I'm not (any more) on a "Crusade" to prove that Enterprise is bad, I'm only pointing out things that have gone wrong. And a D-7/K't'inga and holotechnology in the 22nd century are wrong, no matter what kind of excuses are made up for it.

There are loads of good reasons why the Klingons of the 22nd century must have older ships. The argument that Klingons are warriors not engineers is a cheap excuse in my opinion. Warriors frequently need new weapons. Even the good old bat'leth may have been improved several times by using new alloys, and the same should apply to ship hulls. The Klingons are not Hirogen, they want to win a battle and not have the thrill of fighting a superior enemy with traditional hunting rituals. They are eager to get the new holotechnology as well as they quickly adopt cloaking devices over 100 years later, but their ships always stay the same? Moreover, Klingons are waging war all the time. They frequently need to replace ships, even much rather than an organization of peaceful exploration. No one can tell me the Klingons wouldn't come up with always new designs, if they need new ships anyway. Finally, in TOS the Klingons were clearly on the same technological level as the Federation, which makes a lot of sense since it was supposed to reflect the Cold War in the real world. At that time, the Soviets and the Americans kept the balance of power by developing new horrible weapons and countermeasures almost in parallel. It doesn't seem that the Klingons were very busy to develop anything new from 2151 to the end of the Cold War, if they are still using their old rust buckets. Finally, in "Once More Unto the Breach" Kor mentions the old D-4 cruiser. Since the TOS cruiser and the K't'inga are different ships but share the designation D-7 ("Prophesy"), what in the world could be a D-4, if not a really different looking (older) ship?

And what the hell would the Klingons do with holotechnology? Agreed, they could do some battle practice, but isn't it essentially exactly the type of convenience the Klingons always reject? It is incredibly bad continuity that a fully functional holodeck shows up in the hands of a major race 200 years before it is available on Federation ships. Anyone remember how excited Riker was about it in "Encounter at Farpoint"? Or Picard in "The Big Good-Bye"? Or Lwaxana in "Man Hunt"? This was something really new. It just makes no sense if the Klingons get their hands on this holotechnology 200 years earlier than the Federation (while their ships always stay the same).

It seems there are many fans who (quite unlike it was the usual attitude towards Voyager) just buy everything that is presented in Enterprise, as long as it doesn't violate continuity in a very narrow definition. Where's the limit of tolerance? Klingons riding on pink elephants? That wouldn't be a continuity breach either, since we have no evidence that Klingons are not supposed to have pink elephants.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
And a D-7/K't'inga and holotechnology in the 22nd century are wrong, no matter what kind of excuses are made up for it.

---

The fact that people are disagreeing with you is evidence that this is purely subjective. I, for instance, find nothing wrong with it. Is it what I would have preferred? No. Is it what I think "should" be there? No. Is it objectively wrong? No.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
There are loads of good reasons why the Klingons of the 22nd century must have older ships. The argument that Klingons are warriors not engineers is a cheap excuse in my opinion.

---

At least you admit, for once, that it's your opinion and not a matter of fact. There's nothing wrong with having negative opinions about anything, and there is nothing wrong with expressing them. But there is something wrong with claiming that your opinion is more than it actually is.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
Warriors frequently need new weapons. Even the good old bat'leth may have been improved several times by using new alloys, and the same should apply to ship hulls.

---

Nobody suggested that the twenty-second century ship hulls were made of the same alloys as the twenty-fourth. "Way of the Warrior" makes it clear that Klingon ships can have weapons and such in wildly different locations. If that episode showed K't'ingas one hundred years after they were first seen, why is it such a big deal to see a D7 one hundred years before it was last seen (a century before "Prophecy" [VGR]).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
Okay. I agree. The battlecruiser doesn't violate continuity in a very narrow sense.

---

It doesn't violate continuity in any sense. There is nothing in previous Star Trek that indicated that the traditional Klingon battlecruiser did not exist in the twenty-second century. There is also nothing that indicated that the Klingons lacked holotechnology. "Continuity" is, as someone else pointed out, a buzzword at this point, obviously intended to elicit a reaction. If everyone told the truth ("Enterprise isn't what I wanted") then nobody would complain... so people use the C-word to make their complaint sound more significant. At least that's my theory... maybe everyone knows of some hidden continuity violations that I missed.

No matter what feelings anyone has about the series, Enterprise doesn't violate continuity, and it doesn't violate canon. Enterprise can be accused of being unoriginal, derivative, boring, and predictable with lazy, ignorant creators... but accusations of continuity violation are simply false, unless someone has evidence they haven't yet presented.

The line between violating continuity and not is simple, and self-explanatory. Klingons riding on pink elephants would not break continuity, it would just be stupid. Nobody would defend it as being logical. Likewise, it is perfectly possible to feel that the Klingons shouldn't use D7s in the twenty-second century but admit that it doesn't violate previously established canon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
Decide for yourself, but I don't want to see a show in which anything is made possible with silly quirks and far-fetched explanations.

---

Nobody forces you to watch it, and I wouldn't think less of you if you didn't. I watched maybe ten out of the last three seasons of Voyager because I hated every single character.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berd:
Although they promised old tech, they needed only four episodes to show us a fully operational TNG holodeck.

---

It did nothing of the sort. They directly said that it couldn't generate interactive people. We never saw anyone break their group up, so we don't know that it can handle the "subdivision" perspective issue. All we know that the Xyrillian holochamber can do it make a credible environmental simulation. Even the Constitution was intended to be capable of that, as related in The Making of Star Trek and seen in the animated series. Most importantly, the Enterprise crew were awed by the technology and didn't get a hold of it, so they are indeed showing "old technology" for the humans.

[ October 20, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]

quote:

---

Enterprise can be accused of being unoriginal, derivative, boring, and predictable with lazy, ignorant creators...

---

Ya, that's pretty much what we're saying. Read the following statement very carefully:

USING A D7 WAS UNORIGINAL

Likewise can be said about MANY other elements of 'Enterprise' so far.

Notice, nowhere in the above was continuity mentioned.

quote:

---

holotechnology in the 22nd century

---

quote:

---

They directly said that it couldn't generate interactive people. We never saw anyone break their group up, so we don't know that it can handle the "subdivision" perspective issue.

---

Okay. So it was limited. But having a perfect illusion of the look and fiel of a three-dimensional environment is already advanced enough. I see the rest as a rather small step. Again, just my opinion.

quote:

---

Bernd: So, why aren't you complainng about the violation of continuity in showing K't'ingas in TNG and DS9. That's just as much a problem as showing a D7 on ENT.

---

Yes, I can live with another hundred years of lifespan for the D7's, but it would've been a lot cooler if TPTB had actually designed something *recognizable* as TOS-era Klingon, instead of using exactly the same hull.

I was a bit dissapointed with the Klingon bridge. The Klingons used to have very brightly lit, clean-ish bridges in the days of TOS (or TAS anyway). And they had touch-screen controls !!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
If you all are so pedantic, I will avoid the c word in the future.

---

Come now, Bernd, I would have expected you to be above ad hominem attacks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
Okay. So it was limited. But having a perfect illusion of the look and fiel of a three-dimensional environment is already advanced enough. I see the rest as a rather small step. Again, just my opinion.

---

It seems to me that having a holodeck capable of simulating two different enviornments for two users simultaneously while imaging and simulating those users in the eyes of each other as well as making realistic, interactive people are quantum leaps over making a credible enviornment (pardon the potential Bakula pun).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
First the lifespan is extended to 100 years, and now even 220 years.

---

Not quite. The K't'ingas have a lifespan of 100 years, from 2270 to 2370. The D7 now has a lifespan of 110 years, from 2150 to 2270 (and two "looks," but that's a different issue).

I do want to reiterate that I, too, don't like the choice to use the D7 over again. I, too, feel that it stretches credulity. The difference is that I don't feel that it stretches credulity to any extreme that's not already common in Star Trek. Klingons using a similar ship design for 200 years is nothing compared to the implausibility of the universal translator translating Xyrillian after a sample of perhaps ten words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bernd:
I think now they have crossed the line. Moreover, can't we assume that Chancellor Gorkon's ship is one of the most advanced of the fleet? Now this becomes essentially a 140-year-old design.

---

Look, here's my opinion, for those who care (and, Ryan, I'll try not to use the c-word improperly... ^_^).

I have, and shall continue to watch "Enterprise." Perhaps it is out of a morbid sense of curiosity, to see how far they stretch credulity. At any rate, even if they are not violating canon or continuity, this series is upsetting a lot of people, like Bernd.

For whatever reason, TPTB are pissing many fans (loyal or not) off, moreso, I think, than has happened with the launch of previous series.

Now, despite the currently on-hiatus state of my fanfic "Star Trek: Beyond" series' page, I have one statement which both my brother and I agree upon: "We can do it better than Paramount."

Simple as that, folks. We've come up with stories even they haven't touched yet, despite how many of our plots mysteriously turn up for the first time months after we play them out. Yes, I said play them out. I have built fleets of various-scale balsa starships, to accompany my plastic kits and resin kits. We fly them around and act out space scenes. Yes, I know how old I am. It's still fun.

Our plots may center less on secondary character development, but, then, we're not that schizo. Character development for our captains' characters suits us just fine. Oh, by the way, those balsa ships? Many are custom designs. And, if you know my artwork from the ASDB, you know it's not just three woodchips glued together.

My point, you ask? Oh, I had to have one? ^_^ Well, I suppose that now, more than ever, I'm realizing that I no longer really care what TPTB do on the shows.

If they ever get around to that 10th film (TWO STAR WARS MOVIES IN BETWEEN TREKS??), that will undoubtedly go into my "personal canon." For right now, though, the only thing from "Enterprise" that's in there is the fact that there was an early ship named Enterprise, the names of the crew and their character bios, and some of the circumstances of the series.

We may have built up our own fandom views of what Trek before Trek was like, but it was, for the most part, a shared view among many fans. TPTB seem not to care. So, I'm saying that I can live without THEM! LOL I have my own early Earth spaceship designs, more believable than Akiraprise, and more attractive than what a pre-Daedalus might look like! ^_^ The same goes for early Klingon ships.

*gets down off soapbox, to the tune of an audience comprised mainly of chirping crickets*

~ Jason Colbert =)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
For whatever reason, TPTB are pissing many fans (loyal or not) off, moreso, I think, than has happened with the launch of previous series.

---

And yet, they're also making many fans (loyal or not) very happy. Polls at TrekWeb, Trek Today, and other sites consistently show approval of the series in the 70-80% range, before and after the series premiere. Those who don't like Enterprise are in a minority as far as fandom at large... though the tech-fans don't seem to fit this trend. Perhaps its our stereotypical attention to detail, an attention to detail that most fans don't share. My dad, for isntance, watched the original series as a teen and couldn't care less about what the ships look like or what kind of weapons they're throwing around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
If they ever get around to that 10th film (TWO STAR WARS MOVIES IN BETWEEN TREKS??), that will undoubtedly go into my "personal canon."

---

So you mind when Enterprise destroys widely-held fan consensus about the twenty-second century, but you'll "undoubtedly" accept...

($$$ Begin Spoilers for Star Trek: Nemesis $$$)

...the destruction of widely-held fan consensus about the Romulan Empire and Remus in particular? After all, fans have long agreed that Romulus and Remus were settled together when the Romulans left Vulcan, but Nemesis will show that Remus is inhabited by a slave-race.

($$$ End Spoilers for Star trek: Nemesis $$$)

It seems that there is a double-standard at work here, but maybe I'm wrong.

The funny thing is that there isn't a widely-held fan consensus about what starships, technology, and civilzations were like in the twenty-second century. LUG's game materials (created by very ardent fans, as anyone who's talked to them can attest) painted a picture completely different from that of, say, Masao's Starfleet Museum. This is completely different from Michael Jan Friedman's Starfleet: Year One serial novel, which is different from the old Spaceflight Chronology, which is different (in many respects) from FASA's role-playing game, which is dramatically different from traditional tech fandom.

To use a pointed example, look at the infamous James Dixon. He steadfastly refuses to change the ideas that tech fandom held in the early 1980s. He accuses the producers of essentially all Star Trek since 1986 of ignoring what came before, though none of "what came before" was more than fan extrapolation. He has a personal devil called "Okuda" that he largely blames for blowing off fandom.

He is also essentially ignored by fandom at large as a whiner who doesn't know when to quit. I've seen many people through the years, here and elsewhere, complain about Dixon's bias and apparent grudge, and express the idea that he should get over it and finally accept that fandom was wrong. In ten years, Enterprise is going to be firmly entrenched in Star Trek canon and fandom. There will be people that will steadfastly refuse to change the ideas that fandom held in the late 1990s. They will accuse the producers of Enterprise of ignoring what came before, though none of "what came before" was more than fan extrapolation. They will have personal devils called "Berman" and "Braga" that they will largely blame for blowing off fandom. They will also probably be ignored by fandom at large as whiners who don't know when to quit.

If you want to be one of those people, don't let me stop you. (Quick Note: I'm not accusing anyone of being a whiner, nor suggesting anyone stop complaints. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I just like analogies, and I can imagine Dixon saying most of these same things circa 1990.)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
We may have built up our own fandom views of what Trek before Trek was like, but it was, for the most part, a shared view among many fans. TPTB seem not to care.

---

To paraphrase a certain Simpsons episode, "They've given you hundreds of hours of free entertainment, and you think they owe you?" Since the producers know that (1) tech fans are clearly not indicative fo fandom at large and (2) so far, approval of Enterprise has been very high, they seem to be doing the logical thing by staying the course. Star Trek production isn't a democracy any more than it is only "Gene Roddenberry's vision;" Star Trek is a franchise.

The irony is that if Star Trek production were a democracy, most of the voters would be in favor of Enterprise and the situation wouldn't be any different! The producers are just giving the people what they've clearly indicated they want by tuning in every week, buying those novels and movie tickets. It's sad, but the sort of "morbid curiosity" that nearly forces Star Trek fans to watch series that they dislike could very well be responsible for keeping them on the air.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt_Spencer:
So, I'm saying that I can live without THEM! LOL I have my own early Earth spaceship designs, more believable than Akiraprise, and more attractive than what a pre-Daedalus might look like! ^_^ The same goes for early Klingon ships.

---

Fine, take the easy way out! I find that it's far more fun to integrate than to pick and choose. Having to completely revise your personal Star trek history is both challenging and stimulating, to me at least.

[ October 21, 2001: Message edited by: Ryan McReynolds ]