The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Captain's of the Enterprise? How many Ships?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:23 PM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Doesn't canon trump history.
If it does, then you have to include Riker. He was captain of at least several (maybe several hundred!) parallel universe Enterprise D's and an updated Enterprise D in the STNG finale episode.
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:35 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetlescott View Post
I deeply care about Captian Archer. He is far more important than a footnote. He was noted as the greatest explorer of the 22nd century according to "In a Mirror Darkly" respectivley, if you don't care for him, it doesn't mean Star Trek sweep him under the rug. I really love Enterprise, and so do alot of other Trekkies. PEACE
I can't share that Scott.
I think it should be swept under the rug be because it shouldn't have happened. It was...a mistake.

I know how you feel but that's a show that never should have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordisaiah View Post
History was altered...unless the image of the Aircraft carrier swaps with the WWII version and the Nuclear Version and the shuttle also switches with the Virgin Galactic Enterprise.

Scary thing is, I remember reading somewhere that they were interviewing an Admiral about the retirement of the CVN-65 and asked if they were going to name another vessel Enterprise, and he said something to the effect of "Star Trek has rendered the name a joke, so no, there will never be another naval vessel named Enterprise."
Indeed. Canon says that ship never existed. So someone went back and changed time and somehow an akira design was mimiced when the early Earth somehow got a hold of Borg data of the future and decided to base his design on it and thus a whole generauion changed.

The time line has changed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:37 PM
Beetlescott's Avatar
Beetlescott Beetlescott is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRH The KING View Post
I can exclude him.

I count Federation captains only.
Yes you can exclude him. But because you exclude him doesn't mean he didn't live in the Star Trek universe.
__________________
LET'S MAKE SURE HISTORY NEVER FORGETS THE NAME ENTERPRISE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:42 PM
Beetlescott's Avatar
Beetlescott Beetlescott is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,645
Default

This is the strangest disscussion I believe I have ever heard. Fans randomly saying people in Star Trek didn't exist because they didn't like them. I don't believe there is a franchise today where so called fans argue like 10 year olds about not liking characters, or them not being in "canon" and spending a great deal of time and engery to go out of their way to make their point stick. I think it is rather sad actually.
__________________
LET'S MAKE SURE HISTORY NEVER FORGETS THE NAME ENTERPRISE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:46 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

I didn't like Archer, Scott. That has nothing to do why he didn't exist though.
C'mon Scott, don't get bent out fo shape. People argue so many mundane things.
You should hear the Naruto or Dragon Ball discussions.

Don't do that.
There is nothing inmature about the discussion. Don't pull out maturity as a blunt object because surely you too would fit under that umbrella with us all for fawning over a fiction universe.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:52 PM
Beetlescott's Avatar
Beetlescott Beetlescott is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I can't share that Scott.
I think it should be swept under the rug be because it shouldn't have happened. It was...a mistake.

I know how you feel but that's a show that never should have happened.



Indeed. Canon says that ship never existed. So someone went back and changed time and somehow an akira design was mimiced when the early Earth somehow got a hold of Borg data of the future and decided to base his design on it and thus a whole generauion changed.

The time line has changed.
It was a mistake as far as you are concerned. I respect you for your choices but you must also understand that there are as many fans who say they appreciate Enterprise. You or I cannont say or not say it. I disagree strongly that it was a mistake. I strongly appreciate that we have the past that we now have in Enterprise. I realize that we are 2 guys who really love Star Trek and we can debate back and forth about it. I shall respect how you feel abou it, but I frankly am glad to have it and to have enjoyed all 4 seasons.
__________________
LET'S MAKE SURE HISTORY NEVER FORGETS THE NAME ENTERPRISE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:52 PM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordisaiah View Post
History was altered...unless the image of the Aircraft carrier swaps with the WWII version and the Nuclear Version and the shuttle also switches with the Virgin Galactic Enterprise.

Scary thing is, I remember reading somewhere that they were interviewing an Admiral about the retirement of the CVN-65 and asked if they were going to name another vessel Enterprise, and he said something to the effect of "Star Trek has rendered the name a joke, so no, there will never be another naval vessel named Enterprise."
The United States Navy is bigger than that. They will continue to use the name, they are obliged to do so by the three famed ships that have already borne the name into glory. Considering the incredible exploits and all the battles fought by all three famous U.S. Navy Enterprises, The armed wooden Schooner of the early 1800's, The World War II aircraft carrier CV-6, and the modern Carrier CVN-65, weigh far too heavily upon history to have that great naval name be pushed away because of anything a television show could ever do. I cannot believe for one minute that the Navy would EVER do such a thing.
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-30-2008, 04:55 PM
Beetlescott's Avatar
Beetlescott Beetlescott is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 1,645
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
I didn't like Archer, Scott. That has nothing to do why he didn't exist though.
C'mon Scott, don't get bent out fo shape. People argue so many mundane things.
You should hear the Naruto or Dragon Ball discussions.

Don't do that.
There is nothing inmature about the discussion. Don't pull out maturity as a blunt object because surely you too would fit under that umbrella with us all for fawning over a fiction universe.
Saquist, I promise you that I'm not bent out of shape, it is just strange to me. I am good with it. It's all good. I love a good debate. Thank God for Star Trek, I have met some of the nicest people in the universe becasue of my love for Trek. I continue to meet great people, like you, who share in it with me. We will never agree on everything, if we did, what a boring place it would be. Now put in season One of Enterprise and chill
__________________
LET'S MAKE SURE HISTORY NEVER FORGETS THE NAME ENTERPRISE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-30-2008, 05:01 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
The United States Navy is bigger than that. They will continue to use the name, they are obliged to do so by the three famed ships that have already borne the name into glory. Considering the incredible exploits and all the battles fought by all three famous U.S. Navy Enterprises, The armed wooden Schooner of the early 1800's, The World War II aircraft carrier CV-6, and the modern Carrier CVN-65, weigh far too heavily upon history to have that great naval name be pushed away because of anything a television show could ever do. I cannot believe for one minute that the Navy would EVER do such a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beetlescott View Post
Saquist, I promise you that I'm not bent out of shape, it is just strange to me. I am good with it. It's all good. I love a good debate. Thank God for Star Trek, I have met some of the nicest people in the universe becasue of my love for Trek. I continue to meet great people, like you, who share in it with me. We will never agree on everything, if we did, what a boring place it would be. Now put in season One of Enterprise and chill
I didn't mean to assume to tell you what to do, so my appologies. I hate discord. (which is ironicly is somewhat of a conudrome for hate and discord)

What I would like to see is a corrective episode showing that time had been changed and how that would make it all more continous in canon so these sort or issues would be put to rest.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-30-2008, 05:16 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
The United States Navy is bigger than that. They will continue to use the name, they are obliged to do so by the three famed ships that have already borne the name into glory. Considering the incredible exploits and all the battles fought by all three famous U.S. Navy Enterprises, The armed wooden Schooner of the early 1800's, The World War II aircraft carrier CV-6, and the modern Carrier CVN-65, weigh far too heavily upon history to have that great naval name be pushed away because of anything a television show could ever do. I cannot believe for one minute that the Navy would EVER do such a thing.
I sincerely hope so, because I for one am comforted knowing my freedoms, (and my butt) is protected by a ship named Enterprise.
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.