RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,106
Posts: 5,432,565
Members: 24,931
Currently online: 552
Newest member: emogs

TrekToday headlines

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Cracked’s New Sci-Fi Satire
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Beltran Introduces Shakespeare To Theater Group
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16

Burton To Be Honored at Facets Boo! Bash
By: T'Bonz on Oct 16


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 Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 24 2013, 01:27 AM   #91
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
Ok I just went back to the beginning of this. Here's the original post:
Jaro Stun wrote: View Post
(5) If there is one Star Trek show ST09 and STID are proudly referencing as its predecessor, it is Star Trek: Enterprise
So I was right. Your last question makes no sense in context. We are discussing ENT references in ST09/STID in relation to references to other Trek shows in the same two movies, not references to ENT in other shows, which is impossible.
Yeah, you have that EXACTLY backwards.

Abrams Trek is referncing Enterprise as its predecessor because both in-universe and in production order, Enterprise IS its predecessor. What's curious -- from an in universe perspective -- is that none of the other series do, with the singular exception of Nemesis (buddy pointed out the "Valdore" reference that I had forgotten about).

TNG, Voyager, DS9 and the movies ALL contain direct and explicit references to TOS, including time-travel events, flashbacks, homages, mentions, even the occasional cameo. But there is no mention anywhere of the events depicted in Enterprise, and Enterprise goes out of its way to AVOID events that in any way resemble things that have been referred to before (places, yes, but not EVENTS).

Put that another way, as much as it pains me to say it: Abrams trek is effectively "Enterprise: the Next Generation."
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2013, 01:48 AM   #92
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Warp Drive in Star Trek Into Darkness - [SPOILERS]

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. This allowed me to enjoy the series on its own merits, although I admit I would've liked if it had not messed up its own premise by constantly referencing to future stuff.

This suggests that things have been happening in Enterprise VERY differently than they happened in the Prime Timeline
I'm still of the mind that Enterprise is a direct result of meddling in First Contact, and that it is, itself, an alternate timeline to the previous one (opening the door to the possibility that every time travel event creates a new chain of events, despite the claims in-universe that it was predestined).

Here's a very interesting question: ignoring, for a moment, the Enterprise novels and given the state of affairs left off after "Babel One" and "Unity," what is the likelihood that the Earth-Romulan Wars EVEN HAPPENED in the Abrams timeline?
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.

Yeah, you have that EXACTLY backwards.
No, you're the one who changed the question in mid-conversation, so it's understandable that I was confused. Again, your question makes no sense: aside from Nemesis, there is nothing produced in canon Trek since Enterprise, so of course not only are ST09/STID referencing ENT more than any other movie or show, but they are the only ones that can.

In a franchise like Trek, one has to take things in narrative order, not chronological order.

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.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... is offline   Reply With Quote
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
Old June 24 2013, 02:45 AM   #94
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Warp Drive in Star Trek Into Darkness - [SPOILERS]

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
Belz... wrote: View Post
I'm deeply confused why anyone would find that surprising
I didn't say I found it surprising. I said it wasn't true.
Then explain it to me. Ball's in your court: Which TV series or movies made more Enterprise references than ST09/STID?

And I ask this because clearly you have references in mind to be so adamant about this; as for me, I hate Voyager and Insurrection WAY too much to start hunting for ENT references there, and I refuse to carefully watch any part of Nemesis until right before the Scimitar opens fire on them. There may be something burred in there, but I haven't seen it, and it's still FAR less than ST09 and STID.
I think I see what's happening here. When I posted the following:
M'Sharak wrote: View Post
Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post

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.
Call me skeptical, but an assertion like that makes me want to see the list of all references, with statistical breakdown by series and/or movie.
I guess I must have been misreading your post to be saying that the AbramsTrek movies have made more references to Enterprise than AbramsTrek movies have made to all of the other series and movies combined, and it was that meaning which my reply addressed.

Because it completely escaped me that one would bother in the first place making the bleeding obvious statement that AbramsTrek made more references to Enterprise than all of the other series and movies combined have made references to Enterprise.

__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 24 2013, 03:05 AM   #95
Belz...
Fleet Captain
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Location: In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
Re: Warp Drive in Star Trek Into Darkness - [SPOILERS]

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
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.
I think we're somehow miscommunicating here because we're using different definitions for several words.
__________________
And that's my opinion.
Belz... 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 12:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.