What is the current philosopohy of canon?

[MAGolding]

For instance: Star Trek never unambiguously established its calendar date until the end of TNG's first season.

Star Trek never ever unambiguously established its calendar date. Not in all the years from 1964 to 2018, and maybe not for many years into the future. Maybe Star Trek never will.

I used Search Star Trek scripts for BC. Relevant examples included:

"Requiem for Methuselah"

SPOCK: We have still a greater mystery, Captain. I was able to run a tricorder scan on Mister Flint. He is human, but there are certain biophysical peculiarities. Some body function readings are disproportionate. For one thing, extreme age is indicated on the order of six thousand years.

SPOCK: You were born?
FLINT: In that region of earth later called Mesopotamia, in the year 3834 BC, as the millennia are reckoned. I was Akharin, a soldier, a bully and a fool. I fell in battle, pierced to the heart and did not die.

That should put TOS in approximately AD 1166 to 3166, if Flint was correct about his birth year.

In Voyager "11:59", characters discuss the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

SEVEN: The Lighthouse of Alexandria built by Ptolemy the Second in 280 BC.

The Pharos of Alexandria was built between 280 and 243 BC, so I guess we can count that as accurate.

I also searched for AD.

In "The Big Goodbye" when Picard runs the Dixon Hill program.

COMPUTER: Time period?
PICARD: 1941, A.D.

And:

DATA: Computer: request all biographical information on fictional character Dixon Hill.
COMPUTER: Working. Character first appeared in pulp magazine, Amazing Detective Stories, copyright 1934, AD. Second appearance in novel The Long Dark Tunnel, copyright 1936.

In "The Royale", they find the corpse of Colonel Richey.

DATA: He has been dead for two hundred and eighty three years, sir. The lack of any advanced decomposition is due to the sterile environment.

They see the flag on Richey's spacesuit.

DATA: Fifty two stars sir. Places it between 2033 and 2079 AD. It correlates with the debris we found. Colonel S. Richey. Rest in peace, Colonel.

The diary of Colonel Richey says:

RIKER: And for the last thirty eight years I have survived here.

So if Richey left Earth between AD 2033.0 and 2080.0, and was instantly transported to the Royale, and died 38.0 to 39.0 years after, and his body was found 238.0 to 239.0 years later, the date of "The Royale" would between. AD 2309.0 and AD 2358. That is assuming that Richey did not spend days, months, years, decades, or centuries in suspended animation and that he died immediately after writing his diary entry, of course.

The launch of Colonel Richey's ship is dated.

PICARD [OC]: Which had a terrestrial launch date of July 23rd, 2037.

If 2037 in the calendar Picard used was between AD 2033 and 2079, the year one in that calendar was between 4 BC and AD 42, and there are several likely years in that range to count from. If 2037 was AD July 23, 2037, it would be approximately AD 2037.556. So "The Royalle" would be approximately in the period AD 2313.556 to 2315.556. That is assuming that Richey did not spend days, months, years, decades, or centuries in suspended animation and that he died immediately after writing his diary entry, of course.

In "Manhunt".

PICARD: Setting, San Francisco California, United States Of America. The year, 1945 A.D. The office of Dixon Hill, Private Investigator.

These are the only dates given in AD or BC, except possibly for dates in the Kelvin universe movies and in Star Trek Discovery. All other dates - seemingly hundreds of other dates - are given in unspecified clan calendars and thus could be in several different calendars. And it seems very certain that they were given in several different calendars despite the creators intending that they were all in the same calendar.

Of course it is proper to say AD 2018 instead of 2018 AD, so a Star Trek chronologist could suggest that dates with the year followed by AD might not be in the Gregorian calendar but a different one.

To be continued:

 

[MAGolding]

Continued:

For instance: Star Trek never unambiguously established its calendar date until the end of TNG's first season. TOS references had suggested it was 200 or so years in the future, and the movies had established that it was in the 23rd century, but the precise date was unclear and references were conflicting.

The opening credits of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan say:

OPENING CREDITS

IN THE 23RD CENTURY...

The 23rd century would formally and officially last from AD 2201 to 2300. And it is possible that the events of WOK do happen in the 23rd century between AD 2201 to 2300. But it is possible that "in the 23rd century" refers to the fictional date of the Kobayashi Maru simulation, set in a hypothetical future where Saavik is the captain, which could be as much as 40 years in the future of the main events of WOK. Thus it is possible that the simulation is supposed to be in 2201 to 2300, and that WOK actually happens in 2161 to 2290, a date range that is only partially in the 23rd century, with "Space Seed" happening sometime between 2145 and 2275.

If WOK does happen sometime between AD 2201 and 2300, "Space Seed" would happen sometime between 2185 and 2285, and so might still happen before the 23rd century.

Some versions of Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home open with:

Captain's log, stardate 8031 in the twenty-third century. As commanding officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise, I look back on our most recent adventure and realise I could not have asked for a more dependable ship or dedicated crew. Chekov, Doctor McCoy, Uhura, Scotty, Sulu, and our late comrade, Spock, whose heroic sacrifice in our last mission is now deeply felt. Our ship and our lives have been endangered by an experimental project called Genesis designed to bring new life to barren moons. We sent Spock's body there to rest in peace.

Others open with:

"The cast and crew of Star Trek wish to dedicate this film to the men and women of the spaceship Challenger whose courageous spirit shall live to the twenty-third century and beyond...."

OPENING CREDITS

They later travel to the second half of the 20th century (1951-2000) in their calendar, which is not necessarily our calendar.

When they discuss re crystallising dilithium crystals:

SCOTT: Sorry, sir. We can't even do that in the twenty-third century.

So the year they came from should be between 2201 and 2300 in the calendar used in the year they come from, which might not be our calendar. So (2201 to 2300) minus (1951 to 2000) makes a difference of 201 to 349 years.

Kirk tells Gillian:

KIRK: Ha, ha, ha... Okay, the truth. ...I am from what, on your calendar, would be the late twenty-third century. I've come back in time ...to bring two humpback whales with me in an attempt to ...repopulate the species.

If Kirk comes from a year between 2201 and 2300 in his calendar, that is also between 2251 and 2300 in what Kirk thinks is Gillian's calendar, then the year one in Gillian's calendar should be between 99 years before the year one in Kirk's calendar and 49 years after year the one in Kirk's calendar.

Back in Kirk's era, Gillian says:

GILLIAN: You're going to your ship. I'm going to mine. Science vessel. I've got three hundred years of catch-up learning to do.

If Gillian's 300 years might be 250 to 350 years, or 200 to 400 years, that would fit in quite well with the 201 to 349 years calculated above for the time difference.

So there were two schools of thought in fandom and tie-in literature about when TOS took place. Some tie-in writers and fans put it in the first decade of the 23rd century (the closest they could get to the "200 years" references in season 1), while others put it in the 2260s, exactly 300 years ahead of when it was made. At the time, I was a proponent of the 2200s theory, because I based my personal version of the chronology on a fanzine article that used that theory (I later found it was based on the Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology published in 1980).

Back in the 1980s, I was aware of several different competing chronologies.

I myself worked out an unpublished chronology that put TOS sometime in the period of 2156 to 2196 if I remember correctly.

The Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology (1980) put TMP in 2215 if I remember correctly, which would put TOS about 2210.

The FASA games were said to use a similar chronology, putting TOS in 2207-2212, TMP in 2217, WOK in 2222, etc.

William Rotsler's Star Trek II Biographies put WOK in 2222, thus putting "Space Seed" in 2207.

Star Trek: An Analysis of a Phenomenon in Science Fiction (1968) had a timeline that put TOS in the 2250s, if I remember correctly.

Works in Star Trek technical fandom, such as Starfleet Medical Reference Manual (1977) and Star Trek Maps (1980), etc., etc., put TOS in the early, repeat early 2260s, and thus less, repeat less, than 300 years after TOS was originally broadcast.

As far as I remember, I never noticed any chronology back in the 1980s that dated TOS to 2266-2269, 300 years after it was originally broadcast. If you know of any chronology from the 1980s that dated TOS to 2266-2269, 300 years after it was originally broadcast, let us know about it.

But then TNG aired "The Neutral Zone" and said the date of the episode was 2364. And we'd seen at the start of the season that Admiral McCoy was 137, so he wouldn't even have been born yet in the 2200s. So that one throwaway line in one episode required me to rewrite my entire personal chronology (in pencil and paper) and add 60 years to all the dates. I had to do that many times in the years that followed, reworking my interpretation of the Trek universe to fit the new information that the shows kept revealing. An active canon is a work in progress, always expanding and changing how you see it. Only a completed canon, one that has no new stories being told, can be expected to remain constant.

Publicity materials said that TNG would be in the 24th century, and thus sometime between 2301 and 2400 in the calendar used.

In "Encounter At Farpoint":

DATA: No, sir. Starfleet class of '78. Honours in probability mechanics and exobiology.

In "Datalore":

DATA: I was discovered twenty six years ago.

Assuming that Data graduated from Starfleet Academy 0.0 years after being found, in year __78.0 to __79.0, and that was 26.0 to 27.0 years before "Datalore", "Datalore must happen between __04.0 and __06.0 in the next century after being found, according to the calendar in which Data graduated in __78.

In "Datalore" Data says how long it took him to become a lieutenant commander:

DATA: If you get one the way I did, Lore, it will mean four years at the Academy, another three as ensign, ten or twelve on varied space duty in the lieutenant grades.

So Data became a lieutenant commander about 13.0 to 17.0 years after graduating in __78.0 to __79.0, and thus in the period from __91.0 to __96.0 of the century he graduated in, according to the calendar in which Data graduated in __78. Thus "Datalore" could happen sometime between __91.0 and the end of the century he graduated in, according to the calendar in which Data graduated in __78.

So if the first season of TNG happens in the 24th century of the calendar that Data used in "Encounter At Farpoint" it should happen either in the period 2301.0 to 2306.0 or the period 2391.0 to 2400.99, according to the calendar in which Data graduated in __78.

In "The Neutral Zone" Data told Ralph Offenhouse:

DATA: By your calendar two thousand three hundred sixty four.

So according to Ralph Offenhouse's calendar from centuries earlier, the year would be between 2364.0 and 2364.99. If "The Neutral Zone" happens in the period 2301.0 to 2306.0 in the calendar from "Encounter At Farpoint" that calendar would have a year one 58.0 to 63.99 years after the year one in Ralph Offenhouse's calendar. If "The Neutral Zone" happens in the period 2391.0 to 2400.99 in the calendar from "Encounter At Farpoint" that calendar would have a year one 26.01 to 36.99 years before the year one in Ralph Offenhouse's calendar.

So even if Data did not say that Ralph Offenhouse used a different calendar, it is clearly impossible for the "Encounter At Farpoint" calendar and Ralph Offenhouse's calendar to have the same year one.

Picard tells the unconscious Clare Raymond:

PICARD: Welcome to the twenty fourth century.

And tells Ralph Offenhouse:

PICARD: This is the twenty fourth century. Material needs no longer exist.

So according to the calendar that Picard used in "The Neutral Zone", the year would be sometime between 2301.0 and 2400.99. So the year zero in Picard's calendar could be from 36.99 years before the year zero in Ralph Offenhouse's calendar to 63.99 years after the year zero in Ralph Offenhouse's calendar.

In later seasons the dates used were more and more consistent with Ralph Offenhouse's calendar until almost every single date in later shows and movies was probably intended to be a date in Ralph Offenhouse's calendar.

So the makers of TNG probably thought that they retconning the series and showing that all dates had always been given in Ralph Offenhouse's calendar. But what they actually did was show Starfleet officers aboard the Enterprise changing the calendar and year count they used, presumably because the United Earth Government had adopted a new official calendar.

I always assumed that when the three undead returned to Earth they became celebrities in whatever TNG media corresponds to TV and the internet, and the millions of people who wanted to make Ralph Offenhouse's calendar the official Earth calendar took advantage of that and lobbied hard for it, and so the United Earth government made the calendar that had been used when Ralph, Clare, and Sonny were previously alive the new official Earth calendar, to make them feel more at home.

And after seeing a change in Earth calendar happen in TNG I went back and looked at TOS and found that characters used several different calendars in TOS.

That assumes that things remain constant. As I said, the only way things will remain constant is if the story is over, if no new information is being added by new stories. As long as new stories are being told, that's going to change your perception of the universe. The Wrath of Khan changed our perception of Kirk by making him a father. TNG changed an ambiguous future time frame to an unambiguous one.

No, as I have shown above, TNG kept the future time frame ambiguous because there is no proof that any calendar used in TNG is our Gregorian calendar.

DS9 retconned the Ferengi from a lame military threat to a bunch of comedy capitalists

No, the Ferenghi were not a lame military threat in the first place. "The Battle" showed that a Ferengi ship was a formidable threat to a starship, and "Rascals" showed that Ferengi plotters could somehow manage to capture the Enterprise using two old Klingon birds of prey. Of course Ferengi who served on warships were unusual Ferengi, just as starship crews were unusual Humans, etc. DS9 showed a small group of Ferengi living on DS9 outside Ferengi space and society, and a small group of visitors from Ferenginar, neither group being very representative of Ferengi society as a whole, which no doubt is very greedy and capitalistic, but possibly to a significantly greater or lesser degree than the unusual Ferengi in DS9 are.

ENT retconned Kirk's Enterprise from the first starship of its name to the second, and radically altered our perception of Vulcan history.

Whenever "Remember Me" is viewed:

CRUSHER: That sounds about right. Computer, is there more than one USS Enterprise?
COMPUTER: This vessel is the fifth starship to bear the name USS Enterprise. It is currently the only one in service.

And whenever "Trials and Tribble-ations" is viewed:

DULMUR: Be specific, Captain. Which Enterprise? There've been five.
LUCSLY: Six.
SISKO: This was the first Enterprise. Constitution class.

So people constantly continue to be reminded that there have been only six United Federation of Planets Starfleet starships named Enterprise: 1) NCC-1701, 2) NCC-1701-A, 3) NCC-1701-B, 4) NCC-1701-C, 5) NCC-1701-D, and 6) NCC-1701-E, up until the era of the TNG movies.

The Enterprise NX-01 is an Earth Starfleet starship, not a United Federation of Planets Starfleet starship. Counting NX-01 as the first starship Enterprise is like counting apples and oranges together as fruit. One might almost as well count the Enterprise XCV 330, the space shuttle, and all the sailing ships named Enterprise.

Even without contradiction, the information added in new stories alters the context of the things we think we know, and that can require us to change some of the assumptions we've made.

Tie-ins are speculative stories based on the knowledge and assumptions that their writers have about canon at the time. They're best guesses based on what we know. Tie-in authors like me can't predict what new ideas future writers of canon will come up with. So often the canonical stories that get told later on will contradict our guesses. So even if the books we wrote were consistent with the continuity that existed at the time (as they're required to be by the studio), they can still be contradicted by new continuity that's added later. An active continuity is always growing and changing.

That is true.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Increasingly, I'm leaning toward this attitude. The producers quit worrying about story, character, and even continuity, seemingly the easiest of the three to accomplish. And they wonder why they kept losing audience.

I don't believe continuity is why they lost audience, I believe it's because they stuck to the same basic formula they established in 1987 until cancellation in 2005 while the rest of television had long since moved on. That, and some incredibly weak episodes especially in the first two seasons of ENT.

I don't mind them changing things to suit their story, but I think they're doing themselves and their fan base a HUGE disservice by pretending everything fits perfectly in a world where the 100-years-advanced USS Voyager didn't have holographic emitters outside of sickbay.

A little off topic, but I know the CBS people say that Discovery did great. Anyone know how they're measuring success? Certainly not raw numbers. I'm guessing it' measured in All Access signups.

That, social media scores and Netflix sign-ups outside the US (which went up by something like 5 million when Discovery made it's debut)

Why shouldn't we? Why should we all want to pretend it's still 1964? If Gene were making Star Trek for the first time now, it would look a hell of a lot more like Discovery than TOS.

No issue with them updating. But I have an issue with swapping something out for something entirely different (see: D-7, Klingons being bald because their ridges are sensory organs) and telling us nothing has changed. That's having one's intelligence insulted. It's clearly as much a part of TOS' world as Gotham is The Dark Knight's.

I'm perfectly capable of suspending my disbelief enough to a) enjoy the show, and b) accept that it all takes place in one universe or timeline. This isn't a dig at you in particular, King Daniel, but I'm really beginning to get irritated by people who won't stop bleating on about how it can't be the same because the walls don't wobble when you hit them, or because no one has pointy sideburns. Times change, technology moves on. Move on with it, for god's sake.

It's not about the walls wobbling. It's story-breaking, intelligence-insulting insistence everything fits perfectly when they're deliberately changing everything far and beyond any necessary visual update.

And this from someone who enjoyed Discovery just fine - but as a show that's as much a prequel to TOS as Smallville was to Superman (1978).

 

[cultcross]

So people constantly continue to be reminded that there have been only six United Federation of Planets Starfleet starships named Enterprise: 1) NCC-1701, 2) NCC-1701-A, 3) NCC-1701-B, 4) NCC-1701-C, 5) NCC-1701-D, and 6) NCC-1701-E, up until the era of the TNG movies.

The Enterprise NX-01 is an Earth Starfleet starship, not a United Federation of Planets Starfleet starship. Counting NX-01 as the first starship Enterprise is like counting apples and oranges together as fruit. One might almost as well count the Enterprise XCV 330, the space shuttle, and all the sailing ships named Enterprise.

By any sensible definition, the NX01 is a starship, while the space shuttle, sailing ships etc are not. It is therefore quite reasonable to term it 'the first starship Enterprise'. Remember Me can be ignored for the pedantry of including 'USS" and Relics for specifying 'Federation Starship' (although in the latter case Scotty only says 'bridge of the Enterprise' so that is an assumption on the computer's part. The computer also assumed Beverly meant starship USS Enterprise, too, rather than, say, aircraft carrier, but we can assume the computer has an element of context awareness) but Trials and Tribbleations is pretty clear that there have been 6 Enterprises which could reasonably have been encountered by a time traveling Defiant. ENT implies that there were 7. The dedication plaques also say only 'starship' when claiming the D is the fifth. It's not a discrepancy I care at all about, but it is a discrepancy. Trek canon is replete with them.

 

[MAGolding]

By any sensible definition, the NX01 is a starship, while the space shuttle, sailing ships etc are not. It is therefore quite reasonable to term it 'the first starship Enterprise'. Remember Me can be ignored for the pedantry of including 'USS" and Relics for specifying 'Federation Starship' (although in the latter case Scotty only says 'bridge of the Enterprise' so that is an assumption on the computer's part. The computer also assumed Beverly meant starship USS Enterprise, too, rather than, say, aircraft carrier, but we can assume the computer has an element of context awareness) but Trials and Tribbleations is pretty clear that there have been 6 Enterprises which could reasonably have been encountered by a time traveling Defiant. ENT implies that there were 7. The dedication plaques also say only 'starship' when claiming the D is the fifth. It's not a discrepancy I care at all about, but it is a discrepancy. Trek canon is replete with them.

In ordinary science fiction, a starship is a manned spaceship that makes interstellar voyages. Usually a faster than light space ship making faster than light interstellar voyages. A science fictional starship can be any size from tiny to vast and have any crew and passenger size from one to millions. But in TOS there is a special, different definition of a starship. In TOS a starship is a manned space ship that makes faster than light voyages owned and operated by the United Federation of Planets government organization Starfleet, and an especially large, powerful, and well equipped one.

According to Memory Alpha, Captain Ramart of the Antares was a starfleet officer.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Ramart

According to Startrek.com:

Commander of the U.S.S. Antares, a Federation science vessel that transported a young Charles Evans to the U.S.S. Enterprise. The ship and crew were destroyed by Evans in 2266, soon after he was dropped off. Evans, who had highly developed telekinetic powers, caused the accident after he made a baffle plate on the Antares disappear.

http://www.startrek.com/database_article/ramart

This doesn't say that the Antares was a Starfleet ship. But Ramart and his navigator Tom Nellis wear what look a lot like Starfleet uniforms.

The crew of the Antares was small:

RAMART: No, we've a tight schedule to make, Captain. Just twenty of us, we're making out fine.

KIRK: A survey ship with twenty men aboard lost. No reason. Obviously, Captain Ramart was not aware of any trouble. I can't figure it.

CHARLIE: How many humans like me on this ship?
RAMART: Like a whole city in space, Charlie. Over four hundred in the crew of a starship, aren't there, Captain?
KIRK: Four hundred and twenty eight, to be exact. Is there anything we can do for you, Captain? Medical supplies, provisions?

So if Antares is a Starfleet ship, it can't be a TOS era starship, since Ramart says a starship is something different. And the Enterprise has 21.4 times as many crew as the Antares, making it hard to imagine they are the same type of spaceship.

In "Court Martial" Commodore Stone says:

STONE: Stop recording. Now, look, Jim. Not one man in a million could do what you and I have done. Command a starship. A hundred decisions a day, hundreds of lives staked on you making every one of them right. You're played out, Jim. Exhausted.

Stone also says the a TOS era starship has a crew of hundreds. Starfleet ships with smaller crews are not TOS era starships.

In "The Ultimate Computer":

KIRK: There's your murder charge. Deliberate. Calculated. It's killing men and women. Four starships, sixteen hundred men and women!

Thus Kirk has reasons to believe that the average crew size of the four other starships is about 400.

In "Bread and Circuses":

SPOCK: SS Beagle. Small class four stardrive vessel. Crew of forty seven, commanded by. Jim, I believe you knew him. Captain R M Merik.
KIRK: Yes, at the academy. He was dropped in his fifth year. He went into the merchant service.

CLAUDIUS: You're a clever liar, Captain Kirk. Merikus was a spaceship captain. I've observed him thoroughly. Your species has no such strength.
MERIK: He commands not just a spaceship, Proconsul, but a starship. A very special vessel and crew. I tried for such a command.

Merik quite obviously is saying a Starfleet starship and crew is far superior to a civilian spaceship and crew like Merik's SS Beagle, and probably also is saying that a Starfleet starship and crew is far superior to a Starfleet vessel of lower status not considered to be a starship.

And then there is is Tomorrow is Yesterday:

CHRISTOPHER: Must have taken quite a lot to build a ship like this.
KIRK: There are only twelve like it in the fleet.

Many fans, perhaps without justification, equate the 12 with Constitution class ships and with starships as a whole. But Kirk's statement can be interpreted as saying that ships (sufficiently) like the Enterprise are rare and exceptional.

So TOS does not use starship in the normal science fictional way to mean any old starship, but restricts it to more or less the elite top of the line Starfleet space ships. The five following Starfleet starships Enterprise also belonged to top of the line classes and deserved to be called starships according to the TOS definition. But the NX Enterprise that went out of service almost a century before TOS was too primitive and backwards to be considered a starship by the restricted TOS definition. By the restricted TOS definition, it was just a spaceship.

The aircraft carrier Enterprise CVN-65 is the second US aircraft carrier and the 7th US Navy vessel named Enterprise. That list does not include the six Royal Navy vessels named Enterprise before the Revolution in 1775, even though the United States was once ruled by Great Britain. So in the era of TNG, DS9, and VOY, Federation computers and people would not consider the NX-01 Enterprise to meet all the qualifications to be listed as a former starship Enterprise.

I'm sure the creators of Star Trek: Enterprise thought that they were contradicting previous statements about previous starships named Enterprise, and didn't care (if they cared they would have been careful to avoid calling it a starship instead of a spaceship). but fortunately there are reasons to justify saying it is not really a contradiction.

 

[STEPhon IT]

And then there is is Tomorrow is Yesterday:



Many fans, perhaps without justification, equate the 12 with Constitution class ships and with starships as a whole. But Kirk's statement can be interpreted as saying that ships (sufficiently) like the Enterprise are rare and exceptional.

That's if Christopher saw other ships from the 22nd Century but the reality was he's referring to the Enterprise. Come on! Kirk's statement was plain and simple... like the entirety of TOS... he equates there's 12 Star Ship Class vessels.

 

[cultcross]

The aircraft carrier Enterprise CVN-65 is the second US aircraft carrier and the 7th US Navy vessel named Enterprise.

But it would be entirely wrong to say it was the 2nd ship to be so named, and that is what we are trying to attest here. Starship is a general term. if in TOS, which was hardly consistent on minutiae, the term 'starship' can be seen to have been given a very specialist and precise meaning, that is clearly not the case by the TNG era. Everything bigger than a runabout is a starship, it seems, and it is from this era that the discrepancy arises, not TOS. Nobody in TOS ever said this was the first starship Enterprise. That stuff came later. Fifth starship to bear the name, etc. Heck even if we assume the TOS definition applies universally, the NX01 was Earth Starfleet's top of the line vessel, if that didn't qualify as a starship then nothing did (remembering that the USS Franklin was 'starship class' too and much smaller than the E).

And also, Trials and Tribbleations doesn't even specify 'starship'. It says "Which Enterprise? There have been 5" ("6"), and the reply is "This was the first Enterprise". Not federation starship, not Starfleet vessel, not even starship. Just number of Enterprises. Even in the preceding scene that Sisko is presumably narrating, the only term used is 'ship'. There's no reason for them not to include the NX01 when referring to earlier Enterprises the Defiant could have encountered. No amount of convoluted definitions of starship get us out of that discrepancy.

 

[The Wormhole]

Thus Kirk has reasons to believe that the average crew size of the four other starships is about 400.

Well, yeah. He can clearly see on the view screen that all four ships are Constitution class. Logically, that should mean they'd have a crew complement equal to the Enterprise's.

 

[MAGolding]

But it would be entirely wrong to say it was the 2nd ship to be so named, and that is what we are trying to attest here. Starship is a general term. if in TOS, which was hardly consistent on minutiae, the term 'starship' can be seen to have been given a very specialist and precise meaning, that is clearly not the case by the TNG era. Everything bigger than a runabout is a starship, it seems, and it is from this era that the discrepancy arises, not TOS. Nobody in TOS ever said this was the first starship Enterprise. That stuff came later. Fifth starship to bear the name, etc. Heck even if we assume the TOS definition applies universally, the NX01 was Earth Starfleet's top of the line vessel, if that didn't qualify as a starship then nothing did (remembering that the USS Franklin was 'starship class' too and much smaller than the E).

And also, Trials and Tribbleations doesn't even specify 'starship'. It says "Which Enterprise? There have been 5" ("6"), and the reply is "This was the first Enterprise". Not federation starship, not Starfleet vessel, not even starship. Just number of Enterprises. Even in the preceding scene that Sisko is presumably narrating, the only term used is 'ship'. There's no reason for them not to include the NX01 when referring to earlier Enterprises the Defiant could have encountered. No amount of convoluted definitions of starship get us out of that discrepancy.

Your arguments are very strong.

But I disagree with:

Heck even if we assume the TOS definition applies universally, the NX01 was Earth Starfleet's top of the line vessel, if that didn't qualify as a starship then nothing did (remembering that the USS Franklin was 'starship class' too and much smaller than the E).

If Earth Starfleet and then later the Federation Starfleet called most or all of their warp capable ships starships for decades, and then a Federation Starfleet order was issued that from now on only the top of the line warp drive ships would be called starships, and that was followed for decades including the era of TOS before starfleet began calling all warp ships starships again, then the list of Federation Starfleet starships complied after TOS would never include the Enterprise NX-01 because it was not a Federation Starfleet starship and it wasn't nearly as advanced, fast, and powerful as a starship in the restricted sense. So the Enterprise 1701-D's computer would not have a reason to list Enterprise NX-01 for those two reasons and because nobody could think that starship interiors that looked like those of Enterprise 1701-D might have been those of Enterprise NX-01.

But clearly Dulmur and Lucsly said merely "Enterprise". They didn't restrict it to Federation or Earth ships. And they clearly had no reason from what Sisco said to believe the Defiant had traveled to Earth's solar system so it would have to be a warp ship. I find it very hard to repute that argument.

If NX-01 Enterprise should have been counted by the 1701-D's computer and by the temporal investigations agents then creating a show based on it was a direct violation of Star Trek continuity. And therefore Star Trek: Enterprise must happen in an alternate universe to TNG, DS9, and VOY, whether the show runners intended it to be or not. Whether it was caused by the Borg time travel in First Contact or something else, it resulted in one more Enterprise than Dulmur and Lucsly said there had been.

IMHO one way to explain this would be to make the difference between the alternate universe of Star Trek: Enterprise and the alternate universe of TNG, DS9, and VOY be very, very small. No more than the name of the first Earth Starfleet ship with a warp 5 engine. When the ships was being named many people would have pushed for the name they favored, and it might have been a very close decision.

Possibly the factor that tipped the balance in favor of Enterprise in the alternate universe of Star Trek: Enterprise was the Enterprise XCV 330, which also existed in the universe of TMP which presumably led to the alternate universe of TNG, DS9, and VOY. But the Enterprise XCV 330 might have had a slightly more important career in the minds of the persons who named the first warp 5 ship in the alternate universe of Star Trek: Enterprise than in the alternate universe leading to TMP, TNG, DS9, and VOY, and thus the NX-01 might have been named Phoenix, Bonadventure, Cochrane,or Valiant, for example. And thus the XCV 330 would have been chosen as a past Enterprise on the wall of ships in TMP instead of the NX-01.

Of course many fans are in favor of making the difference between the alternate universes of Star Trek: Enterprise and other shows much larger because they believe their are many contradictions between Star Trek: Enterprise and other shows.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Of course many fans are in favor of making the difference between the alternate universes of Star Trek: Enterprise and other shows much larger because they believe their are many contradictions between Star Trek: Enterprise and other shows.

They'd be wrong.

 

[Shawnster]

In ordinary science fiction, a starship is a manned spaceship that makes interstellar voyages. Usually a faster than light space ship making faster than light interstellar voyages. A science fictional starship can be any size from tiny to vast and have any crew and passenger size from one to millions. But in TOS there is a special, different definition of a starship. In TOS a starship is a manned space ship that makes faster than light voyages owned and operated by the United Federation of Planets government organization Starfleet, and an especially large, powerful, and well equipped one.

All ships are boats, but not all boats are ships. It might make sense to refer to an aircraft carrier or luxury liner as a boat, but it doesn't make sense to refer to a rowboat or paddle boat as a ship.

Space ship = boat.

Starship = ship

 

[Ceridwen]

Find me a single Star Wars fan that considers Disney's absolutely dogshit explanation behind red lightsabers canon (Sith have to steal their lightsabers from killing Jedi then the lightsaber gets sad and turns red) over "Legends" canon behind the red lightsabers (artificial crystals).

*Raises hand.* Me. The idea that a Sith lightsaber crystal is corrupted is so much more interesting thematically than the idea that they just grow them in a tank. It's also not "Disney's" explanation, it's Lucasfilm's, based on ideas Lucas developed while working on The Clone Wars.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I always assumed that when the three undead returned to Earth they became celebrities in whatever TNG media corresponds to TV and the internet, and the millions of people who wanted to make Ralph Offenhouse's calendar the official Earth calendar took advantage of that and lobbied hard for it, and so the United Earth government made the calendar that had been used when Ralph, Clare, and Sonny were previously alive the new official Earth calendar, to make them feel more at home.

So Earth changed the calendar for the entire planet just to make three people more comfortable?
Whaaaaa---???

I don't believe continuity is why they lost audience, I believe it's because they stuck to the same basic formula they established in 1987 until cancellation in 2005 while the rest of television had long since moved on. That, and some incredibly weak episodes especially in the first two seasons of ENT.

DING DING DING DING!!!! That's right! Johnny, let's show the man what he's won!

 

[MAGolding]

So Earth changed the calendar for the entire planet just to make three people more comfortable?
Whaaaaa---???

I presume that there are various political groups in favor of various policies, and against others, on Earth, that try to get the United Earth Government to adopt the policies they favor and discard the polices they don't want. Even if Earth is a paradise, each group of people will still desire something and oppose something, and the different groups will contend for influence.

And if people do not have unsatisfied needs, they will strive for more symbolic goals.

Even in the 21st century USA, where different groups have different real needs, there are also struggles for purely symbolic goals. For example, people gain or lose emotional satisfaction when their local sports team does well or badly in competition with other sports teams from other localities, despite not gaining or losing any benefits from victory or defeat. And different groups often ignore real issues they could struggle over to struggle over symbolic issues, like a flag desecration amendment, for example.

And in the 24th century, when Earth is allegedly a paradise and nobody has any needs that are unfilled, groups will continue to compete over symbolic issues.

Suppose that your ethnic, national, or religious group once used a calendar identified with the group. One would feel some desire to lobby the United Earth government to decree your group's calendar to be the new United Earth Calendar. And some members of your group would feel intense desire for lobby for the United Earth government to take that action and other actions that would acknowledge how great they think that your group was and is.

So over centuries the United Earth government has probably changed the official United Earth calendar several times in response to groups that really cared about the prestige of their calendar, while the majority of United Earth citizens probably didn't care much. And people have become used to having a year followed by a new year with a number tens, hundreds, or thousands of digits higher or lower than the previous year whenever the official calendar is changed.

The calendar of Raymond, Offenhouse, and Clemens was used by millions of people in their era, and perhaps by the whole world. So if it is not the official United Earth calendar in the time of "The Neutral Zone", there should still be a big group of people, millions, or tens of millions, or hundreds of millions, or even billions, who remember that it was once their calendar. And some of them will strongly desire that this calendar become the new United Earth calendar.

So all of the people already lobbying for their favored calendar (that happened to be the one used by the undead persons) to become the official United Earth calendar would take advantage of the fame of the 3 undead persons to suggest that changing the calendar to the one that the undead persons were used to would be polite and and make them feel at home. And maybe the majority of the United Earth citizens wouldn't care much because they all have plenty of computers to convert dates from one calendar to another, and so would agree.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

 

[suarezguy]

I don't believe continuity is why they lost audience, I believe it's because they stuck to the same basic formula they established in 1987 until cancellation in 2005 while the rest of television had long since moved on. That, and some incredibly weak episodes especially in the first two seasons of ENT.

Law & Order was and probably still is pretty formulaic through and long past that time but maybe it's exceptional (cop show fans have lower/different standards?). The audience was consistently decreasing since DS9 although I believe the decline was especially severe with Enterprise (which early on did have both weak episodes and a fairly glib approach to continuity).

And this from someone who enjoyed Discovery just fine - but as a show that's as much a prequel to TOS as Smallville was to Superman (1978).

Interesting comparison in that Smallville did pretty often pay homages to and outright lifted some elements from the 1978 film and yet clearly is its own new, present-day adaptation rather than a prequel to it.

 

[ChallengerHK]

Law & Order was and probably still is pretty formulaic through and long past that time but maybe it's exceptional (cop show fans have lower/different standards?).

I've had this debate with a friend who is an ardent adherent of what I call NCSI & Order. My argument was that crime programs typically focus on solving the crime, and character development is minimized if it exists at all. He pointed out that I liked NYPD Blue...and then I pointed out that when Jimmy Smit's character died there were four episodes which dealt only with the characters, completely sans mystery. His interpretation of that is that is that crime programs can rise above their source material, and my interpretation is that NYPD Blue had a different audience. We're probably both partially correct.

 

[Tenacity]

By any sensible definition, the NX01 is a starship

The NX-01's dedication plaque refers to the Enterprise as a "spacecraft."

Well, yeah. He can clearly see on the view screen that all four ships are Constitution class. Logically, that should mean they'd have a crew complement equal to the Enterprise's.

The other Connies don't carry Kirk's thirty member personal harem.

 

[cultcross]

The NX-01's dedication plaque refers to the Enterprise as a "spacecraft."

Quite possibly, although Admiral Forrest calls it a starship in the very first episode.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The NX-01's dedication plaque refers to the Enterprise as a "spacecraft."

That's because Doug Drexler cared more about trying to fit ENT with TOS than the writers or producers