Which thing annoyed you the most on Enterprise?

[Luther Sloan]

Yes, but you are responding to me. Its my name in the "___wrote" and I'm the "NM" being addressed by you. You've talked to me enough to know that I have a good grasp those terms. Including definitions in your response can only be taken one way by the recipient. (me)

NM:

Look. You can say what I thought all you want. I know what I meant and said. You can twist it around and take offense to it all you like. But it wouldn't be true from where I am standing. Or you can trust that it was not my intent to cause insult or harm.

Besides, I am not going to hide information from you that you may or may not know, because this is a forum of discussion and an expression of opinions. If you take offense to that. That is on yourself. But I already told you... that there was no malice or ill will in my posts. Or any attempt to make you feel inferior. And I don't have time to keep track of everyone I talk to on what they know and don't know. That's a full time job.

If someone needs clairity, I think you should wait for them to ask. Automatically assuming that people are unfamilar with these terms is still a bit insulting. Comes across as talking down to them (IMO)

No. I don't think so. Most people don't read or memorize entire Wikipedia entries for various fictional terms. And if they do. Then more power to them. And no. I don't find it insulting. Especially when the words are not being entirely represented to their fullest extent.

And what is the "difference"? A retcon is a type of "retroactivity" specific to fiction. Thats about it. Not sure how retroactive can be applied otherwise when discussing fictional continuity.

Of course they retonned. Its not a negative thing. Its what you have to do when dealing with unknown elements of the past in a fictional world. Every time they refer to a element in the past that was not previously mentioned its a retcon. Kirk or Spock's brothers: retcons. First time Cochrane is mentioned: retcon. NX-class Enterprise: retcon. It doesn't matter if its the second episode of a franchise or the thousandth. Its a retcon.

"Retroactive" the word simply describes something that operates in respect to past occurrences. It is the generic term for something of the past. This word doesn't suggest that it can contradict itself in respect to past occurrences.

"Retcons" can be both a deliberate attempt at contradicting previously established facts, or it can help supplement those established facts.

In DC's Swamp Thing comic: Alan Moore added additional information about the Swamp Thing's origins that did not contradict or change any of the events depicted in the character's previous appearances, but changed the reader's interpretation of them. This verges on making alterations to past continuity. Such additions and reinterpretations are very common in Doctor Who, though they are not usually referred to as retcons by fans.

Roy Thomas used the word "retroactive continuity", as a purely additive process that did not "undo" any previous work, a common theme in his work on All-Star Squadron.

So this suggests that the word "retroactive continuity" is used in a more positive light. Where as the word retcon is more commonly used to suggest something that changes something in the past that has already been established.

Sure, retcons can used to describe both situations. But the word "retroactive continuity" is more positive sounding then the word "retcon", though. So yes. The word "retcon" can be a negative thing.

You buying it is irrelevent. As is me accepting it. It is because thats what it is. A cat doesn't become a dog because you dont like how a particular cat looks.

Okay. Now your just not reading what I wrote and twisting my other words around. So I will say it again...

Just because my ONE example didn't use dialogue doesn't mean I haven't used or supported other examples with dialogue.

A "good percentage"? Based on what?

The current unimpressive TV numbers and its decline is the proof in the pudding. Sure, Deep Space Nine and Voyager had declining numbers, too. However, they still did not reach the record lows of Enterprise, though. Now, I am sure it was a combination of things that led to the show's low numbers and it's steady decline. But usually when you put out a quality product, you get quality results back.

1. Same question can be asked about TOS and TNG.

I can see it happening twice. But a third time? That's pushing the boundaries of believability.

2. It was a deliberate attempt to capture the magic of TOS. A back to basics approach.

I know it was. And it was absolutely retarded that they thought of such a thing. Copying something almost exactly just show's the creator's lack of unoriginality for the show.

3. "Prequel" has nothing to do with being different. You could set a prequel ST show a second chronologically before TOS . The main difference between ENT and TOS ( and TNG and TOS ) is the time period. And in the case of ENT those difference are actually more significant that the ones between TOS and TNG. Not sure why people get so hung up on the technology.

Uuuh yes it does. Let's say you travel back in time to 1980. How different would things be to you then? And that was only three decades ago. Now, imagine how different things were 100 years ago. Besides the uniforms, interior sets, and the grappler hook: Enterprise did not take into account that much at all when you really look at it.

As I just said all you need in a prequel is for the book,show or film to be set prior to the other ones chronologically. Thats a "true prequel".

Well, that's not how the real world operates. And it is not how the traditional Star Trek saga operated either (TOS to TNG / DS9 / VOY).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, but you are responding to me. Its my name in the "___wrote" and I'm the "NM" being addressed by you. You've talked to me enough to know that I have a good grasp those terms. Including definitions in your response can only be taken one way by the recipient. (me)

NM:

Look. You can say what I thought all you want. I know what I meant and said. You can twist it around and take offense to it all you like. But it wouldn't be true from where I am standing. Or you can trust that it was not my intent to cause insult or harm.
Besides, I am not going to hide information from you that you may or may not know, because this is a forum of discussion and an expression of opinions. If you take offense to that. That is on yourself. But I already told you... that there was no malice or ill will in my posts. Or any attempt to make you feel inferior. And I don't have time to keep track of everyone I talk to on what they know and don't know. That's a full time job.

I stand by my right to feel insulted and take offense. Whether it was intentional or not is irrelevent. The offended party makes the call.

Why not just assume we're all up to speed?

If someone needs clairity, I think you should wait for them to ask. Automatically assuming that people are unfamilar with these terms is still a bit insulting. Comes across as talking down to them (IMO)

No. I don't think so. Most people don't read or memorize entire Wikipedia entries for various fictional terms. And if they do. Then more power to them. And no. I don't find it insulting. Especially when the words are not being entirely represented to their fullest extent.

We're a pretty well read, intelligent group here. I think its safe to assume that we dont really need Wikipedia when discussing fiction or the terms being bandied about that apply to its construction. Especially ones created in or for the SF&F genre.

"Retroactive" the word simply describes something that operates in respect to past occurrences. It is the generic term for something of the past. This word doesn't suggest that it can contradict itself in respect to past occurrences.

"Retcons" can be both a deliberate attempt at contradicting previously established facts, or it can help supplement those established facts.

In DC's Swamp Thing comic: Alan Moore added additional information about the Swamp Thing's origins that did not contradict or change any of the events depicted in the character's previous appearances, but changed the reader's interpretation of them. This verges on making alterations to past continuity. Such additions and reinterpretations are very common in Doctor Who, though they are not usually referred to as retcons by fans.

Roy Thomas used the word "retroactive continuity", as a purely additive process that did not "undo" any previous work, a common theme in his work on All-Star Squadron.

So this suggests that the word "retroactive continuity" is used in a more positive light. Where as the word retcon is more commonly used to suggest something that changes something in the past that has already been established.

Sure, retcons can used to describe both situations. But the word "retroactive continuity" is more positive sounding then the word "retcon", though. So yes. The word "retcon" can be a negative thing.

Seriously, after what I wrote you go ahead and try to explain "retcon" to me????? You think I'm ignorant of it origins? Its a contraction, retcon and retroactive continuity mean the same thing. Just like "sitrep" means "situation report."

Let me make this clear, I read comics, I watch tons of SF movies and TV shows. My house looks like a library. I've written books (see sig). I understand how fiction works and the terminology involved. Just because retcon can be used as a pejorative don't mean its always use that way. Most people don't use the phrase "retroactive continuity" even when they're making a positive comment. Until this thread, it's probably been years since I've said or typed "retroactive continuity." when discussing fiction.

The current unimpressive TV numbers and its decline is the proof in the pudding. Sure, Deep Space Nine and Voyager had declining numbers, too. However, they still did not reach the record lows of Enterprise, though. Now, I am sure it was a combination of things that led to the show's low numbers and it's steady decline. But usually when you put out a quality product, you get quality results back.

No you don't. The history of entertainment is littered with the corpses of "quality" shows that were cancled and crap that that ran for years. Even a little show called "Star Trek" was sent to an early grave.

There is a chart somewhere showing that Trek has been in a steady decline starting with DS9. ENT didn't just drop it just followed the pattern established by DS9.

I can see it happening twice. But a third time? That's pushing the boundaries of believability.

You're watching a show set on a spaceship traveling FTL and crewed with human alien hybrids. And you find that unbelievable?

In the real world ships named "Enterprise" have served with distinction and honor for centuries . Including the CV-6, the most decorated ship in history, served in WWII and the CVN-65, the first nuclear powered carrier.

I know it was. And it was absolutely retarded that they thought of such a thing. Copying something almost exactly just show's the creator's lack of unoriginality for the show.

They did it in all the shows. They just shuffle the deck chairs or break them up rather than add a new one. Data, Seven of Nine, the EMH and Odo are all Spock with a twist. Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Riker all Kirk with a twist.

3. "Prequel" has nothing to do with being different. You could set a prequel ST show a second chronologically before TOS . The main difference between ENT and TOS ( and TNG and TOS ) is the time period. And in the case of ENT those difference are actually more significant that the ones between TOS and TNG. Not sure why people get so hung up on the technology.

Uuuh yes it does. Let's say you travel back in time to 1980. How different would things be to you then? And that was only three decades ago. Now, imagine how different things were 100 years ago. Besides the uniforms, interior sets, and the grappler hook: Enterprise did not take into account that much at all when you really look at it.

Uuuh no it does not . There is no "time limit" on a prequel. It can be as similar as yesterday or as different as a million years ago.

Now, imagine how different things will be 100 years from now. Besides the uniforms, interior sets, the Next Generation did not take into account that much at all when you really look at it

As I just said all you need in a prequel is for the book,show or film to be set prior to the other ones chronologically. Thats a "true prequel".

Well, that's not how the real world operates. And it is not how the traditional Star Trek saga operated either (TOS to TNG / DS9 / VOY).

I'm talking about a prequel set in a fictional universe. The real world is irrelevent. We don't have prequels in the real world. I dont get to invent my grandparents past or the history of the USA from 1851-1855. But I can sure as hell create a past for Star Trek. Star Wars, James Bond or Mickey Mouse. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Ideas for a prequel Trek series/movie had been making the rounds for years prior to ENT. So its not like the "traditional saga" is the only way to think about doing a show.

 

[Luther Sloan]

I stand by my right to feel insulted and take offense. Whether it was intentional or not is irrelevent. The offended party makes the call.

NM:

Yes. The recipient party does make the call. True. But you have to know that I could also easily take offense to you calling me a liar for not believing me when I said that my form of communication to you is not an attempt at trying to make you feel inferior... but it simply a topic of discussion on the meaning of that word. And nothing more.

But if you want to read more into something that is not there... please feel free to create your own fictional universe to our reality then.

Why not just assume we're all up to speed?
We're a pretty well read, intelligent group here. I think its safe to assume that we dont really need Wikipedia when discussing fiction or the terms being bandied about that apply to its construction. Especially ones created in or for the SF&F genre.

The reason is a simple one. There are a lot of folks that are very knowledgeable here; but those same people don't know everything. And they may even disagree on how certain words are used even (of which is in part the topic of our debate). Also, there are new science fiction fans who visit the forum every day who have no clue what every single science fiction word means. Sure, they can Google it. But it nice sometimes for new folks to hear from people who are the science fiction fans using those terms already and discussing the meaning behind them.

Besides, to assume that everyone knows every single word that could be used in science fiction out there is asking a lot...

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1093

http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/?p=1982&tag=content;leftCol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_classical_physics

Seriously, after what I wrote you go ahead and try to explain "retcon" to me????? You think I'm ignorant of it origins? Its a contraction, retcon and retroactive continuity mean the same thing. Just like "sitrep" means "situation report."

Okay. Just because we are having a discussion behind the meaning of this word doesn't mean you have to get all bent out of shape. Really. We are simply discussing the meaning of a word here. I mean, you could have invented the word and it still wouldn't matter. Words change through out their usage. As you probably know: the word "gay" was primarily used to describe something that was happy, but now it's usage means something completely different. Sure the word can still be used to describe something that means happy. But that word has changed over time and it's main usage is different now.

Let me make this clear, I read comics, I watch tons of SF movies and TV shows. My house looks like a library. I've written books (see sig).

That's cool man. Still doesn't change anything. I am still going to communicate openly with the knowledge of things and not hide it. If it is something you already know. Great. Move on and discuss something else. If you want to discuss the meaning behind the word without getting offended... I'm all for that, too.

I understand how fiction works and the terminology involved. Just because retcon can be used as a pejorative don't mean its always use that way.

I never said that it is always used that way. I essentially said in my previous post that it can be used in both a positive way and a negative way; but tend to think that the word is primarily used to describe the negative aspect, though.

In fact, just look at this list of retcons...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retcons

Do they sound like they support the negative or positive usage of the word "retcon"?

Most people don't use the phrase "retroactive continuity" even when they're making a positive comment. Until this thread, it's probably been years since I've said or typed "retroactive continuity." when discussing fiction.

But the point is that you used it. And a significant creator within the art industry has helped to define that word and it's meaning to people. Sure, retcon can be used to describe Spock's back story in a later TOS episode. And that is fine. But in my opinion, I would use the word in the best possible way so that there was no room for doubt among readers. Cause there are fans out there who believe retcon is a negative thing and not a positive one. Granted, this is their own personal view of the word. But why not use words in the most effective way possible?

I mean surely I wouldn't use the word "gay" to describe a tough as nails, macho, straight guy who was happy in front of me.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't use the word "retcon" as you see fit. It just means I personally prefer it's usage as a more negative thing as the word is primarily used. It doesn't make it neither right nor wrong. It is just my opinion.

No you don't. The history of entertainment is littered with the corpses of "quality" shows that were cancled and crap that that ran for years. Even a little show called "Star Trek" was sent to an early grave.

And I am not disputing that quality shows can't be canceled while poop shows continue to shine with sickening colors.

But those same shows didn't have the brand name that this was a "Star Trek" show to keep it alive. Even the Original Series didn't have the success yet behind it yet to give it the fuel it needed to run a few more seasons. Plus, it needed to establish itself with the changing times over the years. And most people were into westerns back then, as well.

And I know other important factors were involved in each of these series, as well. TNG was pretty much was it's own sci fi channel back then. ECT.

There is a chart somewhere showing that Trek has been in a steady decline starting with DS9. ENT didn't just drop it just followed the pattern established by DS9.

http://www.madmind.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/startreknielsenratingaverage2.jpg

Yes. In fact, I was looking at this chart (at the link above) when I posted to you last. If you look at the chart, you will notice that towards the end Voyager (approximately) averaged just above 3 million viewers. If you look at Enterprise it did not stay long at the 3 million mark and continued to drop steadily at that point hitting just a little under the 2 million mark.

So, besides TNG: each of the series had it's own viewership decline. But unlike Enterprise: those numbers were way more acceptable because they primarily stayed above the 4 million mark.

Yes. And I could agree that the problem was in part the marketing. But a lot of folks who knew anything about Star Trek knew that this was a Star Trek show on television. The viewership decline simply shows us that the execution of this show was not what it could have been to keep the audience that it did have.

In other words: Enterprise should have had at least 1-2 million viewers from it's previous Trek franchises (according to the chart). The numbers should have carried over. But they didn't.

You're watching a show set on a spaceship traveling FTL and crewed with human alien hybrids. And you find that unbelievable?

Yes. Granted, I don't believe those things either. But I believe in the possibility that they could theoretically exist based on real world laws. These things have nothing to do with crazy chance or unbelievable coincidences. But with what could exist (theoretically) or not.

In the real world ships named "Enterprise" have served with distinction and honor for centuries . Including the CV-6, the most decorated ship in history, served in WWII and the CVN-65, the first nuclear powered carrier.

Which proves my point. There are only two USS Enterprises that had an impact within our history so far. And they looked different from one another, too. If you were to go back farther in time... other semi historically recognizable ships of the same name were made out of wood. Archer's ship is 100 years in the past and looks no different than a ship 200 years in it's future.

And it's not to say that it is not within the realm of possibility either. I mean, there is a theory in physics that whatever can happen has happened in an alternate reality. I am not disputing the possibility. I am just saying that is smarter to be more original and not repeat yourself by ripping off something that has already been done two times over already (TOS and TNG).

They did it in all the shows. They just shuffle the deck chairs or break them up rather than add a new one. Data, Seven of Nine, the EMH and Odo are all Spock with a twist. Picard, Sisko, Janeway and Riker all Kirk with a twist.

But those characters have been twisted around enough that they are barely recognizable to one another. Granted, Data and Seven of Nine are a little more recognizable in comparison to Spock, but the other characters are a pale comparison or a stretch (if you ask me).

Besides, we are not talking about a character here or a character there. We are talking about ripping off the relationship of 3 core characters and their relationship on the show that started it all. I mean, if I didn't know any better... I thought they were spoofing their own show.

Uuuh no it does not . There is no "time limit" on a prequel. It can be as similar as yesterday or as different as a million years ago.

Uh, yes. This is true. In fiction: you can do whatever you like. But if you want to make your story telling good within your universe: and you are going to keep things the same and contradict or put certain things into question of which has already been established... then you need a proper explanation of some kind.

If not, then you have a poorly crafted universe or overall saga.

I'm talking about a prequel set in a fictional universe. The real world is irrelevent. We don't have prequels in the real world. I dont get to invent my grandparents past or the history of the USA from 1851-1855. But I can sure as hell create a past for Star Trek. Star Wars, James Bond or Mickey Mouse. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean it shouldn't.

Don't kid yourself. Good fiction is based in the real world in some shape or form. If it is too far out there, people are not going to relate to it.

Ideas for a prequel Trek series/movie had been making the rounds for years prior to ENT. So its not like the "traditional saga" is the only way to think about doing a show.

But it's usually the smart play being more original than ripping off something that has already been done before.

 

[Reanok]

Other. When I saw Enterprise during it's original run on my local Cbs station showed it on Saturdays it was constantly pre-empted for sports and trying to watch the First 3 seasons it was very frustrating when you wanted to tape the shows. you'd have to wait several months to see entire episodes. If it hadn't been for this board and the discussions of certain shows I would've missed out on what the shows were about.It was six months before I finally saw Desert crossings.I saw season 4 on my local Fox channel and they were really good about letting fans know when they would be preempted on friday nights we'd get to see the shows on Sunday afternoons.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Now to clarify this... once again, this is not what I think today.... as I can see where Sloan is coming from when speaking of an "Alternative" timeline.... as I saw up ahead in Season two, there's an episode called "Regeneration" that introduces the borg much sooner then TNG's first contact with the borg..... thereby directly tying in this NX Enterprise existing and thus being valid to the rest of the Saga because Picard and Crew were directly involved in time being altered an thus justification for the NX-01 Enterprise existing.... since apparently those borg came from the sphere the Enterprise E blew up in the past.

In other words, there is a legitimate explanation as to why and how this NX-01 Enterprise came to be which does tie into the rest of the ST Saga.

But back when the show began, me as a regular Star Trek Viewer/fan never had this explanation, the reasons why this Enterprise existing was never clearly explained in any valid manner.... it somehow didn't tie into everything else when everything else ties into one another.... it felt disconnected and not until I read about this episode I have yet to see, did I see a connection to the rest of the ST Universe.

Which makes me only wonder now about exactly how much did Picard and Crew affect the timeline when they got back (Insurrection/Nemesis era)

The perplexity I am left with is that either Picard and Crew were always meant to go back and time and start this ball rolling, thus the NX-01 should have always existed in their timeline (should have been a model with the rest of the ships, etc.)...

Praxius:

I have come to the conclusion that there are two different types of time travel within Star Trek.

______________________________________________________

So far I believe time travel can be accomplished within...

1. Local Time Line:

Time travel can happen within your own Local time line (i.e. Local Time Line) (Examples: Trials & Tribble-ations, Visionary, and Past Tense l & ll)

2. Separate Time Line:

Time travel can happen by creating a duplicate time line or traveling to a diverging separate time line within in an infinite number of co-existing time lines (i.e. Multi-verse) (Examples: Cause & Effect, First Contact, and Star Trek 2009)

______________________________________________________

My personal theory that helps to distinguish one from the other is that if there is no noticeable changes to the time line within the episode or the following episodes afterwards, then there is a good chance that we are looking at a "Diverging (Separate) Time Line" within an infinite number of time lines (i.e. Multi-verse).

Personally, it is starting to make more sense to me that Enterprise is a separate diverging time line that was a result of First Contact.

Why do I think this? Well there was no evidence that shows us any noticeable changes to the time line after First Contact. Plus, we see a First Contact sequel within Enterprise (i.e. Regeneration) and a more advanced depiction of the 22nd Century (compared to the way it was described to us in the other series).

Granted, the Voyager episode "Relativity" tells us that the event at First Contact was a predestination paradox and that the Federations owes it's existence to the Borg. This suggests we are naturally seeing the result of the changes to the time line by seeing Enterprise. However, the Future Time Agency could have left the actual incident in the movie First Contact to still take place, but they simply later erased or fixed the time line at a later point (In order to preserve the time line). Perhaps the very act of the Future Time Agency fixing the time line after First Contact led to the Temporal Cold War in the first place and this caused a split or a divergence within the time line (after First Contact). In other words: Two First Contact Time Lines were created. The "Enterprise First Contact Time Line" (that we see in the TV series) and the "Prime First Contact Time Line" (that continued on without any major changes to the time line).

______________________________________________________

In addition: I came up with something else, too. Just what time line did Picard and crew return to when they went back to the 24 Century (when there was no visible change)?

Here are a few theories.

Picard and crew could have returned...

1. To a separate alternate time line that was pretty much identical to their own. This means Enterprise is continuing on within yet another parallel time line somewhere with it's own unique 24th Century that we have not seen before (besides TATV).

2. To their own local time (which never could have been destroyed to begin with (despite the belief or the illusion that timelines can actually be erased)). And Enterprise simply exists in an alternate time line (where a set of events play out differently in the future).

3. To a fixed time line that patches up any alterations that would have changed the future time line sometime after Enterprise.

4. To a fixed time line that erases the majority of events we see in Enterprise.

5. To their own local time while the Enterprise time line somehow splits off (i.e. gets fixed or naturally diverges) to continue on in it's own separate alternate time line (sometime after First Contact).

______________________________________________________

However, after much reflection and thought: I have come to the conclusion that Picard and crew more than likely traveled back to a separate diverging time line one of two ways.

1.) When Picard and crew tried to lock on to the spacial time coordinates back to the future (when recreating the temporal vortex), they noticed that their spacial coordinates were off slightly because the time line was no longer there. So they locked on to a slightly different set of spacial coordinates to a parallel time line that was nearly identical to their own (thinking it was their own time line).

2.) When Picard and crew influence Lily and Cochrane into advancing the time line (technologically), the Future Temporal Agency noticed the change in the time line and made an attempt at correcting the time line. However, in the process they accidentally split the time line into two separate time lines, though. The first time line being the Temporal Cold War with the starship Enterprise. The second time line being the repaired time line that Picard and crew traveled back to the future to (by recreating the Temporal Vortex).

______________________________________________________

Anyways, if when Enterprise first aired and they took the time right off the bat to explain exactly how it all started and how it tied in with everything else, I think that not only would I have given it a chance early on, but many others might have as well.

Exactly!

 

[Praxius]

...... Here are a few theories.

Picard and crew could have returned...

1. To a separate alternate time line that was pretty much identical to their own. This means Enterprise is continuing on within yet another parallel time line somewhere with it's own unique 24th Century that we have not seen before (besides TATV).

But if that's the case, then what happened to the already existing Enterprise E of that timeline? Did they too also end up going back in time but failed in their mission, thus only one Enterprise E existing when they come back?

The problem I find with them returning to their current time but a different reality, is that there's a chance that the reality they are entering has an Enterprise that never went back in time, thus two ships, two crews.... as the other Enterprise could have stopped the sphere before it went back in time, or the Borg may never have attacked in the first place.... then suddenly zoop.... hey where'd this ship come from? we got two Enterprises now.

As I personally see it, in order for it all to make sense, those who go back in time and return to their present with no noticeable changes did exactly what they were supposed to do all along..... otherwise, they came back to the present, altered the past, even so-slightly, and their futures would be different in some noticeable manner..... such as Sisko going back to pose as Gabriel Bell and then his photo being used throughout history..... his future, as proven through the continuing episodes afterwards, that he was always meant to do what he did and that there were no other noticeable changes.

The real brain kicker is if while Picard and Crew were always meant to go back in time and set this complicated ball in motion.... based on NX-01 Enterprise suddenly being mentioned in the Star Trek Universe..... we're we seeing the very first loop of this timeline that was supposed to always exist and thus, was the timeline we were always viewing through all the other shows an incomplete ghost timeline going through it's first pass?

In other words, if this whole situation was the result of a predestination paradox which is an ever continuing loop over an extended period of time that binds both eras together.... then we saw the very first creation of this timeline through First Contact.

It is not the NX-01 Enterprise that's part of an alternate timeline..... everything we have seen up to first contact was part of an incomplete, 1st stage timeline, which would also explain why the TOS era no longer matches anything close to the 2009 movie era.... where Spock and Nero going back in time was the final nail in the coffin from that previous timeline solidifying the current timeline the ST Universe is now following.

*head explodes*

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Luther Sloan and Nerys Myk, it appears you have both long since stopped discussing what annoys you about Enterprise, and have gotten stuck arguing about what annoys you about each other. You both appear to be making false assumptions, jumping to conclusions, and misinterpreting each other -- honest mistakes, perhaps, but you don't seem to be getting closer to accepting your fundamental differences in opinion. If you must continue, take it to PM or IM, we've had quite enough of it here. I would suggest you let it all go and return the focus of your annoyance to the topic.

LS, you also seem to be turning this into YET ANOTHER alternate timeline thread. We must have half a dozen of those by now, most of them started by you, so if you want to start up again, take it somewhere else, unless you can concisely (I mean one small paragraph, tops) state your annoyance regarding Enterprise's timeline, without repeating huge gobs of details you already went over in those other threads.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Praxius:

I am replying to your post here in order to prevent this thread in going further off topic...

http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4240081&postcount=185

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Apparently this off topic discussion is not popular.

To clarify: this off topic discussion is off topic. Thank you for taking it to a more appropriate thread.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Sorry for that reply. I tried to re-edit. But I wasn't fast enough.

 

[Luther Sloan]

I was also was thinking about the cast for this series just recently, too. I mean, I have really enjoyed seeing everyones performances for their range of acting talent. However, I really would have preferred another cast that had better chemistry and range of acting, though. Preferably an all human cast with no aliens, too.

Personally, if you ask me, this was one of the finest acting moments in all of Trek. I mean, we just need more of this type of thing...

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm111/rollo_tomassi7/KAAAAAAAAAAHN1.gif

http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy1/simonejester/animations/11b5d89jpg.gif

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I was also was thinking about the cast for this series just recently, too. I mean, I have really enjoyed seeing everyones performances. However, I really would have preferred another cast that had better chemistry and range of acting , though. Preferably an all human cast with no aliens, too.

So you really enjoyed ENT's cast but you would have liked them better if they were all different?

 

[Luther Sloan]

I should have clarified. I enjoyed the current Enterprise cast within their range of acting abilities (for what it was). I was entertained by them on a popcorn level. But I believe another cast could have done a way better job, though.

In other words: I would put the Enterprise cast acting range between a C+ and a B-.

And Kirk's Khan shouting performance at an A+

At least in my spinning world of Starfleet, anyways.

 

[Sarita]

The Xindi. The most unlikely aliens ever conceived. Ruined the show.

 

[Luther Sloan]

I personally thought the lizard Xindi were a rip off from Galaxy Quest. What did you think?

Or I should say, what didn't you like about all the Xindi (in general)?

 

[Sharla]

*gasps* WOW!

 

[F. King Daniel]

Too many utterly horrible episodes in seasons one and two. Seasons three and four were good. Why wasn't it that good from the get-go? Were they just not trying?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Too many utterly horrible episodes in seasons one and two. Seasons three and four were good. Why wasn't it that good from the get-go? Were they just not trying?

I liked seasons one and two and I'm not too fond of casting aspersions on the work ethic or motivations of people I don't know and who work in industry I'm not part of, so I can't say if they did or didn't care. As I've said before, I think the more episodic nature of those seasons might be the reason they were less well received.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm forced to vote "other," referencing various story lines and plot points that hinge on Archer/Starfleet's inexperience in deep space exploration. It constantly seems like the writers intended to play the "inexperienced" card as a "Watch us discover everything for the first time, isn't it refreshing?" scheme, but instead it came off more of a "Isn't it cute how we don't know what the fuck we're doing?" scheme.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

They were trying to get back to the exploring roots. Episodic wasn't the problem, it was the retread of plot lines from other series and the overall dullness. In the beginning the crew were waiting for something interesting to happen, and the plodding emptiness of space was pretty realistic, which they were aiming for. BUT.. they needed drama and they could have made it about the people. As it was it was all a bit sluggish.

I'm still very fond of those seasons but I do think they needed to have some.. intensity on some front.