🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <e1f2ce39.0405251854.794c0157@posting.google.com>, Charlie
Jr. <suretrade001@hotmail.com> wrote:

> i get the premise of "enterprise".
> but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way
> better
> than st:tos?

Wait... did I just time warp back to April 1st?

Eenie Meenie Chili Beanie
Charlie Jr. is about to speak:

>i get the premise of "enterprise".
>but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
>than st:tos?

More than thirty five years of technological advances?

>the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.

Higher production value budget?

>also, i don't remember there being a wormhole on st:tos.  yet,
>"enterprise" manages to have a lot of stories where ships come and go
>through wormholes.  what the hell?

Yeah, that is a puzzler.  It's almost as if someone were making this
shit up.


**
Captain Infinity
 ..."Add it up, it all spells 'DUH'." --Buffy

"Quiet Desperation" wrote ...
>
> Charlie Jr. wrote:
>
> > i get the premise of "enterprise".  but how come the special
> > effects and creature makeup of the show are way better than
> > st:tos?
>
> Wait... did I just time warp back to April 1st?

I think he's talking about it taking place a century before TOS,
so the production values should correlate with techniques used
a century earlier than 1965?  LOL!

On 25 May 2004 19:54:02 -0700, suretrade001@hotmail.com (Charlie Jr.)
wrote:

>i get the premise of "enterprise".
>but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
>than st:tos?

Because deliberately using crappy special effects and creature makeup
would be entirely stupid.

>
>the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.
>
>also, i don't remember there being a wormhole on st:tos.

There was one in the motion picture.

yet,
>"enterprise" manages to have a lot of stories where ships come and go
>through wormholes.  what the hell?

In fact they have only ever gone through one wormhole.  And there was
no indication in TNG that wormholes were a recent phenomenon peculiar
to that century.

Charlie Jr. wrote:
> i get the premise of "enterprise".
> but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
> than st:tos?
> the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.

We have better TVs. :)  :) I always laugh when I see the Futurama episode where Kim says
that our old 20t Century TV's can't even see her tattoo, and she shows it to Fry, and it
is Fuzzy to us. :)

> also, i don't remember there being a wormhole on st:tos.  yet,
> "enterprise" manages to have a lot of stories where ships come and go
> through wormholes.  what the hell?

They are in another part of the universe, not yet explored, why not have whatever seems
workable?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk ..."
    -till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
        consul@INVALIDdolphins-cove.com ((remove the INVALID to email))

rgormannospam@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in message news:<40b44270.57581053@news.telusplanet.net>...
> On 25 May 2004 19:54:02 -0700, suretrade001@hotmail.com (Charlie Jr.)
> wrote:
>
> >i get the premise of "enterprise".
> >but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
> >than st:tos?
>
> Because deliberately using crappy special effects and creature makeup
> would be entirely stupid.

Not really... some recent fan-films have shown you CAN make an
entertaining Trek episode using designs and sets consistent with the
original series.

On 25 May 2004 19:54:02 -0700, suretrade001@hotmail.com (Charlie Jr.)
wrote:

>i get the premise of "enterprise".
>but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
>than st:tos?

Special effects, prosthetics, and makeup have improved by several
orders of magnitude since the original "Star Trek" debuted in 1966.

>the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.

A miniature was used to film Kirk's Enterprise. Archer's Enterprise is
entirely a computer generated. This reduces the time and cost of
filming special effects of the starship in flight. I do believe they
could have worked a little harder to make Archer's Enterprise look
more like an early version of Kirk's ship. Instead, it looks like a
leftover design from DS9's Dominion War.

The Transporter Room on Kirk's Enterprise had room for six people to
transport at once. Archer's transporter does not seem to have its own
dedicated room and it has only a single transporter pad, as it was
intended mostly for cargo transport.

>also, i don't remember there being a wormhole on st:tos.  yet,
>"enterprise" manages to have a lot of stories where ships come and go
>through wormholes.  what the hell?

The wormholes in "Star Trek: Enterprise" seem to be unique to the
Delphic Expanse, the home of the Xindi. They may be a result of the
spherebuilders transforming the space in that area and not a natural
phenomenon, although this has not been stated. In any case, the Xindi
seem to be able to navigate via the wormholes, while the Enterprise
has only limited knowledge of them (Degra showed them one so they
could get to the Xindi Council meeting sooner, for example.) The
Enterprise seems to be travelling mostly with ordinary warp speed.

Brian

> "Wayne Brown" <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote
>
> Before the show came on the air, its creators said some of the technology
> would have to be more advanced than on TOS, because viewers wouldn't
> accept starship technology that looks more primitive than current
> technology.  For instance, many viewers have cell phones that look much
> more advanced than Kirk's communicator.

Yet the Enterprise crew _still_ has to push a button to open a door onboard
the ship, despite the fact that every freak'n grocery store in the U.S. today has
automatic doors....

On Wed, 26 May 2004 19:00:24 GMT, Steven O. <null@null.com> wrote:

>In spite of the sarcastic replies to your post, you have a valid point
>behind your query.  Of course the makeup and special effects are going
>to be better, no one in TV production land is going to return to 1960s
>production values.
>
>However, the producers really screwed up from the outset, in the sense
>that "Enterprise" could have been -- should have a been -- a show
>about the *very* beginnings of interstellar travel.

"Enterprise" was set at the right time - the era of the founding of
the United Federation of Planets, which according to various episodes
occurs in the year 2161 ("Enterprise" is currently in 2154). This is
also roughly the same period as the Earth/Romulus War discussed in
Original Trek's "Balance of Terror", 100 years before Captain Kirk. So
this is very fertile ground for Trek storytelling. A war could be
shown that leads to tentative alliances with the Vulcans, Andorians,
etc.

Unfortunately, "Enterprise's" writers have not been up to the task, to
say the least. Instead, in Season 1 and 2 we got stories that could
very easily have been told in Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star
Trek: Voyager (and in a few cases, they *were*.) We got a weird
time-travel "cold war" storyline so that the writers could bring back
gadgets and gizmos that the Trek audience was already tired of. Then
we got the 9/11-inspired Xindi storyline, which has been good enough,
but really has nothing to do with Enterprise's original premise (and
the Earth/Romulan War could have been substituted easily while still
upholding Trek continuity.)

In other words, having created a very interesting concept for the
fifth Star Trek series, the producers immediately mishandled it.

>The whole damn
>first season should have shown an entirely human crew wandering
>through space, not finding any aliens at all, and just trying to keep
>the ship from falling apart.

Um, yeah... *That's* exciting. Anyway, that doesn't work well, since
even Original Trek showed us that Earth's neighborhood of the galaxy
is teeming with intelligent life (Vulcan orbits 40 Eridani, one of the
closest stars to Earth.)

>They could have landed on a few alien
>worlds, and nearly been poisoned by unfamiliar plants, or killed by
>primitive beasts.

They wouldn't carry along a rifle? Maybe an M16?

>But Season 2 should have been the very first
>encounter ever with intelligent aliens, maybe the Klingons or the
>Vulcans.  The whole series should have built slowly....

I think it's going too slowly as it is. I really wanted to see the
Earth/Romulan War (not this out-of-the-blue Xindi story arc) and some
serious federation-building, a'la "Babylon 5".  So far, nada.

>Of course, they really screwed up earlier, in one of the Star Trek TNG
>movies (I forget which one), when they return to early 21st century
>earth, and immediately upon the launch of the first prototype
>Starship, the Vulcans happen to be in the neighborhood.  Right.

Various episodes suggest that other worlds (Vulcans, Romulans,
Bajorans) have been spacefaring much longer than Earth. So it isn't a
great stretch to think that the Vulcans were monitoring Earth from a
safe distance (that's the subject of the "Enterprise" episode "Carbon
Creek" by the way.)

>After Roddenberry died, the guys who took over creative control of
>Star Trek were totally clueless.  What a shame.

Nevermind that the 'guys who took over' gave us Deep Space Nine,
perhaps the best science fiction series of the last 25 years. And
nevermind that Roddenberry coughed up dreck like Original Trek's
"Spock's Brain" and TNG's "Justice". Nevermind that the zenith of
Trek's popularity was the 1990 TNG cliffhanger "The Best of Both
Worlds", in which Roddenberry had little to no involvement.

Brian

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:37:10 -0400, "Ed Stasiak" <estasiak@att.net>
wrote:

>Yet the Enterprise crew _still_ has to push a button to open a door onboard
>the ship, despite the fact that every freak'n grocery store in the U.S. today has
>automatic doors....

That's probably not a bad idea aboard a ship.

Brian

In spite of the sarcastic replies to your post, you have a valid point
behind your query.  Of course the makeup and special effects are going
to be better, no one in TV production land is going to return to 1960s
production values.

However, the producers really screwed up from the outset, in the sense
that "Enterprise" could have been -- should have a been -- a show
about the *very* beginnings of interstellar travel.  The whole damn
first season should have shown an entirely human crew wandering
through space, not finding any aliens at all, and just trying to keep
the ship from falling apart.  They could have landed on a few alien
worlds, and nearly been poisoned by unfamiliar plants, or killed by
primitive beasts.  But Season 2 should have been the very first
encounter ever with intelligent aliens, maybe the Klingons or the
Vulcans.  The whole series should have built slowly....

Of course, they really screwed up earlier, in one of the Star Trek TNG
movies (I forget which one), when they return to early 21st century
earth, and immediately upon the launch of the first prototype
Starship, the Vulcans happen to be in the neighborhood.  Right.

After Roddenberry died, the guys who took over creative control of
Star Trek were totally clueless.  What a shame.

Steve O.

On 25 May 2004 19:54:02 -0700, suretrade001@hotmail.com (Charlie Jr.)
wrote:

>i get the premise of "enterprise".
>but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
>than st:tos?
>
>the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.
>
>also, i don't remember there being a wormhole on st:tos.  yet,
>"enterprise" manages to have a lot of stories where ships come and go
>through wormholes.  what the hell?


Steven AATT Domain DDOOTT com
To send an e-mail, substitute @ for AATT, a . for DDOOTT, and OpComm for Domain

~consul wrote:

> We have better TVs. :)  :) I always laugh when I see the Futurama episode where Kim says
> that our old 20t Century TV's can't even see her tattoo, and she shows it to Fry, and it
> is Fuzzy to us. :)


Amy, of course.




Brian Rodenborn

Charlie Jr. <suretrade001@hotmail.com> wrote:
> i get the premise of "enterprise".
> but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
> than st:tos?
>
> the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.

Before the show came on the air, its creators said some of the technology
would have to be more advanced than on TOS, because viewers wouldn't
accept starship technology that looks more primitive than current
technology.  For instance, many viewers have cell phones that look much
more advanced than Kirk's communicator.

--
Wayne Brown  (HPCC #1104)  | "When your tail's in a crack, you improvise
fwbrown@bellsouth.net      |  if you're good enough.  Otherwise you give
                           |  your pelt to the trapper."
"e^(i*pi) = -1"  -- Euler  |           -- John Myers Myers, "Silverlock"

"Ed Stasiak" <estasiak@att.net> wrote:

>> "Wayne Brown" <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>
>> Before the show came on the air, its creators said some of the technology
>> would have to be more advanced than on TOS, because viewers wouldn't
>> accept starship technology that looks more primitive than current
>> technology.  For instance, many viewers have cell phones that look much
>> more advanced than Kirk's communicator.
>
>Yet the Enterprise crew _still_ has to push a button to open a door onboard
>the ship, despite the fact that every freak'n grocery store in the U.S. today has
>automatic doors....
>

But you don't want every door to open up automatically. What if you
are just walking by the crews quarters? Do you really want every door
to open up for everyone that walks past at any time of the day or
night? I think with the level of technology they've shown it's easy to
say that this is an intentional choice that was made.

In article <e1f2ce39.0405251854.794c0157@posting.google.com>, suretrade001@hotmail.com
says...
> i get the premise of "enterprise".
> but how come the special effects and creature makeup of the show are way better
> than st:tos?
>
> the ship and the transporter room even looks better than the one from st:tos.
>
> also, i don't remember there being a wormhole on st:tos.  yet,
> "enterprise" manages to have a lot of stories where ships come and go
> through wormholes.  what the hell?
>

ST:TOS was new and fresh back in its day. I remember it made me believe that these people
were actually running a starship. It was state of the art for 1960s science fiction.

Flash forward 40 some years. The ST concept has run through 4 modern era TV series and a
number of motion pictures. Enterprise has to be more primitive than TNG, but it also has to
look like a 21st century vintage production to be competitive on network television.

I think everyone acknowledges that fact, and can make mental adjustments to fit TOS in the
scheme of things. I think more people have issues with the rewriting of history concerning
the Vulcans, and other established ST aliens.

I would rather have seen a series about the adventures of Captain Christopher Pike and the
original Enterprise crew on the original Enterprise than this rewrite of Federation history.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:20:30 -0500, Brian Thorn <bthorn64@cox.net>
wrote:

>we got the 9/11-inspired Xindi storyline, which has been good enough,
>but really has nothing to do with Enterprise's original premise (and
>the Earth/Romulan War could have been substituted easily while still
>upholding Trek continuity.)

Not "easily".  It is not easy at all to do the Romulan War under the
constraints set by Balance of Terror.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:37:10 -0400, "Ed Stasiak" <estasiak@att.net>
wrote:

>> "Wayne Brown" <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>
>> Before the show came on the air, its creators said some of the technology
>> would have to be more advanced than on TOS, because viewers wouldn't
>> accept starship technology that looks more primitive than current
>> technology.  For instance, many viewers have cell phones that look much
>> more advanced than Kirk's communicator.
>
>Yet the Enterprise crew _still_ has to push a button to open a door onboard
>the ship, despite the fact that every freak'n grocery store in the U.S. today has
>automatic doors....

But they don't have magic automatic doors that know whether or not you
plan to walk through them when you walk up to one.  There are sound
reasons not to have all automatic doors on board a ship.

> "David Johnston" <rgormannospam@telusplanet.net> wrote
> > "Ed Stasiak" <estasiak@att.net> wrote
> >
> > Yet the Enterprise crew _still_ has to push a button to open a door onboard
> > the ship, despite the fact that every freak'n grocery store in the U.S. today has
> > automatic doors....
>
> But they don't have magic automatic doors that know whether or not you
> plan to walk through them when you walk up to one.  There are sound
> reasons not to have all automatic doors on board a ship.

My comment was made more in jest but in every season from TOS on, the
ships have had automatic doors.  Obviously the producers went with manual
doors to show that this series is set 100 some years prior to Kirk & Co.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:39:07 -0700, Al <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>
>Flash forward 40 some years. The ST concept has run through 4 modern era TV series and a
>number of motion pictures. Enterprise has to be more primitive than TNG, but it also has to
>look like a 21st century vintage production to be competitive on network television.
>
>I think everyone acknowledges that fact, and can make mental adjustments to fit TOS in the
>scheme of things. I think more people have issues with the rewriting of history concerning
>the Vulcans, and other established ST aliens.
>
>I would rather have seen a series about the adventures of Captain Christopher Pike and the
>original Enterprise crew on the original Enterprise than this rewrite of Federation history.

That wouldn't do any good.  People who labour under the misimpression
that we were ever told that Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet
would surely balk at elements of any such remake.

> "David Johnston" <rgormannospam@telusplanet.net> wrote
> > "Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@cox.net> wrote
> >
> > we got the 9/11-inspired Xindi storyline, which has been good enough,
> > but really has nothing to do with Enterprise's original premise (and
> > the Earth/Romulan War could have been substituted easily while still
> > upholding Trek continuity.)
>
> Not "easily".  It is not easy at all to do the Romulan War under the
> constraints set by Balance of Terror.

Thou I don't think Mr.Johnson is suggesting that the writers simply exchange
"Xindi" for "Romulan" while using the exact same script.

I do agree with him that they shouldn't have gone off into another part of space
and ignored the aliens that we came to know from TOS and that many of us
expected to play a major role in Enterprise.

The 9/11-inspired story line was a good idea IMO but should have been written
with the Romulans or Klingons as the bad guys, instead the producers took the
easy route by using completely new aliens so they wouldn't have make the story
fit in (and some fudging of the time line would have been ok with me) with the
later series.

> "Brian Thorn" <bthorn64@cox.net> wrote
> > "Steven O." <null@null.com> wrote
> >
> > The whole damn first season should have shown an entirely human
> > crew wandering through space, not finding any aliens at all, and just
> > trying to keep the ship from falling apart.
>
> Um, yeah... *That's* exciting. Anyway, that doesn't work well, since
> even Original Trek showed us that Earth's neighborhood of the galaxy
> is teeming with intelligent life (Vulcan orbits 40 Eridani, one of the
> closest stars to Earth.)

While I agree that we need various aliens popping up from time to time
to make it interesting, (especially the Klingons and Romulans) I do think
Enterprise should have concentrated on the exploration angle and had
more examples of human colonization efforts, maybe even some civil
war type flare-ups between colonies as everything shakes out.

Since the Federation doesn't exist yet, some time could have been spent
on showing greedy corporations exploiting colonists, colonies declaring
their independence from Earth, "first contact" situations, ect.

This would have also given them a handy excuse to have a ships company
of Marines onboard from the start (and call them Marines, not "macos" or
whatever!) to deal with away missions.

While I'm at it, I think for the interior shots of Enterprise they should have
gone with a more "submarine" look.  Narrow corridors with exposed pipes
and electrical lines throughout the ship, small rooms with the cast working
almost on top of each other, ect.

A more primitive and claustrophobic atmosphere would have been more
realistic for the first "real" human starship IMO, the freak'n bridge is almost
as big as my house!