What is your view of Enterprise?

[Luther Sloan]

NCC-1701:

Here is my post on Enterprise's canon...

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3997372&postcount=224

And here is my post on my view of Enterprise...

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3997390&postcount=71

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I voted for "Is not canon no matter what the studio says." but I feel that the Poll options are incomplete.

The studio said that Enterprise was not Star Trek for its first two seasons, so obviously it cannot be Star Trek canon.

When the studio later decides to slap a Trek label onto what they have decided is a non-Trek show, that does not mean that one must believe the second side of the studio's mouth that the studio has talked out of, rather than the first.

Yet the Poll option that is there, represents things as if Enterprise has always been a Trek-branded show, which IMO makes for a biased selection of only loaded Poll statements to choose from.

Hence, a Poll option should be present to the tune of:

"The first side of the studio's mouth that it talked out of, the one that declared Enterprise to be a non-Trek show and therefore indisputably not Trek canon, is the only valid side."

or, "The studio's attempt to canonize Enterprise via performing revisionist history on its branding is invalid."

I'm not exactly sure whether your post was meant serious or not, but assuming it was: What has the title of a show to do with its canonicity?

By your logic, Caprica isn't part of nuBSG canon, Crusade isn't part of Babylon 5 canon, Torchwood isn't part of Doctor Who canon, Xena isn't part of Hercules canon, Angel isn't part of Buffy canon, and the Serenity movie isn't part of Firefly canon.

Attacking a show for its friggin title is a non-argument IMO. There are far more substantial things you could Enterprise criticize for.

 

[Michael]

The idea of going back in time and killing your 10 year old grandfather makes far less sense, doesn't it?

To assume that that there are no changes in time when someone meddles in the time line is pretty odd. It is the basic cause and effect theory.

I don't think that's how time travel is supposed to work in Star Trek. This whole "Enterprise is an altered First Contact timeline" stuff really sounds like nonsense to me.

In ENT's "Regeneration", we see Archer mention to T'Pol about cybernetic creatures and Humans from the future. Which basically is the events of First Contact. Which puts the events we see on Enterprise within the wake of the First Contact Time Line.

Mach5, LS, I'm afraid both of you are missing the point of my argument big time. I'm not arguing that the events of First Contact had no effect on the timeline. I just don't get why you guys are making an exception for Enterprise's timeline, when, by your logic, every time travel in Star Trek spawned an alternate universe. Why is Enterprise happening in an altered First Contact timeline, when, for example, the episodes after Tomorrow is Yesterday aren't happening in an altered Tomorrow is Yesterday timeline? Why isn't Star Trek V happening in an altered Star Trek IV timeline? Why aren't all Trek episodes after Trials And Tribble-ations happening in an altered Trials And Tribble-ations timeline? You see, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say Enterprise happens in a First Contact timeline, when, in reality, it isn't any different than every other time they altered the past in Star Trek.

Also, if I remember correctly, Seven of Nine mentions the events of First Contact in an episode of Voyager. So I guess Voyager happens in an altered First Contact timeline, too, eh?

 

[Mach5]

Also, if I remember correctly, Seven of Nine mentions the events of First Contact in an episode of Voyager. So I guess Voyager happens in an altered First Contact timeline, too, eh?

Just because Seven spoke of predestination as a valid theory, it doesn't automatically mean it is valid.

Seven of Nine was, in the end, only as smart as the writers who wrote her lines.

And yes, the idea of post-FC Voyager taking place in an alternate timeline (very similar to the one it branched from) makes perfect sense to me.

Oh, and BTW:

 

[Michael]

^ So, according to you, post-First Contact-Voyager actually happens in an altered Tomorrow Is Yesterday/The City on the Edge of Forever/Assignment: Earth/All Our Yesterdays/Star Trek IV/Yesterday's Enterprise/Time's Arrow/Past Tense/Little Green Men/Trials And Tribble-ations/Eye of the Needle/Future's End timeline.

Don't you see how ridiculous that logic is?

I'm not saying it isn't correct. I'm just saying that it's rather nonsensical to single out Enterprise and stress that it happens in an altered timeline, when pretty much every Star Trek production since the first instance of time travel in Star Trek happens in an altered timeline. What's so different about Enterprise?

 

[Mach5]

There is another thing though... Since we know that time travel is a concept beyond our comprehension (as Daniels said to Archer), then it is okay to assume that it sometimes creates alternate realities, and sometimes it doesn't, and that this depends on certain factors far too complex for us to grasp or even notice.

Still, I argue that going back in time "Back to the future" style doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Luther Sloan]

^ So, according to you, post-First Contact-Voyager actually happens in an altered Tomorrow Is Yesterday/The City on the Edge of Forever/Assignment: Earth/All Our Yesterdays/Star Trek IV/Yesterday's Enterprise/Time's Arrow/Past Tense/Little Green Men/Trials And Tribble-ations/Eye of the Needle/Future's End timeline.

Don't you see how ridiculous that logic is?

I'm not saying it isn't correct. I'm just saying that it's rather nonsensical to single out Enterprise and stress that it happens in an altered timeline, when pretty much every Star Trek production since the first instance of time travel in Star Trek happens in an altered timeline. What's so different about Enterprise?

NCC-1701:

Yeah, my apologies if it sounded like I was singling out Enterprise. However, I personally believe that all time travel incidents (or episodes) within Star Trek have some type of effect on the time line if they are not corrected by a powerful being like the Q or the Future Protective Temporal Agency (that Daniels is a part of) or by some other means.

Also, we may not see the changes in a time line because of the mysteries of the multiple time lines theory, too. In a multiple time lines theory: any or all changes in the time line simply creates a new alternate and separate time line. In other words, every time we see a time travel episode (that could effect the time line)... a new separate time line is created and the original one continues on. We are either following the altered time line or the time line that was the one not influenced or altered directly by the time travel incident. The unfortunate thing is that we don't know if the time line was fixed or if it was manipulated in some small way or if it is the original unaltered one. Such is the nature and mystery of time travel.

But each time someone time travels. There is a consequence. Sometimes we see those consequences or changes and other times we don't.

At least that is my 2 cents worth anyways.


Side Note:

Oh, but the reason I was singling out Enterprise was because it is the topic of discussion and it helps explain Picard and crew's strong influence on the time line within First Contact. In other words, Enterprise helps explain the mystery or puts the pieces of the puzzle together for First Contact.

Please read my post below for further details...

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4009267&postcount=110

 

[Luther Sloan]

There is another thing though... Since we know that time travel is a concept beyond our comprehension (as Daniels said to Archer), then it is okay to assume that it sometimes creates alternate realities, and sometimes it doesn't, and that this depends on certain factors far too complex for us to grasp or even notice.

Mach 5:

Yeah, I am still subscribing to my old theory on multiple time lines where a time line can't be destroyed or manipulated but just duplicated so that time protects itself.

Still, I argue that going back in time "Back to the future" style doesn't make any sense at all.

You should check out MJ Young's thoughts on time travel concerning Back to the Future. Now that will really give you a head ache.

http://www.mjyoung.net/time/back1.html

 

[Saquist]

The idea of going back in time and killing your 10 year old grandfather makes far less sense, doesn't it?

To assume that that there are no changes in time when someone meddles in the time line is pretty odd. It is the basic cause and effect theory.

I don't think that's how time travel is supposed to work in Star Trek. This whole "Enterprise is an altered First Contact timeline" stuff really sounds like nonsense to me.

In ENT's "Regeneration", we see Archer mention to T'Pol about cybernetic creatures and Humans from the future. Which basically is the events of First Contact. Which puts the events we see on Enterprise within the wake of the First Contact Time Line.

Mach5, LS, I'm afraid both of you are missing the point of my argument big time. I'm not arguing that the events of First Contact had no effect on the timeline. I just don't get why you guys are making an exception for Enterprise's timeline, when, by your logic, every time travel in Star Trek spawned an alternate universe. Why is Enterprise happening in an altered First Contact timeline, when, for example, the episodes after Tomorrow is Yesterday aren't happening in an altered Tomorrow is Yesterday timeline? Why isn't Star Trek V happening in an altered Star Trek IV timeline? Why aren't all Trek episodes after Trials And Tribble-ations happening in an altered Trials And Tribble-ations timeline? You see, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say Enterprise happens in a First Contact timeline, when, in reality, it isn't any different than every other time they altered the past in Star Trek.

Also, if I remember correctly, Seven of Nine mentions the events of First Contact in an episode of Voyager. So I guess Voyager happens in an altered First Contact timeline, too, eh?

THE answer you're looking for has been given to us by Year of Hell in Voyager and Relativity in Voyager. It's about acceptable deviation.

 

[Luther Sloan]

I'm not saying it isn't correct. I'm just saying that it's rather nonsensical to single out Enterprise and stress that it happens in an altered timeline, when pretty much every Star Trek production since the first instance of time travel in Star Trek happens in an altered timeline. What's so different about Enterprise?

NCC-1701:

Also, I was thinking about this some more, my friend. And I came to another conclusion, as well. The changes within the time lines you mentioned or within all of Star Trek's episodes have been very minor or they have been corrected (as if they didn't happen).

So just what type of significant changes could there have been within "Tomorrow is Yesterday"? Kirk and crew are spotted by the government and regarded the whole thing as a UFO incident that was essentially covered up.

In the City on the Edge of Forever: there was no changes to the time line at all. http://www.tubechop.com/watch/62381

Should there have been any temporal incursions for Assignment Earth? Kirk and crew didn't come into contact with anyone that would have drawn suspicion that they were from the future. They didn't leave any technology behind or tell them of the future. Plus, Gary 7 was there to preserve the time line.

As for All Our Yesterdays: It was a time travel event that only effected that one particular planet that was not a part of the Federation. People of that world simply went back into the past to avoid the destruction of their world.

Should there have been any lasting effects within the time line for Star Trek 4? Maybe. But seeing the time line wasn't changed suggests otherwise. So apparently, the Assistant Director of the Cetacean Institute (Dr. Gillian Taylor) was not that influential of a person past 1986, either due to the fact that she might have died or disappeared from the public eye. Also, when the whalers see the Klingon bird of prey, they didn't take any pictures of it. So there is no proof that anyone would believe them. And of course, there wouldn't be any lasting changes within the time line if two humpback whales went missing (especially if they were going to be slaughtered, anyways).

See where I am going with this?
Pretty much all of the events we seen within the various Star Trek episodes have addressed the small changes within the time line or they were so insignificant that that there was no noticeable effects later on.

In Star Trek First Contact: We have a major influence of the time line by Picard and crew. Cochrane and Lily learn of a future world and technology that they didn't know existed (which was set into motion by them). They learn of a deadly race known as the Borg, too. The difference with this incident and the other time travel incidents with Star Trek is that this time travel event should have had a major change within the natural development within the Star Trek Time Line. But yet, we don't see any noticeable changes within the time line when we later see the 24th Century. Which suggests that there was some type of correction within the time line or we are seeing the Original Time Line (that can't be destroyed or allowed to be changed by time).

However, that doesn't mean there wasn't a change to the time line at one point or that it didn't create a separate alternate diverging time line, though. If we were to follow Lily and Cochrane after Picard and crew's little intervention I am sure they would have tried to push for advancements in humanity a lot faster than they originally would have (to either protect themselves from the future Borg or because they simply now knew that the technology exists).

So the difference with Enterprise is that it fits the mystery of the strong influence on the time line we seen in First Contact. It was always suggested in previous Trek canon that the technology was more primitive within the 22nd Century. So seeing Enterprise shows us a more advanced version of that history, and it confirms itself to be within the First Contact Time Line (within the episode "Regeneration"), it makes sense that we are looking at an alternate or changed time line.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Oh, and one more thing. How do we know that alternate time lines or changed time lines exist or continue on? Star Trek (2009) clearly shows us an alternate history within the 23rd Century where the planet of Vulcan no longer exists anymore.

This either suggests that the Original Time Line (or the previous time line) was erased or it is a separate diverging time line within an infinite number of Multiple Time Lines.

Side Note:

Also, if your curious to check out all of the time travel episodes within Star Trek yourself. Here is a list I came up within this thread...

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3998361&postcount=77

 

[Mach5]

Oh, and one more thing. How do we know that alternate time lines or changed time lines exist or continue on?

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Parallels_(episode)

DATA: I believe the quantum fissure we discovered is a fixed point across the space time continuum. A keyhole which intersects many other quantum realities.

TROI: What do you mean, quantum realities?

DATA: For any event, there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow. But there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen, do happen in alternate quantum realities.

 

[RandyS]

Enterprise is shit. But only in relation to the other four shows. I would rather watch Enterprise than any other (non Star Trek) show on TV.

Well, except for Babylon 5. I just really, really, love Babylon 5.

 

[Luther Sloan]

http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Parallels_(episode)

DATA: I believe the quantum fissure we discovered is a fixed point across the space time continuum. A keyhole which intersects many other quantum realities.

TROI: What do you mean, quantum realities?

DATA: For any event, there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow. But there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen, do happen in alternate quantum realities.

Mach 5:

Yeah, although the episode is more about parallel realities or possibilities, I think Parallels is a good indication that multiple time lines could exist. In fact, I totally forgot all about that one. Thanks for reminding me of that one, my friend.

I think I am going to watch that one tonight.

Thanks man.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Enterprise is shit. But only in relation to the other four shows. I would rather watch Enterprise than any other (non Star Trek) show on TV.

Randy S:

Have you ever watched Stargate SG-1 or Atlantis?
Personally, I couldn't get into SG-1 when I first seen it, but I gave it shot thru Hulu a few months back and totally got hooked into watching them. SG-1 is really a worthwhile show if you can get past the 1st season.

As for Enterprise: Totally agree with you that it is the weakest out of the 5 major Trek series (although still entertaining).

 

[Saquist]

Don't bother with SGU

 

[SFRabid]

SG1 - Pretty good but 2 seasons too long. They ran out of stories to tell and kept focusing on "menace to the galaxy" story lines.

SGA - OK. Some good. Some bad. Still in the menace to the galaxy story mode.

SGU - Boring, low budget soap opera. The last episode or two makes me wonder if they are heading back to the menace to the galaxy arcs.

 

[Luther Sloan]

SG1 - Pretty good but 2 seasons too long. They ran out of stories to tell and kept focusing on "menace to the galaxy" story lines.

SGA - OK. Some good. Some bad. Still in the menace to the galaxy story mode.

SF Rabid:

Overall I loved SG-1. Even the last two years and the direct to DVD movies were a lot of fun for me. As for Atlantis: I loved it until Robert Picardo took over the series. I liked him as the Doctor on Voyager immensely, but he really didn't seem to fit the leader role all that well on the show at all.

Anyways, SG-1 and SGA are far more superior than Enterprise, though. At least in my opinion.

SGU - Boring, low budget soap opera. The last episode or two makes me wonder if they are heading back to the menace to the galaxy arcs.

Yeah, SGU has got to be one of the worst science fiction shows around. It makes Enterprise genius by comparison.

 

[Mach5]

Yeah, SGU has got to be one of the worst science fiction shows around. It makes Enterprise genius by comparison.

How the hell is that show still alive? I'm good friends with bunch of Stargate fans, they all hate it with a passion...

 

[RandyS]

Enterprise is shit. But only in relation to the other four shows. I would rather watch Enterprise than any other (non Star Trek) show on TV.

Randy S:

Have you ever watched Stargate SG-1 or Atlantis?
Personally, I couldn't get into SG-1 when I first seen it, but I gave it shot thru Hulu a few months back and totally got hooked into watching them. SG-1 is really a worthwhile show if you can get past the 1st season.

As for Enterprise: Totally agree with you that it is the weakest out of the 5 major Trek series (although still entertaining).

Yeah, I followed SG1 for the first six or seven years of it's run, then got tired of it. I never saw Atlantis, or the other shows of that franchise.