As per the above, Picard, looking back from 2367, would be able to truthfully say that following first contact in 2140 there'd been centuries of hostilities, because there had indeed been a 200 year period that had been predominately full of hostility. And McCoy, looking back from 2268, could say there'd been 50 years of conflict with the Klingons.

Is it a cheap explanation? Yes. Does it make a several-year old encyclopedia less accurate? Yes. But I've just demonstrated that Enterprise's slight modification of dates that we had been used to accepting can be incorporated into the Trek canon with a bit of creative thinking.

One more thing:

quote:

---

but this is the first time Star Trek has gone to using a major lead star from another TV series, and probably paying record fee for it. You don't think they picked Bakula because he's got a command presence in screen do you? Is it the name? The Quantum Leap fandom?

---

So you're implying Bakula was cast solely as a marketing move because the suits thought he'd make the show more profitable. Bullshit. For starters, Avery Brooks was quite prominent before DS9, but I don't regret that casting decision. I disagree with your assertation that Bakula has a name that will draw in fans, because honestly not that many people's faces light up with recognition when you say his name. Even when his casting was first leaked, it was always accompanied by "best known for his work as Sam Beckett on Quantum Leap". I doubt legions of people are going to watch the show solely because of his name value. But what may keep people who watch the show coming back for more is his acting talent. The guy won a fucking Golden Globe and was nominated for a pair of Emmies, for Chrissakes! Are TPTB meant to avoid casting anyone who's had a degree of success in the past?

If you don't think he's the right sort of actor for a captain role, that's your opinion. But I will assert that such an opinion is ill-founded because you haven't seen a shred of footage of him in the role.

------------------
"And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking."
-DT on arguing with Omega, April 30

[This message has been edited by The_Tom (edited May 18, 2001).]
 

And don't give me that do it for the story crap---the trivialization, self contradiction and invalidation of the Star Trek universe had already taken a great toll in its fans. If you are really creative, you can do any story following strict guidelines. After all, technology is already supposedly limited here.

The first contact with the Klingons have been a hostile one and has been so for the last fifty years. There is a stardate associated with that episode, so more or less, it's roughly fifty ears, but not one hundred fifty years.

There is also how you portray the Klingons. Let's forget about the forehead makeup crap (Kahless has armored foreheads.) Things that can be attributed to sixties budget and limited special effects can be excused. We are talking about the character of the Klingons. Are they going to be more hostile, gang like thugs like in TOS? Or just the misrepresented, need to be understood honorable vikings in TNG?

While a Vulcan on an Earth starship is not a continuity contradiction in paper, it is already a thinly veiled contradiction in spirit and intention, in the sense there is a letter of the law, and there is the intent of the law. How do you explain why there isn't another Vulcan in Starfleet before Spock when you have a Vulcan already in a Starfleet predecessor? This makes it even more ridiculous.

Yes Avery Brooks was well known before going to DS9, and so was Mulgrew, Ethan Phillips and Rene Auberjonois (the latter two in the same show, Benson). But Hawk wasn't a successful series and Spencer had a limited life. It wasn't an SF show either with an established cult following. There is a mighty big difference between Brooks and Bakula is that Bakula came from a successful SF TV series with a cult following. Bakula is definitely more recognizable before Trek, than Brooks, Mulgrew, Philipps and Auberjonois did Trek. There is no denying that. There is also no denying that Bakula may have been paid the highest ever for any cast member for a Star Trek series.

I'm interested how they will approach the Romulans. Are they going to reveal the Romulans by face, with actual encounters with humans? It should be noted that a good number of TOS aliens cannot be used here because they were first contact on TOS, such as Tholians and Gorns.

[This message has been edited by crobato (edited May 18, 2001).]
 

And your Vulcan arguement is unfounded. There's been nothing to suggest T'Pau/T'Pal/T'Pol/T'Whatever is a member of whatever agency the ship belongs to. She's just a member of the ship's crew. Like Kira on the Defiant, or Neelix on Voyager. If some far-future episode were to show a Federation expanded to Voyager's recent position, and there was a Talaxian in Starfleet, and someone said he/she was the first, would you say "No, Neelix was the first! Don't say he wasn't in Starfleet! He even wore a SF uniform!"?

------------------
"Adults Do Not Teach By Examples, But By Word Scams That Brainwash And Indoctrinate Their Children's Malleable Minds, Destroying Youth. Rote Education Corrupts Childhood, Forcing Children To Become Adults."
-Gene Ray
 

Can you imagine a US Navy ship with a foreign citizen under its command ranks? They don't even do this in WWII.

DS9 is basically a partnership between the Federation and Bajor, and the Defiant attached to it. I don't think Kira could come into any other starship and give orders. As for Neelix, watch him close---he takes direct orders from Janeway like a regular member of the crew. Officially he is of that capacity. Remember, Janeway made him an ambassador.

As for the Romulans, let's wait and see. This is what Berman said:

"Having been involved with The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager, those series obviously have greater influence on me."

And as Bernd Schneider observes, "So Series V which predates all of these should be least influenced by the one closest in time?"

[This message has been edited by crobato (edited May 19, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by crobato (edited May 19, 2001).]
 

------------------
"You know, putting up a tent is like making love to a beautiful woman. You undo the zip, pop in your pole and slip into the old bag."
- Swiss Toni, The Fast Show (British comedy show)
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

[This message has been edited by Prakesh (edited May 19, 2001).]
 

quote:

---

When something is said in TNG that contradicts what was said in TOS, the TOS should prevail. The contradiction in TNG is either bad proof reading, ignorance to observe previous canon. TOS canon should have rightly prevailed. Star Trek is the legacy of the Original Series. Even if Okuda filled that gap, that knowledge has been clearly accepted canon for years. If you want to constantly overwrite previous canon with later references, it actually invalidates the sanctity of canon, making it trivial and fair game.

---

Sanctity? Need I quote Mr. Shatner?

TOS made mistakes, too. There is a big fat Nitpicker's Guide to TOS, too, y'know. Three phrases to live by:
Writers are human.
Star Trek is fiction.
Continuity Errors will be made.

If you're wishing for post-TOS writers to pore over Encylopedias and Chronologies and TOS scripts before even considering the big picture, that being a good teleplay, you're wishing for a series with no viewers except people like you who put 35-year old lines of dialogue ahead of quality in every single case.

Let me repeat. I like continuity. If continuity is broken and there are no significant rewards, then I'll bitch and whinge just like you. But a means-justifying-the-ends approach is a far more reasonable approach to take when crafting expectations for a fictional show.

quote:

---

And don't give me that do it for the story crap---the trivialization, self contradiction and invalidation of the Star Trek universe had already taken a great toll in its fans.

---

quote:

---

If you are really creative, you can do any story
following strict guidelines. After all, technology is already supposedly limited here.

---

quote:

---

The first contact with the Klingons have been a hostile one and has been so for the last fifty years. There is a stardate associated with that episode, so more or less, it's roughly fifty ears, but not one hundred fifty years.

---

quote:

---

There is also how you portray the Klingons. Let's forget about the forehead makeup crap (Kahless has armored foreheads.) Things that can be attributed to sixties budget and limited special effects can be excused.

---

quote:

---

We are talking about the character of the Klingons. Are they going to be more hostile, gang like thugs like in TOS? Or just the misrepresented, need to be understood honorable vikings in TNG?

---

quote:

---

While a Vulcan on an Earth starship is not a continuity contradiction in paper, it is already a thinly veiled contradiction in spirit and intention, in
the sense there is a letter of the law, and there is the intent of the law.

---

quote:

---

How do you explain why there isn't another Vulcan in Starfleet before Spock when you have a Vulcan already in a Starfleet predecessor? This makes it even more ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

...Bakula came from a successful SF TV series with a cult following. Bakula is definitely more recognizable before Trek, than Brooks, Mulgrew, Philipps and Auberjonois did Trek. There is no denying that. There is also no denying that Bakula may have been paid the highest ever for any cast member for a Star Trek series.

---

quote:

---

I'm interested how they will approach the Romulans. Are they going toreveal the Romulans by face, with actual encounters with humans? It should be noted that a good number of TOS aliens cannot be used herebecause they were first contact on TOS, such as Tholians and Gorns.

---

------------------
"And as it is, it is cheaper than drinking."
-DT on arguing with Omega, April 30

 

"Writers are human.
Star Trek is fiction.
Continuity Errors will be made."

Continuity errors and deliberate continuity violations are two different matters.

We're not talking about a line or two here in reference to a past subject. Picard's line about the first meeting of Klingons is more of an error of dialog. We are talking about structuring an entire show to rewrite continuity in a possible vast and sweeping scale.

Continuity errors and rewriting history are way too different matters. So is accidentally hitting someone in the road or trying to deliberately run them over. Don't you ever, ever confuse the two.

"Well, its apparently taken a toll on your ability to treat the series as make-believe from time to time. I'm holding up fine. Oh, the three weeks in the hospital after "Star Trek: First Contact" were bad, as was the night when the stardates in TNG's first season were out-of-order. When "Generations" made it clear that Kirk apparently died before Scotty went missing, I nearly had a heart attack. But I've soldiered through it all."

Speak for yourself.

Four out of five TNG viewers have tuned out of Star Trek in the last years or so.

This is about entertainment. The lack of consistency distracts from entertainment. When it does not entertain, we change the channel period.

When more people tune out, series are cancelled. It does not matter if you have the fucking endurance to watch Trek. I don't believe I should "endure" watching Trek. You can endure whatever you want, it simply won't be there when it's cancelled in the first place. You think Trek now has a guaranteed future? For the first time in 10 years, there is a strong sense of doubt about the entire viability of the franchise. New viewers are simply tuning to Trek; they go to another cool series like Buffy or Farscape or Dark Angel. X-Files consistently has double the ratings of Voyager.

"No you can't. If you can't have a non-Earthcrew Vulcan onboard a pre-TOS ship, you can't have someone providing Roddenberrian commentary on the illogical state of mankind. If you can't have Zefram Cochrane behaving different to the way he was seen in TOS, you can't have the dramatic device of the guy not meeting the legendary expectations of the 24th century in ST:FC."

Oh please, don't use this example. People understand that the character of a person in a history book may be different in real life.

"Um, bullshit. Stardates are irrelevant. Like I said, Okuda put two and two together and made an OK conjecture. But let's not wet the bed if it gets overwritten and the result doesn't suck ass."

Oh I see, you're using tough words now.

Stardates are irrevelant yeah. I WILL MAKE SURE THOSE WORDS WILL HAUNT YOU IN THE FUTURE. We now know how you regard contuinity, guideline and consistency.

GO FUCK YOURSELF IF YOU THINK YOU'RE MANLY USING THE BS WORD.

Stardates create a frame of reference, a sense of structure that is needed for belieavability.

It is APOLOGISTS LIKE YOU that give Berman and Braga a license to screw things knowing they will be accepted and defended by asses like you.

"So fucking what. It's Paramount's money. It's not like they're charging a subscription fee to let you watch the show. If they want to spend more money to get better talent, all power to them. Look at the cast of some other sci-fi shows and you'll see what you get when you go cheap on the talent."

Excuse me? You think money equals talent? Just because you think they're lesser paid they're crappier talent? Do you ever think that they may compensate with enthusiasm and belief? Sure Paramount pays a lot for Voyager, and I don't even think it's in the top five for quality in an SF show.

I check the other SF shows and I find many of them BETTER and more INNOVATIVE than Star Trek is now. Why don't you check other SF boards. The main SF literary movement literally disowns Star Trek. Very few established SF authors would even give Star Trek books a try. ST is a laugh. The most respected SF shows in TV now are the X-Files and Farscape. There is a polish in those two shows that even exceeds that of Trek. Andromeda gets better ratings in syndication than Voyager gets in network TV. Many of these shows are being done on a lesser budget.

The fact that Paramount are paying so much RAISES the stakes if ratings are low. A higher cost of the show would make it more like to be CANCELLED. Higher costs raises the vulnerability exposure of cancellation. VIACOM stockholders are not happy about UPN and Trek anymore. For a show of Voyager's expense, a rating of 3.0 is totally ABYSMAL. In standard networks like ABC, CBS and NBC, Trek would have deservedly been cancelled long long ago. Trek is always running sort of like in a subsidy lifeline. One day, the stockholders will say, "Sorry, we don't do subsidies anymore." Then you will see what Paramount's Money interests will do to this show. It is a big MONEY LOSER. Not even the merchandise, the game licenses, the novels will make up for it. If Series V and Trek X tanks, it's kaput, finished.

[This message has been edited by crobato (edited May 19, 2001).]
 

And yeah, for someone who says he looks at the Okuda encyclopedia, you can't even remember that yes, the Tholian Web is the first encounter for the Tholians. That one is also mentioned in the Star Trek Magazine. It is also mentioned in the Star Trek web site in the Xenology section which states:

" Tholians

Origin: Tholian space. A highly advanced sentient -- apparently crystalline species, non-humanoid in appearance and extremely territorial in disposition. They hail from a hot planet by Human standards, probably not class M. Together, two Tholian ships can literally spin a web of energy in space in order to trap an enemy vessel, after which the web is then drawn together, constricting and finally destroying the vessel inside. On stardate 5693.2, the U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 made first contact with this species. "

But I remember, Stardates are irrelevant for you and all that crap above is bullshit error dialog that Berman can overturn so he can introduce Tholians in Enterprise for story.

(I see no other answer than quoting Shatner again)

"It's just a show, people!"

It is a television show, with writers, cameramen, actors and the whole bunch. Nothing sacred or religious about it. Yes, it is a popular show, and yes, the new show might 'violate' some facts established in other TV series, but it will still be good science fiction.
Paramount is NOT creating a future universe for us, they are making a television series SET in a futuristic environment. That environment is less important than the actual story told.

And BTW, no flaming in a non-flaming board!

------------------
"You know, putting up a tent is like making love to a beautiful woman. You undo the zip, pop in your pole and slip into the old bag."
- Swiss Toni, The Fast Show (British comedy show)
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

quote:

---

GO F*** YOURSELF IF YOU THINK YOU'RE MANLY USING THE BS WORD

---

Crobato, pull your pants down, reach behind, and please pull the baseball bat out of your ass, okay?

You seriously need to either chill out, or get a life. It's a TV show, dude, relax.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited May 19, 2001).]
 

Why don't you people tell Tom that, okay? He was the first to use the f* word, and the BS word in a desperate attempt to apologize for Braga "Let's put Boobs into the show" Braga. Obviously you're all hypocritical.

Yeah, it's a TV show. It's a TV show that I'm not interested in *Enduring* anyway, since that's obviously how The Tom envisions his TV experience.

And Jeff, save the bat for life less virgins like yourself.
 

And Jeff, save the bat for life less virgins like yourself.

Riiight. And you've got such a stellar life you spend all your time here bitching about how Enterprise is going to suck. And, oh yeah, Pearl Harbor is going to suck, too, because the actor playing FDR looks NOTHING like FDR and they're muckin' with continuity, dammit!

If you want to continue acting immature -- it's obvious your parents didn't teach you any manners -- be my guest.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

Am I arguing with you? No. Jeff. I've argued with you and you are unable to put up an answer. I am deliberately insulting you. You're the one with the fucking bat up your ass. Go home and cry to mommy.

By the way, if your hypocritical memory serves you, it's Mr. Tom who first mixed insults with his arguments. The proof is in the thread. Read it carefully. Are you fucking blind? I could not give a rat's ass what is his context.

Your FDR comparison is way off. That truly shows your inferior logic. Nobody gives a hoot about character appearance being continuity. But if you do design one of the battleships in the background wrongly, yes some people would mind, or even putting the wrong model of Japanese Zero.

And don't act as if you're dealing with another teenager here. I'm old enough to be your parent, and if I see a lifeless shit like you, you're off to military school where they can train some manhood into you.

------------------
"You know, putting up a tent is like making love to a beautiful woman. You undo the zip, pop in your pole and slip into the old bag."
- Swiss Toni, The Fast Show (British comedy show)
---
Titan Fleet Yards - Harry Doddema's Star Trek Site

Crobato, you haven't tried to "argue" anything with me. I just came into this when you decided you wanted to turn to flames. Please, post The_Tom's remarks that are so offensive to you. Because, frankly, I can't find them.

If your argument is so weak that you must resort to flaming to get your point across, well, that just speaks wonders for the validity of your arguements, doesn't it?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited May 19, 2001).]
 

quote:

---

24th century mined out for stories? That's like saying the 20th century is mined out for stories.

---

Well, the fact that VOYAGER is reduced to doing what it's doing storywise is kind of evident of that. I think everyone's tried of the new fore-head aliens of the week kind of story that TNG and VOY have done for the past 14 years. DS9 had successful stories because it mixed up the pot a bit -- it wasn't new aliens each week, and that did lend itself to original stories.

Any new series is going to have to "shake the pot" to be successful. Now, whether that's jumping forward two-hundred years and setting things up a bit like Andromeda, or going back a few hundred years and setting up the beginning, hopefully, we won't be getting stories of the same quality (and I use the word loosely) of VOYAGER.

quote:

---

The only thing mined out is the creativity of the Berman-Braga team.

---

And how many writers from VOYAGER came over to ENTERPRISE ... ? I don't think any did.

quote:

---

We're only going to have a pre-TOS Voyager quality series, folks.

---

You might be right. But you know what? It's bad to judge things too soon. Give the show a chance -- because, you might be wrong.

quote:

---

He would already muck up continuity if he is to introduce Klingons on the 2120 AD and has Warp 4 capable ships this time.

---

How would this muck up continuity? How do you know 2120 is the year the series will be set? What -- Earth didn't have ships capable of warp travel by the 22nd century? Ooops -- hope you didn't see "First Contact" ...

quote:

---

She already took an active part of the ship's functions, and she is no less Star Fleet than the Maquis who are on board, including Bellana and Chakotay. Even if she is not Star Fleet, that is still no reason to wear a tube sock of a suit.

---

Erm. Yeah, sure, except Chakotay WAS in Starfleet before, and Torres came close to it. It's pretty obvious they brought Seven in to make up for the lack of the writing staff. However, this doesn't mean that they'll do the same to T'Pol or T'Pal or whomever, OR that the writing staff will suck.

quote:

---

The guy won a fucking Golden Globe and was nominated for a pair of Emmies, for Chrissakes!

---

This is the closest I've come to finding The_Tom using this word. I don't see how it's insulting. He's not calling you a fucking moron, or telling you to get a fucking clue. Although, I think you do need to get a fucking clue.

quote:

---

How do you explain why there isn't another Vulcan in Starfleet before Spock when you have a Vulcan already in a Starfleet predecessor?

---

Erm. Well, gee, if it isn't Starfleet ... I don't see the problem. Except that you're looking to make one, and, hey, how do you explain the INTREPID? What, these Vulcans entered Starfleet later than Spock and rose through the ranks fast enough to take command of their own ship? You seem to ignore facts.

quote:

---

Can you imagine a US Navy ship with a foreign citizen under its command ranks? They don't even do this in WWII.

---

The USS Winston Churchill has, in its chain of command, a Royal Navy officer.

And do you forget Kira? DS9 is a Federation administered space station, yet they've got members of another military within the command staff. And, also on the Defiant, you see foregin nationals (Kira & Odo) in the chain of command.

There's already a Star Trek precedent for this.

Riker served as XO aboard the Klingon ship "Pagh." He even deposed the captain and assumed command! Ensign Mendon, a Benzite, was also of an officer's exchange program, and served in the Enterprise's Chain of Command. Starfleet also allowed Commander Kurn, a Klingon officer, to serve as Enterprise's XO.

quote:

---

So fucking what.

---

Oh, yes, The_Tom wrote this too. But, this still isn't flaming dude. You realized your arguments sucked my left testicle, and you decided to flame. And then you just starting insulting people. Immaturity RULES!

quote:

---

Four out of five TNG viewers have tuned out of Star Trek in the last years or so.

---

And they HAVEN'T done it because of continuity errors, dude. They've done it because of BAD writing! And because DS9 went off the air.

quote:

---

This is about entertainment. The lack of consistency distracts from entertainment.

---

No it doesn't. I didn't walk out of THE ROCK because the Air Force was using F-18s (they don't), or because the number of jets changed in almost every shot.

quote:

---

When more people tune out, series are cancelled.

---

Well, gee, why wasn't VOYAGER cancelled, then?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited May 19, 2001).]
 

You are obviously blind Jeff. You just want to support your Braga apologist friends. The moment you insert words like below on a text, it is deemably offensive.

"Um, bullshit. Stardates are irrelevant. Like I said, Okuda put two and two together and made an OK conjecture. But let's not wet the bed if it gets overwritten and the result doesn't suck ass."

Let me tell you that this old 35 year old series is the start of everything. Star Trek is built on TOS. TNG had higher ratings, but the loss of ratings by VOY (TNG in Delta quadrant) and DS9 showed that wasn't the foundation enough.

The old idea of BOTF was partly to lure old timers who *already* left the series in droves. Instead of building from TOS, you break it down anyway. All this talk about going to back to the "roots" sounds so hypocritical when the "roots" are being violated anyway, and is only being copied in a superficial way (like making a cast derivative of the classic cast.)

You're assuming the conjecture is okay when half of the fan base doesn't already think so. Most of Berman's and Braga's results do suck ass anyway. Breaking continuity AGGRAVATES an already existing problem where results already suck.

"So fucking what. It's Paramount's money. It's not like they're charging a subscription fee to let you watch the show. If they want to spend more money to get better talent, all power to them. Look at the cast of some other sci-fi shows and you'll see what you get when you go cheap on the talent."

I never heard of so weak arguments in my life. That's what apologists like to do, point out how better budget Trek is in comparison to other SF series, which by the way, seems to garner equal to better ratings for much less money spent per episode.

"I nearly choked on what I was eating when I read this. I think it's cute enough that we refer to the established body of the Trek community by a religious term, canon. But introducing legal precedent. Honestly, that's too funny."

Here's another one. Maybe you don't understand this, Tom. The whole idea is still the same as with any action. The letter of the action and the intent of the action. This does not just govern legalities---it governs basic action. It's about basic ethics. The intent to violate something in spirit is as good as violating it in letter.

And here is a laugh from Tom:

"If you're wishing for post-TOS writers to pore over Encylopedias and Chronologies and TOS scripts before even considering the big picture, that being a good teleplay, you're wishing for a series with no viewers except people like you who put 35-year old lines of dialogue ahead of quality in every single case."

Maybe it's time to stick your head out of your ass, Tom. The facts are THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VIEWERS ANYWAY. They already left it. You've already sacrificed continuity problems for "story" but the other problem is, the stories do SUCK. People will excuse you for violating continuity if you come up with a good story but not if the story is bad or even simply mediocre. And that's what happened. The old excuse for violating continuity for good story does not deliver because good stories are not delivered in the first place.

Let me put it this way. A show that cannot respect its legacies does not deserve respect at all.

"Well, the fact that VOYAGER is reduced to doing what it's doing storywise is kind of evident of that. I think everyone's tried of the new fore-head aliens of the week kind of story that TNG and VOY have done for the past 14 years. DS9 had successful stories because it mixed up the pot a bit -- it wasn't new aliens each week, and that did lend itself to original stories. "

Excuse me, but Berman did say this is a story still centered around a starship.

"Any new series is going to have to "shake the pot" to be successful. Now, whether that's jumping forward two-hundred years and setting things up a bit like Andromeda, or going back a few hundred years and setting up the beginning, hopefully, we won't be getting stories of the same quality (and I use the word loosely) of VOYAGER. "

How is this shaking the pot? you don't shake the pot by changing the time line, and still have the same derivative characters, aliens and storylines.

Hopeful is the keyword. The problem is, there isn't any evidence that will change without significant changes in the leadership and creative direction. That means firing Berman and Braga out of there. The people who have been in charge of overseeing the same crappy story lines for Voyager should not be allowed the opportunity to repeat the same problem again.

"And how many writers from VOYAGER came over to ENTERPRISE ... ? I don't think any did. "

Excuse me. Berman and Braga. They're not bad as writers though, just sucky in producing.

"You might be right. But you know what? It's bad to judge things too soon. Give the show a chance -- because, you might be wrong. "

Why would I give it a chance? I sincerely don't have any interest to watch it and so does most people. It simply does not have a compelling concept. The Federation was never an interesting institution people like to find out about. Most of the Federation aliens seem boring anyway like green Orions and blue Andorians. Vulcans got to be the most boring people every put on film, and it was a credit to Nimoy and the actor who played Sarek to have given them depth.

"This is the closest I've come to finding The_Tom using this word. I don't see how it's insulting. He's not calling you a fucking moron, or telling you to get a fucking clue. Although, I think you do need to get a fucking clue. "

You really are an ass. You read the wrong post too.

"Erm. Well, gee, if it isn't Starfleet ... I don't see the problem. Except that you're looking to make one, and, hey, how do you explain the INTREPID? What, these Vulcans entered Starfleet later than Spock and rose through the ranks fast enough to take command of their own ship? You seem to ignore facts. "

I am talking about Spock being teh first Vulcan in Star Fleet. That is a fact. Why have a Vulcan in a pre Fed fleet, then for some magical reason, you never had another Vulcan on an Earth starship until Spock, a gap of 150 years? I think they just want to skirt that continuity issue by making it pre Fed so it won't violate continuity in letter. But it already violates it by intention and in common sense.

"And they HAVEN'T done it because of continuity errors, dude. They've done it because of BAD writing! And because DS9 went off the air. "

This shows your ignorance. You can already check the facts on ratings with the Trekbbs website. The facts are, DS9 has already dropped down to low 4s in the ratings compared when it premiered with an 18.8.

Continuity errors can be forgiven if you have good writing. But continuity errors *plus* bad writing creates a disaster. It becomes utterly unforgivable, salt on a wound.

"And do you forget Kira? DS9 is a Federation administered space station, yet they've got members of another military within the command staff. And, also on the Defiant, you see foregin nationals (Kira & Odo) in the chain of command. "

DS9 is only Federation administered, but it is Bajoran property. So your argument is bullshit.

"Riker served as XO aboard the Klingon ship "Pagh." He even deposed the captain and assumed command! Ensign Mendon, a Benzite, was also of an officer's exchange program, and served in the Enterprise's Chain of Command. Starfleet also allowed Commander Kurn, a Klingon officer, to serve as Enterprise's XO. "

Your argument is bullshit again because all these are not long term commands. Just exchange programs. Are you saying that T'Pol is on an exchange program? For two or three years?

"You realized your arguments sucked my left testicle, and you decided to flame. And then you just starting insulting people. Immaturity RULES!"

Yeah right asshole. Remember that when you look in the mirror.

"Well, gee, why wasn't VOYAGER cancelled, then?"

Oh my you're such a dipshit. They call Voyager a series on life support. By normal network standards, that show would have been cancelled long ago. It only has the refuge of UPN, and UPN is a money loser. In fact, UPN's future beyond next year is quite in doubt, much less dumb ass speculation about Enterprise going for five years. If anyone is angrier than pissed off former Trek fans, it's VIACOM stockholders. If Enterprise goes down, they will not only get the heads of Berman and Braga, but also the heads of UPN and Paramount Television in a big corporate bloodbath.

"No it doesn't. I didn't walk out of THE ROCK because the Air Force was using F-18s (they don't), or because the number of jets changed in almost every shot. "

It wasn't a historical movie anyway. Pearl Harbor is. U571 is.

quote:

---

You are obviously blind Jeff. You just want to support your Braga apologist friends. The moment you insert words like below on a text, it is deemably offensive.

---

You know, I think Red Quaker is back.

quote:

---

You're assuming the conjecture is okay when half of the fan base doesn't already think so. Most of Berman's and Braga's results do suck ass anyway. Breaking continuity AGGRAVATES an already existing problem where results already suck.

---

You want to support your contention that half the fanbase thinks it sucks? I know a lot of old timers -- grew up on TOS -- who love the idea. At least, a lot more than VOYAGER ...

quote:

---

I never heard of so weak arguments in my life. That's what apologists like to do, point out how better budget Trek is in comparison to other SF series, which by the way, seems to garner equal to better ratings for much less money spent per episode.

---

Well, production value doesn't hurt. Now, if they could spend that money on some good writers ...

quote:

---

Here's another one. Maybe you don't understand this, Tom. The whole idea is still the same as with any action. The letter of the action and the intent of the action. This does not just govern legalities---it governs basic action. It's about basic ethics. The intent to violate something in spirit is as good as violating it in letter.

---

There is life beyond Star Trek. No, honestly, there is.

quote:

---

Maybe it's time to stick your head out of your ass, Tom.

---

Ahhh, as if we needed more proof of your immaturity, here's this gem.

quote:

---

The facts are THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VIEWERS ANYWAY.

---

You know what? Your grammar is really bad, too. Well, see, Crobato, here's the thing. TPTB know that they don't have the viewers -- which is why they've got to lure them back: not with fancy SFX, or hot chicks in little clothing, but with good stories. And believe me, the majority of fans don't give a hoot about if FC with the Klingons happened to your version of events, or earlier. Trust me on this.

quote:

---

Let me put it this way. A show that cannot respect its legacies does not deserve respect at all.

---

So, TNG, DS9, and VOY all suck, then? Because, you know, they've ALL violated TOS continuity at SOME point ...

quote:

---

Excuse me, but Berman did say this is a story still centered around a starship.

---

So is Andromeda. But they've got a cool premise, and seem to be doing quite well. Little known fact, but Andromeda was pitched as the next Trek series: a lone Federation ship, hundreds of years after the collapse of the Federation. Would've been cool.

quote:

---

Why would I give it a chance? I sincerely don't have any interest to watch it and so does most people. It simply does not have a compelling concept. The Federation was never an interesting institution people like to find out about. Most of the Federation aliens seem boring anyway like green Orions and blue Andorians. Vulcans got to be the most boring people every put on film, and it was a credit to Nimoy and the actor who played Sarek to have given them depth.

---

For someone who wants continuity on track, you're not that great with it yourself. Since when were Orions members of the Federation ... ?

quote:

---

You really are an ass. You read the wrong post too.

---

Well, then, why don't you use "cut" and "paste" and show me the correct post, eh?

quote:

---

I am talking about Spock being teh first Vulcan in Star Fleet. That is a fact. Why have a Vulcan in a pre Fed fleet, then for some magical reason, you never had another Vulcan on an Earth starship until Spock, a gap of 150 years?

---

Gee, maybe because they prefered serving in their own fleet ... ?

quote:

---

I think they just want to skirt that continuity issue by making it pre Fed so it won't violate continuity in letter. But it already violates it by intention and in common sense.

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

DS9 is only Federation administered, but it is Bajoran property. So your argument is bullshit.

---

Not really. You've got a Bajoran military officer serving in a Starfleet chain of command.

quote:

---

Your argument is bullshit again because all these are not long term commands. Just exchange programs. Are you saying that T'Pol is on an exchange program? For two or three years?

---

My argument is not bullshit. You say that because you don't have a refuting argument.

quote:

---

Yeah right asshole. Remember that when you look in the mirror.

---

Oh, yes, your arguments are correct. Dumbass. If you can't make your arguments without resorting to this kind of talk, don't even try.

quote:

---

You are obviously blind Jeff. You just want to support your Braga apologist friends. The moment you insert words like below on a text, it is deemably offensive.

---

You know, I think Red Quaker is back.

quote:

---

You're assuming the conjecture is okay when half of the fan base doesn't already think so. Most of Berman's and Braga's results do suck ass anyway. Breaking continuity AGGRAVATES an already existing problem where results already suck.

---

You want to support your contention that half the fanbase thinks it sucks? I know a lot of old timers -- grew up on TOS -- who love the idea. At least, a lot more than VOYAGER ...

quote:

---

I never heard of so weak arguments in my life. That's what apologists like to do, point out how better budget Trek is in comparison to other SF series, which by the way, seems to garner equal to better ratings for much less money spent per episode.

---

Well, production value doesn't hurt. Now, if they could spend that money on some good writers ...

quote:

---

Here's another one. Maybe you don't understand this, Tom. The whole idea is still the same as with any action. The letter of the action and the intent of the action. This does not just govern legalities---it governs basic action. It's about basic ethics. The intent to violate something in spirit is as good as violating it in letter.

---

There is life beyond Star Trek. No, honestly, there is.

quote:

---

Maybe it's time to stick your head out of your ass, Tom.

---

Ahhh, as if we needed more proof of your immaturity, here's this gem.

quote:

---

The facts are THERE IS NOT ENOUGH VIEWERS ANYWAY.

---

You know what? Your grammar is really bad, too. Well, see, Crobato, here's the thing. TPTB know that they don't have the viewers -- which is why they've got to lure them back: not with fancy SFX, or hot chicks in little clothing, but with good stories. And believe me, the majority of fans don't give a hoot about if FC with the Klingons happened to your version of events, or earlier. Trust me on this.

quote:

---

Let me put it this way. A show that cannot respect its legacies does not deserve respect at all.

---

So, TNG, DS9, and VOY all suck, then? Because, you know, they've ALL violated TOS continuity at SOME point ...

quote:

---

Excuse me, but Berman did say this is a story still centered around a starship.

---

So is Andromeda. But they've got a cool premise, and seem to be doing quite well. Little known fact, but Andromeda was pitched as the next Trek series: a lone Federation ship, hundreds of years after the collapse of the Federation. Would've been cool.

quote:

---

Why would I give it a chance? I sincerely don't have any interest to watch it and so does most people. It simply does not have a compelling concept. The Federation was never an interesting institution people like to find out about. Most of the Federation aliens seem boring anyway like green Orions and blue Andorians. Vulcans got to be the most boring people every put on film, and it was a credit to Nimoy and the actor who played Sarek to have given them depth.

---

For someone who wants continuity on track, you're not that great with it yourself. Since when were Orions members of the Federation ... ?

quote:

---

You really are an ass. You read the wrong post too.

---

Well, then, why don't you use "cut" and "paste" and show me the correct post, eh?

quote:

---

I am talking about Spock being teh first Vulcan in Star Fleet. That is a fact. Why have a Vulcan in a pre Fed fleet, then for some magical reason, you never had another Vulcan on an Earth starship until Spock, a gap of 150 years?

---

Gee, maybe because they prefered serving in their own fleet ... ?

quote:

---

I think they just want to skirt that continuity issue by making it pre Fed so it won't violate continuity in letter. But it already violates it by intention and in common sense.

---

No, it doesn't.

quote:

---

DS9 is only Federation administered, but it is Bajoran property. So your argument is bullshit.

---

Not really. You've got a Bajoran military officer serving in a Starfleet chain of command.

quote:

---

Your argument is bullshit again because all these are not long term commands. Just exchange programs. Are you saying that T'Pol is on an exchange program? For two or three years?

---

My argument is not bullshit. You say that because you don't have a refuting argument.

quote:

---

Yeah right asshole. Remember that when you look in the mirror.

---

Oh, yes, your arguments are correct. Dumbass. If you can't make your arguments without resorting to this kind of talk, don't even try.

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

This is actually why I don't get involved, people already are making assumptions that the new series will bomb. Well I was only 3 years old at the time but when people said that about TNG and look where they have got, 2 more series and a 5th one coming up in a few months.

I admit that the premise seems to be a bit shaky but hopefully it will be a good series. If not the world won' come to an end right?

------------------
The whole concept of Survivor is get your average Joe and put him/her on the show and see how they react. Afterwards even though they did not win they make money by appearing on shows. There is no point in having to win a million dollars! They will make that amount in 2 months after appearing on 100 different shows!
 

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 8.32 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with seven eps posted)
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
***
Card-Carrying Member of the Flare APAO
***
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis, Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?' We all know what was chosen" - Rush Limbaugh, Feb. 23, 1994.

------------------
OH NO< THE OLD MAN WALKS HIS GREEN DOG THAT SHOTS PINBALLS!~!!!
--
Jeff K
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and nothing at all will happen.

I don't like Bakula (although the name is cool) but I think the era they will move around in does have some promise. If the producers couldn't give us a break from Trek altogether for a while, like some of us wished, they will at least give us a break from 2376-politics and terrain.

JfK: Red Quacker? Well, if it by some strange twist of fate would be him, at least he has started discussing proper Trek, and that's more than you could say for his earlier adventures.

------------------
"Babies haven't any hair;
old men's heads are just as bare;
between the cradle and the grave
lies a haircut and a shave."

Samuel Hoffenstein
 

------------------
What is the difference between a terriorist and your girlfriend?
- With terrorist, there is a chance of negotiation.

"You want to support your contention that half the fanbase thinks it sucks? I know a lot of old timers -- grew up on TOS -- who love the idea. At least, a lot more than VOYAGER ... "

Oh yeah. Why don't you prove your own claim? I know some old timers who absolutely hate the idea---one more opportunity to piss on the TOS legacy.

Schneider ran a poll, and the results from a few hundred already indicate that most are either only lukewarm or against the idea. Not much of a picture of enthusiasm. Go to his website.

"There is life beyond Star Trek. No, honestly, there is."

And have you found it yet?

"Ahhh, as if we needed more proof of your immaturity, here's this gem. "

Oh really. Have you seen your statements so far, heh Jeff? Show me more of your hypocrisy.

"You know what? Your grammar is really bad, too. Well, see, Crobato, here's the thing. TPTB know that they don't have the viewers -- which is why they've got to lure them back: not with fancy SFX, or hot chicks in little clothing, but with good stories."

Oh puhleeze. They knew that long ago. You don't have a grasp on reality. It was TPTB who advocated chicks and overemphasixed fancy FX into Trek in the first place. You don't get it do you? When will your limited IQ learn? You don't resolve a problem till you cut heads. You don't resolve a problem without removing the root and the cause. People do not change spots. The cause is bad producers make a bad show. So take out the producers. Enterprise now appears to have the potential for a fancy FX babewatch in space show given current trends.

"And believe me, the majority of fans don't give a hoot about if FC with the Klingons happened to your version of events, or earlier. Trust me on this."

Yeah right. That's because they won't be tuning into it anyway. Don;'t you get it into your limited cranium? Fans *LEFT* past tense.

"So, TNG, DS9, and VOY all suck, then? Because, you know, they've ALL violated TOS continuity at SOME point ... "

Which does not constitute an excuse or does not make it right. The fact that it is done, does not make things right. Another person with situational ethics.

"Not really. You've got a Bajoran military officer serving in a Starfleet chain of command. "

Excuse me idiot. She does not have any authority outside of the Defiant or DS9. She is not part of the regular Starfleet chain of command until the last few shows---and there was good reason why she had to be Star Fleet.

"Well, then, why don't you use "cut" and "paste" and show me the correct post, eh? "

I already did, Mister visually challenged.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they just want to skirt that continuity issue by making it pre Fed so it won't violate continuity in letter. But it already violates it by intention and in common sense.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it doesn't. "

Apparently you don't have common sense either.

Oh are you saying there ain't any more Vulcans in pre Fed and early Fed starships because they don't *want* to be in it? More bullshit arguments.

"my argument is not bullshit. You say that because you don't have a refuting argument. "

Oh really? Now you have lowered yourself to moron status. I refuted your arguments, and see nothing but more bullshit apologism from you. Even a simple fact as the difference of an exchange program and a long term commission eludes you.

Apparently Jeff, the world will end when the show will end---when a lot of people stop watching it, eh, Mr. Fanboy?

"It's a television show."

Exactly. I am not the one vehemently defending it, or evangelizing it, or to even endure watching it. As a matter of fact, what I'm pointing is more of the state of a franchise and a company. Those are a lot more serious matters. Apparently it just breaks Jeff's heart here for people not to watch the show.

At any rate, in my quasi-official position as board nice person (A position that is, I should add, only available via self-appointment.), I think everyone should take a nice long bath that includes bubbles and fancy salts, if possible, or go outside and watch the sunset, if not. I can almost guarantee that you will feel three hundred percent better afterwards, and we can all come back and discuss the pros and cons of Enterprise like the charming and beautiful people we are.

------------------
OH NO< THE OLD MAN WALKS HIS GREEN DOG THAT SHOTS PINBALLS!~!!!
--
Jeff K
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet" and nothing at all will happen.

Point the first: Star Trek has always had excessive sexuality. Gene was a horny little man. He wanted Troi to have four breasts, for crying out loud, until DC Fontana talked him down just a few days before TNG began filming. Ms. Blalock could wear a big purple smock that is as sexual as Barbara Walters' underwear for all we know. Plenty of attractive female actresses who are quite competent dramatists have posed in Maxim. To hijack a cliche, "don't hate her because she's beautiful."

Furthermore, you're delusional if you don't accept the cold hard fact that the sexuality of 90% of actresses under 35 is pumped up on film and television. Every show does this, both Trek and otherwise, and this has always been true. Actresses are used to it. It's a reality of their work they accept. Kira wore fairly heavy makeup and high heels; Troi a scoop-necked dress etc. etc. While personally I thought Seven of Nine went a bit too far, if Ms. Blalock is easy on the eyes as well as dramatically compelling, who's complaining?

Now, if she sits on the bridge in a thong bikini and can't act worth a damn, then let their be complaint. But second-guessing the casting people and assuming the producers are attempting to gain viewers through similar techniques as the WWF is a form of unfounded paranoia.

Point the second: I must take issue with being labelled a Berman apologist. Nazis have apologists. The Khmer Rouge has apologists. Don't you dare assume I'm standing up for the producers because I loved every single minute of Voyager to death, or that I'll stand up for the producers because that's just what I do. I form opinions on an issue by issue basis, and right now I am of the opinion that valuing continuity to the point where it strangles a writer's ability to tell a good story is unfounded.

Unlike you, I'd like to believe I have something of a grasp of the challenges these guys face in creating original television when so many hours have already been done. Berman and Braga have made more than there share of the mistakes, but they've also put together a good chunk of the absolute best Star Trek ever put on screen. You or I or any of the people you define as "true fans" are not shareholders in the franchise of Trek. THEY DON'T OWE US ANYTHING. All they are reposible for is putting together 26 hours of television a year that will entertain enough people to pay the advertisers. Long ago Star Trek could have turned into space battles and fisticuffs and copious sex in an effort to get every viewer and their dog watching the show. But they've done, in my opinion at least, a reasonable job of sticking to Roddenberry's vision through thick and thin. I think Deep Space Nine was an excellent show and I'm a little irritated that it didn't hang onto a broader audience than it did. Voyager clearly didn't hang on to a broad audience because it was substandard in places and the fact that three quarters of the audience left the show is testament to that. The suits know that and producers know that. In an interview last week Braga conceded that Voyager failed to live up to TNG's expectations and he was sorry that happened, but nevertheless Berman and he and Biller nursed the show along and it completed its run as a sort of Star Trek Lite. Being in the industry, they know better than anyone that the fanbase the show lost was not hyperchondriac fanboys like yourself who got tired of seeing episodes like "Future's End" not taking place in the burnt-out-rubble of the Eugenics Wars and therefore went off to see "quality" sci-fi like Herc, Xena, B5, Farscape ad shittium. They know that most of the 75% drop was people who got sick of boring writing and technobabble and predictable endings and went off to watch Law and Order and The West Wing. And they want them back. And the network wants them back. So, believe it or not, there have been several attempts to make Enterprise more mainstream: