Is Enterprise Canon?

[SFRabid]

In my estimate, Enterprise was not cancelled because of canon. Enterprise did not fail because of canon. Enterprise may not have been improved by adhering strongly to continuity and canon of what came before. In my estimate, canon is a small issue that doesn't really affect the show that much...

...

 

[Luther Sloan]

Nerys:

You are still twisting around my posts to mean the exact opposite of what I said.

Middleman:

You are completely ignoring the points I made within my previous posts.

Also, you both are also making stuff up without any actual proof to back up your opinions, as well.

Now, I understand why you guys like Enterprise so much. But hey, that is alright. There is nothing wrong with liking Enterprise. I am just glad you guys like Trek in some form or another.

Anyways, lets call a truce and move on.
It appears we are not going to agree on this topic.

 

[Middleman]

In my estimate, Enterprise was not cancelled because of canon. Enterprise did not fail because of canon. Enterprise may not have been improved by adhering strongly to continuity and canon of what came before. In my estimate, canon is a small issue that doesn't really affect the show that much...

It makes me wonder if Enterprise was a better written show from the get go, with improved character development, thought provoking and compelling concepts and plots earlier in it's run, with each episode better than the last and was a certified hit-- But, had the same suppossed "canon issues", would it have been cancelled?

Just wonderin'

You make a lot of sense to me. My guess is that if the creative issue were resolved, the canon issues would remain meaningless. While the canonistas were very vocal, and their opinions helped shape some of CBS/Paramount's decisions on Enterprise, virtually all of the canonistas tuned in to Enterprise every week and supported the show. Their ratings were there (and they hated every minute of it).

 

[Middleman]

Also, you both are also making stuff up without any actual proof to back up your opinions, as well.

I don't think I'm making stuff up, I'm telling you things as I see them, my opinion of what's going on. I don't have proof, but then again, neither do you. I'm not interested in proving my opinions or even getting the proof, because I just don't care that much about it. Let's just say that I'm a "drive by" poster.

Having said that, I'm convinced I'm right on the old time line.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Hey, man. Whatever you want to believe man. It's cool.
Let's drop this discussion between us personally. We obviously are not going to see eye to eye on this topic.

 

[Dukhat]

If fans had just been a little more flexible, a little less whiny and a little more loyal (myself included), Trek would still be on TV today.

Uh, no it wouldn't. The fans had nothing to do with the ending of a show that was ill-conceived, ill-produced, and on a network whose head actually hated the show and lost money making it. UPN was far more interested in trying to show the cast in their underwear instead of trying to show the formation of the Federation. Dawn Ostroff's quote about wanting to make the show "sexier" just proved how out of touch UPN was about what the fans really wanted. If you want to blame someone for Enterprise's cancellation, blame UPN.

Now the most we can look forward, for the foreseeable future, is a movie once every 3 or 4 years in the "Alternate Time Line" with actors who are intimating other actors.

And judging by the box-office returns, that's a good thing.

Unfortunately,this franchise is now no better than "Batman Begins".

Which was also a qualified success.

 

[Deckerd]

If fans had just been a little more flexible, a little less whiny and a little more loyal (myself included), Trek would still be on TV today.

Uh, no it wouldn't. The fans had nothing to do with the ending of a show that was ill-conceived, ill-produced, and on a network whose head actually hated the show and lost money making it. UPN was far more interested in trying to show the cast in their underwear instead of trying to show the formation of the Federation. Dawn Ostroff's quote about wanting to make the show "sexier" just proved how out of touch UPN was about what the fans really wanted. If you want to blame someone for Enterprise's cancellation, blame UPN.

Fans schmans. It's the ordinary punters who make or break a show. Surely you understand that by now? The producers tried to pull them in. The fact it lasted 4 seasons indicates it must have been fairly good at this since most lemons get canned before the first one is over, sometimes even before that.

 

[Middleman]

If fans had just been a little more flexible, a little less whiny and a little more loyal (myself included), Trek would still be on TV today.

Uh, no it wouldn't. The fans had nothing to do with the ending of a show that was ill-conceived, ill-produced, and on a network whose head actually hated the show and lost money making it. UPN was far more interested in trying to show the cast in their underwear instead of trying to show the formation of the Federation. Dawn Ostroff's quote about wanting to make the show "sexier" just proved how out of touch UPN was about what the fans really wanted. If you want to blame someone for Enterprise's cancellation, blame UPN.

No doubt UPN shoulders a load of blame, along with the most senior managers at CBS and Viacom (Les Moonves and Sumner Redstone). Both of them together don't have a clue as to how to manage a franchise as valuable as Star Trek. The UPN management was even worse than Moonves and Redstone.

Despite some of Enterprise's creative difficulties, it was not ill-conceived. I found it to be the most entertaining of all the Trek series (that I watched). It's a matter of taste.

Finally, you will never convince me that the whining fans didn't play a major role in the end of Enterprise and further more the end of Star Trek on Television and the end of Trek as we knew it.

Now the most we can look forward, for the foreseeable future, is a movie once every 3 or 4 years in the "Alternate Time Line" with actors who are intimating other actors.

And judging by the box-office returns, that's a good thing.

Unfortunately,this franchise is now no better than "Batman Begins".

Which was also a qualified success.

Well, if you think all that's a good thing and you're satisfied with getting a movie that is long on SFX and short on plot once every 4 years, then more power to you. I think that this once mighty franchise, with 17 straight years on television, deserves better.

 

[Middleman]

Hey, man. Whatever you want to believe man. It's cool.
Let's drop this discussion between us personally. We obviously are not going to see eye to eye on this topic.

I'll accept that.

 

[Saquist]

Nerys Myk:

So that is why Branon Braga debated with fans in this article then?

http://talk.trekweb.com/articles/2003/08/21/1061438460.htmlhttp://talk.trekweb.com/articles/200...061438460.htmlhttp://talk.trekweb.com/articles/200...061438460.html

Whoa....flashback.....I actually commented in that thread seven years ago. And here's what I had to say then:



Memo to Brannon....
By The Lensman at 21:00:33 on August 21 2003

You're an idiot. Not too long ago, at the time of the Borg ep, you were making comments that Ent isn't neccesarily in the same timeline as the rest of Trek.

Now you seem to be saying it is with your whining about fans again.

Look, you and Rick were not the people to be doing a prequel. Period. Get over it.

BUT you could've saved yourself a lot of headaches by simply establishing the "alternate timeline" thing IN THE FIRST EP!

I wouldn't have a had a problem with this approach, and in fact would've prefered it to the half assed "it is\it isn't in the timeline proper" approach you guys have been taking.

If you're going to suggest that Ent is in an alternate timeline, then have the balls to actually say it ON SCREEN. Not in interviews. I mean, your target audience, the casual viewers, aren't reading your interviews because they give less of a shit about you than we do.

Stop trying to have it both ways.....make up your mind, then go with it.

As for "edgy". Yeah, when you start killing off the dull and useless members of the original Ent crew, like Mayweather and Hoshi, the show could be edgy. I have no doubt that you don't have the courage to kill off the Harry Kim and Chakotay of Ent.

You're introducing the MACO's so that you can kill some of them while keeping wortheless (dull with no story potential) around.

Kill them.....and while you're at it, kill Archer. You want to show the fans something they've never seen in a Trek show? That's it.


Is ENT canon? Yes. Like the new movie, it takes place in it's own bubble reality, not the original timeline. Braga was pretty much saying this around the time of the Borg ep. That FC had changed the timeline and that ENT took place in this altered timeline. As usual, there was a segment of fandom that screamed and moaned about it not being part of the proper timeline so they waffled the issue and tried to have it both ways.

Sorry, but as established, the NX-01 and Archer, are just too big to have been ignored by the rest of the series. We've got an aircraft carrier, a space shuttle and some funky other Enterprise in TMP....but not the ship that carried "the greatest explorer of the 22nd century"? The guy was there at the founding of the Federation and was a UFP prez for god's sake. That just doesn't get ignored.

It's in the post FC timeline. JJ wasn't the first to do an alternate timeline Trek. And knowing that made it much easier to enjoy ENT.

wHOA....
That was bold. You dressed down the producer of Star Trek ENT and VOY with the back of your hand.

 

[Middleman]

WOW: Some people have way too much time on their hands!

 

[Saquist]

It's their time to spend....

 

[potablog]

To me, Enterprise is canon, but it's a divergent timeline's canon (if that makes sense). Much like the new film looks at the alternate timeline created when Nero changes history, I believe Enterprise takes place in the alternate timeline created when Picard and company went back in time to stop the Borg in First Contact. That helps explain away a bunch of little inconsistencies...

potablog

 

[Middleman]

It's their time to spend....

Clearly. I'm just wondering how long it took Braga to stop laughing. (BTW: I'm no Braga fan)

 

[Dukhat]

No doubt UPN shoulders a load of blame, along with the most senior managers at CBS and Viacom (Les Moonves and Sumner Redstone). Both of them together don't have a clue as to how to manage a franchise as valuable as Star Trek. The UPN management was even worse than Moonves and Redstone.

I'll agree with you on that.

Despite some of Enterprise's creative difficulties, it was not ill-conceived. I found it to be the most entertaining of all the Trek series (that I watched). It's a matter of taste.

When I said ill-conceived, I meant the whole "formation of the Federation" thing which I knew from the get-go that Berman/Braga et. al couldn't possibly live up to, and didn't. Plus the Temporal Cold War thing that wasn't even fleshed-out ahead of time (they didn't even know who FutureGuy was, and he was the main villain!). And don't even get me started on the design of the NX-01.

Finally, you will never convince me that the whining fans didn't play a major role in the end of Enterprise and further more the end of Star Trek on Television and the end of Trek as we knew it.

I'm sorry, but it didn't. You are extremely overestimating the power of whiny fans on an internet bulletin board to make any kind of difference to UPN or influence its way of thinking.

Well, if you think all that's a good thing and you're satisfied with getting a movie that is long on SFX and short on plot once every 4 years, then more power to you. I think that this once mighty franchise, with 17 straight years on television, deserves better.

I think you're being overly harsh about what Star Trek '09 actually means. It's not really important that it had a shaky plot or an over-reliance on special effects. What was important was that it got the attention of Paramount that Star Trek is still a viable commodity, and that there was never any "fan-fatigue" or whatever nonsense Berman and Braga came up with as to why Enterprise and Nemesis failed. If putting up with a few movies like ST'09 in order to have Star Trek return to television is what we have to do, I would think you'd be happy about that. I certianly am.

 

[Saquist]

It's their time to spend....

Clearly. I'm just wondering how long it took Braga to stop laughing. (BTW: I'm no Braga fan)

I don't know dude.
These guys... are ...or were in high positions on Trek.
I don't think they were laughing.

Don't you think they read the internet opinions of them sometimes? They have to hold back because of PR...I'm sure he wanted give this user a piece of his mind...

Otherwise he's very controled.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nerys:

You are still twisting around my posts to mean the exact opposite of what I said.

.

Just pointing out the contradictions:

"canon is not to be determined by what the producers felt outside of the actual series (but what was in the series itself)."

vs

"the studio is in charge of what is canon and what is not canon" Currently the studio line is: All live action TV series and movies produced by Paramout/CBS are canon. What's "in the series" is not a factor.

If you believe the latter then you cant believe the former.

Nor can you as a viewer declare a series "Non-canon". You are free to dislike and disregard any series, episode or movie you want, but don't confuse that with canon.

 

[Dac]

Enterprise took place in a divergent timeline which was created by the events of First Contact. This easily explains away any inconsistencies which occur, especially if you believe that this is the timeline that Nero and Spock jumped too, thus explaining away the size and relatively advanced technology that the Kelvin had (this is due to the then starfleet reverse engineering Borg tech).

Yes, I made it all up, but I think it fits all the pieces perfectly, and there's nothing to contradict this, so why not believe this is the case?

 

[Noname Given]

Uh, no it wouldn't. The fans had nothing to do with the ending of a show that was ill-conceived, ill-produced, and on a network whose head actually hated the show and lost money making it...

Point of order - Star Trek: Voyager has NOTHING to do woth this thread,

 

[Luther Sloan]

Just pointing out the contradictions:
"canon is not to be determined by what the producers felt outside of the actual series (but what was in the series itself)."
vs
"the studio is in charge of what is canon and what is not canon" Currently the studio line is: All live action TV series and movies produced by Paramout/CBS are canon. What's "in the series" is not a factor.
If you believe the latter then you cant believe the former.
Nor can you as a viewer declare a series "Non-canon". You are free to dislike and disregard any series, episode or movie you want, but don't confuse that with canon.

Nerys:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

Side Note:

Also, how many times do I have to say it? I believe Enterprise to be canon like the rest of the series. I just believe Enterprise to be an alternate time line.

In other words, our posts are looking like this...

I said it's canon!

No you didn't!