Berman & Braga didn't write every episode, but even for the majority they worked on, they'd still liase with various fanboys employed on the writing staff. Wouldn't they? Unless they were fed incorrect detail to undermine them, or others simply didn't know the answer either. I agree it seems unlikely B&B would ever devote serious time to reading the various Encyclopedias put together between those working in Star Trek's Art Department and various fans turned pro-writers - like the Concordance or a Chronology book. I remember an interview on startrek.com with Rick Berman, where he claimed to have seen more than three-quarters of TOS by the end of his tenure. Compared to having never seen any to begin with. The reason Gene Roddenberry favoured him apparently. Difficult to think outside the box, when you're too busy obsessing over deciphering every possible meaning, to throwaway lines of dialogue often not given as much though by their author. Nicholas Meyer, noted in an audio commentary for one of his Trek films, that continuity errors aren't only reserved for this franchise. Conan Doyle would frequently contradict established facts about Sherlock Holmes and that's classic literature! Klingons were only really in "Broken Bow", because they're one of the staples of Star Trek and expected by fans/casual viewers alike. Precisely the thinking that'll lead to them in the next film, I shouldn't wonder. Listening to the DVD commentary between Berman and Braga, they remark about the scene where Klaang is snatched from sickbay. Their impetus with the Suliban was to try and think of something a Klingon might come close to fearing. So the intelligable thing we hear him say when the lights go out, is the name of their species.
Try an emoticon. Otherwise it gets confusing after all those years of unambiguous ENT bashing. I'm not upset or angry. Well, okay maybe a little. At myself mostly, for recognising that Abramsverse reference.
Huh. I knew he was joking even without an emoticon. Maybe I'm just smarter than you. (insert little smiley-face here)
It is true that they didn't need them, but I liked that they managed to insert an explanation for their TOS/TNG metamorphosis. That was a good usage of both the Klingons, and ENT's premise.
My unabashed defense of Enterprise for all four years of its existance has been forgotten. I was its biggest fan around these parts! Took on all comers, Debates that lasted pages and weeks! Wall of text! Multiquotes ( back when it was hard!) Quotes and pics from all the series and movies to back every point! Maybe nuisance more than famous.
Yup... Although we should probably only take it literally if we also take literally the book's insistence that the Romulan War ended in 2109. (And we'd still have to ignore the book's claim that TOS was all wrapped up by 2215 already!) Which might be an interesting approach as such. If the Romulan War really was in Archer's past, and everything we saw in ENT was just a futile attempt at a second round (but did eventually and indirectly reveal the name of the enemy responsible for the first round), it's no wonder that Kirk and Spock have forgotten all about the war. Spock's "a century ago" would be a fairly inaccurate expression for "150 years ago", then, but that's all right, I guess. And if there was no Romulan invisibility tech in the actual war, only a few poorly documented instances afterwards by parties not directly connected to the war at the time, then the novelty value of cloaking in "Balance of Terror" might also be preserved. The other option is to add 52 years to all the Spaceflight Chronology dates, starting at some more or less arbitrary point after the discovery of warp but before the Romulan War. So the Devisor/Sentry duel is in 2210 or so. Timo Saloniemi
Just watched "Day of the Dove" (Thanks, Netflix!), and you're right: The Chronology states that McCoy makes a remark that they've been enemies for 50 years. But McCoy never says this, or anything even remotely like it! Neither does anyone else. So Picard's line about first contact being "centuries ago" is essentially correct. But they'd have been referencing a line that didn't exist! Plus, that statement is inherently wrong. There wasn't "unremitting hostility" for 70 years, because there was the Organian peace treaty in 2267. Unless Spock meant 70 years before "Errand of Mercy," which would have been 2197. I kinda doubt that influenced anything at all. I'm not sure what the point is in trying to retcon a book that has already been long out of date, contradicted heavily already, and not used as an official reference book anyway. Plus, there's absolutely no indication in ENT that Earth had been in any previous war with an unknown alien race before "Broken Bow."
The only point of the exercise would be to see if a pre-ENT war fitted the evidence better than a 2154-2160 one. And in some ways, it does. ...Apart from it possessing a fleet of pre-NX-01 warships, which apparently have never been used for fighting piracy. Timo Saloniemi
It does? Here's what we know: 1. After First Contact, wars, disease, hunger, etc. on Earth were pretty much eliminated. Presumably if there's no war between humans, then there's no reason to make weapons, unless there's some other threat. No external threat was ever implied. 2. The Vulcans held humans back for 100 years technologically. 3. Starfleet was formed not too long before "Broken Bow." It does not seem to be an overt military organization that was formed after a war. 4. Besides the NX class, the only known Starfleet vessel types were the two warp-2 ships first seen in "The Expanse," and the Sarajevo. They were not referred to as warships at any time, nor do they act as warships other than the fact that they carry weapons. 5. There is an Earth Cargo Service mostly operated by "space boomers," who occasionally have to deal with space piracy. There's no indication that Starfleet or other former space agencies had ever helped the ECS deal with this problem. 6. No one ever made any comments about Earth being involved in any wars prior to ENT. And conjecture: 1. Based on the crew's reactions in the first season of ENT, mankind has had little to no contact with alien life other than the Vulcans, members from the medical exchange program, or space pirates. 2. Based on the primitiveness of Starfleet's warp-2 vessels and the lack of true space exploration until the NX program, humans probably haven't ventured much outside their own system, except for the boomers. Based on this, I strongly doubt there was a previous war with an unknown alien race.
Yet Earth is well stocked in weapons of contemporary interstellar standard, both handheld and ship-mounted - from day one of ENT. This would thus seem to imply a series of external threats, either concrete or imagined. Yet in the 2150s, Earth has high warp engines, phasers, photon torpedoes, transporters and long range communications and sensing gear. The supposed holding back has had no observable effect of denying Earth of parity with the leading bellicose space powers of the era. Why not? Archer seems to be its first explorer captain, his Enterprise its first exploration starship. What would the organization have been doing during Archer's youth if not waging war or preparing to do so? In their introductory episode, both types demonstrate parity with leading Klingon warships of the era - bettering the explorer Enterprise in that game! Such vessels could easily have fought a successful war or six in the recent past. (Assuming that they weren't armed with the embarrassing plasma peashooters and missing missiles that the NX-01 left the pier with in the hasty launch depicted in "Broken Bow", that is. Shipboard phasers may be a recent "war-enabling" invention. OTOH, pre-phaser shipboard weapons exist, and they probably do so for a reason.) Which might indicate they have better, more pressing combat-related things to do. The nascent United States engaged its forces in conventional naval war against major adversaries, France and Great Britain, before building up its reputation in anti-piracy action. True - no "Dilgar wars" for old Starfleet officers to boast on. Then again, we only ever saw one old Starfleet officer up close, namely Admiral Forrest... And we have to remember that nobody commented on the Romulan War or the ongoing Klingon conflict in TOS, until somebody did. In TNG, Talarians and Cardassians got the same treatment. It would have been in keeping with tradition if a Season 5 episode of ENT had introduced veterans of the old Nausicaan War, having a brawl with the veterans of the 3rd Kzinti War over which of the conflicts outshone the sissy old Romulan War more. This would jibe well with Romulan War veterans having had no contact with Romulans... This doesn't stop the enemy from venturing to them, though. (An armed response does.) OTOH, if we want to treat ENT as being part of the greater Trek continuity, we do have a reason to believe in a series of preceding conflicts - with the Kzinti. Timo Saloniemi
So what? There's was absolutely no indication of a famous, world saving Starship Enterprise that existed long before Kirk's until "Broken Bow"
That doesn't mean they were previously at war with anyone. Again, none of that means they were previously at war with anyone. Where do you get any evidence Earth was preparing for or waging a war just because now they're exploring? They're exploring because they have a better ship to explore with, not because they were previously fighting a war. So? Just because they shot at a couple birds-of-prey doesn't mean they were once warships built for a specific war. That's pure conjecture on your part. Again, where's the evidence they had combat-related things to do? While you do have a point as far as retconning goes in Star Trek with adversaries, none of that happened in ENT. There's no point in speculating about what Season 5 would have done, 'cause there is no Season 5. If Earth really was that worried that there'd be an alien attack (or if they'd just gotten through one), don't you think they'd have better defensive systems then? Like what didn't exist when the Xindi attacked? While I am a fan of the Kzinti, their backstory in TAS, if we were to retcon it into ENT, would mean that all (four!) wars took place right after first contact with the Vulcans. Do the inhabitants of Earth in the 2060's as presented in "First Contact" look to you like they'd be able to fight an interstellar war?
You're not going to get solid proof for a pre-ENT war if that's what you're after. But the bellicose readiness of Earth does make it plausible that there would have been such a war - and the readiness is more plausible if such a war did happen than if it did not. Could Earth have fought back the space cats in the 2060s - 2080s? Probably, assuming that Earth made contact with the greater interstellar community right after making contact with Vulcan. If this happened, there's a long history of real human conflict where underdog combatants quickly purchase modern fighting equipment and make up for lack of experience by the kind of ferocity that is typical of humans. A couple of Rigelian third-rate warships, a few Denebian shield generators and half a dozen Catullan anti-starship artillery emplacements, and Earth's set to receive its first batch of space invaders. It's not as if Earth could realistically be expected to continue the development of technologies and hardware alone between 2060 and 2150 - especially if Vulcans are making things difficult. It's more an injuns-buying-Winchesters setup here: Earth in 2063 is so far behind that it will feel compelled to purchase predigested technologies and scientific theories, and assorted aliens no doubt are willing to sell for future profit, even if Earth's ability to pay in 2063 is limited. In Archer's time, Earth clearly is selling something, as the Boomer phenomenon testifies. (Might be shipping services rather than goods for all we know. Perhaps humans make for good mercenary sailors, even if their employer has to provide the ships?) Timo Saloniemi
I had hoped the show would catch us by surprise by doing something new and then dropping in "firsts" when you least expect them. But they played it safe from the get-go, plunking the most overused adversary in Trekdom into the pilot. It showed such a lack of imagination I lost a lot of interest right then and there.
I wasn't "after" anything. You came up with a theory about a pre-2153 human/alien war based on nothing more than trying to shoehorn in an old, outdated, contradicted, non-canon publication, and I was just remarking that I found that hard to believe, based on what I witnessed in ENT. If you want to persist in believing your theory, more power to you. But you're not going to convince me of it The problem with this theory is that Sulu specifically stated that the last Kzinti war took place 200 years before TAS. That implies that the three previous wars took place even earlier, which would most likely place them before first contact with the Vulcans even if the wars were back-to-back (and there's no evidence they were). Mankind was clearly recovering from WWIII, and skirmishing with other humans, not fighting an interstellar war with felinoid aliens. As much as TAS deserves at least some respect for being a certain facet of Trek history, it's place in canon has always been debatable and more times than not has been contradicted by what came after it. Again, as with the Spaceflight book, trying to shoehorn it into modern Trek continuity by twisting the facts really doesn't work. YMMV.
Why would the wars have had to have been exactly two hundred years before TAS? I've seen this happen a lot; the crew encounters some random problem, one character notices a similarity to a past event that conveniently always occurred exactly fifty, or one hundred, or two hundred years ago. Reality usually isn't that convenient, and most people aren't so precise in their dating when speaking. Most of the time they round up or down to the nearest convenient number. The Kzinti Wars could have begun in the early 22nd century, or perhaps even the 2090s.
They don't have to be. But as I said before, unless there's blatant evidence to the contrary, if a character says "200 years," I'm going to assume he means 200 years, not 150 years, because if he meant 150 years he would have said 150 years When someone asks me how old I am, I say 38. I don't say 40 because I feel I need to round it off.