I shouldn't tempt fate here...

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2004-06-02 12:50am

evilcat4000 wrote:
Howedar wrote:Moreover even the weakest ST torpedo detonations were rather larger than a few dozen tons of TNT.
The First Contact Borg sphere torpedoes were even weaker. They were a few kilogram yield at best.

OF course, then there is ST:V. One might argue they didn't want to hurt Kirk, but in general, variable yield weapons don't have settings marked "0.00001% of total yield."

Jaepheth · Post by **Jaepheth** » 2004-06-02 04:08am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
evilcat4000 wrote:
Howedar wrote:Moreover even the weakest ST torpedo detonations were rather larger than a few dozen tons of TNT.
The First Contact Borg sphere torpedoes were even weaker. They were a few kilogram yield at best.
OF course, then there is ST:V. One might argue they didn't want to hurt Kirk, but in general, variable yield weapons don't have settings marked "0.00001% of total yield."

Maybe all Star Trek weapons are locked onto that setting on a trial basis until they register. Then they can utilize the weapon's full functionality of awesome destructive power!

Murazor · Post by **Murazor** » 2004-06-02 04:53am

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:OF course, then there is ST:V. One might argue they didn't want to hurt Kirk, but in general, variable yield weapons don't have settings marked "0.00001% of total yield."

With the exception of the Naboo fighters main guns, that is.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-02 10:46am

Murazor wrote:
Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:OF course, then there is ST:V. One might argue they didn't want to hurt Kirk, but in general, variable yield weapons don't have settings marked "0.00001% of total yield."
With the exception of the Naboo fighters main guns, that is.

Or the DS2's main superlaser, unless you believe those Rebel cruisers took planet-killing blasts. However, that's beside the point: I don't recall anyone in TOS or the movie era even describing variable yields on photorps of that era, and yields certainly weren't specified in this case.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-06-02 11:41am

Darth Wong wrote: I don't recall anyone in TOS or the movie era even describing variable yields on photorps of that era, and yields certainly weren't specified in this case.

I think there was something about a full power torp in the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer". So why say it's a full power torp if there is no other yields?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-02 12:54pm

Lord Revan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I don't recall anyone in TOS or the movie era even describing variable yields on photorps of that era, and yields certainly weren't specified in this case.
I think there was something about a full power torp in the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer". So why say it's a full power torp if there is no other yields?

1) Provide the quote.
2) Even if there are variable yields, that hardly means the default yield must be 0.00001%.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-06-02 01:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:
Lord Revan wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: I don't recall anyone in TOS or the movie era even describing variable yields on photorps of that era, and yields certainly weren't specified in this case.
I think there was something about a full power torp in the TOS episode "The Ultimate Computer". So why say it's a full power torp if there is no other yields?
1) Provide the quote.
2) Even if there are variable yields, that hardly means the default yield must be 0.00001%.

I'm dunno about the TOS episode.
However it's mentioned in Enterprise that Photonic torpedoes have a variable yield.
That's pre TOS era.

Enterprise - The Expanse
Reed:
Photonic torpedoes. Their range is over fifty times greater
than our conventional torpedoes. And they have a variable yield.

Darth Wong wrote: 2) Even if there are variable yields, that hardly means the default yield must be 0.00001%.

I agree, it seems unlikely.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-06-02 01:50pm

Darth Wong wrote: 1) Provide the quote.
2) Even if there are variable yields, that hardly means the default yield must be 0.00001%.

1) Can't for TOS since I heard of it only second hand (never seen the episode myself), but in ENT " Expanse" Reed says Enterprise's new photon(ic) torps have variable yields.
2) true I think that the default yield is 100% with yields above that being available only with a cost in accuracy of torp. (replace targeting sensor(s) with anti-matter.)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-02 02:15pm

Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-02 02:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.

Neither does Picard, who's collection includes the US carrier.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2004-06-02 03:00pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.
Neither does Picard, who's collection includes the US carrier.

Wait for TNG SE.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-06-02 05:16pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.

At the end of the day, that's simply to do with the fact it was produced 35 years before Enterprise. Are we to believe Starfleet went back to shitty computers operated by big switches etc etc (when of course it is simply production of the 60's Vs Now)

I think that's a real cop out argument, that I see alot of you around here attribute to Trek... "Enterprise is never mentioned in any of the other series so it must have been insignificant"- well, at the end of the day, I can just suspend disbelief a little further and accept that Enterprise wasnt a show then, so they couldnt have mentioned it. But then again I must take into consideration that many of you are not willing to bend canon whatsoever for 'real world' reasons.

Luzifer's right hand · Post by **Luzifer's right hand** » 2004-06-02 05:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.

I would prefer Roddenberry's "It isn’t Star Trek until I say it’s Star Trek" canon myself. But alas Paramount owns the franchise.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-06-02 05:29pm

Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.

After inflicting abuse on myself by watching Regeneration, I can say it's as canon as Yesterday's Enterprise: A parallel timeline generated by the idiotics of those commanding an Enterprise. Of course it doesn't explain the rest of the bullshit, but it's best to just walk away at that stage and not try. It hurts too painfully.

Especially the BS from the verrrrry end of the last season finale.

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-06-02 05:31pm

Jon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.
At the end of the day, that's simply to do with the fact it was produced 35 years before Enterprise. Are we to believe Starfleet went back to shitty computers operated by big switches etc etc (when of course it is simply production of the 60's Vs Now)

I think that's a real cop out argument, that I see alot of you around here attribute to Trek... "Enterprise is never mentioned in any of the other series so it must have been insignificant"- well, at the end of the day, I can just suspend disbelief a little further and accept that Enterprise wasnt a show then, so they couldnt have mentioned it. But then again I must take into consideration that many of you are not willing to bend canon whatsoever for 'real world' reasons.

Well, all of that, plus the fact that the show beat Voyager's old record, completely disregarding all we know of science and the real world in the pilot itself, rather than waiting for the episode following.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-06-02 05:37pm

I assure you consequences I am not defending that hunk of shit, so don't worry

Just noting that 'reverse continuity' is unavoidable- there was no NX Enterprise in the cabinet because there was no show called Enterprise then.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-02 05:41pm

Jon wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Frankly, I don't see why "Enterprise" is considered canon at all. That's a whole lot of shit happening to be totally forgotten by Kirk's time. He doesn't even have a replica of this ground-breaking super-important ship in his gallery of past ships named Enterprise.
At the end of the day, that's simply to do with the fact it was produced 35 years before Enterprise.

...which was known when they started producing Enterprise and could easily have been avoided by calling the ship something else.
NTM that in STTMP, there was a gallery of previous Enterprises going all the way back to sailing age vessels, and guess which one wasn't there?

I think that's a real cop out argument, that I see alot of you around here attribute to Trek... "Enterprise is never mentioned in any of the other series so it must have been insignificant"- well, at the end of the day, I can just suspend disbelief a little further and accept that Enterprise wasnt a show then, so they couldnt have mentioned it.

And the fact that it was never mentioned was known when they started producing Enterprise and could easily have been compensated for by avoiding situations that would have been inevitable to be mentioned (but weren't) in TOS/TNG+, leave alone clearly CONTRADICT the older series.

But then again I must take into consideration that many of you are not willing to bend canon whatsoever for 'real world' reasons.

Perhaps you should take into consideration that ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WITH ENT NEVER BEING MENTIONED BEFORE WERE WELL KNOWN WHEN THEY STARTED PRODUCING IT, YET B&B DID JACK SHIT TO DEAL WITH IT?

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2004-06-02 05:44pm

Jon wrote:I assure you consequences I am not defending that hunk of shit, so don't worry Just noting that 'reverse continuity' is unavoidable- there was no NX Enterprise in the cabinet because there was no show called Enterprise then.

No he's asking how did Kirk's time(something you have to consider for SoD to work) did they forget everything they did in Archer's time.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-02 05:44pm

Jon wrote:I assure you consequences I am not defending that hunk of shit, so don't worry Just noting that 'reverse continuity' is unavoidable- there was no NX Enterprise in the cabinet because there was no show called Enterprise then.

Wrong. Since continuity up to that point was well known when Enterprise started, avoiding 'reverse continuity' problems was child's play-name the ship s.th. else.[/b]

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-06-02 05:45pm

I won't argue with you, I agree completely, I hate those fuckers too, but the fact remains, they did call it Enterprise, they did it... they're wankers... I hate the series as much as them,bah- my post might have seemed defensive but it wasn't, I refute it, fuck them. lol.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-06-02 05:46pm

Batman wrote:
Jon wrote:I assure you consequences I am not defending that hunk of shit, so don't worry Just noting that 'reverse continuity' is unavoidable- there was no NX Enterprise in the cabinet because there was no show called Enterprise then.
Wrong. Since continuity up to that point was well known when Enterprise started, avoiding 'reverse continuity' problems was child's play-name the ship s.th. else.[/b]

As per my last post, it doesnt matter, the tossers did it so we 'have to deal with the consequences'.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-06-02 05:51pm

Jon wrote: As per my last post, it doesnt matter, the tossers did it so we 'have to deal with the consequences'.

Unfortunately, yes we do. I personally do so by ignoring ENT thanks to the fact that the NX does not show up in any of the Enterprise 'ancestor's galleries' shown thoughout the earlier series'.
What we DON'T have to do is cut B&B/Paramount any slack because of 'real world reasons', because there weren't any.

DaveJB · Post by **DaveJB** » 2004-06-02 06:01pm

What confuses me is that we saw a pre-E-Nil Enterprise in the TMP gallery - why couldn't the producers have just made the NX-01 that design?

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-02 07:25pm

Ghost Rider wrote:No he's asking how did Kirk's time(something you have to consider for SoD to work) did they forget everything they did in Archer's time.

To be honest, expecting TOS and TNG to mention stuff that hasn't been written yet, even if it is set in the "past" in the series is kind of unreasonable. Suspension of belief or not, the people who make the show aren't psychic. However, what is unreasonable is that the writers of new material should refer to old material to make sure it's consistant. That's Enterprise's main problem, that they didn't bother when they made the series.

If we want to suspend disbelief, the best option in my opinion is the "Superman" ie, if the series are inconsistant with each other, they are set on parallel Earths. This gives the option of blowing up those series.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-02 09:53pm

DaveJB wrote:What confuses me is that we saw a pre-E-Nil Enterprise in the TMP gallery - why couldn't the producers have just made the NX-01 that design?

Because they obviously don't give a shit. And that's the crux of the matter; if they are so cavalier about consistency, how can we say "canon" with a straight face knowing that material like this is thrown into it?

I say that either there is Star Trek "canon" in which this careless bullshit is not counted, or there is no "canon" at all because "canon" means gospel and the Trek writers do not treat it that way when creating new material.