The colony was launched 70 years ago. 2151-70 is around 2081 [plus or minus a 5 year margin is still within my range of this violation]. Archer says that Mars, specifically Utopia Planitia was colonized before this point in time. However Harry Kim specifically stated in "The 37's" that Mars was colonized in 2103.
Small thing? Maybe... I maintain that a prequel makes such small comments extremely hard to keep consistant.
Is it really so hard to click on "Enterprise" and see, oh, gee, there's always a thread on the topic I want to discuss!!!!!
2. I hadn't checked other threads that didn't have topics unrelated to this one. Specifically that at least three other posters had realized the same thing I did... including Ryan and Siegfried... but I had yet to read those threads yet [simply because they didn't have a closely related topic].
Earhart: "Blah blah blah something about Martians invading Earth."
Kim: Actually, it was the other way around you stupid bitch. People from Earth colonized Mars in 2103.
Like I said, 'almost verbatim'.
But we already know that NASA/ISA/whatever was already performing flag and bootprint missions in the 2030s. 
My own speculation of early Earth space exploration goes by the idea that pre-WWWIII Earth explored the solar system out as far as Saturn ('Tommorrow Is Yesterday') before WWWIII. Then the planet goes into the shitter and we don't get back out there until Cochrane.
Here, "Enterprise" actually manages to support fan speculation! After Cochrane flew, humanity began colonizing the major points of the solar system before heading out into deep space for good. According to me, anyway. Something that annoyed me however, was the further attempts at psuedo-continuity. New Berlin was mentioned in "First Contact". And we've never heard of anything other than Utopia Planitia when it comes to Mars. Some umpteen million people on the moon (according to Riker), and probably multiply that by a dozen for Mars, and you'd think there would be more than one city. Of course, now we have the idea that Utopia and New Berlin are the oldest cities on Luna and Mars. Now, how often in history has the first established settlement become the biggest city? Plymouth vs. New York City.
Nitpicking, yes, but so be it.
"Yes, so you spent you childhood on the moon, right?"
I don't know, "moon" sounds somewhat funny when used with people. "Where are you from?" "The moon."
[ October 26, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Anyway, I could see that it is possible for the first settlements on Luna and Mars to be among the biggest. Both planets have wide expansion areas, but you can't actually use that area since there's no air, water, or ground vegetation. For those reasons, I can see the first settlement on Luna being a city with interconnected additions. In 2067, the core of the city is built. In 2070, 2073, etc, additions are built onto the city to expand it.
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
Perhaps 2103 was the date of the first permanent colony on Mars, but UP had been settled and abandoned at some point before that?
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Perhaps it wasn't originally a permanant settlement, with rotating crews, like the space station. Or perhaps it was only incorporated in 2103.
Or perhaps, TPTB are falling down on the job when it comes to maintaining "continuity." Just a thought...
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
Dan: Erm... No-one's debating that. The question is how we can make up for it.
We “make up for it” by doing the only thing we can do; by doing what you and Omega are doing; by kicking into “explanation mode.”
My point is that I do not have a lot of confidence that B&B and their current ensemble of cohorts will do a top-quality, top-notch job when it comes to maintaining continuity. I get the impression that they will merely “settle” for a “close enough, ” second-rate attitude. I like for my Trek to fit neatly into place, and when it does not, I get aggravated (and always have). Perhaps they should get Richard Arnold back on the staff!
quote:
Originally posted by Raw Cadet:
One pretty strong candidate for a violation is all that we can come up with thus far, even though the producers have 500+ hours of material to be "continuous" with, and you say they are falling down on the job?
Sure I do! “One pretty strong candidate for a violation” after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends? And considering that this a violation with Trek that B&B has recently produced…
As I said, I am losing what little confidence I had that B&B will stay on their toes when it comes to continuity. If you can live with that, fine; more power to you. But as a nitpicky perfectionist, I cannot. If ain’t consistent with past Trek, then it ain’t Trek…
quote:
My point is that I do not have a lot of confidence that B&B and their current ensemble of cohorts will do a top-quality, top-notch job when it comes to maintaining continuity.
quote:
I get the impression that they will merely “settle” for a “close enough, ” second-rate attitude. I like for my Trek to fit neatly into place, and when it does not, I get aggravated (and always have).
quote:
Perhaps they should get Richard Arnold back on the staff!
We are getting ready to see the fifth episode of Enterprise. And out of everything that could have been possibly bumbled in the previous four episodes, all we got is the date of Mars colonization that is wrong. And even in this case, there is surely a way to rationalize this so that it isn't a continuity error. It won't be the last snafu in Enterprise, but it's hardly the first in the Star Trek phenomenom.
Rationalization, whether one thinks so or not, is a part of being a Trek fan. Way back in 1979, fans had to rationalize the difference in the appearance of the Klingons. Way back in the 1960s, fans had to rationalize whether or not Starfleet really didn't allow women to be ship captains. The fans having to rationalize something is not necessarily proof of bad direction or writing. Sometimes, it's a way of getting a more complete picture of the Trek universe; it's a way of adding a bit of ourselves into the Trek universe; it's a way of filling in the gaps in the Trek universe.
If the "strong candidate" refers to the point raised in this thread, then you have a different definition of "strong" than me. If it's one from another thread, then, er, you are a monkey.
I should point out that out of the 500-odd hours of Trek produced, 400 was under Berman, so it's still hardly fair.
Tom: Don't forget Kirk's oh-so-consistent career record, which even Okuda had to jump through big hoops to explain in the chronology. Spock also had anti-Tuvok syndrome (in that he changed ranks while keeping the same rank insignia).
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
Tom: Don't forget Kirk's oh-so-consistent career record, which even Okuda had to jump through big hoops to explain in the chronology. Spock also had anti-Tuvok syndrome (in that he changed ranks while keeping the same rank insignia).
The original series is in the interesting position of being hailed by many people as "what Star Trek should be" while simultaneously being by far the worst example of good continuity.
For instance, we know now, from "Q2" (VGR), that the five-year mission ended in 2270... but in the show itself the era ranged wildly from the 2160s ("Tomorrow Is Yesterday") to the 2700s ("The Squire of Gothos") with most sticking around the 2200 mark... not only did the show contradict itself continually, later Star Trek didn't even pick one of the contradictory dates when it tied things down! Then you've got the first season begin 15 years before Star Trek II as well as 20+ years before Star Trek V, two movies set at most a year apart. Star Trek IV is set in the "late twenty-third century" according to Kirk, while Star Trek II confirms that it's only been 200 years since the late twentieth century. And of course, the Enterprise is only twenty years old in Star Trek III, when it is a minimum of 28 years old based on Star Trek II and "The Menagerie."
I'm not saying anything everyone doesn't know already, but we should be careful of revisionism. Star Trek hasn't always enjoyed the incredible consistency that largely exists under the Berman administration. Enterprise is the paragon of continuity compared to any Star Trek produced in the first twenty-five years or so.
Compare that to the continuity Lucas maintained between TPM and the other movies. I was stunned when I saw that he even kept the same font in the opening crawl. Not to mention the gadzillions of props and alien costumes they preserved in perfect condition in Lucasfilm Archives, just to have them appear somewhere in the background. None of the changes they made in CGI techniques or vessels seriously affects the perception that this movie is a part of the other three.
However, I don't expect "Enterprise" to be that continuous with TOS because TOS is not Braga's vision. People are just trying to make it fit, whereas it would be better off as a show unto itself, or the logical past of Voyager.
"'One pretty strong candidate for a violation' after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends?"
About thirty.
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
quote:
Originally posted by Phelps:
The question Bernd and others have addressed is not the continuity of details, but rather the larger continuity of production design and show concept. It's about Enterprise being more of a logical forward extension of "First Contact" than a backward extension of TOS. Right now, it's 90% "First Contact" and 10% TOS.
The problem with this is that it is entirely subjective. Enterprise fits with the original series just fine canonically; it only doesn't fit based on what people want to have been one hundred years prior. That's why it is important to distinguish between "continuity violations" and "choices I don't like." Enterprise has few, if any, of the former, but it is chock full of the latter.
To use your Star Wars analogy, I submit that Enterprise and The Phantom Menace are very analogous... they both present previously unseen chapters of their respective sagas. The events portrayed are wildly different from non-canonical depictions thereof. They both have special effects vastly superior to the original. They both introduce elements that True Fans--sarcasm implied--find to be distasteful (can we say "Jar-Jar Binks?"), as well as elements previously unheard of (midi-chlorians, anyone?). They are both allegedly aimed at a younger audience. The only difference is that Enterprise is actually watchable. 
quote:
Originally posted by TSN:"'One pretty strong candidate for a violation' after only 4 episodes? At that rate, how many continuity violations will we have by the time the series ends?"About thirty.
And if they're all as minor as the date Mars was colonized, that's not too shabby.
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
Unpersonally...(as best as I can):
The similarities to TPM exist but not in degree. To put it bluntly, if "Enterprise" reused TOS sets or looked even remotely like "Trials and Tribble-ations" (to further the Star Wars analogy by comparing TPM to Special Editions, rather than the originals), I think a lot of the complainers would be satisfied.
When did analog dials replace computer displays? When did so much color enter into set design? When did the uniforms revert to such a simple design used in TOS? If you examined all the sets and people closely, the conclusion would be reached that a huge sixties-regression took place between 2151 and 2255. I mean, put an Enterprise tricorder side by side with a TOS tricorder? Wouldn't a lot of Enterprise crew be raising their eyebrows at what they see? They'd say that these folks are out to reproduce the 1960s vision of the future, rather than live their own.
If TOS looks like the 1960s vision of the future, then ENT should probably look like the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s, unless the regression was a sudden change of style. A change that completely disappeared in the 2.5 years between TOS and TMP, when more changed than in the entire fourteen years of the TNG-era. No sets were recreated from the TOS days. All the color was lost.
Is it because the special effects of TOS were below-the-norm for even its time, because of the studio where they had to be done and the low budget that didn't allow so many effects in such a short time? Maybe.
However, did a higher budget stop George Lucas from preserving Star Wars props and reusing them? No, because he wanted to continue his series. Roddenberry on the other hand wanted a new series with TMP and TNG, and this is what now came in focus with "Enterprise" also.
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
If TOS looks like the 1960s vision of the future, then ENT should probably look like the Flash Gordon serials of the 1930s, unless the regression was a sudden change of style.
Of course, that would have the small side effect of actually producing negative viewership.
Is every 1701 bridge readout a logical, scientific development of every NX-01 readout?
Is every TMP bridge readout a logical, scientific development of every TOS readout?
Are the uniform preferences of TOS a logical, sociological development from the ENT era?
Are the women's attitudes a logical sociological development from the ENT era?
See, if I were to fly off into the sky tomorrow like Superman, that would be consistent with my not being able to fly today. Would it be a logical scientific development, though?
[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
I dont think people thought in the 60s that trek looked like a definite track our future design standards would look, but one of the reasons i love it is because of its look, which is partially unrealistic.
This same argument goes to the really 70s TMP (Len McCoys lapels and disco medallion), the 80s look of the movies and the beginning of TNG (those episodes arent looking so great now that the 80s are over), its all reflecting the times so it wouldnt really hurt to have a flashback production that also reflects those
If they made a whole new series on the Trials & Tribbleations sets, i would be overjoyed
If they had taken active care to ensure everything was a logical development of what came before and what came after, the shows would've looked differently. If they hadn't, what's the point of us doing so? We must rather assume that we're looking at an artistic depiction of the Trek universe, and that the 'real' Trek universe looks a bit different.
I'd like to take the discussion to another level and try and figure out how the Trek universe would've been different if it had taken on a logical, real-world-like development that can be scientifically explained and traced, rather than reflecting any of the periods from 1960s to 2000s. That kind of logical development happened certainly during the fourteen years of the TNG era, during the film era (except for maybe TMP), and during the three years of TOS. Between TOS and TMP there is this sudden, unrealistic shift. Same as between "Enterprise" and TOS.
Maybe the "unrealism" is just my personal opinion, but it's very blatant.
quote:
Originally posted by Phelps:
I'd like to take the discussion to another level and try and figure out how the Trek universe would've been different if it had taken on a logical, real-world-like development that can be scientifically explained and traced, rather than reflecting any of the periods from 1960s to 2000s. That kind of logical development happened certainly during the fourteen years of the TNG era, during the film era (except for maybe TMP), and during the three years of TOS. Between TOS and TMP there is this sudden, unrealistic shift. Same as between "Enterprise" and TOS.
And that's the problem... TOS didn't even look like a logical extension of the sixties technology, to say nothing of that in First Contact. Bringing Star Wars briefly back into things, Lucas could reuse props and even the "feel" because the movie-budget props from 1977 don't look all that bad even by today's standards. Television-budget props from 1967, though, looked like shit at the time, much less today.
Even in the sixties, people had to assume that there was some level of budget neccessity. If we assume that the designs from the original series are essentially accurate, but with modern execution, the problem becomes drastically less severe. So yeah, I can see your point, and I agree; but I think it's safe to say that even if no other Star Trek had been produced since, the original series was a budget-constrained interpretation of the 2260s, not an exact facsimile.
Oh yeah, and I also agree about the Natalie Portman bit.
Because, at the end of the day, the font didn't look dated. So it could be kept. If the font had been some late 70s LED looking thing, it would have been replaced, because it would have looked horrible.
The font Trek used for TMP looked fine, and was still being used for Voyager, over 20 years later.
"None of the changes they made in CGI techniques or vessels seriously affects the perception that this movie is a part of the other three."
The thing is, a lot of Star Wars is set on planetary surfaces, out in the open. You don't need to change Tatooine to look more modern, because it isn't suppossed to be modern. That's a world away from the fairly huge problem of trying to design a bridge to look futuristic, but less futuristic that a similar set designed 35 years ago that now looks slightly quaint.
(And, as an aside, there are a fair few arguements for TMP rewriting cannon, even in regards to the films. Obi-Wan was trained by Yoda, and took it upon himself to train Anakin, against Obi-Wan being trained by Qui-Gon, and considering Anakin to be an annoying little shit. Sure, you can argue that they might get resolved, but I'd put money that some won't, and will require the fans to jump through hoops to explain them).
Also, I do actually find a lot of ANH to look dated compared to ESB and ROTJ. The starship sets in particular. The Death Star never convinced me internally, especially compared to the far superiour sets used for the Star Destroyers in ESB. And compare the graphics of the Death Stars that the Rebels look at in ANH and ROTJ. That's a fairly big tecnology jump in 4 years of story-time.
Tim mentions in another thread that watching TOS today is occasionally hard, because the dated nature of the show ruins the suspension of disbelief that you've built up. If Enterprise had tried to look like a prequel to TOS (or like 30s Flash Gorden), the problem would have been even worse.
In the end, the difference comes down to tecnology. Enterprise has to look tecnologically inferior to TOS, without looking stupid. The SW prequels don't, because they aren't about the tecnology. And because they aren't our future. And we had enough people complaining that the Naboo fighters should have looked more like Z-95 Headhunters anyway...