Rate: ST:ENT "Affliction"

[Sea Tyger]

It was mentioned. When Archer is talking to the Admiral, he retorts "re-read your charter, article 14 section 31." Section 31 was created in the Starfleet charter, not the Federation charter. I believe that was established in DS9.

This ep gets a 9 from me.

Oh, the Starfleet charter? Okay, that makes much more sense in the perspective of canon. I can easily accept Starfleet's charter crossing over with few changes (allowing Article 14, Section 31 to survive unaltered) with no heartburn.

And, yeah, I know the name was mentioned in "Divergence." I wrote that post last week, before "Divergence" aired.

[Rayaru]

Sorry I've been out of country the past week, so I watched the two episodes back to back.

[Snake_Plissken]

I give them both a solid '8'. Overall I ilke the ridge/no ridge explanation. I think whoever wrote this did their homework. Aside from that it's pretty much more of the same really. Good but "bleh, seen it, know what's gonna happen" type of thing. That is especially true for scenes like when they were attempting to transport Trip back to the Enterprise. You KNOW they're going to succeed no matter what; I call that "false tension".

Going back to the Klingons, one aspect I really liked however was how the writers addressed the difference in behaviour, not only apppearance, between the "flatheads" and the "ridges". In TOS the Klingons were stand-ins for the Communists whereas in TNG they're the Viking Samurai Bikers we've come to know.

Ah yes one thing: what about the difference between TOS Romulans and TNG Romulans??? The Romulan ambassadors in ST5 and 6 also were "flatheads", but the Enterprise Romulans have those lumpy foreheads (as well as the uniforms from 'Nemesis... )