• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

"Enterprise" too advanced for 22nd Century

I read a novel once -- I honestly don't remember which one, it was so long ago -- in which some starbase personnel were commenting on the relative primitiveness of the Enterprise's components, and Lt. Uhura shot back that it was easy to look down when you're a major station to which supplies and parts are routinely delivered and which resides in almost complete safety. But on a starship, you have to be able to make repairs on the fly, during active combat, sometimes without the right tools or any proper tools at all. It's hard to solder circuitry that is laid out in nanometers with a phaser, a metal pick, and some duct tape.

Perhaps sometime between the launches of the NX and Constitution classes, a few ships learned this lesson the hard way, and Starfleet began to deliberately build ships to be simpler in form and function.
 
It was meant to be our future, but look more like a submarine. They are things that are more primitive than in TOS, like the cramped quarters and radar-like sensors.
 
Here's a question we should all ask ourselves when this topic is brought up:

Does Kirk's Enterprise, and gadgetry look like it's technologically advanced compared to today?
 
Here's a question we should all ask ourselves when this topic is brought up:

Does Kirk's Enterprise, and gadgetry look like it's technologically advanced compared to today?
Some pieces of it it do, and some do not.
 
Here's a question we should all ask ourselves when this topic is brought up:

Does Kirk's Enterprise, and gadgetry look like it's technologically advanced compared to today?
To me, TOS looks like a comic book fantasy elseworld and not a realistic depiction of the future. Starships won't have computer displays made up of entirely of unlabelled blinking coloured squares, for instance. That gives it a timeless quality.

Next Gen's LCARS graphics come across as bizarro world touchscreen DOS compared to current-day phones.
 
I should have added some context. If someone says that Ent(The ship, the gadgets, etc) shouldn't look more advanced (aesthetically) than they do in TOS, which takes place 100 years later, we should ask whether or not ENT should look more advanced than the 20th/21st century.

When I first saw the reboot film in 2009, I assumed it was depicting the exact same ship as TOS, and that it had just been updated for our modern sensibilities of how technology should look.

As in "That's what Kirk's Enterprise would really look like ."
 
I should have added some context. If someone says that Ent(The ship, the gadgets, etc) shouldn't look more advanced (aesthetically) than they do in TOS, which takes place 100 years later, we should ask whether or not ENT should look more advanced than the 20th/21st century.

When I first saw the reboot film in 2009, I assumed it was depicting the exact same ship as TOS, and that it had just been updated for our modern sensibilities of how technology should look.

As in "That's what Kirk's Enterprise would really look like ."

This is my initial thought as well before the movie explain the changes in-universe were done by redoing their ship designs after examing the Kelvin incident and find ways to counter it.

Though I can still agree this might still be what we can envision a modern take of a TOS constitution. Well, barring it's size and weaponry.

Though again I appreciated that two parter of Enterprise for establishing that no matter how "not advanced" a TOS Constitution looks, it's still a major game changer in the 22nd century.
 
I didn't mind the transporter that much in ENT. It should have been stated explicitly though this is an experimental technology with a high risk of failure, injury, or illness in the future.

Make it clear that's it's not as advanced as Picard's time or Kirk's even. Maybe have a random crewmember use it in an emergency and then they get very ill very seriously-have them state it's a transporter related disease and that there is no cure. Crewman dies weeks later.

Show the audience yeah the technology exists but it has a always to go before Voyager era Transporters.
 
I didn't mind the transporter that much in ENT. It should have been stated explicitly though this is an experimental technology with a high risk of failure, injury, or illness in the future.

Make it clear that's it's not as advanced as Picard's time or Kirk's even. Maybe have a random crewmember use it in an emergency and then they get very ill very seriously-have them state it's a transporter related disease and that there is no cure. Crewman dies weeks later.

Show the audience yeah the technology exists but it has a always to go before Voyager era Transporters.
Pretty sure they did:
Broken Bow said:
TRAVIS: I heard this platform's been approved for bio-transport.
REED: I presume you mean fruits and vegetables.
TRAVIS: I mean Armoury Officers and Helmsmen.
REED: I don't think I'm quite ready to have my molecules compressed into a data stream.
TRAVIS: They claim it's safe.
REED: Do they indeed. Well, I certainly hope the Captain doesn't plan on making us use it.
TRAVIS: Don't worry, from what I'm told, he wouldn't even put his dog through this thing.
 
I think it's depiction of both our future and TOS's past was fine. But if OP's point is that we should have seen a wholly "deevolution" (for lack of a better world) of TOS technology in a 22nd century set show, like some kind of pulp retro futurism, I can see that point too. I think for that to work though you'd have to look at TOS as completely separate from anything before or after including the state of technology in modern day.
 
Plus there was that one scene in "Strange New World" where a transporter malfunction almost killed a guy. He ended up on the platform with twigs, rocks, and debris sticking out of his body. Then there's the incident with Hoshi in "Vanishing Point" where she freaks out and has some weird hallucinatory experience. Then there's also that incident in "Daedalus" where the transporter designer sent his son into subspace or something, and killed him trying to rescue him...

Anyone care for a glass of transporter psychosis?
 
I think it's depiction of both our future and TOS's past was fine. But if OP's point is that we should have seen a wholly "deevolution" (for lack of a better world) of TOS technology in a 22nd century set show, like some kind of pulp retro futurism, I can see that point too. I think for that to work though you'd have to look at TOS as completely separate from anything before or after including the state of technology in modern day.
Trek shouldn't be retro. It should always look forward.
 
Sure. But what I'm meaning is, let's say in the 1960s they did an extrapolation of a hundred years before TOS or a hundred years after. Those concepts would look completely different from both Enterprise or TNG. With that in mind I can see the OP's point.
 
I think it's depiction of both our future and TOS's past was fine. But if OP's point is that we should have seen a wholly "deevolution" (for lack of a better world) of TOS technology in a 22nd century set show, like some kind of pulp retro futurism, I can see that point too. I think for that to work though you'd have to look at TOS as completely separate from anything before or after including the state of technology in modern day.
No no I do not want retro-futurism. It's an interesting subject how humanity in the past perceived the future. I don't want Trek pandering to how people in the sixties thought whatever century TOS was supposed to take place in looked like.

The idea though of TOS has some sort of comic or fantastical otherworld is interesting though-perhaps one could interpret it as a future historian's surrealist or exaggerated take on the period. Something that would preserve its integrity with the timeline with the rest of Trek yet acknowledges how different it is aesthetically.
 
When was the TOS era actually pinned down as the 23rd century? Was it the films, or TNG? I know the specific years weren't pinned down until Voyager.
 
Sure. But what I'm meaning is, let's say in the 1960s they did an extrapolation of a hundred years before TOS or a hundred years after. Those concepts would look completely different from both Enterprise or TNG. With that in mind I can see the OP's point.
Only because they are extrapolating from the 1960's. Their version of what the 90s would look was different than what we saw in Voyager. The present will always influence how we see the future. Each Trek show has used the present as a starting point. Thing like Steampunk are fun, but that's a different brand of SF than Star Trek.
 
Plus there was that one scene in "Strange New World" where a transporter malfunction almost killed a guy. He ended up on the platform with twigs, rocks, and debris sticking out of his body. Then there's the incident with Hoshi in "Vanishing Point" where she freaks out and has some weird hallucinatory experience. Then there's also that incident in "Daedalus" where the transporter designer sent his son into subspace or something, and killed him trying to rescue him...

Anyone care for a glass of transporter psychosis?
Daedalus, hmmm?
Episode name checks out.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top