View Single Post
Old June 24 2013, 02:12 AM   #93
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Warp Drive in Star Trek Into Darkness - [SPOILERS]

Belz... wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Conversely, Enterprise very poorly and haphazardly incorporates elements from previous trek series and winds up retconing every single one of them (subspace radio, cloaking devices, Klingons, Ferengi, the Organians, etc).
One of the things I did when I watched Enterprise is take it as a full reboot, even if I knew it wasn't one.
Yep. Now that the Abramsverse has directly accepted the title as its successor, we no longer have to pretend that Enterprise had anything at all to do with TOS.

I think there's a strong implication that it was imminent in the fourth season, and it seemed to be the intention of the production before it was cancelled to actually show the start of the war, or the events leading up to it.
Maybe, maybe not (I'd have liked to see it to).

But then we remember how Spock described the war: with "primitive atomic weapons" and in "primitive space vessels which allowed no quarter, no captives, nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communications." Enterprise down all three of those in the first episode, and "Babel One" put the final nail in the coffin.

Which means the Season-4 Earth-Romulan War would have looked NOTHING like Spock's description; even if Earth for some reason wound up using primitive nuclear weapons, the ROMULANS were not and already various forms of cloaking technology. All of Coalition fleets had modern directed energy weapons, deflector shields and tractor beams.

Whatever happened with the Romulans after Enterprise, it has NO resemblance to history as TOS remembers it.

Yeah, you have that EXACTLY backwards.
No, you're the one who changed the question in mid-conversation
I didn't ASK a question. I said:

"And ST09 and STID have, between the two of them, made more references to Enterprise than all of the other Trek series and movies combined. That's at least one reason to believe that ST09 branches off from THAT universe and that Archer's timeline was separate from TOS all along."

This in response to your assertion that the Abrams movies are using more TOS references than ENT references; my reply was that that's sort of SELF referential since this is meant to replace TOS, not follow it up.

Interestingly, excluding SELF references, the statement is actually true no matter how you interpret it. YES the Abrams movies draw more from the ENT history than any previous trek production; YES the Abrams movies use Enterprise as its fictional history to the exclusion of all others. They sure as hell aren't using TOS' fictional history, considering it's already 2259 and Number One is nowhere in sight.

Put that another way, as much as it pains me to say it: Abrams trek is effectively "Enterprise: the Next Generation."
Well unsurprisingly I disagree with you. I see little or no relation between ENT and the new movies, except the aforementioned references.
That's kinda what I meant: TNG had little or no relation to TOS either, except for an Admiral with a famous name and a wall display with some models in it.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote