Enterprise vs TOS: Why Does Enterprise Lose the Canon War?

[Withers]

I think that ENT could have set up the TOS era movies, in two or three decades. From the end of Enterprise to, the motion picture, could easily be just a generation. That didn't work for me. ENT was, really, a TNG-DS9-Voyager prequel.

This from Matt was recently posted in the thread about the canonicity of Enterprise and acknowledges my thoughts on this matter succinctly and with pith (Thanks Matt ).

So, that being the case- that Enterprise feels more like the prequel to the TNG-era shows with TOS being the odd man out, why is it that the debate is never over whether or not TOS should be considered part of the official time line? Why can't those three years take place in some...apocryphal dimension? What is so important in TOS that, without, would be a detriment to the other four series? If it matches the other three but gets dispelled in the minds of some for not matching up with TOS then logically wouldn't one make the quartet a group and discard TOS as its own entity?

There are plenty of TOS fans who do this (discard everything that came after TOS) so why doesn't it go in the opposite direction in terms of wanting these series to mesh together?

-Withers-​

 

[timelord1010]

It would be very hard to ignore TOS with every show that followed it having been influenced by it and even making reference to TOS. In TNG you had McCoy start the series off and both Spock and Scotty make appearances. DS9 time travels to meet Kirk and crew in "Trials and Tribblations(sp)". On VOY Janeway mindmelds with Tuvok and relives his adventures on Excelsior with Captain Sulu. Finally Enterprise does it's mirror universe episode dealing with the Defiant from the TOS era episode "Tholian Web".

 

[Michael]

Canon Shmanon. The reason why to some people Star Trek – Enterprise looks and feels so much closer to The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager than The Original Series is that chronologically it was produced closer to those shows. It's as easy as that. Storytelling conventions have changed over the decades, as have standards for production design and special effects. It is beyond me how some seem to be weirded out by the fact that Enterprise doesn't feel like a show from the 60s. Well, guess what, it isn't.

Personally, I try not to be bothered by continuity issues in Star Trek. I watch it to be entertained. I doesn't have to fit in within some fictional continuity.

 

[timelord1010]

Personally, I try not to be bothered by continuity issues in Star Trek. I watch it to be entertained. I doesn't have to fit in within some fictional continuity.

I agree with you 100%

 

[Withers]

Except that you two are in the minority thinking there (though I largely agree too.) Enterprise gets blasted for failing to live up to what was set in stone by TOS. "They didn't have that on TOS so Enterprise isn't canon!" It's an argument as old as the show itself. Whether it's personally important or not isn't really the issue- it's the issue that if for the people it is a big deal for it can be said Enterprise doesn't match TOS, it should be no bigger a deal for someone else to say TOS doesn't match TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise so that doesn't count.

-Withers-​

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

It's very important whether something is "Canon" or not. Because to quote the insane Benny Russell: "IT'S REEEAAAL!"

Anyway, the only part of the Star Trek franchise where the Canon status is debatable (in the actual meaning of the term "Canon") is TAS. So let's discuss TAS more.

 

[Matt4511]

Not sure if anyone has read the original post of mine in another thread that Withers launched this thread by quoting, but the visual/artistic/stylistic differences amongst the various shows are not cited at all as any part of my sense that Enterprise does not slot well into the Star Trek timeline. Those curious can see my original post here:

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3951560&postcount=145

 

[Withers]

Sorry, if you felt that was taken unfairly out of context, I just had that specific thought in my head for a while and you said it better than I had so I decided to borrow.

Anyway, the only part of the Star Trek franchise where the Canon status is debatable (in the actual meaning of the term "Canon") is TAS. So let's discuss TAS more.

Except no one cares about TAS. People care enough to blast Enterprise for failing to be a completely accurate prequel to TOS. That's the point of this thread.

-Withers-​

 

[PorthosShadow]

I never went into ENT thinking it was going to have a 60's TOS feel. Now having written that the show in terms of it's setting felt like it really did come before TOS in that The Enterprise really did seem to be more fragile than The Enterprise in TOS. Also, not just in terms of technology having Starfleet depend on a Vulcan database instead of their own because they obviously didn't have much of one.

Finally, in ENT there is no Federation and barely a starfleet. Humans have little or no influence in their part of the galaxy and in fact most alien species don't take The Enterprise seriously and have never heard of Earth. In addition there are very few human colonies outside of sector 001.

But by the time you get to TOS humanity is firmly established in their part of the galaxy, the technology is coming along and more alien species take humans seriously and know who they are. Now, when you get to the TNG, DS9 and VOY era's The Federation is widespread and very influencial.

So bottom line, ENT works for me because it really does feel like a pre-Federation world, so to speak.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

This is the second thread this month that inquires about continuity issues between shows, or alternate timelines and such but refers to the issue as "canon." In the thread title.

This isn't about "canon," folks. We already beat that dead horse to death in the [thread=117116]"Is Enterprise Canon?" thread[/thread], where it is no doubt still being kicked around.

Canon = anything shown onscreen. TOS is canon. Enterprise is canon. Even Star Trek V is canon (apologies to the Great Bird). Period.

Pray continue your discussion about continuity.

 

[Withers]

That was not the intended meaning of this thread. It wasn't to decide whether Enterprise is canon, what constitutes canon, or if there are truly valid claims one way or the other.

The intent of this thread was to ask the question why Enterprise is held to this standard in a way that TOS isn't and whether or not that is fair. But, either way, thanks for permission for the thread to continue. I'd hate for this to take attention away from the super important Enterprise threads.

-Withers-​

 

[Yug]

My small issue with TOS is not any fault of the show itself, it's that it's held up as the freekin' Trek bible, even as it contridicts itself in many cases. But in reality, it was never meant to be this scrutinized. The continuity will never fit or make perfect sense, and asking it to is done at the very expense of the entertainment factor. It was a work in progress... If anything it should be considered Star Trek's "rough draft".

TOS was written and produced 40 some years ago by talented creative poeple who had no idea it would spawn such fandom, who were just thankful they were collecting a check for something they enjoyed doing, however long it lasts, it TOS's case; only three short seasons.
It was imperfect, and never asked to be considered otherwise. If anything, it enjoys the freedom of being the first, and not having to lock itself into what the fans expected and demanded, based on what it started. It's only TOS's creators and writers that could let their imagination go anywhere without so much baggage, every incarnation after could never enjoy those limitless avenues. Although, they did find new avenues, but it's still anchored by it's own progression.

Even the original grainy and imprecise special effects of TOS are analyzed and nitpicked. I just picture a bunch of union guys in 1967, with horn-rimmed glasses and cigerettes hanging out of their mouths working in a hot garage studio on getting some FX shot of the space ship turning around thinking to themselves: "what'll till I tell the wife 'bout this silly space show I worked on today". Meanwhile, years later, nerd bots are picking apart all the continuity errors and FX mistakes... it can't be fixed, and no one should really try. It is what it is.

I wouldn't want Enterprise or any other Trek show or movie to be locked into the outdated universe that TOS lives in, connected sure, inspired by, of course. I'm not saying chuck it completely, lord knows the concept is timeless, the show is enjoyable to watch even to this day... but even in our real world, TOS is from another time. As alternative a universe as we will ever know beyond fiction: The late 1960's.

 

[Matt4511]

That was not the intended meaning of this thread. It wasn't to decide whether Enterprise is canon, what constitutes canon, or if there are truly valid claims one way or the other.

The intent of this thread was to ask the question why Enterprise is held to this standard in a way that TOS isn't and whether or not that is fair. But, either way, thanks for permission for the thread to continue. I'd hate for this to take attention away from the super important Enterprise threads.

-Withers-​

QFT

 

[JiNX-01]

My small issue with TOS is not any fault of the show itself, it's that it's held up as the freekin' Trek bible, even as it contridicts itself in many cases. But in reality, it was never meant to be this scrutinized. The continuity will never fit or make perfect sense, and asking it to is done at the very expense of the entertainment factor. It was a work in progress... If anything it should be considered Star Trek's "rough draft".

TOS was written and produced 40 some years ago by talented creative poeple who had no idea it would spawn such fandom, who were just thankful they were collecting a check for something they enjoyed doing, however long it lasts, it TOS's case; only three short seasons.
It was imperfect, and never asked to be considered otherwise. If anything, it enjoys the freedom of being the first, and not having to lock itself into what the fans expected and demanded, based on what it started. It's only TOS's creators and writers that could let their imagination go anywhere without so much baggage, every incarnation after could never enjoy those limitless avenues. Although, they did find new avenues, but it's still anchored by it's own progression.

Even the original grainy and imprecise special effects of TOS are analyzed and nitpicked. I just picture a bunch of union guys in 1967, with horn-rimmed glasses and cigerettes hanging out of their mouths working in a hot garage studio on getting some FX shot of the space ship turning around thinking to themselves: "what'll till I tell the wife 'bout this silly space show I worked on today". Meanwhile, years later, nerd bots are picking apart all the continuity errors and FX mistakes... it can't be fixed, and no one should really try. It is what it is.

I wouldn't want Enterprise or any other Trek show or movie to be locked into the outdated universe that TOS lives in, connected sure, inspired by, of course. I'm not saying chuck it completely, lord knows the concept is timeless, the show is enjoyable to watch even to this day... but even in our real world, TOS is from another time. As alternative a universe as we will ever know beyond fiction: The late 1960's.

I don't think I have seen anyone anywhere put it better.
Thank you!

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

I'd hate for this to take attention away from the super important Enterprise threads.

Of course you are referring to the "5 Words Only" thread. No, we wouldn't want such stunning literary wordsmithing to be crowded off the front page in favor of piffle like this.

 

[Withers]

Of course you are referring to the "5 Words Only" thread.

No, I wasn't. I wasn't referring to anything specifically.

No, we wouldn't want such stunning literary wordsmithing to be crowded off the front page in favor of piffle like this.

The fact that you're concerned about what is on the front page being the only thing that gets attention in this forum is evidence of the entire reason I made the comment in the first place.

edit
I just went to the thread you're talking about for the first time ever. "Stunning literary wordsmithing?" Oh please, cut me a break. You aren't reinventing the Haiku over there. You're tweeting (if its even worthy of being called that.)

-Withers-​

 

[Pemmer Harge]

Canon Shmanon. The reason why to some people Star Trek – Enterprise looks and feels so much closer to The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager than The Original Series is that chronologically it was produced closer to those shows.

This. Especially when you consider that there was an 18 year gap between TOS and TNG whereas ENT came at the end of a long period of Trek being on TV continuously. They built up an aesthetic over those years that's in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, but not TOS.

 

[Anji]

Speaking as someone who is a stickler for canon, all filmed Star Trek is canon. Where are you guys getting that ENT is not canon????

 

[Withers]

*sighs*

Speaking as someone who is a stickler for canon, all filmed Star Trek is canon. Where are you guys getting that ENT is not canon????

That was not the intended meaning of this thread. It wasn't to decide whether Enterprise is canon, what constitutes canon, or if there are truly valid claims one way or the other.

The intent of this thread was to ask the question why Enterprise is held to this standard in a way that TOS isn't and whether or not that is fair.

-Withers-​

 

[T'Girl]

IAnyway, the only part of the Star Trek franchise where the Canon status is debatable (in the actual meaning of the term "Canon") is TAS. So let's discuss TAS more.

Fine, name a single Enterprise episode you think exceeds Yesteryear in terms of the three C's. Canon. Continuity. Creativity.