Enterprise vs TOS: Why Does Enterprise Lose the Canon War?

[pookha]

So, that being the case- that Enterprise feels more like the prequel to the TNG-era shows with TOS being the odd man out, why is it that the debate is never over whether or not TOS should be considered part of the official time line? Why can't those three years take place in some...apocryphal dimension? What is so important in TOS that, without, would be a detriment to the other four series? If it matches the other three but gets dispelled in the minds of some for not matching up with TOS then logically wouldn't one make the quartet a group and discard TOS as its own entity?

There are plenty of TOS fans who do this (discard everything that came after TOS) so why doesn't it go in the opposite direction in terms of wanting these series to mesh together?

-Withers-​

uh,,
enterprise to me feels far closer to tos then to tng.
like tos the people in enterprise are not perfect and kinda even get grouchy with each other at times.

and i find the idea of kicking tos out to be a tad bit odd.


beside tos set the stage for the federation, vulcans,klingons, on and on..

really there are some major thematic differences say between tos, tng and deep space nine.

IAnyway, the only part of the Star Trek franchise where the Canon status is debatable (in the actual meaning of the term "Canon") is TAS. So let's discuss TAS more.

Fine, name a single Enterprise episode you think exceeds Yesteryear in terms of the three C's. Canon. Continuity. Creativity.

interesting that you pick the only episode that for years was considered canon.
but seriously as much as i liked tas enterprise seems far more canon then people growing old backward (unless we are talking merlin ) or some of the other odd tas episodes.
though i do like alan dean fosters attempts at making sense out some of the crazier stuff.

 

[Tiberius]

I think that ENT could have set up the TOS era movies, in two or three decades. From the end of Enterprise to, the motion picture, could easily be just a generation. That didn't work for me. ENT was, really, a TNG-DS9-Voyager prequel.

This from Matt was recently posted in the thread about the canonicity of Enterprise and acknowledges my thoughts on this matter succinctly and with pith (Thanks Matt ).

So, that being the case- that Enterprise feels more like the prequel to the TNG-era shows with TOS being the odd man out, why is it that the debate is never over whether or not TOS should be considered part of the official time line? Why can't those three years take place in some...apocryphal dimension? What is so important in TOS that, without, would be a detriment to the other four series? If it matches the other three but gets dispelled in the minds of some for not matching up with TOS then logically wouldn't one make the quartet a group and discard TOS as its own entity?

There are plenty of TOS fans who do this (discard everything that came after TOS) so why doesn't it go in the opposite direction in terms of wanting these series to mesh together?

-Withers-​

\Honestly, I see ToS as a show that was the 1960s version of what would have come between Ent and the 24th C shows.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Of course you are referring to the "5 Words Only" thread.

No, I wasn't. I wasn't referring to anything specifically.

No, we wouldn't want such stunning literary wordsmithing to be crowded off the front page in favor of piffle like this.

The fact that you're concerned about what is on the front page being the only thing that gets attention in this forum is evidence of the entire reason I made the comment in the first place.

edit
I just went to the thread you're talking about for the first time ever. "Stunning literary wordsmithing?" Oh please, cut me a break. You aren't reinventing the Haiku over there. You're tweeting (if its even worthy of being called that.)

-Withers-​

Withers... I was making a leetle joke. [/Chekov]

(I can already hear Spock replying, "Extremely little, Ensign.")

interesting that you pick the only episode that for years was considered canon.

Didn't D.C. Fontana write "Yesteryear"? I think she started out as Gene's secretary, before moving on to her wonderful screenwriting.

I remember watching TAS because, well, some of us starving Trek fans who had watched the reruns a zillion times, we would take anything. I was aghast at the animation (I'm a Loony Tunes fan myself, I was spoiled) but I was happy to see the crew again. And I loved "Yesteryear."

though i do like alan dean fosters attempts at making sense out some of the crazier stuff.

I really enjoyed those books -- my introduction to Foster. I liked how he only did two episodes per book, as opposed to Blish's books, which had, what, six or eight? I read them to death anyway...

 

[RegFan]

I've wondered about this as well. The culture in TOS just doesn't fit well with the other series, not to mention the Eugenics Wars that weren't even mentioned when the Voyager crew travelled back in time to when they supposedly took place. However, I would never think of TOS as non-canon. I just respect it too much even though I don't particularly like it.

 

[Michael]

IAnyway, the only part of the Star Trek franchise where the Canon status is debatable (in the actual meaning of the term "Canon") is TAS. So let's discuss TAS more.

Fine, name a single Enterprise episode you think exceeds Yesteryear in terms of the three C's. Canon. Continuity. Creativity.

I love Yesteryear. It's my favourite TAS episode and all. But even I must admit that it's much easier to satisfy the sticklers for TOS canon when you are able to use the frickin' characters from that show and their established backstory.

Oh, and I challenge you to name a single Enterprise episode you think exceeds TAS' The Counter-Clock Incident in terms of scientific ridiculousness.

 

[T'Girl]

name a single Enterprise episode you think exceeds TAS' The Counter-Clock Incident in terms of scientific ridiculousness

What's the name of the episode where the crew turns into monkeys?

Or where baby cloned trip grows into adult clone trip in a few weeks?

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

Or where baby cloned trip grows into adult clone trip in a few weeks?

And yet this episode was better than anything TAS had to offer... perhaps even including "Yesteryear" (but I wouldn't insist on that before re-watching both episodes myself).

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit off-topic here. Being canon is not same as being good (in terms of quality). Just as being canon is not the same as being free of inconsistancies/contradictions.

This thread was not about which show is better, although I admit this would make a for more honest discussion. There's not much to debate about canon in the first place, because canon is determined by TPTB... except for TAS, where TPTB have given contradicting information regarding the canonicity of the show.

 

[Hober Mallow]

So, that being the case- that Enterprise feels more like the prequel to the TNG-era shows with TOS being the odd man out, why is it that the debate is never over whether or not TOS should be considered part of the official time line? Why can't those three years take place in some...apocryphal dimension?
-Withers-

Let me get this straight -- you're saying Star Trek shouldn't be canon Star Trek.

Wow.

 

[BillJ]

So, that being the case- that Enterprise feels more like the prequel to the TNG-era shows with TOS being the odd man out, why is it that the debate is never over whether or not TOS should be considered part of the official time line? Why can't those three years take place in some...apocryphal dimension?
-Withers-

Let me get this straight -- you're saying Star Trek shouldn't be canon Star Trek.

Wow.

This.

The purpose of a sequel/prequel is to take advantage of the popularity of what came before. Because people like the story elements of the previous incarnation. You're proposing that Enterprise be allowed to use all the story elements that made Star Trek popular without having to actually follow the Star Trek story?

If it can't make the effort to fit in then they should have created Generic Space Opera #7 and been cancelled after 13 episodes.

 

[KottenFutz]

Can we not make the small assumption that all the various forms of time travel we see taking place on every Star Trek series ever made, including the animated series, and three of eleven theatrical films (that’s almost 30%), can possibly explain why we see variant differences here and there. We are watching a continually changing Trekverse because of all the little "butterflies" that get stepped on while our favorite intrepid characters find yet another way to arrive in the past. That's the way I like to look at it anyway.

One episode of one series (forgotten which) even shows us a time ship (Captain'd by Foreman's dad) with a screen full of alternate time lines that change with every dial Clarence Boddicker twists... isn't that similar to what we might see as we watch Trek, little itty-bitty unintentional but harmless alterations?

In many ways, time travel itself is a huge part of Treks bag of tricks (bag o'Treks?), appearing as a plot contrivance every ten episodes or so, part of the usual Star Trek minutia right along with phasers, warp drive, shirtless Kirk, and forehead make-up.

Enterprise introduced an entire, series long, time travel arc; all that meddlin' with the "time-o-sphere" (totally made that word up) has got to change something around every so often, eh? Are not the various purposely-alternate universes we see also considered canon? On Voyager, I saw Ensign Kim die several times, that happened - it’s canon. But he’s fine now; he made it to the last episode of Voyager, good for him. So alternate universes are canon, and I wouldn’t even call them alternate universes, just examples of what could have, and MAY HAVE been. In a fictional universe where kicking in some time travel is as easy as accidentally using a microwave in the Delphic Expanse, how can we expect nothing to be slightly off once in a while? Especially if it allows an upgrade of the show's universe, and doesn't limit the show to something no longer relevant... think "Crisis of Infinite Treks".

Besides, canon to me is only set up to keep things mildly in line. If a writer wants to introduce a new addition to a characters back story, or create a new technology, or even historical relevance within Star Treks universe, canon just makes sure it is a plausible choice given what has come before. It's not full proof, some throw away lines in one episode might contradict large complicated plots in some other episode from some completely different incarnation of Star Trek. Anything small I would just say, take a mulligan ~ no harm no foul. Anything big is a plot hole… Anything huge is a reboot (joke).

Somewhere, in the Trekverse, Edith Keeler is saying: “Quit pushin’ me into traffic for fuck’s sake!!”

 

[Withers]

et me get this straight -- you're saying Star Trek shouldn't be canon Star Trek.

Wow.

What? Nobody bats an eye when the suggestion is made for Enterprise. What's the difference?

The purpose of a sequel/prequel is to take advantage of the popularity of what came before. Because people like the story elements of the previous incarnation. You're proposing that Enterprise be allowed to use all the story elements that made Star Trek popular without having to actually follow the Star Trek story?


If it can't make the effort to fit in then they should have created Generic Space Opera #7 and been cancelled after 13 episodes.​

Except that TOS lasted for three seasons and ended in 1967. TNG didn't come out until the late 80's. The premise my have flowed from one to the other and for the first two seasons maybe even the vibe. But since Enterprise fits with the TNG, DS9 and Voyager and TOS only fits with anything based on a few facts and nothing else it seems weird to me that the argument is always to discharge Enterprise rather than TOS (assuming one wants to discharge anything from canon which, as has been established by every enlightened poster with an axe to grind at this forum, is futile and pointless.)



​

-Withers-​

 

[BillJ]

et me get this straight -- you're saying Star Trek shouldn't be canon Star Trek.

Wow.

What? Nobody bats an eye when the suggestion is made for Enterprise. What's the difference?

The purpose of a sequel/prequel is to take advantage of the popularity of what came before. Because people like the story elements of the previous incarnation. You're proposing that Enterprise be allowed to use all the story elements that made Star Trek popular without having to actually follow the Star Trek story?


If it can't make the effort to fit in then they should have created Generic Space Opera #7 and been cancelled after 13 episodes.​

Except that TOS lasted for three seasons and ended in 1967. TNG didn't come out until the late 80's. The premise my have flowed from one to the other and for the first two seasons maybe even the vibe. But since Enterprise fits with the TNG, DS9 and Voyager and TOS only fits with anything based on a few facts and nothing else it seems weird to me that the argument is always to discharge Enterprise rather than TOS (assuming one wants to discharge anything from canon which, as has been established by every enlightened poster with an axe to grind at this forum, is futile and pointless.)



​

-Withers-​

Not a problem for me since I count it all. But when a contradiction exists I go with TOS. First in... last out.

 

[23skidoo]

Canon Shmanon. The reason why to some people Star Trek – Enterprise looks and feels so much closer to The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager than The Original Series is that chronologically it was produced closer to those shows. It's as easy as that. Storytelling conventions have changed over the decades, as have standards for production design and special effects. It is beyond me how some seem to be weirded out by the fact that Enterprise doesn't feel like a show from the 60s. Well, guess what, it isn't.

I agree 100%, however that said Relics, Trials and Tribbleations, and especially In a Mirror Darkly proved that it was possible to replicate the look and feel of the TOS era in a modern production. I'll defend Enterprise to the end, but on this point I will concede that In a Mirror Darkly in a sense shot Enterprise in the ass by proving that they could have given the show a TOS look from day one.

That said, there's a lot more to "the TOS style" than just set design. There's music, writing style, even performance style to take into account. So it probably still wouldn't have felt like a "true" TOS prequel, no matter which way you cut it. It was probably impossible to do so, which is probably why more than a few "bashers" were of the opinion the prequel simply should never have been attempted.

Alex

 

[pookha]

Of course you are referring to the "5 Words Only" thread.

No, I wasn't. I wasn't referring to anything specifically.

The fact that you're concerned about what is on the front page being the only thing that gets attention in this forum is evidence of the entire reason I made the comment in the first place.

edit
I just went to the thread you're talking about for the first time ever. "Stunning literary wordsmithing?" Oh please, cut me a break. You aren't reinventing the Haiku over there. You're tweeting (if its even worthy of being called that.)

-Withers-​

Withers... I was making a leetle joke. [/Chekov]

(I can already hear Spock replying, "Extremely little, Ensign.")

interesting that you pick the only episode that for years was considered canon.

Didn't D.C. Fontana write "Yesteryear"? I think she started out as Gene's secretary, before moving on to her wonderful screenwriting.

I remember watching TAS because, well, some of us starving Trek fans who had watched the reruns a zillion times, we would take anything. I was aghast at the animation (I'm a Loony Tunes fan myself, I was spoiled) but I was happy to see the crew again. And I loved "Yesteryear."

though i do like alan dean fosters attempts at making sense out some of the crazier stuff.

I really enjoyed those books -- my introduction to Foster. I liked how he only did two episodes per book, as opposed to Blish's books, which had, what, six or eight? I read them to death anyway...

yeah i liked that exchange between spock and chekov.

as for dc fontana..
she started as a secretary but pretty quickly became a story editor for tos.
she and nimoy (even though a lot of other people contributed) became like the vulcan experts.
and then she wrote some great tos stories.


she wrote one novel which made some interesting assumptions about the earlier life of spock.

the blish adaptations of tos are interesting in that some of the material is based on shooting scripts so there are some differences between what was filmed and what was in his adaptations.

RegFan some fanon speculation on why the voyager people didnt run into the conseguences of the eugenic wars is that while it had global implications like say world war two it never did spread globably and was confined to say indian and other countries.

and it may that the regions were so unsettled due to the power voids that circumstances finally flow into world war three.

name a single Enterprise episode you think exceeds TAS' The Counter-Clock Incident in terms of scientific ridiculousness

What's the name of the episode where the crew turns into monkeys?

Or where baby cloned trip grows into adult clone trip in a few weeks?

well either one them makes more sense then say tng genesis.


and yeah counterclock incident or the one with the giant spock..

i loved tas and it was nice to see some of the references to continue to pop up (a lot did in enterprise. sussman especially was a fan of tas).


and back to original thing.,
tos is the parent seed..
of course what comes after is going to be different.
the other shows were concieved in a different culture in a way as well as story wise there should be some differences due to just thing like passage of a significant passage of time.

there is what a passage of almost 60 - 70 years between tos and tng.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

But since Enterprise fits with the TNG, DS9 and Voyager and TOS only fits with anything based on a few facts and nothing else it seems weird to me that the argument is always to discharge Enterprise rather than TOS (assuming one wants to discharge anything from canon which, as has been established by every enlightened poster with an axe to grind at this forum, is futile and pointless.)

(emphasis mine)

I think we've done "snippy" to death in these canon threads. Give it a rest, please.​

​

 

[PorthosShadow]

I like to repeat and even simplify what I had written earlier. I don't think any thinking person expected ENT to look like the 60's, thats just silly but that doesn't mean ENT doesn't fit continuity wise as a precursor to TOS. To me ENT in terms of technology and the setting, it feels older than the TOS era so from that standpoint it fits with in the Star Trek universe.

 

[Tiberius]

I think the solution is simple...

If there are two canon sources that contradict, support the one that has the biggest impact.

So if we have Balance of Terror which says that the Earth/Romulan war was fought with primitive spaceships and that, and Enterprise shows that Earth ships at least were more advanced, then Enterprise has the bigger impact. After all, in BoT, it was just one line.

And what do the Talarians look like? The biggest impact they ever had was in Suddenly Human. So that episode defines their look and culture etc. If anything later on contradicts that episode, it's just a passing reference, so I dismiss it.

So why not do the same thing with Enterprise?

 

[Withers]

I think we've done "snippy" to death in these canon threads. Give it a rest, please.​

Or what? You'll warn me for use of inflammatory language like "axe to grind?" Referencing the people who are "snippy" (I'm not in 3rd grade- you can use real words) doesn't make anything worse. And for the record that wasn't directed at anybody specifically in this thread, and actually includes myself- so did you make the situation better or worse by interjecting your misinterpretations? Just a thought.

I think the solution is simple...

If there are two canon sources that contradict, support the one that has the biggest impact.

So if we have Balance of Terror which says that the Earth/Romulan war was fought with primitive spaceships and that, and Enterprise shows that Earth ships at least were more advanced, then Enterprise has the bigger impact. After all, in BoT, it was just one line.

And what do the Talarians look like? The biggest impact they ever had was in Suddenly Human. So that episode defines their look and culture etc. If anything later on contradicts that episode, it's just a passing reference, so I dismiss it.

So why not do the same thing with Enterprise?

I think this approach is my favorite so far. So where is it that the two contradict one another that TOS has the bigger impact? I mean I can't even really think of a situation where I've ever thought what Enterprise presented was a "big deal" as far as contradicting other series. The only things I can think of where I asked myself "What's all this then" is in regard to things that don't exist in the 24the century but do exist in the 22nd century (and by 'don't exist' I mean aren't mentioned.)

-Withers-​

 

[SFRabid]

There are two areas where TOS has to loose the canon war. TOS vs. TOS and TOS 60's tech vs. current advancements in tech. If the ship in TOS can travel to the edge of the galaxy and make quick trips to other systems that defy a trekkie's analysis of how far you can travel in a day at warp 5 then why hold Enterprise to a higher standard? And if the NX-01 was more primitive than the TOS Enterprise could anyone get through an episode without laughing? I've glad the NX-01 does not use computer tapes, black and white crt's, submarine style viewers, or weapon systems based on 60's scifi.

 

[BillJ]

There are two areas where TOS has to loose the canon war. TOS vs. TOS and TOS 60's tech vs. current advancements in tech. If the ship in TOS can travel to the edge of the galaxy and make quick trips to other systems that defy a trekkie's analysis of how far you can travel in a day at warp 5 then why hold Enterprise to a higher standard? And if the NX-01 was more primitive than the TOS Enterprise could anyone get through an episode without laughing? I've glad the NX-01 does not use computer tapes, black and white crt's, submarine style viewers, or weapon systems based on 60's scifi.

But a little sixties flavor may have helped separate this show from the crowd. By actually examining Star Trek and looking for things that they could carry over they may have been able to separate Enterprise from its Modern Trek siblings. The way Enterprise was presented, it deserved the "more of the same" tag many fans hung on it before abandoning ship.

And why hold Star Trek to decisions made by later series made by different creators? Things like warp speeds were left deliberately vague so as not to affect story telling potential. Let's also not forget that even Modern Trek couldn't keep things like speed straight. Take a gander at Q Who and Caretaker then come back and talk about TOS inconsistencies.