For general discussion on this episode, visit the ENT forum at The Trek BBS.
Similar to other episodes?
- Its a common first name in this area of the galaxy. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 23:07, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Anyone know how to fix this?
Anyone know how to correct the name and associated links of the character known as "Yedrin Koss" to the name that was used in the final draft of the script, YERDRIN LEK? As far as I know, the incorrect name was circulated from an early draft of mine on StarTrek.com and afterward, the name took on a life of its own. I must've been punchy when I came up with the name -- Yedrin was a DS9 character, and Koss was the name of T'Pol's husband. Bugs me every time I see it here on the MA page, but I have no idea how to correct it. :) --Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 02:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- So... you're saying that the character currently known as Yedrin Koss was actually named Yerdrin Lek in the filming script? Just to make sure that I'm getting what you're talking about...
- If that is the case, we can move the article, and slowly update the links and whatnot to point from the redirect to the final article, making a note of the original name and the final name. -- Sulfur 02:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Enterprise had a maximum speed of Warp 1.7 when they reached Azati Prime, so how did they get back to earth in time to watch it blow up if the weapon had a headstart?
Jb2005 00:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I know it goes unexplained in the episode, but my original idea was that Enterprise followed the weapon through the vortex to Earth. In one version, we would have seen the "vortex effect" through the window in Archer's quarters in the first scene. For a variety of reasons this ponderous explanation was dropped and the final visual effects discount my idea, as the weapon shows up in Earth space after Enterprise. So how did the Big E make it to Earth? Damned if I know! --Mike Sussman - VOY/ENT Writer-Producer 03:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
"(Sussman had read a bootlegged copy of the pilot script for the re-imagined series prior to writing "Twilight")"
- What are we trying to imply here, that he stole ideas from another show that had yet to air? I'm certain that kind of accusation isn't the intent here...perhaps we could re-word this info to make it less ambiguous. 22.214.171.124 09:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed the following passage, as the mere fact that the two lines were similar is not significant unless it was done intentionally. Many lines are similar throughout Trek, but not all of them were similar on purpose.
- Tucker's line "Looks like we're going to find out how much of a pounding these new shields can take" is very similar to the line "Looks like we're going to find out how much of a pounding this ship can take", used by Sisko when the Defiant came under heavy fire in DS9: "The Way of the Warrior".--31dot 14:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Cruel joke" aside, given that the settlement would've had the scientific and technological capabilities at least of three warp-capable ships, and would've been there for 113 years, as opposed to six months, it seems at least possible that the impending cataclysm could've been detected, and steps taken to prevent it or evacuate the planet.
No clue why this is there. It's pointless. – Morder 21:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- ...suggests that the nebula may not yet exist in the mid-22nd century. Alternatively, it could mean that the nebula contains or is contained by the Mutara system (which would explain where the Genesis Planet's sun came from).
- A sphere-shaped superweapon that can destroy entire planets mirrors the Death Star battle stations from the Star Wars motion pictures.
- This episode – along with TNG: "Cause and Effect", "Yesterday's Enterprise", DS9: "The Visitor", "Visionary", "Children of Time", VOY: "Non Sequitur", "Year of Hell", "Year of Hell, Part II", "Timeless", and ENT: "E²", as well as the entirety of the Temporal Cold War arc – form a genre of episode that some fans called the "Bad Dream" or "Reset Button". In each of these episodes, a substantially altered future, or past, is presented to the audience. The drama of the episode is then derived from the characters taking some action which restores the time line entirely, such that the events originally depicted in the episode never occurred.
- Much as I agree with the decision to remove these, I'd like to point out that removing the one about the Mutara nebula has left the remainder of the sentence that you took it from incomplete and nonsensical. I'm open to suggestions about what we should do about it. IT IS GREEN 00:37, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
- Fine. I'll do it myself. IT IS GREEN 20:29, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
Anyone think the image of the 'ragtag' fleet would be a better sidebar image than Enterprise's nacelle? I think the sidebar image should sum up the episode, and I think the 'ragtag' fleet one would. Anyone agree? -- TrekFan Talk 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- Either that, or Earth blowing up. Pictures of a badly damaged Enterprise are a dime a dozen this season. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:19, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think either the image of Earth's destruction or that of the Enterprise's bridge being ripped off and crewmembers flying into space. Both of those represent this episode fairly well. --From Andoria with Love 07:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure if this should be noted. But 'logic dictates' that Archer should've been cured instantly after the first phase. As then of course those parasites erased never existed, and Phlox isn't going to target a place with no parasites, thus he would then 'for the first time' target a place where they are, which also never existed then and so on until no parasites existed. The first phase should initiate a 'while loop' that should instantly clear Archer of all parasites.
I never considered that one. Good call.
I was going to add:
"The cluster has disappeared from all the scans I've taken over the last twelve years - it's as though it never existed at all.""
If they never existed, how would they even know there were parasites there? Surely if the scans were updated to show the change, their memories would be as well– Neotechni 20:02, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
- To a certain point. The talk pages are not for the purpose of documenting nitpicks solely to document them- they should only be discussed within the context of changing the article(which is what talk pages are for).--31dot 21:53, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
Where's the Armada protecting Earth?
Did anyone else find it strange that when the Xindi attack and destroy Earth with the weapon, there are no ships in orbit or even near Earth. Yet the final scene of Storm Front, Part II (episode) sees Enterprise being greeted by an armada of Vulcan and Earth ships, presumably guarding Earth. Has the lack of said armada in this episode been explained in canon or in interviews? [Naturally this episode wouldn't be as interesting if the weapon were destroyed by the armada, and obviously it would have cost a lot to create such a battle and used up screen time, etc.] --Brumagnus 04:41, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
- As I recall, we only see the last few seconds of the battle over Earth in this episode. For all we know the "armada" was destroyed before Archer got to the bridge. Remember that the Xindi had intended a large fleet to escort the weapon to Earth. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:43, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
A very quick glance at the first minute of the episode would tell you that what we see is the superweapon coming directly out of the vortex (accompanied by two and only two Xindi ships, which, along with Enterprise veer off as it powers up) and immediately destroying Earth. Based on onscreen evidence, which seems to be what we use around here, not speculation, no such armada (from Storm Front, Part II (episode)) exists or "was destroyed," as you suggest. And I find it hard to believe that cancelling that timeline somehow created an armada of ships around Earth. So my initial question remains, has the lack of said armada in this episode been explained in canon or in interviews? I haven't been able to find anything in canon. I wonder if this nitpick, since I guess that's what it is, has been explored. Thanks for trying though, OuroborosCobra. If you have any other ideas or evidence I would like to hear it!--Brumagnus 21:53, January 22, 2011 (UTC)