Is Enterprise Canon?

[Luther Sloan]

Sorry I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by " the studio has not made any statements ."

Nerys:

That's okay.

All I'm saying is that by extention the term can be applied to the Ringship because is has been extended on screen to other ships. Such as the 22nd Century ship the Archon. Memory Alpha covers how they've ( the show runners) expanded this

A starship is any manned spacecraft that is capable of viable interstellar travel, i.e any manned spacecraft that has the ability to transport and support a crew across interstellar distances in a reasonable time. A starship accomplishes this via the employment of some form of faster-than-light spacecraft propulsion technology, such as warp drive.

However, the term quickly fell into a more "generic" use, first as describing Federation vessels in general, and then large, faster-than-light-capable vessels from a range of cultures.

"Irrelevant - Non Canon!"

Your making this a bit more personal that it has to be, my friend. If I was the sensitive type I might call that a flame.

My apologies if I came off offensive. But you just kept ignoring my points or misunderstanding them in my previous posts. It gets a little old.

However, I am sorry for coming off that way. I know. I could have been nicer about it.

Again, my deepest apologies.

Five Federation starships. "Federation" being a qualifier than implies other starships have the name Enterprise.

But as I mentioned before, Archer's starship was a very significant ship within the formation of the United Federation of Planets. Why would the computer ignore such an important starship or fact? It wasn't like Scotty said... "Show me the most recent starships with the name Enterprise". However, I did say this scene was not all that conclusive before. However, with the Deep Space Nine scene: it helps give a little more weight to prove my case with this TNG scene, though.

Anyways, I get it. You want to defend the show because you really love it. I am defending my viewpoints on the show based on what all the series of Trek overall tells me. If Enterprise had given me better evidence that it was a part of the Original Core Trek Time Line, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just don't buy into all the previous Trek episodes getting taken out of context of what they originally meant. I actually value throw away lines and believe Star Trek as a whole has a pretty descent canon structure for as many episodes and films that it has. I actually take pride and value each scene and line within each episode. Even the bad ones.

 

[Nerys Myk]

"Irrelevant - Non Canon!"

It is canon because its based on what was seen or said on screen. The ringship fits the on screen derived definition of "starship" even if its not directly called one.

Your making this a bit more personal that it has to be, my friend. If I was the sensitive type I might call that a flame.

But you just kept ignoring my points or misunderstanding them in my previous posts. It gets a little old.

You keep saying this. Frankly I'm not sure why you think this. I answer each of your points with a counterpoint. I quote your point as a reference to the statements or ideas I am challenging. How is that ignoring? Misunderstanding thats possible, but I dont think thats true in all cases.

Five Federation starships. "Federation" being a qualifier than implies other starships have the name Enterprise.

But as I mentioned before, Archer's starship was a very significant ship within the formation of the United Federation of Planets. Why would the computer ignore such an important starship or fact? It wasn't like Scotty said... "Show me the most recent starships with the name Enterprise". However, I did say this scene was not all that conclusive before. However, with the Deep Space Nine scene: it helps give a little more weight to prove my case with this TNG scene, though

But Archer's ship is not a Federation starship,( no matter what it's preUFP significance is) nor could Scotty have served on that ship. So its falls out of the parameter "my ship". The computer said "There are four Federation starships" It decided that only the Federation starships are valid. Why? I guess it was programmed that way. It "felt" the need to add that qualifier "Federation". Why would it do that? To distinguish Federation ships called Enterprise from non Federation ship called Enterprise. Other wise, "five starships called Enterprise" would suffice.


The DS9 scene features UFP personnel talking to UFP personnel about other UFP personnel. Its not surprising non UFP personnel or ships would be excluded. They have no authority over nonUFP related ships,events or people.

Anyways, I get it. You want to defend the show because you really love it. I am defending the show based on what the series overall tells me. If Enterprise had given me better evidence that it was a part of the Original Core Trek Time Line, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

No, I defend it because I like Star Trek and rationalizing Trek's errors and incontinuity to make it all work together is a tradition among fans. And its a fun exercise in creativity. I would so the same for VOY ( A show I didnt care for) and STV and NEM ( two movies I disliked)

I just don't buy into all the previous Trek episodes getting taken out of context of what they originally meant. I actually value throw away lines and believe Star Trek as a whole has a pretty descent canon structure for as many episodes and films that it has. I actually take pride and value each scene and line within each episode. Even the bad ones.

Sometimes it's the only way for Trek to work. TOS is among the worse offenders. It has errors that can be explained away. Much worse than Enterprise. Include three or four different timeframes. Also,inconsistant information about character histories and characterizations. Fit those into the "Core Star Trek Timeline". You can't take everyline as literal.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Well, I disagree.

 

[doubleohfive]

Is Enterprise Canon?

Yes.

 

[Tiberius]

My goodness. This argument about what the computer meant with scotty on the holodeck. it's like watching a bunch of little kids.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Work these in to the "Core Star Trek Time Line"

TRELANE: Ah, yes. I've been looking in on the doings on your lively little Earth.
KIRK: Then you've been looking in on the doings nine hundred years past.

That places Star Trek in the 28th Century. (19th Century plus 900 years)

FELLINI: I am going to lock you up for two hundred years.
KIRK: That ought to be just about right.

That places Star Trek in the 22nd Century. (20th Century plus 200 years)

KHAN: How long?
KIRK: How long have you been sleeping? Two centuries we estimate. Landing party to Enterprise. Come in

1990s/20th Century plus two Centuries. 22nd Centuries. Oddly enough TWOK is set in the 23rd Century

IN THE 23RD CENTURY...

More TWOK

KHAN: You are in a position to demand nothing, sir. I, on the other hand, am in a position to grant ...nothing. What you see is all that remains of the ship's company and crew of the Botany Bay, marooned here fifteen years ago by Captain James T. Kirk.

Hmmm. wouldn't that still the the 22nd Century not the 23rd if Kirk was right about the time in Space Seed? Unless Space takes place in the 2290s.

All future production places TOS in the mid 23rd Century.

Spock the "emotionless" Vulcan

These plants feel good

The Women!!!!!

Do Vulcans smirk?

There is some confusion abouts Kirks early career too.

Court Martial: Kirk serves as an Ensign aboard the Republic.
Obsession: He also is said to be serving with Capt Garrovick on the Farragut since the day he left the academy.

WNMHGB: Kirks middle intial is "R"
Court Martial ( and others): His middle intial is "T"

Who is Carol Marcus? Why is she never mentioned in TOS?

Other oddities

Spock and McCoy are both called Lt. Commanders in "Court Martial yet wear different rank devices.

The Cage Enterprsie has a crew of 200 plus, The TOS Enterprise has a crew 0f 400 plus.

Spock says Vulcan reproduction is a private matter in "Amok Time" yet talks about it to a stranger in "Cloud Minders".

Gary Mitchell is 23 according to his file seen in WNMHGB but has nown Kirk since they first met at the academy when Kirk was a Lt. (at least 10 years prior) Was Gary at the Academy when he was 13? Isnt 23 a bit young for a Lt Commander?


Well?

 

[Deckerd]

You two should get a room.

 

[Nerys Myk]

My goodness. This argument about what the computer meant with scotty on the holodeck. it's like watching a bunch of little kids.

Its a typical argument about Star Trek.

You two should get a room.

Luther's not my type. Too literal. I prefer someone more flexible.

 

[Saquist]

No, not evasive. What it is is rationalization. Something that all fans need to maked the jigsaw that is Trek canon work as a single continuity. When Spock says "Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other". That is open to interpretation as too why.

Very well rationalization is acceptable.
And I concur, Why is interpretable, how is interpretable but not the fact its self.

Is it and addendum to his previous statement ( primitive ships) or a prelude to his next? (not seeing a Romulan).

It's all one sentence the "which" in grammar refers to that immediately before.

Also we have to consider why this Then we have to evaluate the line visa vis what we see in the canon as a whole and the level of technology we have to dayhow that can be extrapolated towards the future. Taking all that into concisderation, the line can not work as "written" and another explanation must be found.

I don't believe so. Sci Fiction stories have a lot more flexibility than writing structure itsself has. This to me just comes down to a choice to contradict a previous statement or work within it.

90% of Star Trek canon and continuity is compose of single lines and images. So tossing out things based on lack of repetition makes no sense.

I'm not tossing the ship out.
I'm pointing out that the ship is apparently insignificant to the discussion like the Carrier and space shuttle.

The computers on board the E-D can track every crewmemeber or guest. "Computer, where is Commander Riker?" So when Scott walks up and asks for "my ship" the computer knows who he is and which ships he's referring to. Once he specifies the Enterprise the computer asks him which one. As I said, its not going to include a ship he never served one (thats not part of "my ship") and especially not a ship that was decommisioned before he was born. It is because the computer has a literal mind set that it can know who Scott is and which ships he might be refering to.

Riker said in the episode where the Enterprise grew a conscious that the subsystems like sensors navigation and warp aren't interconnected they act independently at the control of the computer thus impossible for the ship to see some thing and thus move to avoid it.

The computer seems to be compartmentalized.
It may acknowledge through sensors that person is on the ship or not but it doesn't link that knowledge with a request being made...at least that has been evident. In other words it goes by known data and in certain situtations phenomenon was happening right out side the ship but the computer couldn't speculate as to exactly what was happening, (Remember me) It's been confirmed as limited.

And the Warp Age will be even more significant.

That is a far too simple an explanation for me to accept. For me everything must have an evident reason.

And the internal combustion engine, the airplane, the television and the computer were all invented in the span of about 100 years.

Only one of those devices did what nothing had ever done before, computing with an electronic brain. Fly had been done just not refined. They've glided and knew it was possible for powered flight. I'm talking about real hurdles like manned rocket flight to another planet. The computer is a good one. What else significant has man done in technology?

Aren't these technologies "evolving" though? The ships are faster, the weapons more powerful. And the package changes too. Flip top communicators become wristbands go back to even bulkier flip tops and then become pins. Bulky phase pistols become smaller phasers, including one that can fit in the palm of your hand. Torpedoes go from spatial to photonic to photon to quantum. Spatial torps look like missles while the others have differnent shapes.

I would say those all are good arguments except for the torpedos which for the last 200 some odd years is exactly the same but for color and the look exactly same active. I personally have a problem with that.

Thing is, none of the shows are focused on the "realistic" evolution of their fictional technologies. They are just tools to tell a story. Star Trek uses the classic SF techs: Spaceships and rayguns. And all thats required is they fly through space and shoot energy beams. Calling the raygun a phase pistol, a laser, a phaser, a partical beam emmtter or some other made up name isn't going to change its function in the fictional world of Star Trek. Its a raygun.

And this proves the NX-01 is a literal duplicate how? No one is claiming that they didn't use the Akira as the basis for the NX-01.

Uh...it was the otherside that said they were literal duplicates. Not me. But it doesn't matter they are too similar. This would never happen in 200 years of construction and design on coincident and to do so purposely would be extremely illogical for a combat ship and we're talking about similarities that ultimately have to do with how the ship was put together...those methods change...old methods fall away, new stable patterns are realized.

Maybe they would stay the same for a while...but not this long at this length of time it's just kind of blatantly copying the past or vise versa. I know these are different perspectives between you and I personally I can allow only so much plagiarizing in a creative work. At some point it has to fly on it's own.

 

[F. King Daniel]

King Daniel:

Yeah, this is true; I just learned that even the animated series is considered canon, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_The_Animated_Series#Canon_issues



Yeah, a lot of Trek mistakes can be easily explained, especially when things can change with the passage of time.

However, there are some Trek mistakes shown on those YouTube videos that I had a hard time explaining, though. But none the less, I came up with some excuses for them, anyways.

Problem #1:
Troi says she never kissed Riker with a beard before in Insurrection. Yet we see through out the TNG series that she has done this numerous times.

Solution #1:
The anti aging factor that was effecting the crew within this region of space could have had some unseen side effects. Memory loss must have been one of them.

Problem #2:
Spock tells Uhura that Vulcan has no moon. Yet, later in other on screen Trek, we see that Vulcan does in fact have a moon.

Solution #2:
It is possible that the Vulcans created an artificial secret moon to orbit their planet for planetary defense purposes or something.

Problem #3:
Harry Kim says that Warp 10 is theoretically impossible. Yet, Picard broke the Warp 10 barrier in a TNG episode.

Solution #3:
It is possible that Picard's Warp 10 mission was classified by Starfleet for some reason. So Harry Kim wouldn't be aware of Picard's particular Warp 10 mission.

Problem #4:
Curzon Dax dies on the operating table when transferring his symbiont to Jadzia Dax. However, later we discover that Arandis, one of Curzon Dax's old lovers ended up sending him to his death during Jamaharon (Sex).

Solution #4:
It is possible that Curzon died twice. People have been known many times through out history to die and later come back from the dead miraculously.


Notable Mistakes That Are Not Mentioned:

Problem #5:
How come Kirk and crew keep running into Earth related type planets? It seems highly unlikely that they would keep running into their own kind all the time.

Solution: #5:
It is possible that a powerful being like the Q was guiding the Enterprise crew to find Earth related planets to help man grow stronger within the galaxy.

Problem #6:
Why did Janeway and Paris turn into lizards when they traveled at Warp 10 and Picard and crew didn't?

Solution #6:
It is obvious Q or some other intelligent species was secretly playing a practical joke on the Voyager crew or something.

Problem #7:
Why did Picard disobey orders to protect the Baku to stay on their planet and yet didn't disobey orders to protect the Maquis to stay on their world?

Solution #7:
The anti aging factor that was effecting the crew within this region of space could have had some unseen side effects. Rebellion of youth must have been one of them.

Y'know what? I don't think these things need explaining. It's not like real life adds up all the time.
It's worth the mistakes just for the funny videos later

 

[SFRabid]

I'm starting to wonder what school teaches debate methods based on the premise that if you keep presenting opinions as facts the other side will eventually give up.

 

[Deckerd]

Canon is bursting with 'facts'. Don't you know anything?

 

[SFRabid]

Canon is bursting with 'facts'. Don't you know anything?

I've been told I don't, but I'm still trying to figure out of that was an opinion or a fact.

 

[Saquist]

When Picard passed Warp 10 to get to M31 Geordi said the helm never recorded them passing through warp 1.5.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Nerys Myk, when posting images, please keep them no larger than 640x480 and about 70kb. See here for board policy on posting images.

My goodness. This argument about what the computer meant with scotty on the holodeck. it's like watching a bunch of little kids.

Its a typical argument about Star Trek.

The thing with Scotty and the computer, or acting like little kids?

That is a far too simple an explanation for me to accept. For me everything must have an evident reason.

Hollywood entertainment is not a good place to look for "evident reason."

A TV writer trying to get a script from initial idea to finished production draft in 4-6 weeks to fit a tight shooting schedule isn't going to use up half his precious writing time pawing through the Star Trek Bible Of Canon to make sure all his plot elements are consistent with previously established canon, which is itself full of inconsistencies. The primary objective of a screenwriter, by far, is to tell a good story. If canon gets in the way of that, it probably gets tossed. Which is likely the reason for all those little inconsistencies in the first place.



So... since no one has much mentioned Enterprise in the last 30 posts, I guess we're done debating whether the show is canon?

 

[Luther Sloan]

Well said.

However, I also want to say...
I love you guys and I hope you don't think less of me if I wanted to prove my case to someone in a debate (no matter what that debate was about or how silly or irrelevant you may think it is).

I am sure all of you have been here in one form or another but under different circumstances. When you stand up for something you believe in, you are going to come under fire.

Even if it's over a fictional TV series and or line of films.

 

[Middleman]

The thing with Scotty and the computer, or acting like little kids?

It would be safe to assume both.

 

[KottenFutz]

I've been a Star Trek fan long enough to hold TOS in high regard, it's my childhood, it's my favorite Trek, and to me it's the best Trek...

But, TOS is Star Trek's rough draft, not it's bible.

We can't limit all of Trek to TOS, it was written by guys and gals unaware that 40 years later it was going to be held to such standards and scrutiny. It will never hold up, so let it be, as long as it serves as the template what more can we ask of it? It was written and produced in a time that has since moved forward and Enterprise reflects that change without destroying what Trek was and still is. TOS exists in a very real alternate timeline from ours: the 1960's.

(But god help me, I do love these debates )

 

[Luther Sloan]

The thing with Scotty and the computer, or acting like little kids?

It would be safe to assume both.

Middleman:

You know. If I leaned a little more to the right... You can kick my rib cage in a little more.

Please, man. Have a heart. I was just trying to prove my side of the argument with someone. Like you are not guilty of doing the same yourself. Besides, there is nothing wrong with trying to prove my point while staying on topic. It wasn't like I was calling anyone names or intentionally trying to insult a person.

*Cough*

Which is kind of what your doing.

Anyways, lets get back to the discussion of canon and leave the petty insults out please. This is not whether or not canon is valid or note worthy subject to debate about. This thread is not about insulting other people's debates. It is about talking about whether or not Enterprise is canon.

So let's please put aside the petty insults and be civil and stick to the topic of this thread.

 

[Saquist]

Nerys Myk, when posting images, please keep them no larger than 640x480 and about 70kb. See here for board policy on posting images.

My goodness. This argument about what the computer meant with scotty on the holodeck. it's like watching a bunch of little kids.

Its a typical argument about Star Trek.

The thing with Scotty and the computer, or acting like little kids?

That is a far too simple an explanation for me to accept. For me everything must have an evident reason.

Hollywood entertainment is not a good place to look for "evident reason."

A TV writer trying to get a script from initial idea to finished production draft in 4-6 weeks to fit a tight shooting schedule isn't going to use up half his precious writing time pawing through the Star Trek Bible Of Canon to make sure all his plot elements are consistent with previously established canon, which is itself full of inconsistencies. The primary objective of a screenwriter, by far, is to tell a good story. If canon gets in the way of that, it probably gets tossed. Which is likely the reason for all those little inconsistencies in the first place.



So... since no one has much mentioned Enterprise in the last 30 posts, I guess we're done debating whether the show is canon?

What I meant by evident reason was a cause and purpose even in the perspective of the fictional story, ma'am.

Story telling is an art form and skill. I extremely dislike having to story guess (not like a mystery) when they're are plot holes and consistency is always desirable in art. Rushed art is commercialism and that's what Trek has been for some time instead of an art.