<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Why No Trek In Title

July 2 2001 at 10:21 AM
 
from IP address 216.0.151.13

 
As far as I can tell Star Trek has always been about just that a Trek through the Stars, In that this show is going back to the beginning it seems to me that the show will be more of a cautious 1st Step than a blind Trek. Thus you have the omittance of the Star Trek label. I think they are shooting themselves in the foot, my opinion of course. The thing we should probably get clear off that bat is that this show will definitely not be Star Trek as we've all known and loved. As far as Im concerned there is no need for this show as series, albeit I am poised to eat my words if the show is good. But all we can hope for is that Paramount/Berman are not locked into a 7year mode for the show and will tell the story they want to tell in however much time it takes be it longer or shorter.

 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
C1ofUnknown

216.238.172.58

Untitled

July 5 2001, 9:03 AM 

Enterprise is a Star Trek spin-off, but, because there is no Star Trek in the title, I consider it not to be a Star Trek series, but it doesn't matter anyways seeing how I won't be able to see it until it's all repeats.

 
 Respond to this message   
Capt. Covington

216.221.112.88

Hmmm.

July 6 2001, 1:50 PM 

Perhaps Berman and the other self-proclaimed rulers of the Star Trek Universe have decided that this isn't exactly Star Trek because it happened before the Original Series. Plus, removing "Star Trek" from the title releases them from having to keep the general Star Trek plot line consistent, something that Berman and the others have just been dying to get out of. Expect this in the new series:

1. Tons of aliens that were never encountered or mentioned in the "Future" Star Trek series:
This probably won't be explained, but if explained at all, it would be with a cop-out statement, like "They went extinct."

2. Time Travel Mayhem:
There is considerable information suggesting that there will be a recurring time-traveler from the future. As everyone knows, time travel has always been a quick fix for desperate Star Trek writers. Are they really that worried about Enterprise?

3. Playing with the boundaries of space:
In the Enterprise era, ships can't go very fast at all, but the writers will most certainly send them to familiar worlds (such as Betazed, Vulcan and Qu'onos)that are supposed to be rather distant from Earth and give travel times that are insanely short.

 
 Respond to this message   


205.160.191.61

Need for speed...

July 14 2001, 3:04 PM 

Warp 5 is what the 'new' Enterprise will be capable of acording to the TV Guide article out this week.

 
 Respond to this message   
Ben C.

64.20.247.43

Warp 5

July 15 2001, 7:11 AM 

Remember that the warp scales the TV Guide is using is from the TNG era which have been redone since TOS. TNG Warp 5 is about three times faster than TOS warp 5. But even at TNG warp 5, it would still take about a month to cross just one sector(20 light years). We know that Romulus is fairly close to Vulcan and that Vulcan is fairly close to earth, but Klingon territory is near cardassian territory which was almost 2 weeks away when the Defiant made the trip from DS9 to Earth at high warp.

 
 Respond to this message   


24.114.204.39

Untitled

July 19 2001, 11:37 AM 

Star Trek is a forum for delievering Stories, just because it takes 2 months to do that and 3 days to do this, and , and, and..... Come on, Willing suspension of disbelief..... I am a huge Star Trek fan, but these people who work out the time it would take to get here versus there ect ect, Who cares???? it's about the story!!! You have to be willing to let the Creaters play a little with your perfect little world, or you will never get anything new because you think you already know it all!!! There are lots of races in the Federation that we never see, It will be easy for this series to introduce lots of new species and not have to have them go extinct..... they will join the federation and we will never hear of them again. The whole point is that you have to be willing to alter your view of the Star Trek Universe, you can't let it box you in, and if you don't want to accept it I would be glad to see you lock yourself in a room with the present episodes and never watch another. That's the only way you will ever be happy...

Sandman

 
 Respond to this message   


152.163.213.59

Earth to Enterprise

August 17 2001, 1:22 PM 

This is Commadore Rice,
What in Blue Blazes is going on out there...
If Spock were here he would says that the new series title is "highly illogical".
Meanwhile, its probably not the same old action-packed series I grew up with, And Captain Whoever will never be as horny as Kirk was...
Beam Me Up!!!!
RA RICE, Commadore; S.F.C.
Outpost 3 (Hailing Freq):mrrobertarice@aol.com

 
 Respond to this message   
Capt. Covington

216.221.109.220

You're sure?

July 24 2001, 1:42 AM 

I don't know that, and I'm pretty sure you don't, either.

 
 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Why No Trek In Title
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Create your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2009 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement