To those who don't seem to like ENTERPRISE, a rant

[The Highlander]

Originally posted by The Highlander


Let me ask this, just out of honest curiosity --

Would ENTERPRISE be more acceptable if it either took place, say 10 years after DS9 or was the saga of Capt. April?


Y'see, I just can't see what the problem with adherance to canon. Why couldn't there be stories of what came before Capt. ApriL?

I'm not asking some of these questions to make problems here, friends. I honestly don't see what the problem is some have with this new show.

Just because it has no elements from the prior shows and is set before any of them doesn't make them Trek?

This is what I don't seem to be able to fathom. I'm sorry if I come across as clueless, but some of this reasoning just doesn't seem to make sense...

I mean, history has to begin somewhere, doesn't it?

[Robbert Raets]

It is my impression that no-one can come to terms with each other about Enterprise. I will scorn nor support it until I've seen it with my own eyes. From what I hear, it's reasonable science-fiction, but at odds with Trek continuity (gee, what a surprise - Trek has always been lagging behind real life tech & issues). We must remember that real life influences TV-series more than the desires of us fanboys. Please don't turn this into a flame war.

$0.02

[qerlin]

Actually...I hate to say it, but I like this show better than the others, so far. And I was one of the nay-sayers.

I REALLY like the characters, for the most part. I like the sets and costuming. I like the effects. I've liked the stories. And I love that the transporter isn't getting used much, that their equipment can't do everything...and that there's none of this Prime Directive crap.

The whole socialist rhetoric is toned down, too.

On the whole...blows the doors off Voyager.

[Lt.Khrys Antos]

First off, Thundergod, I'm a big fan of your posts

I count myself as a nay-sayer, I don't like ENT as TREK. Hell I'll admit I didn't like VOY, but it did have a TREK feel. ENT is just a good sci-fi which uses elements of STAR TREK as a story line.

I don't know what makes me think that ENT doesn't deserve the TREK logo. Maybe its the new music, the ship's "sleekness", the fact they already showed klingons, maybe its the new warp scale they invented. It could be the characters, the only character I like is the Vulcan. Maybe its the fact that B&B are still there. Could be any of those, to me it doesn't feel like TREK. To others it may, then good for them, they noticed a quality I didn't.

I do like ENT more than VOY, I hated voyager, especially Neelix. Reminded me too much of Jar-Jar Binks, a clumsy, clueless, and incompetent character with no reason to be there after Kes left.

I find the new ENT closer akin to Andromeda, it feels alot like it.

Well I've finished my rant

[Robbert Raets]

>socialist rhetoric

Hey, man, just because you don't have social security doesn't mean you can take the p*ss on us who do! (j/k)

[prophetsteve]

Would ENTERPRISE be more acceptable if it either took place, say 10 years after DS9 or was the saga of Capt. April?

Its just that when making Enterprise a lot of people really think (and I tend to agree) that B&B didn't really think through the concept enough.

Its okay to have a new ship in pre-TOS but calling it Enterprise opens a can of worms.

My own issue with that was simply that for me, the Enterprise's rise to prominance in Starfleet began (mostly) Kirk. It was just another ship really until Kirk's five year mission. After that it became the flagship of the fleet and its symbol became that of Starfleet.

The idea that the Enterprise in Pre-TOS was the first mover-and-shaker of the various Enterprises cheapens the accomplishments of Kirk and co. In my opinion anyway.

Y'see, I just can't see what the problem with adherance to canon. Why couldn't there be stories of what came before Capt. ApriL?

Its not that its before April. Its just that a lot of us think that if you are going to do a historical series, you have to put a lot of thought into it. Its a lot harder to do a good prequel than it is to do a good sequel

I like canon but realize that compromises must be made. The set cannot look like a TVTOS set. But if you have to break or bend canon, at least do it because it tells a good story or is required to fix the greater continuity or modern sensibilities...

Problem is that in Episode 4, the canonbusting was not for a good cause. IMHO anyway.

Just because it has no elements from the prior shows and is set before any of them doesn't make them Trek?

No. I personally couldn't care less if there were elements from TOS or TNG in Enterprise but I do expect they pay attension to Trek history. They have done an half-decent job so far (a few issues notwithstanding) but the last episode is beginning to make me wonder if the slide downward is beginning...

Just my opinions

[Thundergod]

If you don't use elements of previouis Trek, then how can you say you are Trek. If I dont use any wood to build my house then I cant say that my house is built of wood.
What is it that you can't quite Fathom?

Is it an age issue..how old are you? For some of us here Trek has been a lifetime of evolution, like old freinds and family. For younger audiences I don't know if they can understand this connection.

TOS came out against such sci fi shows as Lost in space and my favorite Martian. When it was born it was all there was. Yes years later we know it was not the bomb...but back in the day it was the only bomb there was. It was cheesey, but in comparison to what was out there in that genre it was the tops.

Today star trek has grown up quite a bit, as has the average science fiction fan. We can't just toss out episodes like Spocks brain on a regular basis and expect the mature Trek fan to keep watching. The twist with this is that When TNG started most of its hopeful fan base was 25 to 40 years old. In order to please those fans they had to have stronger more beliveable stories and top of the line effects. Trek has been and still is one of the most expensive shows to produce on TV. (barring seinfeld) Roddenberry had a budget and a stronger commitment from the studio, plus he held a strict level of high caliber writing. Yes there are a few 'spocks brains' in TNG but overall it was a fantastic series.

TNG picked up more than just the old fans...It picked up the new ones. Children watched the battle of wolf 359 and saw the efforts of Picard and had never seen TOS. This generation is a genration of NO WANTS. That is to say it has been a generation that has had more than its capacity of great Sci Fi. Star Trek, X files, Outer limits, Farscape, Earth final conflict, Sea quest, Star Wars, Did I forget STAR WARS...Sheesh.

I believe that this is ONE source of divergence in what is seen as Traditional Trek and what is seen as Enterprise. For the kid that has it all what does it matter if you wipe away the past. He wasn't there to begin with and he coldn't care less about it. But For those who only had the light of Kirks Enterprise, who walked with a Star Trek sticker hidden in there school books, who had diagrams of Federation ships that never existed hanging on our walls....( does anyone remember the menagah?) For those brave souls that stood outcast and went to the conventions, stood inline for the movies, waited with fear for TNG... Played the overly skill burdened FASA trek,...Well for us vetrans its a harsh slap in the face to say...it never mattered. Cause before some of you were even born It sure as hell mattered to us!

PAX
JLA
AKA
Very old man.

[Thundergod]

You know I was just proofing the above post and for an on the fly rough draft I think it was very good. Alos the post before it was well. The greeks used to say that Wisdom Flys only at night... a reference to Athenas owl bupo and to situations like this. Where fine souls and brave minds must rise up and bring our pens to arms against the darkness and misery that Enterprise MIGHT bring. So for you highlander and the others who just don't understand logic, I salute you...for your hard to understand point of veiw has inspired the rest of us to our best.

[The Highlander]

Originally posted by Thundergod
You know I was just proofing the above post and for an on the fly rough draft I think it was very good. Alos the post before it was well. The greeks used to say that Wisdom Flys only at night... a reference to Athenas owl bupo and to situations like this. Where fine souls and brave minds must rise up and bring our pens to arms against the darkness and misery that Enterprise MIGHT bring. So for you highlander and the others who just don't understand logic, I salute you...for your hard to understand point of veiw has inspired the rest of us to our best.

Thundergod, I understand logic. . . all too well.

Logic would also dictate that you don't shred the sapling just because it didn't become a tree right away. . .

[The Kurgan]

Originally posted by The Highlander


Let me ask this, just out of honest curiosity --

Would ENTERPRISE be more acceptable if it either took place, say 10 years after DS9 or was the saga of Capt. April?


Y'see, I just can't see what the problem with adherance to canon. Why couldn't there be stories of what came before Capt. ApriL?

A fair question, and one I will happily respond to, despite your being my arch enemy! (One day I shall take your head, Highlander!)

Ok, I would say there is a small miscommunication here over our reservations about canon, etc. It is not the time period that is upsetting to some of us. You could set the show any-when and that would be fine by me. The problems pop up when the producers and writers begin re-writing the established history of what has already been. Granted, there are things in the 'real world' that have of course happened differently from what Trek said they did in its timeline, but that is one of those things that we just either have to accept and ignore (ye olde innocent whistling, et. al.) or possibly hope they write the show as stated and ignore what really happened (eg. the entire Trek story so far from the beginning is an alternate universe from our own). However, in either of those events they still should be adhering to what they have written when they produce new material. With Enterprise, as nice as it looks and as enjoyable as it is, they haven't done that. They've created yet another branch of contradictory events that effectively invalidates much of what has been seen before (and not just novels, but actual canon from tv & movie installments --I mention that because many don't count the books, which is fair).
So anyway, that's why we say it isn't Trek. I guess a better way to say it would be to say "It isn't the same Trek, or It isn't the Trek we've come to know" since the history is different. If Trek had never been seen before and Enterprise was a brand new experience I'd be all over it with enthusiasm. I'm surprised enough as it is that I actually like the durned thing so much despite my obvious feelings. Ah well, we'll live.

[The Kurgan]

Originally posted by prophetsteve


My own issue with that was simply that for me, the Enterprise's rise to prominance in Starfleet began (mostly) Kirk. It was just another ship really until Kirk's five year mission. After that it became the flagship of the fleet and its symbol became that of Starfleet.

Kirk worshipped April as the penultimate hero, Starfleet captain, and swashbuckling man's man (and if you've ever buckled a swash you know just how tough that can be!)... April racked up a massive repuatation in his two 5-year missions (and before as an enlisted and up), and although we don't know what all those stories are, Gene certainly implied it was a tour to make Kirk envious. I grew up with Kirk as "my cap'n!" heh heh, but to see the career of Robert April (the quite intentional Horatio Hornblower of Starfleet) done well would be a friggin thrill and a half. I really think this is one of those things they should wait another 20 years for, though. I'll wait for Braga & Berman to croak and then I'll buy the rights. lol

[Thundergod]

Kurgan ...

You bring up a good point. The whole Eugenics war started in 1999. Unless Prince changing his name back to prince was a war...As a WRITER this is a problem for me too. How can I expect an audience to take my stories seriously when they have such major goof ups as that. My solution was to take from First contact, the bell riots in DS9 and some creative thinking.

In my stories I make historical references that are completely inaccurate. I make apoint of saying that 200 years in the future they really don't know what was going on and when. That is to be assumed that there was a serious world war that wiped most of the Western world out. If you firgure the Khans of that Era wanted to re write history there could be a serious mismatch of dates and authorites. Staling re wrote stuff and we arent always sure what it was.

In Wolf 359 Faulkner states that Radio was a 19th century invention and Kirk clarifies that it was actually made in 1940.

I thought that was a cool way to NOPRIZE the 1999 Eugenics war and other errata.

PAX
JLA
ps...
if you want to see more of my writing then go to WWW.LCARSCOM.NET Check out there special features section, and look up Fan fiction. Im there at the bottom of the page. Check out Star TRek the Virtual series.

[Robbert Raets]

>Logic would also dictate that you don't shred the sapling just because it didn't become a tree right away. . .

And a pear tree will never grow apples....

Thus Enterprise will never be true Trek....

[REG]

But what is true Trek? Is it moving forward? Isn't that what Captain Archer is doing, even though he is doing it at a different time period?

Is it the new aliens? Of the 150 member species that makes up the Federation, do we know all 150 of them? Can we recognize them by sight?

Is it the lack of the Prime Directive?

Or is it the new technology? Something that Roddenberry prefers to avoid, making the story more crucial to the audience.

Please I want to know. Maybe after 30 years of my existence on this planet, I may have forgotten all about it. The only recollection I have about make Trek tick is the "human adventure." Perhaps I am just reciting those two words, because I have forgotten what that really means to me. Please refresh my memory. I thought that the "human adventure" is a timeless theme. It does not matter when it happens: the future, the past, even now.

Or perhaps I missed the point that Roddenberry have been trying to teach us, or lost it along the way. Help me.

[The Highlander]

Originally posted by The Kurgan


A fair question, and one I will happily respond to, despite your being my arch enemy! (One day I shall take your head, Highlander!)

Ok, I would say there is a small miscommunication here over our reservations about canon, etc. It is not the time period that is upsetting to some of us. You could set the show any-when and that would be fine by me. The problems pop up when the producers and writers begin re-writing the established history of what has already been. Granted, there are things in the 'real world' that have of course happened differently from what Trek said they did in its timeline, but that is one of those things that we just either have to accept and ignore (ye olde innocent whistling, et. al.) or possibly hope they write the show as stated and ignore what really happened (eg. the entire Trek story so far from the beginning is an alternate universe from our own). However, in either of those events they still should be adhering to what they have written when they produce new material. With Enterprise, as nice as it looks and as enjoyable as it is, they haven't done that. They've created yet another branch of contradictory events that effectively invalidates much of what has been seen before (and not just novels, but actual canon from tv & movie installments --I mention that because many don't count the books, which is fair).
So anyway, that's why we say it isn't Trek. I guess a better way to say it would be to say "It isn't the same Trek, or It isn't the Trek we've come to know" since the history is different.

Halle-freakin'-lujah!

That, oh nemisis of mine, is exactly the answer I've been looking for!

Now I get it! I honestly do!

Y'know, for a blood-thirsty, Immortal-murdering savage, you're not bad. . .

Now, I believe we have an appointment somewhere, you and I. . . bring your favorite toy, and I'll bring mine. . .

(walks away whistling "A kind of magic" . . .