First we borrowed the name of the most famous starship in "history." Why? In a vain effort to capture lost glory. I can't believe how many threads have been started hotly debating whether or not NCC 1701 was the FIRST ever starship to bear the name Enterprise, what is "canon" and what isn't, whether the NX-01 belongs to a "Earth Starfleet" of a "Federation Starfleet." Give it a rest, people. Everyone, everywhere knows that Kirk's ship was the FIRST STARSHIP ENTERPRISE. The only thing to throw this into question was the mind-bendingly UNORIGINAL decision to re-write trek history in an attempt to get more people to watch Brannon Braga's latest sad effort.
End of story here.
Point two - the NX-01 is nothing more than a kit-bashed Akira. This has been said before, but it is glaringly true. This ship doesn't look even remotely like a predecessor to the Constitution class. Matt Jeffries design of the 1701 is as beautiful and futuristic today as it was thirty years ago. While I wouldn't expect the sets to be as simplistic as those seen in the 60s, the ship's design is a major disappointment. Just a little effort could have produced a craft with a gritty, utilitarian realism that would have been perfectly believable as a starship of the not-too-distant future.
Point three - Who designed the uniforms? Here we go again, borrowing design themes from other Treks because we haven't a glimmering of originality. Gee, a jumpsuit with rank pips, where have we seen that before?
More retreads: A vulcan science officer - whether or not she's in Starfleet, this is a retread of the Kirk/Spock dynamic. Phlox is a Neelix retread - a goofy, good-natured alien. They even look alike.
About the only attempt to be original was the theme music. Here's where they should have stuck with a fanfare but instead decided on a vocal track straight out of Dawson's Creek. (pardon me while I puke...)
Someone in the forum suggested that the worst thing to happen to Star Trek is Brannon Braga and Rick Berman. I wholeheartedly agree. Star Trek under their care is degenerating into mindless space opera. Each new series gets further and further away from what I regard as Star Trek. I know that there are many who will gleefully accept any bit of televised pablum with "Star Trek" somewhere in the title, but that doesn't make it Star Trek. This latest attempt to appease the masses was obviously churned out as fast as possible and it shows.
Originality and Creativity clearly ooze out of your pores.
[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
And, secondly, why is it whenever someone criticises Enterprise, the best anyone can do is insult them? He raises some very pertinent points, and the best response anyone can come up with - I forget the exact wording, can't be bothered to look down the page - is "you smelt it, you dealt it?"
Okay. Timelord pretty much dismisses the whole "Is Kirk's the first Enterprise" argument? He shows no place where anyone has firmly said that Kirk's ship was the first Starship Enterprise. At best, he can make the point that Kirk's was the first in the Federation Starfleet. Since we're dealing with the Earth Starfleet, I don't see the conflict.
Now, regarding Enterprise's design ... Timelord should go read The_Tom's "Car Trek" thread. As I've pointed out before ... I drive a Jeep Wrangler. It bears a striking resemblence to the GP Willy built in the 1940's. However, I'm not accusing people of going back in time and ripping off the Wrangler's design. While it's certainly one thing to say that maybe the ship designer was a bit unoriginal in modeling Enterprise on the Akira-Class, it is not un-cannon to assume that the Akira-Class is modelled on the Enterprise style. I mean, aren't the Galaxy-, Excelsior-, and Ambassador- classes all based on design features of Kirk's Enterprise as well?
The uniforms borrow much more from the TOS movies, although the rankpips are taken directly from the 24th Century series. Still, this isn't a major deal. The design of the uniforms is different enough ... and I don't hear Timelord bitching because Voyager uses jumpsuits too. This is the stupidest point he could've made.
A retread of the Kirk/Spock relationship ... let's see ... like Picard/Data? Janeway/Seven? Sisko/Odo? Every Star Trek series has had a character (or several) who represents an alien view to humanity. I suppose you could bitch about her being Vulcan, but, er, did you bitch about Tuvok? And given the timeframe this series is set in, who would be more believable? No one but a Vulcan.
I'm sorry you don't like the music. Here Timelord shows his inconsistency by blasting Enterprise for first being un-original, and then being original to something never done for a Star Trek series before. At least be consistent. Personally, I like the opening credits ... but I'd like a monologue.
You are aware, aren't you, that Rick Berman ran TNG for most of the time it was on the air? That he co-created DS9? Okay, he gave us Voyager, but to ignore his history at Paramount is just plain stupid. Braga did an excellent job at TNG, too, or did you not like "Parallels?"
"Someone in the forum suggested that the worst thing to happen to Star Trek is Brannon Braga and Rick Berman. I wholeheartedly agree."
Because, as has been said time and time again, Rick Berman was essentially in charge of TNG from the second season, and Brannon Braga has been responsible for some of the most acclaimed Trek episodes ever. If you want to slag off Enterprise, slag it off for what it is, but don't bring in the "Berman & Braga sux!" argument, because that's based on naming everything bad they've ever done, and forgetting everything good they've ever done.
Personally, I won't comment on Enterprise until I've seen it. When are Sky showing it?
(The only thing I will say is that you have a go at them for using jumpsuits, claiming it to be unoriginal, then you have a go at them for changing the music style, saying they should have stuck with a fanfare. Aer you complaining about stuff on it's own merits, or on how it compares to others? Because the TNG uniforms are hardly a stunning leap from the TOS uniforms.)
Now obviously, this doesn't mean that Braga was continuously being fully rewritten, but when you have Michael Piller as your boss, and a group consisting of Ron D. Moore, Ira Stephen Behr, and all the writers that eventually would go on to DS9, you're bound to think more about the characters than if you're the boss and have your own writing team. Rick Berman wasn't as responsible for the character-orientation of TNG as Michael Piller, and I don't know what's up with Piller nowdays.
The only thing that really struck me as unique about "Enterprise" was its opening sequence. I think the show will be fine if it builds from there, our history. Star Trek has recently become this disconnected idealistic world, and if Enterprise manages to reconnect with the present day, it would be something new. It doesn't even have to be Star Trek, as its name suggest. I'd accept it as a reinterpration of that universe similar to the way in which Arthur C. Clarke's 2010 is not in the same universe as 2001, but a slightly different one.
I don't think it will happen with the current writing team aboard, though.
well thats my 2 cents worth
The current team is not making creative use of its budget. It could hire better writers, reexamine the world today and adjust the show, but the problem is that nowadays, Star Trek is a show mostly concerned with money-making. Period. It's no secret, that's why everybody calls it a franchise.
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
Michael Piller wrote Insurrection, often considered the worst out of all the TNG movies. Braga co-wrote First Contact, often considered the best.
I don't think that Ira Behr was on the TNG writing staff for more than a season, was he?
I do love the "Well, anything good Braga ever wrote was obviously due to Moore helping", while "everything bad Moore ever wrote was ruined by Braga."
You have to look at the facts. When Michael Piller came to TNG, he looked at the show and decided that from the third season on, every episode will have to be about a character. That's the way the writing team worked from that point onwards. As far as many people can see, it's not the way Voyager worked, where the characters usually would take a backseat to spatial anomalies and time travel.
And I didn't say that "everything good Braga wrote was due to Moore helping...". I believe Braga can write characters if someone asks him to do that, but that it's not his favorite part of writing. Braga has been credited with introducing a faster pace and a feature-quality to Voyager, and that's good, but it rarely became more than that.
Of course it's hip to dislike "Enterprise" -- with all the budget it has, why can't it be more like B5? Or X-Files? Or Sopranos? Or the Simpsons? All these shows are very well written, with great characters and stories. Every great writer, from JMS to Harlan Ellison says the same thing about today's Trek.
People are crazy about the Sopranos nowdays -- I haven't seen anything like it in America, though I question the morals of making a show about a mafia family. Everybody was crazy about X-Files for a while, too, though it's science fiction. And Buffy. And the Simpsons, which is a cartoon, something usually thought of as kid stuff! I just went to get the new Simpsons DVD boxed set, and it was sold out! In both stores I looked at. I only managed to get the last copy.
Let's see this happening with Enterprise.
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: Phelps ]
quote:
Of course it's hip to dislike "Enterprise" -- with all the budget it has, why can't it be more like B5? Or X-Files? Or Sopranos? Or the Simpsons? All these shows are very well written, with great characters and stories.
Not to open the age-old can of worms, but putting B5's writing in the same sentence as The Sopranos and The Simpsons is as patently disgraceful as putting a Steven King paperback and a Joyce hardcover on the same bookshelf.
quote:
Michael Piller wrote "The Best of Both Worlds", both parts, by himself. You can't pick his worst effort and judge him by that, because I could just as well pick one of his best.
Indeed. But doesn't that just prove there's a double-standard, no? The congreagation of the First Church of Braga Disembowelment love to talk about "Threshold" until they're blue in the face, when to be quite blunt Piller, the very guy who didn't stand up and say "Hey, Brannon, I think this one about Salamanders is going a bit too far... how about you make Tom Paris eat himself instead?" deserves blame, too. Piller was very much the controlling creative influence in season two who perhaps put the nail in Voyager's coffin by throwing in the towel after that season turned ugly rather than attempting to make changes and fix things.
If we want to judge writers by their best works, then let's look at the fact that the admittedly unscientific episode ratings at SOS shows that the every single one of the top 10-ranked Voyager episodes were either written by Braga or went through the creative process while he was the head of the writing staff:
1)Timeless - 9.2/10 - Written & XP'ed by Braga
2)Scorpion I - 9.1/10 - Written by Braga
3)Message in a Bottle - 9.0/10 - [pseudo]XP'ed by Braga*
4)Living Witness - 8.9/10 - Written & [pseudo]XP'ed by Braga*
5)Drone - 8.8/10 - Written & XP'ed by Braga
6)Year of Hell I - 8.8/10 - Written & [pseudo]XP'ed by Braga*
7)Prey - 8.7/10 - Written & [pseudo]XP'ed by Braga*
8)Counterpoint - 8.7/10 - XP'ed by Braga
9)Someone to Watch Over Me - 8.6/10 - Written & XP'ed by Braga
10)Latent Image - 8.5/10 - Written & XP'ed by Braga
---------------
* = Jeri Taylor was semi-retired throughout season 4 and Braga very much led the writing staff as an XP in everything but name. Strangely, Braga-haters tend to claim simultaneously he was singlehandedly responsible for Jeri Ryan's shrinkwrapped outfit in season 4 and yet didn't become the lead creative force until seasons 5 and 6. Puh-leeze.
Now, we must keep in mind Clemens' famous quote about lies, damn lies and such, but the evidence strikes me as pretty strong that Braga was hardly one who turned everything he touched into horse turd.
Likewise, there seems to be a widespread feeling that Braga's work on TNG was better than his work on Voyager.
So, look, I see it this way. Piller had good episodes, Behr had good episodes, Braga had good episodes. Piller had shit episodes, Behr had shit episodes, Braga had shit episodes. Liam's quite right in pointing out that it is a fundamentally flawed premise to say the Berman and Braga are poor producers if all you do is compare Braga's worst to Piller's best.
I don't recall suggesting that ENTERPRISE stunk on ice, only that the premise and production was, IN MY OPINION, unoriginal. I was really hoping for the best before viewing the pilot. I will watch the next few episodes, but I am not optimistic.
Phelps points out quite rightly that Star Trek is about making money, period. It is a cash cow. My criticsm is that there is an ever-diminishing level of artistry being put into the production of Trek these days. No thought was ever given to shelving the new series until it could be developed into something really unique. No, it was waiting the the wings, ready to take over just as the last installment was getting tired out. Unfortunately, Berman and Braga can look forward to many years at the helm of the Trek francise due to the fact that millions will gleefully and uncritically accept ANYTHING with the name STAR TREK on it.
Right now, most critics of ENTERPRISE are complaining about problems with continuity. It can be fun thinking up explanations to make everything "fit." Yes, the akira design could be based on the NX-01. This is a very clever explanation. However, from the standpoint of creating a television series, these arguments are pure sophistry. The NX-01 IS an unoriginal rip-off of the akira design. The Archer/T'Pol dynamic (Human Captain and Vulcan XO don't like each other but eventually learn to respect one another) HAS been done before. NCC-1701 WAS the first starship Enterprise (The Motion Picture and TNG both displayed the Enterprise legacy, in photos and bas relief. There was the aircraft carrier, then the space shuttle, and then NCC-1701. Pretty conclusive to me, unless to don't regard either the movies or TNG as "canon".
I love Star Trek. I just don't like the direction it has been going in. I was in college in the late 60's and wrote letters to Paramount along with millions of other people to save the series from cancellation. I wouldn't trouble myself today. (I did for B5 though, the last best hope for intelligent sci-fi.)
For those who don't like my Berman/Braga bashing, I see it this way: An ailing Gene Roddenberry passed the series HE created on to Berman who waited until Gene died and then tried desperately to remake Trek in his own image. True, he was at the helm for most of the TNG series, but this was an already established success. He brough TNG to a close (which still had some years left in it) so it wouldn't compete with his brainchild, DS9. The premise of the show was so boring, they created the Defiant, the Dominion War, and brought back Worf so someone would watch the show. DS9 came to and end and almost immediately there followed Voyager which returned to the starship theme, but this series still did not attract the audience TNG had. Now hard on the heels of Voyager's finale we have Enterprise. They've dropped Star Trek from the title and I have to say, this makes sense since it really isn't Star Trek anymore. Berman and Braga should try creating something on their own instead of parasitically feeding off the success of a man who brought into being something truly unique in television history. Roddenberry's Star Trek was entertaining while at the same time inspiring. About all Star Trek inspires me to do these days is turn of the TV and read a book. Not a bad idea, actually.
The second pilot of TOS, and the first with Kirk in, opens with the Captain and Spock playing chess. How is this "not liking each other"?
"NCC-1701 WAS the first starship Enterprise (The Motion Picture and TNG both displayed the Enterprise legacy, in photos and bas relief. There was the aircraft carrier, then the space shuttle, and then NCC-1701. Pretty conclusive to me, unless to don't regard either the movies or TNG as "canon". "
The Motion Picture chart missed out several Enterprises. As did the bas relief charts. Hell, they're not even consistent with each other (since the Space Ship Enterprise from TMP isn't on the TNG observation lounge wall).
"An ailing Gene Roddenberry passed the series HE created on to Berman who waited until Gene died and then tried desperately to remake Trek in his own image."
And he obviously ruined it. Which is why season 1 is the most loved, and I can't go a day without remembering the joys of "Shades of Grey".
Do you know Rodenberry wrote Encounter at Farpoint? And what is often considered the worst out of all Trek pilots? The Erotic Adventures of Mr Plinky is not the answer.
"He brough TNG to a close (which still had some years left in it) so it wouldn't compete with his brainchild, DS9."
Oh yes, THAT's why TNG was bought to a close. Paramount let him stop making TNG, so that it wouldn't compete with a new and untried spin-off! Genius!
"The premise of the show was so boring, they created the Defiant, the Dominion War, and brought back Worf so someone would watch the show."
And, again, Berman did all that. Those interviews where Ira Behr said "we added the Defiant because we felt it was silly having this big enemy, when all we had were three wimpy runabouts".
(And, again, what's with the single person being responsible. While Berman might have pushed for Worf, I don't doubt that the entire DS9 writing team, and the exec producers all had a role in the Defiant, Dominion War, and pretty much everything else that happened in DS9.)
"DS9 came to and end and almost immediately there followed Voyager which returned to the starship theme, but this series still did not attract the audience TNG had."
And at this point, the argument just decends into crazy talk that's wrong and crazy. Did you not notice that DS9 ended two years ago? Berman is so evil he produced seven seasons of Voyager in TWO YEARS! He's obviouslly the Master regenerated and with a bad hair-cut.
Was DS9 cancelled (even though it had more story in it), so it wouldn't compete with Braga's own semen-produced offspring?
And I'm not even getting into the argument of TOS = Roddenberry (and not, say, DC Fonta, or Gene Coon).
"About all Star Trek inspires me to do these days is turn of the TV and read a book. Not a bad idea, actually. "
No. More people really should do it. Or Simon will beat them with sticks of words.
quote:
Thank you, TOM for your thoughtful and enlightening rebuttal of my argument. Clearly I stand in the presence of greatness....
quote:
My criticsm is that there is an ever-diminishing level of artistry being put into the production of Trek these days.
But what's your justification for that claim? That they went ahead and made a show with a ship that wasn't in a blurry display in a twenty-year old movie! The horror! The horror! If you consider adhering-to-barely-seen-visual-canon-above-all-else as the true mark of artistry, I don't know what to say next.
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
[ September 30, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
quote:
But it struck me as incredibly irrational for someone to accuse people of spitting tired old rehashes of old ideas when you yourself spat out a tired rehash of the same old baseless "Berman is the death of Trek" argument.
My OPINION was that Star Trek as produced by Berman/Braga is degenerating into space opera. If technobabble and cool FX are all you want, knock yourself out, but I would prefer a series with some dramatic weight. Sci-fi gets a bad rap on Emmy night because so much of it is crap, dramatically speaking.
quote:
But don't expect me to give your reasoning a passing thought if you just ramble on about Braga's mailbox being in the seventh circle of hell and provide nothing but fluff like "Berman and Braga are apriori evil because everyone who knows real scif-fi says so on all the BBses"
quote:
But what's your justification for that claim? That they went ahead and made a show with a ship that wasn't in a blurry display in a twenty-year old movie! The horror! The horror! If you consider adhering-to-barely-seen-visual-canon-above-all-else as the true mark of artistry, I don't know what to say next.
We will see in the coming months if Enterprise really takes us where no one has gone before. The acting will certainly be of the highest caliber, it always has. I just wish the creators had been a little more creative. Naming the new series "Enterprise" seems to me to be nothing but a ploy to grab as many viewers as possible.
Some of the Voyager and DS9 episodes are just.......for a lack of better word, IKKY!!!!
I hope Enterprise wouldn't get so "soapy" like its' counterparts.
And they have been running out of ideas for the end of Voyager and DS9, but that's why they changed it to the 22nd century, I couldn't be more happy about that.
As for the "Akira ripped-off" design, I'll only partially agree with you on that. So what if it is ripped off, it still looks cool, and I for one does not want to sacrafice "coolness" for "continuity"!
It's true that "Vulcan v.s. Human" plot has been done before, but so what, maybe that's just something special for all Trek, personally, I think it's more good then bad.
quote:
I for one does not want to sacrafice "coolness" for "continuity"!
Do not.
And there's no continuity issue with the design of the Enterprise.
As to the orginal topic "Enterprise is UNORIGINAL": of course it is. It may be a prequel, but it's still a part of the Star Trek franchise whether 'Star Trek' is in the title or not. The show is based in a universe which has allready been popluated for the most part. The mere fact that there are Klingons, Vulcans, phasers, transporters, communicators, etc. should be more than enough evidence that the show is 'unoriginal'. This isn't to say that things that aren't original are bad. My favorite movie of all time (quite serious here), STII:TWoK, is a sequel to a film based on a TV show produced thirty some odd years ago.
As to Berman & Braga: I haven't formed an opinion of them either way, but I do know that I still like to see the various Star Trek shows. They may not be as socially concious or 'original' as TOS (with you all the way on the Season 1 thing, Liam), but I still enjoy watching the new(er) stuff. Oh, they've got their share of real stinkers, but so did TOS. That's the risk you run when you create something. They may have some recycled ideas/production design issues, and a few inconsistencies, but that's bound to happen when you are trying to fit a new show into an allready established universe like Trek. I think they've done their best to do that and still have a show that's interesting to watch. I liked the results, I take it that you did not, Timelord.
I'm not going to let a few details like those you mentioned ruin what promises to be an interesting and exciting new chapter in the Star Trek saga. If you want to, well I suppose that's your choice...
quote:
with all the budget it has, why can't it be more like B5?
Eccentric and with an unyielding* plot structure?
quote:
Or X-Files?
Weird?
quote:
Or Sopranos?
A cable drama about the mob?
quote:
Or the Simpsons?
An animated satirical comedy?
quote:
The uniforms borrow much more from the TOS movies...
I wish.
I guess you saw a different version of Broken Bow than I did, 'cause those uniforms didn't look anything like the ones from the TOS movies at all.
quote:
Although the rankpips are taken directly from the 24th Century series. Still, this isn't a major deal.
Well its certainly the worst thing about the uniforms (which are otherwise OK in my opinion). Besides being TNGish, they really just don't go with the uniform IMHO.
quote:
And there's no continuity issue with the design of the Enterprise.
A flag you often wave when someone doesn't agree with you about the Akiraprise. That really doesn't hold a whole lot of water because it would be very difficult to violate continuity with a starship design. Drop a Soveriegn with a couple slight tweaks and a different class name into 2100 and you haven't violated continuity. Maybe the Sovereign was based off of this class. This class is only 150 meters long. This class can only do warp 2. No continuity violation.
Its all aesthetics Jeff, which I think is what many people are objecting to. This class did not meet the task of helping them suspend disbelief and imagine that it was a ship that predated the Galaxy class by two centuries. The pre-E did obviously do it for you, and thats cool, but waving the canon flag isn't going to make the design meet the expectations of others.
To avoid an extensive list of reasons why I should like the pre-E, I should note that nowhere in this post did I say I didn't like it.
I am tempted to continue into a long tirade about Braga and my theories about why he should be hated as much as he is.
But that would take a very long time and I have a job interview tomorrow.
"The Akiraprise violates continuity!" is something I hear a lot about from people who don't like the design. It's one thing to actually not like the design of Enterprise ... it's quite another to say its a continuity error (something of which, oh, Bernd I believe, has been quite vocal about).
Certain trends get repeated/continued every so often. Take one look at the Chrysler PT Cruiser, for example.
If you assume that there are rules governing the design of starships and pretend that these are actual vehicles designed for actual purposes, then it follows that everything visible in a starship design exists in its form for a specific reason.
Take starship design as an algebraic graph. Given the E-nil, we are given one point on the line. From this single point, we know nothing about the line. It can extend in any direction and have any number of values. But add in another value, the Reliant, and we have a basic Algebra II line. Add in a multitude of other points (Galaxy, Excelsior, Nebula, Akira, Intrepid, Sovereign, Ambassador, Constellation, Pheonix) and we eventually get a curved graph. With all these starships as points on a graph, we can make reasonable extrapolations ad infinitum in either direction as to how starships should look. Of course, we set a domain as a starting point (Pheonix) and ending point (the end of human civilization - Enterprise Z), but between those two points the graph is valid.
The problem is that NX-01 does not fit onto this graph in any sense. If this were real science, we would have to explain this discrpency somehow. But if it were real science, there would be an explanation.
There is none for the Akiraprize.
Buh? That makes no sense at all.
With all these starships as points on a graph, we can make reasonable extrapolations ad infinitum in either direction as to how starships should look. Of course, we set a domain as a starting point (Pheonix) and ending point (the end of human civilization - Enterprise Z), but between those two points the graph is valid.
Zah?
I couldn't predict what the E-F will look like based on avaiable information. Pseudogeometry. Aesthetics is not a science. Further, did it ever occur to you that there may be differences in the way the E-NX looks and the way the E-Nil looks because they served different purposes? Perhaps the advent of actual shielding technology required a change in looks for a while.
The problem is that NX-01 does not fit onto this graph in any sense.
Nor does anything else.
There is none for the Akiraprize.
There are any number of explainaions. Maybe the starship designers simply decided they didn't like tapering hulls. Then the next generation decided that they did. This is a matter of aesthetics. If you don't like the way it looks, fine, but just say you don't like it. Don't pretend to have some rational explaination for it when there is none.
[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Omega ]
quote:
There is none for the Akiraprize
I see. So there is a point for the Akira-Class, just not for Enterprise? Explain.
I liked it. Its a Star Trek series. Its a new beginning. That�s how its advertised. a N-E-W beginning. I'll accept anything they put up in Enterprise over the existing Original Series plots. Wanna cry about it? Go for it, but don�t you have something better to do then continue to whine about a series you do not like, its theme song, or how new its ship looks?
I guess I�m being too harsh, with only one episode behind us. But if we are in the middle of season 2 and people are complaining about every episode� I�m just gonna go ahead a leave. (yeah like you guys care) but I really have better things to do with my time then to listen to a bunch of people watch a show for the sole reason of coming here to whine about it.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
time traveling hero, and a crew that's trying to save the universe from the elemental forces of darkness. Star Trek: The Next Generation had an unoriginal premise: fly around the galaxy in a starship, with no connecting threads between the episodes. Exactly like TOS. Both are good shows.
The only problem with unoriginality is when things get predictable. An unoriginal premise is no problem. Unoriginal plots are a problem. Seeing as we've only seen one episode, we can not make the judgement about plots as yet. But the arc as far as we know it seems entirely original. This is a good sign.
quote:
God fucking damn it. Some of you are fucking acting like you HAVE to watch it. If you hate Enterprise enough to spend half an hour posting on how you hate it, guess what! YOU DONT HAVE TO FUCKING WATCH IT.I liked it. Its a Star Trek series. Its a new beginning. That’s how its advertised. a N-E-W beginning. I'll accept anything they put up in Enterprise over the existing Original Series plots. Wanna cry about it? Go for it, but don’t you have something better to do then continue to whine about a series you do not like, its theme song, or how new its ship looks?
Uh yeah. This place is really cool when everybody agrees on something.
On the rare occasion that almost everyone likes an episode (or whatever) the following happens:
1. One person starts a new thread and writes a detailed post that pretty much sums up why everyone likes the episode/event.
2. A couple more people write short posts which usually don't exceed one sentence and consist of things like "me too" or "right on."
3. The thread, not more than a day old, dies.
Now lets see what happens when someone writes something controversial.
1. The person starts a thread containing various elements that other members of this forum don't agree with.
It doesn't matter if this post is long or short. It can be well thought out or the all caps (all lowercase) ramblings of a third grade drop out who thinks byg xplowzions r kewl.
2. Within a few minutes there are half a dozen replies to the post.
Some of these replies may not be very constructive. They often consist of profanity laden tirades about how the poster should only be concerned with the same minute details they are.
For every one of these types of posts, there are well thought out challenges to the ideas contained in previous posts. These posters cite their sources and generally aimed at using facts to convince the other side that they are in error.
4. Heavy artillery including videos, DVDs and the Encyclopedia are brought out in an effort to win the debate.
Blood and fur fly.
The thread lasts for days (weeks...months...) racking up several pages.
Now I am not telling you that you should prefer threads that resemble the latter example.
That's your business.
I am telling the people you aimed your post to ignore it.
Obi Juan says keep on bitching brother.
When this place becomes becomes the a harmonious utopia of peace, love, and happiness I will have to find a new place to hang my cloak. However, I don't see any danger of that happening anytime soon.
quote:
Originally posted by Stingray:
Take starship design as an algebraic graph. Given the E-nil, we are given one point on the line. From this single point, we know nothing about the line. It can extend in any direction and have any number of values. But add in another value, the Reliant, and we have a basic Algebra II line. Add in a multitude of other points (Galaxy, Excelsior, Nebula, Akira, Intrepid, Sovereign, Ambassador, Constellation, Pheonix) and we eventually get a curved graph. With all these starships as points on a graph, we can make reasonable extrapolations ad infinitum in either direction as to how starships should look. Of course, we set a domain as a starting point (Pheonix) and ending point (the end of human civilization - Enterprise Z), but between those two points the graph is valid.The problem is that NX-01 does not fit onto this graph in any sense. If this were real science, we would have to explain this discrpency somehow. But if it were real science, there would be an explanation.
The Olympic doesn't fit your hypothetical graph in any sense. Neither does the Constellation, nor the Steamrunner, nor the Akira herself. Back to the Olympic, I can hear a response: "The Olympic takes cues from the Daedalus." If that's the case, then why can't the Akira take cues from Enterprise? Or does it only work when we see the chronologically-first ship first?
Enterprise violates almost everyone's preconceived idea of what a 2150s starship should look like, including my own. It doesn't violate any canonical description of that era, and has a direct parallel in the Daedalus/Olympic lineage. Maybe Starfleet went with a retro theme in the 2350s, and built the Olympic and Akira in homage to the Daedalus and Enterprise. Maybe there have historically been analogues that haven't made it on screen. We don't know.
Now...
Defiant didn't follow the so-called 'curve.'
If you base the curve on the Apollo, NONE of the ships besides the Phoenix follow the curve, including the real-life space shuttle. And who moved the bridge from the extreme fore to the mid-saucer, hm?
'Design lineage' is something made up by the effects guys so you'd be able to tell the ships of the different races apart.
I also take issue with
quote:
The Archer/T'Pol dynamic (Human Captain and Vulcan XO don't like each other but eventually learn to respect one another) HAS been done before.
Yeah... but it was done LONG before TOS. In fact, pairing two ethnically different guys who first are at odds and end up respecting each other is as old as the Epic of GILGAMESH.
Our 'original' poster has made the fatal error of assuming that TOS was 'original' in the first place. It wasn't. What it was was SUCCESSFUL, much as Shakespeare's adaptations of Play that were NOT his, originally, were successful, despite not being that new.
Don't you remember the oft-stated original concept for TOS? "'WAGON TRAIN' to the Stars!" Is THAT original, basing a show concept on another show?
Starships weren't original, not to SF.
A future in which we all get along wasn't original.
Several of the TOS episodes were based upon previously existing non-trek stories, most famously 'Arena.' They weren't original.
Time-travel wasn't original.
Non-interference in other cultures wasn't original.
Humans and aliens crewing a ship together wasn't original.
A 'Federation' wasn't original.
So you're not left with much of an argument, are you?
[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
I just dont want to see any more gel shower scenes and i sure as hell dont want to see a man getting pregnant.
I think the 'starship evolution curve' is bullshit. While NX-01 doesnt fit our history, I think it is likely that a hot rod prototype will be sleeker than a large military cruiser like NCC-1701. However, i wholeheartedly object to the creative decision to use the Akira in such a manner based on an internet poll (!).
Enterprise is unoriginal if they end up writing T'Pol like Seven of Nine and continue offering gratuitous cat-suitness and gratuitous 'look im shooting two guns at once'ness because then they are trying to be one of those other action shows that Star Trek should be set apart from in my opinion.
However, i am entertained and satisfied by the 87 minutes of Enterprise i have already seen.
quote:
However, i wholeheartedly object to the creative decision to use the Akira in such a manner based on an internet poll (!).
(note: this is not a suggestion you leave, OK?)
quote:
Tolerance, tolerance. You've all got to accept the other guy's opinions as equally valid. The guys in the flameboard say so.
Yes, and that's perfectly good, but it doesn't mean you can't beat the other guy's argument into a bloody pulp.
"The Olympic doesn't fit your hypothetical graph in any sense. Neither does the Constellation, nor the Steamrunner, nor the Akira herself. Back to the Olympic, I can hear a response: "The Olympic takes cues from the Daedalus." If that's the case, then why can't the Akira take cues from Enterprise? Or does it only work when we see the chronologically-first ship first?
Enterprise violates almost everyone's preconceived idea of what a 2150s starship should look like, including my own. It doesn't violate any canonical description of that era, and has a direct parallel in the Daedalus/Olympic lineage. Maybe Starfleet went with a retro theme in the 2350s, and built the Olympic and Akira in homage to the Daedalus and Enterprise. Maybe there have historically been analogues that haven't made it on screen. We don't know."
Something I neglected to point out in my original post was the concept of averages in the graph. Similar to what I said about the Akiraprize being WAY OFF the graph, not everything is perfectly lined up. The graph, scientifically, is actually an average of all the data points (starships). In my example, ships that hit the average to start with are Enterprise ships (Constitution, Excelsior, Galaxy, Sovereign, Ambassador). However, there are points that are slightly off the graph. This happens all the time in real science. Different designs would fall either just below or just above the curve. To illustrate, Miranda/Neb types would fall just above the curve, and Constelation/Cheyenne would fall just below the curve. I also take it that the Akira is the Miranda/Neb of the Sovereign family and falls accordingly on the graph. Please remember that this is only an illustration. Engineering is actually separate from science, I'm just applying scientific concepts to an engineering concept.
BUT ABOVE ALL:
Starship designing is not automotive engineering. It's more akin to some combination between aerospace and maritime engineering. And aircraft and ships look the ways they do because they serve specific functions.
To use aircraft as an example. Aircraft exist in the forms they do because (A) they have to fulfill certain functions and requirements and (B) have to do so while dealing with aerodynamics. Aerodynamics, in tandem with functional requirements, largely dictates what the shape of a plane looks like. We know a lot about aerodynamics these days. Give my five years and I'll tell you everythng you ever wanted to know about it. But it is this knowledge, gained through what we have done before, that we are able to build F-22 Raptors. Imagine an F-22 Raptor with canvas wings and fuesalage and hand dropped bombs during WWI. It would be very non sequitor.
To carry the analogy: starships also have to deal with traveling through a medium, subspace. For the purposes of this discussion, we call the principles of moving through subspace hyperdynamics. Unfortunately, we know nothing about how hyperdynamics works nor any of the principles or equations that describe it. We can only guess and make sweeping inferences based upon what we have seen. But inferences are still valid. I won't type out my entire treatise on starship design here, but Dan should have it and hopefully will be posting it on Star Trek Minutaie soon. The rules that I've come up with though, can be applied to satisfactorily explain all starships we've seen, EXCEPT for the Akiraprize. And believe me when I say I've tried to find an explanation, I really have. But I cannot.
But in brief, there must be some logic and rationale behind starship design. Starfleet doesn't go retro. Starfleet isn't trying to get anybody to buy their starships. They are engineers and scientists dealing with a scientific environment and dealing with an engineering problem. There is a goal they need to accomplish, they must accomplish this goal under certain conditions, and they endeavor to do this by the best (read: simplest and most effective) means possible.
[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Stingray ]
I'd agree. Designers looking for influence based the Olympic- and Akira- designs on older starships, in much the same way that you can see the influence of the Constitution-Class in the Galaxy- and Sovereign- classes.
The reason the Olympic has a spherical hull in because it is a hospital ship. It's most pressing priority is to carry a large number of casualties/refugees/medical personnel/supplies/etc. This, since it is it's main function, would take precedence over maximum possible speed through subspace. Where other starships are desgined for maximum possible speed (sic: most desirable characteristics when moving through subspace), the Olympic needed the extra volume afforded from a spherical hull. So it was a trade-off, a concession to Starfleet's normal policy of making ships as fast as possible.
Look at the USNS Comfort today. It's much thicker than the USS Arleigh Burke. The Arleigh Burke is designed for speed. The Comfort is designed for maximum internal volume. And now I really have to go do my homework...
The rules that I've come up with though, can be applied to satisfactorily explain all starships we've seen, EXCEPT for the Akiraprize
So ... you can explain the Akira-Class, but not Enterprise? Do you actually expect people to believe this?
And, just on a side note, the Comfort's homeport is 10 miles south of me.
[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
So ... you can explain the Akira-Class, but not Enterprise? Do you actually expect people to believe this?
It's simple, Jeff. Would an F-22 Raptor look out of place in the RAF of 1914?
Please try to read and comprhend my posts in their entirety instead of picking one sentence and attacking it out of context.
You're comparing apples and oranges. We're talking about starship designs of the future. But, if we're comparing modern vehicles with past vehicles, take a look at the 1940's Jeep Willy, and the 2000 Jeep Wranglers. If someone were to watch "Band of Brothers" on HBO and scream "OH MY GOD! THOSE UNCREATIVE BASTARDS STOLE THE WRANGLER DESIGN! THAT DESIGN DOESN'T FIT ON THE AUTOMOBILE SCALE FOR THE 1940'S IT'S COMPLETELY OUT OF PLACE!"
Your argument makes as much sense. Please explain why Enterprise is out of place. You've yet to do so, except mumble a lot about vague hyper-dynamic theories.
Now, bear with me:
If anything, Enterprise's design (do we have a class-name?) makes much more sense that Earth's first military starship (I'm assuming thats what Enterprise essentially is) would be a single-hull design. It's easier to build, easier to design, and we don't know what if any restrictions the designers might have placed on them by the warp engine, gravity, dampening fields, etcetra.
This theory also makes the Enterprise NCC-1701 look much more advanced (60's F/X withstanding) ... Earth and the Federation have been able to construct double-hulled starships (Engineering & Saucer) ... this becomes the foundation for such classes as the Constitution, Excelsior, Ambassador, Galaxy, and so on. The original design of Enterprise also spawns a more limited class of vessels, including the 24th Century Akira-Class.
[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
quote:
Originally posted by Stingray:
But I have worked out a rationale for starships in general, and Olympic fits.
So you don't like the Enterprise design because it doesn't fit your preconceived rationale. Consider...
(1) I am going to make a system based on all available data points.
(2) Enterprise is an available data point.
Therefore
(3) I will not include Enterprise because it's hard?
Why did the process of figuring out an explanation to fit all data points end before 26 September? Did physicists give up after Newton's laws because quantum mechanics doesn't fit the previously-established curve? You took the time with the Olympic, and presumably with the Steamrunner, Defiant, and Constellation. Why do you just give up with Enterprise and call it impossible?
[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]
"The rules that I've come up with though, can be applied to satisfactorily explain all starships we've seen, EXCEPT for the Akiraprize. And believe me when I say I've tried to find an explanation, I really have. But I cannot."
Just take whatever rules you've applied to the Centaur, flip it upside down, combine it w/ the catamaran principle of the Akira, and your problem is solved.
That seems a less fitting analogy than mine to support our respective points. I'm sorry, Jeff but it just does. Besides which, if you were to plot the evolution of Jeeps along a similar graph with Jeep's specific environment/functional requirements/etc., you would be able to see a similar evolution. And the Willy, your Wrangler, my Grand Cherokee, and even that new Liberty thing would have their spot. However, If the Liberty were to show up before the Willy, then eyebrows would raise.
If anything, Enterprise's design (do we have a class-name?) makes much more sense that Earth's first military starship (I'm assuming thats what Enterprise essentially is) would be a single-hull design. It's easier to build, easier to design, and we don't know what if any restrictions the designers might have placed on them by the warp engine, gravity, dampening fields, etcetra.
This is the best defense of the NX-01 I have yet seen. But it seems that Starfleet's shipbuilding philosophy is to have smaller, easier constructed ships as auxiliaries (Mirandas/Nebs/Akiras), and to have the ships-of-the-line type vessels to be of the larger and the saucer/neck/secondary hull config.
So you don't like the Enterprise design because it doesn't fit your preconceived rationale.
Uh...yeah. Everything here is our opinion. I thought I was past the point in fifth grade where I had to start every sentence with, "My opinion is..."
(1) I am going to make a system based on all available data points.
(2) Enterprise is an available data point.
Therefore
(4) I will not include Enterprise because it's hard?
Good logic. If this were real science, then I would be forced to concur. However, we are in fact talking about a television show which affords me the luxury of plugging my ears about anything I want.
Basically Ryan, I created my explanation. I can stop at any point I want. Let me now restate what I posted in another tread. I like the Akiraprize when taken out of context with every other ship seen in Star Trek. But it is unoriginal, uncreative, and a red herring for the sake of 'coolness'. For all the reasons I've already stated.
quote:
Der.
Did we go to high school together?
quote:
Originally posted by Stingray:
Good logic. If this were real science, then I would be forced to concur. However, we are in fact talking about a television show which affords me the luxury of plugging my ears about anything I want.
Hey, as long as you freely admit that your complaints with Enterprise are based on your own previous ideas of what should be seen, I don't have a problem with it. Enterprise goes against what I believed before, too. It's the people who suggest that Enterprise actually violates true canon (as opposed to interpretations of the canon) that I take issue with.
Ah -- yes, but! It seems that the Federation Starfleet of the 23rd and 24th Century philosophy is to have the ships-of-the-line type vessels... But, my whole arguement is based that Earth/Starfleet has not yet begun construction of vessels that large, and that Enterprise is the testbed of coming tech.
As for Enterprise and an Akira-Class ... could someone post pictures of both ships next to each other? Personally, I think the Akira-Class looks a lot more different and more modern then Enterprise, in the same way the two Jeeps (Willy & Wrangler) look different from each other.
If anything, the Constitution-Class and those with the two hull design become the Grand Cherokees and Libertys ... vehicles derived from the first Class (Enterprise), as the GC and L are "cousins" of the Willy, not the direct descendent like the Wrangler.
While canon can be debated, continuity is pretty straightforward. To maintain continuity, a writer must not directly contradict what has happened before (or will happen later). I agree with Bear on his point about the Klingon. We all know that budget restrictions were the primary reasons for the appearance of the Klingons in TOS, but wouldn't it have been clever (and CREATIVE) for the writers to have a TOS Klingon and then explain in later episodes the reason for the difference? Of course, the opportunity to do this was destroyed in the DS9 episode "Trials and Tribbilations." They really dropped the ball by portraying Kang, Koloth, and Kor as "modern" Klingons. This would have been the perfect opportunity to explain the Klingon thing, but they chose instead to throw it all away on Worfs glib reply, "it's a long story." Ironically, I really enjoyed this episode as a light-hearted celebration of the Star Trek anniversary, but this example of laziness on the part of the writers and producers was a major disappointment. Of course, if they hadn't used the gimmick of bringing back the famous TOS Klingons in the first place, the episode would have worked just as well and not had any continuity problems at all.
I think that overall, the writers have done very well maintaining continuity through all the series. However, the Klingon thing is such a major loose end, I really can't understand why they have refused to address it head on. I always thought there could be two species of Klingons, one generally smaller without all the bumps, and the other larger and more agressive. Perhaps the smaller brainy Klingons were in power early on and were overthrown, or maybe they coexisted for awhile until they were discommoded or exiled as the result of a racial/ethnic purge. Now that would have created an interesting dynamic to explore. The Klingons would have a dark episode in their history to deal with and the exiled Klingons would be refugees attempting to find a new homeworld and trying to regain their honor and standing in the galaxy.
Regarding originality, while I understand there will be familiar technology and terminology, I think the new series should have taken a few more risks and not relied quite so heavily on what has already been seen. Some people like the NX-01. I agree, it's a cool design. But I can't understand why the producers didn't look at the original drawing and say, "Wow, that looks a lot like the Akira. Cool design, but let's do something different." Was it really necessary to have transporters in this series? The transporters mainly served as a device in TOS to provide a quick, cheap way to get crew down to a planet without using shuttles (and having to create the various models and film them). Why not show what it was like before transporters could be safely used by living beings? And if you're gonna use them, why show the transporter working faster and better than those of the 24th century?! Come on!
Why, if this is Earth's first starship, are there any aliens in the crew at all? Here is another chance they missed to do something really different. It would have been really interesting to see an all-human crew explore strange new worlds for the first time by themselves. They would have a wealth of fears and prejudices to overcome. Good drama there. Everyone in the 24th century is so perfect, so self-actualized. No one identifies with these characters! You can't identify with Picard who reads Shakespeare, is and excellent swordsman, and whose family are vintners. But you can identify with Worf when he refuses to give blood to save a dying Romulan.
There was a comment made earlier yesterday that I have to disagree with:
quote:
Our 'original' poster has made the fatal error of assuming that TOS was 'original' in the first place. It wasn't. What it was was SUCCESSFUL, much as Shakespeare's adaptations of Play that were NOT his, originally, were successful, despite not being that new.Don't you remember the oft-stated original concept for TOS? "'WAGON TRAIN' to the Stars!" Is THAT original, basing a show concept on another show?
I don't hate the new series. I just think they missed the chance to really renew the wonder and excitement Trek used to have. To me, the shameless "borrowing" of the Enterprise name, the ship design, the transporter, and everything else seems more like a gimmick to get people to watch and to stamp out another spin-off than an effort to produce something really worthwhile.
Since my logic and application of engineering and scientific principles are flawless in this regard, then I am right. Until somebody can come up with something better, then I will continue to be right. Of course, that won't happen. Because I'm right.
Don't you see? It's all so logical.
Obviously, it is reverse day, and therefore, you are opposite of right and are wrong.
I still want to know how the Akira-Class fits into your crazy ideas, and why Enterprise doesn't.
quote:
...my opinion is based upon logic and principles of science and engineering. These are the only valid principles of determining truth ... Since my logic and application of engineering and scientific principles are flawless in this regard, then I am right. Until somebody can come up with something better, then I will continue to be right.
If only that weren't so long and ungainly, I'd have a perfect silly quote to use as a .sig
But let me ask you, Jeff. What possible difference could there be between an otherwise exact same design that would neccessitate up-slanted nacelles on one and down-slanted nacelles on the other?
How does that suit you, Tom? I've always wanted to be somebody's .sig.
You're inferring logical where there was none when these ships were designed by Jefferies, Probert, Sternbach, Eaves/Drexler/Zimmerman. For the most part, they went with something that looked good onscreen and then the details were fleshed out. Then the "science" of Star Trek was created to fill out how all of the fancy sci-fi stuff could work.
I believe that's what I said I did...
Maybe some of you is right, maybe Enterprise did "stole" the design from Akira, but so what, ENTERPRISE IS STILL KICK ASS LOOKING!
This is not designing a piece of work that's gonna be used in real life, so it doesn't matter if the "ENGINEERING" fits or not, and just out of curiosity, which one of you is an "engineer", you guys sure used the word "engineering", technical design alot, which is ironic, cuz I'm becoming an electrical engineer, and even I don't use that word that often.
And nothing is perfect, continunity of the show therefore doesn't have to be perfect at all time!
AGAIN, IT'S A FREAKIN' SHOW!
And the prove is that this topic has 5 pages of reply.
That's an alternate viewpoint on the lineage of design. If you accept that "as long as it has warp engines it goes zoom", then you can buy older ships with shapes that seem to belong later, cause it's more style than function.
Just another POV.
[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: mrneutron ]
Of course, the E-D was originally going to have transporters on the Bridge, but changed it so that time could be taken for character interaction/plot exposition while they went to the transporter room. Then you had DS9 where they did have transporters in Ops. It's give and take.
You guys talking about the Enterprise not being proper predecessor of starships/can definately be a predecessor of starships are starting to sound a like your reading into the story too much (forgive me if all this discussion is done knowing what you're argument/basis for an algebraic graph/comments does not exist)
but (forgive me again if i sound too cynical) but it is a story which is made by writers who can do what they want as long as its part of the contract. If u think u can do better apply for a job at paramount, or if u dont like it, just dont watch it.
On another note some of you lot are starting to sound like u think u r some professional starship designer of the 24th century expert on the subject. Last time i checked it was the 21st century, and the only space going manned vehicles we had are space shuttles. SO what if this Enterprise looks no different to what we've seen before. We have no 'proof' that it doesnt follow design lineage. And as many pointed out already there is no canonical proof that this new enterprise violates continuity.
Final Point: don't like it, dont watch it and dont complain, let others enjoy it.
No. Don't like me complaining? Don't come here. Don't read my posts. Let others enjoy stimulating conversations.
I like trying to apply real science and engineering to Star Trek. It's enjoyable and an intellectual excercise.
As for throwing around the words 'science' and 'engineering', I wasn't fond of using them so much in my posts. The problem is that there are no decent synonyms for them like almost every other word in the English language.
I am pursuing an aerospace engineering degree, but I by no means consider myself an engineer yet, as I'm only a month into my college career. But you don't have to be an engineer to know something about engineering.
The bottom line is, we are all interested in figuring out the hinted at or unreavealed elements of the Star Trek universe. I have used the best of my ability to come to my own determination. Take it or leave it, but as it stands it makes the most sense for its subject until something more logical and cohesive is presented.
quote:
Originally posted by Stingray:
Final Point: don't like it, dont watch it and dont complain, let others enjoy it.No. Don't like me complaining? Don't come here. Don't read my posts. Let others enjoy stimulating conversations.
Agreed. Freedom of speech, and all that.
quote:
Originally posted by Stingray:
I am pursuing an aerospace engineering degree, but I by no means consider myself an engineer yet, as I'm only a month into my college career. But you don't have to be an engineer to know something about engineering.
Nifty. I was an aerospace engineering major for almost two years, until I realized that I hate math.
Seven...variables...hurt...tiny...caveman...brain...
So that's how I came to realize how much I admired the graphic arts.