Did the franchise reboot begin with ENTERPRISE?

[Mach5]

First of all, I know that this idea is far from original, and that it was discussed before. Second, I'd like to ask everyone to keep their perspective "in universe" (meaning - I'm well aware that the real reason Captain Archer never got mentioned in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY was simply because the character wasn't created by TPTB before 2001, but let's ignore that now, k?).

We all know that in Star Trek: ENTERPRISE (2151 - 2155), some major historical events took place, like the Xindi attack (that killed seven million people and heavily influenced the political climate in the sector), the Vulcan/Andorian conflict that would have escalated into full scale war, if Jonathan Archer and Trip Tucker hadn't saved the day etc.

Also, we know that Jonathan Archer is not only the captain of Starfleet's first ship to bare the name Enterprise, but also one of the founding fathers of the Federation, yet he is never mentioned in TOS, or the 24th century spin-offs.

When we observe the issue strictly from the in universe POV, it's more than evident that all this makes very little, if any sense at all.

However, if we assume that the adventures of Jonathan Archer and his crew are the direct result of timeline changing events depicted in Star Trek: The First Contact, then we can conclude that Star Trek: Enterprise is, much like ST XI, set in an alternate reality, subtly different from the one seen in TOS and the 24.st spin-offs.

And suddenly, everything falls into place, doesn't it?

But then, what timeline did Picard and his crew return to at the end of First Contact?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The intent with Enterprise, and several of the key decisions, seem to have been very similar to what Abrams's people did with the latest Star Trek movie. In the latter case they did it successfully; in the former, not so much.

 

[JarodRussell]

I always thought to myself that Enterprise wasn't in the same timeline as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY. There never was an NX-01 Enterprise in that timeline. Never mentioned, never seen, never heard of.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

ENT is not a reboot. Just a prequel. It is not a changed timeline.

 

[JarodRussell]

ENT is not a reboot. Just a prequel. It is not a changed timeline.

To those who had the Official Star Trek Chronology, it was.

Canon, schmanon.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I always thought to myself that Enterprise wasn't in the same timeline as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY. There never was an NX-01 Enterprise in that timeline. Never mentioned, never seen, never heard of.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^Agreed.

ENT is not a reboot. Just a prequel. It is not a changed timeline.

To those who had the Official Star Trek Chronology, it was.

I have the official Chronology and I don't think it is a reboot or a changed timeline. I also don't think the new movie is a reboot either. I look at it as a divergent timeline, similar to the one Biff created with the Sports Almanac in "Back to the Future II".

But I am also very aware that this is an imaginary future and that anything is possible. If a writer has an interesting and entertaining story to tell that fits within the larger framework then the larger story needs to be flexible enough to allow it. Besides, this isn't a true history. Just because we assume something is one way doesn't mean that it can't be something else entirely. And characters, no matter how schooled, should not be completely relied on for rigidly accurate information either. Everyone is fallible, even Vulcans. (And a character is only as smart as the writer, who is also fallible.)

This is also my personal opinion and subject to my own subjective point of view. No individual personal canon or theories were harmed, or meant to be harmed, in the writing of this post.

 

[Pemmer Harge]

However, if we assume that the adventures of Jonathan Archer and his crew are the direct result of timeline changing events depicted in Star Trek: The First Contact

But what events are those? In FC, the timeline changed when the Borg went back to the past and assimilated Earth, but then Picard and co. went back themselves and put everything back to normal. Unless I slept through an important line of dialogue, the timeline didn't change, did it?

 

[JarodRussell]

^Agreed.

ENT is not a reboot. Just a prequel. It is not a changed timeline.

To those who had the Official Star Trek Chronology, it was.

I have the official Chronology and I don't think it is a reboot. I also don't think the new movie is either. I look at it as a divergent timeline, similar to the one Biff created with the Sports Almanac in "Back to the Future II".

LOL, so you do agree with what I said.

 

[The Wormhole]

Also, we know that Jonathan Archer is not only the captain of Starfleet's first ship to bare the name Enterprise, but also one of the founding fathers of the Federation, yet he is never mentioned in TOS, or the 24th century spin-offs.

Depends on your perspective. Nemesis did have a starship USS Archer, but since this was after Enterprise was created, that may not help the argument. Enterprise did establish that Archer IV (a planet mentioned a couple of times in Yesterday's Enterprise) was named after Jonathan Archer. Finally, TATV takes place during a TNG episode.

But then, what timeline did Picard and his crew return to at the end of First Contact?

The proper Prime Timeline. Remeber, both DS9 and Voyager were airing when during First Contact. Since there were no changes in those shows, it stands to reason that Picard and gang did not change the timeline.

 

[AstroSmurf]

^Agreed.

To those who had the Official Star Trek Chronology, it was.

I have the official Chronology and I don't think it is a reboot. I also don't think the new movie is either. I look at it as a divergent timeline, similar to the one Biff created with the Sports Almanac in "Back to the Future II".

LOL, so you do agree with what I said.

No. I should have also included "timeline" in my original post. Corrected. (No sleep and allergy medication makes AS a dull boy.)

 

[JarodRussell]

^Agreed.



I have the official Chronology and I don't think it is a reboot. I also don't think the new movie is either. I look at it as a divergent timeline, similar to the one Biff created with the Sports Almanac in "Back to the Future II".

LOL, so you do agree with what I said.

No. I should have also included "timeline" in my original post. Corrected. (No sleep and allergy medication makes AS a dull boy.)

Changed or divergent, it all means it's not the same timeline.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I always thought to myself that Enterprise wasn't in the same timeline as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY. There never was an NX-01 Enterprise in that timeline. Never mentioned, never seen, never heard of.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

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.

Star Trek is whatever the owners say Star Trek is - viewers get to choose to watch it or not watch it, but they don't get a vote on which parts of it are <snort> "real" and which aren't.

 

[JarodRussell]

Star Trek is whatever the owners say Star Trek is - viewers get to choose to watch it or not watch it, but they don't get a vote on which parts of it are <snort> "real" and which aren't.

They might not get a vote in it, but they sure as hell might make up their own opinion about it. Oh LOL.

 

[AstroSmurf]

LOL, so you do agree with what I said.

No. I should have also included "timeline" in my original post. Corrected. (No sleep and allergy medication makes AS a dull boy.)

Changed or divergent, it all means it's not the same timeline.

You didn't read the clarifications I made to the original posts did you? But to be sure I have made my opinion perfectly clear...

Enterprise: Not a Reboot. Not a different timeline.
New Movie: Not a Reboot. A divergent timeline.

And Dennis summed it up best I think. Technically there is no timeline only a continuity.

 

[zar]

First of all, I know that this idea is far from original, and that it was discussed before. Second, I'd like to ask everyone to keep their perspective "in universe" (meaning - I'm well aware that the real reason Captain Archer never got mentioned in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY was simply because the character wasn't created by TPTB before 2001, but let's ignore that now, k?).

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.

 

[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!

 

[Jack Bauer]

It was created and promoted as a prequel. If creator and publicity intent mean anything then it's a prequel. Whatever it really is doesn't really matter anyways since it's whatever the current Trek producers want it to be. Someday the entire franchise may be rendered non canon when someone comes along and remakes the whole thing from the ground up.

 

[JarodRussell]

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?

 

[Mach5]

It was created and promoted as a prequel. If creator and publicity intent mean anything then it's a prequel. Whatever it really is doesn't really matter anyways since it's whatever the current Trek producers want it to be. Someday the entire franchise may be rendered non canon when someone comes along and remakes the whole thing from the ground up.

Uhm, how exactly is this an in universe POV?

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.