StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-06-25 04:02pm 

Enterprise failed to solve the problems that had been a part of every Trek series since TNG, at a time that the fans were finally starting to notice and get sick of them. Plus it added some juvenile attempts at sex appeal and a shitty theme song.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-06-25 04:15pm 

Yeah, the last two were the main gripes I had about the show, the theme song is sort-of okay, as a standalone song, but not for bloody Star Trek! The end credits music they played would have fitted much better, I think.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-06-25 09:09pm 

I think the only episodes of ENt that I enjoyed enough to watch again where Regeneration and in a Mirror, Darkly.

Regeneration was bollocks plot-wise, but it was vaguely watchable. Plus I think the whole "no Borg!!" arguments are dealt with from STFC, where the Borg go back in time. Therefore, you can happily class all of ENT as a separate universe if you like. Heck, the episode even has Archer remembering a speech Cochrane gave about the "real" events of First Contact. Including time travelling robot zombies and future heroes.

in a Mirror, Darkly because, well, Teran Empire mirror universe stuff is cool, and it had none of the actual ENT characters to annoy me.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-06-26 07:42am 

Eh, that's true. The Mirror Universe idea was quite cool; the bearded Spock of Mirror, Mirror was priceless.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-06-28 07:33pm 

Well there's Travis Merryweather, who seemed even more bland, didn't even have delightfully naff stuff happen to him (usually on the wrong end of hot women) and kinda resembled that other Afro-American pilot/helmsman from Galaxy Quest (come to think of it Enterprise was in places rather similar to Galaxy Quest with Commander Dolim resembling General Roth'h'ar Sarris as well ). ENT's fourth season was OK, kinda veered into TOS fancfiction, but overall no more egregious than JJAbrams' reboot movie. On hindsight I'd say the second half of S3 was the strongest part of ENT, with the NX-01 getting more pounded than the USS Voyager (but to be fair it was a significantly smaller, less sophisticated ship going through proportionately more dangerous space).

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-01 12:11pm 

@Ahriman238

Well, instead of rewriting their DNA.
If they really died out is not said.

Think of some aliens getting to earth during the pest. They start handing out medicine/technology to the powers which be (Church and Kings).
An other thing would have been to help the indians to preserve their culture.

Every intervention would have had serious consequences for our development.

Then there is a question of having the right to do something/interfere at all.
If you have the right to influence other civilasation, everyone else would have too.

While the episode took it may be a bit to far, the moral dilemma itself is quite interesting.


Well, leeches are used in today medicine too.
It is not such a far fetch. Considering that some alien worlds could hold even better variants.

May be I did not see enough, but I mostly recall the engenier bitching at her.
But hell, I would be bitching too, if the people around me would go through great efford get get themself+me killed in the most horrible ways the tend to find. (Unless they find a possibility to maybe start a war)

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-02 03:52am 

Recall that the civilization in "Dear Doctor" was sending out ships to contact aliens in the hope that aliens would help them cure their disease, since they were stumped. Its not exactly like the Enterprise came in uninvited.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-03 12:04am 

I agree. I'll even agree that the Prime Directive could be a very good thing for an interstellar civilization to have, as long as it wasn't applied the way it was in Voyager. Actions have consequences, sometimes far-reaching ones. The prescence of an observer affects the observed. Realistically, most problems an explorer would encounter in an alien civilization would be long-standing and complex issues that would be hard to explain in a forty-five minute tv show, much less solve. Can anyone really imagine a Roswell-grey version of Kirk coming down from his starship and ending feudalism, or slavery, or poverty, or any given war with a hammy speech about how we're all supposed to be better? It makes a certain to sense to not get involved in situations where there's an even chance of your intervention making things worse.

The thing that got lost with Voyager, and later Enterprise was the knowledge that choosing non-intervention is still a choice. In TOS or TNG the merits of getting involved or not were discussed and whatever decision was reached, they owned up to it. In Voyager, the Prime Directive was a-get-out-of-moral-obligations card. They were never presumed to be wrong, because they were just following the rule.

Again, the whole episode was obviously supposed to be part of that 'setting up for TOS and all the following shows' theme. It was clearly meant to show something that we had never heard of before, the specific reason there's a Prime Directive, the event that created the rule. And in that sense it drastically failed. We had our heroes performing an act of basest villainy with a threadbare fig leaf about it being the Varrakian's destiny to die and make way for the possible evolution of the Mensk. I'd havem uch rather had them get involved in a crisis with the best of intentions, only to accidently do great harm as the unintended consequences of their actions created a greater catastrophe. It would have provided a good justification for the PD, and made the Enterprise crew look far better.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-03 11:54am 

If you want an example where intervention with good intentions causes immense suffering, look at SG-1 "Icon." The teams arrival through the gate triggers a religious coup and a global nuclear war.

That would have been a good type of event to act as a precedent for the Prime Directive.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-04 02:20am 

@Ahriman238
Mostly a question of taste.
I like the dilemma more than the do it way X or be fucked.


I remember a good SG episode, where the asgard (I guess) had the possibility to save a planet, but would not do it, because it would violate their treaty with the goa'uld.

That's the other side of the medal. If you get yourself involved, your enemys become their enemys.

Like real choices more than obvious ones.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-09 07:51pm 

i really liked Enterprise.
for some reason its better for me than all the other Trek series.
to counter a few of its "flaws"
the borg being to early. erm, they were already borg in 2067(or 65?).NO ONE SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE GUYS COMING TO HELP COCHRAN? THAT SOMEONE ATTACKED HIS CAMP JUST THE DAY HE WAS GONNA DO ONE OF THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN HISTORY? surly that should be mentioned, right? even in a post-apocaliptic world.
the Ferengi. how dose this contradict continuity? they never said the first ever time they saw them was in TNG. didn't they crash on Earth IN 1947?
also, since the Temporal Cold War never actually happens, a lot of things from history might have been affected. for start, the whole Xindi incident should have been erased, since, well, the guys responsible for puting them against Earth were, in fact, part of the Cold War. but hell...
season 3 and 4 were gold. season 3 didn't even feel like Star Trek, felt something like Batlestar Galactica, combined with other series. it had really good plot. season 4 actually was very much, and at the same time not so much, star trek. it had a build up to several major stuff from mainstream trek continuity, while having a different feel. it solved the klingon crest problem, build up a reason for the UFP to form in the first place, hell it even had the ancestor of Data's creator making a decision that eventually results in Data himself.

it is of grate lost to scyfi that they cancelled the show. they were planing to make some episodes i think would have rocked. meeting the Kzinti, first starbase, another Mirror arc, bring in Flint in...hell, they could have done the earth-romulan war, which i find an interesting topic.

screw you "fans" that got the show cancelled.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-09 08:28pm 

I find that mildly worrisome.

And nobody but Lily knew of it. Nor did any of them ever set foot on Earth.

Err-at no point did the Borg make an appearance in that. The launch site was shot at by somebody, some different somebodies who claimed to be from the future helped him, and yet another unidentified somebody fired on his ship during his first Warp trip. Nothing connects any of this to the Borg. No evidence of the Borg ever having been there remained besides Lily's memories. Until ENT decided to change history, that is of course.

Actually, Picard explicitly said so in TNG.

What got the show cancelled was it sucking like nobody's business and ignoring essentially all of established Star Trek. Thanks to the very opening episode, Kronos is less than four lightyears away from earth.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-10 08:02am 

yeah, but in no other source did they mention anything about something as major as, i don't know, an attack that almost killed them, or some guys just happening to help Cochran out when he needed, cuz there had to be people around there to help building the Phoenix, some had to notice those guys know more that Cochran. and then its Cochran himself. in NOOOO part of his books, magazines interviews or whatever they use in the future, did he NEVER even slipped ANYTHING about the incident, for over 40 years? give me a brake.

yeah, and turns out HE HIMSELF met them before, so hes not exactly reliable is he now, since he was wrong after all.


interesting note, cuz didn't they go all the way to the "galactic core" in TOS? you know, where even Voyager would have taken years, yet they go in hours (i think).

one side note: since the Temporal Cold War was fought through history, and then was erased, many things, such as the Borg encounter in ENT and the ferengi encounter could have been affected. keep that in mind when you say it contradicts cannon, cuz time travel ist new to star trek.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-10 09:23pm 

*hands Han a brake* So? That would be relevant if anybody ever said there was no fire on the Phoenix' position, there was no mysterious outside help, nobody fired on it during its maiden voyage. Nobody ever said that didn't happen, it's just never mentioned that it did.
Curious. It WAS explicitly stated that they didn't encounter the Borg before.

Where would that have been, prey tell? Be advised that if you say 'First Contact', I'm going to smack you. From Picard's personal point of view, FC is years after his encounters with the Borg during TNG.

Unless you're talking TFF, where they obviously didn't, not that I remember. Not that I see how this is relevant. Do elaborate.

Sorry. Cop-out. (Oh, and there's an n in isn't). The fact that in-universe the Temporal Cold War might have erased those things from history doesn't change the fact that out of universe ENT blithely ignored and routinely contradicted established Trek history while still claiming to be an actual prequel. Had ENT been declared an alternate timeline split off from the events of FC, nobody would have batted an eye at the contradictions. Of course, nobody would have watched either so they decided to posit it as an actual prequel. At which it monumentally failed.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-11 03:58am 

makes me wonder, since 7 of 9 and her parents DID encounter them, long before that tng episode, why NO ONE ELSE EVER HEARD OF THEM?

irrelevant.

the episode "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" of the Animated Series, sorry for messing it with TOS. they also go to the Galactic Core in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. that's two contradictions already.

in a matter of fact, your right. trek fans are so obsessed with their precious continuity, they wouldn't have watch it. i would though, cuz a few "contradictions" that might have a chance of being solved later (but aren't cuz trekkies don't see the series as they would envision star trek, so the show gets cancelled) aren't a big deal. scyfy series always contradictions of irregularities, but if you let that cancel a good show, your a dickhead who doesn't know good shows when he sees them.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-11 04:11am 

oh, and on the "dear doctor": that is exactly why the pd is bullcrap. no rational person dose something with the tough of "hey, you know, thousands of years from now, this might backfire". if people would act that way, nothing would be done. you see people suffering, in need, for god sake help them. i saw this pd being applied to civilizations close to extinction, yet no one complies about why it is wrong to persecute an doctor who saved some of the Boraalan civilization, no. Picard instead is disgusted by it. well, Archer just...kinda paved the way for the disgusting act of prime directive.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-11 08:31pm 

I dunno maybe because they never told anybody?

Completely relevant for him personally having met them before. Which from his point of view he DIDN'T.

Actually it's none as virtually none of TAS is canon TFF could not have been the Galactic Core, especially as nobody ever mentioned it being the physical Galactic Core. Anyway, visuals say no it wasn't.

You will now explain why I should watch a show that not only shits over all established continuity while at the same time trying to rake in ratings by being parked in the universe that has that continuity established but compounds it with writing hardly worthy of the name.

Yes, there's always irregularities, especially with a franchise that has been around since the 1960s. The solution is NOT to ignore all of it, which ENT essentially did. And I'm sorry, if you seriously think ENT was good, you're even stupider than I thought.
Series opener. Kronos less than 4 ly from earth. Instant fail.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 09:38am 

Again, I'll say, they were trying really hard in season 4, and I find seasons 3 and 4 to be an entirely different show, almost as if seasons 1 and 2 are some sort of distant legend that is only drawn upon because it came before, and its the rest of Trek that seasons 3 and 4 are compatible with.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 02:49pm 

ok Batman, then lets dump every single trek related thing that's out of continuity. you'll find that if your such a stupid nerd to actually care about continuity, then found your own forum where people can discus WHAT is the main continuity, cuz every single trek show so far had something contradictory added to it.

i don't give a fuck about continuity. i don't give a fuck how far QU'NOS is. but ok. how far IS IT? oh, and for the record, at warp 5 for 5 days, you make about 2 light years. that's how i know i shouldn't care about this stuff, cuz there is no star at 2 light years away. if you begin to care about that, your just a nerd. and i hate nerds.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 03:05pm 

You're leaping to the defense of a Star Trek series on a internet forum devoted to science fiction. And you say you hate 'nerds'? A well known phrase about pots and kettles comes to mind.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 03:13pm 

...who the fuck are you, and what are you doing here?

You sit here and work THIS stuff out and flip your shit and write poorly SPELLED diatribes about ridiculous nitpicky detail with RANDOM capitalization. And then continue with the shit-flipping by raving about how you hate nerds.

One of these things is not like the other; one of these things just doesn't belong.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 03:34pm 

you don't need to be a nerd to like scy-fy. you do need to be a nerd to attack me for defending a series that "contradicts" your precious continuity.


EDIT: and please don't bring the damn spelling into the discussion, cuz i am not a natural speaker of English, and i saw Americans or English spell worse than me.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 03:37pm 

Does wanting the term 'Sci Fi' to spelt correctly make me a nerd?

'Scy-fy' isn't even what the channel calls itself so you're wrong anyway you swing it.

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 03:39pm 

what the fuck dose how you spell science fiction has anything to do with it?

 Post subject: Re: A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

Posted: 2011-07-12 04:48pm 

No, you don't have to be a nerd to like sci-fi or Star Trek. It helps though. It especially helps if you're going to join a forum devoted to arguing, in the nerdiest manner possible, which series or franchise is better.

Seriously dude what the hell did you expect coming to this part of the forum, EXCEPT nerds?

Oh, and vy the way, seeing other native English speakers who spell worse than you is no excuse for being a poor speller yourself.