Enterprise - way, way too advanced
aalu...@webtv.net
for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
definately Kirks.
So far it seems like it could be Picard's sister ship not Kirk's
ancestor. Unless technology took a turn for the worse between this
series and Kirks.
I guess its true Star Trek:TOS is now noncanon. Pity I always considered
Voyager to be noncanon.
Benjamin F. Elliott
news:10438-3B...@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
assistance from the future, we must assume that the timeline has been
altered. Enterprise itself is, by design, not going to fit into canon with
the other Star Treks.
Either they will have to do something to defeat the aliens and restore the
timeline (which would probably result in technology reverting in such a way
to correspond with TOS), or Enterprise will be the start of another timeline
altogether, in which events similar, but not quite the same, as those in
TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VOY take place. And all the rules are out the
window.
Maybe it results in Spock having a beard 100 years down the road, on an
Enterprise where assassination and treachery are common. ;-)
Benjamin F. Elliott
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thisweekindoctorwho/
David B.
>
> Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
> for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
> prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
> definately Kirks.
It looks more advance solely due to special effects.
Chris Applegate
news:CPvs7.2432$Xz1.4...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
> Well, since we've been told in advance that the recurring villian is
getting
> assistance from the future, we must assume that the timeline has been
> altered. Enterprise itself is, by design, not going to fit into canon with
> the other Star Treks.
But the alterations to the timeline have already occurred by TOS, TNG, etc.
Chris
TROC
Darrell
Enterprise looked pretty futuristic, actually, due to its smooth outer hull
(no rivets, etc), whereas the hull of this Enterprise looks a bit more
primitive and functional. Also, I think the nacelles definitely look
TOS-ish. And the grappling hook is a far cry from a tractor beam. It works
for me <shrug>.
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10438-3B...@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
John
doing that.
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10438-3B...@storefull-232.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Elyse
>doing that.
Oooh, ow, my brain hurts! <G>
E
David Johnston
Not true. This timeline is the result of someone from the earlier
timeline going back and changing things. After all, humans weren't
"supposed" to meet Klingons yet. That's the whole point of the
time travelling villain, after all, to explain all historical
discrepancies and to ensure that the historical outcome of what is
going on is not predetermined.
That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
and the stun setting on their phasers.
John Savard
<bfel...@home.com> wrote, in part:
>Maybe it results in Spock having a beard 100 years down the road, on an
>Enterprise where assassination and treachery are common. ;-)
Definitely not.
Of course, if the Earth _hasn't_ been sent to a new dark age by a war
with the Romulans or Klingons, how _can_ one explain those miniskirt
uniforms?
Actually, that the Enterprise in TOS had a more tidy appearance than
that of the one in Enterprise, in addition to greater speed and power,
does not imply regression. True, we didn't get as good a look at that
Enterprise as we will this one, so we missed some of its most
impressive parts.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
http://plaza.powersurfr.com/jsavard/maps/mapint.htm
aalu...@webtv.net
ST:TOS-Voyager. This would alieanate every single Star Trek fan. It
would be a total arrogant slap in our faces. To me this would mean them
saying
"Roddenberry's vision of ST was garbage while ours is better and we are
destroying that foolishness to present our better vision".
The mirror universe concept is not bad but with Archer I don't see that
happening.
Season 7 better be a super reset that will set ST:TOS in motion if not
it will do nothing more then splinter the ST community into two groups.
Braga's vs Roddenberry's vision fans.
Nelson Lu
<aalu...@webtv.net> wrote:
>Ben this better not mean a new timeline with it being different from
>ST:TOS-Voyager. This would alieanate every single Star Trek fan. It
>would be a total arrogant slap in our faces. To me this would mean them
>saying
>
>"Roddenberry's vision of ST was garbage while ours is better and we are
>destroying that foolishness to present our better vision".
I hope that is not the case -- but I see no evidence that is the case. There
are many times in the past we've seen "the past" being messed with, only to
learn that that was supposed to have been what happened, anyway. The same
thing, presumably, will happen here. (For a good example, see ST IV's
introduction of transparent aluminum into the 20th century.)
Chris Applegate
news:3bb29cf6....@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net...
> Not true.
You can't change the past, because if you could, you already would've. It's
entirely possible that FutureGuy is from the future and an alternate
timeline, though -- he just wouldn't be able to effect changes to his own
timeline. (Another FutureGuy from yet another timeline could accomplish
that, though.)
Chris
TROC
David Johnston
<cx...@po.cwru.edu> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:3bb29cf6....@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net...
>> Not true.
>
>You can't change the past, because if you could, you already would've.
Pretending that they can't change the past on Star Trek when they've
done it repeatedly is ostrich-like at best.
La...@la.com
Fear not. Berman will manage to make complete sense out of it, just
like the end of Voyager!! ;)
>
>Chris
>TROC
>
>
Nopel
>aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
If that were true, the NCC-1701 from 'Trials and Tribble-ations,' or even
the 1701 and 1701-A from the movies should look more futuristic than the
NX-01. They don't.
The NX-01 looks fantastic, but too advanced compared to TOS. Still, if the
stories hold up, I'll be able to overlook it. *If.*
Nopel
Timo S Saloniemi
The NX-01 looks anachronistic, that much I admit. Too advanced? Naah.
The 1701 looked more advanced than the -A, -B, -C, -D and especially
the -E, thanks to being so smooth and featureless. PRIMITIVE machines
have lots of bells a whistles on the exterior. ADVANCED ones can
do without them, or can afford to hide them or at least shape them
more aesthetically. The rest is just fashion.
The NX-01 compared with the 1701 is like an old steam locomotive
compared with a modern high-speed train. Lots of machinery visible,
little in the way of streamlining. Old steam locomotives look
more high-tech than today's supertrains because they do not hide
their beautiful machinery...
My main gripe with NX-01 is that she's so uninnovative. The very
fact that there's a saucer hull there is too remniscent of TOS
and later shows. A more angular design would have been neat,
or perhaps something on the lines of the winged-and-nacelled
thing we see in the opening credits. This was the designers'
one chance to be really inventive, and they blew it. Sigh. At
least they designed a cool-looking starship.
Timo Saloniemi
Cevn McGuire
through the Ancient Testament of the Xians up to today. God evolves from a
cosmogonical force (creation) to a vindictive force (eden/flood) to a
bargainer (abe) to a rescuer/moral imperativist (moses) to a
rulemaker/adjucator (numbers, kings and judges) to a personal redeemer
(christ) to a prophetic teacher (mohammed, joe smith) to a personal lover
(yogananda)
In like fashion, the evolution of Trek goes from brawling/boozing/sexing
(TOS) to militarism (TOS movies) to negotiating/diplomacy (TNG) to barroom
grit and more militarism (DS9) to gender equinamity (VOY) to postmodernist
confusion (ENT)
Despite the timeline devolution, there is an evolution in the expenses we're
willing to go to amuse themselves. Just about anything is game, and avarice
is every where (there are no salt shaker medical equip in ENT, I bet)
Imagine if Trek would have been started in the 50s alongside I Love Lucy and
the Honeymooners?
Of course, the more advanced look of this Trek is a victory of aesthetic
realism over creativity.
"Darrell" <darre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:x_vs7.131232$K6.60032421@news2...
Cevn McGuire
*Vulcan* have a "High Command"? in all the previous series? Do they have
interment camps in Vulcan too) The Vulcans are more like the Rommies.
This is an alternate timeline, to be sure.
On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
egg before a chicken?
"Benjamin F. Elliott" <bfel...@home.com> wrote in message
news:CPvs7.2432$Xz1.4...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Arthur Levesque
DJ>That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
The last one disappointed me most.
--
/\ Arthur M Levesque 2A4W <*> b...@boog.orgy =/\= http://boog.org __
\B\ack King of the Potato People <fnord> "Ia! Ia! Cthulhu fhtagn!" (oO)
\S\lash Member of a vast right-wing conspiracy (-O-) Urban Spaceman /||\
\/ I was a lesbian before it was fashionable "I hate rainbows!"-EC
David Johnston
wrote:
>I agree. There's the notion that this is a variant timeline (since when did
>*Vulcan* have a "High Command"? in all the previous series?
Exactly what do you think Vulcan DID have before it became part of the
Federation? I'm beginning to think that people were assuming that
the Vulcans were totally helpless before us humans came along to
defend them.
Peter Bott
wrote:
>David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
>DJ>That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
>DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
>DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
>DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
>
> The last one disappointed me most.
The second to last one is what dissappointed me most. I thought they
were supposed to abandon the instant-fix technogadget plot-wrap-up
device?
Peter Bott
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>I agree. There's the notion that this is a variant timeline (since when did
>*Vulcan* have a "High Command"? in all the previous series? Do they have
>interment camps in Vulcan too) The Vulcans are more like the Rommies.
>
>This is an alternate timeline, to be sure.
I'm not sure why you try to make sense of this. It's Berman and
Bragga, being stupid.
>
>On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
>egg before a chicken?
See above. Note that, apparently, the "fleet" consists of one ship.
The lack of originality just shines through. They couldn't even come
up with a new name for Earth's space agency. Call it the "Earth
Space Agency," or the "United Nations Space Force."
--
Pete McCutchen
La...@la.com
LOLROTF. It came from Berman. I mean really... Did you believe he'd
abandon the Reset Button, Instant Fix and Preposterous Time Travel
Plots?
Bing
wrote:
> DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
>
> The last one disappointed me most.
Yeah, it's not as if "Low Power" settings for microwave ovens,
and the like, haven't been around for 100 years at that point.
-- Bing Monopoly Expansion Set
Visit us at http://www.paxentertainment.com
David Johnston
wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2001 12:15:44 GMT, meist...@boog.org (Arthur Levesque)
>wrote:
>
>> DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
>>
>> The last one disappointed me most.
>
>Yeah, it's not as if "Low Power" settings for microwave ovens,
>and the like, haven't been around for 100 years at that point.
A low power setting on an energy weapon might give you a first degree
burn instead of a third degree (or is it vice versa?) but it won't
knock you unconscious.
Iron Grace Roberts
> >It looks more advance solely due to special effects.
>
> If that were true, the NCC-1701 from 'Trials and Tribble-ations,' or even
> the 1701 and 1701-A from the movies should look more futuristic than the
> NX-01. They don't.
No, because Trials and Tribble-ations is part homage to the original
series and the Trouble With Tribbles episode. Making the Enterprise
look different would spoil the effect (and make it hard to include the
TOS characters).
The 1701 was in the movies 15-20+ years ago. It's not going to look as
advanced because special effects have come a long way. Even the 1701-A
last appeared in STVI 10 years ago, which puts it well behind the
current state of the art.
> The NX-01 looks fantastic, but too advanced compared to TOS. Still, if the
> stories hold up, I'll be able to overlook it. *If.*
Nah, don't bother. If you're going to pitch a fit over special
effects, maybe you should find something less likely to boil your
blood.
Kirk Is
It's interesting that there seems to be some kind of interstellar culture
out there already... enough to have that whole snow-bound spaceport, and
with alien passerbys who barely paid any attention to humans... or is
"boomer" culture such a force that humans are no longer a novelty?
--
QUOTEBLOG: http://kisrael.com SKEPTIC MORTALITY: http://kisrael.com/mortal
THE LIVING END Before long the end / Of the beginning / Begins to bend
To the beginning / Of the end you live / With some misgivings
About what you did. --Samuel Menashe
Mel Walker
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:24:32 GMT, "Cevn McGuire" <ce...@hawaii.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >I agree. There's the notion that this is a variant timeline (since when did
> >*Vulcan* have a "High Command"? in all the previous series? Do they have
> >interment camps in Vulcan too) The Vulcans are more like the Rommies.
> >
> >This is an alternate timeline, to be sure.
>
> I'm not sure why you try to make sense of this. It's Berman and
> Bragga, being stupid.
Why shouldn't the Vulcans have a High Command? They have a space fleet,
don't they? And Vulcans aren't exactly fuzzy little tribbles -- they
have a bit of a dark side, and the *do* tend to think other species are
somewhat beneath them, even in the ST:TOS time.
> >On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
> >egg before a chicken?
>
> See above. Note that, apparently, the "fleet" consists of one ship.
We don't actually know that. After all, by this point, Earth has had
warp drive for a century(?), it's just been the original warp drive that
didn't go very fast. Now they have a drive that goes a "hundred times
faster" (wasn't that the quote?).
Andrew Dynon
> Ben this better not mean a new timeline with it being different from
> ST:TOS-Voyager. This would alieanate every single Star Trek fan. It
> would be a total arrogant slap in our faces. To me this would mean them
> saying
>
> "Roddenberry's vision of ST was garbage while ours is better and we are
> destroying that foolishness to present our better vision".
A better parallell may be what happened with the _Gundam_ anime
series. After being used for four TV series, two OVA series and two
movies (Not counting the movie adaptions of the original series and
0083), the pruducers were worried that the franchise was getting stuck
in a rut, and decided to make an alternate-reality series to break the
mould. (Of course, the difference was that G-Gundam (as well as
Gundam Wing and Gundam X) were EXPLICITLY alternate realities - and in
fact you couldn't get much more alternate than G)
Lancelot appearing sideways
> It's interesting that there seems to be some kind of interstellar culture
> out there already... enough to have that whole snow-bound spaceport, and
> with alien passerbys who barely paid any attention to humans... or is
> "boomer" culture such a force that humans are no longer a novelty?
It really says something about Earth, that it was able to go from new
kid on the block to dominant starfaring race in just a few centuries.
This is what particularly struck me.
/
:@-) Scott
\
Howard S Shubs
Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> wrote:
> or is
> "boomer" culture such a force that humans are no longer a novelty?
You didn't pay much attention, huh? They said, specifically said, that none
of them critters have seen a human before. It's clear the critters either (1)
don't care, or (2) are careful of things they've never seen before.
--
Howard S Shubs
"Run in circles, scream and shout!" "I hope you have good backups!"
David Johnston
<sa-h...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
But then, how far did the United States go in two centuries? Or the
Japanese in one?
David Johnston
In fact we know that isn't true. Humans have already got commercial
ships going to several extrasolar worlds, including one which has a
native intelligent species apart from the Vulcans.
William December Starr
Mel Walker <spam...@spamspam.spam> said:
> Why shouldn't the Vulcans have a High Command? They have a space
> fleet, don't they? And Vulcans aren't exactly fuzzy little tribbles
> -- they have a bit of a dark side, and the *do* tend to think other
> species are somewhat beneath them, even in the ST:TOS time.
Yeah, but would they _call_ it "High Command?" Even bearing in mind
that they may have chosen to finesse their translations a bit to be in
keeping with the humans' cultural expectations, that still sounds more
than a bit... off.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
David Johnston
Starr) wrote:
And I think that the Department of Homeland Security doesn't sound
like Americans at all.
Still, if you were in charge, what would you rename the Vulcan High
Command?
William December Starr
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) said:
> And I think that the Department of Homeland Security doesn't sound
> like Americans at all.
>
> Still, if you were in charge, what would you rename the Vulcan High
> Command?
"The Tso'layra has chosen to--"
"The *what*?"
"The Tso'layra. It is a term that does not translate precisely into
English. It is our body which uses logic and consensus to determine
Vulcan policy."
"Oh, it's your High Command then."
"No, it is not."
Franklin Harris
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9p0b15$8fb$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> "The Tso'layra has chosen to--"
>
> "The *what*?"
>
> "The Tso'layra. It is a term that does not translate precisely into
> English. It is our body which uses logic and consensus to determine
> Vulcan policy."
>
> "Oh, it's your High Command then."
>
> "No, it is not."
But would not, after years of contact with Vulcans, any Starfleet officer
know what the Vulcans call their high command? Having Starfleet officers be
ignorant goofs isn't an improvement.
--
Franklin Harris
Pulp Culture Online, www.pulpculture.net
"The only way to know where you're from is to know where you're going and
then work backward." -- The Doctor, DOCTOR WHO
Invid Fan
Dynon <ajd...@start.com.au> wrote:
> aalu...@webtv.net wrote in message
> news:<5336-3B...@storefull-231.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
> > Ben this better not mean a new timeline with it being different from
> > ST:TOS-Voyager. This would alieanate every single Star Trek fan. It
> > would be a total arrogant slap in our faces. To me this would mean them
> > saying
> >
> > "Roddenberry's vision of ST was garbage while ours is better and we are
> > destroying that foolishness to present our better vision".
>
> A better parallell may be what happened with the _Gundam_ anime
> series. After being used for four TV series, two OVA series and two
> movies (Not counting the movie adaptions of the original series and
> 0083),
Three tv series, one theatrical movie, and three oav series actualy :)
I can't consider Gundam F91 as part of that universe.
> the pruducers were worried that the franchise was getting stuck
> in a rut, and decided to make an alternate-reality series to break the
> mould. (Of course, the difference was that G-Gundam (as well as
> Gundam Wing and Gundam X) were EXPLICITLY alternate realities - and in
> fact you couldn't get much more alternate than G)
The parallell between Gundam and Trek with regard to re-visiting the
past is interesting. The original Mobil Suit Gundam series came out in
1979, and was set in the year UC 0079. Sequels took place in later
years, and animators had fun advancing the tech of the mechs and ships.
When it came time to do some side stories set around the time of the
original show it was damn hard for them to go back to the simpler,
lower tech ships. They tried, but between the more modern animation and
designs that were more detailed it just didn't completely work.
--
Chris Mack "I'm Mr. Gone! A student of the mystic arts! Unfortinitly,
'Invid Fan' an untalented student, or I wouldn't have to keep
shooting fools like you!" Mr. Gone, 'The Maxx'
John
David Johnston
<fran...@pulpculture.net> wrote:
>
>"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:9p0b15$8fb$1...@panix1.panix.com...
>
>> "The Tso'layra has chosen to--"
>>
>> "The *what*?"
>>
>> "The Tso'layra. It is a term that does not translate precisely into
>> English. It is our body which uses logic and consensus to determine
>> Vulcan policy."
>>
>> "Oh, it's your High Command then."
>>
>> "No, it is not."
>
>But would not, after years of contact with Vulcans, any Starfleet officer
>know what the Vulcans call their high command? Having Starfleet officers be
>ignorant goofs isn't an improvement.
Yes, the problem is that the audience needs to know what the character
is talking about immediately and unequivocally, without shoehorning in
yet more expository dialogue.
Jim Griffith
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>Yeah, but would they _call_ it "High Command?" Even bearing in mind
>that they may have chosen to finesse their translations a bit to be in
>keeping with the humans' cultural expectations, that still sounds more
>than a bit... off.
No, they probably wouldn't call it "High Command". At the very least, they'd
use a hell of a lot fewer vowels. And they'd throw in some apostrophes, too.
Jim
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Griffith /--OO--\ | Two great powers are on our side: the power of
grif...@olagrande.net | Love and the power of Arithmetic. These two are
BEWARE BATS WITHOUT NOSES! | stronger than anything else in the world.
Sheldon Cuff
"Darrell" <darre...@home.com> wrote in message
news:x_vs7.131232$K6.60032421@news2...
> I think it's more of a "eye of the beholder" thing--I think the TOS
> Enterprise looked pretty futuristic, actually, due to its smooth outer
hull
> (no rivets, etc), whereas the hull of this Enterprise looks a bit more
> primitive and functional. Also, I think the nacelles definitely look
> TOS-ish. And the grappling hook is a far cry from a tractor beam. It
works
> for me <shrug>.
>
> <aalu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
Franklin Harris
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3bb3c28c...@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net...
> >But would not, after years of contact with Vulcans, any Starfleet officer
> >know what the Vulcans call their high command? Having Starfleet officers
be
> >ignorant goofs isn't an improvement.
>
> Yes, the problem is that the audience needs to know what the character
> is talking about immediately and unequivocally, without shoehorning in
> yet more expository dialogue.
Which is why *I* don't have a problem with the term "high command." ;-> If
it takes more time to explain X than X has screen time, then throw X out.
Sheldon Cuff
I've been reading these posts for the last 1/2 hour and thank God for
someone with a predisposition to intelligent discussion not based on
prejudice.
"Timo S Saloniemi" <tsal...@alpha.hut.fi> wrote in message
news:9outu9$mt1$1...@nntp.hut.fi...
> In article <e8r5rt05vq61pgk81...@4ax.com> Nopel
<no...@gmx.net> writes:
> >On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:17:30 -0700, "David B." <both...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> >>aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> >>> Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period?
Except
> >>> for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
> >>> prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
> >>> definately Kirks.
> >
> >>It looks more advance solely due to special effects.
> >
> >If that were true, the NCC-1701 from 'Trials and Tribble-ations,' or even
> >the 1701 and 1701-A from the movies should look more futuristic than the
> >NX-01. They don't.
> >
> >The NX-01 looks fantastic, but too advanced compared to TOS. Still, if
the
> >stories hold up, I'll be able to overlook it. *If.*
>
> The NX-01 looks anachronistic, that much I admit. Too advanced? Naah.
>
> The 1701 looked more advanced than the -A, -B, -C, -D and especially
> the -E, thanks to being so smooth and featureless. PRIMITIVE machines
> have lots of bells a whistles on the exterior. ADVANCED ones can
> do without them, or can afford to hide them or at least shape them
> more aesthetically. The rest is just fashion.
>
> The NX-01 compared with the 1701 is like an old steam locomotive
> compared with a modern high-speed train. Lots of machinery visible,
> little in the way of streamlining. Old steam locomotives look
> more high-tech than today's supertrains because they do not hide
> their beautiful machinery...
>
> My main gripe with NX-01 is that she's so uninnovative. The very
> fact that there's a saucer hull there is too remniscent of TOS
> and later shows. A more angular design would have been neat,
> or perhaps something on the lines of the winged-and-nacelled
> thing we see in the opening credits. This was the designers'
> one chance to be really inventive, and they blew it. Sigh. At
> least they designed a cool-looking starship.
>
> Timo Saloniemi
Clifford Blau
>Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
>for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
>prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
>definately Kirks.
>I guess its true Star Trek:TOS is now noncanon. Pity I always considered
>Voyager to be noncanon.
Are they going to explain why the Suliban disappeared before TOS? And
is the Klingon world really that close to Earth?
"**** This is the best post I've ever read."
David Manning
David Johnston
wrote:
>aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
>>for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
>>prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
>>definately Kirks.
>
>>I guess its true Star Trek:TOS is now noncanon. Pity I always considered
>>Voyager to be noncanon.
>
>Are they going to explain why the Suliban disappeared before TOS?
How do you know they did?
And
>is the Klingon world really that close to Earth?
I dunno. Is the edge of the Galaxy as close as it was in TOS? Is the
centre of the Galaxy as close as it was Star Trek V?
Joe Pfeiffer
> news:x_vs7.131232$K6.60032421@news2...
> > I think it's more of a "eye of the beholder" thing--I think the TOS
> > Enterprise looked pretty futuristic, actually, due to its smooth outer
> hull
> > (no rivets, etc), whereas the hull of this Enterprise looks a bit more
> > primitive and functional. Also, I think the nacelles definitely look
> > TOS-ish. And the grappling hook is a far cry from a tractor beam. It
> works
> > for me <shrug>.
I'm afraid I found that grappling hook to be just ludicrous. What the
*hell* was that cable made of?
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
SWNMRSEF: http://www.nmsu.edu/~scifair
GeneK
>
> The 1701 looked more advanced than the -A, -B, -C, -D and especially
> the -E, thanks to being so smooth and featureless. PRIMITIVE machines
> have lots of bells a whistles on the exterior. ADVANCED ones can
> do without them, or can afford to hide them or at least shape them
> more aesthetically. The rest is just fashion.
Since we made this same point in an earlier thread, I've gone back and
pulled up my old 3d model and played with it a bit. I've added a bit
of texture to the hull, and a number of lights that we never saw in TOS
but which could have been there and just never switched on. Take a look
and tell me what you think, and keep in mind that there have been *no*
structural changes made to the classic TOS form in these renderings.
No fancy webpage, just a bunch of jpgs in a directory.
GeneK
Michael Ejercito
>Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
>for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
>prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
>definately Kirks.
How so? The ship looks like a present-day Navy vessel (on the
inside). There is very little carpet.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
>I agree. There's the notion that this is a variant timeline (since when did
>*Vulcan* have a "High Command"? in all the previous series? Do they have
>interment camps in Vulcan too) The Vulcans are more like the Rommies.
>
>This is an alternate timeline, to be sure.
The canon timeline for the Star Trek saga was altered numerous
times by visitors from possible futures.
>On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
>egg before a chicken?
Maybe it is the U.S. Starfleet or soemthing.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:24:32 GMT, "Cevn McGuire" <ce...@hawaii.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>I agree. There's the notion that this is a variant timeline (since when did
>>*Vulcan* have a "High Command"? in all the previous series? Do they have
>>interment camps in Vulcan too) The Vulcans are more like the Rommies.
>>
>>This is an alternate timeline, to be sure.
>
>I'm not sure why you try to make sense of this. It's Berman and
>Bragga, being stupid.
>
>>
>>On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
>>egg before a chicken?
>
>See above. Note that, apparently, the "fleet" consists of one ship.
They mentioned trasnport ships.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
>I think it's more of a "eye of the beholder" thing--I think the TOS
>Enterprise looked pretty futuristic, actually, due to its smooth outer hull
>(no rivets, etc), whereas the hull of this Enterprise looks a bit more
>primitive and functional. Also, I think the nacelles definitely look
>TOS-ish. And the grappling hook is a far cry from a tractor beam. It works
>for me <shrug>.
You have to admit, though, the uniforms look better.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
wrote:
>> "Darrell" <darre...@home.com> wrote in message
>> news:x_vs7.131232$K6.60032421@news2...
>> > I think it's more of a "eye of the beholder" thing--I think the TOS
>> > Enterprise looked pretty futuristic, actually, due to its smooth outer
>> hull
>> > (no rivets, etc), whereas the hull of this Enterprise looks a bit more
>> > primitive and functional. Also, I think the nacelles definitely look
>> > TOS-ish. And the grappling hook is a far cry from a tractor beam. It
>> works
>> > for me <shrug>.
>
>I'm afraid I found that grappling hook to be just ludicrous. What the
>*hell* was that cable made of?
Probbaly some metalloplastic stuff devedloped sometime between the
late twenty-first century and the mid-twenty-second century.
Michael
Thomas Bagwell
Starr) wrote:
Did the Vulcans ever refer to it as "High Command"? Or was it just
Archer, possibly being sarcastic?
Tom B.
William December Starr
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) said:
> Yes, the problem is that the audience needs to know what the
> character is talking about immediately and unequivocally, without
> shoehorning in yet more expository dialogue.
Hey, having buttloads of stiff expository dialogue works fine on CSI!
Well, no, actually it doesn't. But aside from that, it works fine.
Lizard
>Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
>for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
>prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
>definately Kirks.
>
Let's see:
One-person-at-a-time transporter.
Polarized hull plates instead of shields.
Magnetic grapples instead of tractor beams.
No evident replicators or even Kirk-style food processors. (We'll know
in an episode or two, I suppose)
The main issue I have is warp speed. Four days to the Klingon
Homeworld? That puts us in their backyard. Given they have a 'fleet'
of spaceships (according to the Vulcans), they would have conquered
Earth a century ago. Utterly ridiculous.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
Timo S Saloniemi
Just because they ascribe to pacifism and eat rabbitfodder doesn't mean
they have to speak like wussies. It might be interesting to hear an alien
expression (like Niven and his Puppeteers, with a Hindmost leading
the race from the Deepest Council), yes. But Vulcans have always radiated
arrogant superiority, be it in the form of Spock, Sarek or random
side characters from the later shows. A "high" and "noble" expression
befits them well.
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>>Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
>>for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
>>prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
>>definately Kirks.
>
>>I guess its true Star Trek:TOS is now noncanon. Pity I always considered
>>Voyager to be noncanon.
>
>Are they going to explain why the Suliban disappeared before TOS?
We can bet good money on it. TPTB have already promised a story arc
of sorts for the FutureGuy character, with a conclusion or
major development of some sort at the end of the first season. This
is more preplanning than in any of the previous shows. I very much
believe a battle plan has been formulated for the Suliban as well.
Whether they'll stick to the original plan throughout the
series is unknown. I find it unlikely they already would have
a series finale planned, or even more than an inkling of
how the Suliban arc will be handled or distributed across the
seasons. I don't think they can even count on getting seven
seasons to play with.
>And is the Klingon world really that close to Earth?
At least for the purposes of this episode, it is. That's all we
can say...
Timo Saloniemi
Timo S Saloniemi
>Since we made this same point in an earlier thread, I've gone back and
>pulled up my old 3d model and played with it a bit. I've added a bit
>of texture to the hull, and a number of lights that we never saw in TOS
>but which could have been there and just never switched on. Take a look
>and tell me what you think, and keep in mind that there have been *no*
>structural changes made to the classic TOS form in these renderings.
>
>http://www.genek.com/trek/
>
>No fancy webpage, just a bunch of jpgs in a directory.
It's more gorgeous than I dared hope. The floodlights alone create
the effect; the aztec patterns could be even more subdued and the ship
would still look good.
The only gripe I have would be with the blue-glowing grilles on the
nacelles. It's the only thing for the absence of which there is
no good explanation in TOS - the glow should have been intense
during all warp flight scenes. I know fanfic has put it there
in many an occasion after TMP showed us how good it looked on
the refitted ship, but it still is a defining factor for the TOS
ship. This is the only Starfleet vessel *ever* without a telltale
blue glow *somewhere*.
To sell that particular item, you'd have to make it especially
subtle. Perhaps it's partially shuttered and only visible from
certain angles? A Venetian blind structure might exist deep
inside, or something.
Timo Saloniemi
carbook
> On 27 Sep 2001 16:24:13 -0500, Lancelot appearing sideways
> <sa-h...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> >Kirk Is <kirk...@alienbill.com> writes:
> >
> >> It's interesting that there seems to be some kind of interstellar
culture
> >> out there already... enough to have that whole snow-bound spaceport,
and
> >> with alien passerbys who barely paid any attention to humans... or is
> >> "boomer" culture such a force that humans are no longer a novelty?
> >
> >It really says something about Earth, that it was able to go from new
> >kid on the block to dominant starfaring race in just a few centuries.
> >This is what particularly struck me.
>
> But then, how far did the United States go in two centuries? Or the
> Japanese in one?
One of the things that struck me with the pilot was how nervous, and
anxious, the Vulcans seemed to be over the humans taking control of their
own policies. Very telling that the Vulcans would choose to share some
things with the humans, but not others. Like dangling bait in front of the
humans instead of either leaving them alone and letting them catch up, or
just giving them tech. Why were Vulcans so interested in humans anyway? Why
all the fuss because humans hadn't changed their whole natures in just a few
generations? Isn't that a bit unrealistic?
After seeing that that there already was a culture with the interaction of
races out there, I got the feeling that the Vulcans felt hungry to instill
some organization in the universe, but didn't have what it takes. They're
not forceful enough, or loud enough, to get much attention in what ever
chaos of a culture may exit out there. So maybe they recognized something
in the humans that they could 'train' to be a driving force in unification,
with Vulcan's leaders calling the shots.
But in the pilot they feel like they're at the point where they're starting
to realize they may have helped along a race that isn't going to be a puppet
race for them, and that they've underestimated us.
They looked a pit panicky. They were starting to lose control and were
wondering what kind of force they had put into motion.
I liked that.
Carbook
GeneK
>
> It's more gorgeous than I dared hope. The floodlights alone create
> the effect; the aztec patterns could be even more subdued and the ship
> would still look good.
Thanks. I'm still playing around with the pattern on and off, it is too
strong in some areas of the hull and I think it's because I applied the
same pattern all over, next time I'm going to create some with different
scales and strengths and apply them to different components of the ship.
> The only gripe I have would be with the blue-glowing grilles on the
> nacelles. It's the only thing for the absence of which there is
> no good explanation in TOS - the glow should have been intense
> during all warp flight scenes. I know fanfic has put it there
> in many an occasion after TMP showed us how good it looked on
> the refitted ship, but it still is a defining factor for the TOS
> ship. This is the only Starfleet vessel *ever* without a telltale
> blue glow *somewhere*.
Yes, I know. And, in fact, when you look at TMP, where the glow first
was used, when the ship isn't moving under warp it shouldn't be there
at all. This is a definite cheat all around on my part.
> To sell that particular item, you'd have to make it especially
> subtle. Perhaps it's partially shuttered and only visible from
> certain angles? A Venetian blind structure might exist deep
> inside, or something.
It's actually behind the familiar grid, what I did was make the previously
black "holes" in the grid bitmap transparent and put the blue light behind
it. If I turn the light off, all you see is the familiar grid.
I could tone it down some, but it would still be "there." So maybe we can
just try to come up for some pseudo-tech theory about what rare technical
feature the glow signified in TOS that later became standard issue. Or
Perhaps this is Kirk's Enterprise in the unbroadcast Season 4, after she
got some engine upgrades and accumulated so much wear on the silver-grey
finish that Starfleet decided to just blast it off and go with the exposed
plating? Maybe the decline in resource commitment that Roddenberry talked
about in the intro to the TMP novelization had already begun and there was
no budget for retouching surfaces...
GeneK
GeneK
GeneK
Bote Man
>
> On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 11:24:32 GMT, "Cevn McGuire" <ce...@hawaii.edu>
> wrote:
> >On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
> >egg before a chicken?
>
> See above. Note that, apparently, the "fleet" consists of one ship.
>
> up with a new name for Earth's space agency. Call it the "Earth
> Space Agency," or the "United Nations Space Force."
You folks don't get out much, eh?
Episode: "Tomorrow is Yesterday"
Scene: Turbolift, heading to bridge of the Enterprise
Capt. Christopher: "Are you Navy--"
Capt. Kirk: "We're a combined service. Our authority is the
United Earth Space Probe."
But, I guess that would be "canon" and the only canon around
those parts these days is the one with two 'n's used to
blow our knowledge of the Star Trek universe to smithereens
(the place, not the band).
Acknowledging that Rick Berman is a <insert hateful, colorful metaphor here>,
you'd think he'd at least keep one or two pointy-eared, uniform-wearing
Trekkies around as reference materiel for just such a question.
Bote
Gary J. Weiner
William December Starr wrote:
>
> In article <spamspam-CF4605...@news.xmission.com>,
> Mel Walker <spam...@spamspam.spam> said:
>
> > Why shouldn't the Vulcans have a High Command? They have a space
> > fleet, don't they? And Vulcans aren't exactly fuzzy little tribbles
> > -- they have a bit of a dark side, and the *do* tend to think other
> > species are somewhat beneath them, even in the ST:TOS time.
>
> Yeah, but would they _call_ it "High Command?" Even bearing in mind
> that they may have chosen to finesse their translations a bit to be in
> keeping with the humans' cultural expectations, that still sounds more
> than a bit... off.
I don't think the Vulcans called it the "High Command", Archer referred
to it as such in his meeting with T'Pol.
--
Gary J. Weiner - webm...@hatrack.net
http://www.hatrack.net
HatRack Web Design & Hosting - Hang your web with us
-----
"I, personally, was out of town that Easter. I have no
blood on my hands. The same is true of some other Jews
living in the Greater New York area. In fact, most of
us have an alibi." - Zev Chafets responding to Charlie
Ward's assertion that the Jews killed Jesus.
David B.
In the first 12 or so episodes Starfleet was called several different
names. They weren't consistent about stuff in the early episodes. I mean
Vulcans were called Vulcanians once or twice.
Gary J. Weiner
>
> On 27 Sep 2001 12:15:44 GMT, meist...@boog.org (Arthur Levesque)
> wrote:
>
> >David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
> >DJ>That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
> >DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
> >DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
> >DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
> >
> > The last one disappointed me most.
>
> The second to last one is what dissappointed me most. I thought they
> were supposed to abandon the instant-fix technogadget plot-wrap-up
> device?
It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
early on in the show.
Ian J. Ball
"Gary J. Weiner" <webm...@hatrack.net> wrote:
> Peter Bott wrote:
> >
> > On 27 Sep 2001 12:15:44 GMT, meist...@boog.org (Arthur Levesque)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
> > >DJ>That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
> > >DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
> > >DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
> > >DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
> > >
> > > The last one disappointed me most.
> >
> > The second to last one is what dissappointed me most. I thought they
> > were supposed to abandon the instant-fix technogadget plot-wrap-up
> > device?
>
> It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
> early on in the show.
It's still an insta-fix. And it now hangs over the rest of the series:
Hey, Archer's in a jam! Let's fire up that untested transporter again!
<blech>
I was very disappointed by this turn of events. Like the Holadeck in
TNG/V, the use of transporter technology could very quickly undermine the
entire premise of "Enterprise"...
--
Ian J. Ball | "What's not to understand? You think you're the first guy
TV lover, and | who ever rolled over, saw what was lyin' next to him,
Usenet slacker | and went 'Gueeeyah!'" - The Host, from "Angel"
ib...@socal.rr.com | http://members.aol.com/IJBall/WWW/TV.html
David Johnston
<webm...@hatrack.net> wrote:
>Peter Bott wrote:
>>
>> On 27 Sep 2001 12:15:44 GMT, meist...@boog.org (Arthur Levesque)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
>> >DJ>That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
>> >DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
>> >DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
>> >DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
>> >
>> > The last one disappointed me most.
>>
>> The second to last one is what dissappointed me most. I thought they
>> were supposed to abandon the instant-fix technogadget plot-wrap-up
>> device?
>
>It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
>early on in the show.
How does that change the fact that the transporter gave them an
instant way out of their problem and can be used to do the same thing
any time they get into another life threatening situation that they
would otherwise have to use brains and daring to solve?
RoadRunner
"GeneK" <gene@genek_hates_spammers.com> wrote in message
news:3BB488F0.D0105ADD@genek_hates_spammers.com...
Beautiful man, just great. Perhaps the blue was shuddered in the
Constitution design for combat or engine perfomrace reasons? Could the blue
be radiators of some sort or plasma guides? I if they're raditors maybe the
Constitution radiated out the aft globes. By forcing the plasma head back
into nacells they picked up the speed advantage. (I mean scotty had her past
warp 9). If its a plasma feed, then the shudders could act as defensive
measure. Phasers and plasma routes don't mix. I like how you put on the
inside, so some of the angles used in TOS might not have shown the blue
glow.
Eric
GeneK
>
> Beautiful man, just great. Perhaps the blue was shuddered in the
> Constitution design for combat or engine perfomrace reasons? Could the blue
> be radiators of some sort or plasma guides? I if they're raditors maybe the
> Constitution radiated out the aft globes. By forcing the plasma head back
> into nacells they picked up the speed advantage. (I mean scotty had her past
> warp 9). If its a plasma feed, then the shudders could act as defensive
> measure. Phasers and plasma routes don't mix. I like how you put on the
> inside, so some of the angles used in TOS might not have shown the blue
> glow.
Thanks. I was trying to work entirely within the form of the original ship,
without adding anything other than texture and lighting, so there really was
no other place to put nacelle glow. I'm personally leaning toward the
"fourth season upgrade" explanation, since the nacelles were shot from just
about every possible angle.
GeneK
Benjamin F. Elliott
news:iball***SPAM-No***-B4AB4A.184...@sdnewsr1.san.rr.com...
Not sure if message originally had spoiler space - inserting some for safety
ht
tp
:/
/g
ro
up
s.
ya
ho
o.
co
m.
/g
ro
up
/t
hi
sw
ee
ki
nd
oc
to
rw
ho
> > It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
> > early on in the show.
>
> It's still an insta-fix. And it now hangs over the rest of the series:
> Hey, Archer's in a jam! Let's fire up that untested transporter again!
> <blech>
>
> I was very disappointed by this turn of events. Like the Holadeck in
> TNG/V, the use of transporter technology could very quickly undermine the
> entire premise of "Enterprise"...
>
Depends on how they use it.
Dr. McCoy was always afraid that transporters would do terrible things to
him. Why would he be so afraid, unless there were stories of transporters
doing exactly that? (The Motion Picture has something terrible happen to
several red shirts in a transporter, but where would he have heard stories
*before* that incident.)
Suppose something went *wrong* with Captain Archer when they beamed him out.
Not necessarily anything obvious. Some "long term" damage that only presents
itself over time. Perhaps a debiliating leg injury. Or seizures. Some
permanent problem that convinces the crew that transporters are not yet
ready for humans. Something that will still scare Doctor McCoy a century
later, and Doctor Pulaski on Next Generation.
Let's see what they've done with the "transporter" storyline by the end of
November sweeps. You could be right, but I'd like to hope I've called this
one correctly.
Benjamin F. Elliott
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thisweekindoctorwho/
Geoduck
<bfel...@home.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Dr. McCoy was always afraid that transporters would do terrible things to
>him. Why would he be so afraid, unless there were stories of transporters
>doing exactly that? (The Motion Picture has something terrible happen to
>several red shirts in a transporter, but where would he have heard stories
>*before* that incident.)
Off the top of my head I can think of two TOS episodes where the
transporter caused problems- splitting Kirk in two, and sending an
away party into a parallel universe...
--
Geoduck
http://www.olywa.net/cook
Mike Dicenso
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Lizard wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 20:43:03 -0400 (EDT), aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
> >for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
> >prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
> >definately Kirks.
> >
> Let's see:
>
> One-person-at-a-time transporter.
And potenially very dangerous if the spoilers for a later episode are
correct.
> Polarized hull plates instead of shields.
Apparently lasers instead of large ship mounted phasers as well, too.
> Magnetic grapples instead of tractor beams.
>
> No evident replicators or even Kirk-style food processors. (We'll know
> in an episode or two, I suppose)
The episode Has Archer and Tucker refering to the chef and galley in a
converstation with the steward who is serving the food.
-Mike
Gary J. Weiner
>
> In article <3BB515FA...@hatrack.net>,
> "Gary J. Weiner" <webm...@hatrack.net> wrote:
> >
> > It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
> > early on in the show.
>
> It's still an insta-fix. And it now hangs over the rest of the series:
> Hey, Archer's in a jam! Let's fire up that untested transporter again!
> <blech>
It isn't an insta-fix. An insta-fix is something that comes up in the
last minutes of the show to save the day that you've never even heard of
before.
It's magic tech, granted, but nothing that really threatens the theme of
the show. TOS had transporters and they still managed to tell some good
stories.
One of the problems with magic tech, the main problem IMHO, is not that
they use it to save the day every week, but that you're often wondering
why don't they use the transporter/holodeck/replicator/whatever. With a
new piece of tech, whose use is still untrusted, I think you'll avoid
that problem.
For the most part, anyway...
Gary J. Weiner
Because the trasporter is new, not fully tested and certainly not
trusted by the majority of the crew. The transporter may not always
work. TOS transporters often had problems of one sort or another or were
unable to work through deep rock or in some sort of maguffinish storm.
The crew will also be averse to using them, as we've already seen.
Not to mention that most problems are not neccesarily fixable with the
transporter, even if it works flawlessly.
We've had transporters since TOS, and we still managed to get some
decent stories.
Anthony Boyd
Here, here! Well said, David. The transporter was a lazy plot device that
should have been abandoned. Considering that during the time period of
TOS, the transporters were referred to by Bones as "new fangled" and had at
least 3 accidents that fans here can recall, it seems like these things
should be a *death trap* at this point -- a hundred+ more years of testing
and they still turn Kirk to dust in a TOS episode? Damn, people are going
to be dying left and right in these things, or never, ever, ever using
them. Otherwise it won't be terribly believable (of course the whole
franchise is unbelievable, so B&B may have decided "who cares, do it").
Nopel
wrote:
>Nopel <no...@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> The NX-01 looks fantastic, but too advanced compared to TOS. Still, if the
>> stories hold up, I'll be able to overlook it. *If.*
>Nah, don't bother. If you're going to pitch a fit over special
>effects, maybe you should find something less likely to boil your
>blood.
Huh? That was pitching a fit? Next time I'll be sure to use lots of smileys,
so even autists like you can understand. If anything is going to boil my
blood, it's stories as bad as Voyager's. As long as they don't shove crap
like that in my face, I'll be more than willing to accept the truly
beautiful NX-01, thankyouverymuch.
Oh yeah: :) ;-) :P
Okay?
Nopel
Nopel
wrote:
>Ian J. Ball <iball***SPAM-No***@san.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:iball***SPAM-No***-B4AB4A.184...@sdnewsr1.san.rr.com...
>> I was very disappointed by this turn of events. Like the Holadeck in
>> TNG/V, the use of transporter technology could very quickly undermine the
>> entire premise of "Enterprise"...
>Depends on how they use it.
>Dr. McCoy was always afraid that transporters would do terrible things to
>him. Why would he be so afraid, unless there were stories of transporters
>doing exactly that? (The Motion Picture has something terrible happen to
>several red shirts in a transporter, but where would he have heard stories
>*before* that incident.)
In TNG's 'Realm of Fear,' Barclay has transporterphobia. He's afraid of
getting transporter psychosis, which can happen when the transporter doesn't
put your brain back together *exactly* right. It's mentioned that there
hasn't been a case of transporter psychosis since the transporter was
perfected in, I think, 2209.
So yes, they should definitely show the bad effects transporters can have at
that point in time.
Nopel
bicker
> On Wed, 26 Sep 2001 19:17:30 -0700, "David B." <both...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It looks more advance solely due to special effects.
> If that were true, the NCC-1701 from 'Trials and Tribble-ations,' or even
> the 1701 and 1701-A from the movies should look more futuristic than the
> NX-01. They don't.
Yes they do.
--
¤bicker¤ http://brianandrobbie.com
Please donate your tax rebate to the Red Cross.
Boycott Jerry Falwell for his hate-speech.
Copyright © 2001, Brian Charles Kohn. All Rights Reserved.
Posting in no way grants receivers any privileges, rights,
or licenses, with the exception of quoting in reply as long
as such use complies with US Law concerning Fair Use.
(This has nothing to do with regular USENET quoting and replies.)
bicker
> Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period?
No. What you're noticing is that OUR technology is more advanced now
in the depiction of futuristic vessels than it was forty years ago.
> So far it seems like it could be Picard's sister ship not Kirk's
> ancestor.
Clearly not. Its shields couldn't stand up to the kind of bombardment
they'd be subjected to in a battle 100 years in the future.
bicker
wrote:
> I'm afraid I found that grappling hook to be just ludicrous. What the
> *hell* was that cable made of?
Let's say titanium.
bicker
wrote:
> My main gripe with NX-01 is that she's so uninnovative. The very
> fact that there's a saucer hull there is too remniscent of TOS
> and later shows.
There really is no overriding reason, though, for it to be any other
way, and good reason for it to be the way it is. Why would NCC-1701
look like it did if NX-01 didn't look like it does?
bicker
> Ben this better not mean a new timeline with it being different from
> ST:TOS-Voyager. This would alieanate every single Star Trek fan. It
> would be a total arrogant slap in our faces.
Gosh. I think you're taking things too personally.
> To me this would mean them saying
> "Roddenberry's vision of ST was garbage while ours is better and we are
> destroying that foolishness to present our better vision".
Who said that a new vision of the future would be presented as
"better"??? Even Roddenberry presented an alternative vision of the
future (at least once) and those were not presented as "better" but
were, IMHO, among the most entertaining. (I'm thinking specifically,
here, of "Mirror, Mirror".)
> Season 7 better be a super reset that will set ST:TOS in motion if not
> it will do nothing more then splinter the ST community into two groups.
> Braga's vs Roddenberry's vision fans.
Luckily, the PTBs don't care about the "community" -- they care about
the viewers. They know that they've gone just as far as they could
slaved to that old set of canon, and that to further grow the
franchise they need to appeal to today's viewer.
bicker
> >>DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
> >>DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
> >>DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
> >> The last one disappointed me most.
> >were supposed to abandon the instant-fix technogadget plot-wrap-up
> >device?
> abandon the Reset Button, Instant Fix and Preposterous Time Travel
> Plots?
And I suppose you got so caught up in this comparative technical
triviality that you missed the character-value of the scene? That's
the point folks: if you look for technical nits to pick you won't
enjoy the show. If you realize that Trek has ALWAYS been about the
characters and not about the "science" then you'll find value in this
new series.
bicker
<sa-h...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> It really says something about Earth, that it was able to go from new
> kid on the block to dominant starfaring race in just a few centuries.
> This is what particularly struck me.
Bingo. That's what we're going to see in this series, I hope -- the
foundation of Earth's rise to preeminence in the galaxy.
bicker
Johnston) wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2001 16:24:13 -0500, Lancelot appearing sideways
> <sa-h...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >It really says something about Earth, that it was able to go from new
> >kid on the block to dominant starfaring race in just a few centuries.
> >This is what particularly struck me.
> Japanese in one?
How long have the other civilizations we're seeing been in space?
Only an extra one or two centuries?
bicker
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I'm not sure why you try to make sense of this.
That I agree with.
> It's Berman and Bragga, being stupid.
Or being smart.
Very smart.
> >On another note, there's a "Star Fleet" without a Federation? Or is that a
> >egg before a chicken?
> See above. Note that, apparently, the "fleet" consists of one ship.
This Star Fleet is Earth's Star Fleet. Perhaps Earth's best
achievement in the 100 years between Enterprise and TOS will be
pulling together the Federation. In doing so, in the interests of
peace (concerning which clearly Earth has been great stride in the
previous century) they attach their Star Fleet to give this Federation
strength.
bicker
Starr) wrote:
> In article <3bb3af1b...@news.edmonton.telusplanet.net>,
> rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) said:
> > And I think that the Department of Homeland Security doesn't sound
> > like Americans at all.
> > Still, if you were in charge, what would you rename the Vulcan High
> > Command?
>
> "The Tso'layra has chosen to--"
>
> "The *what*?"
>
> "The Tso'layra. It is a term that does not translate precisely into
> English. It is our body which uses logic and consensus to determine
> Vulcan policy."
>
> "Oh, it's your High Command then."
>
> "No, it is not."
>
LOL!
IAPW
bicker <use...@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:
>On 27 Sep 2001 16:24:13 -0500, Lancelot appearing sideways
><sa-h...@uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> It really says something about Earth, that it was able to go from new
>> kid on the block to dominant starfaring race in just a few centuries.
>> This is what particularly struck me.
>
>Bingo. That's what we're going to see in this series, I hope -- the
>foundation of Earth's rise to preeminence in the galaxy.
If the Earth is supposed to be like the USA they should have Earth take
over a few planets, kill off most of the natives from those planets, and
put the rest of the natives in reservations.
ANIM8Rfsk
viewers. They know that they've gone just as far as they could slaved to that
old set of canon, and that to further grow the franchise they need to appeal to
today's viewer. >>
You seem to be interpreting Berman and Braga's lack of knowledge, sloppiness,
refusal to do their homework, and general incompetence, as some sort of signs
they have a plan. I'd say that's an unfair interpretation. And Braga 'care
about the viewers'??? Most unlikely.
ANIM8Rfsk
the point folks: if you look for technical nits to pick you won't
enjoy the show. >>
So, just take a sleeping drug, turn your brain WAY off, and *maybe* you'll be
able to enjoy whatever crap they throw at you? And certainly don't point out
any blatant mistakes. Must just be happy little cheerleader!
Lizard
Griffith) wrote:
>In article <9p09tq$6pk$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
>William December Starr <wds...@panix.com> wrote:
>>Yeah, but would they _call_ it "High Command?" Even bearing in mind
>>that they may have chosen to finesse their translations a bit to be in
>>keeping with the humans' cultural expectations, that still sounds more
>>than a bit... off.
>
>No, they probably wouldn't call it "High Command". At the very least, they'd
>use a hell of a lot fewer vowels. And they'd throw in some apostrophes, too.
>
Sometime about a century before 'Enterprise'...
Ambassador:"I have received word from the H'g'h K'mn'di..."
Cochrane:"The High Command?"
Ambassador:"No, the term for our leaders-by-consensus is H'g'h
K'mn'di. Accent on the 'h'."
Cochrane:"The Huggy Commandoes?"
Ambassador:"H'g'h K'mn'di."
Cochrane:"Huge Comrades?"
Ambassador:"Very well, let us call them the High Command..."
Cochrane:"Ah, you Vulcans aren't so advanced! You've still got
military brass."
Sometime later...
Ambassador, speaking on a coded subspace channel:"And it is my
considered opinion that this race is wholly unsuited for interstellar
contact. We shall make it a matter of policy to hinder their technical
development until they have advanced."
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
"I've heard of this thing men call 'empathy', but I've never
once been afflicted with it, thanks the Gods." Bruno The Bandit
http://www.mrlizard.com
David Johnston
<use...@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> wrote:
>> >>DJ>That being said, yes, I'm disappointed that they have the stupid
>> >>DJ>sensors that can hear someone's heartbeat across space, the
>> >>DJ>transporter that can let them escape certain doom effortlessly,
>> >>DJ>and the stun setting on their phasers.
>> >> The last one disappointed me most.
>> >The second to last one is what dissappointed me most. I thought they
>> >were supposed to abandon the instant-fix technogadget plot-wrap-up
>> >device?
>> LOLROTF. It came from Berman. I mean really... Did you believe he'd
>> abandon the Reset Button, Instant Fix and Preposterous Time Travel
>> Plots?
>
>And I suppose you got so caught up in this comparative technical
>triviality that you missed the character-value of the scene?
The character-value of the scene wasn't all that great.
That's
>the point folks: if you look for technical nits to pick you won't
>enjoy the show.
The existence of the transporter is NOT a technical nit. It's a
fundamental plot issue.
Tom Betz
Quoth bicker <use...@brianandrobbie.com.1NVAL1D> in <3bc1cb6b....@news1.beaconwoods.org>:
|On 27 Sep 2001 20:42:09 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer <pfei...@cs.nmsu.edu>
|wrote:
|> I'm afraid I found that grappling hook to be just ludicrous. What the
|> *hell* was that cable made of?
|
|Let's say titanium.
Monomolecular carbon fiber?
--
|I always wanted to be someone,| Tom Betz, Generalist |
|but now I think I should have | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
|been a wee bit more specific. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
| "Fuck NANAE." -- Paul Vixie | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |
Chad Irby
> In TNG's 'Realm of Fear,' Barclay has transporterphobia. He's afraid of
> getting transporter psychosis, which can happen when the transporter doesn't
> put your brain back together *exactly* right. It's mentioned that there
> hasn't been a case of transporter psychosis since the transporter was
> perfected in, I think, 2209.
>
> So yes, they should definitely show the bad effects transporters can have at
> that point in time.
There's supposedly at least one Horrible Thing awaiting some poor
transportee in the next few episodes...
Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
William December Starr
rgo...@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) said:
> How does that change the fact that the transporter gave them an
> instant way out of their problem and can be used to do the same
> thing any time they get into another life threatening situation that
> they would otherwise have to use brains and daring to solve?
It depends on whether, the _next_ time there's a character in a fix
like that they -- the writers, I mean -- again use the transporter to
"solve" the problem, or if they actually do use their brains and come
up with something different.
The transporter certainly has the _potential_ to turn large parts of
the series into a joke, but it hasn't actually happened yet.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
GeneK
"William December Starr" <wds...@panix.com> wrote...
> It depends on whether, the _next_ time there's a character in a fix
> like that they -- the writers, I mean -- again use the transporter to
> "solve" the problem, or if they actually do use their brains and come
> up with something different.
Hell, I could fix that with a single scene. Just have Archer and some of
his crew standing by the transporter chuckling about how their initial fears
about it were silly as a shipment of supplies is beamed aboard and
materializes before their eyes in a smoking, twisted heap...
GeneK
louisa
December Starr) wrote:
sure it did -- TOS had to come up with all sorts of stupid plots to create
barriers to the transporter or else many plots would have been truncated
in the first 10 minutes.
Ubiquitous
>It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
>early on in the show.
And promptly ignored it by using it on Archer to save the day.
--
"I enjoy Spam. It's a meat that comes in a can. I have not tried
the Internet kind, but I'm sure it's just as tasty as the original"
Dwayne Allen Day
:>It wasn't an instant-fix. They clearly established transporter operation
:>early on in the show.
: And promptly ignored it by using it on Archer to save the day.
That made me groan too. However, I get the sense that they are going to
remedy that by making it clear in a future episode that the transporter is
NOT safe yet for this kind of use.
D
Denise Perry
On 28 Sep 2001 11:35:37 GMT, tsal...@alpha.hut.fi (Timo S Saloniemi) wrote:
>In article <3bb3de8d...@news.erols.com> br...@erols.com.noham (Clifford Blau) writes:
>>aalu...@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>>>Ok is it me or is that ship far too advanced for its time period? Except
>>>for the weaponry (so far) and warp speed it seems like it is a Voyager
>>>prototype more then what we have seen on Picard's Enterprise and
>>>definately Kirks.
>>
>>>I guess its true Star Trek:TOS is now noncanon. Pity I always considered
>>>Voyager to be noncanon.
>>
>>Are they going to explain why the Suliban disappeared before TOS?
>
>We can bet good money on it. TPTB have already promised a story arc
>of sorts for the FutureGuy character, with a conclusion or
>major development of some sort at the end of the first season. This
>is more preplanning than in any of the previous shows. I very much
>believe a battle plan has been formulated for the Suliban as well.
>
>Whether they'll stick to the original plan throughout the
>series is unknown. I find it unlikely they already would have
>a series finale planned, or even more than an inkling of
>how the Suliban arc will be handled or distributed across the
>seasons. I don't think they can even count on getting seven
>seasons to play with.
>
>>And is the Klingon world really that close to Earth?
>
>At least for the purposes of this episode, it is. That's all we
>can say...
>
>Timo Saloniemi
This is where it's at!
http://www.will.uiuc.edu/WILL_Contents/WILL/news/livewill.ram