[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]

As a result, Enterprise will be on Wednesdays at 8 on Znaimer's local independent channels --CityTV Toronto, CKVU Vancouver, and New VI Victoria (although the latter channel doesn't kick off until Oct 4, meaning it'll miss the first two eps) -- and then repeat the following Sunday nationwide on upper-cable-tier-only SPACE! (which he also owns) at 8.

But all is not lost if Znaimer's reach does not extend into your hometown... syndication rights went out in all the other major markets. A-Channel, who run independent stations in the Praries, will show it on Wednesdays at 7 on their Winnipeg station and, in a rather cool move, show it a day earlier, Tuesdays at 8, on their Calgary and Edmonton stations. The CTV affiliate in Atlantic Canada, ASN, will show it there on Thursdays at 8.

So, yeah, in Toronto, it'll be on CITY, which can be obtained with a television and an old coat hanger.

[ September 24, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!
 

What'd I tell ya, Bernd?

@#&@!*$^(!@*$&...
 

On a more general note, and on the other hand, maybe this is where we must start looking at "Enterprise" as a variation on the established Star Trek universe, just as Arthur C. Clarke saw his 2010 as a variation on 2001, 2061 as a variation on both 2001 and 2061, and 3001 as a variation on all three. In fact, if you look carefully at 3001, in some places it seems like Clarke places the events of 2001 in 2031! Why? It turned out we didn't have a moon base and the other tech in the 1990s, so he changed the timeline.

Braga clearly sees his show this way, so there is no need to be angry about inconsistencies; it simply means the universe of this show, and perhaps that of Voyager, isn't necessarily continuous with the rest of the Star Trek universe. Let's group this and Voyager into one category, DS9, TNG, and TOS in another. That's just one way of making the split.

Consider this: Rick Berman said in the TIME magazine article on "Generations" that "Star Trek" isn't his vision of the future. It really isn't a realistic future at all. So why the ISS in a Berman show? To me, this says: "With this show, I change my mind, you ARE in a future that is 70% extension of the present day, and only 30% Star Trek." It's really a different show from the ground up.

It's true that we can rationalize just about anything, but in doing that we'd be destroying the artistic integrity of not just this, but every Star Trek show. It has worked so far because the timeline of TNG, DS9, VOY was established by a consistent group of people, and was distant enough from TOS not to conflict. Now, it's going to be more difficult, though not impossible, because TOS is no longer a floor to jump off whereever you want; it's a ceiling which says exactly how far you can go with "Enterprise". Berman and Braga have to watch for it to keep their fanbase, but they really seem to want a different kind of show.

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

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

Mark
 

But I will reserve final judgement until I see what kind of role ISS plays in the show. But either a quick shot cameo or a major plot element, it won't work at all. For various reasons. I'll see if I can dig up the email I sent Bernd ranting about the topic awhile back.
 

Suspension of disbelief. Work on it. I mean, you guys seem to be fine with innacuracies in television shows set in the present-day. Strangely enough, when you drive to Seattle you don't get Dr. Crane on the radio. Someone who looks a lot like Dennis Franz has never worked for the NYPD. But move the series into the future and suddenly there's a requirement that the show can never show something accurate to our revisionist view of how the future turns out? Because that proves the show is fake?

I'm going to watch "Broken Bow" tonight and enjoy it (or not, as the case may be) as drama and escapism. The ISS is real. The Eugenics Wars are not. I can't see why you guys can't make that distinction.
 

The Star Trek universe (or 'backstory') is a very complex one and a very good one. The future as described by TOS (and Clarke too) I really enjoy. Because today, in the twenty-first century, they take on an extra, originally unintended context. Which is that the human species has seriously slacked off in its originally voracious pursuit of a spacefaring civilization. More can be done, as a writer, with this already created backdrop to give a new message about the procrastination of humanity.

And also, I would bet anybody on this board money that if they mention ISS at all, they will be calling it some great achievement of humanity or something. Which is, unfortunately, complete propoganda. ISS is a failure engineering wise and policy wise. I've ranted before about ISS and the current state of NASA, so I will assume my point is made.
 

The bottom line is that its the intro , perhaps they will never mention the ISS in an episode , it may just be in the intro because it relates to the premise of the show.

Either way the ISS being in the intro will have about 0 influence on my final opinion of the show.
 

However, chances are you won't see much similarities in technology after that year, so the probability of an identical ISS is much lower. If we separate TOS from the Star Trek universe, the chances are much higher because TNG, DS9 and especially Voyager writers largely ignored the TOS scheme of development. Hence, the ISS becomes an argument for separating the shows. That's the whole point.

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

The ISS shows up *only* in the opening credits sequence of the show. As we know, the opening sequence features shots of historical exploration stuff through history. At the end of the opening sequence, we see a batch of "future history" stuff. This includes:

-the assembly of the ISS (the last part of which we see in the picture here)

-a futuristic space plane being released from an orbital docking arm

-the Phoenix separating from its booster and deploying its nacelles (footage lifted directly from "First Contact")

-Some early starship (which looks like a Star Destroyer from "Star Wars" with outboard nacelles) flying over a lunar landscape which is covered with colonies and stuff

-the *ONLY* shot of the Pre-E, leaving Earth and flying into warp.

The OP sequence carries with it a couple other CGI shots, including one of the "Deep Flight One" deep-submergence vehicles that (I think) is still being built right now, and a composite shot or two of US astronauts in space.

I would point out that the OP sequence is the LEAST "Trekkish" of them all. The Rod Stewart clone's singing "Faith of the Heart" is a very different touch as well. Do I like it? I'd say yes, though the song could lose its Armaggedon-ish patriotism quickly. I have this horrible image in my head of a bunch of Trek fans at a convention spontaneously breaking into song, waving lighters around and whatnot. Yipe.

Mark

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: Mark Nguyen ]

However, this doesn't explain other evidence to the effect that Voyager's vision of the 1990s is closer to the present day than TOS's. It still seems to me that the universes should be looked at as variations on each other, and not a single, unified canon.
 

"Space. The final frontier. These are voyages of the Starship Enterprise..."
 

Me, I get to go home and hit "play".

Mark
 

I don't buy it.
 

The ISS in Star Trek damages an otherwise, for the most part, excellent creation. It's unimaginative, contradictory to the backstory, and controversial considering the controversy surrounding ISS itself.
 

On a tangent, the ISS is frelled. A recent report has stated that the station in its current state can't handle science tasks. As a result, scientists who were in favor may leave. An example of the issues associated with the station is that two people are required to operate the station. The third is a backup to one of the two primaries if there is an illness or injury. This statement is supported by former station inhabitants. Additionally, the current 'war' has crippled NASA. NASA will be short on funds, which will ultimately mean the station has less functionality and science value.

The only bright note, if we follow Stingray's arguments, is that NASA is considering opening space exploration to commercial ventures. Of course, the downside of this is that space exploration is prohibitively expensive. This brings us back to where started-hamstrung on Earth dreaming of colonizing the Moon, Mars, and beyond.

The opening showed where we had been and where we could go if we, as a civilization, decided that space exploration was a necessity, not a luxury.

[ September 26, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

I think that the easiest way to "completely preserve continuity" would be to say that both the Freedom and the as-planned-ISS got built in the Trek universe, even if not in ours. A few dozen other such stations may also have been built, before the DY-100-level tech appeared. In the Trek world, the stations got built early on, perhaps in the eighties, using a larger shuttle fleet that perhaps included a spacegoing Enterprise.

The second way would be to say that the Freedom in the office really is the ISS and only one station got built and our eyes are not working properly and we have to contact a licensed repairman.

The third way would be to regard the CGI of the ISS as just that, a piece of art, much like the piece of parchment with HMS Enterprize on it, or the page from Leonardo's doodlebook. It need not describe a "real" object at all.

Timo Saloniemi
 

Everybody seems to automatically assume I'm being some continuity obsessed, completely irrational person about this. But I'd like to remind everybody that it is possible to disagree on a point and not belong to the fundamentalist section of the other camp. If I am a Muslim, you don't neccessarily have to argue theology w/ me on the basis that I am a jihad.

I will still watch the series, I will not make voodoo dolls of Berman and Braga. However, I disagree with the producers' intentions of putting the ISS anywhere in Trek, for reasons that I've already stated.