Number of crew member deaths in Enterprise

[ChristopherPike]

KingDaniel everytime I read your posts I find myself imagining an Enterprise era character, clinging to the edge of a cliff. And you stamping on their fingers, cackling like a maniac!

An emotional observation on my part for sure. But there's quite a pile of Enterprise bodies littering the floor far below. How about just leaving us all in peace? While you presumably concentrate on looking forward to what future delights J.J. Abrams or Jesus, even Seth McFarlane might bring?

You do seem to obsess over taking the Romulan War away completely from my beloved show, so that "These are the Voyages..." makes sense. I followed the plot strands in the rest of Season 4 and really looked forward to Manny Coto et all, bending but not breaking canon showing the build-up to the conflict. Seriously. What gives? Shortage of stuff to crusade against right now, because it matters to some but not you? Wars can have many fronts. You're free to imagine drone ships assaulting Earth itself if you wish. Easier to paint a bird of prey on the kind of ships seen in "Minefield" than those spikey weapon platforms, you must surely agree?

You know the deal with stuff on Star Trek. Kirk was once alive, and able to pull the Enterprise NCC 1701-A out of mothballs, when Scotty went into transporter stasis to come out in the 24th Century and that was later overruled by Generations. That was a worse example, since one half of that writing team had to overturn or change his mind to suit the needs of a later story. Bob Orci at least has the excuse of not having particularly followed Enterprise. Just throw in a little reference those fans might cheer (or some sort of reaction at any rate) when they hear it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm not crusading against anything. Well, except maybe the whole "episode X counts but episode Y doesn't because of minor discontinuity Z" thing. That winds me up a little. Especially since X is usually packed with just as many discontinuities as Y.

And if it didn't matter to me, I wouldn't be here. I loved Enterprise, I loved TOS and I loved JJ's movie. I agree that "These are the Voyages" was an awful episode and an even-worse finale to TV Trek. But.... they still did it, and intended the 22nd century events to be accurate. No use pretending otherwise, IMO.

 

[xrt]

IMHO, what the writers and producers intended or attempted to retcon is besides the point. Explanations must be found that reside within the Star Trek universe.

We can disagree about those explanations, but once you start talking about writers and producers and studio politics, that is a different universe entirely.

 

[Admiral Shran]

And according to the aborted movie Star Trek: The Beginning, the Earth-Romulan "war" was a week-long battle in Earth orbit, in October 2159, between UESN fighter pilots and Romulan drone ships. The NX-01 was at Risa and missed the whole thing.

And I still thank God that that movie never saw the light of day.

And if it didn't matter to me, I wouldn't be here. I loved Enterprise, I loved TOS and I loved JJ's movie. I agree that "These are the Voyages" was an awful episode and an even-worse finale to TV Trek. But.... they still did it, and intended the 22nd century events to be accurate. No use pretending otherwise, IMO.

Well, they also intended Threshold to be accurate. I gladly chose to pretend otherwise there as well as with TATV.

 

[Mach5]

A holo-simulation of "real" (in-universe) events, I'm afraid.

Kind sir, If I may divert your attention to this post:
http://trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=4769986#post4769986

In some episodes of Trek, everything the crew does is monitored.

Even private quarters? Star Trek should be all about the bright future, enlightenment, strong ethical values etc. Placing cameras all over the ship would mean depriving the crew of one of the fundamental human rights - the right to privacy. Starfleet is supposed to be a "peacekeeping armada", not North Korean military.

 

[xrt]

Yes, but it depends how that information is used, but specifically how the technical protocols are set up to allow access.

Clearly there is a strict technical and legal protocol in place regarding the use of this technology to ensure it does not restrict human/sentient freedom.

In all but a few cases the records can be used only for historical purposes (like future holodeck simulations).

 

[SFRabid]

I read this analysis of deaths under Kirk's command recently. Hence my questions about Archer. It was not really my intention to compare character, just statistics

That is like comparing the death rate under the general who stormed the beach at Normandy with the death rate of present a present day general serving on a base in Europe.

You do see the problem with that, don't you?

If anything, take out season 3 of Enterprise. That leaves you 3 war free seasons from each series for comparison.

 

[xrt]

If I had compared the record of Cisco vs any given Enterprise captain, then you would be completely correct. However, it is my desire to analyze death in service across different Enterprise captains. Events may apply their own unique pressures, but Enterprise captains have very similar mission parameters and responsibilities.

Your suggestion for further analysis is excellent.

 

[T'Girl]

the episode's rendered ultra-pointless if the whole thing's a fiction

Riker was walking his way through a ethical dilemma, he choose a Holo-novel to assist him in his decisions. Various fictional characters based upon the Enterprise NX-01 crew came to him with their problems, by help them, Riker formed his own choices. His using this particular Holo-novel might have been a standard tool through the years.

And that Archer was still alive, and teaching at the Academy, in Star Trek (2009).

There's no suggestion in the movie that Scotty's instructor (relativistic physics?) was Archer, and there's thin proof (canon-wise) that the Admiral Archer spoken of was still alive.

Bob Orci from Bad Robot and former ENT producer Mike Sussman have both said it's him. Therefore, it is.

"It is," didn't appear on screen at any point, so no "it isn't."

None of the crew was ever promoted, re-assigned or killed during the years of atrocious Earth-Romulan war.

Doesn't mean a thing. And according to the aborted movie Star Trek: The Beginning, the Earth-Romulan "war" was a week-long battle in Earth orbit ...

A week long battle would be unlikely to be referred to as "A War." Nor would it account for the "wall in space" maintained a century later, light years away from Earth, known as the RNZ.

A multiple year, long bloody war make considerably more sense.

knowledge of Archer's era was utterly sketchy at best

elements of "Balance of Terror" were simply retconned/ignored by the writers and producers of Enterprise

Apparently knowledge of Archer voyages weren't just missing in Kirk's era (Romulan cloaks), but also in Picard's era, (Ferengi and especially the Borg). Archer's crew might simply have kept crappy records, nothing left but Archer's goofy "starlogs."

He could've swiped a stuffed beagle on display in the Starfleet museum for all we know

I like my idea that Portos (after his passing) was stuffed and placed in the main lobby of the Starfleet academy, he became the Starfleet mascot. Scotty stole him out of the display case for his transporter trial run.

 

[xrt]

And that Archer was still alive, and teaching at the Academy, in Star Trek (2009).

There's no suggestion in the movie that Scotty's instructor (relativistic physics?) was Archer, and there's thin proof (canon-wise) that the Admiral Archer spoken of was still alive.

"It is," didn't appear on screen at any point, so no "it isn't."

Yes! +1 for in-universe interpretation!

 

[F. King Daniel]

^Did I mention Scott Bakula thought it was him, too?

A week long battle would be unlikely to be referred to as a "A War."
Nor would it account for the "wall in space" maintained a century later, light years from Earth, known as the RNZ.

A multiple year, long bloody war makes considerably more sense.

Yet that's what the movie would have given us. It would have fitted into Trek's (very) vague history about as well as anything else presented in Enterprise. Just as you make up excuses for the Borg and Ferengi incidents and the time travels and the cloaking devices and all the other blantant (or possibly ignorant - Berman and Braga admit to never having seen all of TOS) retcons made, someone would have done so for that movie, too.

So much contradictory nonsense has been squished into the Trek timeline already, you could probably retcon in Sesame Street without too much trouble.

 

[xrt]

There are professional Star Trek continuity consultants and Hollywood should use them.

And/or stay very close to the fans. Jackson's team did that with Lord of the Rings (Tolkien) and practically built a captive audience before the movie was even cut.

It just makes sense in so many ways.

 

[SFRabid]

It is much easier to keep continuity over 3 or 4 movies than trying to do it over 11 movies, 29 seasons and dozens of writers. Plus, there is no solid cannon to use as a base. Star Trek writers, producers and even the creator has never worried about cannon to the same degree as some fans. Shows worry more about ratings than cannon.

... but Enterprise captains have very similar mission parameters and responsibilities.
...

Maybe Kirk and Picard, but Archer's mission was very different. He never had the Federation, had one ally that he did not like, and had a season long battle to save Earth.

 

[T'Girl]

^Did I mention Scott Bakula thought it was him, too?

And if he said it on screen during a episode, or movie, that would mean something. Look I understand it was the intent that it be Jonathan Archer, and I would buy it being him if the dialog took place twenty or thirty years after the events of Enterprise in the supposed Star Trek timeline. I simply have a problem with it being Jonathan a near century later.

A multiple year, long bloody war makes considerably more sense.

Yet that's what the movie would have given us. It would have fitted into Trek's (very) vague history about as well as anything else presented in Enterprise.

What isn't vague is that a century after the war with the Romulans, a patrolled and outpost monitored barrier was still in place. This is the equivalent of the Allies from WWI maintaining a wall around Germany today, because we had a war a century ago with the Kaiser.

If there was a movie depicting a isolated battle in Earth orbit, then that would not have been "The War" that was spoken of later, it would have been just what you called it, "a battle." Two separate events, or a smaller piece of a larger whole.

You might have noticed that the Fans (some of us) don't simply accept what TPTB hand us, we figure thing out for ourselves.

Just as you make up excuses for the Borg and Ferengi incidents and the time travels and the cloaking devices and ...

Not excuses, attempts at explanations. You take the bits and pieces from all the canon sources and you assemble them together into something that fits.

retcons

The problem with retcons is they are the proverbial slippery slope. It becomes too easy to go running to that particular quick fix to explain just about anything that's difficult to explain, they're an lazy excuse.

Or, you can stay in-universe, dig in, and expend the effort to actual formulate a explanation.

Kirk's operating authority being the United Earth Space Probe Agency, isn't simply retcon'ed into "The Federation." Too easy. He (somehow) meant what he said.

He repeatedly refers to the Enterprise as both a Earth starship, and a Federation starship, at different points. Use your mind SpookingDaniel, stretch your imagination. My "made up excuse" is that on some missions, the Enterprise was working for the Federation, on others the Enterprise was directly working for United Earth.

Don't like my assembled construct? Fine, please come up with your own, I will delight in reading it, but please don't simply and easily say that every time Kirk said Earth ship, (retcon) he meant Federation ship.

retcon in Sesame Street without too much trouble.

Already have, they're called the Pakled.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You tell me to stretch my mind and use my imagination yet you can't buy Jonathan Archer being around in Kirk's time?

And Big Bird was a Skorr, not a Pakled.

 

[xrt]

You tell me to stretch my mind and use my imagination yet you can't buy Jonathan Archer being around in Kirk's time?

There is simply no direct in-universe evidence for it, other than a name.

In addition, there is not even indirect in-universe evidence, like human lifespan (& working life) being extended that far.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You tell me to stretch my mind and use my imagination yet you can't buy Jonathan Archer being around in Kirk's time?

There is simply no direct in-universe evidence for it, other than a name.

In addition, there is not even indirect in-universe evidence, like human lifespan (& working life) being extended that far.

We saw it in Admiral McCoy in "Encounter at Farpoint"

And who even says Archer lived through all that time? Jonathan Archer did more time travelling than anyone else in Star Trek. During Enterprise he visited many alternate timeframes.

There are also dozens of other possibilities. Relativistic time dialation, being the first human to visit Cerebus II ("Too Short a Season"), a transporter botch, a planet with properties like the one from Insurrection, experiences with alien medical technology.....

 

[xrt]

Granted it is evidence of increasing human lifespan, but - McCoy was born long after Archer's time, with consequent improvements in medical technology.

Even going as far to say that might have been true in Archers time, I think the best we can say in-universe is that we can't rule out Admiral Archer at the academy being the same person as Captain Archer of NX-01. However, even this is still in the realm of vague speculation.

Yes, there are any number of reasons it could be Captain Archer, but there is no in-universe evidence at all that it is.

ie; A future episode or movie could easily define it as 'not' - without any violation with consequences whatsoever.

 

[NXOner]

I don't think a single crewmember dies until season three.

There's one, Ensign Brokovitch or something like that, in Strange New World (Series 1) - transporter accident in a storm (the guy studded with leaves)

 

[DevilEyes]

I don't think a single crewmember dies until season three.

There's one, Ensign Brokovitch or something like that, in Strange New World (Series 1) - transporter accident in a storm (the guy studded with leaves)

Crewman Novakovich survived. They said in the episode that he was expected to make a full recovery. From what I've heard, Bakula asked for that to be included in the script because it would be bad if they had a 'happy' ending with a crewman dying. And he's damn right about it - it's what I hated about Star Trek comic endings where redshirt deaths were completely ignored.