posted
It would be an excellent policy, except the same people responsible for mid-to-late TNG were responsible for early Voyager.
The Voyager season 1 writing staff was basically the TNG season 7 writing staff minus Echevarria and Moore. And by the sounds of things, the ENT season 1 writing staff is shaping up to have basically no faces from the Voyager season 7 writing staff at all. The production staff is decidedly more DS9-ish than Voyagerish. I can't understand why anyone would assume that the first season of Enterprise will be like a 13 hour extended version of "Threshold" and a 13 hour extended version of "Favorite Son" running back-to-back. The potential for it sucking is certainly there, but nobody has the slightest piece of evidence that isn't based on what has come before that it will.
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
posted
I was too young to care about TNG, and wasn't even around yet for TOS [or TAS for that matter].
When DS9 came around my first thought was, alright another trek series. This is gonna be great. I had no bad thoughts about it being on a station... in fact I thought that was probably going to be a strong point. When I heard people scoffing at the idea of a station "because Star Trek is for ships" I laughed for days. I still laugh at it. There were times I was disappointed that they came up with the Defiant, but it did add something to the show.
When Voyager came out I was again happy. Another trek series, this is great, I'll have TNG reruns, DS9, and this new show Voyager. A female captain? interesting, this will be new. I generally enjoyed Voyager for it's first few seasons. I didn't have major problems with it until "Threshold" and "Future's End" from there things got steadily worse. But I never prejudged it.
Enterprise is different. I don't care about the past thing--- I'd love to have more information about this period. Infact I chuckle to myself when people say "But Star Trek's about looking forward, not back." I do however care about continuity. I like a story that fits together like a puzzle, one that doesn't require a sledgehammer to put it together. I am not entertained by "Threshold," "Voyager Conspiracy," "Future's End," among others. Enterprise is limited in the scope of what it can do.
The chance was taken though... Enterprise has already failed my review, I don't need to see an episode--- I just need to look at the casting sheet. I don't need to see an episode, I just have to know they have Klingons in it. I already know that the ship is slow, has no phasers, no transporter, no subspace radio, no holodecks, no replicators, no photon torpedoes. However, they are giving it transporters and are implying a very fast ship. I don't know about a trip to Qo`noS either, the ship shouldn't be able to travel that far [Kirk's five year mission did have resupplies].
I was open to a prequel until they deliberately started contridicting things. We haven't even seen the premire. At the very least they should have used the pre-production time for research, instead of unnecessary hipe. And their hipe is also leading to their downfall, as this hipe is showing us how bad Enterprise is going to be.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
It will be interesting as I stated earlier. Wonder what klingons will look like? Will they look fierce as they do now, or will they have a cheesy beard and mustache and a horsehoe crab on their forheads..?
Personally I may or may not watch it. I like Andromedia, it's light, has adventure, and it was envisoned by Gene. But then I didn't watch TNG for the first two years..
posted
"I don't need to see an episode, I just have to know they have Klingons in it. I already know that the ship is slow, has no phasers, no transporter, no subspace radio, no holodecks, no replicators, no photon torpedoes. However, they are giving it transporters and are implying a very fast ship."
Wow. That's the worst argument I've heard since I last looked at one of Omega's posts on the Flameboard.
They are implying that the ship is fast? Compared to what, exactly? The fact that the Ent-D regularly seemed to get from one side of the Federation to the other within TV seasons, when it should have taken at least a year at high-warp speeds? The fact that on TOS, dialogue regularly stated that the Enterprise was travelling all over the galaxy (eg "We've been thrown clear across the galaxy")?
Also, you give a big long list of things that (according to you), the ship shouldn't have, and then reveal that they have two of them? Two out of seven? And one of those is subjective (and the other may not be true at all, after recent comments)? Or are you saying it'll be bad because it hasn't got phasers, holodecks, et al? Because that makes a huge difference to good storytelling, doesn't it?
Point by point:
1/ Ship is slow. Argued above. Subjective point of view. Ships in Trek regularly ignore their speed limits, which have little effect on storytelling anyway.
2/ No phasers. Will replaced by another sci-fi weapon, that'll do pretty much the same thing. Notice any effective difference between TOS and TNG weapons? No? Same thing.
3/ No transporter. Eaves says there might not be one. In any case, we don't know for certain when it was invented. So it can be in it if TPTB want it to.
4/ No Supspace Radio. The Horizon didn't have it, true. But what exact year was that? And the Horizon could have been an old ship. Supspace Radio could be a new thing.
5/ No Holodecks. Lord knows how TOS survived without them. What will we do without our yearly Holodeck accident?
6/ No Replicators. Again, TOS. Which might have had them (depending on your views on how those food slots actually worked).
7/ No Photon Torps. And when were these invented? Regardless, they're hardly an important part of the show, are they?
-------------------- 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
"At the very least they should have used the pre-production time for research, instead of unnecessary hipe."
I'd be willing to put money that Okuda, Eaves, and most of the other members of the production crew have done fair to significant amounts of research. And not so that they can slaveshly follow it, but so they can realise what's important, and what they can "tweak" for the sake of good entertainment.
-------------------- 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.
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: 1/ Ship is slow. Argued above. Subjective point of view. Ships in Trek regularly ignore their speed limits, which have little effect on storytelling anyway.
Your statement is completely false. It doesn't matter how much the ship moves during a season [off screen there can be wormholes or other phenomena that gets the ship further away]. What does matter is the speed within a single episode. It is impossible for this ship to get to any other star [outside of those multi-star systems such as binaries and trinaries etc.] within an hour--- travel times would literally take at least a day.
quote:3/ No transporter. Eaves says there might not be one. In any case, we don't know for certain when it was invented. So it can be in it if TPTB want it to.
It's worth mentioning still.
quote: 4/ No Supspace Radio. The Horizon didn't have it, true. But what exact year was that? And the Horizon could have been an old ship. Supspace Radio could be a new thing.
The Horizon was launched in 2168, the Horizon could not have been around before 2161 [it was a Federation vessel], Subspace Radio technology was around by 2150's for the Earth-Romulan treaty.
quote: 5/ No Holodecks. Lord knows how TOS survived without them. What will we do without our yearly Holodeck accident?
I could do without the holodecks completely they really don't add anything to the entertainment of the show. What I'm mentioning with Transporters, Phasers, Holodecks, Photon Torpedoes, Subspace Radio--- etc etc etc... is that they are said not to be around in this time period. The Enterprise Cannot use them. My Point is that it would be a bad show if it had them because it shouldn't have them. TOS, TNG, DS9, and VOY [said reluctantly] all established things that should never be intentionally stepped on. There are many episodes in VOY that intentionally stepped on toes [Threshold is the largest example I can give]. No series before has the potential as the single episode "Threshold" did, but Enterprise does. Enterprse must not have certain items, aliens, plots, etc unless it wants to intentially destroy things.
quote: 6/ No Replicators. Again, TOS. Which might have had them (depending on your views on how those food slots actually worked).
Seeing as the tribbles were able to get into them, I view them as simple food elevators/transporting devices. But not replicators.
quote: 7/ No Photon Torps. And when were these invented? Regardless, they're hardly an important part of the show, are they?
23rd century [2215 according to the TNG TM]. If Photon Torpedoes were around they would have been used in the Earth-Romulan War of 2150's, but nukes were used instead.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
People need to stop being so god damn anal about continuity. Really... most of the point you bring up are quite trivial. It almost sounds like some people have nothing else to do with thier lives buy debate weather or not Transporters should exist in 100 years or blah blah blah. These people remind me of the Star Trek fan stereotype.
Or even better, the Comic Book Guy from "The Simpsons".
posted
OK, maybe the continuity issue has been harped on a little too much of late. But the fact remains, Star Trek has always been popular with many of its fans for maintaining a high degree of internal consistency. Many of said fans are among the most devoted, who have stuck with Trek despite the post-TNG drop-off in viewing figures. It's perfectly possible for a prequel to do quite well while very rarely contradicting anything established by the 'later' shows; however, if the new show violates some of the most basic tenets of the Trek universe itself, that will further alienate the main fan base. If they are driven away, the guaranteed Trek audience will whither still further, endangering Trek's very future. It was the hardcore fans who made possible two TNG spin-off shows, not the mainstream audience.
posted
True - i admit even though I always bash people making such a big friggen deal about continuity sometimes I forget some of the bigger mistakes (which most of the time, are at least attempted to be corrected). But sometimes I wonder about a persons sanity when they complain that the transporter effect is too fast or a registry number 'isnt right'.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The premise of Enterprise originally intrigued me, but unfortunately, as information about the new show is being released, I am becoming somewhat less enthusiastic. I would have liked to have seen more “homage” to TOS in the ship, uniforms, Klingons, set designs, etc. (Yes, I admit it; I’m one of those “continuity Nazis”!)
In all fairness though, I will watch, and if the stories are good, I will enjoy. But as a long-time, die-hard Star Trek fan, it is my prerogative to fuss about aspects of the show I do not like. No one has to agree with me, and if I am in the minority, that is O.K. It is just a TV show, and I am not going to lose any sleep over the debates. If you enjoy the show, even though I may not, more power to you!
But, there is a certain continuity that I believe Berman and his cohorts should adhere to in order for Enterprise to be regarded as "true-to-form" Trek," at least in my book. They are not doing very well thus far, although this is only my opinion. (Again, my feelings will not be hurt if you do not agree.) I will be patient, and time will tell...
posted
You Guys keep pointing to "Gene Roddenberry's Dream" , In My opinion that Dream is over , its not 1966 anymore , and Gene's not around to consult on these matters , its a new "trek" so to say , whether its good or not you cant decide now because you havent seen the show , so you can count me into the "I'm interested in this concept and I'll watch it as long as its watchable" camp.
I mean if it turns out to be horrible I'll switch right back to the reruns of Sex And The City and Six Feet Under on HBO.
-------------------- My Mother never found the irony in calling me a son of a bitch
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic