ENT in XI

[Chris_Moderato]

Anyone think there might be some loose ENT ends tied up, briefly, in the new film? Some sort of nod to TGTMD, or the like? Do you want to see any references to ENT?

Personally, I'd like some background references. Nothing too obvious, nothing that really overshadows the story or even draws too much attention to itself. I know some people really hated ENT, but I'd like to see something. I just don't want it to be central, or to override the TOS story.

Thoughts?

 

[number6]

I doubt it.

 

[Eddie Roth]

What's "TGTMD"?

 

[Chris_Moderato]

The Good That Men Do. Book.

 

[Superman]

No thank you. ENT should be ignored entirely, just as GEN.

\S/

 

[seigezunt]

If they know what they are doing, and it seems they do, there will be absolutely no references to ENT and other later-day Trek failures. Not a jot. Not a scintilla. No Archer cameo. Nuttin. It was all a bad dream...

 

[Chris_Moderato]

Enterprise is worth a nod.

 

[Mr J]

Superman said:
No thank you. ENT should be ignored entirely, just as GEN.

\S/

As well as Nemesis, Insurrection, Deep Space Nine and Voyager. They won't mention anything from the the franchises waning years, and quite rightfully. Deep Space Nine marked the start of Star Trek's declining interest and so IMO the only thing other than TOS and the TOS movies that might get a reference would be TNG - the franchise's true last success.

Nothing afterward (with the possible exception of First Contact) was liked enough by the audience and that is why the ratings and box-office figures declined as they did. Nobody should expect DS9, VOY or ENT to be mentioned in any significant way.

 

[richpit]

seigezunt said:
If they know what they are doing, and it seems they do, there will be absolutely no references to ENT and other later-day Trek failures. Not a jot. Not a scintilla. No Archer cameo. Nuttin. It was all a bad dream...

Agreed. This "new" Star Trek MUST stand 100% on its own.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Chris_Moderato said:
Anyone think there might be some loose ENT ends tied up, briefly, in the new film?

No, but background references are possible.

Some idiots on another web site had a cow the other day because a TOS comic included a passing reference to something named after Jonathan Archer. People like that are the dregs and an embarrassment to whatever is left of Star Trek fandom.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

If then need something to be named something... oh, lets say a new engineering tool... I have no trouble with them calling it a "Tucker's Spanner" or whatever. But if they then put a picture of Conner Trinnear on the device and have everyone talk about how totally kewl Trip was, I think I'll barf up my popcorn right then and there!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Cary L. Brown said:
If then need something to be named something... oh, lets say a new engineering tool... I have no trouble with them calling it a "Tucker's Spanner" or whatever. But if they then put a picture of Conner Trinnear on the device and have everyone talk about how totally kewl Trip was, I think I'll barf up my popcorn right then and there!

I felt the same way when they'd fuss over the TOS characters on DS9 and "Voyager."

 

[Chris_Moderato]

UWC Defiance said:

Cary L. Brown said:
If then need something to be named something... oh, lets say a new engineering tool... I have no trouble with them calling it a "Tucker's Spanner" or whatever. But if they then put a picture of Conner Trinnear on the device and have everyone talk about how totally kewl Trip was, I think I'll barf up my popcorn right then and there!

I felt the same way when they'd fuss over the TOS characters on DS9 and "Voyager."

That's why the lack of serious TOS references on TNG never really bothered me that much. It'd be overkill and cheesy.

All I'm thinking is some passing reference to ENT, an acknowledgement. An Archer-so and so, or the "Tucker's Spanner" as you say.

Something little like that would be nice, without saying "Spock, you're a regular T'Pol, you know that? Oh, and there she is! Let's go talk to her about the Xindi." That would suck ass.

 

[Plum]

Chris_Moderato said:
Anyone think there might be some loose ENT ends tied up, briefly, in the new film? Some sort of nod to TGTMD, or the like? Do you want to see any references to ENT?

Personally, I'd like some background references. Nothing too obvious, nothing that really overshadows the story or even draws too much attention to itself. I know some people really hated ENT, but I'd like to see something. I just don't want it to be central, or to override the TOS story.

Thoughts?

Maybe Capt. Archer will come around to threaten Spock for being a liberal, back stabbing, Vulcan traitor?

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Chris_Moderato said:
Thoughts?

Please, no.

 

[scotthm]

Chris_Moderato said:
Do you want to see any references to ENT?

No, absolutely not.

---------------

 

[Kemaiku]

None whatsoever, Enterprise is over and buried, this is an Original Series film.

 

[Broccoli]

UWC Defiance said:

Chris_Moderato said:
Anyone think there might be some loose ENT ends tied up, briefly, in the new film?

No, but background references are possible.

Some idiots on another web site had a cow the other day because a TOS comic included a passing reference to something named after Jonathan Archer. People like that are the dregs and an embarrassment to whatever is left of Star Trek fandom.

If they flipped out over that...I hope they never stumble upon the Shaterverse novels.

 

[jonnyskywatcher]

I think a small reference would be okay, like a model of the NX-01, or a picture of Archer, but not actually pointing it out to the audience, just having it part of the background.

 

[Baldus885]

No, no and thrice, no. It doesn't need to "reference" anything, no homages, no tributes, just Star Trek. You start doing that, you get Janeway's nauseating appearance in Nemesis, or the thankfully dropped Quark cameo in Insurrection, which would have destroyed an already mediocre movie. They got away with the Holodoctor in FC because it was played for laughs, but these references are just not needed.

As posted above, this movie MUST stand on it's own.