Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grakmar wrote:WARNING: Major nerd rant following. Proceed with caution, a bit of contempt, and a dash of humor.

TOS actually can't exist in the same canon as TNG.

This is because, IRL, Space Shuttle Enterprise (which debuted in 1976) was named after the fictional Enterprise from TOS. When we see Picard's ready room in TNG, he has pictures of the various ships named Enterprise, including the space shuttle.

But, if TOS was real in the TNG-verse, then the Space Shuttle never would have been named Enterprise. So, the only way it makes sense is that if TOS was actually a fictional show in TNG, the Space Shuttle was named after it, and the times we see characters from TOS, they're just cosplayers.

I'm confused.....

There have been other ships with the enterprise name that had nothing to do with tos tho, so maybe they named it after the big E aircraft carrier .

Deathshead420 wrote:There have been other ships with the enterprise name that had nothing to do with tos tho, so maybe they named it after the big E aircraft carrier .

No, the space shuttle was named after a mail in campaign that the first human space craft be named "Enterprise." Its well known this is a direct result of the TOS as the people behind the mail campaign were all Trekkies. However it should also be noted that President Ford had served on the Aircraft carrier of the same name and thus would be more willing to go with the name than he might otherwise have been.

From Wikipedia: "A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials."

Then in the Star Trek world Ford just thought it up on his own.

Or he got it from all the British warships named Enterprise.

Yeah I don't really think its much of a problem for the canon. Klingon's radical change in appearance is bigger than that and frankly I've never really had a problem with it (you know, until Enterprise thought up some absurd explanation for it).

The flagship of Western civilisation, whatever it's form is, is always called the Enterprise.

The JJ Abrams movie proves a huge problem for the Canon. It invalidates every single other thing that is Star Trek that is not that movie!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The JJ Abrams movie proves a huge problem for the Canon. It invalidates every single other thing that is Star Trek that is not that movie!

It's an altered timeline. The next film or two is about fixing it: saving Vulkan, not having 2 Spocks etc

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Grakmar wrote:WARNING: Major nerd rant following. Proceed with caution, a bit of contempt, and a dash of humor.

TOS actually can't exist in the same canon as TNG.

This is because, IRL, Space Shuttle Enterprise (which debuted in 1976) was named after the fictional Enterprise from TOS. When we see Picard's ready room in TNG, he has pictures of the various ships named Enterprise, including the space shuttle.

But, if TOS was real in the TNG-verse, then the Space Shuttle never would have been named Enterprise. So, the only way it makes sense is that if TOS was actually a fictional show in TNG, the Space Shuttle was named after it, and the times we see characters from TOS, they're just cosplayers.

I'm confused.....

Who cares? Kirk still bangs all the green babes!

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The JJ Abrams movie proves a huge problem for the Canon. It invalidates every single other thing that is Star Trek that is not that movie!

They make it pretty clear that the film is an alternate timeline...

LordofHats wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The JJ Abrams movie proves a huge problem for the Canon. It invalidates every single other thing that is Star Trek that is not that movie!

They make it pretty clear that the film is an alternate timeline...

In an interview, JJ Abrams pretty much says that to fix the movie, they use the time-space teleporter on the ice moon....and that links up with the yeti silloutte.

So....

What @_@

The teleporter that Kirk uses to get on the Enterprise AFTER he gets kicked off. To piss off spock Jnr so that kirk got the captaincy.

I know your talking about the teleporter but how did that fix the movie and what does a yeti have to do with it and how does whatever is going on invalidate all of Star Trek? I'm pretty stingy when it comes to canon and I honestly don't see it

There's some on-set shots of the sequel of the new movie, which shows a monster on an ice world, which means they are going back there presumably. Then they have to prevent Vulcan being ripped up. I don't see it invalidating anything either.

LordofHats wrote:

Deathshead420 wrote:There have been other ships with the enterprise name that had nothing to do with tos tho, so maybe they named it after the big E aircraft carrier .

No, the space shuttle was named after a mail in campaign that the first human space craft be named "Enterprise." Its well known this is a direct result of the TOS as the people behind the mail campaign were all Trekkies. However it should also be noted that President Ford had served on the Aircraft carrier of the same name and thus would be more willing to go with the name than he might otherwise have been.

From Wikipedia: "A write-in campaign by Trekkies to President Gerald Ford asked that the orbiter be named after the Starship Enterprise, featured on the television show Star Trek. Although Ford did not mention the campaign, the president—who during World War II had served on the aircraft carrier USS Monterey (CVL-26) that served with USS Enterprise (CV-6)—said that he was "partial to the name" and overrode NASA officials."

That is one of the coolest things I have ever read.

Watched Contagion from TNG series 2 last night.
Just good old classic sci fi.

Doctadeth wrote:There's some on-set shots of the sequel of the new movie, which shows a monster on an ice world, which means they are going back there presumably. Then they have to prevent Vulcan being ripped up. I don't see it invalidating anything either.

It's an alternate time line anyway. And if previous sci-fi films teach us anything about alternate timeline it's that ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!

Well if they turn around the clock, doesn't that effectively wipe out the alternate timeline franchise? As I believe the director and primary actors are signed for two films something be amiss. Damn it Jim I'm a doctor not an alternate timeline physicist!

Right, in the words of O'Brien in TNG, "I hates temporal mechanics!"

I Know I would be quite happy if Star Trek never did another episode or movie involving time travel.

I love time travel episodes when they're done right. DS9's Past Tense is one of my favorites.

And, don't forget The Voyage Home.

Time travel episodes or movies can be really, really well-done. But, they can also be pretty terrible (see all episodes of Voyager including time travel).

It isn't a question of whether they can be well done or not, but that it seems to be a plot they fall back on to easily and to often. This is Star Trek, not Time Trek, after all. Still, City on the Edge of Forever is probably one of the best episodes, and Trials and Tribble-ations was really well done.

Grakmar wrote:And, don't forget The Voyage Home.

Time travel episodes or movies can be really, really well-done. But, they can also be pretty terrible (see all episodes of Voyager including time travel).

I actually really liked the timeship episodes. The one where Seven has to find the bomb is great. I like that they gave themselves license to say "don't worry about it, these guys cleaned it all up later" which retroactively answers the questions about every other time travel episode.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Vulcan wrote:And a Heavy Cruiser doesn't sound militant at all?

What's classed as a heavy cruiser?

The Constitution and later Enterprise class Heavy Cruisers. You know, the original starships?

Don't forget that the Excelsior was considered a Battleship.

Sure, they had extensive scientific facilities. They are still run on military lines, with extensive weaponry. They are military ships, with a strong exploration function.

This is very different than, say, the 20th-21st century U.S. Navy, with designated warships, and unarmed survey and research vessels (a la the Trieste and the TR-1).

To the OP's question: TNG, Picard, Humanity.

Sorry to depart from time travel (clearly the favored topic of page 4!), but here's some words:

I am a huge fan of TNG the series, but didn't care for the movies and have not been able to get into any of the other series. Not for lack of trying...I've watched a lot of TOS and some Voyager/DS9, but none have ever clicked with me.

To echo on what some others have voiced in part: what I love about TNG most is the progressive view of human civilization. The sci-fi genre is up to its gills in dystopic/lone-hero cliches (and has been since its inception). Amongst all that doom and gloom, TNG's message is something unique and refreshing: a vision of the future where humanity has united, embraced its best nature, and has advanced tremendously for doing so. Given his preoccupation with history, mythology, philosophy, and art--and, most importantly, the constant practical application of all that collective wisdom--Picard is the most obvious vehicle for this message.

While I believe humanity's capacity for self-improvement is the core message of TNG, it does get muddied a bit by wacky aliens, space-babes, pew-pew laser battles, holograms coming to life, way too much time travel, pointless techno-babble (Heisenberg compensators!) and other things that are undeniably cliched and mostly there "just for fun." And that's fair enough--it is entertainment. But I feel like these same elements overwhelm and bring down the other series I've seen (as well as many TNG eps and every TNG movie). The more meaningful issues appear only incidental, or a necessity of the setting, while the main focus is ACTION (!!!!) and interpersonal drama. Blech.

Not looking to start a fight here with any fans of the non-TNG series. My personal preferences are, of course, not your own. And I'm sure I could be overlooking something. I could've been too quick to judge Voyager or DS9. I would love to be wrong. Having no new TNG to look forward to is, simply put, a bummer...but if another series could inspire me in the same way TNG did, I would be ecstatic.

to Op: DS9, Ezri Dax (ha no one but i would go there), Defiant(small and yet can destroy entire fleets).

i grew up with TOS when i was a kid i would stand there an dsay the openiong line for line.

The new movie is very inbteresting and involving but i treat it as anew story line as it is divergent in everything expect names

Frazzled wrote:Well if they turn around the clock, doesn't that effectively wipe out the alternate timeline franchise? As I believe the director and primary actors are signed for two films something be amiss. Damn it Jim I'm a doctor not an alternate timeline physicist!

That's what I figure. Pretty sure those other 12 movies and like 1,000 TV shows never happened. Delete them all from your memory.