I mean one new to everybody.
The Omega Glory...
- Thread starter Riker'sMailbox
- Start date
Archer was never the Captain of the USS Enterprise and no one has ever claimed he was. He was the Captain of the SS Enterprise, though.Archer? Archer who?
It's great that Robert April is accepted by fandom as the first Captain of the USS Enterprise even if he only appeared in the cartoon series once in 1974!
JB
I thought it just listed the names? So they could still come up with something that had a different first captain for the Enterprise. Besides, visuals don't count.
HaHa I never claimed he was! All I wanted to know was who exactly he was? He sure didn't exist in the TOS timeline!
JB
I always thought it was kind of weird that the NX-01 didn't have a prefix. I mean, sure, there's no Federation yet, but surely they could have used something else, like UES (United Earth Ship)?
Sure he did. To claim otherwise is to be deliberately obtuse.HaHa I never claimed he was! All I wanted to know was who exactly he was? He sure didn't exist in the TOS timeline!
JB
TOS did things BIG. They called upon you to imagine big. The only thing that makes this episode really work is the parallel Earth idea, where exactly identical circumstances produce a parallel planet and culture. What you're talking about would reduce the premise to something dull and mundane. I certainly wouldn't be interested. A tame premise can be more "believable" but you can bend over too far backwards, to be believable, in a science fiction show.
----------------
They treated space as BIG... go far enough, and the most bizarre circumstances will be played out, perhaps even this. They should never have used the idea more than once, however.
I’ve seen a lot of criticism of the “parallel worlds” concept on this web site, but I’m mystified at the scorn it receives. This was one of GR’s foundational elements for Star Trek as a viable network series, going back to “Star Trek is…” To complain about Hodgkin’s Law makes as much sense as faulting the placement of the bridge on top of the ship or that all humanoid species speak English (See “Bread and Circuses”).
Last edited:
People complain about everything
Agree. And "believable" is never what drew me to Star Trek. Ever.
That is what makes it literally fanservice. Out of alllll the captains there have ever been, the decorated captains happen to be the ones we're familiar with. To me that makes the universe smaller too, the we could argue the definitions of these violations.
No, ENT is a show Berman and his puppy dogs created to try and ignore TOS! It's the one show at that time that didn't fit in with their view of the future and of course Berman had no claim to it! This idea of doing prequels is a bad one and should be boxed up and jettisoned into outer space!
JB
Their is a lost scene where kirk and Tracey, while having a drink, chat about their predicament and Tracey admits his involvement and plans on this planet and Kirk threatens to stop him while Tracey says you can try! It's in Star Trek #10 by James Blish!
JB
JB
The trouble of doing prequels in my view is that they're a no-win scenario either way. You're either going to be straight-jacketed into tieing into future events from another instalment therefore there's less room for invention in storytelling, because anything you do invent has to fit within already established criteria; or else you go the route of "its a prequel but we're gonna do our own thing anyway" which will not please a fanbase with already very strong ideas about the backstory. Both Enterprise and Discovery have fallen foul of the dangers of wanting to do something new but setting it before something old, for better or worse.
You know, I really don't think so. The BIG THREE (young human captain, Vulcan science officer, Southern officer) are a direct callback to TOS. Heck, T'Pol was originally supposed to be T'Pau from "Amok Time".
I think the better argument, and the one that is also on display in Discovery, is that they really don't understand what makes TOS special. I'm not sure I do, though I have ideas. No matter how many pieces they use, the formula still doesn't "taste" right. Like New Coke. Even the Abrams films, which I enjoy immensely, seem to be missing something.
It makes complete sense. Of course, they're going to make TV shows about the best captains!
I'm not sure why you feel the need to make a discussion about Omega Glory into one about Discovery?
She did have a prefix - the United Earth Starfleet just couldn't afford the paint to make it show.
Remarkably, only two of UESF's vessels ever feature hull paint of any sort: the Enterprise and the Columbia had names and registries painted on. The Intrepid had neither, say.
But computer readouts show a USS Enterprise and a USS Columbia rubbing bellies in the Klingon Augments two-parter. No doubt the other UESF ships had that prefix as well...
It makes complete sense. Of course, they're going to make TV shows about the best captains!
The issue with that is all of the best captains being captains of an Enterprise... If so, why is the Enterprise flown by Kirk never indicated to be a famous vessel?
Okay, "Errand of Mercy" might be read that way, with Kor all hot and bothered about meeting "the captain of the Enterprise" even if Kirk himself as such has no reputation in the Empire...
Darned if I know what this has to do with "Omega Glory". But it may be worth pointing out that the Exeter was not indicated to be famous, yet Tracey was "one of the most experienced starship captains". Had he not suffered the omega fate, he might have made it to a later version of Saru's list.
Timo Saloniemi
Are you certain that's a lost scene and not a Blish invention?
Similar threads
