Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > TV Talk
Reload this Page >

Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Community
Search
TV Talk Talk about Shows on TV
View Poll Results: Favorite Classic Star Trek Show
Star Trek (TOS)
35.48%
Star Trek: The Animated Series
1.61%
Star Trek: The Next Generation
43.55%
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
27.42%
Star Trek: Voyager
0
0%
Star Trek: Enterprise
0
0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 62. You may not vote on this poll

Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-22-21, 02:40 PM
  #76  
Cool New Member
 
WKRP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: in Cincinnati
Posts: 37
Received 26 Likes on 14 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

I can't post it but there was a quick cameo on The Carol Burnett Show, search for "Spock's surprise visit to The Carol Burnett Show"





The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (03-27-21)
Old 03-23-21, 11:31 AM
  #77  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Runaway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 1,798
Received 398 Likes on 321 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Originally Posted by Mike86
William Shatner turned 90 today. I still think he looks pretty damn good for his age. Happy Birthday Captain Kirk!
I first realized how old he is in Boston Legal and was surprised how young he looks, that's been over a decade now and he still looks pretty fine.
Old 03-26-21, 12:43 PM
  #78  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 24,746
Received 1,156 Likes on 902 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

So I never even realized but Shatner and Nimoy shared really close birthdays in the same year. Shatner was born March 22nd 1931, and Nimoy was born March 26th 1931. Kinda interesting trivia.
The following users liked this post:
John Pannozzi (03-27-21)
Old 06-25-21, 04:58 PM
  #79  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 18,303
Received 1,410 Likes on 1,033 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Saw this on Twitter and it really made me think about how interesting that could have been.



Old 06-25-21, 05:39 PM
  #80  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 24,746
Received 1,156 Likes on 902 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

I’d say that could be an interesting idea for a series, but there are enough Star Trek prequels. Plus I don’t know if it would work now without screwing things up since none of that would be acknowledged in Trek shows that would take place after it.
Old 06-26-21, 07:45 AM
  #81  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,951
Received 2,743 Likes on 1,889 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Originally Posted by milo bloom
Saw this on Twitter and it really made me think about how interesting that could have been.


Oh, gods no. No, no no...

They really made the right call with TNG by jumping ahead a century in the timeline and not filling the the show with descendants of the OG crew.
The following users liked this post:
tanman (06-28-21)
Old 06-26-21, 08:48 AM
  #82  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 18,303
Received 1,410 Likes on 1,033 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
Oh, gods no. No, no no...

They really made the right call with TNG by jumping ahead a century in the timeline and not filling the the show with descendants of the OG crew.
I absolutely love TNG, it’s a desert island series.

But I can also think about all the interesting characters TOS gave us but didn’t do anything with.
Old 06-27-21, 01:45 AM
  #83  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Traxan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,474
Likes: 0
Received 31 Likes on 21 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

TIL had ENT gotten a 5th season we would have learned that T'pol had a Romulan father.

https://heavy.com/entertainment/star...ather-romulan/
Old 06-27-21, 03:45 AM
  #84  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,951
Received 2,743 Likes on 1,889 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Yeah, that would have a good backstory for T'Pol.

There are tons of unproduced Enterprise stories from the fifth season (and earlier seasons). Some of the them sound like they would have been good (the first contact with the Trills) and some, not so much (the guest appearances by Shatner as Captain Kirk and the Borg Queen origin story).

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki...prise_episodes

I really, really like that Trill story where the Enterprise encounters the Trill:

Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens proposed a story where the NX-01 crew encountered members of the Trill species. Garfield Reeves-Stevens commented, "The idea being what would Archer’s reaction to the Trill be? We thought that to [the] first Humans to meet a joined species like the Trill […] would be something of a horror. It would be like a planet where the body snatchers had won." Judith Reeves-Stevens added, "And the Humans would want to separate them." The writers could not find a way to make their story work with DS9/TNG continuity.
Awesome.

I do wish that Paramount+ would consider continuing Enterprise; they could maybe do a ten-year time jump, and feature the Romulan War. By that time, they could have fleet on sister ships for the Enterprise... Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavor...
The following users liked this post:
tanman (06-28-21)
Old 06-27-21, 09:13 AM
  #85  
DVD Talk Legend
Thread Starter
 
Mike86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 24,746
Received 1,156 Likes on 902 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Enterprise to me is highly underrated. I really like it quite a bit.
The following users liked this post:
PhantomStranger (06-27-21)
Old 03-27-24, 05:03 PM
  #86  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
L Everett Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: The Cosmopolis of Barrie
Posts: 1,457
Received 166 Likes on 132 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

I need some help from Starfleet regulations experts and hope this is the thread for that.

I think it was back in '85 or '86 when I was in high school that a substitute teacher had the class play a trivia game. One of her questions was 'Who is the current captain of the Enterprise?' Now keep in mind that The Voyage Home hadn't come out yet.

I got in the first guess and said, 'Spock' and was stunned when the teacher said I was wrong. Someone else said 'Kirk' and the teacher shot him down as well. I think it was a free for all by that point, and my classmates just ran down the members of the Enterprise's crew. I wouldn't be surprised if V'ger or Khan got thrown in somewhere.

The sub finally put us out of our misery by revealing that no one was the captain of the Enterprise at the time. With Star Trek IV not having been released yet, the last time we saw the ship was in The Search for Spock when she was destroyed.

Now, I get the substitute teacher's logic: no ship, therefore, no one can be her captain. But is that really the case?

Before we continue, I just want to ignore for a second the circumstances that could really make this complicated. Namely, that the Enterprise had been decommissioned just prior to her destruction and that Spock was officially deceased in Starfleet's records. To try to keep things simple, let's pretend that the Enterprise was still in service going into The Voyage Home and that another member of the crew repaired the warp drive in The Wrath of Khan.

So had the Enterprise still been officially in service when she was destroyed in Star Trek III and Spock still her captain, would the answer of 'no one was the captain of the ship' be correct?

To my way of thinking, the captain doesn't lose his rank because his ship was destroyed. Even though the Enterprise had been totaled, Spock was still her captain, at least in my mind.

So how about it? What do Starfleet regulations say in this scenario?
The following users liked this post:
story (03-27-24)
Old 03-27-24, 05:15 PM
  #87  
Moderator
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hope.
Posts: 13,966
Received 1,922 Likes on 1,133 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

...You think about that every day, don't you.
Old 03-27-24, 05:50 PM
  #88  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
L Everett Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: The Cosmopolis of Barrie
Posts: 1,457
Received 166 Likes on 132 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

^ Actually, I had forgotten about this incident until recently. Now I've forgotten what it was that resurrected this memory.

But it's funny how I can still remember details from Star Trek III even though I haven't seen it in decades.
The following users liked this post:
story (03-28-24)
Old 03-27-24, 09:31 PM
  #89  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SnogBox
Posts: 8,479
Received 134 Likes on 97 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Never gave it any thought. I’d think whoever was first officer would assume the role rather than Kirk as Admiral. Once formally decommissioned I’d expect no officers to be affiliated with the ship.
Old 03-27-24, 10:14 PM
  #90  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
tanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gator Nation
Posts: 9,951
Received 961 Likes on 668 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

No ship no captain.

No one would lose rank.

I'm just flabbergasted you had a whole deep and nerdy conversation/debate on who was the captain of the Enterprise in a high school class.

I felt like I had to hide my nerdiness in high school otherwise face ridicule.

It also doesn't help that I use words like flabbergasted....
Old 03-27-24, 10:38 PM
  #91  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 13,099
Received 1,101 Likes on 797 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

How can someone be the anything of a ship that does not exist?

To my way of thinking, the captain doesn't lose his rank because his ship was destroyed. Even though the Enterprise had been totaled, Spock was still her captain, at least in my mind.
So your position is that a dead person was in command of a starship that didn't exist?
Old 03-28-24, 12:19 AM
  #92  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
L Everett Scott's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: The Cosmopolis of Barrie
Posts: 1,457
Received 166 Likes on 132 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

^ You saw this part, right?

Before we continue, I just want to ignore for a second the circumstances that could really make this complicated. Namely, that the Enterprise had been decommissioned just prior to her destruction and that Spock was officially deceased in Starfleet's records. To try to keep things simple, let's pretend that the Enterprise was still in service going into The Voyage Home and that another member of the crew repaired the warp drive in The Wrath of Khan.


I realize it's easy to side with the sub and think 'ship go bye-bye so no one is the captain'. But again, I was hoping someone could chime in with how Starfleet would view the matter. I would hope that somewhere in the gazillion games, novels, etc. that this scenario has been addressed.


Originally Posted by tanman
No ship no captain.
I'm just flabbergasted you had a whole deep and nerdy conversation/debate on who was the captain of the Enterprise in a high school class.

I felt like I had to hide my nerdiness in high school otherwise face ridicule.
It wasn't exactly a 'deep conversation/debate' so much as a bunch of kids throwing Star Trek character names at a teacher. It didn't get too deep...no one that I recall named Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand.

Old 03-28-24, 03:41 AM
  #93  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Josh-da-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Bible Belt
Posts: 43,951
Received 2,743 Likes on 1,889 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

I guess, in order to figure out who the captain was or might have been, would be to look at Naval procedure, which much of Starfleet protocol is based on.

Well... Spock was the captain of the Enterprise in ST2:TWOK. Spock died in that movie, and was officially deceased.

In ST3:TSFS, the Enterprise was either decommissioned or in the process of being decommissioned, its captain was dead, and the ship was stolen and ultimately destroyed. Even though Spock was resurrected in that movie, I don't know if he still would have kept his Starfleet rank and commission -- and I doubt the US Navy has any rules in the books for that one.

Would a stolen and destroyed ship still, technically, have a captain? I suspect that, when it was being decommissioned, it probably still had a commanding officer assigned, probably just some anonymous Starfleet junior officer overseeing the decommissioning. But would he still be the Captain after the Enterprise was destroyed after being stolen?
Old 03-28-24, 07:44 AM
  #94  
Moderator
 
story's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hope.
Posts: 13,966
Received 1,922 Likes on 1,133 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Was it Nurse Chapel, then?
Old 03-28-24, 09:32 AM
  #95  
DVD Talk Legend
 
milo bloom's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Chicago suburbs
Posts: 18,303
Received 1,410 Likes on 1,033 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

Remember in Wrath of Khan when they get the call from Carol Marcus, Spock tells Kirk that “as a teacher on a training mission, I am content to command.” But he continues that since it’s an actual mission now, Kirk should take command and so he does. Spock then dies and Kirk is left as commanding officer.

Now, in Search for Spock, they’re not officially on a mission but Kirk is the ranking officer of the group and takes full responsibility for what happens and is an active duty officer at the time. When they are charged with all the crimes at the end of The Voyage Home, Kirk is the only one that bears the brunt of the punishment with his demotion to the rank of Captain.

I would argue that Kirk was the Commanding Officer of the Enterprise at the time and that should be the answer.
The following users liked this post:
Superman07 (03-28-24)
Old 03-28-24, 09:55 AM
  #96  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 13,099
Received 1,101 Likes on 797 Posts
Re: Star Trek Discussion (1966-2005)

In ST3, Kirk and crew hijacked the NCC-1701 Enterprise. Kirk was an Admiral, and everyone onboard deferred to his being in command, but as far as Starfleet was concerned, no one was officially in command, and Kirk was actually committing a crime.

Now if at the end of ST3, the ship had not been destroyed, and Kirk and company had returned to Earth in it, Kirk would not be considered "the captain of the Enterprise" by Starfleet, he would be considered a criminal.

At the outset of ST4, they expect to be put on trial once they return to Earth. It's only due to their heroics saving Earth, that Kirk is forgiven of his crime of stealing the Enterprise in ST3.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.