ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Evolution of the series

Christopher.D.Norton.writ
er.activist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 152

Report this Sep. 09 2012, 1:07 am

I love, I mean loved the series when it was getting into the history of trek and having first meetings, with the Borg, showing those pig things we've been hearing about so much but only got a quick glimpse of before when going onto a clingon ship; but HATED, I MEAN HATED it when every episode was about war, and it seemed pro-war to me, which is anti-trek mentality, unless you go back to the cold war era thinking the network and ppl were stuck in during the 60's, but at least they were trying to comment upon it; but even if it was anti-war, I go with the director of MASH the movie, he said "that series was racist because every week it said the short brown people with the slanted eyes were the enimy" you don't bring war into people's houses every week if you want to fight war, you show peace.


 


And anyway it had nothing to do with trek or trek's origins at all; and oh come on lets fight the whale ppl then the lizard people, this isn't D&D guys

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Sep. 09 2012, 12:10 pm

I don't think it was pro-war. They were just doing what they had to to save Earth. Archer especially was bothered by what he had to do during that season.


Still, I too liked season 4 much better.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Sep. 09 2012, 10:40 pm

It wasn't pro-war.  They felt they should do something in response to what was (and still is) going on at the time.  It was done to vaguely parallel 9/11 and sending the military off to a far away place where they didn't really know who their enemies were.

Christopher.D.Norton.writ
er.activist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 152

Report this Sep. 10 2012, 3:43 am

I got that watching it, but felt there was a larger role they could have played and that was not the reason they started the show, clearly.  Star trek is already supposed to be humanist, you cannot have war in a humanist society, unless you eventually show how humanism makes you cease that war, because if you respect all people you do not think your lives are worth more than theirs so may not take their lives.  In trek they often do, but show remorse for doing to; they also violate that by saying that the attack upon us was like the near end of the world, therefore showing that they actually DID agree with going to war, but wanted that war run dif.


If you knew then what you knew now and were in power in the 60's wouldn't you juz say: hey Syria, we put that land aside for the Palestinians, but hadn't given it to them yet, so you just attacked the U.S. now give that back, now Palestinians you've a place you want to live, middle east prob. fixed, now let’s see about those boarder disputes after the war w/ Israel, let’s see if we can solve that, now okay if we still had forces in Iraq we have to ask ourselves, knowing the result would we think it worth it to occupy that area by maintaining a military presence in the middle east stationed in Saudi Arabia considering no military, only fiscal concerns of the u.s. are at interest, and by maintaining it there we were in essence declaring war in the entire middle east and occasionally kicking them when they didn't do exactly what we wanted; how long can you do that without someone trying to fight back, and if they cannot fight back militarily won't they do so the way G. Washington did against the Brits by terrorism and guerrilla tactics; and maybe we should have considered the consequences of our trying to say you've got to end your chauvinism towards women, in a very aggressive manor.


Now if after doing all of that you think, "Yes, it was completely worth it; even knowing what would happen" then we would have not reacted the way we did; and in saying we can do all that without any backlash is simply arrogance and racism to say that we are inherently superior and do not respect others rights.


That is not the same thing as responding to the possible entire destruction of earth, so you cannot say they were not just as bad as bush in some ways, so in trying so show the immorality of others, they showed far more of their own immorality than those of whom they were attacking.


Live long and prosper because it is a good day to die

Christopher.D.Norton.writ
er.activist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 152

Report this Sep. 10 2012, 3:49 am

To put the woman thing in perspective, when you go to Hawaii, do you see women walking around in grass skirts and topless, no they wear either a miniskirt and tube top, or even slacks and a shirt; because we imposed our puritanical view of sex upon them, and they respected our view and clothed themselves, imagine if they still dressed that way and when traveling in the continental U.S. they did as well and said, you cannot arrest me, because your puritanical view of sex, is both sexist and immoral and you needed to bow down to our superior morality, just because we are morally superior to you, and most native peoples are compared to modern peoples, even most advanced societies accept this; look at our reverence for the native American.


Live long and prosper because it is a good day to die

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Sep. 10 2012, 8:30 am

It was not the reason for the series, but it was the reason for the Xindi arc.  As for the fighting in season 4, they wanted to get back to showing the foundation of the Federation, and those 4 races, Human, Vulcan Andorian & Tellarite needed a mutual enemy to get them to work together.  Much of season 4 was about dropping the grudges and learning to work together, dealing with xenophobia, and other things that are very much what Star Trek is meant to be about.

Christopher.D.Norton.writ
er.activist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 152

Report this Sep. 10 2012, 9:02 am

But that makes no sense, common enemies/problems do not make lasting alliances; throughout history they have always dissipated as the common threat is eliminated


Live long and prosper because it is a good day to die

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Sep. 10 2012, 12:35 pm

Not always, but sometimes.


The Andorians, Tellarites, and Vulcans had been at each other's throats for more than a century. When the threat of the Romulan drone-ships brought them together, they realized: "Hey, we actually have a lot in common. Maybe we should stop with this pointless cold war and start working together!"


The rest, as they say, is history.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

sdt1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Sep. 15 2012, 2:28 pm

Having read and considered all points raised, which are very valid and well structured, the simple fact of the matter is this - Enterprise was loosing viewers - action sells.


 


Entirely the same reason why Kirk swing more punches than Pike in their respective pilots


Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the drug store, but that's just peanuts to space.

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Sep. 17 2012, 3:33 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Sep. 10 2012, 12:35 pm

>

>Not always, but sometimes.

>The Andorians, Tellarites, and Vulcans had been at each other's throats for more than a century. When the threat of the Romulan drone-ships brought them together, they realized: "Hey, we actually have a lot in common. Maybe we should stop with this pointless cold war and start working together!"

>The rest, as they say, is history.

>


Also consider that even though the war ended, the threat remained.  As more time passed, the tension would dissipate, but in that time they would also have been making other allies in common such as the Denobulans, who, as far as we know had not had military conflicts with any of the 4, and could have helped hold things together.  The alliance that would become the UFP started with those 4, but quickly expanded to include several other species.  You should also consider the Klingons.  They would also have a problem with several powers uniting & would cause trouble.

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 12:44 pm

Well this time period, before the Federation was filled with conflict. So I think it's reasonable that those conflicts be brought to the forefront in the series.


All the more reason for the Federation to form.


There are many, including me, that wanted to see the Romulan War, the tipping point leading to the formation of the Federation and the Neutral Zone.


I do enjoy Season 4 the most though.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 12:51 pm

Quote: Christopher.D.Norton.writer.activist @ Sep. 10 2012, 3:43 am

>

>I got that watching it, but felt there was a larger role they could have played and that was not the reason they started the show, clearly.  Star trek is already supposed to be humanist, you cannot have war in a humanist society, unless you eventually show how humanism makes you cease that war, because if you respect all people you do not think your lives are worth more than theirs so may not take their lives.  In trek they often do, but show remorse for doing to; they also violate that by saying that the attack upon us was like the near end of the world, therefore showing that they actually DID agree with going to war, but wanted that war run dif.

>If you knew then what you knew now and were in power in the 60's wouldn't you juz say: hey Syria, we put that land aside for the Palestinians, but hadn't given it to them yet, so you just attacked the U.S. now give that back, now Palestinians you've a place you want to live, middle east prob. fixed, now let’s see about those boarder disputes after the war w/ Israel, let’s see if we can solve that, now okay if we still had forces in Iraq we have to ask ourselves, knowing the result would we think it worth it to occupy that area by maintaining a military presence in the middle east stationed in Saudi Arabia considering no military, only fiscal concerns of the u.s. are at interest, and by maintaining it there we were in essence declaring war in the entire middle east and occasionally kicking them when they didn't do exactly what we wanted; how long can you do that without someone trying to fight back, and if they cannot fight back militarily won't they do so the way G. Washington did against the Brits by terrorism and guerrilla tactics; and maybe we should have considered the consequences of our trying to say you've got to end your chauvinism towards women, in a very aggressive manor.

>Now if after doing all of that you think, "Yes, it was completely worth it; even knowing what would happen" then we would have not reacted the way we did; and in saying we can do all that without any backlash is simply arrogance and racism to say that we are inherently superior and do not respect others rights.

>That is not the same thing as responding to the possible entire destruction of earth, so you cannot say they were not just as bad as bush in some ways, so in trying so show the immorality of others, they showed far more of their own immorality than those of whom they were attacking.

>


Photobucket


Photobucket


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

A.J.Dembroski

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 41

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 1:17 pm

One of my main problems with the other Star Trek series' is that they're too utopian. The episode Home, in which Archer is seeming very bitter and angry at everything he had to do and go through during Season 3 was, in my opinion, one of Archer's best moments. 


To me, Enterprise is easily the most human and believable of the series', partially because it acknowledges that simply electing to take the high road in every possible situation isn't always practical, that tough choices do have to be made. Archer makes those tough choices and displays appropriate restraint.


There were two things that bothered me; stealing the warp coil and being pretty much unwilling to attempt to talk to the Xindi until his attempt at a suicide mission to destroy the weapon failed. Late in that season, it seemed to me that Archer was "losing it" a bit. Thankfully, after the night on the mountain with Erika, he returned to normal for the most part... though wiser. 

Star Trek as a whole is very utopian, and can tend to lose me at times... there's an episode of TNG in which Starfleet asks the crew to participate in War Games for the sake of training. They all considered this unnecessary, as Enterprise isn't a warship and combat is a very small part of its mission. I found this ridiculous, almost as if the entire crew was completely in denial of the dangers they face. I found myself absolutely disgusted with the attitude of Picard. That's like saying we shouldn't have fire drills in school because setting the school on fire isn't part of it's mission.


By constrast, Archer mentions when touring the NX-02 Columbia that he had originally disagreed with having weapons on board... an attitude that Hernandez echos... but realizes now that it's necessary, and even suggests that Hernandez appoint a MACO as her tactical officer and see about having a MACO unit assigned to the Columbia. To me, this is appropriately prudent. 


Enterprise dispensed with the naive utopian side of Roddenbury's vision, but kept what truly makes Star Trek what it is.

Broadstorm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 828

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 2:54 pm

Quote: A.J.Dembroski @ Sep. 26 2012, 1:17 pm

>

>One of my main problems with the other Star Trek series' is that they're too utopian. The episode Home, in which Archer is seeming very bitter and angry at everything he had to do and go through during Season 3 was, in my opinion, one of Archer's best moments. 

>To me, Enterprise is easily the most human and believable of the series', partially because it acknowledges that simply electing to take the high road in every possible situation isn't always practical, that tough choices do have to be made. Archer makes those tough choices and displays appropriate restraint.

>There were two things that bothered me; stealing the warp coil and being pretty much unwilling to attempt to talk to the Xindi until his attempt at a suicide mission to destroy the weapon failed. Late in that season, it seemed to me that Archer was "losing it" a bit. Thankfully, after the night on the mountain with Erika, he returned to normal for the most part... though wiser. 

Star Trek as a whole is very utopian, and can tend to lose me at times... there's an episode of TNG in which Starfleet asks the crew to participate in War Games for the sake of training. They all considered this unnecessary, as Enterprise isn't a warship and combat is a very small part of its mission. I found this ridiculous, almost as if the entire crew was completely in denial of the dangers they face. I found myself absolutely disgusted with the attitude of Picard. That's like saying we shouldn't have fire drills in school because setting the school on fire isn't part of it's mission.

>By constrast, Archer mentions when touring the NX-02 Columbia that he had originally disagreed with having weapons on board... an attitude that Hernandez echos... but realizes now that it's necessary, and even suggests that Hernandez appoint a MACO as her tactical officer and see about having a MACO unit assigned to the Columbia. To me, this is appropriately prudent. 

>Enterprise dispensed with the naive utopian side of Roddenbury's vision, but kept what truly makes Star Trek what it is.

>


Well said, although I thought that stealing the warp core was a good story line.  Archer hated doing it, hated even thinking about it, but was put in a situation in which he had to do it by the numbers.  It was either strand the crew of a ship or lose his chance to save an entire world.  Even though he was very idealistic, Archer would actually do his own dirty work unlike a much less idealistic captain who outsourced his dirty work.

DS9_FOREVER!

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 200

Report this Sep. 26 2012, 4:54 pm

Quote: A.J.Dembroski @ Sep. 26 2012, 1:17 pm

>

>There were two things that bothered me; stealing the warp coil and being pretty much unwilling to attempt to talk to the Xindi until his attempt at a suicide mission to destroy the weapon failed. Late in that season, it seemed to me that Archer was "losing it" a bit. Thankfully, after the night on the mountain with Erika, he returned to normal for the most part... though wiser. 

>


Excellent points. I'll only comment on this one.


I'm glad Archer "lost it" here. It made it more real for me. Think of the weight on this guys shoulders and all they've  been though. If it all ended with some agreement in the counsil I would have been disappointed.


Now, what I think should have happened, is Phlox should have hit Archer with a hypospray and Trip should have convinced everyone to let him take the shuttle in for his sister.


I wholeheartedly agree with Archer taking what he needed to complete the mission. That said, I wish that they would have nentioned something about the folks they stole the Warp Coil from after they destroyed sphere 41. Something like "here is their transponder", please see they get the help they need to get home. It wouldn't have taken 15 second to tie this one up.


I just found this great Star Trek MB!!  photo ac1685424929087bf1b7e7e0d734f861.jpg

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum