posted
Yeah, you have the right to complain about valid continuity concerns, but everything that you're harping on has been based on opinion. This time period has been largely untouched by canon Star Trek. In non-canon and fandom materials, the holes have been filled in, but it's the responsible of anyone officially working for Star Trek to try to adhere to it. You're upset because Enterprise is violating your opinion of how things should be and hiding behind the cloak of "continuity" and "this is a slap in the face of loyal fans."
Who's to decide who the hell the loyal fans are, anyway? Just about everyone here at Flare is a loyal fan of Star Trek. Just because we don't have a big, popular website to dispense our opinions of Trek does not make us any less a "loyal fan" than you say that you are. So take a good hard look here and see just how many "loyal fans" are upset by your alleged "slaps in the face."
-------------------- The philosopher's stone. Those who possess it are no longer bound by the laws of equivalent exchange in alchemy. They gain without sacrifice and create without equal exchange. We searched for it, and we found it.
posted
We'd just give all the fans here weapons and drop them on a deserted island. Last 10 to stay alive are "loyal fans".
The Akiraprise got shot up by the Sulibans, those body-harvesting aliens, and now the Klingons. Anyone think it's about time they go back for a quick yard job? Or is Archer afraid that Starfleet will say "oh my god, what did you do to my car?!"
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
posted
David: Don't you know we're going to see the development of the "magic hull" in an upcoming episode? Y'know, the same stuff that Voyager had for its seven scratchless years in the Delta Quadrant?
-------------------- "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
You know I have the utmost respect for you, but I've gotta break it to ya, buddy: I agree with the other guys, it's no big deal. In fact I rather like the idea of utilitarian Klingons using the same outdated ships for centuries, jury-rigging and piecing things back together and making minor and major upgrades, struggling to keep them from being obsolete. It kinda fits with what we know about them.
Sorry.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
quote:The Akiraprise got shot up by the Sulibans, those body-harvesting aliens, and now the Klingons. Anyone think it's about time they go back for a quick yard job? Or is Archer afraid that Starfleet will say "oh my god, what did you do to my car?!"
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose my take on this ship can be predicted, so I'm not going to invoke breaches of continuity or canon, since that's certain to piss off someone. But can all of you who accept and can rationalize this ship honestly say this is what you wanted to see? Before this episode, if someone had told you that the old D-7/Ktinga would be reused would you have said "YESSSSS!!! I don't want any new ships! I'd rather have my favorite ships I've already seen!!!"
So far we have a show with a setting virtually indistinguishable from the 24th Century. We have the standard travel times between planets on antimatter-powered Starfleet ships, human transport, nasty Klingons with their usual ships, handguns with slightly different names, and holodecks. The only concessions to the 22nd C seem to be lack of Romulans, replicators, instantaneous universal translators, and tractor beams, but I'm sure they will appear before too long.
This is OK with you all in a show set 200+ years before TNG/DS9/Voyager? While it has been argued that none of this violates previously established facts, was it really what you expected or wanted? If you wanted all this, why bother having a show set during this time period? Just so we could have more-arrogant Vulcans, pets on board, and officers in ball caps and neckties.
(PS: Please don't say "Get a life" or restrict anyone's right to complain. It's not polite.)
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
quote:So far we have a show with a setting virtually indistinguishable from the 24th Century.
If all you care about is the technobabbley/setting side of things, perhaps there's a case to be had. But, thankfully, Trek is far more than just encyclopedia writeups. The characters are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The storylines are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The atmosphere is rather distinguishable from the 24th century.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: David: Don't you know we're going to see the development of the "magic hull" in an upcoming episode? Y'know, the same stuff that Voyager had for its seven scratchless years in the Delta Quadrant?
I'd give anything to see a roll of duct tape in the background for one of the upcoming episodes.
Tucker: "Damnit, the core is breaching again! Quick, someone hand me the multiphasic matter immobilizer with the high molecular conglutinative index." T'Pol: *raises eyebrow* Tucker: "The tape! The tape!"
-------------------- "God's in his heaven. All's right with the world."
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
quote: The storylines are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The atmosphere is rather distinguishable from the 24th century.
How exactly?
No matter how many times I say it, people never seem to address my arguments about mediocre writing and plot but jump down the throat of anyone who utters the word continuity.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
Well, what is there to address? You think the writing is bad. Fine. If someone else thinks it's good, it's still a matter of opinion. What kind of debate could you have?
posted
Well, of course you could have an objective debate about the merits of the writing. For example, you could argue 1) whether the characters are presented as fully rounded individuals or a superficial collection of personality quirks, racial sterotypes, and physical characteristics; 2) whether the characters' motivations, actions, and reactions make any sense or whether the characters behave stupidly, illogicaly, or contrary to established behaviors; 3) whether each scene advances the story or provides character details or whether the scene is just padding; 4) whether all loose ends are satisifying tied up at the end of the episode or you just sit there and say "what happened to...?"; 5) whether the story is presented in an exciting, unexpected, and original way or just rehashes old ideas in a comforting, nonchallenging way. So, sure, you could debate the merits of the writing if you make the effort to.
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Masao: But can all of you who accept and can rationalize this ship honestly say this is what you wanted to see?
Frankly, I would hate it if they gave everyone what they expected. Sure, there are things I'd have liked to have seen, like a new-old Klingon ship, but I don't think there is anything wrong with what they've chosen to do. That, to me, is the big difference between the two segments of Enterprise commentators. Some, like myself, say, "They're not doing what I expected, but they're not violating continuity so I can respect their choice." Others say, "They're not doing what I expected, and because of this they are slapping me (and other true fans) in the face."
quote:Originally posted by Masao: This is OK with you all in a show set 200+ years before TNG/DS9/Voyager?
Yes. I find that Enterprise has a reasonable balance between Trek staples and primitive technology. As much as tech fans would eat it up, it would be a horribly boring series to have the ship take three months to reach each adventure, never understand what aliens say, and so on. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but there have to be certain concessions to make the show fun. Since none of these concessions actually violate any canon facts about the time period, I don't have any serious objection to them.
quote:Originally posted by Masao: If you wanted all this, why bother having a show set during this time period? Just so we could have more-arrogant Vulcans, pets on board, and officers in ball caps and neckties.
How about so that we can see what happened in the decade before the founding of the Federation? That's why I'm interested; the technology (and even the good ol' Star Trek "formula") are secondary. The argument that "we know what happens" doesn't hold up... or did anyone really expect that the Federation would lose the Dominion War? Did anyone think that Voyager would be destroyed in the Delta Quadrant after four years? All we know about Enterprise is that humanity survives and founds the Federation... we know nothing about where they go, who they meet, and the fate of the ship and crew.
And really, how many options for a series are there? Setting the show in the twenty-fourth century or beyond has the difficulty of technology being so advanced that otherwise tense situations begin to lack drama unless new contrivences are invented to get around a deus ex machina ending. This is magnified if you go even farther into the future, as Clarke's Law* begins to have increased relevance. Am I the only one who doesn't want to see a multi-vector starship with light-year transporters, transphasic uber-shields, multispectral ablative armor, hypertorpedoes, transwarp missiles, Borg nanolaunchers, slipstream drive, a holographic helmsman, telepathic computer interfaces, and a family of Jem'Hadar living in the reconfigurable arboretum? Am I the only person who is rather sick of humans so "perfect" that they can't take a shit because there is a rather large stick blocking the way?
No, give me a basic ship with realistic people and I'll be happy. If they explore strange new worlds along the way, all the better.
* Sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.
quote:Originally posted by The_Tom: The characters are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The storylines are rather distinguishable from the 24th century. The atmosphere is rather distinguishable from the 24th century.
Ok, first a question... You have been watching ENT and you have seen at least 10% of any other Star Trek episodes [especially TNG, DS9, and VOY since taht is what you mentioned]?
Issue one.. the Characters: No, they are not. T'Pol and Trip have the same arguements/disagreements/relationship that Tuvok & Neelix and Odo & Quark had... All of which is based on Spock & Bones. Archer is an experienced leader like all the other Captains [yes, it would be nice to have a person with a lot less experience period]. Reed is cocky, in some ways like Chekov and Worf were. You tell me how the Archer-Sato relationship is different from Janeway-Kes or Janeway-Seven. I'm sure others can add to the list... the characters in the least reflect those characters in other series, at most they mirror them exactly.
Issue two... the story lines: "Broken Bow": 1. Previously unknown & unencountured alien runs into trouble... our heroes save the day. 2. Time travel causes the whole problem, bringing the characters into a fight that they shouldn't have been involved with from the start. 3. Another, previously unknown & unencountured alien is fighting/bothering/generally antagonizing the original aliens. Our heroes are caught in the middle and forced to take sides.
"Fight or Flight": 1. Previously unknown & unencountured alien runs into trouble... our heroes try to save the day. 2. Another, previously unknown & unencountured alien is fighting/bothering/generally antagonizing the original aliens. Our heroes are caught in the middle and forced to take sides. 3. Our heroes weapons are inadequete [though for the first time they are woefully inadequete, a slight change from other series]. 4. Something happens to turn the tide in the fight where our heroes discover their weapons are inadequete... quite simply put, deus ex machine in most cases. [For once the machine was not owned, created, or used by our heroes... a slight difference from other series.]
"Strange New World": 1. New planet/ship/station/asteroid/moon/nebula [in short new location in which the characters have not been before]. In the process of exploring the new location the characters come across something extremely unsuspecting which becomes the plot of the episode. 2. The item/energy/etc that was unsuspecting before, was either not detected/discovered/or was simply ignored before hand. [Simply put like the water on Psi 2000, the transporter accident that created Tuvix, or the Barkley T-Cell De-evolution Virus... those mountain flowers at the beginning of the episode later became the "bad guy"]. 3. Something from outside causes problems between the crew [in this case a drug, but it has been the Maquis, Borg, a virus, ship-wide memory wipe, etc.] 4. Mysterious figures that could be aliens [but for once, they actually weren't].
"Unexpected": 1. An alien gets one of the crew pregnant, and nobody really knew [Troi's kid Andrew]. 2. Previously unknown and unencountured aliens are in trouble... our heroes comes to the rescue. 3. Our heroes have never encountured the alien's technology but are able to fix it [O'brien and Tosk, Paris and that body snatcher in Vis`a`Vis]. 4. The aliens take/give our heroes something and we need to find them to fix the "problem." [Vis`a`Vis is a good example of both in a way. We get a fake Paris and the real Paris is out there.]
And that covers all the episodes I've seen so far.
Issue three... the atmosphere: For once you may be... uh, not really. 1. TNG did explore somethings no one else had and had a bit of flare concerning it. "Encounter at Farpoint" fits this well. Coming across Q was unexpected. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" also touched a little on this. --- ENT seems to take a little from this. 2. VOY and DS9 both had unexplored territory. VOY had the Delta Quadrant and for the first few seasons DS9 had the Gamma Quadrant. DS9 handled it like TNG did, pushing out the bounderies that were established. VOY had the difference in this area by the want to return to those bounderies, but also pushing them out along the way. --- ENT again applies, exploring the unexplored. 3. There is a major difference in the way ENT goes about exploring compared to the others. The others might have had an "idea" of what was out there, ENT does not. The others were slightly prepared for what was out there, ENT is not. The others had experience in the unknown, ENT does not. But the atmosphere of "We're going out to explore the unknown because it's unknown" is the same.
So your statements are false. The characters, storylines, and atmosphere are similar to, draw from, and sometimes mirror that of TNG, DS9, and VOY, as well as TOS. Now it is based on Star Trek, but this does not explain the almost exact duplication, nor does it explain how you missed it.
[ October 19, 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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
