Did the franchise reboot begin with ENTERPRISE?

[Greg Cox]

Exactly.

Nothing is ever mentioned in fiction until it's mentioned. There is no "Star Trek timeline." There's only Star Trek continuity, which is added to and changed all the time.

.

Bingo.

For the record, the last time my Q CONTINUUM trilogy was reprinted, I went back and rewrote a couple of sentences to acknowlege Archer's existence--because he was now officially part of STAR TREK history.

As I recall, that really pissed off some diehard ENTERPRISE haters!

You went Special Edition with your work, what did you expect, Mr. Lucas?

Actually, I was just trying to avoid confusion. I simply changed a few references to "the original Enterprise" to "Kirk's Enterprise" to avoid confusion with Archer's ship.

My meaning was clear the first time the books came out. But because of the new show, "the original Enterprise" meant something different now.

ENTERPRISE was clearly intended and presented as part of the original tv timeline. It's just as "canon" as anything else.

 

[YARN]

New Movie: Not a Reboot. A divergent timeline.

It seems that a fair number of people disagree with your assessment...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2427/startrek.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_(fiction)

http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue344/reboot1.html

http://www.movieretriever.com/blog/316/twenty-film-franchises-in-need-of-a-reboot

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/05/05/a_fresh_frontier/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_in_film

 

[zar]

As much as some people hate to acknowledge it, Captain Archer was mentioned in universe during TNG: The Pegasus. ENT and TNG have to exist in the same timeline.

I don't hate to acknowledge it. I just refuse to. And no canonista could ever make me.

Okay, what about finding Data's 500-year-old head and a picture of Sisko as Gabriel Bell -- isn't this proof that time travelers affect and return to the same timeline they originally came from?

 

[I Grok Spock]

Define "reboot."

 

[F. King Daniel]

Enterprise was intended to be a fresh start for Star Trek, but no more so than The Next Generation was.

When it comes to timelines, people cry "cloaking devices!" and "TMP rec room pictures!" as "proof" of an alternate timeline to TOS, which is rubbish. The Enterprise writers retconned a few things here and there to suit their new series, just like every other Trek has, and every future one will. I find it funny when fans point to insignificant minuate in an attempt to "disprove" Enterprise or STXI, when applying the same logic to prior Treks brings the whole lot crashing down on James R. Kirk's grave.

 

[AstroSmurf]

New Movie: Not a Reboot. A divergent timeline.

It seems that a fair number of people disagree with your assessment...

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/2427/startrek.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reboot_%28fiction%29

http://www.bewilderingstories.com/issue344/reboot1.html

http://www.movieretriever.com/blog/316/twenty-film-franchises-in-need-of-a-reboot

http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2009/05/05/a_fresh_frontier/

That's nice. My opinion is still my opinion. You might not agree with it... other people might not either... but it doesn't matter. My opinion is still my own. That's what's so nice about an opinion. Now if I was skipping around slinging my opinion as fact then that would be another story entirely. You would have every right to put me in my place. But I was not doing that here.

Besides, the studio can call it a reboot if it wants too. For my own personal continuity it is a divergent timeline... which I explained in my initial post. I was also using that as an example to illustrate my opinion on Enterprise, which is the primary topic here. We are not discussing the latest movie. Did no one actually read my first post?

 

[Warped9]

The franchise has already been rebooted several times over the years.

To some extent one could make a case that TOS was a reboot of Trek as seen in "The Cage." But since "The Cage" was never aired in its original form and then later shown as part of TOS' history (in the two-parter "The Menagerie") then the argument no longer really holds.

ST-TAS could be considered a reboot of sorts even though it's generally assumed to continue the continuity of TOS. You can agree or disagree with that as to your inclination.

ST-TMP was a reboot of sorts even though it was asserted that it was the same timeline and continuity. You can agree or disagree with that as to your inclination.

STII-TWOK was also a reboot of sorts in that Paramount sorta wanted a reset that would make people sorta forget about TMP. You can agree or disagree with that as to your inclination. Subsequent films TSFS to TUC followed through from TWOK.

ST-TNG was a reboot of sorts in that GR initially asserted that TNG writers need not be beholden to whatever had happened or been established previously. You can agree or disagree with that as to your inclination. Subsequently DS9 and VOY followed through from TNG and so did the TNG films.

ENT can be considered a reboot because TPTB were definately trying to shake up the franchise and generate new interest in what had become a stale property. And it can certainly be argued back-and-forth as to whether ENT is consistent with TOS as a prequel. Personally I don't, but you can agree or disagree with that as to your inclination.

ST09 is most definately a reboot as the intent is very clear that TPTB wanted to reset the franchise and start with a clean sheet...albeit one smudged with grimy fingerprints all over it.

It can certainly be argued that every new incarnation of Trek could be a parallel timeline that resembles what came previously yet also differs in certain particulars. In such manner you can accept or ignore any part of the franchise you wish and no one can really refute you. And you can agree or disagree with that as to your inclination.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

ENTERPRISE was clearly intended and presented as part of the original tv timeline. It's just as "canon" as anything else.

"Bingo!" as you say.

As for JJTrek - I don't much care whether people declare it a "divergent timeline" or a reboot or whatnot - it's just Star Trek, about Kirk and Spock, and as long as they make some more like it I'm happy.

 

[YARN]

That's nice. My opinion is still my opinion. You might not agree with it... other people might not either... but it doesn't matter. My opinion is still my own. That's what's so nice about an opinion. Now if I was skipping around slinging my opinion as fact then that would be another story entirely. You would have every right to put me in my place. But I was not doing that here.

But I wasn't putting you in your place! You see, I was just expressing my own opinion (i.e., that your opinion might be questioned). You might not agree with it... other people might not either... but it doesn't matter. My opinion is still my own. That's what's so nice about an opinion. Now if I was skipping around slinging my opinion as fact then that would be another story entirely. You would have every right to put me in my place about putting you in your place. But I was not doing that here.

 

[T'Girl]

Have you ever wonder if the officers of today's US Navy spend much time discussing the Captain of the Continental Navy Ship Alfred?

The Enterprise NX-01 wasn't a Starfleet ship, it also wasn't the first United Earth ship (nor likely the first explorer), just the first "big" one. There was a different early ship named Enterprise, the ring ship, which was considered more historically prominent, by evidence of the display in TMP. In the years before Kirk's Enterprise there might have be one or two other Enterprise's. Other races, in their own languages, could also have had spaceships/starships named for "boldness, energy, and invention in practical affairs"

Currently at least two countries Navy's have military ships named Enterprise. It's a popular name.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The Enterprise NX-01 wasn't a Starfleet ship

It wasn't a Federation ship, but it very much was a Starfleet ship and Earth's first deep space explorer. Them being first is pretty much the whole point of the show.

 

[Michael]

Methinks people are thinking too much about this shit and aren't enjoying the stories enough.

 

[Warped9]

^^ Although I had questions during the '80s film era I really started to have doubts during TNG. And during the past fifteen years or so is when I finally cut loose and looked at much of this as happening in alternate/parallel continuities. It just made it easier for things to make sense and to ignore the stuff I think was subpar to outright bad.

 

[trekkerguy]

Methinks people are thinking too much about this shit and aren't enjoying the stories enough.

This one gets my "Bingo!"

That said, the debates are good for the brain

 

[AstroSmurf]

That's nice. My opinion is still my opinion. You might not agree with it... other people might not either... but it doesn't matter. My opinion is still my own. That's what's so nice about an opinion. Now if I was skipping around slinging my opinion as fact then that would be another story entirely. You would have every right to put me in my place. But I was not doing that here.

But I wasn't putting you in your place! You see, I was just expressing my own opinion (i.e., that your opinion might be questioned). You might not agree with it... other people might not either... but it doesn't matter. My opinion is still my own. That's what's so nice about an opinion. Now if I was skipping around slinging my opinion as fact then that would be another story entirely. You would have every right to put me in my place about putting you in your place. But I was not doing that here.

How was I supposed to know that? Other than choosing to mock me, you have contributed one empty "drive by" post filled with links about "others" disagreeing with me. Until now, you have made no mention of your own assessment, intent or successfully contributed towards the actual topic. You still have yet to make an argument either.

And for the record, baiting other posters without actually contributing to a thread falls into the category of trolling. You are teetering on the edge here.

 

[YARN]

How was I supposed to know that?

I don't know, I guess the same way I was supposed to know that your flat assertion that the movie was not a reboot was not meant to be taken as anything other a mere opinion for which you claim no responsibility (apart from mere expression).

Other than choosing to mock me, you have contributed one empty "drive by" post filled with links about "others" disagreeing with me.

On the contrary, those links were meant to be a call for explanation. You claimed "no reboot" (with an air of apparent authority), and I noted that some do not agree with that assessment. That is, why should I prefer your interpretation? I was hoping to discuss this with you.

On the other hand, when you entirely begged off any responsibility for what you claimed on this point (run, run, as fast as you can, you can't catch me 'cause I'm the "just an opinion" man), I did mock you. I can beg off responsibility for my claims too, if we are really going to play this game.

Until now, you have made no mention of your own assessment, intent or successfully contributed towards the actual topic. You still have yet to make an argument either.

How can I? I offer you a chance to explain your interpretation, and you flee like it's the scene of a crime.

Now, if you tell me why ST IX is not a reboot (e.g., in-universe continuity, official statements from writers, the presence of Spock-Prime in the movie), we can have a discussion.

But you don't. You just thumb your nose at the idea of justification and cleverly claim "opiniomatic immunity".

And for the record, baiting other posters without actually contributing to a thread falls into the category of trolling. You are teetering on the edge here.

Lighten up.

If you open your mind, you'll see that I am doing you favor in showing you how your strategy of response is unfair to those who might actually like to discuss a point with you.

But hey, this is all just my opinion...

 

[AstroSmurf]

I am not running from anything. Why should I. There is nothing to run from here. I already explained myself in my FIRST post. But I am not going to go three rounds with you about this, especially if it is going to drag this thread further off topic.


And I don't have to lighten up when it comes to doing my job here. I am the mod in this forum and when I say cut the crap that means cut the crap. I would suggest getting back on topic.

 

[YARN]

No, it is not an alternate time-line. It is a self-completing causal loop a la transparent aluminum.

Time has turned out to be very robust in Star Trek. So long as "key events" are preserved, other details of history don't really matter. It does not matter, for example, that Keeler and Kirk had a budding romance. What matters is that she died young. In "Tomorrow is Yesterday" they only send back the F-104 pilot when they discover that his unborn son would play a key role in colonizing Mars.

Outside of these "in universe" facts (which we as the audience have had a God's-eye-view to observe), we should also note that there is no evidence offered to the audience to suggest that First Contact resulted in a divergent time-line. Instead, they return to their time and they (and more importantly, we the audience) find it as they left it.

But hey, this is all just my opinion...

 

[CuttingEdge100]

Actually, when I saw the introduction to Star Trek XI, I actually thought they were going to use the new Star Trek Enterprise timeline, then go from there to 2265. It would explain why the ships were so different looking, and also so much more advanced.

I wasn't going to even see it at first, the only thing that even got me to watch it was because I heard that the storyline was altered by a timewarp. Still I found it to be a major disappointment

 

[Dukhat]

Here's some food for thought:

1. Possible timeline #1: Cochrane makes his warp flight by himself, with no help from any future time travelers or problems with Borg incursions. He catches the interest of the Vulcans, and ultimately leads up to TOS. This theory makes the most sense when we view "Metamorphosis," as Cochrane truly seems not to know who Kirk and Spock are or where they came from, implying he had no past contact with Starfleeters from the 24th century.

2. Possible timeline #2: Cochrane makes his warp flight with the help of future time travelers from Starfleet after the Borg damage his ship before launch. It is still a successful flight, he still meets the Vulcans, and it still leads up to TOS, so when Picard and company return to their own time, it's still the same timeline because they were always meant to travel back in time to help Cochrane. Unfortunately that doesn't explain Cochrane's reaction to meeting Kirk and Spock in "Metamorphosis." He should already be aware that people like them exist, because they came back through time to help him. Unless he's being deliberately coy. This theory would invalidate theory #1.

3. Possible timeline #3: Cochrane makes his warp flight with the help of future time travelers from Starfleet after the Borg damage his ship before launch. It is still a successful flight, he still meets the Vulcans, but because of Cochrane's knowledge of the future, it becomes a diverging point in time, creating an alternate universe where things turn out a little differently than in TOS. Picard and the Enterprise-E either return to the future of this new timeline (similar to the events of the end of the first "Back to the Future" movie), or they return to their own universe's future, depending on how the laws of time travel work with the chronometric particles the Borg created. But if it's the former, then obviously the events in "Metamorphosis" don't count anymore because it's from the previous TOS timeline which doesn't exist anymore. This is possibly the universe where ENTERPRISE exists, and if the Enterprise-E returned to the future of this new timeline, then "Insurrection" and "Nemesis" also take place in this new universe, which would explain the ENT references in "Nemesis" where there weren't any before. However, what it wouldn't explain is TATV, unless the events that Riker and Troi are recreating were from the original timeline of theory #1 or #2 (which would explain why the ENT characters acted completely different in TATV than in the rest of the series; why no one got promoted in all those years; why Shran was a jewel thief instead of a member of the Imperial Guard; why Trip died in the stupidest way imaginable; etc.): ENT takes place in the timeline of this new universe, while the recreated events of TATV take place in the timeline of the original universe, since TATV took place during the time of "The Pegasus" in the original universe.

As much as I would like to think that theory #3 is the best one (and theory #1 if there hadn't been all this mucking about with time-traveling), the visual evidence seems to mostly support theory #2.

Thoughts?