(the source is one Mr. Morpheus, who seems to be the only impressive (and consistently right) Enterprise tipster online. Unfortunately, he seems to limit his spoiling to popping up on threads at TrekBBS rather than actually sending in scoops to websites. But his record thus far has been flawlesss an he's clearly quite close to the set as far as access is concerned.)
Less than great if it's simply a reuse of the T'Pau model. Or an unnoticeably subtle modification thereof. Noticeably subtle ones I could live with.
I hope the ship comes with its own shuttle design. Again, I could live with a minor modification of the TMP shuttle... Then again, it would also be interesting to see what sort of transporters the Vulcans might have.
A little detail I missed when reading about "Unexpected": did the Klingons have transporters? Or did they board the ship using an unseen shuttle, or perhaps the Enterprise shuttle?
Timo Saloniemi
Andrew
Which is the business end?
Mark
This looks better than I dared hope. Not only is it daringly innovative (and not only in comparison with the Akiraprise and the whole D-7 debacle), it also makes dramatic and technobabblic sense.
That ship looks so superior to the NX-01 that it hurts. And the ringlike propulsion system is both alien and consistent with one-third of what we know of Vulcan propulsion systems, yet with TOS-like simple roundness in place of the very TNG-style flattened, angular, "sporty" design of the T'Pau.
Also, this ship here just radiates power in comparison with the T'Pau, as ought to be when we pit an apparent warship and a freighter against each other. The coloration suggests a connection with the reddish lander, as do the curved hull lines; Vulcans are not immune to the lures of aesthetics, even if their freighters tend to be on the dull side.
Anybody think Rick S will sue the designer for stealing one of his original Voyager ideas? 
Timo Saloniemi
We only see the typical one-wall set for a bridge, which is grey and red behind a wider than usual command chair the Captain, Vanik, sits in.
Mark
Also, in "The Andorian Incident," Archer pronounces Surak "Surik".
I of course am extremely happy with the new Vulcan ship design. When I first saw it, it reminded me of the ring-ship Enterprise in TMP.
Mark
[ November 07, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Could the Ring Enterprise from the Rec Deck scene in TMP be a VULCAN DESIGN!?! Named in honour of the NX Enterprise!?!
Maybe after that it's learned that the two-nacelle design is actually better in some way.
(much to the Vulcan's chagrin)
-Devin
As for why it was called Enterprise, I theorized that Cochrane and Sloane called it that, but wouldn't tell anyone why they picked the name. Only people who saw FC would ever know... :-)
With metal.
Of course, I hope that ring is strong material. One nice whack at the lower end and you'll lose the entire ring!
Explaining the TNG lounge is more difficult: maybe they needed to show the current starship and Kirk's starship, but didn't want to offend the other crews, so they argued, hey, we'll leave Archer out and say we ran out of space.
Everything else can be explained by arguing that the Federation had not been founded yet, so we can't count Archer in.
[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
[ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
It also seems awfully unfair never to mention it in dialogue just because Federation hadn't been founded in its time. Everything else about its mission is identical to that of the other Enterprises. It's hard to believe it isn't important enough, so either it never existed in those timelines, or Archer and crew did some pretty bad stuff afterwards.
Though I'm sure Archer's Enterprise will suddenly appear in the next TNG movie as a background model or something.
Were it not for the aircraft carrier on the Ent-D, that too would be pretty simple to justify. It's probably the bigggest sticking point in some people's minds.
It's the TMP display that throws things off. But that can still be explained by saying that each picture could be changed, so there were more than just five ships displayed.
Let's enhance the discussion with some actual script quotes:
"Remember Me" (TNG):
CRUSHER: Computer, is there more than one U.S.S. Enterprise?
COMPUTER: "This vessel is the fifth starship to bear the name U.S.S. Enterprise."
Analysis: Fair enough, it's the fifth "U.S.S. Enterprise". Braga was clever not to use the "U.S.S." prefix. However, the computer *doesn't* confuse United Space Ship with United States Ship.
"Relics" (TNG):
Scotty asks computer to "show me my old ship". Then he specifies "the Bridge of the Enterprise."
COMPUTER: "There have been five Federation ships with that name."
Analysis: Again, B+B got out of the trap because there's no Federation yet. However, since the computer couldn't ID Scotty and narrow its answer down to two ships, it would present this same answer to anybody. This indicates that the computer has (or assumes that people want) only the bridges of Federation ships named Enterprise -- an interesting bias, indicating Archer's insignficance.
Or maybe the computer couldn't ID Scotty, yet thought it reasonable that nobody with a Scottish accent could live beyond 150, and presented him with the last five ships.
"Trials and Tribble-ations":
After "It's....the Enterprise", we go back to the office, where Dulmer asks:
"Be specific Captain. Which Enterprise? There've been five."
LUCSLY: Six.
SISKO: This was the first Enterprise. Constitution class.
Analysis: Why would Dulmer, a relatively smart guy, assume that Sisko had to meet a *Federation* Enterprise? Since they were in space, it could've been Archer's Enterprise, or the circular-warp-drive Enterprise.
One simple answer is that in the version of the story he heard, Sisko said "It's....the U.S.S. Enterprise." But since they kept going with "which Enterprise", not "which U.S.S. Enterprise", that seems unlikely, especially for such precise investigators. Also, Sisko says: "This was the first Enterprise.", not "This was the first U.S.S. Enterprise." So Archer's ship isn't an Enterprise? Ok, let's say Sisko was speaking within the "U.S.S." context, although we have no evidence he ever said "U.S.S.".
Still, we shouldn't be going through these kind of contorted explanations in a well-written story.
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
But were we supposed to expect any producer, whether it be Berman or Braga or a fanboy god like JMS or ISB or RDM, to have allowed one line of dialogue to prevent a chunk of an entire series' premise from existing? The name "Enterprise" is thematically linked to the series and the franchise on the whole, not to mention incredibly financially lucrative. The adventures of the Spaceship Endeavour just wouldn't have cut it for the Paramount suits and probably wouldn't cut it for a large chunk of the general public, too.
Of course there were bound to be errors about Archer's Enterprise when you look back on previously made Trek. It's a simple fact of life that if a show is made for 30 years without a planned backstory, there're bound to be issues when you try to write in a new one. The very fact that the ship isn't named "USS Enterprise" and doesn't bear a 1701 registry shows a conscious decision on the part of the creators to try and get around most (but admittedly not all) of the possible dilemmas. As I see it, they could go ahead with the awareness that they were bound to scratch continuity here and there or just not make the show at all. I find it disturbing that some fan's near-religious obsession with canon is such that they'd prefer the second option.
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
JMS would not have gone with the name "Enterprise" as a publicity gimmick because he's not a sellout. That's why Babylon 5 is almost dead in bookstores and videostores, and long gone from regular TV. For him, a story has to be good drama, and good storytelling. That means not confusing viewers even a little, unless that confusion will eventually be explained in the story. If he thought the name "Enterprise" is essential to the story, then the ship would've been similar or identical to the circular TMP ship. No problem with the weird shape -- if there's one thing JMS repeats constantly, and has proven through his B5 incarnations as well as his desire to write in a whole bunch of media, than that's a need for experimentation. Just look at the various shapes of B5 ships.
Most probably, however, he wouldn't have made this particular show.
Ron D. Moore, on the other hand, is a fan. There is a long fandom tradition of five starships named Enterprise, and he probably hates this insertion of something that's identical to a Federation starship in everything but name, something that's so important and should've been mentioned or shown somewhere. He would've gone a similar route as JMS, using the circular ship or something of that nature also. After all, DS9 was about experimentation as well.
I don't know about Ira Stephen Behr, but he made DS9, so he's used to being the "forgotten child", rather than a franchise keeper.
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
Fine, let's call the exchange from "Trials..." a continuity error.
Umm...Pardon me, but I don't think you call the line that was spoken first a continuity error. You call the stuff that comes after it the error.
But, you're right about this not being a really big deal.
The (decorators of the) first "U.S.S. Enterprise" seemingly did not acknowledge any previous vessel of the same name, at least not until it was redecorated during the refit. With the refit we got the infamous five ship display. But which aircraft carrier was shown, and why? Assuming the rest of her career (barring her current service) is relatively uneventful, the second aircraft carrier "Enterprise" is arguably less historically important than the first.
We did not see another ship display until "Enterprise" "D," the decorators of "Enterprise" "A" opting to decorate with portraits, and "inconsistencies" abounded. Again, which aircraft carrier are they displaying, and why? What happened to the "hoop ship?" Did it fall out of favor with Galaxy Class interior decorators? Why are the third and fourth starships "Enterprise" of a version never seen onscreen?
The latest ship display, on "Enterprise" "E," seems relatively harmless; it only showed Starfleet ships named "Enterprise," if I recall correctly.
Now, can the inconsistencies mentioned here be rationlized? Absolutely. Can the absence of Archer's "Enterprise" be rationlized, as well? Of course. Or, one could appreciate the fact that the producers of "Star Trek" incarnations try to show starships that are "decorated," at all, as opposed to the sterile ships of so many other science fiction shows, rather than bashing them for not including ships they did not know about.
(Who once posted a link to a website with information on almost every ship named "Enterprise?" What a large room that display would require.)
I wonder what the captains of these ships think about this. Picard probably had the display removed in later seasons because of its inconsistencies, and because Commander Riker was staring at it too much during briefings. I personally would expect Archer, being a Cochrane and Earth ships fan, to complain that the ring-ship named Enterprise wasn't included in *his* display.
The_Tom: I wasn't being absolutist when I said "gods". I used the word in the same good-natured sense people sometimes take with experts in a field that were their inspirations, etc. JMS would offend a hard-core fan if he thought the fan wanted to impose on him what B5 should be about. However, did you know that explorer ships were invented because a fan asked how the jump gates are transported there in the first place? He's partly online for fans to ask questions that can flesh out his shows, make them more real.
Television business is about making money. There are two ways to do it -- come up with something innovative that will catch the audience, or come up with ripoffs that you know are artistic ripoffs, but simply work well because they rip off other, successful shows. It's part of being in television business -- you play it safe or you risk, whichever works best for you. Braga and Berman are in the first category, JMS, Matt Groening, David Chase, Chris Carter are in the other. I don't think anyone disputes that.
By innovating, these guys don't go against Hollywood. JMS never said that because Hollywood helped him get to where he is now. It's just there are people in the world who think that if they prove themselves in writing, and take risks and try to get better every day, that's the way to succeed. So they gravitate towards doing new shows, rather than ripping off other shows for money. Other people have a different idea of innovation, or an interest in not taking risks, so they choose to shepherd a franchise that is ripping off itself. That's a perfectly understandable thing in TV. Makes business sense.
However, it usually turns out that the innovative shows, *if they succeed*, capture more audience than shows that are not as innovative. It is believed by JMS and other writers who work on TV that Star Trek could afford to take chances because it's has a strong fan base and a huge budget. It might be the way to go since Star Trek no longer captures the average viewer, the uninvited viewer. I was stunned at how many people watch "Sopranos" around here, and it's certainly not because it has an everyday format. Hence it wouldn't matter that Star Trek is science fiction, as long as it's done right. What about X-Files? Buffy?
[ November 09, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
the second aircraft carrier "Enterprise" is arguably less historically important than the first.
First nuclear powered aircraft carrier - quite historically important, as a matter of fact.
I'm now firmly back in the "configurable display" camp.
All right, so Archer's ship would've been on TMP if it lasted another week (god forbid!), it would've been on TNG if the artist hadn't screwed up, and it would've been on FC if the artist wasn't so picky. Oh, and the ring ship would've been on Archer's display if Archer had something to say about it.
I didn't think I'd ever feel sorry for Archer.
[ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Again, maybe I'm letting my personal inclinations here (Namely, to think of the UFP as a unified entity whose citizens are more likely to respond "I'm a Fed citizen" than "I am a Truncated Reticulan III-ite.) Still, something to think about.