|
|
Science Fiction » alt.startrek » Second chance (Enterprise)
| Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245093] |
Mi, 05 April 2006 23:24 |
|
We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series,
for better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any
real details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise
over again, what would your vision be?
Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and
the technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if
at all? Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245094 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 00:02 |
|
Skytech wrote:
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series,
> for better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any
> real details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise
> over again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and
> the technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if
> at all? Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
I wouldn't have done it. This "early days of the federation" idea was simply
too thin to spread out over a normal TV series of multiple 26 episode
seasons. Like the Mirror Universe, something that's interesting in small
doses, but not enough for a series. If there was really a desire to address
teh early days of the Federation, the Romulan War etc, it would have been
more appropriate to just visit the interesting bits in either special
episodes of another series (as in Mirror Darkly) or in a minseries of say 6
episodes.
But then there wasn't really any interest in exploring important canon
things anyway, it was just "OMG we need another series what can we do any
ideas anyone what about a prequel hey yeah that'd work".
As to what the tech should have been like, maybe they should have asked this
guy for some input-
http://www.starfleet-museum.org/
since unlike anybody at Paramount he's clearly thought about how to regress
Starfleet technology to a lower level in a sensible way and interesting way.
I particularly like his low-tech warp drives with inefficient nacelles and
fusion rather than matter/antimatter power resulting in low speeds and low
operational ranges. Maybe his ideas aren't perfect, but they're certainly a
better stab at what things may have looked like at the time of the Romulan
War etc than anything Enterprise had, which was just TNG with boiler suits.
Ian
--
www.jaxtrawstudios.com
Science fiction comics for the discerning reader.
With shagging in.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245095 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 00:06 |
|
Skytech wrote:
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series, for
> better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any real
> details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise over
> again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and
> the technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if at
> all? Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
1. More primitive tech would have been mandatory in any realistic
prequel. The Enterprise looked too good to have predated TOS.
2. No Time Wars. Stupid, stupid, stupid plot device.
3. Klingons way too early, and they didn't follow what we understood
canon to be.
4. Romulans? Cloaking devices? Oh come on already. Its pre-TOS.
5. Vulcans. Why screw with their characterization? Yeah, here's an
idea, make them the bad guys. Geez.
6. Porthos. A dog. On a starship. Yeah, right.
There's lots more, but that would require a few more minutes of typing
and I've got other things to do.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245096 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 00:57 |
|
On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 21:24:33 GMT, Skytech wrote:
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series,
> for better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any
> real details, what did you expect from it.
I expected it to suck. It did.
> If you could do Enterprise
> over again, what would your vision be?
I wouldn't do it.
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and
> the technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if
> at all? Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
There really aren't many redeeming qualities in Enterprise. Some of
it is enjoyable enough on its own, but as a part of Trekverse it
sucked bigtime. As someone who practically memorized every TOS
episode as a kid, I was always wondering if anyone involved in
Enterprise bothered to watch the TOS DVDs that I paid to much for
myself.
The last season showed a glimmer of hope, but as someone else said, it
would have worked better as a miniseries.
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245098 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 02:10 |
|
1. Enterprise was done to soon after Voyager. I think people were Trekked
out after a decade and a half, especially since people weren't to thrilled
with Voyager (Except for the hard core Trekkies. They'd watch Picard and Co.
stand on their head and whistle Bolero if offered).
2. It's been said by a zillion others: ditch Berman and Co. Season 4 of
Enterprise proved one thing when they brought in Manny Coto: new blood can
reinvigerate things. I find it ironic that Enterprise got cancelled while
some of the best eps. of the series, if not of the recent Trekfare, were
being aired. Before anybody starts up Trek again, Berman and his crew has
GOT to go.
3. Enterprise was miscast. IMO, I had a hard time seeing Scott Bakula as
anything other than Sam Beckett. And whatever Jolene Blalock's talents are,
I think Berman and Co. got lazy with her casting and went for the T and A to
turn on all the Trekgeeks.
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lAWYf.478$sq5.441 [at] newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series,
> for better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any
> real details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise
> over again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and
> the technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if
> at all? Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
>
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245100 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 02:27 |
|
Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
<snip>
> 3. Enterprise was miscast. IMO, I had a hard time seeing Scott Bakula
> as anything other than Sam Beckett.
I was disappointed when I first heard about his casting. I think he's a good
actor but not exactly soaked in charisma, and Archer was indeed the least
memorable of any Trek lead/commander. I warmed to most of the rest of the
cast but Archer disinterested me. Also, they blew it by not having a
"K"/hard "C" in his name.
KirK
PiKard
SisKo
then
Janeway
Archer
note the good series have the Ks, the sucky ones don't.
> And whatever Jolene Blalock's
> talents are, I think Berman and Co. got lazy with her casting and
> went for the T and A to turn on all the Trekgeeks.
It wasn't her fault. The writing was awful, the catsuit was awful, the wig
was awful. She shone in the Mirror episodes, once she could actually get to
do some acting, and had decent hair. Also, her scene with Tucker mourning
the dead baby was awesome IMHO.
It's like in latter day Trek, they decide to cast a "babe" and then get shy
about it and ruin both character and look of her with awful costumes and
awful hair. They should either drop the whole idea of geek appeal characters
or go the whole hog and cast an Orion comms officer who works in the nude in
the next show or something.
The Ent team seemed to have no idea about Vulcans. Ignoring the horrendous
mangling of pon farr, the 4th season Vulcan episodes were characterised by
Vulcans acting nothing like Vulcans, emoting all over the shop. That awful
T'Pau... arrrrrrrrgh.
My only regret is that we never found out what Empress Sato did next :(
Ian
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245101 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 02:43 |
|
On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:10:08 -0400, Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
> 1. Enterprise was done to soon after Voyager. I think people were Trekked
> out after a decade and a half, especially since people weren't to thrilled
> with Voyager (Except for the hard core Trekkies. They'd watch Picard and Co.
> stand on their head and whistle Bolero if offered).
Not a good excuse for a bad series. You can't change channels without
running across some kind of CSI series. Doesn't hurt them any.
> 3. Enterprise was miscast. IMO, I had a hard time seeing Scott Bakula as
Absolutely.
> anything other than Sam Beckett. And whatever Jolene Blalock's talents are,
> I think Berman and Co. got lazy with her casting and went for the T and A to
> turn on all the Trekgeeks.
Didn't work either. She's not that great-looking even without the
stupid Spock haircut. (And what was with that? Why did they have to
show all the Vulcan women with butch cuts!? Previous shows already
established they can wear their hair long and down!)
--
Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
Promote someone else.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245103 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 04:34 |
|
>
> 1. More primitive tech would have been mandatory in any realistic
> prequel. The Enterprise looked too good to have predated TOS.
>
That bothered me too. I think the PTB figured a lowest common
denominator audience would not accept anything not like The Next
Generation. The ship was too sleek and...TNGish! Should have been
something closer to the Dedelus(sp?) configuration.
> 2. No Time Wars. Stupid, stupid, stupid plot device.
>
Yeah, I was thinking about that at work today. Time travel *only* for
very special reasons. not 'we can't think of anything else'. Shows how
out of hand it became when it was used to clean up the whole time
paradox mess!
> 3. Klingons way too early, and they didn't follow what we
> understood canon to be.
>
When I saw the first episode, I did a quick calculation and there was
no way to reach the klingon homeworld in three or four days! The
warpspeed mentioned barely gets you to Alpha Centauri! That and the
fact they used klingons raised my hackles then and there. Didn't they
also have warbirds? I have to believe they had all that klingon
paraphernalia and prostetics to use up. I would have prefered it be a
couple pre-Fed races so we could have an early indication how terrans
would eventually fit in the galactic community. At best, klingons
should have been almost mythic boogeymen too far too worry about
during Enterprise's timeline. The Romulans should have been the main,
early adversay. Speaking of which...
> 4. Romulans? Cloaking devices? Oh come on already. Its pre-TOS.
>
Yes! This was the early years! Let Earth and early allies and the
romulans explore communication and confrontation in terms od early
technology! There could be visual communication but who's to say the
romulans just don't wish to use it? I think episodes featuring cold
war confrontations would have been tense. Maybe only the audience gets
to see the enemy.
> 5. Vulcans. Why screw with their characterization? Yeah, here's
> an idea, make them the bad guys. Geez.
>
I think the vulcans were represented well. Even in TOS time they were
often haughty and arrogant in their belief their way was the right
way. Enterprise showed them not models of perfection. We did get to
see the evolution of vulcan attitudes and behavior and, once again,
the influence of the terran behavior.
> 6. Porthos. A dog. On a starship. Yeah, right.
>
That or a cabin boy...
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245104 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 14:18 |
|
Granted, Blalock might be totally a traditional beauty, but she's far from a
she beast, either. Anyways, I'm not sure her face is the body part guys are
looking at.
"Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz" <starfist.at.gmail.dot.com> wrote in
message news:1g0c4fvcie7dv.dlg [at] starfist.thorsfinni...
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 20:10:08 -0400, Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
>
> > 1. Enterprise was done to soon after Voyager. I think people were
Trekked
> > out after a decade and a half, especially since people weren't to
thrilled
> > with Voyager (Except for the hard core Trekkies. They'd watch Picard and
Co.
> > stand on their head and whistle Bolero if offered).
>
> Not a good excuse for a bad series. You can't change channels without
> running across some kind of CSI series. Doesn't hurt them any.
>
> > 3. Enterprise was miscast. IMO, I had a hard time seeing Scott Bakula as
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > anything other than Sam Beckett. And whatever Jolene Blalock's talents
are,
> > I think Berman and Co. got lazy with her casting and went for the T and
A to
> > turn on all the Trekgeeks.
>
> Didn't work either. She's not that great-looking even without the
> stupid Spock haircut. (And what was with that? Why did they have to
> show all the Vulcan women with butch cuts!? Previous shows already
> established they can wear their hair long and down!)
>
> --
> Lance Corporal "Hammer" Schultz
> Promote someone else.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245105 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 16:08 |
|
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lAWYf.478$sq5.441 [at] newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series, for
> better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any real
> details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise over
> again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and the
> technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if at all?
> Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
The answer probably would have to be: don't do NX-01. If you want a
"prequel" that isn't "Nyquil" the answer lies in other directions, for
instance pre-Kirk 1701.
No far-off plotlines, no advanced features. Christopher Pike or
[not-necessarily canon] Robert April doing the first 5 year deep-space
missions aboard NCC-1701.
The entire theory of NX-01-based ENT didn't, couldn't and wouldn't work. In
order to be canon in terms of scientific and technological development
things like top warp speeds, weaponry, defense and all computer functions
(scanning, database search, computer speeds, et al) would have to be
significantly limited. Distances implied by the warp curve that,
canon-wise, must rule in a time 100 years before 1701 severely limit the
human occupants of the traveling space ship, within "short" time spans, to
limited alien contact.
In other words the entire problem with NX-01 was the very foundation of it's
existence once the NX-01 paradigm was set. The entire premise would have to
be very severely limited in scope and short-term accomplishments - as our
own space programs in this century are now. But the production crew simply
wouldn't settle for such limitation and therefore created both "broken
canon" and poor storylines (time travel) to deal with this.
The entire creation was flawed from the start. Television wants "high
adventure" but by setting the prequel 100 years prior to what we, now,
consider a bit "retro" means that ENT would have to appear the equivalent of
"super-retro", not significantly more advanced than what we have right now
(especially considering the setbacks of WWIII, which is indeed Trek canon
(TOS episodes AND a movie)). With all those constraints the pacing would
have to appear, in comparison to standard "television" pacing, glacial.
B&B didn't/couldn't/wouldn't deal with this, in order to sell the premise of
the show, and [we] all paid for it.
Either make a "prequel" with pre-Kirk 1701 or make a prequel only 1 or 2
ship generations prior to Kirk. Or, maybe, the entire prequel scenario just
won't work because the entire pacing of the show would just have to be too
slow (canon: ship crashed on Talos 13 years prior to 1701 reaching them and
navigator mentions "new ships" in terms of "time barrier being broken" in
order for 1701 to reach the survivors within (implied) short time span).
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245106 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 16:57 |
|
Frankly, I have found this discussion here to be more interesting then the
series itself.
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lAWYf.478$sq5.441 [at] newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series, for
> better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any real
> details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise over
> again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and the
> technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if at all?
> Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245107 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 17:24 |
|
Jaxtraw wrote:
> Benjamin Pavsner wrote:
> <snip>
>> 3. Enterprise was miscast. IMO, I had a hard time seeing Scott Bakula
>> as anything other than Sam Beckett.
>
> I was disappointed when I first heard about his casting. I think he's a good
> actor but not exactly soaked in charisma, and Archer was indeed the least
> memorable of any Trek lead/commander. I warmed to most of the rest of the
> cast but Archer disinterested me. Also, they blew it by not having a
> "K"/hard "C" in his name.
>
> KirK
> PiKard
> SisKo
and Pike, of course.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245110 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 22:04 |
|
>
> The entire creation was flawed from the start. Television wants
> "high adventure" but by setting the prequel 100 years prior to what
> we, now, consider a bit "retro" means that ENT would have to appear
> the equivalent of "super-retro", not significantly more advanced
> than what we have right now (especially considering the setbacks of
> WWIII, which is indeed Trek canon (TOS episodes AND a movie)). With
> all those constraints the pacing would have to appear, in comparison
> to standard "television" pacing, glacial.
>
Wasn't ENT something like 150 years after the war? Consitering how
much we've achieved since the 1850s and the fact we didn't have an
advanced race around to assist, I think a reasonable amount of
spacefaring technology should be possible. That's why I expected an
Age of Exploration from the series. We're the kids who *have* to go
out and see and touch everything much to the (vulcan) parents' dismay.
TOS's time could be consitered a second AoE with the advent of more
powerful engines.
One problem would have to be the size of the backyard. Should it be
the huge expanse shown in older ST tech manuals and maps or what
appeared recently in Star Trek Star Charts? STSC made the warp 3/5
limits more 'realistic' especially for purposes of confronting the
romulans. I was hoping the series would focus on the future founding
of the Federation so meeting and dealing with races that would affect
that path seems reasonable. Consitering how crowded the ST galaxy gets
with habitable/exploitable worlds, the show should have had ample
opportunity to discover.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245111 ] |
Do, 06 April 2006 22:53 |
|
Skytech wrote:
>> The entire creation was flawed from the start. Television wants
>> "high adventure" but by setting the prequel 100 years prior to what
>> we, now, consider a bit "retro" means that ENT would have to appear
>> the equivalent of "super-retro", not significantly more advanced
>> than what we have right now (especially considering the setbacks of
>> WWIII, which is indeed Trek canon (TOS episodes AND a movie)). With
>> all those constraints the pacing would have to appear, in comparison
>> to standard "television" pacing, glacial.
>>
>
> Wasn't ENT something like 150 years after the war? Consitering how
> much we've achieved since the 1850s and the fact we didn't have an
> advanced race around to assist, I think a reasonable amount of
> spacefaring technology should be possible. That's why I expected an
> Age of Exploration from the series. We're the kids who *have* to go
> out and see and touch everything much to the (vulcan) parents' dismay.
> TOS's time could be consitered a second AoE with the advent of more
> powerful engines.
>
> One problem would have to be the size of the backyard. Should it be
> the huge expanse shown in older ST tech manuals and maps or what
> appeared recently in Star Trek Star Charts? STSC made the warp 3/5
> limits more 'realistic' especially for purposes of confronting the
> romulans. I was hoping the series would focus on the future founding
> of the Federation so meeting and dealing with races that would affect
> that path seems reasonable. Consitering how crowded the ST galaxy gets
> with habitable/exploitable worlds, the show should have had ample
> opportunity to discover.
The problem is, Treknology is science fiction technology. It doesn't have
any implicit level. It works as needed.
The TOS Enterprise was kitted out with the basics for science fiction space
travel stories- a FTL drive that moves at the speed of the plot, obligatory
energy weapons, and a plot device to get our heroes easily from place to
place (the transporters), plus some walkie-talkies (communicators). That's
it.
The abilities of these devices change from week to week and moment to
moment. When required, the Ent is capable of laying waste a planet; but when
we require some plot tension it can't defeat an enemy starship easily. One
hit from an enemy once shields are down should vapourise the entire ship.
One nuke would turn the Enterprise into gas, let alone a couple of kilos of
matter/anti-matter.
So you can't downgrade it. Picard's Enterprise was apparently faster than
Kirk's. Did this make any difference to the stories? No. They went from
planet to planet as the plot required. Picard's phasers were apparently more
powerful than Kirk's. Did this make any difference to the stories? No. The
better transporters? No.
How far is it from Vulcan to Andor? No idea. It takes as long as the script
requires. And so on.
The only real difference between the Ent-D and the Ent were (a) holodecks
(b) computers and (c) interior design. The Ent was created in the 1960s and
looked creaky by 1980s standards, so Roddenberry wisely allowed for the
improvements (bringing things up to a standard to 1980s viewers' eyes) by
setting TNG in Kirk's distant future. That allowed for the introduction of a
new gadget (the holodecks) and for "modern" computers (which already look
rather antiquated nearly 20 years on from the first season of TNG). These
series are a reflection of current beliefs about the future. Kirk's
Enterprise was futuristic in 1966, but not in 1986. We expect every series
to look better, more advanced, and more in tune with our current ideas than
the previous one- for instance Kirk's Enterprise computer was a big
electronic brain with flashing lights and a robot voice, but that just
wouldn't wash by the mid 80s. How the hell do you go backwards from *that*
without looking absurd to early 21st century viewers? You can't. Enterprise,
the series, was stuck with that problem from day one, and never came to
grips with it.
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245114 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 04:18 |
|
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lAWYf.478$sq5.441 [at] newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series,
> for better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any
> real details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise
> over again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and
> the technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if
> at all? Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
>
Casting. The captain was plain and simple AWFUL!
--
JK Sinrod
www.sinrodstudios.com
www.MyConeyIslandMemories.com
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245115 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 09:53 |
|
Second chance my ass.
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:xveZf.1366$Es3.933 [at] newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
>> The entire creation was flawed from the start. Television wants "high
>> adventure" but by setting the prequel 100 years prior to what we, now,
>> consider a bit "retro" means that ENT would have to appear the equivalent
>> of "super-retro", not significantly more advanced than what we have
>> right now (especially considering the setbacks of WWIII, which is indeed
>> Trek canon (TOS episodes AND a movie)). With all those constraints the
>> pacing would have to appear, in comparison to standard "television"
>> pacing, glacial.
>>
>
> Wasn't ENT something like 150 years after the war? Consitering how much
> we've achieved since the 1850s and the fact we didn't have an advanced
> race around to assist, I think a reasonable amount of spacefaring
> technology should be possible. That's why I expected an Age of Exploration
> from the series. We're the kids who *have* to go out and see and touch
> everything much to the (vulcan) parents' dismay. TOS's time could be
> consitered a second AoE with the advent of more powerful engines.
>
> One problem would have to be the size of the backyard. Should it be the
> huge expanse shown in older ST tech manuals and maps or what appeared
> recently in Star Trek Star Charts? STSC made the warp 3/5 limits more
> 'realistic' especially for purposes of confronting the romulans. I was
> hoping the series would focus on the future founding of the Federation so
> meeting and dealing with races that would affect that path seems
> reasonable. Consitering how crowded the ST galaxy gets with
> habitable/exploitable worlds, the show should have had ample opportunity
> to discover.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245116 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 16:46 |
|
Skytech wrote:
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series, for
> better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any real
> details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise over
> again, what would your vision be?
I think the idea of a prequel might have worked, *if* the writers had
realized it had to be more of a drama and less of an action-adventure show.
To respect TOS canon, there had to be only a few alien races; you
couldn't invent new ones like the Xindi and the whole Temporal Cold War
thing out of thin air. Technology needed to be more limited. (In TOS,
it was established that the Romulan War was fought with nuclear weapons,
not beam weapons. That "primitive" technology suggests that they had no
transporters back then either.)
So instead of special-effects space battles, the focus should have been
on politics and drama. IOW the show needed to be more like Babylon 5
and Deep Space 9 than like TOS. It should have shown how the Federation
got started--more diplomacy than set-piece battles. It could have shown
the early settlement of the various Earth Colonies like the Benecia and
Deneva colonies, just as the American West was settled in the 19th century.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245119 ] |
Fr, 07 April 2006 17:57 |
|
"Steven L." <sdlitvin [at] earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:bXuZf.1197$BS2.47 [at] newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Skytech wrote:
> > We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series, for
> > better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any real
> > details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise over
> > again, what would your vision be?
>
> I think the idea of a prequel might have worked, *if* the writers had
> realized it had to be more of a drama and less of an action-adventure
show.
>
> To respect TOS canon, there had to be only a few alien races; you
> couldn't invent new ones like the Xindi and the whole Temporal Cold War
> thing out of thin air. Technology needed to be more limited. (In TOS,
> it was established that the Romulan War was fought with nuclear weapons,
> not beam weapons. That "primitive" technology suggests that they had no
> transporters back then either.)
While I might agree with you in principle, there is no canon evidence that
the ships *didn't* have beam weapons and transporters. Like I've mentioned
before the NX class and her sisters represented the best and latest in Earth
technology, the rest of earth's ships were probably "primitive" by
comparison. After all it did take them some years to finish the next ship of
the NX class, Columbia.
> So instead of special-effects space battles, the focus should have been
> on politics and drama. IOW the show needed to be more like Babylon 5
> and Deep Space 9 than like TOS. It should have shown how the Federation
> got started--more diplomacy than set-piece battles. It could have shown
> the early settlement of the various Earth Colonies like the Benecia and
> Deneva colonies, just as the American West was settled in the 19th
century.
Couldn't agree more. If they had set the series 10 years (or so) later there
would have been the whole founding of the Federation and the skulduggery
that probably went along with it (Terra Prime like stuff) not to mention the
whole Earth Romulan war, and the founding of various colonies as you've
already mentioned. I may not be a Hollywood writer but, indeed, why knock
yourself out and invent stuff out of nowhere and generally make shit up for
no apparent reason. Other than the writers don't understand the show they're
writing for, think their audience is generally stupid with the attention
span of a goldfish, and thus no risks are taken with any stories. For a fan
this stuff seems to write itself.
--
Qapla'
Kweeg
Ten of Canadian Clubs in the Eeeevil Trek Cabal
http://members.shaw.ca/iksbloodoath
"Half a gallon a'scotch!" Scotty (Spectre of the Gun)
1,079,252,848.8 km/h, not just a good idea, it's the law.
"So say we all!"
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245122 ] |
Sa, 08 April 2006 00:54 |
|
>
> While I might agree with you in principle, there is no canon
> evidence that
> the ships *didn't* have beam weapons and transporters. Like I've
> mentioned
> before the NX class and her sisters represented the best and latest
> in Earth
> technology, the rest of earth's ships were probably "primitive" by
> comparison. After all it did take them some years to finish the next
> ship of
> the NX class, Columbia.
>
They mentioned several times how all other Earth ships were slow as
molasses and I think some frieghters were also homes for their crew
and families. I see no problem if ENT focused on the NX leading the
way for terran exploration. The problem with the series is we learn
we're a latecomer and just about every other race has been out there
before us with better technology. To me, this made many episodes feel
like TNG in retro clothing. Instead, it should have felt like new eyes
on a fresh start. Let TNG be the stagnant, mature society who've been
there, done that.
>
>> So instead of special-effects space battles, the focus should have
>> been
>> on politics and drama.
>> IOW the show needed to be more like Babylon 5
>> and Deep Space 9 than like TOS. It should have shown how the
>> Federation
>> got started--more diplomacy than set-piece battles. It could have
>> shown
>> the early settlement of the various Earth Colonies like the Benecia
>> and
>> Deneva colonies, just as the American West was settled in the 19th
> century.
>
I would have also liked to see more encounters with the future
partners and adversaries and how we began the relations that would
unfold. Yes there could be Babylon style arcs that focus on important
historical events. Better yet, we might have seen events not mentioned
in later shows but part of the history never the less.
> Couldn't agree more. If they had set the series 10 years (or so)
> later there
> would have been the whole founding of the Federation and the
> skulduggery
> that probably went along with it (Terra Prime like stuff) not to
> mention the
> whole Earth Romulan war, and the founding of various colonies as
> you've
> already mentioned.
If ENT was done right, your suggestion might have been the next series
focusing
on the war and the union as an arc similar to the Dominion War.
> For a fan this stuff seems to write itself.
>
We're not the lowest common denominator.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245139 ] |
Sa, 08 April 2006 21:41 |
|
"Kweeg" <kweeg [at] nospam.shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:qZvZf.6488$gO.5059 [at] pd7tw3no...
While I might agree with you in principle, there is no canon evidence that
> the ships *didn't* have beam weapons and transporters. Like I've mentioned
> before the NX class and her sisters represented the best and latest in
> Earth
> technology, the rest of earth's ships were probably "primitive" by
> comparison. After all it did take them some years to finish the next ship
> of
> the NX class, Columbia.
That's true :) Although the issue with HAND beam weapons IS canon - again,
"The Cage"/"The Menagerie" the lieutenant says "hand lasers" for their
weapons, while ENT had "phase pistols". That's a big difference in
nomenclature, even if they might be the same tech. It makes no sense for a
highly-trained fleet officer to go from calling them "phase pistols" to an
(implied) much simpler device by calling it a "hand laser" while sticking to
a canon explanation.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245144 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 02:55 |
|
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 01:27:59 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
<jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>Also, they blew it by not having a
>"K"/hard "C" in his name.
>
>KirK
>PiKard
>SisKo
>
>then
>
>Janeway
>Archer
>
>note the good series have the Ks, the sucky ones don't.
Don't forget Pike and Decker.
Thought I was the only one who noticed that. Of course if you stretch it
To first and last names you get "K"atherine Janeway. But that is trying
too hard.
I have noticed they all have a "j" in there and if you give the "ch" in
Archer a gimme for the K sound they all fall in line.
Hope my bride to be doesn't see this. She realize that "I just read the
novels*" doesn't quite cover it all.
T
*Just about every one of them. Sigh.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245145 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 04:46 |
|
Todd Long wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 01:27:59 +0100, "Jaxtraw"
> <jax [at] knickersjaxtrawstudios.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, they blew it by not having a
>> "K"/hard "C" in his name.
>>
>> KirK
>> PiKard
>> SisKo
>>
>> then
>>
>> Janeway
>> Archer
>>
>> note the good series have the Ks, the sucky ones don't.
>
> Don't forget Pike and Decker.
>
> Thought I was the only one who noticed that. Of course if you stretch
> it To first and last names you get "K"atherine Janeway. But that is
> trying too hard.
>
I think it's because there are certain rules to what sounds "good" as a
name; culturally learned. You wouldn't call a dynamic adventure hero Arthur
Murgatroyd. You wouldn't call a romantic lead Agatha Longbottom. Well, you
might. But whatever. Different names create different impressions. Dirk
Steel, that's a somewhat OTT hero name.
I think the hard "K" sounds good in created names. It creates a certain
degree of urgency in the name. It's not enough on it's own of course. Our
hero might be called Rick something, but probably not Mick.
I seriously think one important factor in Trek (that K again there :) was
the choice of "Captain Kirk". It's got 3 Ks, but seriously it rolls nicely
off the tongue, parenthesised by its Ks. The Kaptain Kirk alliterates. It's
heroic without being over the top Dirk Steel style. It's classless, and
classy. It just works.
Pike is closer, but not good enough. And "April". Can you really imagine
Captain April becoming such a famous name as Captain Kirk? :)
Ian
--
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #245147 ] |
So, 09 April 2006 06:57 |
|
The biggest mistake TPTB made was making a Star Trek Series and trying
to diorce youself from Trek, going as far as dropping Star Trek in the
name. That's why the first 3 seasons suffered. The 4th season was some
of the best Trek ever, and it's because Coto knew what fans wanted, and
took it back to it's roots. Enterprise would still be running if Coto,
a fan who actually liked Trek, ran it from day 1. And they'd be
discussing the next movie of a highly successful franchise, instead of a
dead one.
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #246703 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 04:00 |
|
The thought had occured to me also. A whole new Enterprise series--this time
with _real_ writers. And don't forget Hoshi Sato. She was so spunky!
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
"Skytech" <skytech [at] ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:lAWYf.478$sq5.441 [at] newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> We've all had our stabs at what was done with the Enterprise series, for
> better or worst. When you first heard about the series, before any real
> details, what did you expect from it. If you could do Enterprise over
> again, what would your vision be?
>
> Would you have accepted a more 'primitive', retro look to the ship and the
> technology? Would you have introduced the klingons so quickly, if at all?
> Were there elements worth saving if presented differently?
|
|
|
| Re: Second chance (Enterprise) [message #246705 ] |
Di, 11 April 2006 04:12 |
|
"Benjamin Pavsner" <pavsnerp [at] bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:mYYYf.58$ug.7 [at] bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> 1. Enterprise was done to soon after Voyager. I think people were Trekked
> out after a decade and a half, especially since people weren't to thrilled
> with Voyager (Except for the hard core Trekkies. They'd watch Picard and
> Co.
> stand on their head and whistle Bolero if offered).
That's the Rick Berman theory.
: ((
W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Mi Feb 8 16:48:55 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,11452 Sekunden |
