Discussion in 'Star Trek: Enterprise' started by GulBahana, May 4, 2019.
I liked that it had a very efficient, cramped feel to it. Still more roomy then a ww2 submarine.
I don't know if claustrophobic is the right word, but I definitely don't love the aesthetic. Enterprise seemed to start the trend of dark, depressing looking ships. I find myself thrilled any time time they go to a planet because it means potentially more light. I do understand why Enterprise had the look that it did, it made sense for the story that was being told, but I do find it a bit unpleasant to watch.
One of my favorite facets of the NX-01 design was the submarine feel. Felt very realistic.
^ i never thought it was particularly dark, unlike a certain "more recent" trek series.
the lighting seemed pretty average, and therefor superior.
Indeed, treating NX-01 as a prototype is probably doing her a disservice, too. Earth had ample opportunity to test the tech: what the Vulcans didn't want to happen was for Earth to launch an operational ship to the depths of space "before the time was right". So of course Earth would perfect the design before pushing it.
The warp five engines worked all right. But even if they didn't, and only delivered warp four or so in practice, the ship should otherwise be ready for her bold mission, including having neatly finished aesthetics for making Earth look good in the bug-eyes of the space monsters they were going to meet.
Except of course the ship wasn't ready, but was launched ahead of schedule. But the things left danging weren't ends of cables or the like - there was too little crew aboard (helping with the claustrophobia aspect!), too few procedures in place, possibly limited provisions overall. Oh, and a few guns still in their packing crates, but we didn't get to see the gun berths and the dangling cables before, well, we did.
What we got was the best Earth could offer, rather than the first. Which makes the cramped utility spaces and relatively luxurious public/representative spaces attractive both. A big mess hall and a big bridge would be necessary for the PR aspect; one just wonders why the Captain's Office wasn't more grandiose, even if this meant reducing the First Officer's Cabin to a broom closet.
"T'Pol, you'll be required to sleep in a vertical position. Ambassador Soval assured us that this wouldn't inconvenience you."
Only when I watched the movie 'First Man'.
Enterprise wasn't claustrophobic enough. I wanted Das Boot in Space.
In "Balance of Terror" Spock states that ships of this era didn't allow for captives. So what we should have seen was very cramped conditions. Only the captain should have had his own quarters. And by "quarters" I'm thinking more like those closets the astronauts sleep in on the ISS.
I'll imagine that's what the Warp Deltas were like.
If they'd went full Das Boot Meets ISS with Enterprise I think it would have been hard to film. I know that sounds stupid saying that when I'm referring to a movie that was filmed fantastically and a space station that has some amazing home videos (
for anyone interested) but it would have become maybe too far removed from star trek.
And it's not as if space flight doesn't already have some wide open spaces. Skylab had huge internal open volume. I would have loved a more cramped, dangerous looking ship but I was very satisfied with what they came up with. It's always going to be a compromise. .
I assume the NX class is the show horse of Earth's fleet. By the time the war came around nearly a decade after the launch of the NX-01 most of the ships designed for the conflict were much more cramped and plain.
Now Kzin War era craft, those must have been hellish.
Precisely so. Also, it was a ship designed for longer term exploration, so tight and cramped spaces were not going to be part of the design language when feasible. Human beings like their creature comforts, so starships needs to be designed with that in mind.
I don't think lack of onboard space could be plausibly interpreted as the reason for the "no captives, no mercy" thing. If there was insufficient onboard space for stowing a captured Romulan, any responsible captain would kill three of his own crew and space their bodies so that the all-important prisoner could be accommodated in suitable comfort and restraint. (Barring that, the Romulan could be sawed in half and the upper half kept alive with some regular Phlox magic.)
Rather, I could see it being difficult to capture prisoners if shields were just recently introduced and precluded the use of transporters in combat. Drop shields and you die. Keep on fighting and the enemy dies. Nuances only become possible as the tech evolves...
In the end, the very act of taking prisoners was the impossible bit anyway. Capturing and letting go would not preserve Romulan anonymity. Capturing and killing, ditto. Onboard facilities or lack thereof would not affect that.
you have misunderstood what is meant by the term "no quarter."
if that is what you are referring to.
All I can say about it is, whatever a human would complain about, Porthos' inconvenience must be 10-fold that.
Considering it is directly connect with his statement about "primitive space vessels" it is a logical extension of that. However, I agree that it can't be understood to be the ONLY interpretation of that. Because limited space isn't the only thing that was more primitive about the space craft of that era.
Presuming they even had shields and transporters in that era. Though considering which forum I'm in right now I'm not going to press this point. Regardless, I agree with you that the utilization of atomic weaponry may have made taking captives a moot point. When your A-bomb completely annihilates the other ship there wouldn't be anyone left to take captive.
Another likely scenario in my mind is that most battle were fought with drones, so there weren't that many potential captives to begin with.
Quarter in this context is referring more towards mercy. Which could be considered an aspect of taking prisoners, if you look at the act of taking prisoners as merciful. Meaning you saved them for a cold death in space. But I was referring to the "captives" part.
Would have preferred less use of the turbolift, or no lift at all. Just a corridor leading off to the bridge and stairs. Like Orville has done, but less cushy.
More to the point, limited space was never said to be a feature of the spacecraft of that era. For all we know, those had much, much more room than 23rd century designs because the machinery required for making them move and fight was so immensely bulky, necessitating a big hull around it. Indeed, Archer flies a ship bigger than Kirk's by habitable volume (that is, the outer mold lines of it) but only embarks 80 crew... And although his actual warp nacelles are tiny compared to Kirk's, there's no telling about the internal differences, save for the interiors looking utterly dissimilar.
Well, capturing is something of a priority in warfare, and well worth sacrificing a few of your troops in all field manuals and actual engagements. The point at which the sacrificing occurs isn't particularly relevant. You lose a few dozen boarding the enemy ship, you space three to bring the strategic intel to your bosses and save billions, you get the medal and the promotion.
(And the moment cutting out a brain and keeping it working in a jar becomes technically feasible, it will become a practice, too. Much superior to actually taking prisoners, in most cases. And then there will be hypocritical rules of war on the issue, and then there will be wars where the rules don't apply because you fight for the good cause or whatever.)
Just consider a real-world analogy here. In what situation would space concerns preclude the keeping of a prisoner? A submarine may be cramped, but never so cramped that it couldn't accommodate another person when really needed. A motorcycle with a sidecar may be cramped, but even that one can accommodate a prisoner when really needed! If your aircraft truly has but two seats, and no space for a third sitting on the lap of your navigator, the navigator stays behind for the king and the country.
We surely aren't postulating single-pilot craft being the things Spock is speaking about?
Which is what ENT quite plausibly caters for, without actually spoon-feeding what is catered.
Clearly, the Romulans took active steps to remain faceless. Which then makes it easy to accept that the other thing Spock considers so remarkable in this conflict, the lack of visual communications, is a thing unto itself rather than anything tied to the technological limitations of the day. Spock isn't talking about technological limitations, after all, but of the end result, the faceless enemy; ships that can't wound but must kill are just one facet of that, separate from enemies who refuse to send their images for the good guys to ogle.
In the end, two things matter to Spock: that Earth's forces lacked the technological or perhaps tactical means to show quarter, and that the Romulans refused to volunteer their looks. From these two, it follows that the enemy is faceless. This isn't yet sufficient explanation: a merciless beheading campaign would still result in heads to be paraded, say, or a campaign of poisoning babies would tell volumes about those babies. So we can fill in the missing bits about why no corpses could be identified, without needing to refer to either "primitive tech" or "uncooperative Romulans" there, but with the full liberty of using one or both as our explanation, or as part of it.
SPOCK: As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought, by our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other. Earth believes the Romulans to be warlike, cruel, treacherous, and only the Romulans know what they think of Earth. The treaty, set by sub-space radio, established this Neutral Zone, entry into which by either side, would constitute an act of war. The treaty has been unbroken since that time. Captain.
SPOCK: As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought, by our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels, which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication.
I think it's the "this conflict," and not "primitive space vessels," which was the reason for a policy of no quarter given and no captives taken.
Spock (imo) was referring to ships like the Enterprise NX-01, when he referred to primitive space vessels. We saw that the NX-01 had a two cell brig, storage holds and a flight deck. While the area available wasn't unlimited, the "primitive" Enterprise did have room for captives. During the Expanse arc we saw a captive taken.
I think no captives was a matter of Starfleet policy and not owing to a lack of space aboard the ships.
Similarly, the no ship-to-ship visual communication was Starfleet policy, and not owing to a lack of ability for the 2160's era ships to have done so. We saw that the NX-01 was capable of visual communications with foreign starships.
Separate names with a comma.