Is Enterprise Canon?

[Ra'min]

You have to consider watching Star Trek to be like reading history books. Not completely accurate and usually influenced by the writer and the mood of the time. What's that saying? "History is written by ..."

Consider different episodes to be different views of events.

For some aspects, this is obvious. Let's compare the command bridges of NCC 1701 and NX01.

On kirk's ships we have buttons and blinking lights.

NX01 is supposedly 110 years older, but the command bridge looks much more modern.

This is unexplainable in-universe, but unavoidable in real life.
The prop designer couldn't make it looks older than TOS bridge, unless they resorted to moleskine and brass valves.

 

[SFRabid]

Consider different episodes to be different views of events.

Wouldn't that be like watching holographic recreations of events, instead of events themselves?

Don't know about you, but I'm watching a TV precreation of events. I don't have a holodeck and it's not the 26th century. I also don't think that Scott Bakula is really Jonathan Archer, he just plays him on TV.

 

[Mach5]

Consider different episodes to be different views of events.

Wouldn't that be like watching holographic recreations of events, instead of events themselves?

Don't know about you, but I'm watching a TV precreation of events. I don't have a holodeck and it's not the 26th century. I also don't think that Scott Bakula is really Jonathan Archer, he just plays him on TV.

Meh, missed the point... Ah, never mind...

 

[SFRabid]

Sorry. If it was sarcasm that is always easy to miss on a forum.

 

[Saquist]

You know, if it weren't for the TOS movies, the question wouldn't be whether or not Enterprise was cannon it would be whether TOS counted as cannon since, ostensibly, you could have Enterprise as the precursor to TNG, DS9, and Voyager with TOS being the piece of the puzzle that looks and sounds more or less nothing like the other four.

Were it not for the movies, most of which were pretty lackluster with the notable exceptions being pretty obvious, this discussion would be very different. I'm not sure it shouldn't be that way simply because of the existence of two solid movies (out of six.)

visually I could understand what you're saying but factually ENT lines up the least with every other Trek.

VOY: Already stated that the NX-01 was named Dauntless by the Alphanumeric tradition. It's the first Lettered ship we've seen outside the Enterprise Lineage. Why they decided to do otherwise is beyond me.

DS9: Stated that there were only 6 starships named Enterprise

TNG: The Thing is TNG makes no mention of any other ship called Enterprise and it to refers to only 5 Federation starships with that name.

*While NX may not be a Federation starship, it is a starfleet ship failure to draw upon these records is more than over sight. The computer either knows there is no starships or literally decides that Federation starships are the subject because Scott did not set that parameter.

​

 

[Yug]

For some aspects, this is obvious. Let's compare the command bridges of NCC 1701 and NX01.

On kirk's ships we have buttons and blinking lights.

NX01 is supposedly 110 years older, but the command bridge looks much more modern.

This is unexplainable in-universe, but unavoidable in real life.
The prop designer couldn't make it looks older than TOS bridge, unless they resorted to moleskine and brass valves.

I'd agree with that, but I do find that the production designers of Enterprise did try to make the NX-01 look very industrial and militaristic compared to the free flowing simplified look of TOS's set designs... the latter of which can depict a higher tech level. Like a walkman from the 80's compared to the original Ipod. The Ipod is simpler looking with less controls than the walkman, but the ipod does tons more shit. It's like a contrast between the 60's and the 70's in the real world... 60's industrial design was very heavy and pointy, while 70's industrial designs look very smooth and colorful (in many ways TOS was ahead of it's time or might even inspired the 70's "bold color" wave) BUT, after time, stuff from the 70's looks very cheap and silly, but it was still more advanced then stuff from the 60's, and in some respects and examples, appliances from the 60's still looks very modern and more solidly made than the 70's did. Even stuff from the '50's looks cooler and better then 70's junk, but it makes it no less obsolete in comparison. The 70's designs, with some exceptions, just don't hold up looking back on it, but was merely the style for those times.

In the context of the Trek universe... I often dismiss TOS in the Trek design lineage as having visual ethics that were only popular in the Trek universe in the 22nd century. Mabye after space travel was more perfected and even easy, the design would equate to simple lines, cleaner controls and work spaces, and bold simple colors to denote rank and position instead of badges and patches and utility uniforms. The Trek universe in that era was just more trippy with the lighting and sparse interiors because that was simply the style in Kirks era. After Earth's nuclear war, first contact, and the various alien wars; once Starfleet found a footing in a more peaceful Federation, they went with a clean design over bulky, heavy and metallic ship design, later translated into TNG's Enterpise D and it's "family hotel" look, moving even closer to comfort as the driving design look. That ship in fact prefered art over function, a much bigger faster ship with organic lines and open spaces, comfortable chairs and plants, another step into the futuristic advancements of a Starfleet more confident in space and thier connection to the universe at that era. Even being ridiculed for it by Q, and his reasoning behind introducing the Borg to the Federation. Almost mocking humanity for getting too cocky.

None of this rambling post may make much sense, I'm on pain meds for my knee. And loving every minute of it.

 

[Tiberius]

The retconning of the number of starships named Enterprise (Federation or not) is a very minor detail. it's not like they are changing one of the underlying premises on which the shows are constructed.

So why make such a big deal of it?

Do you make the same deal about James R Kirk? About the Enterprise being powered by lithium crystals? About the phaser fire coming from the photon torpedo tube in "Darmok"?

 

[Saquist]

The middle name that never existed or a ship that never existed?
It's an obvious fore gone conclusion.

If there were 25 years of Trek that said his middle name was R and suddenly they made it T...I'd make a stink about that too. You see, the R could have been just a mistake or a change in thought from the pilot to the established.

Enterprise walks in face of some 30 years of canon and constant repetition of how many Enterprises they're were.

It's one thing if it doesn't matter but drawing upon a false analogy. You're saying they are equivalent and they aren't and it's almost as bad as breach in logic.

 

[AstroSmurf]

So why make such a big deal of it?

Do you make the same deal about James R Kirk? About the Enterprise being powered by lithium crystals? About the phaser fire coming from the photon torpedo tube in "Darmok"?

Good question. It also brings another to mind. Do those tiny glitches ultimately detract from the enjoyment of the show? And if so, why are you watching any incarnation of Trek, or television for that matter?

As for continuity, if people actually understood how quickly television shows are produced, I think they would be more forgiving to the production. Trek (and most hour-long dramas) are produced in about eight to ten weeks. That is two weeks to write the script, two weeks of pre-production (which includes designing and building sets, costumes and make-up plus a final script polish), ten days to shoot (which involves 12 to 14 hour days for the cast and crew) and then another four weeks of post-production (which includes editing, music, visual effects). That is incredibly FAST considering the amount of work that has to be done and the amount of money involved. So to be frank, if it wasn't for the producers, writers and staff actually making an effort, Star Trek would be nothing more than a seething bubbling manure pile of continuity errors. To suggest otherwise is nothing more than a slap in the face for their dedication and determination. Yes, things were missed or confused in all of the shows but I am willing to overlook them and just enjoy them.

(And I don't know why I just typed that paragraph. Some fans are just looking for something to argue over and nothing I can say will ever change their reasoning.)

 

[Withers]

visually I could understand what you're saying but factually ENT lines up the least with every other Trek.

That was inevitable if it's true but irrelevant when one considers this; while Enterprise might not match up perfectly with the other shows, Voyager never managed to match up with itself and we still consider that canon, The Next Generation has effectively been retconed on several fronts by Deep Space Nine yet we still consider that canon (like the Ferengi and the Trill being completely different on DS9 than they were on TNG for just two easy examples), so the idea that a handful of things don't fit with the other three being used as source material to discount Enterprise as canon seems unfair at best.

VOY: Already stated that the NX-01 was named Dauntless by the Alphanumeric tradition. It's the first Lettered ship we've seen outside the Enterprise Lineage. Why they decided to do otherwise is beyond me.

I can't put the fate of another series in the hands of the Voyager writers. They white wash their own canon as often as they add to it as a whole... so, if I have to disregard the Borg Baby, the cure to assimilation never being mentioned, and all the other things that I have to in order to just enjoy Voyager, I can disregard that too as just another of their many, many, many continuity mistakes.

DS9: Stated that there were only 6 starships named Enterprise

They, at one point, also said there were five ships named Enterprise. Sisko and Dax have called species by the wrong name, and the Sao Paulo had the same registry number as the Defiant. Mistakes happen. They get stuff wrong.

TNG: The Thing is TNG makes no mention of any other ship called Enterprise and it to refers to only 5 Federation starships with that name.

Actually, they do. The episode came a little later than all the others but it involved Troi and Riker visiting a holodeck recreation of Enterprise. As I recall the entire cast of Enterprise reprized their roles for that episode.

Whatever the case, Enterprise is canon, and I can meld it with three of the other four series pretty easily. The only one that doesn't match, in that case, is TOS. I'd be happy to just toss it out as another ham fisted show from the 60's (like the original Batman or Hee Haw) but there are the movies...which, without, I think most people would forget about TOS and this on-going trial about Enterprises' status as canon or not would never have started.

-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Myk]

TNG: The Thing is TNG makes no mention of any other ship called Enterprise and it to refers to only 5 Federation starships with that name.

If the NX-01 was a Federation ship you might have a point.

 

[Saquist]

Ah, ever see shows called Star Trek the Generation, Star Trek Deep Space Nine or Star Trek Voyager? They also featured "23rd Century tech". I guess they showed the same lack of "imagination".

Check your mode of deduction its off track.
That makes logical sense at all.

Creating a Star Trek show includes certain touch stones, thats why all the Star Trek shows feature what you call "23rd Century tech" when its actually Star Trek tech.

That is why I referred to it as limited imagination.

That was inevitable if it's true but irrelevant when one considers this; while Enterprise might not match up perfectly with the other shows, Voyager never managed to match up with itself and we still consider that canon,

I won't fetch that bone, Withers.
That's a red herring. The truth of ENTERPRISES coherence with Trek is not in Voyager's details. If you're going to defend ENT don't use VOY to block.

... so the idea that a handful of things don't fit with the other three being used as source material to discount Enterprise as canon seems unfair at best.

....a "hand full" of things?
The Entire series doesn't fit, Withers. That is a massive understatement....

There was no Enterprise in Star Fleet other than NX-01 (A contradiction of 3 series)
NX-01 was a Dauntless not an Enterprise.
TOS describes FAR more primitive and constrictive vessels
TOS describes primitve weapons and technology

This isn't a handful...
This is every major application in the show. IF this is a handfull...Then the Frig, Oven and Dishwasher are only a few appliances out your kitchen...

Lets face reality. It's the name of the show. THe ship in the show they travel, the technology by which saves they're butt every week.

I can't put the fate of another series in the hands of the Voyager writers. They white wash their own canon as often as they add to it as a whole... so, if I have to disregard the Borg Baby, the cure to assimilation never being mentioned, and all the other things that I have to in order to just enjoy Voyager, I can disregard that too as just another of their many, many, many continuity mistakes.

The only difference between me an you is that you disregard mistakes and I don't. You apologize for them. I recognize them, I hold them accountable.

They, at one point, also said there were five ships named Enterprise. Sisko and Dax have called species by the wrong name, and the Sao Paulo had the same registry number as the Defiant. Mistakes happen. They get stuff wrong.

And so they got an entire series wrong.

Actually, they do. The episode came a little later than all the others but it involved Troi and Riker visiting a holodeck recreation of Enterprise. As I recall the entire cast of Enterprise reprized their roles for that episode.

Actually means in reality.
In reality the episode you speak of was ENTERPRISE.
It is logged as the season finale.

You've used a form of circular reasoning, justifying the ENTERPRISE series with an episode from ENTERPRISE....

Whatever the case, Enterprise is canon, and I can meld it with three of the other four series pretty easily.

By ignoring the truth.
But that's not my problem.

 

[Saquist]

TNG: The Thing is TNG makes no mention of any other ship called Enterprise and it to refers to only 5 Federation starships with that name.

If the NX-01 was a Federation ship you might have a point.

I still have a point, with out relying on literalness the importance of a ship such as this would not have been omitted.

Further, the computer assumes Federation ship when Scott ask for his simulation and lo and behold the computer only mentions the Federation ships. (Because there were no other starships with the name.)

 

[Mach5]

By ignoring the truth.

By ignoring the truth? It's a TV show, for crying out loud. You sound as if you're waging a holy war here or something.

BTW, I'm glad you referenced "Relics." According that episode, old Scotty didn't know Kirk was dead (long dead, in fact) even though he had been present when he got killed...

 

[Nerys Myk]

TNG: The Thing is TNG makes no mention of any other ship called Enterprise and it to refers to only 5 Federation starships with that name.

If the NX-01 was a Federation ship you might have a point.

I still have a point, with out relying on literalness the importance of a ship such as this would not have been omitted.

Further, the computer assumes Federation ship when Scott ask for his simulation and lo and behold the computer only mentions the Federation ships. (Because there were no other starships with the name.)

Omitted from what? A list of Federation ships called "Enterprise"? Its not a UFP ship, so its not part parameters asked for. The Ringship Enterprise wouldn't come up either.

Why wouldn't it? Its a Federation comuputer.

 

[Withers]

I won't fetch that bone, Withers.
That's a red herring. The truth of ENTERPRISES coherence with Trek is not in Voyager's details. If you're going to defend ENT don't use VOY to block.

What? I'm just saying that Voyager can't exactly be held up as an example of canon meshing seamlessly and so to use something Voyager said as evidence that another series did something wrong seems silly. That's like quoting the guy wearing the dunce hat to try to prove your point. In that instance I wasn't defending Enterprise. I was saying that Voyager's "canon" isn't enough to derail it. Consider the source.

...a "hand full" of things?
The Entire series doesn't fit, Withers. That is a massive understatement....

Well, so far, you've quoted three things which I debunked and then three more things that come from TOS- which, as per my original argument, don't matter. That, is the show which, in my opinion fits least well with the others, not Enterprise. Try to keep up- this isn't fun when people don't pay attention.

The only difference between me an you is that you disregard mistakes and I don't. You apologize for them. I recognize them, I hold them accountable.

Oh, I'd wager there are a lot of things that differentiate the two of us, and I'll start with the fact that for you this seems very personal. All I'm not willing to do, per your reference, is say "Voyager said this and Enterprise contradicted it so Enterprise isn't canon." Voyager doesn't have the chops to establish canon. They couldn't follow their own history (within that show) so how could anybody else be expected to do so? That's not an excuse- it's the reality of the situation in regard to the writing of both shows.

Failing to grasp sarcasm and denouncing levity as ignoring the truth then citing forms of debating that are familiar even to the dumbest 6th grader won't win you any points. This isn't an episode of the West Wing my friend. Enterprise, based on how little of it there is by comparison to other shows, isn't very important to me. But if you're really hell bent on proving that it isn't canon- knock yourself out. Just don't expect people to be very receptive to the idea. The people who take the time to post in this forum still either agree that it is or don't really care enough to be so emphatic about it. Good luck.

-Withers-​

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Goodness. Did World War III start while I was away?

We all have a right to our own personal perspective, but attempting to beat someone over the head with it until they're battered into submission is not really productive. Nor is it effective.

Saquist, you in particular seem to have a fondness for calling other members out by name, like some gunfighter on a dusty old Western street, and confronting them personally with unsavory accusations about right and wrong and truth and logic. Withers, you're jumping on that bandwagon too. If you have something to say about canon conflicts or continuity gaffes, that's fine, but don't take your ire out on the posters themselves.

This is not a contest to prove whose personal, subjective opinion is "best" or who can argue the longest. No opinion is more "right" or "wrong" or "better" than another's. We are all watching the same shows and movies, and enjoying them (or not) on a variety of levels, according to our own viewpoints.

Mistakes happen. They get stuff wrong.

That about sums it up.

None of this rambling post may make much sense, I'm on pain meds for my knee. And loving every minute of it.

Actually, I enjoyed your musings on the evolution of production design and style.

As for continuity, if people actually understood how quickly television shows are produced, I think they would be more forgiving to the production. Trek (and most hour-long dramas) are produced in about eight to ten weeks. That is two weeks to write the script, two weeks of pre-production (which includes designing and building sets, costumes and make-up plus a final script polish), ten days to shoot (which involves 12 to 14 hour days for the cast and crew) and then another four weeks of post-production (which includes editing, music, visual effects). That is incredibly FAST considering the amount of work that has to be done and the amount of money involved.

Quite so. And back in the 60's they worked faster (5 day shooting schedules) to crank out longer episodes (50 minutes as opposed to today's 43), and more episodes per season (26) using far less money. When you see compelling episodes and a solid overall vision emerge despite those pressures, it's all the more admirable.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Looked up the NX-01 from Voyager at Memory Alpha. Seems its actually the NX-01-A and a not even a real UFP ship. It's a trap used to trip the Voyager crew. Even if it was an actual ship, the "A" suffix might indicate it was named for the NX-01.

 

[Withers]

^ But even if it weren't- isn't that a pretty flimsy thing to decide the canonical standings of 4 seasons of Enterprise? Isn't that kind of like deciding a murder trial based on the testimony of a witness who wasn't there, has poor vision, and Alzheimers? I obviously think Enterprise is canon but I'm not unwilling to review substantial evidence that could suggest it was part of an alternate time line or something like that. The suffix of a ship that wasn't real, on a show that paid very little attention to canon, however, is not substantial enough to warrant inclusion as evidence that Enterprise wasn't canon.

-Withers-​

 

[muzzleflash]

To insert my opinion about this... Being a Trek Fan by title, and thus having access to the all-powerful, Trek Fan Choice Continuity And Canon Timeline, I can say without shame that I do not consider ENT canon. The why is this: PIKE was THE first Enterprise captain. That's how it was, until the 21st century when the timeline was altered to include Archer because of a Star Trek reboot.

That has to be the worst reason ever. With so many inconsistencies in Trek's continuity, THIS is the one you choose?

Besides, the first captain of the Enterprise captained the HMS Enterprise.