Celebrity paradoxes

[Nerys Myk]

No two legacy displays are the same. There are always "omissions" in every display.

And the NX-01 appeared in none of them until after the Enterprise E return to the 24th century, after the events of FC.

It wasn't just missing from a few.

Its a series of TV shows/films. How can a ship created for a an iteration of the show created in 2001 appear in earlier iterations? The NX-01 omissions in older versions of Star Trek has nothing to do with the E's time trip. Does the XCV 330s omission from all legacy displays after TMP mean it ceases to exist?

 

[E-DUB]

I've always believed that in the original time-line, Archer's NX-01 was the "Dauntless" and, as suggested upthread that the actions of Picard, et al, altered that fact. (Even wrote a story to that effect once.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why make it something other than the Enterprise? I don't get that mindset. Continuity is always evolving. New ideas and concepts are introduced, often filling in blank spots. By introducing the XCV 330, TMP opened to door for other starships named Enterprise. In the 200 years between First Contact and TOS there could have been several ships named Enterprise. We know of two for sure.

I'm also of the opinion that the events of FC always happened. Picard and the E were always there and meant to be there. There was no alternate timeline.

 

[F. King Daniel]

As I recently said in another thread, pretending Enterprise an alternate timeline makes it entirely pointless as a prequel. Why show the first Human/Vulcan hybrid if not to forshadow Spock? Why show the beginnings of the Federation if it's not meant to be the Federation we all know and love but some weird alternate version? Why have Brent Spiner playing Arik Soong if not to foreshadow his various TNG characters? Why explain the Klingon forehead thing if not to set up the Klingons as seen in The Original Series?

 

[E-DUB]

But "Enterprise" as an altered timeline is at least implicit in part of its premise, the "Temporal cold war". I believe that were it not for the mechinations of "Future Guy" and other factions the events of Archer's era would have flowed into Kirk's era as we've seen it, not maybe not as much.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But "Enterprise" as an altered timeline is at least implicit in part of its premise, the "Temporal cold war". I believe that were it not for the mechinations of "Future Guy" and other factions the events of Archer's era would have flowed into Kirk's era as we've seen it, not maybe not as much.

Nope, the TCW is just a plot device. It doesn't change the path of history from leading to TOS. If anything the TCW front in Archers era has to lead to TOS. If those events didn't happen, then TOS wouldn't exist as we know it. As King Daniel pointed out, a prequel that doesn't lead into TOS is pointless.

 

[shapeshifter]

^I remember the TMBs [edit: Trek Message Boards] at ST.COM back in the early 2000's, anyone ballsy enough to suggest the TCW lead to TOS would be totally ignored or ridiculed to shame.

Anyone else remember this line from an ENTERPRISE promo spot:

"This is how the Star Trek saga begins!"

 

[Nerys Myk]

TMBs?

 

[F. King Daniel]

But "Enterprise" as an altered timeline is at least implicit in part of its premise, the "Temporal cold war". I believe that were it not for the mechinations of "Future Guy" and other factions the events of Archer's era would have flowed into Kirk's era as we've seen it, not maybe not as much.

I think they kind of used the TCW as a handwave to explain away some of the retcons they made.

But then saw Daniels' idea of "correct" history in "Azati Prime" - where this Delphic Expanse (which we'd never previously heard of or seen in any chronologically later Treks) had grown to encompass most of the Alpha Quadrant. Then the NX-01 crew destroyed the Expanse a few episodes later and the next season began piling on the direct prequels. So I think, looking back on Enterprise, that it's the stuff that happened in the Temporal Cold War and those changes made that created the timeline seen in TOS/TNG and the rest.

 

[shapeshifter]

TMBs?

Trek Message Boards.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Ahso

 

[E-DUB]

One could also argue that the events depicted in "Enterprise" and all its attendant timeline changes led to the timeline shown in Trek '09.

(Ducks to avoid thrown objects.)

Seriously, the Kelvin, predating Kirks Enterprise by a good twenty years, had biometric monitoring of away teams, Refit-style deflector technology and other seemingly anachronistic stuff that we never saw in TOS.

Clearly the result of intensive R+D following in the wake of the Xindi attack.

 

[Nerys Myk]

One could also argue that the events depicted in "Enterprise" and all its attendant timeline changes led to the timeline shown in Trek '09.

(Ducks to avoid thrown objects.)

Seriously, the Kelvin, predating Kirks Enterprise by a good twenty years, had biometric monitoring of away teams, Refit-style deflector technology and other seemingly anachronistic stuff that we never saw in TOS.

Clearly the result of intensive R+D following in the wake of the Xindi attack.

Clearly the result of '09 being made over forty years after TOS.

 

[T'Girl]

Its a series of TV shows/films. How can a ship created for a an iteration of the show created in 2001 appear in earlier iterations? The NX-01 omissions in older versions of Star Trek has nothing to do with the E's time trip.

You appear to be getting "in-universe," and "out-universe" mixed up and combined. From a production point of view, obviously the NX-01 wasn't design when we first saw the legacy display. However, in-universe the NX-01 didn't appear among the legacy ships Decker and the Ilia-unit looked at in TMP, nor was the NX-01 present in the observation lounge wall in TNG series.

In-universe, something changed to place it there. If the NX-01, a ship with a prominent history (first this and that), wasn't present, it's not being initially named Enterprise could account for it's absence.

In the original history, Deanna never told Cochrane the Enterprise's name, because she wasn't there the first time through.

 

[F. King Daniel]

^The Ringship Enterprise didn't appear in TNG, but a colour version of the TMP art work it did appear a few times in Enterprise, in the 602 club and at Starfleet HQ.
Which universe is the alternate one again?
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(XCV_330)

One could also argue that the events depicted in "Enterprise" and all its attendant timeline changes led to the timeline shown in Trek '09.

(Ducks to avoid thrown objects.)

Seriously, the Kelvin, predating Kirks Enterprise by a good twenty years, had biometric monitoring of away teams, Refit-style deflector technology and other seemingly anachronistic stuff that we never saw in TOS.

Clearly the result of intensive R+D following in the wake of the Xindi attack.

IMO it's the same future seen through different eyes. See this thread: http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=7268416

 

[E-DUB]

It may well be that the renaming of Archer's ship was the only change to the timeline caused by the intervention of Picard and crew at the launch of the Phoenix or recall Cochranes statement about cybernetic zombies and the events of "Regeneration". The ramping up of Starfleet technology may well have been in anticipation of someday encountering the Borg.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Its a series of TV shows/films. How can a ship created for a an iteration of the show created in 2001 appear in earlier iterations? The NX-01 omissions in older versions of Star Trek has nothing to do with the E's time trip.

You appear to be getting "in-universe," and "out-universe" mixed up and combined. From a production point of view, obviously the NX-01 wasn't design when we first saw the legacy display. However, in-universe the NX-01 didn't appear among the legacy ships Decker and the Ilia-unit looked at in TMP, nor was the NX-01 present in the observation lounge wall in TNG series.

In-universe, something changed to place it there. If the NX-01, a ship with a prominent history (first this and that), wasn't present, it's not being initially named Enterprise could account for it's absence.

In the original history, Deanna never told Cochrane the Enterprise's name, because she wasn't there the first time through.

I'm not confusing them at all. I just don't go for the alternate universe explanation for every little "discrepancy". Even for things, stories and concepts I don't like. For a prequel like Enterprise the most logical explanation is every thing that happened is supposed to happen. And all those thing were always part of the history and lead to TOS.

I find the need to discredit Enterprise ( or any of the films or shows) to be petty and counter-productive.

 

[T'Girl]

I never said I didn't "like" the ship being named Enterprise, simply exploring a realistic reason for a models absence from a wall.

Which universe is the alternate one again?

In Storm Front, part two, Daniels said this: The timeline's resetting itself .... all of the damage he caused, it never happened.

From that I get that basically the first two seasons of ST: Enterprise existed in an alternate universe. What the NX-01 did originally in the prime universe is difficult to say. But whatever it was, it would have been at least somewhat different than the events depicted on the show.

The first two season are not a part of the history of the other series, any more than the events of In A Mirror Darkly.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I never said I didn't "like" the ship being named Enterprise, simply exploring a realistic reason for a models absence from a wall.

I don't see going for the alternate universe/changed timeline solution as realistic.

 

[E-DUB]

And I never said Alternate Universe, either. However "Enterprise" is undeniably an altered timeline since from the very first episode the actions of "Future Guy" and his Suliban frontmen brought Starfleet into contact with the Klingon Empire prematurely. No small change that.