posted
Wow. Someone at AICN gave Star Trek a good report. Don't that beat all. Assuming this is true (always best to have a wait-and-see approach), I think the pilot sounds very promising. I do agree with Liam, though. I think some people are getting too hung up on the minor stuff. As the saying goes, "Don't sweat the petty stuff and don't pet the sweaty stuff."
So the Enterprise goes from Earth to Q'onos in 4 days. The time of trips has never been consistent in Star Trek. The Enterprise-E made it from the Romulan border to Earth in record time. The Defiant made astonishingly quick trips to Earth, Cardassia, etc. quite easily. This honestly does not bug at all.
About the transporters and Starfleet, I don't recall ever hearing a specific date for either one coming into existence. And I never remember hearing that Starfleet and the Federation came into existence at the same time. Yeah, there's all that stuff from the Chronology and Encyclopedia and the FASA stuff, but that was generally made up based on indirect evidence presented on-screen. Of course, I may be mistaken and the information was mentioned on-screen, but if that is not the case, I see no problem accepting this.
I also see no problem with T'Pol being in the chain of command. For goodness sake, Kira was in the Bajoran Militia and frequently took over command on the Defiant in Sisko's absence. It's the same deal here.
About the Klingon make-up, it doesn't bother me at all. Roddenberry authorized the make-up change for the Klingons in TMP. In the decades since, only one episode of DS9 brought attention to this continuity error. And even then, it was handled badly. It doesn't hamper my enjoyment at all to just pretend that the Klingons in TOS had forehead ridges. After all, Star Trek already asks us to just pretend in dilithium, faster-than-light space travel, etc.
I also see no problem with the first contact date with the Klingons. Every thinks that 2218 is it because McCoy may a reference to something or other fifty years earlier in "Day of the Dove." Well, at the time that episode was made, no firm date was established for TOS. If we are to believe firmly in dates for the early TOS, then Khan did not leave Earth until 2097 instead of 1997. We've been asked to pretend Kirk said 300 years instead of 200 years. It's not hard to say the same thing and say that McCoy meant 150 years instead of 50 years.
All in all, I'm still looking forward to Enterprise. From what has been presented, it sounds like it has the potential to be really good. I can't wait until the premiere this fall.
I honestly don't think anyone here will *not* watch the premiere this fall. Credit the franchise for making that happen... It'll certainly be one heck of a ratings night. After that though, it falls to the show's own merits to pull it through.
Personally, I like to watch at least half a season before giving up on any given show. And in this day and age, it's tough to do even that - I dropped Babylon 5 halfway through the first season, and when I came back in the third I missed so much that I'd have been totally lost without friends who hadn't given up on the show and taped every episode.
One wonders what the actors think. For them, with a franchise like Trek it's a virutal shoe-in for constant, long-term employment, at the risk of lousy writing for your character. I'm sure that Garrett Wang, despite his underuse, wasn't sad when a paycheque arrived at his house every couple weeks. But what about all these newbies? Do they know what happened on Voyager?
posted
I think every show faces the problem of underused and underdeveloped characters as well as bad writing. I think it is hard on the actors quite a bit. Yeah, there is the paycheck coming in, but you're an actor: you want to show off your talent but the writers never quite know what to do with you or how to squeeze you in. We all know that Robert Beltran was never satisfied with his use or development in Voyager. And all of the Trek series have had major issues with that. We all hope that Enterprise will not be the case, of course.
As I last recall, is Enterprise going to have anyone on the writing staff who has prior Trek experience? Other than Braga (if he is doing any writing)?
quote:Originally posted by Siegfried: So the Enterprise goes from Earth to Q'onos in 4 days. The time of trips has never been consistent in Star Trek. The Enterprise-E made it from the Romulan border to Earth in record time. The Defiant made astonishingly quick trips to Earth, Cardassia, etc. quite easily. This honestly does not bug at all.
You're right but the cases which you state are not inconsistant. The borg were not near Earth when the E-E left the Romulan border. The Borg were around the "last stand" before Earth. When the Borg beat that last stand, Picard had the E-E head for Earth. The Borg beat them to Earth by a few minutes, and the battle had already started.
With the Defiant there was always an undetermined amount of travel time which made it possible for the Defiant to travel between Earth and DS9 at maximum warp. And as for DS9 to Cardassia, don't make me laugh they're extremely close. Closer than Earth and DS9. If you want to believe the DS9 TM, the distance is less than ten lightyears. At the Defiant's top speed of Warp 9.982 [estimates I've seen put that at around 5940c], ten lightyears can be traveled in 14 hours--- come to think of it 14 hours was quoted once on screen wasn't it?
quote: About the transporters and Starfleet, I don't recall ever hearing a specific date for either one coming into existence. And I never remember hearing that Starfleet and the Federation came into existence at the same time. Yeah, there's all that stuff from the Chronology and Encyclopedia and the FASA stuff, but that was generally made up based on indirect evidence presented on-screen. Of course, I may be mistaken and the information was mentioned on-screen, but if that is not the case, I see no problem accepting this.
I hate FASA. Transporters have no set creation date, but it's about as believable as Ahab liking whales. When it comes to Starfleet though, the Federation was started in 2161, and Starfleet was created in 2161. Both dates are from the show. The Federation one is from "The Outcast" TNG, the Starfleet date is from an Academy pennant in TNG-era and from "First Duty" TNG [why have a Starfleet Academy without Starfleet? --- Historically it's possible, look a the US it didn't have a trained army originally... but governments usually do not institute a military or paramilitary organization without training them first].
quote: I also see no problem with T'Pol being in the chain of command. For goodness sake, Kira was in the Bajoran Militia and frequently took over command on the Defiant in Sisko's absence. It's the same deal here.
I disagree. The Defiant was staffed by Deep Space Nine personnel, not Starfleet personnel. This means that the Chain of Command on Deep Space Nine [a Bajoran owned, Starfleet run station, which means the CoC did interwine] was the Chain of Command on the Defiant. Kira had authority on DS9, and thus authority on the Defiant.
quote: About the Klingon make-up, it doesn't bother me at all. Roddenberry authorized the make-up change for the Klingons in TMP. In the decades since, only one episode of DS9 brought attention to this continuity error. And even then, it was handled badly. It doesn't hamper my enjoyment at all to just pretend that the Klingons in TOS had forehead ridges. After all, Star Trek already asks us to just pretend in dilithium, faster-than-light space travel, etc.
Let me put it another way... I'd prefer a story which was consistant, and so would many other people. I can tell you now that Babylon 5 has far fewer descenting fans over this similar problem. The reason is because Babylon 5 made a purposeful effort to remain consistant.
I can easily pretend in anything. But when they ask me to pretend three different ways of the same thing, no thanks. "Trails and Tribble-ations" was a good episode without the Klingon statement, but with the Klingon statement it becomes one of the worst. I was happy with the "They were always that way" but now all pre-movie Klingons have to have flat foreheads. Thus with the DS9 episode.
However this Enterprise show is going to have ridges on the Klingon's foreheads. It's totally inconsistant, it's not enjoyable when it's inconsistant.
[ July 05, 2001: Message edited by: J ]
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
J, it really sounds to me that you trying to find any reason to not like this new show. A lot of the stuff you are pointing out is trivial. Please, just give the show a chance to be something good rather than preparing the coffin before it even premieres.
Now, as for points in your second post, I'll give you points for the Borg attack in First Contact. However, I think you dropped the ball on the Defiant getting from DS9 to Cardassia in 14 hours. The Defiant has never gone faster than Warp 9.5 ("The Sound of Her Voice"), and even then to reach that speed O'Brien had to take the phasers offline to divert power.
As for your point about the creation date for Starfleet Academy, you're basing that off of a date writing on a banner. According to the dedication plaque and the master situation display, the Prometheus's registry was NX-74xxx and not the NX-59xxx emblazonned on the hull. But the hull was clearly seen, so that is what people generally accept as the real registry. The same case is going to be presented here: the series will show a Starfleet operating before 2161. This will be in conflict with a date seen on a banner once. Which is going to become generally accepted?
Another option is that there was another training school for the officers of Starfleet. It may have been different in tone and mission from the Starfleet Academy that was created in 2161 by the banner's date. It is a possibility.
And regarding your argument about the chain of command on the Defiant, I must respectfully disagree. Running Deep Space 9 was a cooperative effort between the Federation and Bajor. The Defiant was a Starfleet vessel. Did we ever see any Bajoran militia personnel on the Defiant other than Kira, Odo, and maybe a nurse? This would seem to indicate that it was a Starfleet vessel under complete jurisdiction by Starfleet Command and that Sisko made exceptions to allow Kira to serve in the Chain of Command. I would think that this is a similar case in the new show, either Archer or Starfleet says that T'Pol is to be the first officer and serve in the chain of command and that Tucker is experiencing some disenchantment with a non-human being allowed that position.
I'm also going to have to disagree on your statement that enjoyment comes from consistency. It is my belief that enjoyment comes from entertainment. If the show entertains, then I can most certainly enjoy it. Many people will attest to that as well. I grew up on shows that originally aired in the 1950's through 1970's and some of them had consistency problems that rival the ones that Trek has. But I still find enjoyment in them because they were good quality television shows. And if Enterprise lives up to the hype and entertains me, I and a lot of other people are going to enjoy it. Even with the Klingons having bumpy foreheads.
posted
1) The Producers constant use of their hometowns.
Um, nobody on the Production staff is from Oklahoma, AFAIK.
2) The non-explaination of how Starfleet can exist without the UFP. Our Starfleet was created when the UFP was created. This Starfleet is Earth's invention, probably created when the world government was formed.
Yes, and your point is? Just because a quick review of a pilot doesn't point this out doesn't mean it's been ignored by TPTB altogether.
3) A time traveling villian. If this is going to be a time travel show then make it one. NONE OF THIS PARADOX CRAP!
Ah, so a show entirely about time travel wouldn't have any of "this paradox crap"?
4) The Suliban
This is a problem how? They sound rather cool, thus far...
5) Superpower aliens [I'm tired of Q-wanna-bes].
We have one?
6) NX-01
ABC 123
(Y'know, a reasoned criticism usually doesn't consist of a registry code.)
7) Phlox
Again, what's your issue, exactly?
8) The time to the Klingon homeworld at the speed stated for an Earth-Neptune trip.
Agreed in that 4 days is a little irritating. But Trek has never ever ever paid any more than lip service to the speed table. Yes, when Paris spoke to Earhart the velocity he gave matched the speed table. Yes, the travel time to Neptune roughly corresponds with the speed table. But stellar distances have almost always been a different matter.
9) Transporters
As mentioned oodles of times, no official date, and by the sounds of things they most certainly will not fulfil the same role that they have in the 23rd and 24th century shows.
10) Earth is under a united government in 2150, when Australia is the last to join.
I'm still thinking that Okuda might have goofed about the Australia thing, if my recollection of "Attached" is correct. But even if true, this is utterly irrelevant to the show as described thus far.
11) If T'Pol's rank is strictly Vulcan then she could be sent out an airlock and the Chain of Command wouldn't hurt at all.
Right. Show me the line in the UESPA Fleet Operations Manual that states this fact.
12) I understand Hoshi's hearing ability... it's kinda like a trained sonar operator.
*nods*
13) If Reed's weapons are phasers, well... I'm already POed.
But if they're proto-phasers, you mightn't have to.
14) /\ Phlox is an alien, Phlox is the doctor.
Yup.
15) T'Pol's starcharts, and Phlox's medical knowledge explains there involvement in the first episode only. Their continued involvement is an incredibly contridiction.
There, *gasp* might be an explanation in the show, perhaps, hmm? Why don't you watch.
16) I doubt they'll listen to continuity... We've already seen enough in this to know that.
Actually, I've been pleasantly surprise by how little by way of sizeable affronts we've gotten. Name one stretch of Trek's glorious past where continuity was religiously adhered-to.
17) Archer's experience with the buterfly-eaters... I want Star Trek not some MTV crap.
Gee, well, that would make TOS MTV crap, too, huh?
18) Archer and T'Pol's decontamination scene. I WANT STAR TREK NOT MTV CRAP!
Actually, if done sufficiently tongue-in-cheek, it could be a very funny scene. I chuckled when I read it. Perhaps I just watch too much MTV crap.
19) There should be no arguement over who gets the Enterprise if Archer isn't there. Tucker is the highest ranking member in the Chain of Command. T'Pol isn't a part of the chain of command.
Show me the place in the script where this isn't addressed. Oh, wait, you can't...
20) T'Pol is forcing the issue, that is not a Vulcan trait.
Au contraire, insisting one is taking the correct and rational course of action is as Vulcan as Plomeek Soup.
21) One can only hope that the Suliban get the temporal chamber from futureguy. It is irritating that they would have the technology to build one of there own and yet not be mentioned since this time period [and ST:X will not count].
Right. And the Tellarites can't have had warp drive in TOS and yet not be mentioned since that time period [and ST:X will not count]
22) Hoshi probably "learned" some Klingon during the trip or from T'Pol, but she certainly doesn't know any.
Course she could. She could just get a copy of Okrand's dictionary from amazon.com
23) You can tell if a series will suck from it's pilot. That's why they do pilots. Pilots are shown to Network executives, and they decide if the series is good or not.
Um, no. 80% of pilots fall into this category, as their quality does influence whether the show goes into full production or gets tossed. But Enterprise falls into the latter 20%, that is, production is assured regardless of the quality of the pilot (and thus more accurately termed a "premiere.") Encounter at Farpoint was pseudo-suck but TNG was most certainly not.
24) Berman created trouble in TNG and DS9, but there were others like Gene Roddenberry [TNG only of course], Ron Moore, Mike Okuda, Rick Sternbach, Robert Justman, etc that kept his manics to a low key. A good portion of these people are gone because of him.'
This is theory, not a fact. You have no grounds to believe it to be true because you have no idea what influence each person below Berman had on him.
And I sincerely doubt that GR died because of RB. Or that Ron Moore left because of RB. Or that Robert Justman retired because of RB.
25) "All Good Things..." was alright, but it wasn't the best episode in Star Trek... it rates with the worst IMO. "First Contact" was also good, but it had a great many problems with it too.
The self-proclaimed unscientific SOS poll disagrees with you on both counts. This is irrelevant.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
No-one's mentioned this yet. But (other than the 4 days thing), it bothers me that this Cochrane footage is supposed to be from 32 years prior to 2153, which makes it 2121. Didn't he go missing in 2117? again according to the chronology......
-------------------- "To the Enterprise and the Stargazer. Old girlfriends we'll never meet again." - Scotty
posted
I think 2217 was another case of the magic "150 years ago" from TOS.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes. As has been stated again and again, a lot of the dates in the chronology were taken as if people were talking specifically, when they obviously weren't. If someone says "a hundred years ago", they could mean 102, 112, 92, or any number of other years ago. A lot of the dates in the chronology are flexible.
Look, are you really saying that an almost arbitary date mentioned in the chronology which is known to less tha 20% of the viewers should be stuck to, rather than allow it to be moved a couple of years if it improved the show?
"But when they ask me to pretend three different ways of the same thing, no thanks. "Trails and Tribble-ations" was a good episode without the Klingon statement, but with the Klingon statement it becomes one of the worst."
I don't know what's more depressing. That that line ruined the show for you, or that it proved that there are Trek fans who care more about little picky anal things than whether the show is any good.
Look, here's an idea. Everytime we've seen Klingons from the past, they've had bumpy foreheads, right? Bashir and O'Brien were confused by the smooth headed Klingons, right? Worf said "we don't talk about it?"
Maybe the Klingons met Q. They pissed him off. He punished them by making them look more human. Klingons were annoyed. Everyone else was confused for a bit, but after a few years, they got used to it. Eventually, Q undid his spell. Bumpy headed-ness returned. Everyone forgot about it. O'Brien didn't know about it because he's not a student of history. Bashir didn't know about it because it's not in the medical texts, because the UFP and Klingons weren't talking at that time, and when they were talking, the UFP didn't want to bring it up.
Okay, bit daft. But every piece of evidence we've had for the past 15 years shows that Klingons currently have bumpy heads, and they used to have bumpy heads, except for a period around the 2260's.
I do wonder if they'll have the nose ridges though (bearing in mind that the movie Klingons didn't have nose ridges, even in those movies made after TNG was airing).
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Yeah, but those were still post-TOS Klingons. Probably while their ridges were growing back. By DS9, Kang, Kor, and Koloth all had the nose-ridges, though they would have lived during the movie era. And Kahless had them, and he's pre-TOS.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:18) Archer and T'Pol's decontamination scene. I WANT STAR TREK NOT MTV CRAP!
Uhhh And what was your thought of the "Boob Firmness" comment in Insurrection , i mean really Life isnt meant to be sterile and bland , this could be extreamly funny and give the characters some bonding time , dont knock it till you've seen it.
As for T'Pol's place in the Chain of Command...
Some of you may not know Shuttle mission have a chain of command , and foreign astronauts go on our shuttles all the time , be they French , Canadian whatever , they might not be "NASA" personel but I'm sure NASA gave them provisional "ranks" or something whos to say the Vulcans and the Humans havent come to an agreement over military/exploration rank structure.
Sometimes i think your all competing to see who can dislike the show more before it has premired.
-------------------- My Mother never found the irony in calling me a son of a bitch
posted
"Yeah, but those were still post-TOS Klingons. Probably while their ridges were growing back. By DS9, Kang, Kor, and Koloth all had the nose-ridges, though they would have lived during the movie era. And Kahless had them, and he's pre-TOS."
Actually, following that idea, has anyone got Flashback on tape? Could they check to see if Kang has nose ridges during it?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
