quote:Originally posted by Woody: 2) In established Star Trek "history" there has only been three spacecraft christened "Enterprise" an the NX isn't on that list.
And your proof is...?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Give it up, Woody. These guys must ram the canonicity of ENT down everyone's throat, chapter and verse. You're not allowed to have a different view here.
Nice work on the Baton Rouge, and hello from a fellow FSMer.
It may interest you to know that someone's written a novel about the voyage of the first Starfleet ship, which has a Daedalus on the cover. I don't remember the author or the title, but I think the ship was supposed to be the USS Daedalus.
I saw it at Half Price Books one day, and didn't have enough money to get it. But I'll find it again.
Marian
Today's random sig quote is brought to you by PVP: "Look at you two. George Lucas could spit on the wall and you two would stare at it for hours. Not me. No, I remember Howard the Duck. I remember The Ewok Adventure." "Blasphemer!" "Francis, no! Anger leads to the Dark Side!"
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Um, the NX Enterprise is valid since it was/will never be considered a starship of the Federation Starfleet. (U)SS Enterprise is valid because it was never considered a part of Earth's Starfleet. The shuttle Enterprise is valid because it's a real spacecraft operated by NASA (though it never flew in space). In order for the NX Enterprise not to be the first Federation Starfleet starship with that name, there are 5 possibilities to its fate. 1) Destroyed 2) MIA 3) Renamed 4) Decommissioned 5) Transferred to civilian use. As to why it took Starfleet 84 years to have another Enterprise is anyone's guess, but possibility 5 makes lot of sense. Quite possible the Federation didn't want two Enterprises out there even if one was civilian and the other Starfleet.
-------------------- Is it Friday yet?
Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
"Starfleet: Year One". It could be my general dislike for novels (or at least the few I've read), but it's not particularly interesting. Deadalus is a brand new ship, some bickering between the Scientists and the Military, and after a battle with some aliens, everyone's happy. Meh.
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Give it up, Woody. These guys must ram the canonicity of ENT down everyone's throat, chapter and verse. You're not allowed to have a different view here.
Nice work on the Baton Rouge, and hello from a fellow FSMer.
Hee Hee, I see that. Me not allowed to have a different view? Watch me. The producers dropped the ball when they decided to discount existing Star Trek continuity. As a Trek fan from it's original TV debut, I'll have to stick with the established timeline. Did I mention that I like "Enterprise" as a stand along Sci-Fi show? I'm not running it down, it's just not canon to me.
Thank you for your kind words about my USS Moscow!
-------------------- "An armed society is a polite society"
Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MarianLH: Give it up, Woody. These guys must ram the canonicity of ENT down everyone's throat, chapter and verse. You're not allowed to have a different view here.
Ugh. We simply try to point out (whether gently or not) that fans' own subjective conceptions of 'Star trek history' based on only four or five of the SIX television series, or on books, or on any other kind of incomplete or faulty evidence, are NOT 'Star Trek history.'
Psyliam is quite correct in asking for proof of our friend's statement. And there is none. NOWHERE is it established, even prior to ENT, that there were ONLY three pre-TOS Enterprises. Never did anyone state this, never was it even included in a computer display graphic. We only ever saw mention of three, but if your reasoning is then that if we don't see/hear about it then it doesn't exist, then Uhura had no mother or father and neither did Chekov or Sulu, even though Kirk and Spock did. Also, no one in the 23rd-24th centuries uses the bathroom. And James Dean was never an actor. Blah blah blah blah...
If you want to change 'Star Trek history' to fit your own preferences, go get hired at Paramount and become executive producer of whatever Trek series happens to be running at the time. Then have a blast. Otherwise, quit yer bitchin' and get with the program. (That program being ENT, of course. )
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
But I'll find it again.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The producers dropped the ball when they decided to discount existing Star Trek continuity. As a Trek fan from it's original TV debut, I'll have to stick with the established timeline. Did I mention that I like "Enterprise" as a stand along Sci-Fi show? I'm not running it down, it's just not canon to me.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
