Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Cast Section 2 Footage cut from Voyager 3 Nonexistant 5th season 4 Logo 5 UPN future 6 Digital video 7 Remove "Dear Doctor" from the "Controversial episodes" section 8 Killies

Cast Section

Since I've watched maybe 40 episodes of Star Trek across the entire series, I'm not going to be the one to touch it. But I just wanted to point out that the cast section has an error; the ending of the cast section and the rest of the article has been accidentally stuffed into the Core Cast table. Arrow 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Footage cut from Voyager

In case anyone is curious what I meant in my recent edit by referring to footage cut from the -premiere of Voyager, I was referring to the footage of Genevieve Bujold as Janeway. 23skidoo 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonexistant 5th season

I remember reading an article from TrekToday concerning what Manny Coto would have wanted for Star Trek: Enterprise's 5th season.. Would that be good to insert into this article? DrWho42 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a fine addition - if nothing else could be in a trivia area if folks don't think it's worthy enough for it's own section on the page (which I think it is). Dopefish 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Logo

Why is this [1] being used on the article? I dont remember that ever being used on screen. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even remember seeing that on any TV commercials. I haven't the slightest idea. Feel free to replace it with the proper logo. 23skidoo 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I've capped it and uploaded it, however it could do with replacing as i dont have a better source to hand. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That images was from the syndication advertisements, but I suppose that the current one is somewhat more appropriate.ChunkySoup 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Just a note that if you want to see past versions of a file click the date. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the information. I updated it with a slightly sharper cap from the DVD so that there is no UPN logo. ChunkySoup 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lowers the size down to 13k . MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

UPN future

"In May 2005, UPN announced starting in the fall, WWE SmackDown!, its longtime professional wrestling series, would move into the same Friday night timeslot vacated by Enterprise, a move coinciding with reports that UPN does not plan to renew its contract with WWE in 2006, bringing to a close another TV franchise. (However, in January 2006, it was announced UPN would merge with The WB to form a new network, CW, and SmackDown! was announced as one of series scheduled for the network's inaugural 2006-2007 season.)" -I'm afraid I don't understand how this has importance to Star Trek, and should be deleted.

• • Please sign your comments. It is self-explanatory: UPN (at the time) was planning to shut down its only other long-running franchise, demonstrating that Enterprise's cancellation wasn't unique and that UPN was preparing to euthanize Smackdown the same way as Enterprise by putting it into the Friday Night death slot. However the second sentence indicated that these plans were changed when The CW was announced. It's more a reflection of the state of network politics that corresponded with the show's cancellation. 23skidoo 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Digital video

"the first Star Trek series to be produced on digital video [2]" - TNG, DS9 and Voyager were all shot on 35mm film, but the post-production was done on digital video for the majority of these series (I think the first 3 seasons or so of TNG were done on analogue video). So, should this line be removed from the article? I say yes. Davhorn 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps changed to "the first Star Trek series to be filmed using digital video [2]"? Koweja 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Changed. Davhorn 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove "Dear Doctor" from the "Controversial episodes" section

"Dear Doctor" was not a controversial episode. Every online critic loved it. Critics were constantly pointing to it and going "why aren't more episodes like this one"?--->In short, I think NPOV rules are being violated: one or two wikipedians disliked the episodes scientific basis (which was only in the backround to support the ethical point of the episode) or disagreed with it, and keep saying it "divided" fans. I was on practically every major messageboard during the run, read every critic obsessively: I saw no evidence of widespread fan polarization over this. Wikipedia is based on evidence: can anyone provide *evidence*, that this was controversial? Otherwise one or two people that didn't like it are beating a dead horse and violating NPOV. I'm formally asking for a vote or administrator arbitration to finally settle this.

"Every online critic loved it"? If you were really on every major messageboard at the time, you can't have been paying much attention. Plenty of viewers had a problem with what Phlox and Archer did. I still do -- it was unconscionable. (Or would have been if it had actually happened, anyway.) By all means take satisfaction in the fact that a lot of people agreed with you, but if that's not good enough for you... too bad. Dissenting views existed whether you like it or not. ~ CZeke 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Dear Doctor was one of the few season 1 episodes to receive widespread critical acclaim. However to say "every online critic" is an unverifiable and probably untrue statement. Take any classic episode of Star Trek (pick a series) and you could not prove that. I hate the Tribbles episode and for awhile I was an "online critic" insofar as I regularly posted reviews of ENT episodes to the TrekBBS until I gave it up. However, although I personally feel people took the episode waaaaay too seriously, the fact it was controversial is verifiable. Hell, every episode of Enterprise was controversial. It was (and remains) the Rodney Dangerfield of Star Trek ... the series that got no respect. 23skidoo 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think not every episode of ENT was controversial. Some were verifiably bad and universally reviled. Who here gave "Precious Cargo" a 10/10?  ;) But I see your point--and, IIRC, "Dear Doctor" did receive a lot of praise. In fact, even I liked the show a great deal, even though I found Archer's actions a debasement of the ideals of Star Trek and the Prime Directive. It was a moral dilemma show of the highest caliber, even though the characters got exactly the wrong answer in the end. I think the section is true, as written, in just about every respect, but the whole thing needs citations. --BCSWowbagger 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, Archer's actions were not a debasement of any Prime Directive because the entire point of the episode -- including the ultimate decision at the end -- was intended to illustrate the reason why the Prime Directive was created in the first place. One of the most-cited criticisms of the episode is Archer's rather obvious line "Maybe someday there will be a directive to help us avoid this in the future" (or something to that effect). People who criticized the episode on the basis of Prime Directive-related matters missed the entire point of the episode. There was no Prime Directive, and that's why Archer and Phlox found themselves in a Catch-22 where no one could win. 23skidoo 11:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was no Catch-22, and, if that's the reason for the PD (and yes, I did get that), then it only justifies my long-standing opinion that it's a cheap excuse to avoid acting ethically. When I say it was a debasement of the PD, I'm saying that it warped the ideal of the PD that it was prototyping (just as TNG did before it, in such ridiculous shows as "Homeward") from the very simple, and not exactly ironclad, rule that first appeared in "Bread and Circuses." But Talk pages are not discussion forums; you want to take this up at the TrekBBS?  ;) PM me; I'm known as Wowbagger there. --BCSWowbagger 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Killies

There's a whole paragraph, more or less, on the Kill Enterprise movement--a movement which existed almost exclusively within the boundaries of the StarTrek.com message boards (Sinister Six, anyone?), and which can no longer be found through a simple Google search for "Kill Enterprise", mostly because their main website, JMSTrek.org, had seven members (one of whom was me, and I was only there to keep an eye on them), existed, towards the end, almost exclusively as a reaction against the [www.TrekUnited.com TrekUnited] movement, and went totally inactive weeks before the series actually ended. So, on grounds of notability, I propose that all mention of the Kill Enterprise movement be excised from the paragraph about the future of Star Trek. --BCSWowbagger 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Wowbagger. This is exactly what I was talking about with "being unbiased by being biased." ~ CZeke 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Citation of a TJI article. I'll have to remember to file that under Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Assuming I actually exist, of course, which, IIRC, that article disputed.  :D ... Hey, waitaminute! That article said that FMES4 would be going up in 2005! *gives CZeke a ten second head start* Anyhow, ignoring my rambling, thanks for the commentary. Now I can legitimately and retroactively claim consensus. --BCSWowbagger 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)