posted
But there's a crucial difference between "Star Trek V" and Enterprise. Namely, it was shown that the entire four years of ENT was in fact just a holoprogram created by Commander Riker. TPTB would have you believe that just the series finale was a holoprogram, but they'd be wrong.
I mean, how else would you explain the 22nd century looking amazingly like the 24th, unless someone from the 24th century was doing the writing? I mean, c'mon, they even had a Klingon ship called the Bor'tas and a guy named Duras, not to mention both the Ferengi and the Borg!
That said, in retrospect I'd have to agree that changing the Connies to new designs in "The Ultimate Computer" would be the wrong thing to do, considering that the Lexington, Excalibur & Potemkin are obviously considered canon Connies by now. However, I'm looking forward to seeing whatever design they've come up with for the Antares.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
There could be some very important differences in the looks of the Connies though, just as the Nimitz class has distinguishing features.
The thing that got me about the whole Borg episode is why didn't those few just take over the Earth? They were 24th century Borg what was REALLY going to stop them? Dumb...REALLY dumb fanboy plot.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
Regarding the look of the Connies, as all of the major differences would be techological (weapons systems, different scanners and so forth) given Matt Jeffries design ideals (ie everything being accesable from the inside) there would be few external differences between on Connie and another.
The differences that I can think of that you'd get away with off the top of my head would be the nacelles, the deflector (spike and or dish), the bridge module, the sensor dish/array, and the hull markings (not just the name and registry, but the ones under the enginering hull, the black triangles on the saucer etc. since we are never explicitly shown what they are for). Or an extra hole/slidy door thingy here or there. Point is, there's lots of scope, but it would be subtle. Then again Star Trek fans are all pedantic anoraks (raises hand), so we'd probably spot them all and spend weeks talking about them.
Any one else got any ideas of what you could change?
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
Search the archives - I'm sure I was concerned that after hearing about the Ferengi appearing in season 1 that they'd find a way to bring in the Borg.
Anyhoo, Star Trek V was an alcohol or bean and alcohol induced dream, shared by three people due to the effect of the alcohol and/or beans on a certain Vulcan's telepathic mind.
The laughing Vulcan, the weird deck numbers the dreamy landscapes - it all points to being a dream.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
"But there's a crucial difference between "Star Trek V" and Enterprise. Namely, it was shown that the entire four years of ENT was in fact just a holoprogram created by Commander Riker. TPTB would have you believe that just the series finale was a holoprogram, but they'd be wrong."
Its rather obvious that wasn't the intent of the episode, and I doubt that, or anything close to that will ever be the position taken by anything close to official Trek.
Like it or not, these things 'happened' as far as Trek history is concerned, as have many other unpopular things. We can chose to ignore them if we like, but unless the producers of this project have a specific vendetta against Enterprise, I very much doubt they will.
You can't please everyone anyway, if they were to ignore Enterprise, other people would complain just as loudly. I certanly wouldn't be happy if that was the course they took.
Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Doesn't anyone like the 'dream' idea of STV:TFF - it's not saying it didn't HAPPEN - it just happened in a alcohol/telepathic induced shared delusion.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
I don't know if this is the Mudd episode where he's supposed to have a ship? I haven't seen these episode in years. The planet looks very cool. Unfortunately it also looks very CGI. Everyone seems to think the new shots blend in well, so I'll take their word for it, but from the stills they look jarringly CG.
posted
The android's guts were very nicely done, as was the leaving the planet shot (which looks far better on TV than on screengrabs, BTW). Crappy episode though.
...but then, I'd have had the Planetkiller come along (after Enterprise was long gone) and destroy that planet- it would be a nice set-up for the Doomday Mchine and would explain Data's novelty.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Perhaps Starfleet eventually had all the androids destroyed because they didn't want the technology to fall into the wrong hands or some BS reason like that and it would take Soong to reinvent an android.
Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
How many TOS episodes had Androids?? "Mudd's Women", "What little girls are made of" - what else?
Maybe the difference was that Data had a positronic net - which seemed to be hard to accomplish - although the Bak'u seemed to know of that technology.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Everyone seems to think the new shots blend in well, so I'll take their word for it, but from the stills they look jarringly CG.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
