 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Couldn't they have meant the Enterprise A and the Enterprise as it was before, in the twenty year count?
I don't know where the dates come from, but according to Trekcore.com:
ST: TMP = 2271
ST: TWoK = 2285
That's about fourteen years missing from the timeline.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, your point does exist in another fashion: the Enterprise-A, which is introduced at the end of Star Trek IV, is asked to return to Starbase to be decommissioned at the final of Star Trek VI. Though they *could* be referring to the crew, generally it's a term used for ships and not people (also, the following film opens with the "laying of the keel" for the Enterprise-B, showing the previous vessel was scrapped / decommissioned / struck from the fleet / something.)
We also don't know the actual origin of the Enterprise A. Was it a brand new ship they happened to have ready and named the Enterprise? Or was it another refit of a different ship? All we know for certain was that it was a piece of crap (thank you, Star Trek V). The interiors of the ship seem pretty beaten up and scuffed. Perhaps it was such a lemon than they gave up after three years.
On the other hand, in his final log, Kirk does mention that the vessel will be under the care of another crew. So maybe they just got the term wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One last bit. While it's canon to say the refit is the same Constitution class ship we know and love, that's total BS! Everything about TMP Enterprise is different from the TOS Enterprise. The proportions are completely different at every level. They didn't just latch on new warp engines and called it a day.
Well, it's not just "cannon to say" it, it's pretty much specified in the dialog.
"We just spent 18 months redesigning and refitting the Entrprise."
"This is an almost totally new Enterprise."
I'm not saying that makes any logical sense since it clearly would have been simpler to make a brand new ship. But they had to justify the upgrade for the big screen and still have fans of the original feel like the old girl was in the movie.
Sometimes, I feel like Roddenberry wanted us to feel that the old 60's designs and the 1979 upgrades were much closer than they were, since they were limited to what they could do in technology, budget and vision 15 years earlier (when originally designing it). In other words, if Star Trek was created in the 80's, it would look like the first movie rather than the original series. But since the original designs have been canonically referenced repeatedly, that doesn't really hold water either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 2, 2015 - 12:45 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
One last bit. While it's canon to say the refit is the same Constitution class ship we know and love, that's total BS! Everything about TMP Enterprise is different from the TOS Enterprise. The proportions are completely different at every level. They didn't just latch on new warp engines and called it a day.
Well, it's not just "cannon to say" it, it's pretty much specified in the dialog.
"We just spent 18 months redesigning and refitting the Entrprise."
"This is an almost totally new Enterprise."
I'm not saying that makes any logical sense since it clearly would have been simpler to make a brand new ship. But they had to justify the upgrade for the big screen and still have fans of the original feel like the old girl was in the movie.
Sometimes, I feel like Roddenberry wanted us to feel that the old 60's designs and the 1979 upgrades were much closer than they were, since they were limited to what they could do in technology, budget and vision 15 years earlier (when originally designing it). In other words, if Star Trek was created in the 80's, it would look like the first movie rather than the original series. But since the original designs have been canonically referenced repeatedly, that doesn't really hold water either.
The only thing they kept the same was the name! But I hear ya.  You bring up an interesting topic. I was extremely upset when I saw they redesigned the Enterprise for the movie. I so wanted to see the old grey ship with those amber warp engines on the big screen. I did not take a liking to the new design for some time. Now however I love the new design as much as the original. (Though I will never, ever come around to liking JJPrise)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 2, 2015 - 6:00 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Joe E.
(Member)
|
As I understand it, although The Motion Picture was made over a decade after the original series, it is in fact set just a couple years after Kirk's original five-year mission. OTOH, The Wrath of Khan, while made just two-and-a-half years after TMP, is set more than a decade later. Essentially, the in-universe time between the series and the second movie is roughly similar to what it was in real life, but the lengths of real-world time between each of them and the first movie should be flipped in order to match the in-universe chronology. The refit for TMP is supposed to have begun shortly (or immediately) after the famous five-year mission ended.
Note that when Admiral Morrow says inStar Trek III: The Search for Spock that the Enterprise is twenty years old, he has to be speaking about the refit design of The Motion Picture (and even then rounding up to a whole decade), and the ship is actually forty years old, counting her whole history under April, Pike and Kirk. The TMP refit came a few years past the halfway point of that timeframe. If we assume Morrow meant the earlier refit (after "Where No Man Has Gone Nefore"), it fits perfectly, but of course that's a much more modest refit than the drastic, keel-up overhaul done for the movie era.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Though I will never, ever come around to liking JJPrise)
I hear you. They managed to completely ugly up a really beautiful ship.
Also, didn't Paramount (or whoever it is that owns Star Trek these days) reverse their position on The Animated Series a few years ago? I think it is now considered canon.
From what I understand, the main reason Paramount or Roddenberry considered the animated series apocryphal had something to do with the rights in regards to Filmation. However, once they went completely back to CBS/Paramount, the studio was all sorts of okay with it. In fact, several episodes of Enterprise reference certain episodes and concepts directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
