posted
You know I'm still debating if Enterprise is even Trek to begin with. It's not "Star Trek: Enterprise"... it's "Enterprise" "based on Star Trek" [note the separation]. Kinda like "Star Trek" "based on stuff borrowed from some book whose title I have currently forgotten, just like Lost in Space." Gee, I'm hitting myself trying to think of that name, I'm really gonna hate myself when someone tells me.
Ok, so it shares the aliens and some of the technology--- but none of the story, background, or vision [ok... maybe the stories are rehashed... but those stories are from the 24th century and/or Delta Quad (and those stories are iffy to begin with), not Enterprise's setting].
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
quote:Originally posted by Reverend: My own explanation of the TOS dedication plaque is that at the time, the terms CLASS and TYPE were thrown around quite liberally so what you end up with is a ship's type being displayed on the dedication plaque instead of the more specific class.
This is also my interpretation of Archer's line that "Enterprise is an NX Class starship". I'm hoping it will turn out you can simply replace 'NX' with the word 'Experimental' and that the good ol' NX-01 will become known more commonly as Enterprise Class. And that future ships of this class will display NCC registries.
Sooo that means there is an Enterprise Class
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh, dear god, I can't believe I'm doing this...
quote:Originally posted by J: You know I'm still debating if Enterprise is even Trek to begin with. It's not "Star Trek: Enterprise"... it's "Enterprise" "based on Star Trek" [note the separation]. Kinda like "Star Trek" "based on stuff borrowed from some book whose title I have currently forgotten, just like Lost in Space."
Oh, for fuck's sake get over it. All the Star Trek shows since TNG have been "Based on Star Trek created by Gene Roddenberry". It's not called "Star Trek: Enterprise", because "Star Trek: Enterprise" sounds really, really silly.
quote:Originally posted by newark:
The prequels to Star Wars, though they were duds in the scriptwriting and characterization departments, were great at portraying a world before the trilogy we know from our youth. They faced the same quandry as the producers of Enterprise encountered-how to do a prequel when the modern advancements in technology render the original's depiction of technology obsolete? (Here I am thinking of the use of computers in the first trilogy and other small details that stand out now.) They succeeded.
They did? Are we watching the same series of films where ANH now looks hopelessly outdated compared to TPM and AOTC? Or was that computer simulation of the Death Star's destruction really Cutting Edge for you?
quote:Now to not bash Star Trek, but I do need to ask this question. Why couldn't the producers attempt the same level of success?
Because one of them had 6 hours to compare to, and the other had several billion, maybe?
quote:There was a noticeable lack of Trek babble in the first. I see this as an advantage. With a lack of data, the producers could have created a prequel universe that was true to the original-small ships operating out of UESPA which employed nuclear weapons and other less advanced technologies and still hold true to Star Trek: The Original.
If I could do one thing, it would be to hunt down all references to UESPA in TOS and BURN THEM TO THE GROUND.
Look, they used it twice. It got replaced by Starfleet. They obviously meant Starfleet. Can't we just file UESPA in that same catagory as the Vulcan's being "conquered" and ignore it? Please? Blish did in his novelisations, after all...
quote:As it stands, Enterprise is an anachronism or the first series is. Take your pick.
(I have made my pick-Enteprise is an anachronism and is not canon.)
Bully for you. I happen to think that Chekov's hair in "Catspaw" should be declared non-canon. Doesn't change a flipping thing though. But you continue to put your fingers in your ears and hum very very loudly.
-------------------- 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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It might be worth remembering that alot of fans went through this exact same discussion back when TNG first came out. Remember those who refused to watch it on the basis that it wasn't "real" Star Trek?
If you hate UESPA as much as I do, then I have worse news for you. Mr. Sternbach created labeling for Friendship One which had UESPA markings. This is modern trek. Not some prototypical series attempting to build the foundation and structure of its fictional universe. So there, Enterprise doesn't even agree with the facts as presented in Voyager.
I was open to TNG when it premiered and never saw a problem with the series. I also happen to grow up with reruns of the first and watch this one more then the others. As with TNG, I was open to the series Enterprise. However, the difference is that I have expectations of what the pre-TOS world should look like. I expected a primitive ship using nuclear weapons and being close to Earth. Not some 24th-22nd century hybrid which used weapons of the 23rd century. This doesn't jive with I saw and heard on the first.
I mention UESPA because this organization has support in the modern Trek and is not an anachronism we can toss out with the bath water.
Psyliam,
I like you as much you like me which is not a whole hell of a lot.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
There is a major difference between TNG and ENT. For starters, TNG had a realistic plot for a TV show [period]. ENT is not as entertaining as TNG. Secondly, TNG had a plot & setting that was consistant with what TOS had established. There have been many complaints and instances of this mentioned elsewhere, no need to go into it.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
quote:Originally posted by J: ENT is not as entertaining as TNG.
Says you.
And says several million American viewers.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I must say, watching TNG, it's so good to see a group of sensible people who know what they are doing. Quite refreshing after two seasons of Archer and co. playing about with massage oil and dogs. ENT has it's own entertaining points, but perhaps it's time for a new 24th century Series VI?
posted
Like I said before in some other topic, Enterprise is quite popular with the general public. The only ones who are complaining are in fact the fans. Unless you can do better, go through college, get a degree in some random entertainment area that Enterprise needs, go blow someone, and please do us all a favor and show how you can do a better job. If you cannot do that, then shut up, don't watch the show and spare some of us who do enjoy the show.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by SoundEffect: This is also my interpretation of Archer's line that "Enterprise is an NX Class starship". I'm hoping it will turn out you can simply replace 'NX' with the word 'Experimental' and that the good ol' NX-01 will become known more commonly as Enterprise Class. And that future ships of this class will display NCC registries.
But that would mean that Enterprise is the first Starfleet ship. Which, clearly, it is not.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Matrix: Like I said before in some other topic, Enterprise is quite popular with the general public.
That's an unjustified generalization. Prove it.
I've got several years' worth of Nielsen ratings that say that a hell of a lot more people liked to watch TNG than "Enterprise."
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QUOTE]But that would mean that Enterprise is the first Starfleet ship. Which, clearly, it is not.
What other Starfleet ships have been positively identified? Starfleet is only 12 years old as of 2151. It would take probably that long to get a starship designed and built in that amount of time. There's no formal Starfleet Academy since the Academy Logo cites 2161 as it's founding date, so we don'tknow how long training is for Starfleet officers.
I thought the entire premise of the series was for us to witness the circumstances of the first Starfleet ship's adventures!
posted
You're confusing your Starfleet's. (United Federation Starfleet & United Earth Star Fleet) Indeed there was another UESF ship mentioned, the Shenandoah plus I think one of Malcolm's friends was onboard another ship and had a similarly styled ship patch to enterprise's
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
