More info on ENTERPRISE's new direction... (!!spoiler-thingies!!)

[ColonelHardisson]

Well here is a tidbit from the side lines.

UPN's Enterprise saw its ratings down in the first week of May sweeps by a big 39 percent in the 18-49 demographic, compared with its opening-week May performance of a year earlier, Variety reported.

I think if they don't get their act together the show is dead.

That's pretty depressing. As I've said before, though, I don't think it's all due to any real fault of the series itself. I think Trek fatigue has finally, and maybe irrevocably, set in. After nearly 40 years, 5 series, seemingly countless movies, and who knows how many books and other tie-ins, people are just tired of the franchise. It also doesn't help that many of Enterprise's episodes have been very quiet, character-driven stories. I like 'em, but there have been too many; they need more action. One of the common criticisms of Trek over the years is how talky it is.

 

[Mistwell]

I get the feeling there are a lot of ships even outside of our solar system (in Enterpise/ST fiction) because anyone with a decent bank account can have a fairly decent cargo ship and go "long hauling" from colony to colony and amoung the various species that the Vulcans have introduced us to so far.

I'd find it hard to believe that there would be more long haulers than there are Starfleet vessels. That'd be like there being more Oil tankers in present day world than there are military vessels and restricting all military vessels to our coastlines even as the oil tankers scoot all over the world. Hmm... Are there more oil tankers?

During the 1980s, the peak of US Navy capacity, the Navy pursued a 600-ship force goal as part of its maritime strategy to prepare for a global war against the Soviet Union. This goal included 238 surface combatants. With the end of the Cold War, the Navy significantly reduced its number of surface combatants from about 220 in the late 1980s to 125—115 active cruisers, destroyers, and frigates and 10 reserve frigates.

In comparison, there are currently 208,494 US registered, Recreational Yacht Owners, 52,072 Sail Boats, and 77,542 Commercial Vessels. I don't have an exact figure on number of oil tankers, but I suspect it is more than the number of Navy vessels in the US.

I'd also be willing to bet that the number of commercial space vehicles exceeds the number of government-owned space vehicles within the next 15 years. Already the number of commercial satellites far exceeds the number of government-owned ones.

 

[Mark]

During the 1980s, the peak of US Navy capacity, the Navy pursued a 600-ship force goal as part of its maritime strategy to prepare for a global war against the Soviet Union. This goal included 238 surface combatants. With the end of the Cold War, the Navy significantly reduced its number of surface combatants from about 220 in the late 1980s to 125—115 active cruisers, destroyers, and frigates and 10 reserve frigates.

In comparison, there are currently 208,494 US registered, Recreational Yacht Owners, 52,072 Sail Boats, and 77,542 Commercial Vessels. I don't have an exact figure on number of oil tankers, but I suspect it is more than the number of Navy vessels in the US.

I'd also be willing to bet that the number of commercial space vehicles exceeds the number of government-owned space vehicles within the next 15 years. Already the number of commercial satellites far exceeds the number of government-owned ones.

Thanks for the information. Pretty amazing figures. I think that disparity might be a bit different when it comes to the ST universe if only because it seems that long range haulers are outfitted (if less so) as military vessels. Still my analogy was certainly way off the mark.

 

[Umbran]

...it seems that long range haulers are outfitted (if less so) as military vessels.

I dunno if that's an accurate description. Yes, the long-haul frieghters have some small armament, but we've seen a couple of times that they aren't terribly effective. Looks more like they have some small armament to discourage casual piracy than that they are "outfitted as military vessels".

 

[Mark]

I dunno if that's an accurate description. Yes, the long-haul frieghters have some small armament, but we've seen a couple of times that they aren't terribly effective. Looks more like they have some small armament to discourage casual piracy than that they are "outfitted as military vessels".

Shall we say light military capability? There's such a wide range of cultures that can be met that it all seems very relative to a single encounter just how tough someone is. In any event, they have guns and cannons. Do most earthbound ships that travel in international waters in our time have some sort of equivalent?

 

[Black Omega]

That's pretty depressing. As I've said before, though, I don't think it's all due to any real fault of the series itself. I think Trek fatigue has finally, and maybe irrevocably, set in. After nearly 40 years, 5 series, seemingly countless movies, and who knows how many books and other tie-ins, people are just tired of the franchise.

This might be true. But it's hard to say when the series itself was so bad. A series with good action and writing might have done very well.

For the moment a break can only help though. Give people a chance to miss Star Trek then bring it back.

 

[S'mon]

Shall we say light military capability? There's such a wide range of cultures that can be met that it all seems very relative to a single encounter just how tough someone is. In any event, they have guns and cannons. Do most earthbound ships that travel in international waters in our time have some sort of equivalent?

Cargo ships don't generally carry armament other than possibly small arms that can be used against boarders, and that probably only a minority. Very few carry 20mm cannon or heavier. There are a few exceptions such as some nuclear fuel transports which are relatively heavily armed. Judging by Enterprise, Starfleet seems totally incapable of protecting merchant vessels even on standard routes so of course they need to be armed as a deterrent.

One thing I've noticed about Trek is that there appears to be no such thing within human space as a shipping consortium, only individually owned vessels & miltary/starfleet, indeed by the time of STTNG from what I've seen there don't seem to be any privately owned ships except a few lone rogues.

 

[Umbran]

Do most earthbound ships that travel in international waters in our time have some sort of equivalent?

No, but that raises the question of whether the oceans of Earth in 2003 are as apt an analogy as we can get. We've got a situation where distances are large compared to the speeds of ships. Policing and governance between shipping stops is mostly non-esixtant.

We might liken this to the high seas of the 1700s and 1800s, but even then cargo ships didn't carry anything notable in terms of ship-to-ship weaponry. But only because cannon were heavy. Put enough cannon on a cargo vessel of the time, and you'd keep her from carrying cargo. In Star Trek, the limitations aren't the size of the weapons, but simply on how powerful they are...

Which brings us perhaps to a more apt analogy - America, west of the Mississippi, in the 1800's. Where yes, most "shipping" (by train and wagon) was done armed - armed almost as well as the military of the day.

Originally posted by Black Omega
This might be true. But it's hard to say when the series itself was so bad. A series with good action and writing might have done very well.

Maybe yes, or maybe no. Perhaps we should put the issue of quality aside for the moment. You have one idea as to what TV quality is. I have another idea. The production people for Enterprise have a third idea (and they have had three shows that each ran for seven seasons, which is no mean feat, and we shouldnt discount them as clueless merely because we are unsatisfied with their current offering). Everybody's got an idea as to what's quality, but nobody knows.

Or, alternatively, perhaps quality has far less to do with the success of a show than we'd like to think. I'm told that fewer than half of all new shows make it through their second season. That's pretty nasty competition. When the odds of surviving get that low, you start wondering if the major powers behind survival are something other than simple "fitness".

It seems to me that television these days is something like the toy business. Making a "quality" toy - sturdy, entertaining, educational - isn't all that difficult. The principles are well known. But, to be called a "success", your toy needs to be better than quality. It's gotta be a Cabbage Patch Kid, a Beanie Baby, or a Pokemon. And nobody's ever been able to predict what will be the next "hit" of the toy business.