vhumpa Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 Enterprise's plot is nice, but it little interfers the classical history. How is it possible that nx-01 looks pretty more modern than NCC-1701 ? :stare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alaska Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 I know that they messed with the timeline, but if the current enterprise looked more "basic" than the original, I don't think I'd be watching. Paper mache and string are no match for the CG of today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamp Posted January 22, 2005 Share Posted January 22, 2005 havn't watched ent much what have they changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vhumpa Posted January 22, 2005 Author Share Posted January 22, 2005 Look on http://www.starfleet-museum.org , and you'll see some differences Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibanez Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I can only imagine that when the set designers were told to make a new enterprise that is set before TOS they all cried... and decided to empty their grabage of toilet roll tubes and buttons. If the designers actually followed the old design we would end up with something that resembled a thunderbirds draft scene. Space Shuttles of today look more advanced than TOS technology. Also bare in mind that back in 1996, we was supposed to have some sort of super human war (Wrath of Khan). We never, so that immediatly invalidated Star Trek history. Looking at NX-01, I still see a more basic ship than NCC-1701, as it is smaller, less populated, lighter armed, and less facilities onboard. If the NCC-1701 was updated with modern televised technology I'm sure they would draw on deck plates, windows and external access points. If they were aware back then that Star Trel would be alive in the 21st cetury, they would have tweaked the History a bit to compensate. I applaud the writers for tweaking the timeline to such an extent that it is indeed plausible. As for M/AM engines, they are plausible as we have already created minute quanitities of antimatter already in the last century and if we know that 97% of the universe if dark matter, so all we need is a way to gather it. We managed to gather radio signals didn't we? Matter transporters have also taken a big step in our time too. Scientists have already managed to copy the basic molecular structure of some bacteria to a small distance. Its not transportation as such but merely a replication of the original but we also have the beginnings of protein resequencer. So before long, we COULD have A/AM engines and transporters and food replicators. Especially with todays accellerating technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zgamesforu Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 They did a good job with Enterprise, trading canon for story and visual effects Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hubix Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I think they did pretty goog job with putting the NX into the ST world. They didn't change history, much... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
law Posted January 23, 2005 Share Posted January 23, 2005 I don't really care if it messes with the star trek history. So long as it carries the basic ideals of star trek and isn't that out of place then its fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elessar Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 Well I mean the original history was written in the 60's and even though it's "THE ORIGINAL", to treat the whole of the star trek franchise fairly, it should be somewhat flexable because the bulk of the shows being produces exists today...Not that I don't think TOS has classical influence and value, but really the *modern* star trek era began with TNG when Roddenberry died, as far as I understand it the storylines for DS9, TNG, VOY and ENT from then on ceased to be drawn from his writings correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I consider NX-01 to be canon. It's visibly smaller and more primitive than the "big" NCC-1701. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 TOS is pretty good though. I think Trek was most dynamic with Gene Roddenberry at the helm. Under Rick Berman Star Trek became just a bit repetitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbbb Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 One of the great things about Star Trek over other sci-fi series (apart from the fact they don't steal so many ideas) is that because it's been around so long time has created a rich and immersive ST universe. The years between 2269 and 2364 are virtually unknown to us with the exception of what we got to see on screen. I would like to see a ST episode or movie to show us more of this timeframe (and see Constitution Refits blow up K'Tingas!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Engineer101 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 next thing u know....they be doing Star trek remakes on TOS....oh the horror........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendo001 Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 Hey guys, the timeline has been affected slightly due to the borg altering it, during First Contact. If you look at ToS i know the graphics are slightly dated by today's standard, but they invented some of the everyday things we have now e.g. automatic doors. Also Enterprise will hopefully fill in the blanks about how the federation was created and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 next thing u know....they be doing Star trek remakes on TOS....oh the horror........ TOS will have to be remade, to conform with the other series........Someone who is real good with a computer can redo the backgrounds of every scene with more modern backgrounds. .....Ship models will need to be upgraded, and better beauty shots made. :stare: Or, you can forego the trouble of redoing every episode, and just shoot it with an all new cast, better looking ship, etc. .......The stories can be the exact same ones to prevent die hards like myself from complaining too much. :) If the original episode had a salt monster killing red shirts, then that's what the new one should show. A new Kirk, Bones & Spock stop it. My car has better stuff in it than the 1960's Enterprise........It will eventually need a modern version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xtremeskiing Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I can only imagine that when the set designers were told to make a new enterprise that is set before TOS they all cried... and decided to empty their grabage of toilet roll tubes and buttons. If the designers actually followed the old design we would end up with something that resembled a thunderbirds draft scene. Space Shuttles of today look more advanced than TOS technology. Also bare in mind that back in 1996, we was supposed to have some sort of super human war (Wrath of Khan). We never, so that immediatly invalidated Star Trek history. Looking at NX-01, I still see a more basic ship than NCC-1701, as it is smaller, less populated, lighter armed, and less facilities onboard. If the NCC-1701 was updated with modern televised technology I'm sure they would draw on deck plates, windows and external access points. If they were aware back then that Star Trel would be alive in the 21st cetury, they would have tweaked the History a bit to compensate. I applaud the writers for tweaking the timeline to such an extent that it is indeed plausible. As for M/AM engines, they are plausible as we have already created minute quanitities of antimatter already in the last century and if we know that 97% of the universe if dark matter, so all we need is a way to gather it. We managed to gather radio signals didn't we? Matter transporters have also taken a big step in our time too. Scientists have already managed to copy the basic molecular structure of some bacteria to a small distance. Its not transportation as such but merely a replication of the original but we also have the beginnings of protein resequencer. So before long, we COULD have A/AM engines and transporters and food replicators. Especially with todays accellerating technology. I dont believe that they have transported/replicated anything so complex as bacterium. From what I understand, we are still stuck at transporting protons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibanez Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I dont believe that they have transported/replicated anything so complex as bacterium. From what I understand, we are still stuck at transporting protons. Yes, that sounds more accurate. It was a while ago I heard this and had to drag it all up from memory. Even so, it is still the first step to actual transporter technology. Even if we had them now, I'm not sure I would be comfortable using one though. Its actually quite a scary thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonHelton Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Even if we had them now' date=' I'm not sure I would be comfortable using one though. Its actually quite a scary thought.[/quote'] You have to die sometime, ensign.......Why not die doing something cool? :cyclops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibanez Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I'd rather die with my atoms intact and a phase pistol in my hand. :D Preferable charting some unknown sector. OK, well preferable not to die at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggie Posted January 29, 2005 Share Posted January 29, 2005 I dont believe that they have transported/replicated anything so complex as bacterium. From what I understand' date=' we are still stuck at transporting protons.[/quote'] Yes, that sounds more accurate. It was a while ago I heard this and had to drag it all up from memory. Even so, it is still the first step to actual transporter technology. Even if we had them now, I'm not sure I would be comfortable using one though. Its actually quite a scary thought. One thing that is holding us back from moving larger things is the lack of computer speed. To make teleportation possible we need to make a quantum computer, which is capable of many more times the calucations of todays super computers. Not even the new IBM super computer, that when finnished will be 5 million times faster than the first super computer will be powerful enough to do the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now