RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,870
Posts: 5,637,755
Members: 25,485
Currently online: 426
Newest member: Dtir Arak

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Dogs of War
By: Michelle on Mar 28

Takei Calls For Boycott
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

April-May 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

Quinto TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Shatner Remembers Nimoy
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Star Trek Delta Coin Pouches
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Takei Museum Fundraiser In Progress
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Star Trek 3 Villain?
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Montgomery Comic Book Signing
By: T'Bonz on Mar 24

Mulgrew To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Mar 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Enterprise

Enterprise The final frontier has a new beginning in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 19 2014, 01:07 AM   #46
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Start Wreck wrote: View Post
You seemed to be arguing that they did everything they needed to do to stay in business, and using that as a basis to reject other suggestions.
I'm not "rejecting" suggestions, I'm just offering an explanation for why the creators didn't embrace the things you suggested. You were implying that it was simply a matter of their own failure of imagination, and that's simply not fair, because they didn't have infinite money to do whatever they wanted. TV creators always imagine big, but have to dial down their imaginations once the budget figures come in. For instance, the original script to "The City on the Edge of Forever" featured a huge valley filled with giant statues and an actual city, but because TV budgets are finite, they had to settle for a stone doughnut and a few broken columns scattered around. The limits on what you see onscreen do not represent the limits on the creators' ability to imagine.


Since they got cancelled, I'd suggest their approach was wrong somewhere anyway, and other approaches might fare better.
Most TV shows get cancelled early. No TV series is entitled to survive. TV shows are like animal babies on those nature documentaries: They desperately scramble to survive and adapt in a harsh, unforgiving environment and outcompete each other for finite resources, and it's a given that many or most of them will die very young. So it makes no sense to say that the only way a show gets cancelled is if it does something wrong. Many superbly made, brilliantly conceived shows have been cancelled. Enterprise's four-year run was actually more than most shows get. Most shows are lucky to get past one season.


But matters of business are frankly not relevant to a discussion on quality and creative choices.
Of course they're relevant in this context. If we were talking about writing prose, then you could talk about creativity as something entirely divorced from financial considerations; I can write about a vast alien city floating in the clouds of a Venus-like planet and populated by bizarre eight-limbed aliens and have it cost no more to print than if I wrote about college students in Cincinnati. But in television, it costs money to turn creative ideas into actual images. And that means that some creative ideas are too expensive to actually realize. Again, you're being totally unfair by assuming that the limitation is in the creators' imaginations rather than their budgets.


If something safe, ordinary and cheap is the only viable way to make a TV show, then I'd rather no-one bother! Thankfully, sometimes risky and difficult choices pay off.
You're being smug and condescending, which is very easy to do when you've never actually had to do the job and have no damn clue of the difficulties involved. It's easy to talk about making difficult choices if you don't actually have to make them. That's just armchair quarterbacking. If you actually did the job yourself, you'd quickly be forced to realize it's not as easy as it looks from the outside. Plenty of TV and film creators want to make risky and difficult choices, but there are all sorts of restrictions on what they can actually achieve, whether due to budget or technological limits or studio interference or network censorship or simply running out of time. This is what you don't understand because you don't actually do the job: That compromise is a fundamental part of film or television production. That what ends up onscreen is almost always dialed back from what the creators wanted, because real-world considerations tend to get in the way of pure imagination. It takes a lot of money to be able to achieve anything you imagine -- but the more money there is invested in a project, the more uneasy the financial backers get about taking risks, so it can be a catch-22.


And besides, my suggestions were things that could make the show better and increase its chances of standing out from the crowd, thereby making it more popular and keeping it on the air for longer.
I wasn't aware there was a huge grassroots demand for more scenes of people floating around weightlessly or doing repairs on the outside of ships. I don't really see how those, or shots of people peering into periscopes instead of looking at a viewscreen, would've significantly increased viewership. Wouldn't, oh, better stories and characterizations have been more likely to achieve that?
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2014, 10:17 AM   #47
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Christopher wrote: View Post
I'm not "rejecting" suggestions, I'm just offering an explanation for why the creators didn't embrace the things you suggested. You were implying that it was simply a matter of their own failure of imagination, and that's simply not fair, because they didn't have infinite money to do whatever they wanted.
Except I know full well that no show has infinite money and didn't intend to give that impression. As I've already said, it's about priorities. They had enough money on the show to do plenty of expensive stuff that they didn't need to - semi-regular CGI aliens, cityscapes, space battles and elaborate set designs, even though they didn't have to. They could have put the money into other things.

I mean, I appreciate the effort of explaining the realities of TV production but, frankly, exactly how they do it and how they prioritise the budget is for the producers to work out. Discussions would be pretty short if they all ended with "well, they couldn't do that."

Christopher wrote: View Post
If something safe, ordinary and cheap is the only viable way to make a TV show, then I'd rather no-one bother! Thankfully, sometimes risky and difficult choices pay off.
You're being smug and condescending, which is very easy to do when you've never actually had to do the job and have no damn clue of the difficulties involved.
Please don't resort to making personal comments. You don't actually know what I do and it's completely irrelevant anyway.
Argue with with point, not the person. Thanks.


Christopher wrote: View Post
I wasn't aware there was a huge grassroots demand for more scenes of people floating around weightlessly or doing repairs on the outside of ships.
Does there have to be a "huge" demand for things for them to be worth doing? I'm sure Enterprise gave us plenty of things that weren't in huge demand, but that's not really the point. I think the occasional bit of lo-fi space-faring type adventures could have added to the overall flavour of the show.

Christopher wrote: View Post
I don't really see how those, or shots of people peering into periscopes instead of looking at a viewscreen, would've significantly increased viewership. Wouldn't, oh, better stories and characterizations have been more likely to achieve that?
Naturally, but every little helps.
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2014, 02:30 PM   #48
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Start Wreck wrote: View Post
Please don't resort to making personal comments.
But that's what you're doing. You're accusing the creators of the show of lacking imagination, making your criticisms of them personal when there's no reason to. That's my point -- that they could have immense, sweeping imaginations but have to compromise them for the sake of budget. So you're wrong to make it personal, to cast aspersions on the creators' talent rather than recognizing that what you see onscreen is a compromise. I think you're being unfair to them as people, and I'm defending them.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 19 2014, 02:45 PM   #49
Start Wreck
Fleet Captain
 
Start Wreck's Avatar
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Christopher wrote: View Post
But that's what you're doing. You're accusing the creators of the show of lacking imagination, making your criticisms of them personal when there's no reason to.
Firstly, even if I was doing this, you shouldn't address an issue of improper conduct by adding to it (ie. two wrongs don't make a right).

Secondly, I am actually doing no such thing; you've incorrectly inferred this.

I hope this clears up any confusion.
__________________
Fallen Star - My home-made sci-fi TV show
Start Wreck - My Star Trek spoof web comic
Doctor Who From The Start - A n00b does a blog
Start Wreck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 12:35 AM   #50
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Red Omega wrote: View Post
It is very hard for "Enterprise" to win. Do you design forward from present day? or do you design back from TOS? Well, if you do the latter, which is what a lot of hard core fans wanted, you wind up looking like Flash Gordon!
No, it would not look like Flash Gordon. "The Cage" as a starting point could have provided the model to create a retro ENT universe. No one ever said "The Cage" was such a radical departure from earlier Starfleet (tech, uniforms, etc.), that it was as antiquated in appearance as Flash Gordon.

In actuality, the basic ship (and some weapon) designs of TOS heavily influenced series taking place up to and beyond 100 years into its fictional future, so if there was a sense of longevity moving forward, one could suggest the same going in reverse.

On that note, take fantasy films set during World War II, such as Captain America: The First Avenger, which featured a number of "retro tech" devices/weapons on both sides of the conflict. Despite it being set some 70 years in the past, the technology does not come off as ancient (sort of what your Flash Gordon reference implies about ENT's delimma) when compared to various set or device designs in The Avengers.

It is a matter of choice--and how creative those behind a production can be. Further, if you remember ENT's "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter, the TOS sets--to 2005 audiences having witnessed decades of ever-advancing set and costume design--did not mock the Defiant, but thought it was sharp and fit in as the "future" of ENT, even with the 1960s sensibilities.

Again, ENT had choices where ship, device and costume design were concerned, but it--like many of the scripts--were poor.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."

Last edited by TREK_GOD_1; August 26 2014 at 12:52 AM.
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 01:29 AM   #51
urbandefault
Fleet Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Lemon Wacky Hello
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

I think Enterprise failed because the execution of the idea didn't live up to the promise. Bringing in Coto was a smart move, but it was too late.

Removing pieces of Trek tech to make it look more primitive would only have served to, in my opinion, handicap the show's ability to tell a good story even more.

As for continuity, by the time Enterprise went on the air the franchise was so weighed down by its own canon that (again, my opinion), it was doomed to sink. It could have been a great show, but it wasn't.
__________________
"GARY BUSEY!" - Gary Busey
urbandefault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 01:32 AM   #52
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

urbandefault wrote: View Post
As for continuity, by the time Enterprise went on the air the franchise was so weighed down by its own canon that (again, my opinion), it was doomed to sink.
Which may have been part of Berman & Braga's rationale in doing a prequel: To get free of all that continuity baggage by going to an era where most of it hadn't happened yet and would have no impact. If so, it was undermined by the network's insistence on including stuff like transporters and Klingons and the Temporal Cold War.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 01:35 AM   #53
urbandefault
Fleet Captain
 
urbandefault's Avatar
 
Location: Lemon Wacky Hello
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Christopher wrote: View Post
urbandefault wrote: View Post
As for continuity, by the time Enterprise went on the air the franchise was so weighed down by its own canon that (again, my opinion), it was doomed to sink.
Which may have been part of Berman & Braga's rationale in doing a prequel: To get free of all that continuity baggage by going to an era where most of it hadn't happened yet and would have no impact. If so, it was undermined by the network's insistence on including stuff like transporters and Klingons and the Temporal Cold War.
Could be. It just seemed really heavy, like struggling to stay afloat, even from the pilot. Too many "chefs" ruin the soup.
__________________
"GARY BUSEY!" - Gary Busey
urbandefault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 02:11 AM   #54
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Why was the Temporal Cold War even a thing?
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 03:55 AM   #55
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Ithekro wrote: View Post
Why was the Temporal Cold War even a thing?
Reportedly, because the network was uneasy about a show moving into the past of the Trek universe when they thought it should be moving forward. So they insisted on including some ties to Trek's future through a time-travel element, and the TCW is what the producers came up with. The reason it was so half-hearted, vague, and barely coherent is because the producers never wanted it in the first place.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 04:07 AM   #56
Saul
Rear Admiral
 
Saul's Avatar
 
Location: 東京
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

urbandefault wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
urbandefault wrote: View Post
As for continuity, by the time Enterprise went on the air the franchise was so weighed down by its own canon that (again, my opinion), it was doomed to sink.
Which may have been part of Berman & Braga's rationale in doing a prequel: To get free of all that continuity baggage by going to an era where most of it hadn't happened yet and would have no impact. If so, it was undermined by the network's insistence on including stuff like transporters and Klingons and the Temporal Cold War.
Could be. It just seemed really heavy, like struggling to stay afloat, even from the pilot. Too many "chefs" ruin the soup.
Canon has nothing to do with good storytelling.
__________________
"It's not that you can see the strings, it's that 40 years later you're still looking at them." - Steven Moffat
"This movie was big. Imagine how big it could have been with me in it?" William Shatner
Saul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 04:08 AM   #57
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: Spock of Ages
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

TREK_GOD_1 wrote: View Post
Red Omega wrote: View Post
It is very hard for "Enterprise" to win. Do you design forward from present day? or do you design back from TOS? Well, if you do the latter, which is what a lot of hard core fans wanted, you wind up looking like Flash Gordon!
No, it would not look like Flash Gordon. "The Cage" as a starting point could have provided the model to create a retro ENT universe. No one ever said "The Cage" was such a radical departure from earlier Starfleet (tech, uniforms, etc.), that it was as antiquated in appearance as Flash Gordon.

In actuality, the basic ship (and some weapon) designs of TOS heavily influenced series taking place up to and beyond 100 years into its fictional future, so if there was a sense of longevity moving forward, one could suggest the same going in reverse.

On that note, take fantasy films set during World War II, such as Captain America: The First Avenger, which featured a number of "retro tech" devices/weapons on both sides of the conflict. Despite it being set some 70 years in the past, the technology does not come off as ancient (sort of what your Flash Gordon reference implies about ENT's delimma) when compared to various set or device designs in The Avengers.

It is a matter of choice--and how creative those behind a production can be. Further, if you remember ENT's "In a Mirror, Darkly" 2-parter, the TOS sets--to 2005 audiences having witnessed decades of ever-advancing set and costume design--did not mock the Defiant, but thought it was sharp and fit in as the "future" of ENT, even with the 1960s sensibilities.

Again, ENT had choices where ship, device and costume design were concerned, but it--like many of the scripts--were poor.
Enterprise did it right. It's design choices were based on extrapolations of the 20th and 21st Centuries technology rather than trying to create an "earlier" version of the 60s designs of TOS.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 01:26 PM   #58
TREK_GOD_1
Fleet Captain
 
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
 
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Saul wrote: View Post
Canon has nothing to do with good storytelling.
Correct--by the time ENT rolled around, the Berman destruction of the franchise was complete, and it appeared that he and his associates were hell bent on tepid--if not lifeless ST. Coto's 11th hour arrival was like trying to plug a car-sized hole in a sinking ship with a handkerchief.

They were lucky to have "In a Mirror, Darkly" as a gem in a sea of coal.
__________________
"...to be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 01:58 PM   #59
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

One wonders how different Voyager and Enterprise would have been had they been syndicated like TNG and DS9 rather than being on UPN.
Ithekro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2014, 02:14 PM   #60
Ensign_Redshirt
Commodore
 
Re: Has Enterprise ever messed up the continuity?

Garren wrote: View Post
I remember when Enterprise first started, I watched the first few episodes before walking away. I want to go back to it after I complete Voyager.

I always wondered though, as a prequel series, did Enterprise ever mess with the continuity of the show as we knew it during TNG or TOS? Were there any obvious continuity errors or plot holes?

I'm just curious about that. The Star Trek continuity is vast and I could easily see mistakes happening.
Of course!

Although Season 4 did make some effort of retconning most of those continuity errors away again.

It also depends what you consider a "continuity error". Some purists would say that the NX-01 looked more modern than the NCC-1701 and hence this constituted a continuity error. But as it has been established in episodes like "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) or "In a Mirror, Darkly" (ENT) this was apparently just the aestethically preferred kind of starship design in the 23rd century.
Ensign_Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.