Star Trek...Enterprise (1 Viewer)

[Bill Crosthwait]

What is the deal with "Enterprise"? Does any one know the basic plot and cast of the show? I hope this series will be alot better than "voyager".
------------------
Bill
My DVD Collection
[email protected]

 

[Carl Johnson]

From what I've read online the show sounds like it will be much better than Voyager. It stars Scott Bakula from Quantum Leap as captain and it takes place sometime around the year 2200 when warp drive and transporters are just being introduced. I was getting tired of the same characters and plotlines that TNG, DS9, and Voyager seemed to recycle every other week, so I look forward to adding some fresh material to the Star Trek universe.

 

[Chuck Anstey]

I wonder how well fans will like the show now that it has to go way back in technology. It's pretty tough to get excited about breaking Warp 4 when we're used to 9+ (on the 10 scale). The worst would be they discover technology more advanced than TOS or TNG and we are left wondering why it wasn't used in the "future".
The prime directive shouldn't exist since it really didn't get used until "Bread and Circuses". I'm just hoping it doesn't have "revisionist history" where the generation before TOS have the "advanced" moral and ethical values of TNG. TOS shot first and asked questions later, Enterprise should be more of the same to be consistent.
Chuck Anstey

 

[Jason Seaver]

TOS shot first and asked questions later

Not precisely. It may seem that way, but don't forget that by the time Picard had much of an inkling that something was dangerous, Kirk had already had his ship shot at and five guys wearing red shirts killed. Kirk rarely went in with guns blazing, but he didn't beat himself up over doing it, either (then again, neither did Sisko).

 

[Chuck Anstey]

Jason,
Not to be a real trekkie techno-geek defending made-up physics because my post was more about "revisionist history" but,

To use the western analogy that I will probably use six thousand times in the upcoming months, just because I've seen 200+ mph car chases on screen, doesn't mean that a chase scene on horseback can't be just as exciting.

This is a completely false analogy. After watching a sports car chase through traffic, passing left and right, swerving and sliding around corners, how excited would you get watching a car chase with two Yugos, getting passed by everyone, couldn't squeal a tire, and never went over 60 mph?
The main point of my post is there is a very real danger of Enterprise having (or discovering) more advanced technology than TOS every had and the characters behaving more like TNG diplomats than gunslinging colonialists, like every explorer through human history has been, including TOS in their universe. I want Enterprise to be exciting, fun, and entertaining but also be consistent with the rest of the Star Trek universe, both past and future.
One more thing. When I said TOS shot first, I meant that once they discovered the alien was hostile, Kirk shot back immediately. He didn't try talking and negotiating until shields were gone before shooting.
"I didn't start this war but I'm liable to finish it!" - "Armageddon" ?
Prime directive? We don't need no stinking prime directive.
Chuck Anstey

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Dragging on, aware that this is not the main point, Chuck:
You analogy isn't equal either.
I've seen 200mph car chases, weaving, swerving, what have you. I'd have no problem being entertained by a car chase (in context) between two Rabbits, Yugos, Ladas or Geos. What you described was watching "two Yugos, getting passed by everyone, couldn't squeal a tire, and never went over 60 mph ."
That's to presume that the older/inferior state of technology is existing, in its own context, amongst the newer technology. In car terms, you've assumed that the Yugos are getting passed by the better cars during the chase scene. For the analagy to be correct (assuming the Trek people are not idiots) the Yugos will be among a world of Yugos, Ladas, and Rabbits, thereby not coming off as lame, boring pieces of junk. Their "actual" top speed is irrelevant when in the context of their own scene or show. If this were not true, the most entertaining chase scenes in older movies would cease to be entertaining once newer, faster cars are portrayed in later films. Or, a "chase" film being set in the past (say, 1950's) would automatically qualify as boring because the audience is so aware of the speed/performance limitations of the time. This is simply not the case.
The proper analogy is to assume that regardless of the speed limitation, they are among the faster and/or standard cars on the road. All things being equal, and in context, a chase scene of Yugos will/can be just as entertaining as a BMW chase scene.
I have to agree with Mr. Seaver's point, even if his jump from autos to horses is slightly incongruant.

 

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

Just to jump in with my two cents: How often do we see exciting chase scenes in Trek? All battle scenes are fought at impulse, I believe. In terms of tech, couldn't you find a WWII movie, say, exciting, even though much more potent war technology exists today? Of course you can. Were you really excited in Voyager when Tom Paris exceeded Warp 10 and became a frog creature? It just goes to show that it's not the level of tech that makes the difference, it's how it's used.
------------------
Link Removed
"Sex? We're men! We wrestled!"
-Barton Fink

 

[Dan Paolozza]

Mark,
I couldn't agree more. I think the chase scenario was brought in simply to illustrate how older/inferior technology won't be a factor, when kept in context. Your battle scene example is a better example for the same analogy Jason and I mentioned.
And I also want to say (disclaimer) that I understand Chuck's main concern isn't necesarily a lack of enjoyment because of a low-tech Trek, but that the writers might get carried away and show us things more advanced than in the other treks, thus walking a fine line regarding consistency.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I think Dan's getting close to what Chuck meant. Allow me to elaborate: What he's getting at is--let's face itÑ-TOS looks "dated" by our 21st-century sensibilities. It relected its time, no matter how great TOS often was in its first two seasons. What Chuck is concerned about is that Enterprise, being produced in 2001, will become revisionist and therefore subvert, if you will, the Trek backstory. We will then be wondering if ever there could be a room for an era of short-skirted, beehive-wearing ensigns strolling about a Constitution-class starship. (Ever realize just how sexist and macho some of those awesomely great first-season TOS episodes were?)
As much as I absolutely love TNG--there've been times I've lived it, breathed it--its political correctness and egalitarian ethos got overbearing much of the time. Yet, for me, TNG is Trek's zenith, followed oh-so closely by TOS and DS9.
It would be nice if Bakula plays a rough'n'ready-type captain.
Forgive me, Chuck, if I've misinterpreted you.
And you know something, guys? I'm starting to look forward to this new series. Please, Trek gods at Paramount, don't let us down. (I say to myself sometimes, Voyager was just a bad, bad dream. Then I come to. ...)
------------------

 

[Dave Yeung]

I've attached links to a TrekToday May 11 news archive and the official announcement from Paramount about the cast:
TrekToday.com: Paramount Confirms Enterprise, Announces Full Cast
STARTREK.COMroduction News
Hope this helps!
Dave
------------------

 

[Ben Chick]

I'm wondering if we'll see cardboard cutouts with big colorful buttons for computers in Enterprise. There won't be a holodeck for fun either, but then again if they had one, they couldn't use it.. probably too busy trying to survive deep space.
------------------

 

[Jason Seaver]

I think I read that they're going to be going for "futuristic, but not as futuristic as TNG". Basically, the same argument as the different types of Klingon makeup - Kirk's Enterprise had all those blinking lights and pushbuttons and levers because that's all they could afford in 1968, not because it's an accurate reflection of 22nd/23rd-Century tech.

 

[Andrew Beacom]

>>(Ever realize just how sexist and macho some of those awesomely great first-season TOS episodes were?)

 

[Peter Kline]

"Enterprise" takes place in the year 2151. Go here for more info:
http://www.trektoday.com/news/270601_02.shtml

 

[Todd Hostettler]

Want a peek at what the new ship looks like? Take a peek here:
http://stenterprise.com/62801a.jpg
as well as here:
http://stenterprise.com/62801b.jpg