A question about Star Trek: Enterprise

[Ryag Han]

i saw plenty of nerds that can argue just as fine without just babbling around how "oh, enterprise screw up with my precious continuity" and actually bring some god damned reasonable motive for ent being bad. of course, i countered them all. because even the mightiest of nerd can go past something as unimportant as continuity, but no, these guys can't. yeah, sure, i don't like nerds, i hate them. i also don't like Christians, i hate them, but i have many religious friends and go along well. anyone can go past their differences. but when they act the way they do, you can't do that.

spelling has absolutely nothing to do here. yes, i spell bad. SO WHAT? if you responded to my post, means you understood it. that's all that matters.

[Eternal_Freedom]

There's a difference between fucking up continuity, like meeting the Borg two centuries early, and other shite, to fucking up what amounts to GCSE-level (high school) science, like the distance to Quo'nos.

As for the spelling thing, well, you can feel how you like about it. But people on the board, myself included, are going to dislike you anyway for your claims and ideas, poor speeling gives us more fuel for the fires.

If you want some reasons why ENT was bad, other than the continuity problems, how about bad acting, shit characters, writing that at times was dumber than RTD doctor who, a rearded "Temporal Cold War" plotline, the whole Xindi thing, and so on. Go on, refute them. It should be trivially easy for you, as you claim to have done this all before. Fucktard.

[Stark]

i saw plenty of nerds that can argue just as fine without just babbling around how "oh, enterprise screw up with my precious continuity" and actually bring some god damned reasonable motive for ent being bad. of course, i countered them all. because even the mightiest of nerd can go past something as unimportant as continuity, but no, these guys can't. yeah, sure, i don't like nerds, i hate them. i also don't like Christians, i hate them, but i have many religious friends and go along well. anyone can go past their differences. but when they act the way they do, you can't do that.

spelling has absolutely nothing to do here. yes, i spell bad. SO WHAT? if you responded to my post, means you understood it. that's all that matters.

Uh oh.

Anyway, what counters have you previously deployed to the obvious dramatic problems in the show?

[Ryag Han]

If you want some reasons why ENT was bad, other than the continuity problems, how about bad acting, shit characters,

star trek is the definition of bad acting and shit characters.

writing that at times was dumber than RTD doctor who

uh, ok, first i need to decipher this one.

a rearded "Temporal Cold War" plotline,

95% of trek is retarder.

the whole Xindi thing,

this one is in the 5% that actually isn't retarder. season 3 is better than every trek series put together.

and so on. Go on, refute them. It should be trivially easy for you, as you claim to have done this all before. Fucktard.

get lost and don't come back until you learn to discus this without resulting to insults. only desperate people result to that. i use to do that on other forums, so i know.

[Batman]

i saw plenty of nerds that can argue just as fine without just babbling around how "oh, enterprise screw up with my precious continuity" and actually bring some god damned reasonable motive for ent being bad.

As determined by-you, of course, the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn't a valid reason to consider a TV series bad. Everybody else's opinion is utterly irrelevant.
I hate to tell you pumpkin but that's not the way it works. Just because you don't care about continuity (possibly because you don't have the attention span and/or memory retention rate to ever notice there are any) doesn't make that criticism unreasonable.

of course, i countered them all.

Sure you did.

because even the mightiest of nerd can go past something as unimportant as continuity

as, again, determined by you, because obviously if it isn't important to you, it can't possibly be important at all. Woah. And I thought 'I' had a massively oversized ego.

, but no, these guys can't. yeah, sure, i don't like nerds, i hate them.

Then maybe coming here wasn't the smartest thing you ever did.

spelling has absolutely nothing to do here. yes, i spell bad. SO WHAT? if you responded to my post, means you understood it. that's all that matters.

Spelling SciFi 'Scy-Fy' isn't just bad, it's abysmal and for someone with your otherwise tolerable spelling almost inevitably intentional.

[Ryag Han]

this has nothing to do with ego. so YOU like continuity. well how dose that makes it important then?
im a guy who just watches the dam show, and defends it from people who can't just dam enjoy it because they already made the decision that if it doesn't fit into his view, it sucks. and yes, i spell 'Scy-Fy intentionally. WHERE DOSE THE RELEVANCE COMES IN?

[Eternal_Freedom]

writing that at times was dumber than RTD doctor who

uh, ok, first i need to decipher this one.

I am referring to the later seaons of the new Doctor Who written by Russel T Davies.

a rearded "Temporal Cold War" plotline,

95% of trek is retarder.

Prove it genius.

the whole Xindi thing,

this one is in the 5% that actually isn't retarder. season 3 is better than every trek series put together.

Again, I defy you to show how ENT's crusade against an alien race manipulated by freaky aliens is better than, for instance, "The Best of Both Worlds."

and so on. Go on, refute them. It should be trivially easy for you, as you claim to have done this all before. Fucktard.

get lost and don't come back until you learn to discus this without resulting to insults. only desperate people result to that. i use to do that on other forums, so i know.

How about you try actually adressing my point? If you're so smart, prove your claims. Prove them, and I will gladly concede and bow to your superior knowledge of sci-fi. Until such time, put up or shut up.

[Batman]

this has nothing to do with ego. so YOU like continuity. well how dose that makes it important then?

So you don't give a flying fuck about continuity. How does that make it unimportant?
See, this works both ways. This has everything to do with ego. You blithely assume that since you don't care, everybody who does is automatically wrong.

im a guy who just watches the dam show, and defends it from people who can't just dam enjoy it because they already made the decision that if it doesn't fit into his view, it sucks.

It's a TV show, honeybun. If it doesn't deliver what the viewers wanted of it, they'll consider it sucky. Guess what-for a lot of Star Trek fans especially around here, it spectacularly failed to deliver. You want to cash in on Trek fame, don't piss off the Trek fandom.
And that's ignoring that at least for the first season (and probably the second from the bits and pieces I've seen) ENT and rational thought/competent writing were never in the same room together.

and yes, i spell 'Scy-Fy intentionally. WHERE DOSE THE RELEVANCE COMES IN?

For starters, it's ugly. It's also incorrect as SciFi is an acronym, and there's no y in either of the words it's an acronym for. If you feel better spelling it that way for some arcane reason by all means do so, but don't expect people to not comment on that.

[Ryag Han]

a rearded "Temporal Cold War" plotline,

95% of trek is retarder.

Prove it genius.

technobale. its retarded, and it is rarely missing from star trek. instead of making a good idea to solve something...no, they use the particle/radiation/energy of the week.

the whole Xindi thing,

this one is in the 5% that actually isn't retarder. season 3 is better than every trek series put together.

Again, I defy you to show how ENT's crusade against an alien race manipulated by freaky aliens is better than, for instance, "The Best of Both Worlds."

for start it had action, drama, they were without hope and it had the coolest looking battles in star trek. "The Best of Both Worlds" had "anti-time". nothing more needs be said.

and so on. Go on, refute them. It should be trivially easy for you, as you claim to have done this all before. Fucktard.

get lost and don't come back until you learn to discus this without resulting to insults. only desperate people result to that. i use to do that on other forums, so i know.

How about you try actually adressing my point? If you're so smart, prove your claims. Prove them, and I will gladly concede and bow to your superior knowledge of sci-fi. Until such time, put up or shut up.[/quote]

i did, but as evidence by the above, you can't understand simple stuff.

[Ryag Han]

this has nothing to do with ego. so YOU like continuity. well how dose that makes it important then?

So you don't give a flying fuck about continuity. How does that make it unimportant?
See, this works both ways. This has everything to do with ego. You blithely assume that since you don't care, everybody who does is automatically wrong.

really? or did i tried to show you that if you care to much about it, you end up like...you...and have no actuall reason why you don't like it?

It's a TV show, honeybun. If it doesn't deliver what the viewers wanted of it, they'll consider it sucky. Guess what-for a lot of Star Trek fans especially around here, it spectacularly failed to deliver. You want to cash in on Trek fame, don't piss off the Trek fandom.
And that's ignoring that at least for the first season (and probably the second from the bits and pieces I've seen) ENT and rational thought/competent writing were never in the same room together.

in other words, if you hardcore trekkies don't like it, it sucks.

For starters, it's ugly.

[Eternal_Freedom]

"The Best of Both Worlds" had "anti-time". nothing more needs be said.

This proves how monumentally THICK you are. You don't even know what you're criticising! BOBW had precisely ZERO anti-time in it. You're thinking of "All Good Things..." Retard. Nothing more needs to be said.

[Ryag Han]

"The Best of Both Worlds" had "anti-time". nothing more needs be said.

This proves how monumentally THICK you are. You don't even know what you're criticising! BOBW had precisely ZERO anti-time in it. You're thinking of "All Good Things..." Retard. Nothing more needs to be said.

yeah im sorry, wasn't paing atention at the name. see, the difference between me and you is that i can admit my mistakes. now, The Best of Both Worlds...actually, its in the 5%, but makes the xindi plot crap

[Ryag Han]

later

[Eternal_Freedom]

"The Best of Both Worlds" had "anti-time". nothing more needs be said.

This proves how monumentally THICK you are. You don't even know what you're criticising! BOBW had precisely ZERO anti-time in it. You're thinking of "All Good Things..." Retard. Nothing more needs to be said.

yeah im sorry, wasn't paing atention at the name. see, the difference between me and you is that i can admit my mistakes. now, The Best of Both Worlds...actually, its in the 5%, but makes the xindi plot crap

Concession accepted. ENT season 3 is therefore clearly not better than "all other Trek series combined." This is progress at least.

Oh, and you point about how 95% of Trek is more retarded than the Temporal Cold War because of...technobabble. Care to explain that beyond a one-liner? Technobabble was pretty damn prevalent in ENT you know. Especially in the bits involving the Temporal Cold War.

[Ryag Han]

Concession accepted. ENT season 3 is therefore clearly not better than "all other Trek series combined." This is progress at least.

Oh, and you point about how 95% of Trek is more retarded than the Temporal Cold War because of...technobabble. Care to explain that beyond a one-liner? Technobabble was pretty damn prevalent in ENT you know. Especially in the bits involving the Temporal Cold War.

ahh..can't ignore...ok, one episode vs over 20? an entire season vs some good episodes spread over multiple series.
Technobabble is plain stupid, yes was pretty damn prevalent in ENT, but they didn't solved 95% of their problems with it, especially the Temporal Cold War.

[Eternal_Freedom]

The Temporal Cold War was pretty much pure technobabble. Including it's resolution (the last mention of it I can recall was "Storm Front", where the war turns hit but then unhappens because of funky time travel goodness).

[Batman]

this has nothing to do with ego. so YOU like continuity. well how dose that makes it important then?

So you don't give a flying fuck about continuity. How does that make it unimportant?
See, this works both ways. This has everything to do with ego. You blithely assume that since you don't care, everybody who does is automatically wrong.

really? or did i tried to show you that if you care to much about it, you end up like...you...and have no actuall reason why you don't like it?

I have no idea what you tried to do, what you did do was show you think that since you don't care about continuity, it therefore cannot be a valid reason to dislike the show.
I'll make it easy for you. It's a TV show. It's one and only purpose (as far as I'm concerned) is to entertain me (for fiction shows at least).
Hmm. I like continuity. ENT shits all over it. Sounds (well, reads, this being a text medium) like a perfectly valid reason to dislike the show to me.

It's a TV show, honeybun. If it doesn't deliver what the viewers wanted of it, they'll consider it sucky. Guess what-for a lot of Star Trek fans especially around here, it spectacularly failed to deliver. You want to cash in on Trek fame, don't piss off the Trek fandom.
And that's ignoring that at least for the first season (and probably the second from the bits and pieces I've seen) ENT and rational thought/competent writing were never in the same room together.

in other words, if you hardcore trekkies don't like it, it sucks.

I think that's the first time I've ever been accused of being a hardcore Trekkie
And I hate to tell you, but when a TV show doesn't deliver on what I wanted, and does it in such a spectacular manner as ENT did, then yes, it positively sucks.

For starters, it's ugly.

Sorry, but it is.

[Metahive]

The "Qo'nos is right around the corner" thing is especially unforgivable simply because that raises the question why the Klingons, despite their portrayal as bloodthirsty barbarians with a massive technological edge and an imperialist drive didn't attack Earth as soon as they got to know about it. The episode Twilight showed that the Vulcans wouldn't have lifted a finger to help Earth fend off invaders and a military alliance with other species came only to be about three years after the first contact, plenty of time for them to put the boot on humanity.

Season 3 while delivering some fresh air had some massive shortcomings. For one the Xindi blowing their wad prematurely for no good reason just for the sake of a hamfisted 9/11 analogy and then constructing a death star lite instead of staging a bog-standard invasion which Earth would have been unable to defend itself from anyway. Blech. I also have personal problems with the whole "the more they look like us, the more morally upright they are" vibe the season gave off by making Xindi Primates and Arboreals good but misguided and Reptilians and Insectoids completely depraved and evil. Way to show your "advanced sensibilities", ENT writing staff!

That's supposed to be better than all of ST that came before it? There's no arguing about tase, but come on!

[Ryag Han]

im tired of all the astronomy nonsense. every other episode star trek had astronomical inaccuracies. the Dyson sphere, the Badlands, "full stop", and worst of the the worst Star Trek V: The Final Frontier where they go to "the galactic core''.
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier leaves you with two options:
number one, they were right and the warp drives was somehow faster in the past...
number two, they were wrong and that wasn't the galactic core. more plausible, and seriuosly, the guys from TOS had far more experience than Archer, who never went further than a few light years from Earth. not at all incredible that he might have mistaken. they do these kind of mistakes every other episode. see, problem solved. jeez.

[Metahive]

No, that's not necessary. Star Trek has a canon policy of new>old, therefore when VOY gives us an estimated traveling time of ~70 years to cross ~70000 LY then that's canon and whatever happened in TFF falls to the wayside, if you don't argue that it has been declared non-canon by Roddenberry anyway.

Also, what's with the recent influx of Trekkies with poor spelling? JasonB, Mercenario, this guy here although his joining date says 2009, what's up with that?

[Ryag Han]

so, option two then? also, Roddenberry didn't say it's non canon. he said it suck, basically. but that and voyager dose not solve the issue here. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is still pretty much canon, and the problem still holds.
also, i had stuff to do and didn't had time to log in until now, that's why even though i joined in 2009, im a noob.

[Eternal_Freedom]

How exactly does the existence of the Dyson Sphere count as an "astronomical innaccuracy?" It's a perfectly plausible idea, even though it is waaaaaay beyond anything the Federation can do.

Can you provide more exampes of this apparently incredibly pervasive astronomical idiocy? Whilst they get things wrong sometimes, it certainly is not every damn episode.

[Ryag Han]

How exactly does the existence of the Dyson Sphere count as an "astronomical innaccuracy?" It's a perfectly plausible idea, even though it is waaaaaay beyond anything the Federation can do.

Can you provide more exampes of this apparently incredibly pervasive astronomical idiocy? Whilst they get things wrong sometimes, it certainly is not every damn episode.

to add to Destructionator:
where the hell could you possibly gather all those resources? i mean...the sheer mass of such a structure would rival that of the star. you'd need to completely strip mind hundreds of solar systems, quite literally. not to mention that building it is ridiculous. even the most advance people would need hundreds of years to plan the dam thing, every last meter of it. what's the surface area of a sphere 300 km in diameter? 16,173,009,397,494,795 sq km
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708764/goofs
i don't even know what number that is, or if it even has a name...designing just 1 km of it...also, the kind of material you'd need to build it from needs to be extremely resistant. VERY resistant. say they figure out a way to move the dam thing with the star. now imagine the stress put on the structure, combined it with gravity from the sun, and you get a fucking disaster.

all that being brought into attention, the sheer cost, logistic and engineering issues make it very unworthy, even if you figure out all the problems.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Actually, a solid sphere like they portrayed in the episode isn't really plausible. There'd be huge engineering difficulties in building it and keeping it from collapsing inward, and the slightest nudge would move it off course; it'd need active maintenance to keep the sun centered inside!

There'd also be a lack of gravity inside, so living on the surface and maintaining the atmosphere is a pain. Star Trek tech can probably fix that though.


Still, the solid sphere is pretty silly from a realism standpoint. The real life Dyson Sphere isn't a solid object, but rather a huge collection of independent objects all orbiting the sun.

I have no doubt there would be huge difficulties and it would be problematic and so on. More specifically, I'm curious as to why Ryan considers it an astronomical innaccuracy, when it would more technically be megastructure engineering, or astroengineering, not astronomy. Nitpicky, I know, but I'll say it anyway.

On a more proper note. It isn't really plausible with what we know of physics and engineering at present. That's fine. But perhaps, in a million years, it will be plausible.

[Ryag Han]

Actually, a solid sphere like they portrayed in the episode isn't really plausible. There'd be huge engineering difficulties in building it and keeping it from collapsing inward, and the slightest nudge would move it off course; it'd need active maintenance to keep the sun centered inside!

There'd also be a lack of gravity inside, so living on the surface and maintaining the atmosphere is a pain. Star Trek tech can probably fix that though.


Still, the solid sphere is pretty silly from a realism standpoint. The real life Dyson Sphere isn't a solid object, but rather a huge collection of independent objects all orbiting the sun.

I have no doubt there would be huge difficulties and it would be problematic and so on. More specifically, I'm curious as to why Ryan considers it an astronomical innaccuracy, when it would more technically be megastructure engineering, or astroengineering, not astronomy. Nitpicky, I know, but I'll say it anyway.

On a more proper note. It isn't really plausible with what we know of physics and engineering at present. That's fine. But perhaps, in a million years, it will be plausible.

above post. and it's Ryag, with a 'g'.