ChakatBlackstar wrote:
Even more inexcusable since they were supposed to be more reliant on shuttlepods. Although from an out-of-universe point of view, a large shuttlebay, even a small but reasonably sized one would be an expensive set. Or at least a very big greenscreen. In fact I don't think we saw much in terms of an actual regular shuttlebay set until Enterprise.
To bad they didn't have a combined cargo/shuttle bay. Fly in the back, unload, go out the front ala a space going carrier.
TOS' was a miniature. TNG's main shuttlebay was only seen once, as a miniature(the time loop episode with the Bozeman) although they did have the smaller aux shuttlebay on occasion. DS9 had those runabout...gaurages which we only saw inside of on rare occasions, during launch or when the Ferengi shuttle or the Romulan shuttle was there. Voyager's few internal shots of the shuttlebay were all CGI I think.
Yeah, the shuttlebays would have been expensive. TNG lucked out with it's rather large budget so we got to see the little ones occasionally. There wasn't any reason to see DS9's seeing as all they were was a bay with an airlock directly connected to the ship. I think they had a shot of the VOY bay in the 37 episode when they beamed aboard the old pickup. Probably a redress of the E-D aux bay.
Cpl Kendall wrote: I think they had a shot of the VOY bay in the 37 episode when they beamed aboard the old pickup. Probably a redress of the E-D aux bay.
I thought they beamed it to a small cargo bay. It didn't look like the shuttlebay in later cgi shots. Then again it wasn't very consistant about that either.
1) Set it earlier. 2130. I want the Earth-Romulan war to be something in the future, not something we see on screen. And I want Humans to have sufficient time to build a reputation in the galaxy before the Federation is founded.
2) The ship. The art and design forum has the ship I would have used; that, or something like that. And it would not be called Enterprise, it would be called Yorktown or something. I'm not that bothered, anything but Enterprise!
3) The tech. No transporters. No shields. No "polarising the hull". No phase pistols or cannon. My crew would carry advanced slugthrowers; gauss guns basically. I'd probably make them somewhat like Judge Dredd's handgun, with selectable ammo, one of which would be a tranquiliser dart so there could still be a "stun" setting. Ships would use laser cannon and missiles with either roughly conventional warheads or nukes.
4) I'd keep the Warp 5 engine idea, but I would NOT make it so that Humans are basically a stunted species at this point. The warp 5 engine would be a step advance; warp 3 or 4 engines would have been in service up to then, and both civilian and military ships with them would have been travelling the stars routinely.
5) No 'evil Vulcans'. The Vulcans of Enterprise are not recognisable as the ones of TOS, and although recognising that and fixing that was a wonderful idea, having it in the first place was not. My Vulcans would have helped Earth out in the aftermath of First Contact. Not necessarily directly giving us advanced technology, but protecting us from bad guys while we were vulnerable, giving advice, trade, etc. Non of this "holding us back" nonsense. In Enterprise, the Vulcans would not be horrible and standoffish; Vulcan and Human exchange officers would be somewhat common, and cordial and supportive relationships the norm.
6) No "Earth Starfleet". The word Starfleet would never be used. The operating authority of the ship would be the United Earth Space Probe Agency. UESPA would run a fleet of about fifty starships.
7) No prime directive. It would be a recurrant theme of the show that now and again they would try to help out a primitive civilisation with advanced technology, etc, and that when they did, it went horribly wrong.
8 ) Kick-ass-ness. The Humans would be a species capable of kicking ass! I would have at least one small war within the series; doesn't have to be a huge multi-season arc or anything, I am thinking something like the Falklands War. An alien species would invade an Earth colony and occupy it, and the fleet would assemble, go kick some ass, and take it back over half a dozen episodes or so. Then a few recurrant skirmishes every now and again. Whilst such should not be a matter of UESPA shooting fish in a barrel, it should be clear that Humans are a force to be reckoned with.
9) The Klingons; first contact with them would be a disaster, as said by Picard, and lead to strife. In fact they could be the alien species mentioned above. I don't mind the way Enterprise handled the bumpy foreheads by the way.
10) More ties to TOS and other Trek series. Let's see some of the TOS alien species!
11) No, no NO NO Ferengi or Borg.
12) No temporal cold war.
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
No 'evil Vulcans'. The Vulcans of Enterprise are not recognisable as the ones of TOS,
Am I missing something? When were there 'evil vulcans'. People keep saying this but I didn't see any evil Vulcans. The Vulcans were argent, emotionless, and logical, just like they've always been.
Did you happen to miss the whole "Hey guys, let's go hinder humanity's development and act like jerks!" thing they had going for them?
"You've all been selected for this mission because you each have a special skill. Professor Hawking, John Leslie, Phil Neville, the Wu-Tang Clan, Usher, the Sugar Puffs Monster and Daniel Day-Lewis! Welcome to Operation MindFuck!"
I kinda liked the "evil" Vulcans, and how Coto handled their..epiphany(?) is that the word?
*ducks thrown objects*
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
I kinda liked the fact that the vulcans were given some character. I can see how they'd feel a little threatened by such an immature, emotional, gung-ho species. Was it Soval who said it took Vulcan centuries to recover from their world wars and they only managed it by discarding emotion? Humanity recovered in less then 100 and are still just as emotional? Perhaps that worried a few High Command Vulcans into thinking, "maybe we were wrong", and wanted to try and supress reminders of their violent, blood-thirsty past? (IE Upstart Humans).
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
What is the big problem calling the ship Enterprise? Equipping it with a revolutionary, Warp Five engine is, after all, like the first nuclear Aircraft Carrier, IE USS Enterprise.
SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:What is the big problem calling the ship Enterprise? Equipping it with a revolutionary, Warp Five engine is, after all, like the first nuclear Aircraft Carrier, IE USS Enterprise.
Because if there was another famous Enterprise why have we never heard of it before? Why wasn't it on the wall in TMP? Why did no one mention Archer's exploits alongside Kirk's?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:What is the big problem calling the ship Enterprise? Equipping it with a revolutionary, Warp Five engine is, after all, like the first nuclear Aircraft Carrier, IE USS Enterprise.
Because if there was another famous Enterprise why have we never heard of it before? Why wasn't it on the wall in TMP? Why did no one mention Archer's exploits alongside Kirk's?
Why wasn't it on the wall in the motion picture: It wasn't even a concept yet. Think about it-TMP came out in 1980, Enterprise came out in 2000's. Of course its not going to be on a wall where the Star Trek mythos is still *evolving*. Lets see, since its not *casual* conversation pieces, where Kirk's are?
Calling it Enterprise is logical because it is inheriting a namesake of revolutionary or famous designs of the past. Like the USS Enterprise (nuclear aircraft carrier) or the Space Shuttle, it had a revolutionary engine and design. Thus, it inherits the name Enterprise.
SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:Why wasn't it on the wall in the motion picture: It wasn't even a concept yet. Think about it-TMP came out in 1980, Enterprise came out in 2000's. Of course its not going to be on a wall where the Star Trek mythos is still *evolving*. Lets see, since its not *casual* conversation pieces, where Kirk's are?
I'm talking from an in-universe perspective. That wall displayed ships that were never seen anywhere else, and yet it missed out the most important ship of the 22nd century. That shows that in the Trek universe, as of TMP, Kirk's Enterprise was far and away the most important Enterprise in Earth's space history. Then B&B came and shat all over that established history.
Calling it Enterprise is logical because it is inheriting a namesake of revolutionary or famous designs of the past. Like the USS Enterprise (nuclear aircraft carrier) or the Space Shuttle, it had a revolutionary engine and design. Thus, it inherits the name Enterprise.
Then why not call it Revenge, or Prince Royal, or Monitor, or Warrior, or Dreadnought, or Hermes, or Nautilus? All those ships were revolutionary designs in their day.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:Why wasn't it on the wall in the motion picture: It wasn't even a concept yet. Think about it-TMP came out in 1980, Enterprise came out in 2000's. Of course its not going to be on a wall where the Star Trek mythos is still *evolving*. Lets see, since its not *casual* conversation pieces, where Kirk's are?
I'm talking from an in-universe perspective. That wall displayed ships that were never seen anywhere else, and yet it missed out the most important ship of the 22nd century. That shows that in the Trek universe, as of TMP, Kirk's Enterprise was far and away the most important Enterprise in Earth's space history. Then B&B came and shat all over that established history.
Calling it Enterprise is logical because it is inheriting a namesake of revolutionary or famous designs of the past. Like the USS Enterprise (nuclear aircraft carrier) or the Space Shuttle, it had a revolutionary engine and design. Thus, it inherits the name Enterprise.
Then why not call it Revenge, or Prince Royal, or Monitor, or Warrior, or Dreadnought, or Hermes, or Nautilus? All those ships were revolutionary designs in their day.
'In-Universe Perspective''? It seems like you're just hating for the sake of hating.
SuperSaiyaMan12 wrote:'In-Universe Perspective''? It seems like you're just hating for the sake of hating.
Quite the contrary - irritation at a production team who apparently have little knowlege and less respect for previously established continuity (to the extent of bragging about it in some cases) is not "hate". It's a desire to see one of the most important aspects of Trek, it's sense of being a coherent universe rather than a bunch of similar but unrelated TV programmes, maintained.
Last edited by Captain Seafort on Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
Maybe Kirk just hated Captain Archer for some reason. That's the only in-universe explanation I can come up with.
IIRC, he had the sailing ship, and the shuttle up there, along with a ship we never saw (which would've been a damn cool Enterprise for the show), but no NX-01.
And, it's not "hating for the sake of hating" to expect the show-runners to have respect for things that were clearly established before they decided to make their show. We'd be equally pissed if they decided to make the Andorians purple, or had a Klingon officer onboard.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
