That’s not what people are saying at allSome trekkies don't want trek in their trek![]()
No. Some Trekkies want Trek to stand up on its own and not need to be propped up almost entirely by references and call backs to pervious series and films.Some trekkies don't want trek in their trek![]()
No. Some Trekkies want Trek to stand up on its own and not need to be propped up almost entirely by references and call backs to pervious series and films.
Nope.Man you guys have been waiting a long time then.
Nope.
None of the other series beat you over the head with references to past episodes/films every chance they could.
Save for maybe Lower Decks, but thats kinda the point of the series.
Even Strange New Worlds, an obvious callback to the Trek of old, doesn't rely almost entirely on references to past series, beyond its classic setting and characters.
The Berman era "tradition" was to not show any Sovereign class ship on TV, which has already been broken by the presence of several Sovereigns in Picard S2 and the Prodigy Lower Decks finale (including the Enterprise E, maybe*) and even a couple in Lower Decks S3.It feels more like he was continuing the tradition from Berman-era Trek to not show the Ent-E on tv.
No offense, but this sounds exactly like the bs that the producers of The Man In the High Castle said about their nonsensical final scene of the series finale; that they ‘left it to the audience’s imagination’ as to what was going on, when it was blatantly obvious that they had no freaking clue what the final scene meant. I call shenanigans on you, Terry.
Nah, it sounds like there were 30 years of adventures we never saw and Terry was just tapping into that idea with a joke. You're right in that he probably had no idea what the details were, but you're missing the point if you're using that as a fault.
Yep. Count me as one. And I don't even really like the E, but to shoehorn in the F made no sense and just further pushed the narrative that serving on an Enterprise is dangerous to your health. They're now onto their 4th Enterprise in 40 years.rather than allowing the far greater percentage of fans who would rather have seen the Enterprise-E one last time
Yep. Count me as one. And I don't even really like the E, but to shoehorn in the F made no sense and just further pushed the narrative that serving on an Enterprise is dangerous to your health. They're now onto their 4th Enterprise in 40 years.
I am faulting Matalas for using the Enterprise-F as a tribute to the 1% of fans who play STO, only to have the ship get destroyed to make way for his Matalasprise, rather than allowing the far greater percentage of fans who would rather have seen the Enterprise-E one last time rather than have its fate in the form of a lame-ass joke that explains nothing about what happened to it. I doubt Terry was really thinking about ‘future stories’ despite what he’s saying after the fact.
I also read they didn't want any one confusing (or asking if) any Sovereigns in DS9 as the Enterprise. Which I saw happening when Picard Season 2 aired lmao.The Berman era "tradition" was to not show any Sovereign class ship on TV, which has already been broken by the presence of several Sovereigns in Picard S2 and the Prodigy Lower Decks finale (including the Enterprise E, maybe*) and even a couple in Lower Decks S3.
Besides, in the Berman era it wasn't so much a tradition as it was a mandate, as the Studio Suits wanted the Sovereign class to remain a movie exclusive ship, fearing people wouldn't go to the theatres to see the TNG movies if they showed Sovereign class ships on TV. Of course, as it is, people only went to theatres to see one of the three movies the Enterprise E was in anyway.
They also all have USS Sovereign on the saucer.*I am aware that all the Sovereign class ships in the Prodigy finale have "1701-E" on their hulls,
I heard that it was other Intrepids they didn't want, fearing the audience would confuse them with Voyager. As it was the Bellerophon being Intrepid was something they had to argue with the studio over (the studio wanted it to be another Defiant class ship) and the matter was only settled because the Voyager episode being filmed at the time was one that didn't need much filming on the ship's interior sets.I also read they didn't want any one confusing (or asking if) any Sovereigns in DS9 as the Enterprise.
I dunno, the E was only in 3 movies, and only 1 of them any good with an asterisk being the same complaint, the movies just became action stories that didn't feel like the show. Considering most people didn't even go out to see Nemesis, I think it's safe to say that there's mostly zero attachment to anything past the D in terms of ships named "Enterprise" since they had 179 stories with that versus 3 mostly unmemorable ones.
I am faulting Matalas for using the Enterprise-F as a tribute to the 1% of fans who play STO, only to have the ship get destroyed to make way for his Matalasprise, rather than allowing the far greater percentage of fans who would rather have seen the Enterprise-E one last time rather than have its fate in the form of a lame-ass joke that explains nothing about what happened to it. I doubt Terry was really thinking about ‘future stories’ despite what he’s saying after the fact.
There was nothing wrong showing both.
The issue is that they rushed things just to get to the Ent-G to set up Legacy.
When it could have been Ent-E at Frontier Day, Seven gets command of the Ent-F, and in Legacy, Seven could have been given command of the Ent-G. Just time skip a decade later for the latter.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.