This is topic $$$$ Klingon Ship "Unexpected" $$$$ in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/2252.html
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
 
I learned from postings on another board that the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" is a D-7 Class Battlecruiser. If this is true, then this is very disappointing.

CGI is supposed to allow for the development and exhibition of new ship designs by being cheaper and less time intensive than building a model.

Since the show began, I have seen variations of the Cardassian freighter, the Breen ship, and, now if correct, the Klingon D-7 battlecruiser.

My question, what is the use of CGI if you don't use it to expand upon your existing designs?
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Am I the only one who didn't see anything Breenesque about that ship?
 
Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
 
I wrote the post with the majority view in mind. Sorry, TSN.
 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
Now that I've actually seen pics of the "FoF" vessels, I report in for minority duty. Nothing Breen-like in the vampire vessel. There is a slight resemblance, OTOH, to an early design for a Jem'Hadar warship, one built out of interwoven diamond-shaped metal plates.

Apparently, CGI still isn't cheap enough for new designs to be created for every need. Or then the CGI houses need to be kept on a shorter leash. VOY had plenty of novel CGI designs towards the end, yet these designs were reused where it hurt the most. For example, "Drive" had a nice line-up of all-new "racer" ships, and a not-so-nice line-up of "support ships" for the racing teams, with designs associated with the Ocampa vicinity or even the Gamma quadrant.

Timo Saloniemi
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Assuming that this Klingon ship is more inline with being a revised D7 rather than a reuse of the K'tinga, than this would seem to make the D7 the "Excelsior" or "Miranda" of the Klingon fleet. Incredibly long service life, apparently.

However, this does seem to cause problems with something said in an episode of Deep Space Nine. I can't remember where it was said or who said it (heck, for that matter I may be completing misremembering), but it was said that Kor (or Kang or Koloth) used to command a D5 around the time of TOS. Assuming a sequentialness to the D# typenames, then the D5's would be really past their prime by TOS.
 

Posted by targetemployee (Member # 217) on :
 
The episode is "Once More Unto the Breach". Kor is telling a battle story to the crew of the Ch'Tang. He sets the story up by saying that the events occured aboard the Klothos, a D-5 cruiser, in the days before the introduction of the cloaking device.

I had hoped to see a ship that is a DY-1 to DY-5, not a DY-7.

I am almost afraid to hear what Bernd has to say on this topic.

I like 'Enterprise'; however, I am forming doubts as to the level of creativity on this show.

[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]


 
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
We did know that Klingon ship designs live long and prosper, but THIS long? Well, possibly. If the Klingons aren't very inventive by themselves, they might not develop any new tech until challenged by aliens. And the ENT Klingons might not have been challenged yet. Silly in any case for TPTB not to use a "new old" design, so to say.

I trust that the D-7-lookalike seen in the episode is closer to K't'inga in appearance than to the smooth TOS vessel. Which would be just plain annoying. But as for this D-5 thing, it seems to be a reference to TAS, and there the ship was indeed shown to be nearly identical to D-7 externally (just with the minor modifications stemming from the erroneous scale model on which TAS pictures were based).

Was the ship in "Unexpected" called a D-7, or did it just look like that? It could be a D-5 (or what CGI people think the TAS ship "really" looked like) for all we know...

Timo Saloniemi
 

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
I don't think the Klingons look at ship building the same way "we" do ... they seem to like designs, and continuely improve them over the decades. Look at the Bird-Of-Prey ... they are what, five or six different size variations? And they've been in service since at least Star Trek II (given the short space of time between II and III, it's reasonable to assume the BoP was in service during STII, possibly during TMP).

Maybe it has something to do with "honor" ... the Klingons might not believe in scrapping their ships. They keep a ship in service until it is destroyed ...

Even with the BoP in Generations, which was "retired from service", it seems that even though the military might stop buying a certain class of ship, it doesn't destroy the defective BoPs: it gives them out to the Houses of prominent Klingons for their own personal use.

Which, of course, brings us to another discussion: the organization of the Klingon Military, which seems to be sort of like Federal (under control of the High Council) and Reservists (under the control of Houses).

My thoughts.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
Using the same hull design for centuries isn't too big of a deal. I highly doubt that they use the same ships over centuries, but if they found a design they like, why change it? If new, modern components fit into a hull design that has proven itself for a hundred years, why make a new one? The Klingons are warriors, not engineers.
 
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
 
Still, I would have liked to have seen a new ship.
 
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
The Klingons are warriors, not engineers

They're clearly engineers among their ranks. I think, though, that Klingons are "warriors first!" and then engineers, scientists, etecetra. It's like the US Marine Corps: the pilots, lawyers, doctors, anyone who wears the uniform of a U.S. Marine -- no matter their job -- is an infantryman first and foremost.
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Since I'm watching the Klingon ship scenes now in "Unexpected," this definitely looks like a bridge between the TOS Klingon D7 and the TMP K'tinga ships. It has a textured surface, but it's not as radically done as the K'tingas are. The only designation given to this ship so far is "Klingon Battlecruiser," though.
 
Posted by MIB (Member # 426) on :
 
Siegfried is correct. I was gonna say the same thing, but he beat me to it. It does look like a cross between the D7 and the K'tingas. More textures than the D7s, less textured than the K'tingas. Sooooo.....Are the Klingon battle cruisers in TOS originally supposed to look like this or what?

P.S. To me, the butcher ship from FoF didn't look a thing like a Breen vessel.

[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: MIB ]


 
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 138) on :
 
Maybe it's because the execs think Trekkies are too stupid recognize any other design. Y'know like, "We'll use the old D-7 design so fans know it's a Klingon ship."
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
The model Jein built for Trials & Tribble-ations was the design from TOS, except with hull gridding and detailing similar to the K't'inga class, yet nowhere near as severe. His intention was to create a model which looked realistic as a starship, but featured no obvious differences from the D7 seen in TOS. Basically, if you took the more detailed D7 and photographed it with TOS techniques (and ended up with the low quality film of it like we saw in the episodes) it would be indistinguishable from that ship, and therefore is simply a clarification of how that fuzzy ship must have really looked before the image was fuzzy.

Of course, I have no idea where the 'Unexpected' ship falls into this. But the Voyager episode that originally used the 'medium detail-D7' CGI model already established that Klingons prior to TOS were using that ship, which is more detailed than the D7 ship that is used after it.

[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]


 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
I really doubt that's the case, Hobbes, since T'Pol said it was a Klingon battlecruiser and they spoke to the Klingons on that ship and referred to it as a Klingon ship numerous times. Either they didn't have the time/personnel/money to come up with a new ship or someone in the special effects department got lazy.

[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]


 
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
quote:
I am almost afraid to hear what Bernd has to say on this topic.

*censored*

I haven't seen "Unexpected" yet, but this seems to be exactly the kind of bad continuity that I always anticipated. They had plenty of time to design something fitting instead of the Akiraprise, they knew that the Klingons would need an old ship, but they didn't care. I will ignore the D-7/K't'inga, as I'm ignoring the Akiraprise.

Is it true that they get even holotechnology in this episode? Will I have to ignore that too?
 

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
Bernd,

Why don't you just put your hands over your eyes, don't watch Enterprise, and scream "it's not real! It's all a dream!"

Actually, it makes sense for the Klingons to fly something exactly like what they flew in TOS -- they've been known for keeping their starship design for centuries -- look at the Bird of Prey. You're so ticked at Enterprise as a series you like to ignore continuity: namely, that Klingons like to fly old designs for a VERY VERY VERY LONG TIME. It doesn't exactly violate what we know of Klingons for them to design a battleship, then (because the design clearly works) continue flying them for decades and centuries. Add to that the fact that the Klingons have apparently had more access to space over the last century or so, and thus, more experience and probably better advancements then Earth, and it makes perfect sense.

They get *a* holotech device. I don't think they've got a way to program it, since they have to give the aliens a topographical scan of Quo'nos, it doesn't look like they've got the power to program it -- thus, once the ship blows up, they lose the tech. Anyway, did we ever learn the Klingons *didn't* get holo-tech before Earth/UFP?

But, no, you just go and ignore whatever you want. Go on.

[ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]


 
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
If bad continuity is defined as defying your unfounded expectations, then you must be a very bored person.

One more time: there is NO continuity error with the Enterprise, and there is no continuity error with the Klingons using this shape of vessel. There is further no continuity error with aliens never mentioned again having basic holotech.
 

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
However, the decision to reuse the existing Klingon design again shows a disappointing lack of innovativeness and guts. The same as with some aspects of the NX-01 design. It's a new show, so it has the excuse to show new things - so why doesn't it?

Of course, the D-7 design is a classic, well associated with the Klingons even by the greater audience. TPTB probably deliberately chose it for that very reason, not because they wanted to spare the time and money a new ship would have taken.

I do hope we see at least SOME new designs in addition to this, though. Conversely, now that we're stuck with this one, we could just as well have other existing designs reappear, to reinforce the idea that Klingon designs can be very long-lived.

Timo Saloniemi
 

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
I just had this horrible image of a large fleet of retro-designed Excelsiors, Mirandas, Defiants and Galaxies attacking a large retro-designed fleet of Klingon D7's. *shudder*

I can come to peace with a 22nd century D7, but what about the Klingon 'Warbirds' mentioned by Ambassador Soval? I was under the impression that *those* where the Empire's main ship.
Was there any evidence to suggest that the D7 was in any way special (prototype, most powerful ship, etc.)?
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Or perhaps the D7 (or whatever it's supposed to be) is also called a "warbird".
 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
It's not a continuity issue. Drop the buzzword people.

It's a creativity and originality issue. The Akiraprize is unoriginal, using the D7 where something else would've been more appropriate is uncreative. Bringing in holotech for no reason whatsoever is just bad writing.
 

Posted by Colonel Lovok (Member # 705) on :
 
Frogive me, but this continuity bullsh*t is really getting old. The term "beating a dead horse" comes to mind. If you think you can do a better job at "maintaining the continuity of a televsion series 30+ years old, then by all means, get a degree in the entertainment industry and start your own series. We'll see how good your "continuity" is thirty years from now.

These are the type of posts that have pushed me and others further and further away from these forums. It's a television show. It's also money.
 

Posted by HappyTarget (Member # 670) on :
 
What you naysayers seem to forget is that Klingons are notoriously uncreative in their ship design. The D7/Kitinga lasted from TOS to DS9 for cripes sake. They obviously believe in the addage if it aint broke don't fix it. If the design works, why change it. Just give it better weapons and updated systems.
 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Deep Space Nine had the scaling issues and class of the Defiant as debates. Voyager had ranges of Delta quadrant species and the location of the Beta quadrant as debates. Looks like Enterprise is going to follow the tradition and be plagued by the "Enterprise's design is unoriginal" debate.

Is it unoriginal to reuse the D7 model in "Unexpected?" If you're looking at it from strictly a technical standpoint, possibly. Might lean that way more if the resources were available to create a new model. If you look at it from the point of inside the Trek universe, I don't think it is an issue of originality or laziness at all. Klingons have a few classes of ships that seem to be used (although heavily modified) for years. The K'tingas in "Way of the Warrior" fired beam weapons from what's traditionally a torpedo port, afterall. The design of this particular ship is simple yet elegant. It doesn't strike me as odd at all that the Klingons could be using the basic design for centuries.
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 

 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
That picture reminds of something I noticed in "Unexpected" about the hull of the Klingon ship. The scene where I noticed this was when the Klingon ship fires charges and finds the alien vessel hiding in its wake. The Klingon's hull has this interesting "feathering" technique using a dark gray color and a shiny silver color. The effect reminds me of a metal plate that's been sanded in a few different directions and then angling that plate obliquely to a light source. A really interesting effect, I thought.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
So that's why they went to all the trouble to build that model for Voyager...
 
Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
I think I have a damn right to be critical and have certain expectations. I will continue complaining about blatant mistakes and lacking creativity. I have given Enterprise a chance. I have enjoyed at least "Broken Bow" and "Fight or Flight" despite the Akiraprise. But the Akiraprise seems to be only the beginning of a chain of *avoidable* slaps into the faces of loyal fans.

But is it really me who has a problem? The continuity problems of Enterprise are much worse than anything in Voyager. They are similar to the 78 decks in "Star Trek V". I think rather those who make up explanations for something like that and bend continuity to a degree where it's simply laughable have a problem.
 

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
The 78-deck thing is a violation of continuity.

The Klingon ship in "Unexpected" and the Enterprise are not continuity problems.
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
quote:
But the Akiraprise seems to be only the beginning of a chain of *avoidable* slaps into the faces of loyal fans.

And we all know that you can look "loyal fan" up in a dictionary.

You're creating an ostensive definition to back up your crusade, Bernd.
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Yeah, you have the right to complain about valid continuity concerns, but everything that you're harping on has been based on opinion. This time period has been largely untouched by canon Star Trek. In non-canon and fandom materials, the holes have been filled in, but it's the responsible of anyone officially working for Star Trek to try to adhere to it. You're upset because Enterprise is violating your opinion of how things should be and hiding behind the cloak of "continuity" and "this is a slap in the face of loyal fans."

Who's to decide who the hell the loyal fans are, anyway? Just about everyone here at Flare is a loyal fan of Star Trek. Just because we don't have a big, popular website to dispense our opinions of Trek does not make us any less a "loyal fan" than you say that you are. So take a good hard look here and see just how many "loyal fans" are upset by your alleged "slaps in the face."
 

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
We'd just give all the fans here weapons and drop them on a deserted island. Last 10 to stay alive are "loyal fans".

The Akiraprise got shot up by the Sulibans, those body-harvesting aliens, and now the Klingons. Anyone think it's about time they go back for a quick yard job? Or is Archer afraid that Starfleet will say "oh my god, what did you do to my car?!"
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
David: Don't you know we're going to see the development of the "magic hull" in an upcoming episode? Y'know, the same stuff that Voyager had for its seven scratchless years in the Delta Quadrant?
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Bernd---

You know I have the utmost respect for you, but I've gotta break it to ya, buddy: I agree with the other guys, it's no big deal. In fact I rather like the idea of utilitarian Klingons using the same outdated ships for centuries, jury-rigging and piecing things back together and making minor and major upgrades, struggling to keep them from being obsolete. It kinda fits with what we know about them.

Sorry.

-MMoM
 

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
David Templar:

I'm using that bit of yours as my sig, okay? LOL

quote:
The Akiraprise got shot up by the Sulibans, those body-harvesting aliens, and now the Klingons. Anyone think it's about time they go back for a quick yard job? Or is Archer afraid that Starfleet will say "oh my god, what did you do to my car?!"

 
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
I suppose my take on this ship can be predicted, so I'm not going to invoke breaches of continuity or canon, since that's certain to piss off someone. But can all of you who accept and can rationalize this ship honestly say this is what you wanted to see? Before this episode, if someone had told you that the old D-7/Ktinga would be reused would you have said "YESSSSS!!! I don't want any new ships! I'd rather have my favorite ships I've already seen!!!"

So far we have a show with a setting virtually indistinguishable from the 24th Century. We have the standard travel times between planets on antimatter-powered Starfleet ships, human transport, nasty Klingons with their usual ships, handguns with slightly different names, and holodecks. The only concessions to the 22nd C seem to be lack of Romulans, replicators, instantaneous universal translators, and tractor beams, but I'm sure they will appear before too long.

This is OK with you all in a show set 200+ years before TNG/DS9/Voyager? While it has been argued that none of this violates previously established facts, was it really what you expected or wanted? If you wanted all this, why bother having a show set during this time period? Just so we could have more-arrogant Vulcans, pets on board, and officers in ball caps and neckties.

(PS: Please don't say "Get a life" or restrict anyone's right to complain. It's not polite.)
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
quote:
So far we have a show with a setting virtually indistinguishable from the 24th Century.

If all you care about is the technobabbley/setting side of things, perhaps there's a case to be had. But, thankfully, Trek is far more than just encyclopedia writeups. The characters are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The storylines are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The atmosphere is rather distinguishable from the 24th century.
 

Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The_Tom:
David: Don't you know we're going to see the development of the "magic hull" in an upcoming episode? Y'know, the same stuff that Voyager had for its seven scratchless years in the Delta Quadrant?

I'd give anything to see a roll of duct tape in the background for one of the upcoming episodes.

Tucker: "Damnit, the core is breaching again! Quick, someone hand me the multiphasic matter immobilizer with the high molecular conglutinative index."
T'Pol: *raises eyebrow*
Tucker: "The tape! The tape!"
 

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
quote:
The storylines are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The atmosphere is rather distinguishable from the 24th century.

How exactly?

No matter how many times I say it, people never seem to address my arguments about mediocre writing and plot but jump down the throat of anyone who utters the word continuity.
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Well, what is there to address? You think the writing is bad. Fine. If someone else thinks it's good, it's still a matter of opinion. What kind of debate could you have?

"ENT writing sucks!"
"No, it's good!"
"No, it sucks!"
"No, it's good!"
 

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
Well, of course you could have an objective debate about the merits of the writing. For example, you could argue 1) whether the characters are presented as fully rounded individuals or a superficial collection of personality quirks, racial sterotypes, and physical characteristics; 2) whether the characters' motivations, actions, and reactions make any sense or whether the characters behave stupidly, illogicaly, or contrary to established behaviors; 3) whether each scene advances the story or provides character details or whether the scene is just padding; 4) whether all loose ends are satisifying tied up at the end of the episode or you just sit there and say "what happened to...?"; 5) whether the story is presented in an exciting, unexpected, and original way or just rehashes old ideas in a comforting, nonchallenging way. So, sure, you could debate the merits of the writing if you make the effort to.
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
But can all of you who accept and can rationalize this ship honestly say this is what you wanted to see?

Frankly, I would hate it if they gave everyone what they expected. Sure, there are things I'd have liked to have seen, like a new-old Klingon ship, but I don't think there is anything wrong with what they've chosen to do. That, to me, is the big difference between the two segments of Enterprise commentators. Some, like myself, say, "They're not doing what I expected, but they're not violating continuity so I can respect their choice." Others say, "They're not doing what I expected, and because of this they are slapping me (and other true fans) in the face."

quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
This is OK with you all in a show set 200+ years before TNG/DS9/Voyager?

Yes. I find that Enterprise has a reasonable balance between Trek staples and primitive technology. As much as tech fans would eat it up, it would be a horribly boring series to have the ship take three months to reach each adventure, never understand what aliens say, and so on. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but there have to be certain concessions to make the show fun. Since none of these concessions actually violate any canon facts about the time period, I don't have any serious objection to them.

quote:
Originally posted by Masao:
If you wanted all this, why bother having a show set during this time period? Just so we could have more-arrogant Vulcans, pets on board, and officers in ball caps and neckties.

How about so that we can see what happened in the decade before the founding of the Federation? That's why I'm interested; the technology (and even the good ol' Star Trek "formula") are secondary. The argument that "we know what happens" doesn't hold up... or did anyone really expect that the Federation would lose the Dominion War? Did anyone think that Voyager would be destroyed in the Delta Quadrant after four years? All we know about Enterprise is that humanity survives and founds the Federation... we know nothing about where they go, who they meet, and the fate of the ship and crew.

And really, how many options for a series are there? Setting the show in the twenty-fourth century or beyond has the difficulty of technology being so advanced that otherwise tense situations begin to lack drama unless new contrivences are invented to get around a deus ex machina ending. This is magnified if you go even farther into the future, as Clarke's Law* begins to have increased relevance. Am I the only one who doesn't want to see a multi-vector starship with light-year transporters, transphasic uber-shields, multispectral ablative armor, hypertorpedoes, transwarp missiles, Borg nanolaunchers, slipstream drive, a holographic helmsman, telepathic computer interfaces, and a family of Jem'Hadar living in the reconfigurable arboretum? Am I the only person who is rather sick of humans so "perfect" that they can't take a shit because there is a rather large stick blocking the way?

No, give me a basic ship with realistic people and I'll be happy. If they explore strange new worlds along the way, all the better.

* Sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.
 

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The_Tom:
The characters are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The storylines are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The atmosphere is rather distinguishable from the 24th century.

Ok, first a question... You have been watching ENT and you have seen at least 10% of any other Star Trek episodes [especially TNG, DS9, and VOY since taht is what you mentioned]?

Issue one.. the Characters:
No, they are not. T'Pol and Trip have the same arguements/disagreements/relationship that Tuvok & Neelix and Odo & Quark had... All of which is based on Spock & Bones. Archer is an experienced leader like all the other Captains [yes, it would be nice to have a person with a lot less experience period]. Reed is cocky, in some ways like Chekov and Worf were. You tell me how the Archer-Sato relationship is different from Janeway-Kes or Janeway-Seven. I'm sure others can add to the list... the characters in the least reflect those characters in other series, at most they mirror them exactly.

Issue two... the story lines:
"Broken Bow":
1. Previously unknown & unencountured alien runs into trouble... our heroes save the day.
2. Time travel causes the whole problem, bringing the characters into a fight that they shouldn't have been involved with from the start.
3. Another, previously unknown & unencountured alien is fighting/bothering/generally antagonizing the original aliens. Our heroes are caught in the middle and forced to take sides.

"Fight or Flight":
1. Previously unknown & unencountured alien runs into trouble... our heroes try to save the day.
2. Another, previously unknown & unencountured alien is fighting/bothering/generally antagonizing the original aliens. Our heroes are caught in the middle and forced to take sides.
3. Our heroes weapons are inadequete [though for the first time they are woefully inadequete, a slight change from other series].
4. Something happens to turn the tide in the fight where our heroes discover their weapons are inadequete... quite simply put, deus ex machine in most cases. [For once the machine was not owned, created, or used by our heroes... a slight difference from other series.]

"Strange New World":
1. New planet/ship/station/asteroid/moon/nebula [in short new location in which the characters have not been before]. In the process of exploring the new location the characters come across something extremely unsuspecting which becomes the plot of the episode.
2. The item/energy/etc that was unsuspecting before, was either not detected/discovered/or was simply ignored before hand. [Simply put like the water on Psi 2000, the transporter accident that created Tuvix, or the Barkley T-Cell De-evolution Virus... those mountain flowers at the beginning of the episode later became the "bad guy"].
3. Something from outside causes problems between the crew [in this case a drug, but it has been the Maquis, Borg, a virus, ship-wide memory wipe, etc.]
4. Mysterious figures that could be aliens [but for once, they actually weren't].

"Unexpected":
1. An alien gets one of the crew pregnant, and nobody really knew [Troi's kid Andrew].
2. Previously unknown and unencountured aliens are in trouble... our heroes comes to the rescue.
3. Our heroes have never encountured the alien's technology but are able to fix it [O'brien and Tosk, Paris and that body snatcher in Vis`a`Vis].
4. The aliens take/give our heroes something and we need to find them to fix the "problem." [Vis`a`Vis is a good example of both in a way. We get a fake Paris and the real Paris is out there.]

And that covers all the episodes I've seen so far.

Issue three... the atmosphere:
For once you may be... uh, not really.
1. TNG did explore somethings no one else had and had a bit of flare concerning it. "Encounter at Farpoint" fits this well. Coming across Q was unexpected. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" also touched a little on this. --- ENT seems to take a little from this.
2. VOY and DS9 both had unexplored territory. VOY had the Delta Quadrant and for the first few seasons DS9 had the Gamma Quadrant. DS9 handled it like TNG did, pushing out the bounderies that were established. VOY had the difference in this area by the want to return to those bounderies, but also pushing them out along the way. --- ENT again applies, exploring the unexplored.
3. There is a major difference in the way ENT goes about exploring compared to the others. The others might have had an "idea" of what was out there, ENT does not. The others were slightly prepared for what was out there, ENT is not. The others had experience in the unknown, ENT does not. But the atmosphere of "We're going out to explore the unknown because it's unknown" is the same.

So your statements are false. The characters, storylines, and atmosphere are similar to, draw from, and sometimes mirror that of TNG, DS9, and VOY, as well as TOS. Now it is based on Star Trek, but this does not explain the almost exact duplication, nor does it explain how you missed it.

[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: J ]


 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Ridiculous. Broken Bow, Fight or Flight, Strange New World and to a lesser extent Unexpected are stories that could not have been told, period, in the 24th century.

That, of course, is an opinion-based judgement of mine, however. Other people may beg to differ. Fine. But let's not get all cocky and say that its an indisputable fact that the show is written as a carbon copy of the 24th century, OK?
 

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
I was warming up to Enterprise after seeing "Broken Bow" which had a fascinating historical story that couldn't have been shown in any other series. "Fight or Flight" was a standard plot, but it developed quite differently from what it would have been like in Voyager. This doesn't apply to "Strange New World" which was too much like all the paranoia things we have seen before. This is just to say that I can indeed enjoy a prequel in which the look and feel, the course of the plot, and the (inter)actions of the characters are sufficiently different from what we have seen in Star Trek before.

I'm not (any more) on a "Crusade" to prove that Enterprise is bad, I'm only pointing out things that have gone wrong. And a D-7/K't'inga and holotechnology in the 22nd century are wrong, no matter what kind of excuses are made up for it.

There are loads of good reasons why the Klingons of the 22nd century must have older ships. The argument that Klingons are warriors not engineers is a cheap excuse in my opinion. Warriors frequently need new weapons. Even the good old bat'leth may have been improved several times by using new alloys, and the same should apply to ship hulls. The Klingons are not Hirogen, they want to win a battle and not have the thrill of fighting a superior enemy with traditional hunting rituals. They are eager to get the new holotechnology as well as they quickly adopt cloaking devices over 100 years later, but their ships always stay the same? Moreover, Klingons are waging war all the time. They frequently need to replace ships, even much rather than an organization of peaceful exploration. No one can tell me the Klingons wouldn't come up with always new designs, if they need new ships anyway. Finally, in TOS the Klingons were clearly on the same technological level as the Federation, which makes a lot of sense since it was supposed to reflect the Cold War in the real world. At that time, the Soviets and the Americans kept the balance of power by developing new horrible weapons and countermeasures almost in parallel. It doesn't seem that the Klingons were very busy to develop anything new from 2151 to the end of the Cold War, if they are still using their old rust buckets. Finally, in "Once More Unto the Breach" Kor mentions the old D-4 cruiser. Since the TOS cruiser and the K't'inga are different ships but share the designation D-7 ("Prophesy"), what in the world could be a D-4, if not a really different looking (older) ship?

And what the hell would the Klingons do with holotechnology? Agreed, they could do some battle practice, but isn't it essentially exactly the type of convenience the Klingons always reject? It is incredibly bad continuity that a fully functional holodeck shows up in the hands of a major race 200 years before it is available on Federation ships. Anyone remember how excited Riker was about it in "Encounter at Farpoint"? Or Picard in "The Big Good-Bye"? Or Lwaxana in "Man Hunt"? This was something really new. It just makes no sense if the Klingons get their hands on this holotechnology 200 years earlier than the Federation (while their ships always stay the same).

It seems there are many fans who (quite unlike it was the usual attitude towards Voyager) just buy everything that is presented in Enterprise, as long as it doesn't violate continuity in a very narrow definition. Where's the limit of tolerance? Klingons riding on pink elephants? That wouldn't be a continuity breach either, since we have no evidence that Klingons are not supposed to have pink elephants.

Okay. I agree. The battlecruiser doesn't violate continuity in a very narrow sense. But continuity is worth nothing without plausibility. Decide for yourself, but I don't want to see a show in which anything is made possible with silly quirks and far-fetched explanations. This need not apply to all of Enterprise, but it is a very bad sign that, although we could have had a really new ship, we got the Akiraprise. Although they knew exactly that the Klingons would show up, they didn't bother to create a new old ship for them (and some fans are even grateful for that!). Although they promised old tech, they needed only four episodes to show us a fully operational TNG holodeck. We know that any series has its "Spock's Brain" or "Threshold", but with that degree of laziness and carelessness Enterprise has the potential for lots of episodes of that kind.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
And a D-7/K't'inga and holotechnology in the 22nd century are wrong, no matter what kind of excuses are made up for it.

The fact that people are disagreeing with you is evidence that this is purely subjective. I, for instance, find nothing wrong with it. Is it what I would have preferred? No. Is it what I think "should" be there? No. Is it objectively wrong? No.

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
There are loads of good reasons why the Klingons of the 22nd century must have older ships. The argument that Klingons are warriors not engineers is a cheap excuse in my opinion.

At least you admit, for once, that it's your opinion and not a matter of fact. There's nothing wrong with having negative opinions about anything, and there is nothing wrong with expressing them. But there is something wrong with claiming that your opinion is more than it actually is.

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
Warriors frequently need new weapons. Even the good old bat'leth may have been improved several times by using new alloys, and the same should apply to ship hulls.

Nobody suggested that the twenty-second century ship hulls were made of the same alloys as the twenty-fourth. "Way of the Warrior" makes it clear that Klingon ships can have weapons and such in wildly different locations. If that episode showed K't'ingas one hundred years after they were first seen, why is it such a big deal to see a D7 one hundred years before it was last seen (a century before "Prophecy" [VGR]).

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
Okay. I agree. The battlecruiser doesn't violate continuity in a very narrow sense.

It doesn't violate continuity in any sense. There is nothing in previous Star Trek that indicated that the traditional Klingon battlecruiser did not exist in the twenty-second century. There is also nothing that indicated that the Klingons lacked holotechnology. "Continuity" is, as someone else pointed out, a buzzword at this point, obviously intended to elicit a reaction. If everyone told the truth ("Enterprise isn't what I wanted") then nobody would complain... so people use the C-word to make their complaint sound more significant. At least that's my theory... maybe everyone knows of some hidden continuity violations that I missed.

No matter what feelings anyone has about the series, Enterprise doesn't violate continuity, and it doesn't violate canon. Enterprise can be accused of being unoriginal, derivative, boring, and predictable with lazy, ignorant creators... but accusations of continuity violation are simply false, unless someone has evidence they haven't yet presented.

The line between violating continuity and not is simple, and self-explanatory. Klingons riding on pink elephants would not break continuity, it would just be stupid. Nobody would defend it as being logical. Likewise, it is perfectly possible to feel that the Klingons shouldn't use D7s in the twenty-second century but admit that it doesn't violate previously established canon.

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
Decide for yourself, but I don't want to see a show in which anything is made possible with silly quirks and far-fetched explanations.

Nobody forces you to watch it, and I wouldn't think less of you if you didn't. I watched maybe ten out of the last three seasons of Voyager because I hated every single character.

quote:
Originally posted by Berd:
Although they promised old tech, they needed only four episodes to show us a fully operational TNG holodeck.

It did nothing of the sort. They directly said that it couldn't generate interactive people. We never saw anyone break their group up, so we don't know that it can handle the "subdivision" perspective issue. All we know that the Xyrillian holochamber can do it make a credible environmental simulation. Even the Constitution was intended to be capable of that, as related in The Making of Star Trek and seen in the animated series. Most importantly, the Enterprise crew were awed by the technology and didn't get a hold of it, so they are indeed showing "old technology" for the humans.

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]


 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Bernd: So, why aren't you complainng about the violation of continuity in showing K't'ingas in TNG and DS9. That's just as much a problem as showing a D7 on ENT.
 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
quote:
Enterprise can be accused of being unoriginal, derivative, boring, and predictable with lazy, ignorant creators...

Ya, that's pretty much what we're saying. Read the following statement very carefully:

USING A D7 WAS UNORIGINAL

Likewise can be said about MANY other elements of 'Enterprise' so far.

Notice, nowhere in the above was continuity mentioned.

If you are about to attack this post for lacking any cited evidence (and you would be warranted in doing so), scroll up and reread J's post. He hit it perfectly on the head.
 

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
quote:
holotechnology in the 22nd century

It's only wrong if Earth has holotechnology. Earth doesn't have it, and even though the Klingons have it, they presumeably lose it not so far down the road (either because the ship is blown up, or because they can't figure out how to duplicate the tech).
 

Posted by Bernd (Member # 6) on :
 
If you all are so pedantic, I will avoid the c word in the future. But I won't take back my accusations of the technology (development) being woefully implausible.

quote:
They directly said that it couldn't generate interactive people. We never saw anyone break their group up, so we don't know that it can handle the "subdivision" perspective issue.

Okay. So it was limited. But having a perfect illusion of the look and fiel of a three-dimensional environment is already advanced enough. I see the rest as a rather small step. Again, just my opinion.

quote:
Bernd: So, why aren't you complainng about the violation of continuity in showing K't'ingas in TNG and DS9. That's just as much a problem as showing a D7 on ENT.

First the lifespan is extended to 100 years, and now even 220 years. I think now they have crossed the line. Moreover, can't we assume that Chancellor Gorkon's ship is one of the most advanced of the fleet? Now this becomes essentially a 140-year-old design.
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Bernd: I think Tim was referring to the D7 existing from the events of Ent to TOS (c. 110 years) being akin to the K'Tinga existing from the events of TMP to DS9 (c. 105 years).
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
The point is that the Klingon ship of that design was used through TOS and in the movies, and then TNG just went right ahead and used it. They also used the BoP, which was from the movies. So, basically, TNG was just as unoriginal as ENT.

And you can't say that TNG balanced things out by having new ships, also. ENT just had two new ships last week.
 

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
I think the main reason for showing the D5/D7/K'tinga was dramatic effect: "KLINGONS!!"

Yes, I can live with another hundred years of lifespan for the D7's, but it would've been a lot cooler if TPTB had actually designed something *recognizable* as TOS-era Klingon, instead of using exactly the same hull.

I was a bit dissapointed with the Klingon bridge. The Klingons used to have very brightly lit, clean-ish bridges in the days of TOS (or TAS anyway). And they had touch-screen controls !!

What also bothered me is that they first make up Klingon Warbirds (a very silly mistake..), and then just show a plain old battlescruiser...
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by OnToMars:
[QB]USING A D7 WAS UNORIGINAL

I agree.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
If you all are so pedantic, I will avoid the c word in the future.

Come now, Bernd, I would have expected you to be above ad hominem attacks.

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
Okay. So it was limited. But having a perfect illusion of the look and fiel of a three-dimensional environment is already advanced enough. I see the rest as a rather small step. Again, just my opinion.

It seems to me that having a holodeck capable of simulating two different enviornments for two users simultaneously while imaging and simulating those users in the eyes of each other as well as making realistic, interactive people are quantum leaps over making a credible enviornment (pardon the potential Bakula pun).

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
First the lifespan is extended to 100 years, and now even 220 years.

Not quite. The K't'ingas have a lifespan of 100 years, from 2270 to 2370. The D7 now has a lifespan of 110 years, from 2150 to 2270 (and two "looks," but that's a different issue).

I do want to reiterate that I, too, don't like the choice to use the D7 over again. I, too, feel that it stretches credulity. The difference is that I don't feel that it stretches credulity to any extreme that's not already common in Star Trek. Klingons using a similar ship design for 200 years is nothing compared to the implausibility of the universal translator translating Xyrillian after a sample of perhaps ten words.

quote:
Originally posted by Bernd:
I think now they have crossed the line. Moreover, can't we assume that Chancellor Gorkon's ship is one of the most advanced of the fleet? Now this becomes essentially a 140-year-old design.

Even before, Kronos One was at least a thirty year-old design, so it was never one of the most advanced ships in the fleet, by this standard.
 

Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Actually, on the subject of holo-tech, we should be thankful.. there was no use of holo-characters or anything that could be associated as the super-smart computing engine which allows complete interactivity. Id say it would be appropriate as an early version of holographic simulator that had very little interactive potential. The only thing that bugged me was the solidity of the stuff there.. it probably would have been better if it was simply a visual simulation. And the incorrect explanation of what makes holo-matter solid.. as i understood it, solidity was created by precise forcefields occupying the same space as the visuals of the object being simulated. 'Coherent photons' doesnt make a lot of sense.. do they still have a science consultant? He probably gave up on this one fter he read the ice chip part.. and id begin to doubt him for letting something like 'teraphasic' get by without thinking it through

The Klingons, by the way, used their holotechnology in 'The Undiscovered Country' to talk with the President.
 

Posted by Capt_Spencer (Member # 312) on :
 
Wowee! Look at the implied insults fly! LMFAO! See what I miss by not visiting Flare more often...?

Look, here's my opinion, for those who care (and, Ryan, I'll try not to use the c-word improperly... ^_^).

I have, and shall continue to watch "Enterprise." Perhaps it is out of a morbid sense of curiosity, to see how far they stretch credulity. At any rate, even if they are not violating canon or continuity, this series is upsetting a lot of people, like Bernd.

For whatever reason, TPTB are pissing many fans (loyal or not) off, moreso, I think, than has happened with the launch of previous series.

Now, despite the currently on-hiatus state of my fanfic "Star Trek: Beyond" series' page, I have one statement which both my brother and I agree upon: "We can do it better than Paramount."

Simple as that, folks. We've come up with stories even they haven't touched yet, despite how many of our plots mysteriously turn up for the first time months after we play them out. Yes, I said play them out. I have built fleets of various-scale balsa starships, to accompany my plastic kits and resin kits. We fly them around and act out space scenes. Yes, I know how old I am. It's still fun.

Our plots may center less on secondary character development, but, then, we're not that schizo. Character development for our captains' characters suits us just fine. Oh, by the way, those balsa ships? Many are custom designs. And, if you know my artwork from the ASDB, you know it's not just three woodchips glued together.

My point, you ask? Oh, I had to have one? ^_^ Well, I suppose that now, more than ever, I'm realizing that I no longer really care what TPTB do on the shows.

If they ever get around to that 10th film (TWO STAR WARS MOVIES IN BETWEEN TREKS??), that will undoubtedly go into my "personal canon." For right now, though, the only thing from "Enterprise" that's in there is the fact that there was an early ship named Enterprise, the names of the crew and their character bios, and some of the circumstances of the series.

We may have built up our own fandom views of what Trek before Trek was like, but it was, for the most part, a shared view among many fans. TPTB seem not to care. So, I'm saying that I can live without THEM! LOL I have my own early Earth spaceship designs, more believable than Akiraprise, and more attractive than what a pre-Daedalus might look like! ^_^ The same goes for early Klingon ships.

*gets down off soapbox, to the tune of an audience comprised mainly of chirping crickets*


~ Jason Colbert =)

p.s. - I know I'll be forgetting a lot of people in this, but a big "shout-out" to Bernd and Masao for going where apparently only the starship designers don't fear to tread, in this.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
For whatever reason, TPTB are pissing many fans (loyal or not) off, moreso, I think, than has happened with the launch of previous series.

And yet, they're also making many fans (loyal or not) very happy. Polls at TrekWeb, Trek Today, and other sites consistently show approval of the series in the 70-80% range, before and after the series premiere. Those who don't like Enterprise are in a minority as far as fandom at large... though the tech-fans don't seem to fit this trend. Perhaps its our stereotypical attention to detail, an attention to detail that most fans don't share. My dad, for isntance, watched the original series as a teen and couldn't care less about what the ships look like or what kind of weapons they're throwing around.

quote:
Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
If they ever get around to that 10th film (TWO STAR WARS MOVIES IN BETWEEN TREKS??), that will undoubtedly go into my "personal canon."

So you mind when Enterprise destroys widely-held fan consensus about the twenty-second century, but you'll "undoubtedly" accept...

($$$ Begin Spoilers for Star Trek: Nemesis $$$)

...the destruction of widely-held fan consensus about the Romulan Empire and Remus in particular? After all, fans have long agreed that Romulus and Remus were settled together when the Romulans left Vulcan, but Nemesis will show that Remus is inhabited by a slave-race.

($$$ End Spoilers for Star trek: Nemesis $$$)

It seems that there is a double-standard at work here, but maybe I'm wrong.

The funny thing is that there isn't a widely-held fan consensus about what starships, technology, and civilzations were like in the twenty-second century. LUG's game materials (created by very ardent fans, as anyone who's talked to them can attest) painted a picture completely different from that of, say, Masao's Starfleet Museum. This is completely different from Michael Jan Friedman's Starfleet: Year One serial novel, which is different from the old Spaceflight Chronology, which is different (in many respects) from FASA's role-playing game, which is dramatically different from traditional tech fandom.

To use a pointed example, look at the infamous James Dixon. He steadfastly refuses to change the ideas that tech fandom held in the early 1980s. He accuses the producers of essentially all Star Trek since 1986 of ignoring what came before, though none of "what came before" was more than fan extrapolation. He has a personal devil called "Okuda" that he largely blames for blowing off fandom.

He is also essentially ignored by fandom at large as a whiner who doesn't know when to quit. I've seen many people through the years, here and elsewhere, complain about Dixon's bias and apparent grudge, and express the idea that he should get over it and finally accept that fandom was wrong. In ten years, Enterprise is going to be firmly entrenched in Star Trek canon and fandom. There will be people that will steadfastly refuse to change the ideas that fandom held in the late 1990s. They will accuse the producers of Enterprise of ignoring what came before, though none of "what came before" was more than fan extrapolation. They will have personal devils called "Berman" and "Braga" that they will largely blame for blowing off fandom. They will also probably be ignored by fandom at large as whiners who don't know when to quit.

If you want to be one of those people, don't let me stop you. (Quick Note: I'm not accusing anyone of being a whiner, nor suggesting anyone stop complaints. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I just like analogies, and I can imagine Dixon saying most of these same things circa 1990.)

quote:
Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
We may have built up our own fandom views of what Trek before Trek was like, but it was, for the most part, a shared view among many fans. TPTB seem not to care.

To paraphrase a certain Simpsons episode, "They've given you hundreds of hours of free entertainment, and you think they owe you?" Since the producers know that (1) tech fans are clearly not indicative fo fandom at large and (2) so far, approval of Enterprise has been very high, they seem to be doing the logical thing by staying the course. Star Trek production isn't a democracy any more than it is only "Gene Roddenberry's vision;" Star Trek is a franchise.

The irony is that if Star Trek production were a democracy, most of the voters would be in favor of Enterprise and the situation wouldn't be any different! The producers are just giving the people what they've clearly indicated they want by tuning in every week, buying those novels and movie tickets. It's sad, but the sort of "morbid curiosity" that nearly forces Star Trek fans to watch series that they dislike could very well be responsible for keeping them on the air.

quote:
Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
So, I'm saying that I can live without THEM! LOL I have my own early Earth spaceship designs, more believable than Akiraprise, and more attractive than what a pre-Daedalus might look like! ^_^ The same goes for early Klingon ships.

Fine, take the easy way out! I find that it's far more fun to integrate than to pick and choose. Having to completely revise your personal Star trek history is both challenging and stimulating, to me at least.

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]


 
Posted by Capt_Spencer (Member # 312) on :
 
But (for some reason), if there is one thing I can NOT stand, it is historical revisionism. Take that as you like it, for this is obviously all fiction, of course. ^_^ I believe that these techie Trek fans have a right to be upset, for as long as it may last (even as long as Dixon, apparently), because they do revise quite a bit - the Eugenics Wars being a prime example.

They may not be blatantly contradicting what was established with this whole Klingon issue, but (in my opinion) it's going against the built-up "feeling" of what things were like in the mid 22nd century. Some people didn't have a preconception. I, for one, never went into too much detail. But even the feeling is in direct conflict with what we've seen the past month on the air.

Like I said before, I'll still watch "Enterprise." But it is decidedly for entertainment value only, not for incorporation. It's my choice to make, and every fan must make their own decision likewise, if they already haven't. I can keep it all separate from previous Trek, it's not like being in my own little world is a new thing with me. ;-)

Fans were upset before because a decade's worth of self-created material was chucked out the window when they revived Trek, proper. Now, they have several hundred hours of material to base things on, not just 70-something hours. It just doesn't feel right. I, for one, loved DS9 as much, if not MORE than TNG. I taped nearly every episode of Voyager, too. I am one of the fans of all 4 series, so, for me to be taking this continued stance on "Enterprise" has got to be saying something.

For what it's worth, I've been trying *not* to read about what's going on with the next movie. Like SW Ep. II, I want to be surprised when I go into the theatres. I can only *hope* that the entire Star Trek franchise doesn't turn "south of cheese." I love each and every of the previous Star Trek films (yes, even 1 & 5, to slightly lesser degrees - come on, I think a Special-edition VFX makeover for 5 would help a bit, don't you?), and would really hate to have to watch ST:10 in the same way as "Enterprise" - for entertainment at the time of watching, only; not for personal canon.

Still, we know the Ent-D/E crew, they've been good to us so far. I've heard rumours ranging from Voyager cast coming aboard, to tying in "Enterprise," so who knows what it'll turn out like...? Like "Enterprise," I shall reserve judgement until I see it for myself. I just hope I'm less disappointed, this time around.

~ Jason
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
quote:
But (for some reason), if there is one thing I can NOT stand, it is historical revisionism.

The history of Star Trek has always been one of revision, though. The Original Series never really had a specific date in mind as to when Captain Kirk was in command of the Enterprise. To go from examples that Ryan mentioned, some say around 2210 for his command and others say as late as 2290 or so. In episodes themselves, they flucuated between being 200 and 300 years in the future from the production dates. Then Okuda came along and gave a specific date, and that has been modified a bit by Voyager. Okuda's invalidated a lot of earlier work done by fans.

quote:
I believe that these techie Trek fans have a right to be upset, for as long as it may last (even as long as Dixon, apparently), because they do revise quite a bit - the Eugenics Wars being a prime example.

Everyone has the right to be upset when they don't like something. If the writing on Enterprise of the characters were bland, I'd be upset, too. The difference is that I know that my dislike would be the result of the show going against my personal tastes. That hypothetical situation is analagous to the "problem" of the Enterprise's design to the technical crowd. The design goes against what they thought a ship should look like for the time period or what others had said they looked like in non-canon and fandom works. Since we've only seen one ship from the period, the Daedalus, one cannot say that this is a fact. It's an opinion. But a lot of people are carrying on that the design is a continuity violation when there isn't one shred of evidence to support that.

quote:
Like I said before, I'll still watch "Enterprise." But it is decidedly for entertainment value only, not for incorporation. It's my choice to make, and every fan must make their own decision likewise, if they already haven't.

And that is every fan's perrogative. Anyone watching the show can deem whatever parts they don't like to be non-canon. Roddenberry himself decanonized The Animated Series and parts of The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country because he didn't like them. That was his personal decision, but most of fandom does accept them wholesale. However, this is becoming a problem because some people who choose to excise Enterprise from their personal scripture of canonicity are doing nothing more than showing up in message boards, throwing insults, and then leaving. It's essentially becoming similar to the three-year-old throwing a fit because his parents wouldn't buy him a candy bar.

quote:
Fans were upset before because a decade's worth of self-created material was chucked out the window when they revived Trek, proper. Now, they have several hundred hours of material to base things on, not just 70-something hours.

Right, fans were upset because the had built a softball field on an empty lot and here comes the city parks department to build one up to code. The hard work they poured into their projects is suddenly in jeopardy because Trek has decided to thoroughly examine this period. However, anyone who does work for Trek cannot realistically expect his or her work to stand up to the test of time and be regarding as the truth of Trek. The only people who can really have an honest expectation of such are those working for Star Trek. And, even then, if the story is vague enough, the writers can change even that.

Enterprise does have a lot riding on it. There are nearly six hundred hours worth of Star Trek out there that Enterprise has to adhere to. In my opinion, Enterprise is doing fine in this regard. The possibility always exists for that to change since it can be assumed that Enterprise will last six and a half more seasons. On the plus side of this, the executive producers have had a hand in just about all of modern Trek. Mike Okuda is still onboard offering his opinions; he certainly doesn't seem to be upset that his opinion of Klingon first contact is not contrary to canon. Braga admitted that he and Berman have been watching The Original Series to understand that facet of the Trek universe. Minor screw-ups are bound to happen. Ron Moore, an admitted lifelong fan of Trek, fudged the date for the Eugenics Wars in one of his DS9 scripts. It's bound to happen to anyone. If it makes a regular habit of major snafus, then is the time for fandom to take some action.

quote:
Still, we know the Ent-D/E crew, they've been good to us so far.

And there were lots of people that hated The Next Generation from the get-go. Fortunately, a lot of those people decided to go ahead and give TNG a chance to prove itself. What do you know, quite a few of them actually became TNG fans and could recouncil themselves to accept it and fine out that things weren't as changed as much as they thought. We're having the same situation here with Enterprise. The only difference is we have a while to wait until we find out if Enterprise really is worth it.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
I don't really have anything to add, but I did want to reiterate that I fully respect anyone's right to hold any opinion regarding Enterprise, and more importantly, I respect all of the people who hold said opinions.

As I've mentioned before, I abandoned Voyager after about three and a half seasons because I found myself hating literally every character and half of the plots... well, I actually liked the Doctor half the time, but nobody else. I would be quite a hypocrite if I actually blamed anyone for holding a negative opinion about Enterprise... but debate is always entertainment, as long as nobody gets offended. We can (and will, I'm sure) argue about continuity and originality and plot and characters for fun.
 

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
I'm very glad, Ryan, to hear that you respect the right of anyone to express dissenting opinions. That's not true over at the Trek BBS, where anyone who complains in the least about Enterprise is automatically slammed by Enterprise loyalists as a whinger, a basher, or (horror!) not a real Star Trek fan. That board seems to be completely polarized into those labeled "gushers" (uncritical acceptance of Enterprise and given to contortionist rationalization) and those labeled as bashers (as above). Moderators are constantly wading in to remind posters not to bash someone just because they hold a contrary opinion. The rountine is tiring: somebody points out a problem with Enterprise, a defender tells him to shut up and just enjoy the show, the critic calls him an immature apologist (or something similar), the defender says either stop complaining or stop watching, "Get a Life," everyone likes it but you, etc.

It reminds me of conflict between hardhats and hippies (to overly simplify things) from the 60s. Anyone who found fault with US involvement in Vietnam was labeled a pinko or commie and told to either love America or leave it. Those who agreed with the US's support of anticommunist governments was labeled a fascist or baby killer.

I hope that Star Trek fandom (and this forum) can remain a big tent (to borrow a phrase from the GOP) where fans of any stripe can rationally discuss our mutual object of affection without rancor and character assassination. I hope also that those of you who are fairly happy with Enterprise will understand the motives of us who find fault with it. I criticize from a desire for Star Trek to be the best that it can be and not just entertaining or "good enough."
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Reading this thread got me curious as to how the NX-01 would look next to a D7 cruiser. I went into PSP and loaded up a top view of the two respective ships and scaled them accordingly (228m for the D7 and 190m(?) for the NX-01). Anyway, it quickly struck me how remarkably close in length the warp nacelles of these two designs are - quite a coincidence. Just thought it was worth mentioning.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
Anyone watching the show can deem whatever parts they don't like to be non-canon.

If I get a warning for flaming, so be it. I have no specific ill will towards you, Siggie, but that is complete and utter f*cking bullshit! I am so sick of hearing people say this. THE FANS do not decide what is canon. RODDENBERRY does not decide what is canon. PARAMOUNT decides what is canon. They own Star Trek. They decide what happens to it.

This crap about being able to declare non-canon anything in Trek that you don't like is just that: CRAP.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]


 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Evidently, it is not the utter pile of dung that you claim it is. You yourself have said that you consider The Animated Series to be canon. You have also argued for the Okudian reference works to be on the same level of canon as the episodes and movies. Paramount disagrees with you. Paramount considers The Animated Series to be non-canon, and they consider the reference works by Okuda to be semi-canon (that is, right until proven wrong by episodes and movies). Therefore, you are holding items to be canon that Paramount does not.
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
Yeah, not everybody was raised with the idea that storytelling has to be continuous (containing continuity), cohesive, be easily indexed by time and topic, and make a franchise out of it

James Bond has been a spy for fifty years without aging a day. Hes had half a dozen facelifts. Nobody questions it.. hes just 007 and thats it. People are just paying their 7.50, being entertained, and going home. They arent trying to explain why in Bond's eyes the fall of the Berlin Wall occurred a few months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Its entertainment and escapism, and people are willing to suspend disbelief because its well put together eye candy effects and action sequences, good music and enjoyable dialogue with good acting and character play.

So how come you cant let the guy sitting next to you say 'well, i dont think that Voyager happened the way it did because it didnt make sense' Hes enjoying it.

And Paramount are a bunch of brainless suits who see Star Trek as a cash crop to be raked in. The creative personnel, while not perfect in our eyes (read every thread here about the producers) are trying to keep star trek working. The novelists, the comic book artists have passion for the characters and the look of star trek. I think they have more validity in my eyes than the licensing office.

I try to play the 'continuity' game as much as everyone else here, because i like that a well done universe can be catalogued and analyzed the way i do on my page with star trek. Thats what makes watching Star Trek more fun that watching Mad About You. But i dont try to tell everyone what to think.. Star Trek is OWNED by the person watching and enjoying it.

i think that the Yamato's registry is 1305-E. Thats my prerogative because ive made it my show.

I suggest we move over to the Flameboard now.
 

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I too consider the Encyclopedia only canon unless contradicted by an episode or film. I look at it and the chronologies and tech manuals the same way paramount does. I have never tried to say that the Encyclopedia takes precedence over onscreen events.

And as to TAS, I have pointed out before and will point out again that Paramount no longer seems to view TAS as non-canon. DS9 refers to TAS in several episodes. The TAS episode guide is listed right alongside those of TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR, and now ENT on the official Paramount Star Trek website.

So I am not as hypocritical as you would make me out to be.
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Really? As I recall, when facts about the Klingon first contact date were revealed this summer, you were one of the ones saying that it violated continuity because the Chronology and Encyclopedia said Klingon First Contact happened in 2218, not 2151.

As for The Animated Series, actually, you are wrong. Just because the episode guides for The Animated Series is on the official Paramount site in no way says that they've changed their stance on TAS. Let's look at the Frequently Asked Questions, shall we?

quote:
As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

My previous comments still stand. Paramount has allowed the backstory of Spock from TAS to be canon since it fleshes out his character. Ronald D. Moore is a fan of TAS and included small references to little things in his scripts for DS9. Those in and of themselves do not make TAS canon, as the FAQ says above.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]


 
Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
MMoM, there's also a reference to Fizzbin as an actual card game as oppossed to one made up by Kirk. It's an in-joke. An obscure refernce. Sure, it's easily explained away to be logical, but the intent remains the same that it was intended only as a throwaway gag line.
 
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
 
*puts fingers in ears and sings off key*
Beeee-yond.. the rim of the starliiight..
Myyyyy love is wandrin' in starfliiight..
Iiiiii know.. he'll find in star-cluster'd reaches..
Straaaaange love... a star-woman teaches..
Iiiiii know.. his journey ends neverrr..
His staaaar trek.. will go on foreverrrr..
Just let him know as he wanders his starry sea..
Remember...
Remember meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Did anyone see 'Unexpected'?! There were Klingons in it!
 

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
Here are some pre-TOS Klingon ships I designed earlier this year (before Enterprise aired).
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/klingond5.jpg
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/sfmuseum/klingond6.jpg
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Well, those are lovely, Masao, as we've come to expect. But I must confess I'm grasping for your point here. No one is saying that a new Klingon ship couldn't have been designed. No one is even saying that one shouldn't have been.

What is being said is that the fact that one wasn't does not constitute a crippling blow to internal consistancy. Nor does it represent, in my opinion, any fundamental lack of imagination.

I had the opportunity to watch this episode with some decidedly casual fans this past Saturday. They haven't studied the press releases. They haven't bought the magazines or visited the websites or read the interviews. They've watched Star Trek in no particular order and with no particular concern for overarching plots. And when a Klingon ship they could recognize showed up, they were suddenly gifted with dramatic insight. They knew something the characters didn't. They enjoyed a basic element of drama.

Would I personally have prefered a new old design? Yes. But what does that change?
 

Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
No point really, except to show that a new-old Klingon ship could easily have been designed and been easily recognized by viewers as a Klingon ship. I also wanted to show off my ship.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
I only said that the Klingon fist contact date was wrong ONCE. Why have I not said it again? Because I realized that it wasn't really a violation. I made a simple mistake.

However I do like to express the opinion that as long as Paramount approves the material published in the Chronology, maybe they should bother to stick with it. There's no point in publishing a work that will become invalidated with every passing episode. It's worthless.

As to TAS, they can't have it both ways. It can't be picked-and-chosen which episodes of a series are canon. Either a series is canon, or it isn't. Since numerous parts of TAS are canon, that retroactively makes the entire series canon. It's only logical.
 

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
The Producers are not "picking and choosing" which "The Animated Series" episodes are canon. They have been "inspired" by, or "come to the same conclusion" as a few of the episodes, supposedly such as the one about Spock's youth. Does that mean that episode has become canon? No.

Besides, does not that "Bonaventure" episode kind of take "The Animated Series" out of continuity consideration?
 

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Erm...Why would that be, exactly?
 
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
I assume Mighty Monkey of Mim's last post was directed at me, but, even if it was not, the question still needs to be asked: why would what be?
 
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
 
I believe our esteemed simian friend means to ask why the appearance in an animated episode of Bonaventure, supposedly the first ship with warp drive, would necessarily make the entire animated series non-canon or take it out of continuity.
 
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
The appearance of a "Bonaventure" as the first (Starfleet?) ship equipped with warp drive in "The Animated Series," would seem to indicated that the powers that be do not recognize "The Animated Series" as canon, just as the Paramount website claims," an no amount of wishing it was canon will make it so.
 
Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
Please forgive the numerous errors in my last post.
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
If they had used a design like Masao's D6, it would have been given the same treatment as the Enterprise itself. It's just a previous ship slightly altered.

Also, just because there have been references to TAS in canon Trek, that doesn't make TAS canon. They're just in-jokes. Are we to assume, since the Bolians are named after Cliff Bole, that human explorers, on making contact w/ Bolians, decided to make the English name for them from the name of an obscure television director from the late twentieth century? Just because TPTB named something after a thing in TAS, that doesn't mean it was really named for it in the context of the show.
 

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
And even if it is, where in the world does that "all or nothing" rule come from? There are no rules.
 
Posted by Michael_T (Member # 144) on :
 
Watch, when Enterprise is over, the ship class maybe named after Archer as a joke... He may even get something similar to the Picard Manuever.
 
Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :
 
And now the answer to why the Klingons weren't interested in the cloaking device:
In "Broken Bow", Ambassador Soval clearly says that he 'used some kind of stealth technology'.

(He could've been also referring to the Suliban, however)
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Mighty Monkey of Mim: Your analogy for The Animated Series doesn't work, though. If that were the case, then there is just as much reason for Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual to be considered canon since a couple ship designs in there were background decoration on a few bridge screens. But that work is not canon. You said earlier that it was Paramount that has the authority to declare canonicity. Therefore, they do have the ability to say that part of something is canon while another is not.

As for sticking to the Chronology and Encyclopedia, for the most part the Star Trek following the release of those works has stayed true to them. However, you must remember that a good deal of the commentary in them is Okuda's beliefs on the matter. In the case of Klingon first contact, he opted to go with a reference from "The Day of the Dove" rather than "First Contact." The latter had a more compelling case for it, but he went with the former instead. His book, his opinion, but he doesn't write the movies or episodes.

Harry: I think Sovall was referring to both Klingon ship and the Suliban ship(s) having stealth technology. I think one of the admirals asked why they didn't detect any of the strange vessels nearing Earth. I do think that the Klingons could have a stealth device at this point. I don't think the Klingon ship in "Unexpected" was using it because it seems the Klingons only bother using it when they are about to attack. Koord said as much in The Final Frontier. This ship here seemed to be on routine patrol, but there's also the possibility that the systems troubles were affecting the stealth device as well.
 

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
The Franz Joseph Tech manual is a book. Tech books are semi-canon, canon until contradicted by the show. I have no problem accepting all parts of the Tech Manual that haven't been. This includes everything but the incorrect Connie registries, the floating Starfleet Academy, and the star chart which places UFP headquarters a REALLY, REALLY long ways from Earth.

The Tech Manual is not non-canon, as so many believe, because Roddenberry declared it so. It is not canon because numerous elements of it hve been blatantly contradicted since its publication.

That doesn't mean that everything in it is invalid, just that the parts which aren't accurate are.

And again, aside from the early references in TMP, the writers no longer consider Joseph's work as a reliable resource to draw on. That is why it is non-canon. It is a different case with TAS is that it has been considered as a valid resource to draw material from.
 

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :
 
quote:
The Producers are not "picking and choosing" which "The Animated Series" episodes are canon. They have been "inspired" by, or "come to the same conclusion" as a few of the episodes

Semantics. But the conclusion remains the same. You and I, the producers, and everyone else who wishes to do so may pick and choose whatever we want to be canon and non-canon.

Choosing canon is entirely subjective and is therefore impossible to argue. Determining why something should or should not be is, however, objective and subject for debate.
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Exactly. Paramount can say what it wants to consider to be a part of the official and proper Star Trek canon, but it's up to the fans to fill in the gaps that the episodes and movies create. And this leads up right back to the issue that started this debate. The fans, in their own minds, have the final say of what to accept or not. It's not wrong; it's just a way of completing the Star Trek univserse. When it becomes wrong is when the non-canon tries to take on an equal or greater importance to what is canon.

And, Monkey of Mim, you are missing the point. Both Starfleet Technical Manual and The Animated Series are considered non-canon by Paramount. Some fans consider them canon in their own minds for varying reasons. They are both a source where some information can be gleaned from, but to consider the whole canon when just tidbits are pulled into episodes and movies is illogical. It matters not that one is a book and one is a cartoon. Only the parts that appear in the episodes and movies are canon, everything else is still non-canon and subject to change on the whims of the writers.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
They are both a source where some information can be gleaned from, but to consider the whole canon when just tidbits are pulled into episodes and movies is illogical. It matters not that one is a book and one is a cartoon. Only the parts that appear in the episodes and movies are canon, everything else is still non-canon and subject to change on the whims of the writers.

Indeed. The problem with canon is that people mistake it for a criterion for what's "real" and what is "fake," relatively speaking. As such, canon has become something that the fans use, when it's really just a tool for the producers. Canon only tells what must be considered, it says nothing about what must not be considered.

The route that the producers have chosen is that only live-action Star Trek is canon. That is a perfectly reasonable (if frustrating for some) path for them to follow, because it provides the smallest data set without excluding anything the average viewer may have been exposed to. But it doesn't mean that the animated series didn't happen, nor the novels... it merely means that they didn't have to happen.

What we need is another word for "accepted by an individual as accurate." Canon is roughly defined as "sources that must be considered for continuity," but that is really only relevant for the producers; we don't make the continuity, so we don't need to consult anything. Personal canon works, but it causes problems because people inevitably drop the personal part and then you have conflicts between each person's view, with each claiming this and that to be canon. So we need a word, distinct from canon, that covers this concept of "personal canon."

As an analogy, consider the original use of the word canon: those texts that the Church consideres to be authoritative. Many Christians believe in many things that aren't ever specified in the Bible (Satan being the infamous tempting serpent from Genesis being an obvious one, ignoring most of the Old Testament except for the Ten Commandments being another). This doesn't make them part of the canon, it's just something that they accept for one reason or another.

We could just use the word accepted (as in "I accept the animated series, but it isn't canon"), but this causes problems, too, because everyone accepts some things and not others. Suggestions, anyone? Maybe personal canon is the best way to go afterall, as long as we are careful not to drop the personal.

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]


 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
You know, I never thought of canon as being interpretted that way, Ryan. As I read what you wrote, I find that you make a very compelling and interesting argument there. When you stop and think about it, canonicity really is just the measure of what the creative has to religiously follow for the series to be consistent unto itself.

"Personal canon" or "personally accepted" could work, but it would be too easy to drop the distinction in the heat of an argument. I can't really think of a short and sweet alternative to either of those unless we go with "in my opinion" all the time. And even then, we are going to have the same problems.

On another matter entirely, I do want to apologize to Monkey of Mim for sounding a bit harsh in my last few posts directed to you. Reading back on them, I find that I'm writing in a more hostile manner than I usually care to, so I'm sorry about that. I'll keep the energy toned down.
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Yup, we need a new term all right.

However, I'd be a bit wary of "Personal Canon" for its something of an oxymoron, as canon by its very definition cannot be personal.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
When you stop and think about it, canonicity really is just the measure of what the creative has to religiously follow for the series to be consistent unto itself.

That's exactly it.

Right around the publication of the Okuda Chronology and Encyclopedia, however, fans started seeing an increasing amount of non-canon information apparently ignored by not being included in those works. A sort of canon-elitism started, with a large segment of fans growing increasingly obsessive with the distinction (ironic, since the introduction to both books makes it clear that Okuda's usage of canon shouldn't affect the fans much at all). And now we're in the unfortunate situation where people have taken the benign (and unimportant) concept of canon and twisted it into a means of exclusion. Canon has no use at all unless something contradicts it and you're trying to know which to trust... and even then, it's only really relevant if you're writing a live-action episode of film of Star Trek, something none of us here are fortunate to be doing just yet.
 

Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
So what you are saying, Ryan, is that *we* need not limit the collection of evidence to just the show.

The problem is that if I say there is a black Defiant-class starship named Monitor, then start up Star Trek Armada and suggest that in 2373, the Defiant class had its crew upgraded to 80, some people won't accept it even though nothing in Star Trek contradicts it.

They won't accept it because everyone here has a common goal -- arriving at the truth. It is impossible to do that if one is not critical of the facts, and knowing that a fact is just a figment of a published fan's imagination is not very reassuring.

Even in the old days, the situation was similar. Only the books that were *well done* were accepted, and then those that came later would be accepted if they were done better, however one or another fan would define "better". This is impossible nowdays, however, as no book is better researched than our online discussions. It's an insult to us to have to include someone's book just because it got published, or because it looks nice.

Another sort of screening becomes necessary, and one way to do it is compare it to canon. But here's another way. Compare it to how well its author has researched online discussions. That would be a perfect way for accepting it in *our* "fan canon".

[ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
Ryan: What we have to accept though is that fans on the web have become rather accustomed to TPTB's concept of canon, largely because it works well in making sure everyone's on the same page when talking about stuff online. Access to TAS, the novels, the computer games etc. is far from universal, and exactly the same way as the writers have kept to a filmed-only view of canon in order to cut down on contradictions, so have the fans.
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
I'm not saying canon should be ignored altogether... but Star Trek is entirely subjective. A given fan may not include even the real canon in his "personal canon;" Gene Roddenberry himself didn't include Star Trek V in his... but it's still a part of the canon. Another fan may include far more than the real canon. That's the point: there is no "truth" when it comes to fiction, particularly a fictional setting as diverse as Star Trek. Canon can and is used as common ground between most "personal canons," but there will never be an objectively agreed upon version of which parts to include and which parts not to.

From a fan perspective, I think canon is best defined as this sort of common ground for discussion. It comprises the things that everyone has generally had access to, the things about which there is the most material to work from. I don't think that anyone should pretend that non-canon material has any required bearing on canon, but there's no harm in mentioning it as long as nobody gets any faulty ideas. Speculation is speculation, whether done by we the fans, by Mike Okuda, or by a novelist.
 

Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
Every time somebody quotes a non-canon source, there will likely be another person saying, "that isn't canon", even though person A merely intended it as a theory. Yes, that's a problem.

I disagree however that there is no truth in fiction. If you imagine Star Trek as a long novel-in-progress whose previous chapters can't be revised, any writer will agree that there are certain truths established in the former chapters that have to be adhered to in the later ones.

Now, the no-revision format also requires scientific rationalizing by a good writer. That's where our kind of analysis comes in. We can derive scientific truths resulting from analysis of those basic truths. These theories and even mere collection of data are as personally-biased as any scientific research is, but far above mere personal belief. Like any scientific research, the reasons to accept this and reject that piece of data have to be well argued. Once the writer has our basic, scientific structure ("the first Klingon emperor must have been about hundred years old when he died"), she can add her creative view ("the first Klingon emperor named Q're'eded was 103 years old when he died of cancer") .

Since the previous chapters consist mostly of previous shows, that is our data. If this were just for fun, a hobby, the exercise doesn't change one way or another if we include non-canon sources. You merely play the game on a more difficult level. However, and I know some people will disagree, this is a hobby only about 99% of the time. A part of discussing tech includes a desire that the writers/producers are affected by our ideas, and that they adhere to our theories. We're helping them finish the Star Trek novel by reminding them of what they need to know about the previous chapters. We're especially useful in preventing contradictions with our creative rationalizing of the past. I think the writing staff is suffering from not having one of us on the team.

Again, it's about purposeful discussion, and I really don't think it was any looser in the past. People accepted the Star Fleet Technical Manual and blueprints because they really were authorized by Roddenberry for a while. They accepted the novels because they were licensed, and after all, who among the producers cared to make them non-canon? Star Trek was not being produced, so it didn't really matter. Then came tech fandom books, which were well done and publicized, and again, there was nobody to say, "this isn't canon." In fact, some of the material was referenced in the movies.

However, when TNG arrived, canon again became relevant, and many materials were declared invalid. That's why most fans changed around. It's not really elitism, as it is a desire for accuracy and purpose, namely to see our discussions actually have relevance to what the producers and the writers are doing. And, judging from the increased involvment of some of them, like Rick Sternbach and Mike Okuda, we've been somewhat successful.

Now, we know that writers like to pick up a TAS reference or a novel idea from time to time because they really liked these sources back in their younger days. Here's where we can try and slip the better non-canon materials in, by arguing that they were well done and well researched at the time, influential in fandom (which the writers ought to care about, it's their audience), and so on. It need not be whole works, but just a pervasive idea. Can we think of some, other than the Vulcan first contact which already got in through FC?

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ryan McReynolds:
Satan being the infamous tempting serpent from Genesis being an obvious one, ignoring most of the Old Testament except for the Ten Commandments being another

Having just deleted a very big post on this... I'll try to keep this one short. I disagree with what you say here. While I know it wasn't mentioned in Genesis, I am fairly certain that it was mentioned elsewhere that Satan and the serpent are one in the same. The second part, you're right... some do, and it's wrong to do so because the NT is pretty much worthless without the OT, they are not seperate, they are the same book one begins the other completes.

It really doesn't apply to Star Trek either. Star Trek canon is certainly not consistant [I think we've brought up the issue of Biblical consistancy... no need to again, I and many others accept it as consistant]. The uses of the word canon are different. One is an authoritive source, the other is a pool of information [the authoritive source is TPTB].

It's as simple as this, what the producers say is canon in Star Trek is canon [the live-action shows and movies are canon in Star Trek (at this time)]. The Bible is canon. As a matter of faith all things that one believes must be filtered by this canon source before one can accept it. Consider TAS or the TMs like Protestants do the Apocrypha.

Here is the problem. Concerning the Bible, it hasn't been changed --- it doesn't change. It's source is itself [ever wonder why it's "The Word was God"?]. Concerning Star Trek the canon source changes on whims. The TMs used to be canon... the old TMs [Starfleet TM and the like] used to be canon. Because ST Canon is so static, we get these arguements on what is canon and what isn't. We also get some arguements because it has horrible internal consistancy. You never get this kind of arguement in Protestant debates--- it's all about interruptation there!

"Darmok his eyes wide open" Thanks Ryan... I'm ready to quit now... let's all do so. I mean, this really isn't Salvation.
 

Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
 
PS: The word you are all looking for is "faith" that which isn't canon but is held in similar light.
 
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
quote:
On another matter entirely, I do want to apologize to Monkey of Mim for sounding a bit harsh in my last few posts directed to you. Reading back on them, I find that I'm writing in a more hostile manner than I usually care to, so I'm sorry about that. I'll keep the energy toned down.

On the contrary, Siggie, I should apologize to you for calling what you said "bullshit" and the like. I will make a greater attempt to control my temper.

Sorry,
MMoM
 

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
 
Um... bit of a theological correction here. By all means, keep on the topic. I like where it's going. But I don't want this misconception to spread.

The OT and the NT are not a single entity, nor are they two seperate entities. They are 66 distinct entities, grouped according to their relations to each other. The OT provides the context for the NT, but it is not necessary to grasp the concepts put forth: "God did this for you, so you'd have a shot at eternal life. Therefore, you owe him."

Further, Christians don't follow the OT law (except where there's overlap with ours) because it doesn't apply to us. The Old Testament was a contract between the Jews and God, which God fulfilled when He sent Christ. It's over and done with, and a new contract has taken its place. Thus, "Old Testament". Old, over, finished, complete, no longer applicable. It doesn't have to be stated outright that this is the case, because it's the underlying nature of the situation. Although it is stated somewhere in Paul's letters, I believe, that we are no longer under the law, so the entire point is moot.

I'll shut up now. Consider yourselves enlightened. What? Yes, you.
 

Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
The Christians may believe the Bible is one and only and constant word of God, but there is evidence that it has undergone huge additions and removals -- hence all the inconsistencies between its parts. Even the New Testament contained books that now are left out -- the Gnostic Gospels, for instance, which describe Jesus in a different way, interpret his resurrection in a more metaphorical way than the extremely literal interpretation of the Catholic Church ("he *did* rise and that's why it's a miracle, we eat *his* body and drink *his* blood in the ritual")

It's only a matter of different religions believing that different texts are true/false. The Star Trek fandom has already split along the lines of those who reject the Books of Tech Fandom as Apocryphal and those who don't. But within such categories, it *is* all a matter of interpretation. You won't see a good, analytical web page that rejects a piece of onscreen evidence without a good argument.
 

Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
 
*puts foot down*

No. Shut up. All of you.
 

Posted by Raw Cadet (Member # 725) on :
 
While we are "off-topic," let me add that the gnostic gospels were never part of the New Testament. Until the Catholic Church determined the New Testament canon (I forget the date), there was not an "official" New Testament canon. How much of the "New Testament" you had depended on what texts you had access to. Your "New Testament" may have amounted to a letter from Paul to your church, or it may have run the gamut from gnostic gospel to the gospel of Mary Magdalene [spelling?].

Even when the New Testament had been determined, since printing had not yet been discovered in the west, there were very few copies of the canon New Testament. Thus, the only people who really had access to canon scriptures were seminarians (who later became priests). Unfortunately, this was later misconstrued as the Church not wanting "the common people" to have access to scripture (unfotunately, that was also true at times, though not to the degree some protestants would have you believe).
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Erm... To go back to something... Why are we looking for another word along the lines of "personal canon"? There's no need. There's "canon", and there's "not canon". Yes, some reference books are called "semi-canon", but they're still "not canon". We only call them "semi-canon" because we know it's likely the writers will try to adhere to them, not because they're required (or "semi-required") to.

Basically, "canon" is the live-action series and movies. That's it. Everything, I repeat: everything, else is "not canon". From the TNGTM to the worst fanfic Website. I don't see any reason to call something "personal canon", or anything of the sort. If you want to include something in your own mental image of the Trek universe, fine. But there doesn't need to be special terminology for it. All it is is "non-canon stuff that you like".
 

Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
And also, let me add to what I said before that if Star Trek were a looser structure than a novel that can't be revised, then what's the point of all of us rationalizing away? We could end every discussion simply by saying, "well, you don't need to explain the apparent inconsistency, it's a loose and diverse structure, a series of novels (=series) taking place in variations on the same universe. Even the individuals chapters/episodes take place in slightly different universa."

Since we don't, it's clear all of us think that Star Trek *should* be a tight structure, kind of like a novel where every chapter should be consistent with what came before, which for unfortunate reasons it isn't. It's our job to make it tighter.

The question is, does it make sense to make it so tight to include TAS and everything else, because the writers aren't taking these into account most of the time? I think the agreement is that it doesn't. If it doesn't, then the issue of "personal canon" is kind of irrelevant on these forums.

[ October 25, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
I smell smoke.
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
If you want to include something in your own mental image of the Trek universe, fine. But there doesn't need to be special terminology for it. All it is is "non-canon stuff that you like".

Yes exactly, but surely there's a way to say that without using six words.
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
You don't have to use those exact words. If you like TAS, say "I like TAS". Don't say "I include TAS in my personal canon".
 
Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
"Ok, Big_Meweo1, I don't think we should include that episode. It's just so, I don't know, not Star Trek. I always excluded it because of its notion of darkness and lack of lightness that pervades Star Trek. So I believe Star Trek V to be real Star Trek, and hence, my conclusion is that Enterprise-A has white torpedoes."

"No, no, no, Small_Iron_Monkey, I really don't like Star Trek V. It's so, I don't know, not Star Trek. But "Threshold" is! It fits the spirit of Voyager, the notion of perfection regardless of difficulty, namely that it's a ship that can fix every problem without starbases in the area, and so it's canon. Hence, I do believe that transwarp drive wasn't on the Enterprise-A, because Starfleet didn't know about it at the time of 'Threshold' ".

"No, no, no, Targ is right to say that the TNG Klingons are an inferior depiction of the TOS Klingons, one driven towards a desire for coolness rather than consistency. Such fan-oriented modifications were never in the spirit of Star Trek, which is supposed to be original, so I really think we should ignore the ridges on the new Klingons."


...

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Monkey of Mim: No problems.

Phelps: We more or less already have those conversations. Most of us start off with what Paramount calls "canon" as the basis for our "personal canon." Some people tweak it a bit ("Oh, Kirk really said 300 years to Khan in 'Space Seed.'"). I think that Ryan means by this (and I'm more than certain he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that he's talking about what fans include in their personal views of canon that are in addition to what Paramount thinks is canon. For instance, Ezekiel's personal view of canon includes "The Animated Series" and all novels by Peter David. But he also holds the live action episodes and movies as canon.

You know, this is already getting a bit confusing. Can't we just use the word "quizzlebuk" and leave it at that?
 

Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
Question: why did we start discussing personal canon in the first place? How is it relevant to know that some person includes this but not that in his personal canon?

I think it's relevant in terms of suggesting that if a number of fans have a problem with an episode, or seriously like a number of non-canon sources, writers are likely to share the view. It means, maybe, that we don't have to bother rationalizing "Threshold", because the writers probably won't refer to it. Or that we should be taking a closer look at TAS because the writers could like it. It could be a matter of refining the general definition of canon = episodes and movies.

[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
The issue of "personal canon" was just a diversion. It has little or no relevance to this thread, or the forums at large.
 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
I think that I may have inadvertantly started this hijack about two pages ago. Needless to say, I think we've got the issue of the Klingon ship from "Unexpected" out of our systems. I also think we've got the general Enterprise debates our systems again. Who wants to start taking bets as to when this will flame up again?

And, Ryan, I beg to defer. The "personal canon" issue is extremely relevent and prevalent on Flare. It's just we've never had any sort of conversation on the matter of canonicity and why some people give a lot of faith to materials, references, series, et cetra that Paramount hasn't deemed worthy of dubbing "canon." At the very least, it gave me an epiphany. If you were anywhere near me, I'd buy you a cup of coffee or something.
 

Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
If you were anywhere near me, I'd buy you a cup of coffee or something.

Where exactly is Cypress? I live in Denton, and I travel to Austin/Houston to visit friends and family fairly frequently...
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
In a effort to completely derail this thread...

I've been to Denton a couple times. The band went there for our football game against UNT, and I went to a conference at Texas Women's. Nice area, but it is one heck of a drive.

Cypress is on the northwest side of the city out in the suburbs. It's the Highway 290/FM 1960 area (near Champions, Cypress Creek, Jersey Village, Addicks, Langham Creek, etc). Most of the time, I'm at UH which is off of Interstate 45 southeast of downtown.
 

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
 
How cute, they've got a date :)
 
Posted by Ryan McReynolds (Member # 28) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
I've been to Denton a couple times. The band went there for our football game against UNT, and I went to a conference at Texas Women's. Nice area, but it is one heck of a drive.

I hate it here. I go to Dallas whenever I can.

quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Cypress is on the northwest side of the city out in the suburbs. It's the Highway 290/FM 1960 area (near Champions, Cypress Creek, Jersey Village, Addicks, Langham Creek, etc). Most of the time, I'm at UH which is off of Interstate 45 southeast of downtown.

Oh, I'm actually from Houston, and that's my old stomping grounds. I lived the first 18 years of my life off 1960 between Veteran's Memorial and I-45. Went to Westfield High School until 1998. Small world, eh?

Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program...
 

Posted by Phelps (Member # 713) on :
 
Which is that all of us gather in front of the UPN headquarters, and speak loud and in unison:

"Next week...on ENTERPRISE. A Cold War begun by an unknown power from the future."

FUTURE GUY (voiced by FrankG)

The Klingons and Archer have no idea what this is about. They don't know how much...I know about them.

"An old friend...comes to help."

ARCHER (voiced by Bernd, who came specially from Germany to do this)

Who are you?

GUINAN (voiced by Whoopi Goldberg, whom we gave ten bucks)

A friend.

CUT TO:

GUINAN

The Klingon ships won't be invented in a century. Your own ship design is two centuries ahead of its time!

"Perhaps their world...was never there."

GUINAN

Some of your crew may not survive this.

"ENTERPRISE...An All New UPN series. Wednesday at 8/7 Central. Only on U! P! N!"

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]


 
Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
Return to topic? NEVER!

Jeff: shush!

Ryan: You went to Westfield? Wow, that's only about fifteen minutes from my house. I graduated from Cy-Fair High School in '97.

Return to topic? Okay, now you can!
 

Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
 
Jesus Christ! If we keep this up we'll end up with a topic as many pages long as the Wolf 359 thread!

-MMoM
 

Posted by Siegfried (Member # 29) on :
 
I think we already beat that with Omega's tag-a-word-along thread in the Games, Recreation, Competitions, and Naked Liams forum. That was locked by Charles at 50 pages and 763 posts. I think that's the record for biggest thread.
 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3