Trek 1 or Trek 5...Easier Movie To Ignore From Canon? - Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) Discussion

[–] Marmadukebagelhole 10 years ago

I find it far easier to just be the audience and not assume any notions of authorship.

Glasgow's FOREMOST authority Italics = irony. Infer the opposite please.

reply

[–] mike_cable 9 years ago

I think the uniforms thing is a bit over-discussed. A large organisation just likes to change their uniform from time to time.

But I like the concern about the V'Ger threat never being mentioned again. The Earth and its people almost got wiped out! It's not every year that an alien comes right up close to the planet and almost wipes it out. Kirk should have kept his admiralty later on! But I kinda like how it went back to him being called Captain Kirk again. :) (I do understand the principle of why he was demoted.)

reply

[–] marty1968 9 years ago

Whale Probe says Hi.

reply

[–] loserkids55 8 years ago

Why would it need to be mentioned? In what context would it come up?

"Hey guys, remember when we stopped that giant probe?"

reply

[–] Raja1938 9 years ago

The Motion Picture is essential to the canon. It recounted what Kirk & Spock did in the 10-year interval since TOS ended. The only thing Final Frontier adds to the canon is that Spock had a half-brother, who's been mentioned neither before nor since.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

-Enterprise A being a mess (Sure it could be explained that it was because it was an old ship rechristened, but whatever)

Considering how Scotty describes it, it seems to be definitely a newly-built Constitution-class ship, maybe that had been planned to be named something else and then "re-christened" Enterprise, but still newly built. With a lot of little construction bugs that hadn't yet been worked out.

Despite them having had the TRIAL version of Excelsior in movie 3, which actually turned out to be something of a dud anyway right then, there's no reason to expect that they had completely stopped building Constitution class ships at that time. Even if Enterprise-A happened to be the very last.

reply

[–] ltarex 9 years ago

But even Starfleet can't build a Constitution-class vessel in mere weeks. Only a week or two, or even less have passed between the crew getting back with the whales and their trial. Sarek is still on Earth, etc.

"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel." 

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

I assume it was newly built and originally was going to have a different name, then was renamed Enterprise for Kirk and his people.

Something similar happened with the "replacement" Defiant near the end of DS9. The replacement ship was originally named Sao Paulo, but they were given permission to change its official name to Defiant, same as the first one that had been lost.

And I'm certain that construction of Sao Paulo was not begun only after Defiant had been destroyed, either.

reply

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

Quotes from the officially licensed USS Enterprise Haynes Workshop Manual:

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-U-S-S-Enterprise-Haynes/dp/1451621299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435087179&sr=8-1&keywords=haynes+uss+enterprise+workshop+manual

page 63:
"Another Constitution-class ship, the U.S.S. Yorktown NCC-1717, was recommisioned as the Enterprise NCC-1701-A in 2286 and eventually retired from service in 2293."

page 65:
"Kirk's new ship was the U.S.S. Yorktown, which had recently undergone a substantial refit. In honor of her predecessor she was recommissioned as the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-A."

Technical Consultant on this book is Michael Okuda.

Official canon has always been this since 1986, because that was Rodenberry's homage to his original starship name when he was creating Star Trek and then later changed it to Enterprise.

But also think about it, why would the Federation build new Constitution class ships when they were phasing them out and replacing them with the superior Excelsior class ships. Did we ever see any more Constitution class ships in TNG? No, and that's because they were all replaced by Excelsior class ships and the Enterprise-A was most likely the last to be retired.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Maybe, but I've read and read about other stuff from Okuda that could have been explained better by any number of people who had even just WATCHED the shows, and paid close attention. "Okuda" doesn't mean "infallible" to me.

reply

[–] ltarex 9 years ago

The Okudas made a lot of mistakes in their Chronology and Encyclopedia. For example, placing Star Trek: TMP in 2271. Kirk's five-year mission ended in 2270, and 18 months have passed between that and the V'Ger crisis, so that would place TMP in 2273.

"A voice from behind me reminds me. Spread out your wings you are an angel." 

reply

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

The Okudas made a lot of mistakes in their Chronology and Encyclopedia. For example, placing Star Trek: TMP in 2271. Kirk's five-year mission ended in 2270, and 18 months have passed between that and the V'Ger crisis, so that would place TMP in 2273.

Just out of curiosity, what source are you going off of that says the mission ended in 2270? 18 months after 2270 would make it 2272 by that source.

The Haynes manual which was published in 2010 says the original Enterprise was launched in 2245 under Robert April and that Captain Kirk assumed command from Captain Pike in 2263. It then says Kirk's first five year mission went from 2264 - 2269 (which TOS covered 3 years of this mission) and it then was given the refit and 18 months later Admiral Kirk took command in TMP in 2271. Then it states Kirk's second five year mission was finished in 2277 and Spock took over command until the events of Trek II in 2285.

It states the Enterprise was destroyed over Genesis in 2285 during the events of Trek III, which means the Enterprise was actually 40 years old. The rechristening of the Yorktown occured during 2286 and it states the Enterprise-A completed its shakedown cruise in 2287 and retired in 2293.

I don't see anything wrong with that timeline. The manual has a listing of all 15 original Constitution-class vessels with their registry numbers and has a little asterisk by the Yorktown stating it was renamed the Enterprise-A which is actually pretty cool.

reply

[–] spocktom 9 years ago

No...Okuda is not infallible but I do remember Roddenberry being asked at the time and he said something along the lines that they pulled one of the old Constitutions out of the Starfleet Orbiting Museum, did a quick name paint job and technical once-over and, voila, a new Big E.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Also, once new technologies come out and the older ones are "obsolete" for the top of the line, that doesn't make them worthless. It often means they are easier and "cheaper" to produce, and so can be done in greater numbers than before.

So instead of there only being 12 ships like the Enterprise, once top of the line has moved on to Excelsior, maybe ships like Enterprise can be made in LARGER numbers for LESSER FUNCTIONS.

Maybe not HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS, to where you might expect to see a lot of them in battles with the Dominion etc - although since they wouldn't be top line fighting ships by then, they would more likely be doing other stuff behind the lines - but perhaps dozenS, instead of just the ONE dozen of that type that existed, at least until they started being destroyed by space amoebas and such, at the time of TOS.

Not saying that's definitely TRUE because there's no way to be sure. But it seems possible. There are many functions that Constitution class ships could still be built and used for, that wouldn't have to burden the small numbers (especially at the start) of Excelsior class ships.

DS9 was apparently taking place more than 50 years after Excelsior class ships had become common, and the Enterprise C class ships had come and gone. Yet the Excelsior-class Lakota was still in service in DS9 season 4, seemed to have a pretty serious mission for an "antique," and did not appear to be a 50-year-old ship anyway.

reply

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

The Haynes book I linked to was not written by Okuda but by Ben Robinson and Marcus Riley. Okuda was the Technical consultant and the only reason I mentioned him was because his is a familiar name and the book is an official licensed product.

I remember buying an official Star Trek IV Enterprise-A model released by AMT back in '87 and it had a paragraph of info on it explaining the Enterprise-A was originally the USS Yorktown renamed, so that's been official canon since the beginning.

If you want to believe it's a brand new Constitution class ship that's been rechristened go right ahead but it doesn't fit with what has been already established. They showed a clip of Capt Vijay from the Yorktown in Trek IV as the Whale Probe disabled his ship. How do we know the Whale Probe wasn't the original cause of the systems failing all the time in Trek V?

The Yorktown was an original Constitution class ship like the Enterprise in TOS and would've been refit like the Enterprise. We never see another Constitution class ship ever again after Trek VI in any of the shows that took place after, not in TNG, DS9 or Voyager. I would say it's safe to say they were retired from service, but nothing I say will prevent you from believing what you want to believe.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

Well, we don't really know that the Yorktown from Movie 4 was a Constitution class ship - refitted or not - if it was never shown from the outside. And we don't really know that the Yorktown was rechristened since that was never said in any of the episodes or movies.

Notes inserted into AMT model kits etc, are not conclusive evidence of anything except that Roddenberry appeared to have "a thing" for the name Yorktown since the beginning.

It seems at least possible that the whole thing wouldn't have gone the way it did, including the worldwide fandom and etc, if Roddenberry had gotten his way on that, as with many other things we can see now would have been WORSE if Roddenberry had gotten his way.

That the Excelsior-class Lakota still existed and had important missions, 50 years after the Excelsior class started, still seems to leave open the possibility of previous designs still being made occasionally, to serve functions that didn't require top of the line performance.

Maybe they wouldn't be refitted again once they'd been through enough battles to make them somehow unworthy, as with the original Enterprise which was not going to be refitted after returning from Genesis even though it was "only" 20 years old rather than 50.

There were still plenty of missions that Constitution class ships could do well, that didn't require an Excelsior, including cadet training; and relying only on what was left of the original dozen seems insufficient. By the end of TOS there would have been what, only 7 or 8? At most.

reply

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

I agree with you that in reality they would still use the Constitution class ships for something, but in the Trek world it seems they just retired them out of active duty service after 20-30 years which is ridiculously silly and wasteful. Not to mention the refit Enterprise / Constitution class ships are the best looking ships in all of Star Trek, even to this day.

Considering also that if they built a brand new ship and called it Yorktown and then hastily rechristened it Enterprise-A and then retired it right out of service 5-8 years later when it was replaced by an Excelsior class Enterprise-B seen in Generations seems even more wasteful.

I mentioned the model notes because it is in allignment with all the officially licensed products like the Haynes book that mention it. Because it was never seen or mentioned on screen means it's open to fan fiction interpretation but I'm good with the official word on it.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

The AMT model notes etc just seem to me an indication of Roddenberry wanting to have the ship be called Yorktown from the start. But it wasn't, and he was going to get him a ship called Yorktown somehow, by hook or by crook.

I do believe it makes the most sense that the Enterprise A was newly built, perhaps the very last of the Constitution class ever built, since the Excelsiors were coming along. Although with the apparent failure of the transwarp drive etc, maybe they wound up still building a few more Constitution ships, before all the Excelsior bugs were worked out.

Especially because of how Scotty referred to the people who BUILT their new ship, at the start of movie 5. I don't think Scotty would have said it that way, if their ship had been a refit of the Yorktown or something else.

And since that was actually in one of the shows/movies, I consider that far more "canon" than something just in a "Tech manual" or something that Michael Okuda said in a podcast or something. Scotty would KNOW.

reply

[–] Inspector81 9 years ago

Everything you're saying is your fan fiction, and you can believe what you want to believe, but the official word from the officially licensed products is it was an already existing USS Yorktown which had undergone a refit and then was rechristened Enterprise-A. That does fit with what was shown on screen.

These are the quotes again from the Haynes manual which says in the top right corner of the cover "Star Trek official licensed product":

page 63:
"Another Constitution-class ship, the U.S.S. Yorktown NCC-1717, was recommisioned as the Enterprise NCC-1701-A in 2286 and eventually retired from service in 2293."

page 65:
"Kirk's new ship was the U.S.S. Yorktown, which had recently undergone a substantial refit. In honor of her predecessor she was recommissioned as the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701-A."

Here's some other ones:

page 79:
"The USS Enterprise-B was an Excelsior-class ship that was built at Starfleet's Antares shipyards. She was formally commissioned in Earth Spacedock in 2293."

page 80:
"Work on the Enterprise NCC-1701-B began in 2288 as part of Starfleet's project to replace the ageing Constitution-class ships with larger and faster vessels."

"...the Excelsior finally entered full service in 2290, four years behind schedule. The Enterprise-B followed three years later and was formally commissioned three months after her predecessor - USS Enterprise NCC-1701-A - was retired."

Enterprise-A was not a new ship and it had undergone a substantial refit and that was why Scotty referred to it as "new" in Trek V and that fits with what was shown on screen. They wouldn't name a new ship the same name as an existing one until that ship is retired out of service and the official licensed products agree. If you don't want to agree with it, be my guest, but your fan fiction is just that, fan fiction.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

If it wasn't actually shown on-screen, in a series or one of the movies, it's really no less "fan fiction" than anything else. Especially if it doesn't fit well with other things that DID so appear. Such as Okuda's various silly "explanations" of Treknology, or that Scotty DID say (more or less) in movie 5 "the people who BUILT this NEW ship" rather than "the people who REFITTED this OLD ship" or whatever.

Of course it's all made up anyway, really. The Yorktown stuff is just made up in alignment with Roddenberry's desire to have had the ship be called Yorktown rather than Enterprise to begin with. But that doesn't make it somehow automatically more logical, especially when (a) character(s) within the milieu refer to it as NEW.

reply

[–] kerryedavis 9 years ago

As for the Excelsior class Enterprise B, maybe they re-re-christened the Enterprise A (back to) Yorktown once Kirk was no longer in command. It was only named Enterprise for him to start with, after all. Once he and the rest of his top people were "decommissioned" they might have renamed it then, or waited until it was almost time for Enterprise B and then done it.

Or heck, maybe the crew that took over from Kirk/Spock/etc, after movie 6, managed to get THEIR Enterprise destroyed somehow. So the naming thing was no longer an issue.

reply

[–] action_on_deck 9 years ago

It would have to be a new renamed ship. As pointed out by others, the Defiants replacement on DS9 was originally to be named something else, but was named Defiant in its honor. In real life, after the USS Lexington was lost during WW2, another ship currently under construction was renamed Lexington. Interestingly, the Japanese claimed that they had sunk the "Lexington" numerous times, and the Americans kept renaming different ships Lexington to keep their morale up.

reply

[–] MuMu2525 9 years ago

There's nothing in TMP that needs to be ignored. No problem with the new uniforms, no problem with the new characters, and there was no need to mention V'Ger again since it never came back (though I would have loved to have seen a TNG episode where it did).

TFF on the other hand makes it seem that that flying to the centre of the galaxy is just a little trip of hours or days rather than decades, so that needs to be ignored from canon. And, of course, the fact that the whole film was Shatner at his most egomaniacal.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hal-9010 9 years ago

Hell no. those two are the ones I like the most. If any should be removed, it should be "Star Trek IV" (although I enjoy it for its awkwardness) and in Next Gen it should be either "Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)" or "Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)".... but in all fairness, none should.

In the reboot it is easy though!

___________
** I am normally not a praying man, but if you are up there, please save me Superman **

reply

[–] pfr_77 9 years ago

i'll let ya know when i watch trek5

but to be honest i don't find this one all that bad (director's cut)

reply

[–] pfr_77 9 years ago

Ok, so I watched trek5... that was pretty silly

reply

[–] kenburke0627 9 years ago

I'd have to say The Motion Picture. If anything, it has already been officially ignored from Canon by EVERY Star Trek movie and television series that was eventually created.

reply