't a debate about convincing someone else. You believe what you want. If you like it as one big happy continuity than good for you. I don't buy it as such and I never will. Over the years the inconsistencies just pile too high for me.
I can see TWOK-TUC being of the same continuity as TNG/DS9/VOY and possibly in extent then ENT. But none of it works with TOS as far as I'm concerned.
Yet back to TWOK the other thing that I disliked from the first time I saw the film was that they were no longer on the frontier boldly going. They painted the original crew as old farts not from being put out to pasture and only good enough to train snot nosed cadets. And the pride of Starfleet is painted as a creaking bucket only waiting to be cut up. The whole thing stank and Bennett and Meyer can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned.
People cut up TMP because it's not run-and-jump action. But in overall tone and style it was more like the TOS I remember. The story was about facing something really unknown and dangerous. And in the end the crew is back together and ready to hit the frontier again. Things feel off in the beginning. but then everyone has been apart and no one is in their groove anymore. A subplot of the film is everyone getting back into their grooves. TWOK resembles TOS in another respect in terms of character moments and some of the action, but the rest is just off.
Last edited:
Without going into specifics:
I would regard the training and education of the next generation (no pun intended) of star fleet officers to be a task of great importance to star fleet.
True enough, but the whole thing of the Enterprise and her proven crew not doing the things we like seeing them do just burned my ass.
It's like the ideas we've heard for series about young Bruce Wayne before he was Batman or young Clark Kent. Hello! I don't care! I want Batman and Superman stories, not teenage angst stories. A flashback is one thing, but I'm not interested in a film or TV series devoted to it.
It's not sloppy nor born of error. It's a realization that it's not important to the story. The theme of TWOK is aging. That's what you're missing altogether.
This isn't about trying to convince you. This is illustrating that there's no way to "unite" the "TOS Purists" of this BBS. I've been described as a TOS purist for as long as I can remember. As have you. As have half a dozen other posters here. If we can't even agree on the simplest of things (such as the TOS, TAS, CLassic Movies), then there's no hope for any sort of "unity." Your dismissive comments toward the Bennett-era films are often insulting to those of us who enjoy those films far more than TMP.
The TOS/TAS/Classic Trek Movies continuity works for me. Anton used to say that it was only Season 1 & 2 and TMP that worked for him. You're saying that only Seasons 1-3 & TMP work for you. *shrug* We're all entitled to our own opinions. The vast majority of the posters on the BBS don't care; the vast majority of the readers of Orion Press don't care; the vast majority of the readers of Pocketbooks don't care. To the vast majority, it's ALL Star Trek, and we've got to accept that.
The theme of TWOK is that the characters are getting older (the actors certainly were), and it's an examination of how heroes must deal with their own mortality. It's a logical extrapolation from TOS.
Exactly. The function of the senior members of society is education. Why do you think they're always telling the younger members of society what they did? They're trying to impart their wisdom, and this goes back to the primary theme of TWOK.
It's been ten years since TMP, and you don't know what's happened to the Enterprise. She might've been practically blown up trying to save a planet. She could've been in battle and suffered extensive damage. Accept the condition of the Enterprise also as a comment on the theme of TWOK. She's an aging ship with an aging crew.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Other than "The Changeling," I can think of no episode even similar in tone or style to TMP. Name an episode where the leads draw together as many times as they do in TMP to restate the plot points over and over. Name an episode where they sit there and stare at the viewscreen. Even in "The Immunity Syndrome" where there's actually something truly interesting on the screen, they don't sit there and stare blankly at it. The thing's a menace and must be destroyed. V'ger is a menace and must be dealt with or destroyed. But for heaven's sake, staring at it while the lead actor's wife is mechanically garbling "No for-ward mo-men-tum" isn't anything like I recall seeing in TOS.
The crew was facing something they'd dealt with before in the form of NOMAD/VGER, both space probes that had been coopted by alien technology and both had returned as threats to Earth. That's dangerous, yes, but hardly "really unknown." I will admit, however, that in the ending, the feel of TOS is almost there, but it's far too little, and far too late.
No it's not about "everyone" getting their act together. We don't see that at all. It's about JTK trying to reassert his command and Spock dealing with alien influence in his head. I think you're confusing the ORIGINAL story where everyone is brought back together to face the menace (originally Shatner said it could be God or it could be the Devil). In TMP, the fact of the matter is that everyone's been doing the same ol' same ol' except for Kirk who's been with the admiralty, Spock who's been on Vulcan, and McCoy who's been buried in research. Those three are reunited. McCoy doesn't miss a beat, but Kirk and SPock are unbelievably lost for two hours of the two hours and ten minute movie.
I find it interesting that you reject TWOK for its "old farts" attitude but TMP's "alienated old friends" is acceptable.
No, it's not. The characterizations in TWOK are perfect. The actors slipped back into their roles as easily as you might a comfortable pair of slippers. In TMP, they're struggling to fit into a pair of shoes that never were made for them in the first place. That's why TMP falls flat in comparison to TWOK.
Funny, you can argue the same thing about TMP. The crew isn't "doing the things we like seeing them do." They're sitting on their asses staring blankly at a viewscreen for nearly an hour of the movie.
What you wanted (seeing the crew "doing the things we like seeing them do") couldn't be achieved by the time TWOK was produced. The cast was too old. So Harve Bennett went with a story that highlighted this fact to a charming degree, and you can't deal with it. The Bennett-era Classic Trek movies are a wonderful exploration of various themes, and are far more worthwhile experiences than TMP achieved.
I think this just highlights the problem with moving Star Trek to the big screen in the first place, that you can't do the kind of stories TOS did so well. You have to go for the spectacle, make it a big rousing romp, with any character development outside of the primary leads getting chucked out the airlock.
I think I'll be writing a short article for the Concordance explaining how it all fits together...
I think I'll be writing a short article for the Concordance explaining how it all fits together...
What a nice post. That's how I feel about "Star Trek" (TOS). If it isn't what others prefer, that's fine.
One could do much worse than study Star Trek to build a series or some other drama. It's based on Kirk, a hero in the classic sense, background relatively undisclosed. (As opposed to modern angsty young men working through somthing their parent did that messed them up.) Also the troika with Kirk at the center of McCoy (heart/passion) and Spock (rationality). I know Takei and Doohan felt slightly, but the economy of three principals works better than the extended-family of semi-principals in the later series.
Last edited:
I love TOS, enough so that I wouldn't want the headache and wouldn't bother. But to each his own.
As far as I'm concerned TWOK-TUC is a vivid bad dream Kirk has after one Saurian brandy too many.
The morning after:
McCoy - "Jim, you look terrible!"
Kirk - "Bones. Have you got something for the mother of all night terrors?"
It's funny that on this particular subject, you like to cherry pick the facts regarding TOS continuity violations. again - I refer to my earlier post in this thread regarding how Star Trek didn't even pin down the era it took place in during the course of it's run (link).
Personally, I've always felt the main TOS characters were written very out of character in ST:TMP; and one thing I personally loved in STII:TWoK was the fact that the main TOS characters as portrayed in that film WERE written like they were in the 3 seasons of TOS - and that aspect is one of the more enjoyable things of that film.
As has been stated above by other too - ST:TMP was basically a 40 million dollar remake of TOS - The Changeling - which was another reason I was somewhat disapponted when watching it as I did feel like I'd seen it before AS I was watching it.
The largest canon/continuity mistake STII:TWoK makes is having Chekov recognize Khan. That's it for the film as far as continuity/canon mistakes as it CONTINUES the mistake made in Space Seed itself.
No if you want to talk about story/logic mistakes like:
- The Reliant couldn't tell on approach that Ceti Alpha VI blew up, and that other things in the star system had changed...
- The Reliant again, couldn't find life; or determine that there had been a previous thriving eco-system on Ceti-Alpha V...
^^^^^
These aren't canon or continuity miistakes, they are mistakes for the sake of making the plot work; and that's certainly NOTHING NEW to TOS either.
The fact is, from the first pilot of TOS to the pilot that finally sold the series; you need to massage some canon and continuity elements to make it all work. But IMO, of all the Star Trek original series based feature films; imo, the two that have the TOS cast and events the most outside of the general established behavior and continuity are ST:TMP, and STV:TFF.
STII, STII, STIV, and STVI all (imo) fit in fine with established TOS era canon and continuity.
I'm not a purist although I do consider TOS the best (and it's the only series I own, and will own, on DVD) but I do have to asked, Warped9: Why do you have 40 Eridani B as your location? I hope it's not a reference to that being the Vulcan system. Because that was never mentioned in the series. It's not canon. And therefore, not 'pure'. 
^^ James Blish in his adaptation of "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" makes reference to 40 Eridani as being the Vulcan's home star. In Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual the Vulcan home star is referenced as Epsilon Eridani. After looking up the two stars I agreed that 40 Eridani seems a more logical choice for the Vulcan homeworld. Hence 40 Eridani B or the second planet out from the star in that system. And James Blish was a renowned science fiction writer.
No, it ain't canon, but whatever.
This subject was also discussed in at least one Best Of Trek articles from way back. I'm sure I've got a copy of it buried somewhere.
No, it ain't canon, but whatever.
This subject was also discussed in at least one Best Of Trek articles from way back. I'm sure I've got a copy of it buried somewhere.
Warped, the Technical Manual lists the Planetary Confederation of 40 Eridani as a founding member, not Epsilon Eridani. FJ never directly links 40 Eridani with Vulcan nor 61 Cygni and Epsilon Indii with Tellar and Andor respectively. They may have come elsewhere in fandom, but to my knowledge, the first linkage in anything resembling an official publication came in the Medical Reference Manual.
That source indeed is the first recollection I have of the 40 Eridani A/Vulcan, 61 Cygni/Tellar, Epsilon Indi/Andor connection.
Although there are some minor points that I may differ on regarding what Potempkin_Prod has said, I really appreciate the remarks and agree with so much that he has posted.
I do acknowledge some of the differences that posters have pointed out that exist between TOS and certain subsequent movies (and series), and I do understand people's feelings and disappointments regarding those "changes" (I, too, was not happy about the original Enterprise being "downgraded" to a training vessel and I REALLY REALLY could not believe that THE WRITER(S) later actually blew her up (!!!!!!!!), but things DO change. I can accept what happened now. Ship and crew were getting old. How does one deal with that reality? We all have to face that journey (Talk about going into the "final frontier!".....).
Anyway, some of us may not like what happens in subsequent movies & series, but (as Potempkin_Prod said) how can anyone deny that we do NOT know what may have happened in the gaps between the events that we saw on film? We can not allow for any critical events to have happened during those gaps? Maybe the Enterprise did suffer some very serious damage in saving a colony- or maybe she made a final jump that "broke her back" (erpp- sorry.... wrong show......).
And plenty of seemingly stupid decisions are made by individuals, by businesses, by the government (just have a look at Congress,) or by the military. Decommissioning the Enterprise may also have been a stupid move on some very powerful individual's part (maybe someone in San Diego (or Iowa?) wanted her for a museum in their district). Maybe what burns us is the idea that that an event may too closely resemble an inexplicable decision made in our own not-so-perfect reality, rather than being based on the logic of our "perfect" Trek reality.
And man.... all this 'not allowing for any character to have perhaps made a mis-statement or gotten (especially) a date wrong...'. If I were to go by the standard of accepting EVERYTHING that someone that I like (and/or respect) tells me, I will now be forced to throw out several things in history and in my own life, based on what my Grandfather has told me about the 1940s and what a couple of my friends seem to "remember" from our time in college.
It's understandable to say that you don't like something and give reasons why, but it doesn't mean stuff did not happen (even within the admittedly fictional universe of Trek).
P.S. I do not accept (in my personal canon) that Travis shot Old Yeller.
I do acknowledge some of the differences that posters have pointed out that exist between TOS and certain subsequent movies (and series), and I do understand people's feelings and disappointments regarding those "changes" (I, too, was not happy about the original Enterprise being "downgraded" to a training vessel and I REALLY REALLY could not believe that THE WRITER(S) later actually blew her up (!!!!!!!!), but things DO change. I can accept what happened now. Ship and crew were getting old. How does one deal with that reality? We all have to face that journey (Talk about going into the "final frontier!".....).
Anyway, some of us may not like what happens in subsequent movies & series, but (as Potempkin_Prod said) how can anyone deny that we do NOT know what may have happened in the gaps between the events that we saw on film? We can not allow for any critical events to have happened during those gaps? Maybe the Enterprise did suffer some very serious damage in saving a colony- or maybe she made a final jump that "broke her back" (erpp- sorry.... wrong show......).
And plenty of seemingly stupid decisions are made by individuals, by businesses, by the government (just have a look at Congress,) or by the military. Decommissioning the Enterprise may also have been a stupid move on some very powerful individual's part (maybe someone in San Diego (or Iowa?) wanted her for a museum in their district). Maybe what burns us is the idea that that an event may too closely resemble an inexplicable decision made in our own not-so-perfect reality, rather than being based on the logic of our "perfect" Trek reality.
And man.... all this 'not allowing for any character to have perhaps made a mis-statement or gotten (especially) a date wrong...'. If I were to go by the standard of accepting EVERYTHING that someone that I like (and/or respect) tells me, I will now be forced to throw out several things in history and in my own life, based on what my Grandfather has told me about the 1940s and what a couple of my friends seem to "remember" from our time in college.
It's understandable to say that you don't like something and give reasons why, but it doesn't mean stuff did not happen (even within the admittedly fictional universe of Trek).
P.S. I do not accept (in my personal canon) that Travis shot Old Yeller.
I did enjoy some aspects of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (maybe it was mainly because I wanted to see Trek again so much), but -in my opinion- it did not have anything close to the feel of TOS. I did chalk it up to the fact that the crew was coming together again for the first time in a while, and the characters had been off on very different pursuits and needed to get back into the groove of working together. I also thought (behind the scenes) that editing was awful, leading to too many slow, drawn out scenes that repeatedly killed the intensity of their predicament.
I felt like they were trying to do Trek "2001-style", and this was not the pace that I was used to for Trek (Heck- even the subtitle from the early movie posters was: "A 23rd Century Odyssey Now"!).
TMP is still part of Trek for me, though.....
I felt like they were trying to do Trek "2001-style", and this was not the pace that I was used to for Trek (Heck- even the subtitle from the early movie posters was: "A 23rd Century Odyssey Now"!).
TMP is still part of Trek for me, though.....
