Is Enterprise part of your personal canon?

[Arpy]

I just find it an immature reaction to something one doesn't like. Similar to a child sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "lalalalalala" when faced with a statement they dont like. I also find it intellectually lazy. Being a "creative" type I prefer solutions that do not include the dustbin.

So, I'm not inclined to disregard: Voyager, "Spocks Brain" and Star Trek V no matter how much they disappoint me. I'll work as hard as I can to make them "fit". If I was a writer and could spin a bit of continuity from them to create a story I'd do so with relish.

Because it's fun to. And for sentimentality's sake. And because they can be enjoyable on their own terms.

But I hear you say you're being creative while others are being lazy and childish. You conjure increasingly improbable rationalizations rather than factor for disparate real-world production teams and philosophies. Other fans artfully create alternate histories and parallel dimensions for their entertainment. An argument can be easily made for the reverse of what you say.

I don't think you and I or other fans who do what we're talking about here are all that different. I too think up rationalizations to make everything fit. And I wonder if there's anything on TV or elsewhere that you simply prefer to ignore. I think it's human to do both and that everyone does.

Canon is "big picture" and continuity is the details. "WNMHGB" is canon, "James R Kirk" was continuity.

No, as you defined them for us earlier, they're two different things.

I see a difference. In one your simply altering the ending of a movie. You're not pretending the entire movie did not exist because it didn't fit your vision of the Rick/Ilse relationship.

Same deal. You don't need to ignore an entire movie or episode to ignore an aspect of it. Writers build new stories from aspects of earlier episodes while ignoring others all the time.

Ratings matter because of revenue. Any changes based on ratings are reactive and not always creative.

It's give and take. No one pays a writer to write a show no one else likes.

Also, one of the reasons rating or test groups or opinion polls matter to writers is because they can be sources of constructive feedback. If a writer didn't need that, there wouldn't be any editors.

Also "lalalalala" is not the best way to critique and express displeasure.

I keep having to remind myself of the types of fans I've run across on these boards that fit this description to keep from taking it personally.

 

[Santa Kang]

I just find it an immature reaction to something one doesn't like. Similar to a child sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "lalalalalala" when faced with a statement they dont like. I also find it intellectually lazy. Being a "creative" type I prefer solutions that do not include the dustbin.

So, I'm not inclined to disregard: Voyager, "Spocks Brain" and Star Trek V no matter how much they disappoint me. I'll work as hard as I can to make them "fit". If I was a writer and could spin a bit of continuity from them to create a story I'd do so with relish.

Because it's fun to. And for sentimentality's sake. And because they can be enjoyable on their own terms.

I find no "fun" is saying "Nope never happened". Its just too easy and unchallenging.

But I hear you say you're being creative while others are being lazy and childish. You conjure increasingly improbable rationalizations rather than factor for disparate real-world production teams and philosophies. Other fans artfully create alternate histories and parallel dimensions for their entertainment. An argument can be easily made for the reverse of what you say.

I do both. I look for solutions from the material presented and try to steer away from the improbable. I also recognize that different production teams have different approaches. Did I give the impression that I dont? One's in-universe and one's out. Its the third solution: "Nope never happened" that I avoid. That seems to be a bigger cheat than any "increasingly improbable rationalization" someone comes up with. At least with the latter an effort is being made. There's no art in saying "Show/Movie X is not canon." Thats what I find childish and lazy. If they are creating a different continuity to fill in that spot, then they are being creative. Fan created Alternate histories and parallel dimensions are fun. But lets not fool ourselves in thinking it "matters". Though I am reminded of a story told by a comics pro who had this fan constantly haranguing him over "errors" in the series he was writing. Turns the reason the guy was so upset was that the pro's work was contradicting the fan's fanfic.

I don't think you and I or other fans who do what we're talking about here are all that different. I too think up rationalizations to make everything fit. And I wonder if there's anything on TV or elsewhere that you simply prefer to ignore. I think it's human to do both and that everyone does.

I ignore a lot of reality TV and have trouble rationalizing its appeal.

Canon is "big picture" and continuity is the details. "WNMHGB" is canon, "James R Kirk" was continuity.

No, as you defined them for us earlier, they're two different things.

Exaxctly, thats why one is "big picture" and the other is about the details. As an episode of Star Trek owned by Paramount/CBS "WNMHGB" is part of the canon. The fact some elements presented in it were changed in future installments doesn't alter that. Its still gonna be mentioned in lists of Star Tek Episodes.

Ratings matter because of revenue. Any changes based on ratings are reactive and not always creative.

It's give and take. No one pays a writer to write a show no one else likes.

Usually the writing comes first, then the dislike and finally the sack. ( till the next job)

Also, one of the reasons rating or test groups or opinion polls matter to writers is because they can be sources of constructive feedback. If a writer didn't need that, there wouldn't be any editors.

I don't trust "focus groups". Go with your gut.

All part of the creative process. The editor is part of the team and not a member of the audience.

 

[RookieBatman]

This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'

This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value.

Only if you ignore the posts I've made on the subject (indicating that I enjoyed ENT, but it's still not a part of my personal continuity), which you seem to be in the habit of doing anyway.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'

This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value.

Only if you ignore the posts I've made on the subject (indicating that I enjoyed ENT, but it's still not a part of my personal continuity), which you seem to be in the habit of doing anyway.

Still annoyed about the star trek V thread. Or is it the star trek XI thread observation?
You want me to engage in a lengthy conversation with you?
In this case, loose the "I'll fanatically support my opinion no matter the counterarguments" position (a stand you even admitted to having).
Only then will a conversation with you be not be a waste of both of our time.

As for you liking enterprise but it's not in your personal canon - talk about convoluted and artificial . Rationalising much?
That would make an interesting case study - how you try to reconcile your absolute devotion for TOS fanon with you liking enterprise.


Now - you stated your opinion, I mine.
All that's left to do is to agree to disagree. You will obviously never even consider changing your position.

 

[RookieBatman]

This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'

This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value.

Only if you ignore the posts I've made on the subject (indicating that I enjoyed ENT, but it's still not a part of my personal continuity), which you seem to be in the habit of doing anyway.

Still annoyed about the star trek V thread. Or is it the star trek XI thread observation?

Mainly just annoyed about how you act like you can read my mind when you don't even read my posts.

You want me to engage in a lengthy conversation with you?
In this case, loose the "I'll fanatically support my opinion no matter the counterarguments" position (a stand you even admitted to having).

Supporting one's opinions in the face of counterarguments is called having a discussion. If I just bent over and said you were right at the first sign of opposition, then neither of us would learn anything. (But for us to be able to learn anything, we have to be willing to admit we are wrong, something I've done repeatedly in the past, despite your out-of-context accusations.)

As for you liking enterprise but it's not in your personal canon - talk about convoluted and artificial . Rationalising much?

No, not at all. That's the whole point; that I can like ENT and still exclude it from my personal continuity.
See, people, this is what happened; ProtoAvatar says that all this thread proves is that if you exclude ENT from your "personal canon," then that means you hate ENT. I say that I don't hate ENT, but still exclude it from my personal continuity, and he says I must therefore be rationalizing, because it's already been proven that anyone who excludes ENT from their "personal canon" must hate it. Here's an idea; how about basing your conclusion on the data, instead of the other way around?

That would make an interesting case study - how you try to reconcile your absolute devotion for TOS fanon with you liking enterprise.

It needs little reconciliation. I enjoyed ENT, but don't find it to my tastes as a prequel to TOS. That is neither convoluted, nor artificial. Just what is so radical about that position, that everyone seems to think it's a scientific impossibility?

Now - you stated your opinion, I mine.
All that's left to do is to agree to disagree. You will obviously never even consider changing your position.

I'd be glad to discuss the issue if you would do more than just endlessly repeat gross generalizations and syllogisms built on predetermined conclusions. I may be stubborn in my views, but at least I make some attempt to explain my reasoning behind it.

So, for everyone else, let me try again.

I enjoyed the characters in Enterprise. Scott Bakula's a favorite since Quantum Leap; even though I didn't think they developed Archer as fully as they could've, it's always fun to see Scott back in action. And Conner Trineer did very well, too; I was surprised at the depth he brought a role that could've been a very cliche stereotype. I also enjoyed the other characters to varying degrees, but it only takes a couple to really hook me.
Whether I can get behind the characters is really the main factor in my enjoyment of a show (to the extent that I even watch shows that I think are pretty cheesy, because I enjoy the main character), so I was fairly hooked-in just from that, but seeing a look at the early years of a Berman-era Federation was pretty interesting. The torpedoes at the beginning, grappling hooks, transporter problems, airlocks and all the rest. Even though parts of it were too similar to the later-era shows, it still did feel like a different era.
The first couple seasons were pretty basic, in terms of story development, but I really enjoyed the Xindi campaign, and the fourth season was a lot of fun as well. I would've really liked to see what Coto could've done with a fifth.

So, why then, isn't it in my personal continuity? Mind you, when I say it's not, I only mean that I don't place it in continuity with TOS. It's not based on quality, for me, it's just an aesthetic choice. To me, personally, ENT just doesn't feel like a hundred years before the Original Series. It makes a fine prequel to TNG, DS9, and VOY (which makes sense, since they were managed by the same people), but for myself, it just doesn't fit my view of what the past of TOS may have looked like. And I'm not even saying it's irreconcilable, because it's not. It's just my own taste. I'm not saying that anyone else is wrong if they don't agree with me, I'm not gonna try to "prove" it. But this thread is about personal continuity, and in mine, ENT is not on the same timeline as TOS.

Now, is there really anything so wrong with that?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

RookieBatman

About "you liking enterprise but it not being in your personal canon":

Let's put aside the issue whether this is artificial and convoluted - we will never ever agree on this.

I see you used the term 'personal continuity' - a inspired choice; the term personal 'canon' is completely inadequate.
'Canon' refers to restrictions/interpretations imposed by someone who has the authority to enforce them - the church vis a vis religion, for example; never some beleiver who wants to interpret the bible differently.

PS - Your following sentence is a straw man argument - "ProtoAvatar says that all this thread proves is that if you exclude ENT from your "personal canon," then that means you hate ENT"; I even acknowledged you like Enterprise.
If you're hunting for logical errors and generalizations, at least start with your own posts.

 

[RookieBatman]

RookieBatman

About "you liking enterprise but it not being in your personal canon":

Let's put aside the issue whether this is artificial and convoluted - we will never ever agree on this.

Okay by me.

I see you used the term 'personal continuity' - a inspired choice; the term personal 'canon' is completely inadequate.
'Canon' refers to restrictions/interpretations imposed by someone who has the authority to enforce them - the church vis a vis religion, for example; never some beleiver who wants to interpret the bible differently.

I've never been a proponent of the term "personal canon," and frankly, with apologies to the original poster, I think this thread may have been a lot less divisive if the term "personal continuity" had been used from the beginning. You're absolutely right that canon is something solely under the cognizance of people in authority (in this case, CBS/Paramount, and not us), which is why I never use the term.

PS - Your following sentence is a straw man argument - "ProtoAvatar says that all this thread proves is that if you exclude ENT from your "personal canon," then that means you hate ENT"; I even acknowledged you like Enterprise.
If you're hunting for logical errors and generalizations, at least start with your own posts.

I don't see how this is a straw-man argument; here is what you said:

This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'

This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value.

This is the specific post that I was paraphrasing. Was that not an accurate paraphrase?

You said that "personal canon" has no other value than to indicate if someone likes ENT, so the logical corollary to that (according to that reasoning, with which I disagree) is that if someone does not include ENT in their "personal canon," they must hate (or at least dislike) it. Is that not what you were suggesting?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

RookieBatman

My remark:
"This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'
This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value."
takes into account the vast majority of cases.
The position you have vis a vis enterprise is not included because it's an exception from the rule (due to being artificial, etc).

But I DID specifically coment your position:
"As for you liking enterprise but it's not in your personal canon"; "how you try to reconcile your absolute devotion for TOS fanon with you liking enterprise."
Notice how the bolded words even repeat themselves.
You choose to ignore them.
Your reply was an obvious straw man argument; you choose to ignore parts of my post, replacing them with something else.

 

[Warped9]

If I had a personal cannon I'd aim it right at ENT because I don't accept it in any way whatsoever.

 

[DFScott]

I think other people can argue over the merits of your question, but what it truly boils down to (correct me if I'm wrong) is this: Does your own mind accept the string of ENT episodes as following the same basic story as the one started in the 1960s and continuing in the '80s and '90s? Or are they separate stories with similar elements?

Unfortunately, I think I have to go with what Braga and the other ENT writers appear to have decided from the beginning. They didn't appear to me to care all that much about the best story elements from the original series. Granted, there's no possible way that any 2000s era show is going to follow all the disparate plot points from thirty years prior.

But if they wanted to make a different show that ran a different direction, fine. Don't call it Star Trek. (Oh wait, that's right, in the first few seasons, they didn't.)

If they were going to do more than pretend to follow the Trek storyline, then the least we could have expected of them is to try. If they couldn't zip up every wavering link of the backstory, then the least they could do is respect what came before.

From the beginning, the ENT story chose to disregard, and thus disrespect, the most prominent and basic elements of one of the best Trek stories ever told, Balance of Terror.

When I'm reading a book, however long it may be, I expect the later chapters to respect the earlier ones. I don't want a disclaimer in front of Chapter 4,308 telling me that the contents of Chapter 3 never actually happened. When a story goes out of its own way to tell me it it's discontinuous, then I don't have much choice but to agree.

DF "From This Point Forward, the Character of Huck Finn Will Be Known as 'Buck Chin,' and the 'Mississippi River' Will Run Alongside Buck's Mansion in Utah" Scott

 

[Santa Kang]

ENT was hardly a new direction. It was totally Trek in almost every way. The only spin off that truly went off on a "new direction" was DS9, and I don't think you'll get too many folks asking for it to be excised from Trek canon.

Are we back to "no viewscreens" again? Seriously? Is that the only thing about BOT that matters? Its was a dodgy, element that bordered on the absurd, which existed to fuel Styles' racial paranoia. All thing concidered Enterprise, mananged to still keep the Romulans "faceless".

Or is it about the cloak? It was an element that existed to duplicate the destroyer/sub dynamic of the movie BOT was based on. If you think the most important and meaningful element of BOT is the cloak, then you might have missed the point of the episode.

Yeah ENT messed up there by including races with cloaking devices. But in the case of the Suliban, it came from the future and might not be duplicatable by 22nd Century tech with out the power consumption problem mentioned by Spock. As for the 22nd Century Romulans, I got nothin'.

Books tend to be written by a single person and not a wide ranging group of people spread out over four decades. Not a good analogy. Though there are book series where the authors have both disregarded or changed elements presented in their prior instalments.

 

[RookieBatman]

RookieBatman

My remark:
"This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'
This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value."
takes into account the vast majority of cases.
The position you have vis a vis enterprise is not included because it's an exception from the rule (due to being artificial, etc).

How is it any more artificial than any other opinion? Aren't you really just saying that my position is not included because it doesn't agree with your predetermined conclusion?

But I DID specifically coment your position:
"As for you liking enterprise but it's not in your personal canon"; "how you try to reconcile your absolute devotion for TOS fanon with you liking enterprise."
Notice how the bolded words even repeat themselves.
You choose to ignore them.
Your reply was an obvious straw man argument; you choose to ignore parts of my post, replacing them with something else.

You just chose to ignore parts of your own post! Here, again, is your full quote:

As for you liking enterprise but it's not in your personal canon - talk about convoluted and artificial . Rationalising much?
That would make an interesting case study - how you try to reconcile your absolute devotion for TOS fanon with you liking enterprise.

That, to me, doesn't sound like you "acknowledging" that I like it, but rather sarcastically challenging whether it's even possible for that to be the case. This is why I referenced the statement in your previous post, to illustrate how you had come to a conclusion, and then when I indicated that my opinion didn't fit your model, you used your predetermined conclusion to attempt to discredit the validity of my statement. That is neither scientifically nor rhetorically valid, and I hardly need straw-man arguments to delegitimize it.

As for the topic at hand, I kinda agree with DFSCott. It didn't really seem to me like Berman and Braga were really making an effort to have ENT fit in with TOS. It appeared to my perception like they were just trying to tell their own story and let the chips fall where they may. That's fine for taking the show on its own merits, but not as a prequel (which is the problem I have with prequels in general, is that this is usually what seems to happen).

 

[ProtoAvatar]

RookieBatman

"You just chose to ignore parts of your own post! Here, again, is your full quote"

Hardly.
I choose not to mention them again because I had - and have - no interest in a discussion consisting of me pointing out how convoluted your mental rationalizatioins are and you stubbornly denying it. Ad nauseam. You can continue telling yourself your mental gymnastics are not artificial, etc - it only matters to you.

As for my post - it mentioned not only your rationalizations, but also the fact you liked enterprise - a part you choose to ignore, in order to make your staw man.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Isn't the fault with TOS and not Enterprise, when it comes to "too advanced technology"? As much as I love TOS, it's version of the future is hopelessly outdated. There's no way in hell computer technology will de-evolve in the next 250 years so that all they can display is blinking coloured squares, and with all due respect to Mr. Spock in "Balance of Terror", we have long-distance visual communication today. We have holographic technology coming in the next few years, not the next few hundred.

It's vital to the appeal of Star Trek that it remain our future, and not some weird alternate. That's why WWIII was bumped up from the 1990's to the 2040's, that's why the Eugenics War with it's sleeper ships and artificial gravity wasn't found in Voyager's 1996, and it's why Enterprise (and STXI) looks more modern than TOS. The way the future is percieved needs to move with the times. Star Trek is not meant to be a 60's period piece.

 

[NessFK]

I definitely throw out parts of TNG movies from my "personal canon". Mostly parts that are extremely out of character (Picard's outbursts).

 

[3D Master]

No, Enterprise is not part of my personal canon.

Enterprise is horrendously bad; it recycles episodes of earlier series, there is not a shred of functional continuity in there whatsoever, plotholes in just about every episode galore, and yes, indeed the technology is way too advance. And by that I do not mean, that the computers should be as unfunctional as in TOS, by that I mean there wasn't even any effort done in making it look as something happening before TOS - and then there's the ship's warp drive. Enterprise accelerates and maneuvers faster to and at warp than Voyager, the most cutting edge ship of the fleet of TWO CENTURIES later.

Then there's the asspull of the photon(ic) torpedoes; and making them 24th century torpedoes in description, noise, and visual cues, exactly the same.

Enterprise is bad, bad, bad, bad in every way, and should be disavowed altogether, not just by me.

 

[DFScott]

KingDaniel: Here's where the ideas of "our future" and "technological evolution" are too often merged with one another, when theoretically they can (and should) be separate. There's no question that computer and communications technology has evolved at a far faster rate than the Original Series' writers had surmised. (To be perfectly honest, I don't think they tried all that hard in the beginning to surmise it anyway, I think they just wanted to have fun.)

But regardless of whether any present or future Trek series is written with hyper-screens implanted in our ocular nerves that see all channels in all directions at all times, it still makes sense to me that two warring species could not communicate with one another during the entire time they were at war. That, to me, is a fascinating story element and part of what makes Old Trek still good today. I don't buy the argument that the emergence of the iPhone renders it necessary to rewrite that element of the backstory.

Now, having to say the Eugenics Wars didn't take place in the 1990s after all. . . sure. But the existence of that period of Earth history at all became vital to The Wrath of Khan, which many believe to be the best Trek motion picture. To imagine that this story element never took place, would require the introduction of some ridiculous concept such as a hyperspace reset-button disguised as a black hole that swallows up select portions of history and spits out rewritten portions where everyone does something different.

Hopefully no one ever actually does that, because I'll be sorely disappointed.

DF "Hey, Jim, What's This Button Do? ZZAAAP!" Scott

 

[F. King Daniel]

I'm afraid I don't remember if Spock said that there "was no communication" during the Romulan war or if such communication was impossible during "Balance of Terror". Either way I say Enterprise stuck to the letter of Spock's comment if not the intent - Romulans communicated voice-only.

I personally don't see any harm in moving the Eugenics War forward, especially since Khan did not rule a quarter of the world in 1996, and our genetic engineering, cryogenic and interplanetary spaceship technology is nonexistant in 2010.

DS9 already placed it "200" years prior to the 2360's, the quotes in "Space Seed" are contradictory (200 years before TOS is closer to 2060 than 1996) and Spock himself has already gotten WWIII's era "wrong" in the light of the movie "First Contact", giving several easy outs for the writers if they want to rearrange Trek history for the inevitable Khan return. It doesn't mean "Space Seed" and "Wrath of Khan" "didn't happen", it just requires we cough over any dates mentioned

 

[Warped9]

I personally don't see any harm in moving the Eugenics War forward, especially since Khan did not rule a quarter of the world in 1996, and our genetic engineering, cryogenic and interplanetary spaceship technology is nonexistant in 2010.

Even in the late '60s it was obvious that Trek's history wasn't our reality. References throughout the TOS' first two seasons alone establish a broader and more vigorous space program than what actually happened. And so if that was so different then there's no problem accepting the Eugenics Wars in the 1990s in Trek's "reality."

 

[The]

A good friend of mine said once that Enterprise is a great series for people who never liked the previous Star Trek shows or movies. He is not a Trekkie and thinks Kirk/Shatner is laughable. But, he said a lot of his peers in the medical community (he is a practicing neurosurgeon) tend to have been exposed to and/or enjoyed ENT far more than the Treks that came before then. However, he also loves the 2009 Abrams movie. So, putting those aspects together, I think he just favors the pace and acting in ENT and Trek XI over the more static, introspective shows of the past.

Oh, and I love ENT. I think the only bastard in Trek's history is VOYAGER...