Archer's vs Kirk's missions

[herofan]

Until "Enterprise" came along with Captain Archer, I was always under the impression that Kirk and his Enterprise crew was a big deal because the mission was a "first." However, after watching Enterprise and seeing the mission of captain Archer, it gives me a feeling of "been there-done that."

I realize that Kirk's Enterprise was larger, but Archer had some encounters that were just as spectacular, and like Kirk, Archer saved earth. I even remember it being mentioned in season 4 that Archer had a lot of schools named after him.

Was Archer and his mission ever mentioned before "Enterprise" aired.

 

[Terok Nor]

Nope.

 

[herofan]

Nope.

It appears history was re-written.

Honestly, I like "Enterprise," but I watch without giving much thought to the other shows and movies. For example, due to the fact that 1960s tv and 2000s tv is vastly different, it's difficult for me to imagine that "Enterprise" happened before Kirk and his crew. Although there are things Archer didn't have, his enterprise certainly appears more advanced to the eye than Kirk's.

 

[The Wormhole]

Until "Enterprise" came along with Captain Archer, I was always under the impression that Kirk and his Enterprise crew was a big deal because the mission was a "first."

Nothing about TOS was really intended to be the "first" or even unique. The Enterprise was just meant to be any old ship, the idea being that there were other ships out there having just as wild adventures, the Enterprise was just the one we were watching. Hell, Kirk wasn't even the ship's first captain, and indeed Roddenberry always wanted the show to be on a ship with some history behind it. The whole idea of Kirk and his time commanding the Enterprise being some sort of ground-breaking accomplishment in the history of space exploration comes after the fact, mostly from the spin-off shows, although there are some hints of it in the TMP novelization.

 

[Goji]

The Menagerie/The Cage pretty much rule out the idea that Captain Kirk's mission was the first of its kind, don't they?

 

[T'Girl]

Difference between the two men's missions is that Kirk actually had one, the majority of the time Kirk was undertaking some task.

While for the first couple of years it seemed like Archer was just basically wondering around with no set goals.

The Menagerie/The Cage pretty much rule out the idea that Captain Kirk's mission was the first of its kind, don't they?

The Cage had the SS Columbia exploring 31 years before Kirk's time.

WNMHGB had the starship Valiant exploring the galaxy two centuries before Kirk's time. About a century before Archer.

The Return of The Archons had the Archon exploring a century before Kirk.

A Piece Of The Action, the Horizon about the same time as the Archon.

I never got the impression that Kirk's ship was in any way supposed to be "the first." And the novelization of TMP saying that Kirk's mission was the first in Starfleet history to come back reasonably intact in nonsensical.

 

[Jeffe525]

Difference between the two men's missions is that Kirk actually had one, the majority of the time Kirk was undertaking some task.

While for the first couple of years it seemed like Archer was just basically wondering around with no set goals.

Archer's mission was to explore, same as Kirk's. The biggest difference was that there was no UFP mandates/issues in Archer's time to dilute the NX mission (at least for S1 & S2).

 

[eyeresist]

Difference between the two men's missions is that Kirk actually had one, the majority of the time Kirk was undertaking some task.

While for the first couple of years it seemed like Archer was just basically wondering around with no set goals.

Exploration. The thing people keep complaining modern Star Trek lacks.

 

[The Wormhole]

Difference between the two men's missions is that Kirk actually had one, the majority of the time Kirk was undertaking some task.

While for the first couple of years it seemed like Archer was just basically wondering around with no set goals.

Exploration. The thing people keep complaining modern Star Trek lacks.

Thing is, in Enterprise's first two seasons it seemed as though Archer was just assigned to travel space with no real specific goal, plan or anything. Hell, the mission didn't even have a specific end date. First of all, the most advanced ship at the time isn't just going to be sent into the unknown for an unspecified amount of time. And even ignoring that, how do they replenish their food and other supplies? No replicators yet.

Season 4 was probably the most realistic depiction of the NX-01's duties, going on specific missions, and periodically returning to Earth.

 

[Tracy Trek]

Nope.

It appears history was re-written.

Honestly, I like "Enterprise," but I watch without giving much thought to the other shows and movies. For example, due to the fact that 1960s tv and 2000s tv is vastly different, it's difficult for me to imagine that "Enterprise" happened before Kirk and his crew. Although there are things Archer didn't have, his enterprise certainly appears more advanced to the eye than Kirk's.

And that is why I don't like Enterprise as much as the original series. For example, I've stated before in a post in another topic that I didn't like that Enterprise had this storyline that mindmelds were socially unacceptable behavior. This is supposed to be just a century before the era of Kirk's Enterprise.

Someone pointed out in response to my post that there was no evidence that mindmelds had been practiced on Vulcan for centuries. OK, I'll grant you that, there isn't. But it still seems off to me. To me the concept of mindmelds was an integral part of Vulcan society that we had seen before Enterprise. Such as the storylines involving Spock, Sarek, and Tuvok. It just seems to me like the producers of Enterprise might have thought, "Let's see what we can take that's already established and twist it around".

 

[Kor]

For example, I've stated before in a post in another topic that I didn't like that Enterprise had this storyline that mindmelds were socially unacceptable behavior. This is supposed to be just a century before the era of Kirk's Enterprise.

Someone pointed out in response to my post that there was no evidence that mindmelds had been practiced on Vulcan for centuries. OK, I'll grant you that, there isn't. But it still seems off to me. To me the concept of mindmelds was an integral part of Vulcan society that we had seen before Enterprise. Such as the storylines involving Spock, Sarek, and Tuvok. It just seems to me like the producers of Enterprise might have thought, "Let's see what we can take that's already established and twist it around".

And so we got the Vulcan arc in the fourth season of Enterprise, as an attempt to fix the big differences in Vulcan culture between ENT and the rest of Trek in one neat, rushed story line.

Kor

 

[Tim Thomason]

Archer had a whole planet (Archer IV, and, therefore, also a star system) named after him. The planet was first established in 1990 (Yesterday's Enterprise) and verified as named for Jonathan Archer in 2005 (In a Mirror, Darkly).

Enterprise is the adventures of the previously unestablished namesake for planet Archer IV.

 

[Timo]

First of all, the most advanced ship at the time isn't just going to be sent into the unknown for an unspecified amount of time.

That was the whole point, now wasn't it? If Archer had agreed with those doing the "sending", the ship would simply have been moored forever, or even scrapped: Vulcans were in charge of Earth's space program, and the only way for Archer and Earth to explore after the "failure" of the inaugural mission was to rebel and never return to Earth for a "proper" mission launch.

And even ignoring that, how do they replenish their food and other supplies? No replicators yet.

But an infinite number of tropical islands aka Class M planets, and humans supposedly knew that already.

Returning home wasn't an option, but there were no showstoppers with just pressing on. And without that pressing on, Vulcans might still have been powerful enough to shoot down Season Three in its entirety. Good bye, Earth!

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Until "Enterprise" came along with Captain Archer, I was always under the impression that Kirk and his Enterprise crew was a big deal because the mission was a "first." However, after watching Enterprise and seeing the mission of captain Archer, it gives me a feeling of "been there-done that."

That's the basic problem with most prequels. It's really hard to do them without contradicting the original story at some point. Or overshadowing it by making the prequel story a bigger deal. Does it really make sense for Indiana Jones to be so skeptical of the Ark's mystical powers in Raiders of the Lost Ark if he'd already gone through the events of Temple of Doom? Not really, but they did it anyway.

Star Trek New Visions author John Byrne has suggested that ENT should've ended with Archer & company making some heroic sacrifice that removed their adventures from the Trek timeline, and I think he has a point. That would've given the series a bit more importance, gravitas and poignancy, with the Enterprise crew being tremendously important but utterly forgotten.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Difference between the two men's missions is that Kirk actually had one, the majority of the time Kirk was undertaking some task.

While for the first couple of years it seemed like Archer was just basically wondering around with no set goals.

Exploration. The thing people keep complaining modern Star Trek lacks.

Kirk was just as likely to be delivering supplies, checking up on colonies or ferrying diplomats as exploring strange new worlds. His mission was a broad one and not limited to what was said in the credits' monologue. Archer 's was much narrower at first, strange new worlds were all there was.

 

[Goji]

He still got sent on errands though, whether it be checking up on cargo ships that got attacked by pirates ("Fortunate Son"), helping T'Pol capture a Vulcan fugitive ("The Seventh") or ferrying a Vulcan diplomat home after she'd been kicked off an alien world ("Fallen Hero").

 

[Terok Nor]

I can't see Enterprise as a prequel to TOS. It just looks far too advanced and, in all honesty, a show made in the 2000's is not going to look like a show made in the 1960's. TOS and how the Enterprise looked back then was not retconned or reimagined in any of the spin offs. We had Relics and Trials And Tribble-ations showing us the same old Enterprise from the 1960's. Even Enterprise itself showed the Defiant and the Enterprise in the last season. It just doesn't make any sense for the NX-01 to be a less advanced ship than the 1701. Even if you allow for Starfleet going through a retro phase during TOS the technology is still less advanced and clunky than what Archer had.

I would have overlooked all of this if Enterprise had been a good show but as someone who never liked it I never gave its place in the Star Trek universe much thought. Given the fact I don't care for it I just ignore it but I liked the idea someone had on here a while ago that Enterprise is the result of the Borg altering the timeline in Star Trek : First Contact. It could all be explained away as easily as it being a parallel timeline like in Star Trek 2009. That was never the intention of the creators and writers of the show but it works for me better than accepting Enterprise as a prequel to TOS.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I hear that claim a lot. So I have to ask, more advanced in what way?

 

[The Wormhole]

I hear that claim a lot. So I have to ask, more advanced in what way?

Not much, really. Enterprise has flat screen monitors as opposed to TOS having predominantly tube screens and there are some touch screen interfaces on Enterprise which didn't seem to exist in TOS. There's also the NX-01's infamous resemblance to the Akira class, but otherwise, Enterprise doesn't really visually look too much more advanced than TOS.

 

[Drone]

Functionally, as well, I don't get the truth behind the contention. Do people really maintain that its weapons systems, "shielding", environmental systems, EVA suits,ad infinitum, not to mention the obvious factor of speed, were superior in capability to TOS Enterprise? It looked new and spiffy, but I don't perceive the bridge controls, factoring in The Wormhole's comment above, to even appear to be more sophisticated than the latter iteration.

I don't know, but maybe subliminally there is a bias against NX-01 versus 1701 on the primitive level or trope of white vs. black hat, given the dark/light contrast to the ships' exterior appearance. Just a thought.