Red Shirt Volunteer

Sasooni's got the right idea about general use, with extreme emphasis on general. We have tonnes of tech today that is used only by the military and we wouldn't say any of it is in general use, would we? I think it's important not to go too far in taking one line from an old episode and nitpick things to bits.

You should check out the "Richard III" with Ian McKellan. It was made in 1995, set in WWII England. It has the look of England going fascist, but maintains the original story.

Sorry, I was thinking of torpedoes when I wrote missile in that last post. I guess they could use the nukes to finish off injured ships, but that seems like a bit of a waste of firepower - like squashing a near dead mosquito with a baseball bat.

And the substance doesn't damage anything not organic so nothing else in engineering would be damaged either..

Oh, right, I forgot about that. Nice how they can make this stuff up as they go along just in case they need to smash a coolant tank. Try running your computer in low temperatures (ie. at least under 5 degrees, maybe closer to 0). Watch the hard drive freeze up as nothing loads (possibly). Of course, the Ent. is much more advanced than a normal computer, but I think we can assume that coolant is also pretty cold. Thinking temperature has no effect on mechanical/electronic parts is absolutely ridiculous.

It's silly because the delivery system is not realistic. The warhead would have to come in a missile, which is a pretty slow moving weapon, so you'd need to be fairly close to fire it, which could put your own ship at risk. Energy weapons seem to be the choice for close combat in Trek.

You could fire a nuke from a distance, but the enemy would surely detect it coming and just go to warp.

Exactly right about them not forseeing the future realistically back in the 60's. And for me, that's not really a problem. The writers need at least a little freedom to deviate from such ludicrous ideas. If not, they're bound to come up with a completely implausible story. Better to reinterpret what was said before in the context of a believable story than to force such silly ideas into the Enterprise plotline.

Or maybe he just didn't want to total the ship off. Think about it. Everytime there's a problem are you going to wreck a critical section of the ship to solve it? Probably not. I'm sure he needs a command from a higher-up (ie. Picard) to carry out such actions.

My only question is how the heck did they get the ship fixed and back into the future after they wrecked the engineering section?

Star Trek: Zimma Frame

I'd definitely go and see that. Couldn't be much worse than "Nemesis," could it? I actually got a cramp in my foot during the movie due to having tied my boots up too tight which probably didn't help.

Maybe they send the Remans out for that kind of gig on ships rigged to blow if they take to much damage. No prisoners and all that stuff. There could be ways to explain it, but as ConnorExum stated...

... realistically can that be?? How could Gene Roddenberry really think that so if a major full scale war was fought?

Let's face it, a lot of the stuff from TOS was probably made up as they went along and they didn't have to worry about continuity as much as the writers do today (or perhaps I should say as much as the writers should today). On the other hand, if ships were using nukes and the threat of a ship coming into orbit and dropping a few little presents on your army was ever present, would you ever bother sending troops in? Unlikely. The enemy fleet have to be virtually wiped out first.

This brings me back what I referred to as a "cold war." Perhaps that wasn't the best choice of words, rather a limited war might be more likely. However it gets explained, they're going to have to rework Roddenberry's idea as told in "Balance of Terror" as ConnorExum noted.

What? Aren't I enough for you?

Just cuz I could get called down on an away mission and whacked at any moment nobody appreciates me.

I have to agree with you there. Also, I think they should just toss the whole idea of the conflict being fought with nukes. It just seems a little silly now. It really seems ridiculous that missiles (or however they choose to carry the warheads, but I don't really see many other ways) would even have a hope of hitting a warp capable ship, except as the coup de gras after it's engines had been disabled by energy weapons.

Besides that, during the TOS first run, the issue of nuclear weapons would have been on a lot of people's minds, so the thought of the use of them in Trek would have created a horrible image and struck a chord with the viewers of the time. These days nuclear weapons remain a threat, but the world isn't likely on edge about it as it was at the height of the Cold War. It's all about mysterious WMOD and they've played that card with the Xindi probe.

How much is known about the war with the Romulans other than it was mentioned briefly that there was some kind of conflict were no face-to-face contact was made? It could have just been a cold war, in which case it would be quite reasonable that nasty encounters between ships was all that happened.

As for nobody having seen anyone else, isn't it possible that diplomats may have met secretly and decided to keep it all classified or even have no records at all of their meetings. In such meetings, couldn't they have decided to keep things in a cold war state on the surface to satisfy ambitious military leaders without the carnage of planetary invasions.

Why does everything in Trek have to be determined from one or two lines in TOS? Someone could have been lying. Someone could have been mistaken. Information may not be complete, or may have become distorted over time (Trek is based over several hundred years now) or by biased historians of the era. There are lots of alternate possibilities to explain things that were said in TOS.

Since St:TNG, the characters have only been carbon copies of previous series; of couse with new make up. While I understand that there are just so many possible emotions and events to place the core element of characters in. It's almost as if the writers have thrown out any real human nature replacing it with an overly idolized and idealist concept of human nature that just doesn't really exist.

That was an interesting post, and I agree in part, but I'm going to have to ask you to explain the above quote. How do you figure Ent characters are more idealized than TNG characters? TNG characters, in retrospect, were so pure it pained me at times. Picard always ranting on about the prime directive and following the rules of the Federation to the letter; Worf always looking for battle; Trio always having a funny feeling then fading into the background; etc. Don't get me wrong, I really liked TNG, but I must say that Ent. has at least made a go of developing characters that we can related to.

"A Night in Sickbay" It was an injustice to give John Billingsley, who I think is the most talented actor on the show, this lame episode to have a large role in. If even he couldn't save it, it must have been even worse than it seemed at the time.

Wow, I had a late one last night and just reread my post. Basically those examples I gave were just supposed to illustrate that crews from various series have met people from the past, although the ship went to them, not the other way around. Anyway, we've already seen how such encounters might go a lot, so why drag it all up again?

I'd like to see them play the wrong movie and make a bad impression on some other species. Eg. some diminutive but friendly, green aliens with big ears join and they show "Gremlins" or something like that.

I completely agree with ConnorExum. It's an absurd idea. As ConnorExum alluded to, one of the reasons many people like Star Trek is that it takes us into a utopian world that we can only dream of. Putting someone from our time into it would just pull the story away from that ideal and ruin the atmosphere. Besides, it's been done too many times before in one way or another:

"The City on the Edge of Forever"

"First Contact"

That Voyager ep. where Ed Begley Jr. plays the guy who found a time machine and becomes a computer mogul by slowly releasing tech. over a long time, eventually creating company with a stranglehold on the computer industry going by the name of Mi... wait, I'm confusing myself now.

Have We The Fans Of Enterprise Been Dupped By It's Producers And Writers

 

I think we have. The producers and writers of this new series have continuely reused and rehashed previous concepts in Star Trek so much so that it's almost like watching reruns. They seem to be fixated with redoing all the past episodes of Star Trek's past glories. So much so that even the two alien characters on the crew of Enterprise are basically just mish moshed bits and pieces of already existing characters. What are Rick and Brannon thinking? Really I want to know.

 

Take for example T'Pol... A true full blooded vulcan. Yet she acts less logical then any other vulcan ever shown. Her character is that of Data basically just wrapped up in a really nice body... She attempts to understand humanity and almost attempts to be more like it. If that isn't a paradox of so called Vulcan nature I don't know what is. She's the vulcan that wants to be human it seems...

Hmmm... The first time I saw TNG, I immediately thought that Data was a reincarnation of Spock - someone struggling to some extent in their work with humans. Every series has kind of done this to some extent. It's a basic plot device used to provide a different sort of conversation than that which would occur between two humans familiar with each other's culture to a larger extent. It is merely an attempt to reflect international relations/mulitculturalism.

Pholx is another character that is a cross between being Worf a semiadjusted stranger in a strangeland and a Nelix type comic relief with too much fur... The Pholx Worf similarity is primarily concerning his work ethic and strong cultural identy. The Nelix factor is more in how they use him. He rarely ever plays a role that is completely forceful or serious nor do the writers attempt to make him seem serious. He's always sort of aloof doing a serious job yet never serious about it. Unlike the other doctor characters of the past like Bones and Crusher. All very serious about the work ; very cut and dry doctors for the most part.... Nothing has been done like that with Pholx so far and it's limited his impact actually. He's almost laughable but in a way that's not reaching the audience as intended.

So what you're saying is that all doctors have to be super serious? My girlfriend is about to finish med school along with a bunch of her friends. I've never met such an intelligent and refreshing group of personalities. They all have a great sense of humour and are a lot of fun to be around. Doctors don't have to be super-serious all the time.

While I'll agree that Phlox is a little too flippant at times, I have to say that he'd be far less interesting otherwise. Bones was a great character, but way too over-the-top in reactions at times. Crusher (and worse, Polasky - sorry, can't remember the replacement that did that stint) was one of the most boring characters ever. She really seemed to lack personality and usually only popped up to perform her medical duties.

Phlox, on the other hand, has had a few, and not enough I might add, interesting chats with T'Pol as to interacting with humans that have provided us with interesting and differing perspectives on interacting with humans. The best doctor prior to Ent. was almost certainly the EMH from Voyager. Although I didn't like the series, the doctor was an exception. As the series progressed, he got more and more on-screen time. I think they've tried to take his best characteristic, humour, and instill it in Phlox. John Billingsley is doing a great job bringing that element to Enterprise. I think he's one of the most talented actors Trek has had.

The rest of the show is flat too... Far too many burrowed episode ideas. Especially from the original. Hell, it seems at times that all we're really watching is a remake of the original series . Archer has been captured more times then you can throw a stick at... His ship is been beaten up more times then I care to count. His moral stances have all been made before. Yet some how now they just seem to be flat when he makes them... I wonder if Enterprise is just a victim of the success that the other serieses had? All the vital ideas are used up and now the formula needs to be changed but it can't be without destroying the sense of continuity to many fans... So what fans get instead are reused ideas in new pretty packages.

I agree that a lot of episodes have had unoriginal ideas, especially "Dawn" which had a story that's been done too many times. Within the series, similar themes also emerge too often: somebody gets captured; the ship is outgunned but survives; and, Archer gets smacked around. "Judgment" was another one that took just a little too much from ST: VI. Yet, a lot of episodes have been fairly original, such as "Carbon Creek," "First Flight," and "Fallen Hero." A lot of the other ones have set up background and/or connections to latter series (eg. "Civilization" and "The Communicator" develop a background for the Prime Directive; "The Andorian Incident", "Sleeping Dogs", "Minefield" and "Breaking the Ice" along with a number of other episodes worked on developing relations with Andorians, Klingons, Romulans and Vulcans in a way that gradually builds towards what we know from TOS or seem to be setting up to build the long-term Enterprise story line of working with Vulcans as partners and possibly later the Andorians). Naturally, some of the ideas seem to sound like things we've heard before, but it they didn't, there would be no link to future series. There needs to be some element of familiarity to build up to what we know from TOS, TNG and so on. At the same time, I'll agree that a certain amount of freshness does need to be pumped into the way they approach the plotlines.