^Good point.
But, if it were a Marshak/Culbreath novel, there wouldn't be anything he wouldn't trade!
But, if it were a Marshak/Culbreath novel, there wouldn't be anything he wouldn't trade!
Why did they destroy the Enterprise in ST3?
- Thread starter ConRefit79
- Start date
It also allowed the Big E to go out with a bang instead of being retired as Adm. Cartwright had implied. The old girl got to go down fighting, instead of being cut up into razor blades.
^^ Interesting. Oh sure, the Enterprise is very important to Kirk. As he said in Court-Martial "and NOTHING is more important than my ship."
But I think that much (not all) of that importance and devotion to the Enterprise is in regards to the crew within. Kirk fiercely defends his role as Enterprise captain in large part because of the hundreds of lives in his charge. That's a great part of the importance he places upon his ship.
In TSFS his Enterprise is shown in a most unusual situation, that is, empty and crewless.
Most any other time, talk of sacrifice and destruction of the Enterprise also implied the loss of lives Kirk was charged to protect, his entire crew (not just the ship).
But here, sacrifice and destruction of the Enterprise only meant the ship itself. A unique and different situation, a different decision.
(although i will add that losing THIS ship was a tremendous loss to me as well as Kirk)
Yeah. If after battling a tiny bird of prey, Sulu had plowed the Enterprise into the Genesis planet, that would have been lame.
^Good point.
But, if it were a Marshak/Culbreath novel, there wouldn't be anything he wouldn't trade!
It was the only choice that could have been made at that time. Yes, the fan reaction to Excelsior was overwhelmingly negative. People hated that ship, and it was humiliated and emasculated on-screen.
But in the long-run, it was the wrong decision, I think. From my perspective now, they should have moved to Excelsior, renamed Enterprise. That should have been the 1701-A, not just another carbon copy of the same ship.
But hindsight...
Building a new model was, honestly, never necessary. Nor was it ever in the budget.
Star Trek II they didn't have the budget for it. Star Trek III, they destroyed the ship. (Not the model. But there was no intention to reuse the model.) Star Trek IV, we have, what? Ten seconds on screen? No need for a new model. Star Trek V, no budget (which is why Bran Ferran was hired in the first place). Star Trek VI, not in the budget (given how much of the salaries were deferred to get the film made) and there wasn't much likelihood of the model ever being needed again.
ILM didn't like the model. It was much bigger than what they liked to work with. It was too heavy for their film rigs. The surface was too reflective. The Excelsior model was smaller and designed for their rigs; naturally, because they designed it.
My connection to fandom at the time was through the pages of Best of Trek, and it came as a surprise to me that the Excelsior was hated. It was good enough for the comic books, after all.
Ian, I have to say that I genuinely doubt that "fan anger re the 'pregnant guppy'" had anything to do with the decision at the end of Star Trek IV to place the crew back aboard the Enterprise. Harve Bennett was confident in his own abilities to produce Star Trek, and he was also a writer who liked classical reward narratives; putting the crew back on the Enterprise made a great deal of thematic sense. And, frankly, if the fans had any influence, it would have been on Roddenberry, who at that point was reduced to writing scathing memos because he was out of the loop. I concede that it's possible that Roddenberry could have, in one of his memos, suggested placing the crew on a new Enterprise, and that may have been one of the few Roddenberry ideas that Bennett accepted, but Bennett would have accepted that only if it gelled with his storytelling instincts.
By pure coincidence, I ran into some friends in the queue for STIII. I'd read the book already, so I knew what what coming. They didn't, and at the relevant point there came this low, despairing groan of 'No... it can't happen...'
The Excelsior was never meant to replace the Enterprise. It was set up, from the get go, as a symbol of progress only, and always as an unworthy replacement. It represented Kirk and the original crew and their ship as aging and obsolete, a common theme thru many of the Kirk films from Khan to Undiscovered.
And look at how badly designed the Excelsior was, automated and sterile without heart. The bridge had no character and was flimsy and uninteresting. It was only it's exteriors and it's departure from the reconizable Constitution class as a design theory that made any statement. It's larger nacelles were an obvious depiction of power. But in the end bigger wasn't better, and the Excelsior is quickly castrated and nullified. No way was Kirk and crew were ever to be placed on her bridge... by the end of the film the ship was rendered a ridiculous failure only to be used further as FX fodder for Next Gen.
Excelsior was meant to make the Enterprise seem outdated and nothing more. It's only when those "old dogs" got together once more into the breech to save their friend did they prove what it takes to be in a true and brave Starfleet crew, with all the values and priorities that strengthens any "family". That age, wisdom, and experience should never be under estimated. That it's the people, NOT THE SHIP, that makes Starfleet strong. Enterprise sacrificed herself for her crew and Excelsior was just a bloated representation of everything wrong with a corporation favoring technology, automation, and power instead of valor, friendship, and teamwork... that was it's symbolic purpose.
And look at how badly designed the Excelsior was, automated and sterile without heart. The bridge had no character and was flimsy and uninteresting. It was only it's exteriors and it's departure from the reconizable Constitution class as a design theory that made any statement. It's larger nacelles were an obvious depiction of power. But in the end bigger wasn't better, and the Excelsior is quickly castrated and nullified. No way was Kirk and crew were ever to be placed on her bridge... by the end of the film the ship was rendered a ridiculous failure only to be used further as FX fodder for Next Gen.
Excelsior was meant to make the Enterprise seem outdated and nothing more. It's only when those "old dogs" got together once more into the breech to save their friend did they prove what it takes to be in a true and brave Starfleet crew, with all the values and priorities that strengthens any "family". That age, wisdom, and experience should never be under estimated. That it's the people, NOT THE SHIP, that makes Starfleet strong. Enterprise sacrificed herself for her crew and Excelsior was just a bloated representation of everything wrong with a corporation favoring technology, automation, and power instead of valor, friendship, and teamwork... that was it's symbolic purpose.
Last edited:
No, the Excelsior really was planned to replace the Enterprise. Roddenberry hated the idea; I believe it was David Alexander's Star Trek Creator that said that Roddenberry was attached to the Enterprise in the way a World War II bomber pilot would have been attached to his B-17. While that may well have been part of Roddenberry's hatred of the idea of destroying the Enterprise and replacing it with a new ship, I suspect that the real hatred stemmed from Roddenberry's belief that Bennett was trying to put his own stamp on Star Trek.
This gets repeated every so often and it's just flat out wrong. The only Enterprise ever referred to as Starfleet's or the Federation's flagship is TNG's 1701D. The TOS and movie Enterprise were never referred to or assumed to be anyone's flagship.
And flagship as it's generally understood is whichever vessel an admiral chooses to direct his/her operations from. He/she could choose a destroyer to be his/her flagship if he/she wanted to...which would be kind of a clever deception when you think about it.
In TOS' "The Ultimate Computer" Admiral Wesley commands his attack force for the M5 wargames from aboard the Lexington. It was never referenced onscreen, but you could assume that Wesley chose the Lexington to be his flagship for the exercise.
Not I suppose it's possible that in Trek's universe (or at least TNG's) a specific vessel could be designated as Starfleet's or the Federation's official flagship. But in TOS' and the movie era the Enterprise is never referred to as such.
Not to nitpick, but wasn't he a Commodore?
But yeah, I never got the impression during the viewing of the actual series (tie-in novels aside) that there was any indication Enterprise was the flagship. Just one of twelve. Was it ever canonically stated that she was the first Connie to be made after the Constitution? I guess the 1701 designation would indicate that, but only if it's given that the Constitution was 1700. But if you do assume that she was the first after the prototype, I suppose it might be logical for it to be the flagship. But that's all just assumption, not necessarily the intent of the show.
Well... Captain Pike did refer to the Enterprise as the "newest" flagship in Star Trek 2009. Whatever the hell that was suppose to mean.
Roddenberry was right.
The Excelsior actually was pretty ugly, looked too much like a bathtub wearing a toilet seat, sporting a couple of motorbike exhausts
The Connie Refit on the other hand, was thin and sleek and retained the original Connie design but with more detail and updated technology and functions
The Connie Refit on the other hand, was thin and sleek and retained the original Connie design but with more detail and updated technology and functions
Similar threads
