quote:"We're very aware of that, and we try very hard. We have made a few mistakes but nothing major. I read all these things on the Internet, these 'continuity pornographers' as I like to call them, though I didn't invent the term. These people honestly think that Rick and I are morons! of course we know that the Ferengi didn't make first contact with Archer. They made it with Picard. The only people who see the Ferengi are Trip, T'pol and Archer, and they never find out who they were. They were 'those weird looking guys' and they never see them again, so you can have fun with continuity!"
I am more than angry about Mr. Braga's attitude and I wonder if he believes himself what he is writing here.
I believe him that they are at least trying to stick to continuity. I believe that he's working hard to come up with good stories. I could understand him if he just declared more or less conscious violations of continuity as "artistic license", because it would allow more exciting stories (although it still wouldn't be right to do this on such a regular basis). I never said he or Berman was a moron (although I was often tempted to). But by making up awkward explanations and insulting fans who care about continuity he certainly doesn't make many friends.
No one finds out about the Ferengi? Although Archer would have had all time in the world to scan their databanks after overpowering them? Although Archer threatened that he would inform SF Command of them he didn't even bother looking up how they are named? Although the Valakians mentioned them only a few episodes ago? Although the Ferengi already know the Bolians? Although Starfleet would have thousands of ships 100 years later, they still would never run into the Ferengi? Mr. Braga, better do your own thing and be otherwise silent than trying to teach us continuity!
And if not that, what in the world would Braga call a "major mistake"?
[ April 16, 2002, 10:33: Message edited by: Bernd ]
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It's very possible the Enterprise's computers weren't able to access the Ferengi databanks. Therefore, Archer just passes on the description of their ship and their species descriptions as a warning.
Also, very possible the Ferengi make it a point to keep out of Starfleet's sight.
Besides, we've got plenty of contradictions within TNG alone about the Ferengi. Don't harp only on Enterprise for messing with Ferengi canon.
Besides, Earth knew about the Ferengi since 1947. I don't recall the episode very well, but didn't Nog, Rom, or Quark identify themselves as "Ferengi" at some point to the military (probably during the ruse at the end)? Why don't you go bitch about THAT? Or do you not think that Starfleet knows about the 1947 Roswell encounter with strange aliens with big ears calling themselves Ferengi?
Oh, right ... Braga didn't write that episode. Silly me.
posted
I was not complaining about the continuity error itself, but about Braga's excuse. It's completely invalid with what has been established in the very episode. There have been mistakes before and there will always be mistakes, but even if Braga had mentioned "Little Green Men" (which I never saw as a true error because the files on that were and are always obscure), for instance, this still would be no excuse to exploit them even more. I maintain my statement that since the beginning of Enterprise the acceptance level for what may pass has dropped to an all-time minimum in Star Trek.
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was about to launch into a long argument about how the point of Enterprise is that they can't "assert" themselves once they overpower the Ferengi because a huge part of the series premise is that humanity are the new kids on the block and have to be careful not to tick off any would-be-bullies. (Which also is my answer to one of the more annoying complaints about Fortunate Son, namely why Archer "let the eeeevil pirates go") And how it would be a moral double standard if Archer stole from the Ferengi after taking issue with them stealing from him.
But instead I'll say this:
Phil Farrand basically laid down the law on Nitpicking in his guides, and pointed out that nitpicking is akin to telling your loved one that they've got spinach in their teeth. It isn't about taking issue with the episode on the whole or the people creating it. It's just pointing out little nits and giggling to yourself about how lame you are for noticing that and how the episode would be marginally better if they hadn't missed that.
But in the last few years, nitpicking <worf>has lost its way</worf>. It's now downright ugly. Still miniscule little problems in a script, but they're now being blown up into reasons to trash an episode and personally and viciously insult people I don't think we have any business insulting, based on how we pretty much don't know them.
Every time you take issue with something, say "so what?" And answer your own question. And then say "so what?" to the answer. And answer again. And again. If you get to the ultimate conclusion "this episode should never have been made+" or "this series should never have been made" or "this writer should never have been born" then you've lost any hope of being a grounded, objective, um, normal viewer. You've become a crazy psycho who Brannon Braga has most certainly every right to ignore entirely. And insult, even.
+:If an episode is so godawfulterrible that the nits are the straw that break the camel's back, then on the contrary I'd call it a reasonable conclusion to make. Star Trek V falls into this category, IMHO.
(Addendum)Oh, and to answer the question what Braga might consider a major mistake, how about if they goofed and changed the name of Starfleet Command next episode to "Space Central" and the one after that to UESPA? Or if they suddenly changed Archer's middle name? Or if they suddenly changed the year the series is set? Of if they made Archer capable of reading T'Pol's thoughts in the pilot and then forgot about it? (And called him "Bill," to boot.)
[ April 16, 2002, 10:52: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "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
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
I'm more concerned with Berman and Braga's cavalier attitudes about abandoning themes and issues that are at the core of the Star Trek experience than I am with them playing with continuity points like dates and technology. I am a huge continuity and technology fan, but these things tend to work themselves out on their own (See TheTom's post), and there isnt much point in getting mad about it. What I reserve getting mad about is them turning Trek into a smutty shoot-em-up action movie (which thankfully they havent done completely, so I'm not panicking).
And Braga has a point.. i can see him being a little steamed about not being able to write his 'own' show the way he wants to, and we should keep in mind that when it comes to keeping continuity valid: > the suits at Paramount: don't give a shit. as long as it sells, theyll make it. > Braga and Berman: try to stay valid, but arent afraid to cross a line or two for their vision.
Im more than satisfied with indulging the latter rather than giving in to the former.
We should be bugging them to write better episodes and see what they can surprise us with, rather than bugging them to make everything unfold exactly as we say it should.
[ April 16, 2002, 11:27: Message edited by: CaptainMike ]
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
"Every morning I ask, 'Do I have anything else to give to this franchise? Does this franchise have anything else to give to me besides money?' The day I wake up and answer 'yes' to either of those questions, I will quit."
There's an unfortunate misstatement, if ever I heard one...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
There have been some stinkers, but there have also been some pretty good yarns in there. It's always rough the first season, right? Anyway, it is very easy for us to sit here and be armchair producers. It might be a job we all think we could do better, but as someone who is trying to produce his own show (even on a MUCH smaller scale) I can tell you there is A LOT of work involved. Story arcs need to be drafted, scripts need to be written and tuned, talent needs to be auditioned and rehersed, costumes need to be designed and made, make-up needs to be designed and applied, props need to be designed and built, sets need to be designed and constructed, etc. You add in music, special effects and editting and you have yourself a recipe for high blood pressure. He's got to coordinate all of that, and he still takes the time to give a shizznip about what we the fans think? I can't even imagine trying to do 26 episodes a season. Who does he think he is, Aaron Sorkin?
Of course, The West Wing isn't set in space, shoe-horned in between several thousand years of history and a couple hundred years of inflexible conjecture that rabid fans are carefully scouring for the smallest infraction. I'm willing to cut the guy a little slack.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
IMHO, overall average quality's been better than the other first seasons, but hardly anything to write home about. What I have been quite impressed by is the complete lack of certifiable stinkers [so far]. I'd only venture to call two episodes ("Terra Nova" and "Rogue Planet") bad, and their crime tended to be being boring rather than sinking into the pits of knitting-needles-in-eyes awfulness of other first-year fare (at least a full third of season 1 TNG, no exaggeration; plus generous quantities of first-year DS9, I mean honestly did anyone like "The Passenger" or "Move Along Home"?). Even DS9 in its bestest most fanboy-pleasingest years still put out one or two entries in this category every year ("Ferengi Love Songs" "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." "Profit and Lace" and "Meridian" spring to mind), and so Enterprise's avoidance thus far is a worthy achievement.
Are there flaws? Yeah. But I'm excited about Trek for the first time in ages and I'm not about to start kicking up a tantrum over continuity for the sake of finding something to complain about.
[ April 16, 2002, 11:46: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
-------------------- "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
quote: Besides, Earth knew about the Ferengi since 1947. I don't recall the episode very well, but didn't Nog, Rom, or Quark identify themselves as "Ferengi" at some point to the military (probably during the ruse at the end)? Why don't you go bitch about THAT? Or do you not think that Starfleet knows about the 1947 Roswell encounter with strange aliens with big ears calling themselves Ferengi?
"Little Green Men" one of my favorites from DS9, and they did ID themselves, but I suspect Starfleet knows as mush about area 51 as we do today.
quote: What I have been quite impressed by is the complete lack of certifiable stinkers [so far]. I'd only venture to call two episodes ("Terra Nova" and "Rogue Planet") bad,
I think I would add "Unexpceted" to that list.
Looks like Jammer didn't care much for "Acquisition". I laughed a lot.
posted
I never really understood why the hardcore Trekkie nitpicks. Personally I thought myself as a hardcore Trekkie, but I stopped after one such Trekkie, who looked like the sterotypical one: fat, pimply, pale, ugly, whering super-tight and small T-shirts and asking this question: "Mr. Chekov, which ship did you like better?"
I never when I first watch a episode for the first time, nitpick, critique, etc. This why when someone said that a movie sucked big time, I never see being a sucky movie until I see it a second or a third time. Maybe its just me.
Enterprise is doing well, though in my opinion the Ferengi if they were going to appear, they have appeared a bit later maybe in the 3rd season. Because I doubt they are going to neglect the Ferengi as a species of the week variety. Every Trekkie and their mom knows what a Ferengi looks like, and can relate it to Star Trek.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Unexpected actually impressed me as far as the story was concerned. The episodes failings were in the use of the Klingons who, continuity problem or not, are just boring and stupid in the context of the show, and the fact that the Xyrillians were: a) idiots, b) unrealistic and c) annoying. The episode itself however, did a lot for Trip's character and the crew's relationships. (and after i saw it i didnt think it was such a dumb idea as when i first heard about it).. so basically they get an A for the story and an F for the plot devices, averaging to a C+. The real stinkers are the eps that dont have any redeeming qualities... Hmm.. redeeming qualities.. I liked the outdoor set in Terra Nova, and the pod VFX were good. The story was like something wet and orange i shat out after eating week old burritos, but at least they got all the costumes patches and pips right, huh? See how continuity doesnt make a perfect show...
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree, Mike. To paraphrase a post made by an actually coherent individual at the TrekBBS, the Klingons in Enterprise are just a bunch of stupid thugs with no personality whatsoever, quite different from how they are depicted in TNG. And the "these are 22nd century Klingons" excuse doesn't hold water, IMHO. TNG established that the Klingons had an interesting, rich culture which dated back long before the 2150's. You see none of that here. In Enterprise, they're even more wooden and two-dimensional than the TOS Klingons were.
Re: Tucker: He is my favorite character, hands down. He should be in command of the Enterprise, not Archer. Trip seems to be developing into the pre-Kirk that TPTB thought Archer was going to be.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
To be fair, I wouldn't call three Klingons (Klaang, Volok and Bu'kaH) with more than a pair of speaking lines a reasonable basis from which to develop a 3-D view of the race during this timeframe. Of course, I liked the more savage and thuggish but still unmistakably Klingon behaviour in "Unexpected."
That said, I think the Klingons have been shelved until next year at the earliest, so I wouldn't worry about them becoming moustache-twirling idiots just yet. Braga's biggest weakness, IMHO, is that he's yet to write a really good villain, aside, perhaps, from Annorax and the Hirogen in "The Killing Game".
-------------------- "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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
