I ask because I'm making a web page discussing these problems. Although I am overall pro-Enterprise, I am indending an objective look at them. Some of them I expect to find explanations for, some of them I expect to be the result of preconceptions, and plenty I expect to be genuine problems... however, I can only think of a few examples offhand, while other people have suggested there are far more. I can't work with what I don't yet know!
Thanks for the help. I'll post a link to the final page in a few days when I'm done collecting and writing.
However, I can summarize what the complaints against Enterprise have been so far. The general list of complaints seems to be these:
I think that's all of them at this point. Let me know if you need any help or anything.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
Something that wasn't canon to begin with.
Klingon forehead appearance being bumpy
We don't know the story behind this, so there's no reason to assume it's a problem.
Enterprise design being "too advanced" for the 22nd Century
In some opinions.
Starfleet being in existence in prior to 2161
Again, no statement to this effect, and even if there had been such, it's not the same Starfleet.
A primitive prototype transporter system in operation prior to 2209
Problem being?
A Vulcan serving as an observer on a Starfleet vessel prior to Spock
Again, problem being?
The Suliban and Phlox being prominent alien cultures that were never seen/mentioned in TOS, TNG, DS9, or Voyager
Yet again, problem being?
The Suliban and Phlox being prominent alien cultures that were never seen/mentioned in TOS, TNG, DS9, or Voyager
Further still...
One console on the bridge for flight control instead of a helm and navigation stations
Again...
The use of the familiar Trek hull font on the Enterprise
And yet again...
The existence of another ship named Enterprise prior to the NCC-1701 that is not the Fandom Declaration-class starliner
Give me an exact quote that makes this a problem.
The use of the registry NX-01 and that's not being used by the Dauntless
Again, not a problem, because we have no idea how Starfleet's registry scheme works.
So to sum, there ARE no continuity issues as yet. Have a nice day. 
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
The main problems that some of the Trek fans (and as far as I can tell, it's primary the hard-core cyberTrekkers) have are that: 1) Berman and Braga are running the show and 2) some of the events and dates in the series are contrary to what others have guessed them to be (most notably, Mike Okuda and his chronologies and encyclopediae). As for the ship design, it goes back to nothing but opinions since we only know of one design from the era (and that in itself leads to issues of whether the design is really the design for the Daedalus. Gotta love the ability of Trekkies to debate ).
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]
"Klingon first contact happening prior to 2218"
Technically, not a problem, but they should have been a little more creative ("We need some aliens." "How about Klingons?" "Yeah, okay."), and they shouldn't have contradicted something that, while not being strictly canon, was pretty much universally accepted.
"Klingon forehead appearance being bumpy"
TNG already established that Klingons were originally bumpy. DS9 established that the smoothness was even more of an obscure period in time than we thought. Basically, if the Klingons were not bumpy, there would have been a problem.
"Enterprise design being 'too advanced' for the 22nd Century"
True. Sets and props might need to look more advanced so it doesn't seem silly, but there was no reason for the exterior of the ship to look like it did.
"Starfleet being in existence in prior to 2161"
John Adams, who was president of the United States of America, was born in 1767. But John Adams, who was president of the United States of America, existed as early as 1735. How can that be? Oh, wait... They're two different people.
"A primitive prototype transporter system in operation prior to 2209."
I wish they hadn't put transporters in. We all know they're going to end up using them as a crutch because they couldn't be bothered to do things differently than before. But, technically, it's not a contradiction.
"A Vulcan serving as an observer on a Starfleet vessel prior to Spock"
This one simply makes no sense at all. When was there ever a mention of Vulcan observers on Earth ship, or lack thereof? I'm willing to say there wasn't.
"The Suliban and Phlox being prominent alien cultures that were never seen/mentioned in TOS, TNG, DS9, or Voyager"
Well, they've done it before. It may suck, but it isn't w/o precedence.
"A matter/antimatter reaction assembly being employed for warp drive"
Nothing even remotely wrong w/ that.
"One console on the bridge for flight control instead of a helm and navigation stations"
Strictly speaking, they shouldn't have done this. It doesn't make sense. Why would it be one job, then get split into two, then go back to one? But, alas, there isn't anything canonically wrong w/ it.
"The use of the familiar Trek hull font on the Enterprise"
*shrug* Haven't they been using the same font since TMP all the say through TNG, DS9, and VOY? Apparently, hull fonts don't change very often...
"The existence of another ship named Enterprise prior to the NCC-1701 that is not the Fandom Declaration-class starliner"
Well, the navies of the United States and the British Empire have already contradicted that pretty well.
"The use of the registry NX-01 and that's not being used by the Dauntless"
Well, "NX-01" is a silly registry for a Federation starship, anyway. But, on an Earth Starfleet ship, they can do whatever they want. I wish they hadn't stolen the "NX" scheme, but oh well.
"Berman and Braga, the Evil Grim Reapers of Continuity, are in charge of the series"
Can't argue there.
[ August 03, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
So where are all of the outspoken Enterprise critics when you need them? I guess it has only been a few hours...
Probably the biggest issue is going to be the overall design of the Enterprise model (as TSN mentioned above). This issue has probably spawned the greatest number of threads.
In "Where No Man Has Gone Before," we're told that the Enterprise's power systems run on lithium. It was this way until an episode or two later when it was switched to dilithium (mainly to avoid scientific accuracy problems). Now then the implication from the show (with backing from the Chronology and Encyclopediae) is that the Enterprise underwent an upgrade early in the show. The nacelles changed, the sensor dish changed, et cetra. The ship then seemed to be a bit more powerful later than in WNMHGB.
So. The Enterprise (NX-01) is likely going to be using dilithium-based systems. The Enterprise (NCC-1701) will originally use a lithium-based system then switch over to dilithium. Herein lies the dilemma. We have a case where we go dilithium --> lithium --> dilithium again. This is bit harder to explain. Lithium could have been an experiment in new power technologies, but then the Enterprise shouldn't have been able to find a lithium cracking station so quickly. And if NX-01 shows the advantages of dilithium, why would the NCC-1701 (a more advanced ship and the seeming workhouse of the 23rd century fleet) use a more primitive system?
The obvious answer (as Liam mentioned in the other thread) is that we ignore the lithium comments. However, this isn't going to be so easy since it was an important plot point in WNMHGB, the change in the NCC-1701 model, and the references in the Chronology and Encyclopediae.
A few examples:
As the series matures or decays, depending on the perspective, there may be other elements that the literate fan of the original may notice are lacking or reduced in importance.
I think the intent of the two producers is for this show to replace the original in the minds of the many younger fans. It is a well-reported fact that both men have disdain for the first series. I have never understand the disdain nor the source of the disdain. However, I do think that it exists and it will influence the fifth series.
I have seen people compare this new series, favorably and unfavorably, to Star Wars. The general consensus is that Mr. Lucas did the fourth film in an attempt to cash in on the loyality of the fan. I feel, however, that Mr. Lucas was reliving his childhood fantasies and was giving to his youngest child a playground for the imagination and his ambitions. Mr. Lucas was very attentive to details. The differences that were seen could be explained as the result of different cultures and time periods. There is a very strong continuity between this fourth film and the earlier three films.
The producers of the new series are creating a sequel that incorporates elements of the last three series, in their own words. The first series, and the closest to the time of the fifth series, has been relegated to an hollow honorary status. There will be three admirals named after the chief actors of the first series in the premiere episode.
I think that there could have existed a possibility that the design elements of the first could have been 'modernized'. In the 1960's, there was the Volkswagon beetle. This popular little car was invocative of the decade. Three decades later, the Volkswagon company introduced the new beetle. This beetle, very popular and very common, is a 'modernized' version of the older beetle. I think the same could have occured for the first series. Taking these elements, they could have made educated conjectures about the earlier starships. There is nothing that says that they had to use 1950's designs. They could have, in their mind, created 2150's designs.
I hear an argument that we don't know enough about ship designs. I disagree. There exists in the original series two ship designs of two different periods. The first is the SS Botany Bay of approximately two hundred years before the first series. This ship was 'boxy' with the engines stuck at the very end. There were little or no surface obtrusions. Two centuries later, there is the USS Enterprise NCC-1701. This ship has the engines-nuclear-of the older Bay placed in the saucer. To accomodate the warp engines, which arised after the transport ship left Earth, and to protect the crew, the engineers created a secondary hull with two nacelles attached. A 'neck' connected the primary hull and the secondary hull. Two engineering systems mated together. Like the first ship, the second ship had little or no obtrusions.
So, imagine this. The body of the SS Botany Bay is shortened, the engines joining the living quarters. The construction is enlarged to a circle. Then, at some point, the warp hull is created. This is attached to the first hull.
I have spoken enough. Or did I babble? My apologies.
I see 'Enterprise' as being the last train out of the Star Trek depot. The train will be a tolerably acceptable ride, but will be nothing like the earlier trains that excited us and took us to new heights of our imagination and awe.
[ August 04, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]
quote:
Originally posted by targetemployee:
- 3. the position of commodore
- 4. the rank structure of the first series
I think the intent of the two producers is for this show to replace the original in the minds of the many younger fans. It is a well-reported fact that both men have disdain for the first series.
OK, those first two points are utterly ridiculous. We have evidence they won't have commodores how? And what's this whole "rank structure" business?
How are those sentiments about the producers even remotely fact-based and not just mindless blithering?
It really isn't important at all. Does the change from Lithium to Dilithium change anything? And besides, the reason for changing it originally (Lithium being a real elelment) is still valid.
"2. the existence of UESPA"
Which was mentioned twice and the completely dropped by the original writers once they came up with a better name.
"3. the position of commodore"
Vitally important element that is the very basis of Star Trek.
"4. the rank structure of the first series"
Surely this is the same point as above, since, apart from "Commodore", the rank system hasn't changed?
This is mindless. I made a very good point that we can see the evolution of ships in the first series. I, also, made the very good point that the new series is based largely on the last three series.
If you like those series, then you will love this series. If you like all, all four series, then you will be gnawing your teeth and uttering curses to both men? They are not here to pleasure you. They are here to pleasure themselves and their supervisors. We are merely riders on this train.
All aboard! I hope you enjoy the ride, sir or miss.
quote:
Are there fleet captains and fleet admirals? Is anyone identified as a yeoman?
Gee, well, I don't know. After all, the series has yet to air. Outside of the names of three admirals and the primary crew, we've had mention of exactly ZERO other crew members. And, to be honest, fleet captain was mentioned all of twice in TOS. Fleet Captain Pike and Fleet Captain Garth. No mention was made of where in the rank structure they fit in. It was probably more of a position than a rank. Same thing with Fleet Admiral.
quote:
This is mindless. I made a very good point that we can see the evolution of ships in the first series.
No, you did not. You used the example of a fusion rocket powered sublight sleeper ship launched (supposedly) in 1996 and the Constitution class Enterprise that was in service in 2266 or so. That is clearly NOT a reasonable sample in order to base ANY claims of an evolution in starship design. The two ships are completely disimilar with different reasons for existing. They are separated by almost three hundred years of technological improvements.
quote:
I, also, made the very good point that the new series is based largely on the last three series.
No, what you did was launch into a rant about how Berman and Braga are seeking power and glory, show disdain for TOS, and are trying to sweep TOS under the carpet. I hate to break it to you, but all the studios are interested in is money. If Warner Brothers couldn't have made money off of The Phantom Menace, then George Lucas probably would have never gotten the chance to make it. Same thing with Trek. Paramount can make money off of Star Trek, thus Berman and Braga can produce yet another series and movie. It's called capitalism. And so what if it's based on the last three series? What do you think the last three series were based on? Babylon 5? Get Smart? The Howdy-Doody Show? Star Trek leads back to one thing: The Original Series. I have yet to see how the modern Trek has deviated from The Original Series.
quote:
If you like all, all four series, then you will be gnawing your teeth and uttering curses to both men?
Nope. I love The Original Series. I will not be gnawing my teeth and uttering curses until they have done something to merit it. Until then, all this complaining and personal attacks are nothing but examples of pettiness.
quote:
They are not here to pleasure you. They are here to pleasure themselves and their supervisors. We are merely riders on this train.
Oh yes, let's close with sexual references and innuendos.
quote:
If Warner Brothers couldn't have made money off of The Phantom Menace
20th Century Fox.
quote:
The (di)lithium thing is a non-issue if we just make the obvious assumption that, whenever they called it "lithium", it was just an abbrevaited term, and they were really talking about dilithium.
I agree, but when I mentioned that here a few months ago everyone reacted like it was the most preposterous thing they had ever heard.
This is one point that I am willing to concede to Braga and Berman. If a warp reaction could be controlled by lithium (albiet much less effectively) many points from all four series and the movies would not make sense. You need rare and wonderous dilithium to make warp drive go.
Of course at the same time I contradict myself, because I believe that by no means should Cochrane have had dilithium (we don't have it on earth).
quote:
Aren't you just thrilled?
You have NO idea how much.
"Of course at the same time I contradict myself, because I believe that by no means should Cochrane have had dilithium (we don't have it on earth)."
Erm... Wasn't it pretty much agreed that he must have been using a fusion reaction, or something?
[ August 07, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
quote:
Erm... Wasn't it pretty much agreed that he must have been using a fusion reaction, or something?
Yes until the Voyager episode with the MARA probe just a few years after the Pheonix flight. It's true that a regular (dilithium) powered warp core could have been acuired during that short span (from the vulcans, some other race, or perhaps humans just discovered dithium which was the missing link needed for a matter/antimatter reaction). The episode still raises the possibility that the pheonix was powered by a dithlithium regulated MARA warp drive.
$$ Spoilers for Voyager Season 7 $$
In "Friendship One," the Voyager episode with the Earth probe, it's obvious that the probe ran on some sort of antimatter/matter power system. However, no mention is made of dilithium. I would think that dilithium would be wholly more important than antimatter. It can regulate antimatter/matter reactions and conduct electricity and make a delicious lasagna. The information for creating antimatter would likely be in the probe's computer, so the probe having antimatter itself would not be as important.
But as for Cochrane, I would say that if he had dilithium for his ship, then he got it from one of the outer planets; Saturn, Neptune, Uranus or even the Kuiper Belt. Remember that during the existence of the United States, we had ships like the Charbydis and the Botany Bay. Ares IV aside, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that there were manned expeditions to Saturn and the other outer planets. And the son of the guy from Yesterday is Tommorrow just occurred to me, as being the pilot of the first manned Saturn probe.
You make a good point Stingray. By Cochrane's time they could have stumbled across dilithium somewhere in our solar system. It may have been that most people thought dilithium was just some funky space crystal to make jewelry out of until and alcoholic inventor in Montana decided to shove a chunk into his warp drive.
No, Fleet Admiral.
Since Star Trek's Starfleet it based on the ranking of the USN, the officer chain of command looks like this:
Fleet Admiral
Admiral
Vice-Admiral
Rear-Admiral (UH)
Rear-Admiral (LH)
the rank of "Commodore" was replaced with the Rear-Admiral (LH) designation in the USN. Presumeably, the same thing happened in "Star Trek", with "Commodore" becoming more a term of command then rank
Captain
Commander
Lt. Commander
Lieutenant
Lieutenant (jg)
Ensign
[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: MeGotBeer ]
I really doubt that there is a rank of Ensign (Junior Grade). Ensign is traditionally the lowest of the commissioned naval ranks, so I doubt that Starfleet create this rank. Besides, the graduates of Starfleet Academy come out as either Ensigns or Lieutenant (Junior Grade)'s.
When it comes to the non-commissioned crew, things are pretty nebulous. We've had references to crewmen (Crewman Simon Tarses in "Drumhead") and petty officers (Petty Officer Sergei Rozhenko in "Family"). We've had Chief Petty Officer Miles O'Brien on DS9 (although isn't he really supposed to be Senior Chief or Master Chief Petty Officer?). The movies showed ranks for enlisted crewmen. Someone posted here pictures of the rate insignia for CPO, PO, and crewman.
But what about warrant officers? Do they exist or not in the Trek universe? We've likewise had no mention of them.
::still laughing about 'Chief Admiral', and imagining an "ensign commander" rank::
This includes ranks from Fleet Admiral down to Ensign (sometimes Commodores are used in place of Rear Admiral of the Lower Half's and sometimes Commodores are used with Rear Admiral of the Lower Half's). It also includes the warrant ranks. Here, some site only two levels: Chief Warrant Officer and Warrant Officer. Others site three levels of WO and a CWO. Another one had a WO and three levels of CWO. Then it has the enlisted ranks from Master Chief Petty Officer of the Starfleet down to Crewman Recruit.
So, to summarize, I have no idea.
quote:
Rear-Admiral (LH)
the rank of "Commodore" was replaced with the Rear-Admiral (LH) designation in the USN. Presumably, the same thing happened in "Star Trek", with "Commodore" becoming more a term of command then rank.
This is conjecture as we have never seen a one-star. People argue that Commodore's are gone because the Okuda's and various other PTB have said so. But it really doesn't mean crap until they actually canonize it in an episode (by that time TPTB may have changed).
I have always hoped that they would keep the rank of Commodore (used as a one-star as it was in TOS and at various times in the US Navy). If they don't use Commodore, I would hope that they come up with something a little better than the current Naval system. Rear Admiral Lower Half, who was the genius who came up with that. I would prefer that they come up with some new rank of their own (Sub Admiral, Under Admiral)rather than use RADM (LH).
Personally I don't feel that WO's are really needed in the Star Trek universe. Other than Okuda conjecture we don't really have any proof that they do. Of course if I don't mention Kominsky someone else will immediately chime in with it. But we really have no idea what his strange pip signified (though WO is a possibility).
Anyway, I'm still somewhat fuzzy on the whole warrant officer deal. I understand that in today's realm of military service that they receive more training than enlisted but less than commissioned and at the end of the training they are given warrants. But, what do they do? How do they fit in? I'm not real strong on understanding the military establishment, so I may never really understand.
We've also seen some weird rank insignia in Trek. I don't remember what Kominsky wore, but I remember that Chief Engineer Argyle in the early episodes of TNG wore square pips instead of the circular. And when Sloan was posing as the Director of Internal Affairs he had four circular pips with a line underneath them. ::shrug::
We saw a COLONEL West in TUC, although many have assumed he was with the Starfleet Marines. Is there any clarification of this? Do we have any real evidence for a Starfleet Marine Corps?
And just what is a Yeoman, anyhow? Is that an actual rank or what? Is it like a TOS-era ensign?
Nothing remotely close to Starfleet Marines has ever been directly stated as existing, except Bennett had this fetish about making Starfleet into as miliaristic an organization as possible and stuck the Colonel West thing in to insinuate as such. DS9 always showed ground comabat as being conducted by standard-issue Starfleet types belonging to the usual departments and posessing the usual navyesque ranks.
Yeoman usually refers to a petty officer that serves as an officer's personal assistant or chiefly performs clerical duties. It's a position, not a rank.
[ August 12, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Though I haven't gotten to that point in my DS9 rediscovery, having regular Starfleet ship personnel act as ground troops was a major failing. It just isn't reasonable, to have people who are trained for shipboard life and duties aboard exploratory vessels also be the people of choice for dedicated ground combat operations.
