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

[BillJ]

"As long as everything that originated with Star Trek is not allowed to be used by the later series..."

Using elements from already existing fictional universes to build new, separate fictional universes is standard practice - if one has the legal rights, that is (sometimes, even when not).

This says nothing about the identity or the distinctiveness of the universes, BillJ.

But there is something to respecting what came before. If you can't respect something created by someone else, why use it at all? Why not create something new? Was Modern Trek that creatively bankrupt?

How long do you think Modern Trek would've stayed afloat if it hadn't been a spin-off to Star Trek?

 

[ProtoAvatar]

"As long as everything that originated with Star Trek is not allowed to be used by the later series..."

Using elements from already existing fictional universes to build new, separate fictional universes is standard practice - if one has the legal rights, that is (sometimes, even when not).

This says nothing about the identity or the distinctiveness of the universes, BillJ.

But there is something to respecting what came before. If you can't respect something created by someone else, why use it at all? Why not create something new? Was Modern Trek that creatively bankrupt?

How long do you think Modern Trek would've stayed afloat if it hadn't been a spin-off to Star Trek?

You're implying that 'respecting' something and using it to create something new are mutually exclusive. This is false.
TOS can continue to live on in its own separate universe.


BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

 

[BillJ]

"As long as everything that originated with Star Trek is not allowed to be used by the later series..."

Using elements from already existing fictional universes to build new, separate fictional universes is standard practice - if one has the legal rights, that is (sometimes, even when not).

This says nothing about the identity or the distinctiveness of the universes, BillJ.

But there is something to respecting what came before. If you can't respect something created by someone else, why use it at all? Why not create something new? Was Modern Trek that creatively bankrupt?

How long do you think Modern Trek would've stayed afloat if it hadn't been a spin-off to Star Trek?

You're implying that 'respecting' something and using it to create something new are mutually exclusive. This is false.
TOS can continue to live on in its own separate universe.


BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

What I'm saying is that it really isn't that hard to follow Star Trek. I'm a dumb hick and had very little issue following the narrative that was laid down. You're telling me that high a priced Hollywood writer can't do the same?

You're probably seeing the biggest reason Modern Trek failed in the long run... it deviated to far from the source material. It got so self-important that it was no longer fun.

So now we're back where we started... with Kirk, Spock and McCoy ruling the roost.

But in the end I don't understand this irrational feeling by some fans that some part of the franchise needs to be excluded to better enhance their enjoyment of it.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

But there is something to respecting what came before. If you can't respect something created by someone else, why use it at all? Why not create something new? Was Modern Trek that creatively bankrupt?

How long do you think Modern Trek would've stayed afloat if it hadn't been a spin-off to Star Trek?

You're implying that 'respecting' something and using it to create something new are mutually exclusive. This is false.
TOS can continue to live on in its own separate universe.


BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

What I'm saying is that it really isn't that hard to follow Star Trek. I'm a dumb hick and had very little issue following the narrative that was laid down. You're telling me that high a priced Hollywood writer can't do the same?

You're probably seeing the biggest reason Modern Trek failed in the long run... it deviated to far from the source material. It got so self-important that it was no longer fun.

So now we're back where we started... with Kirk, Spock and McCoy ruling the roost.

But in the end I don't understand this irrational feeling by some fans that some part of the franchise needs to be excluded to better enhance their enjoyment of it.

"You're probably seeing the biggest reason Modern Trek failed in the long run... it deviated to far from the source material. "

I disagree. Either something changes, adapts, or it disappears, becomes an irrelevant anachronism

The society of the '60 is not '90's society.
Trek had to either adapt or disappear, becoming an 'oldie' known only to a few.
Today, trek changed again with Star Trek XI, in order to bring it up to speed with the times.

The greatest proof of respect to the source material is to change it, adapt it, enabling trek to remain fresh, in tune with the times.

 

[BillJ]

The greatest proof of respect to the source material is to change it, adapt it, enabling trek to remain fresh, in tune with the times.

Which is why Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise have all been resounding long term successes. Carrying the franchise to new heights and in successful new directions. Can you imagine how idiotic it would be to bring Kirk, Spock and McCoy back to the big screen... it would absolutely bomb...

Oh wait.

Back to Star Trek 2009. What about it was so fresh and new? My biggest complaint about the film was that it felt like a "Cliff Notes" version of the original series. It didn't do anything that hadn't been done before.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

The greatest proof of respect to the source material is to change it, adapt it, enabling trek to remain fresh, in tune with the times.

Which is why Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise have all been resounding long term successes. Carrying the franchise to new heights and in successful new directions. Can you imagine how idiotic it would be to bring Kirk, Spock and McCoy back to the big screen... it would absolutely bomb...

Oh wait.

Your post is resentment without arguments to back it up.

TOS itself was no resounding success.
Trek XI's Kirk, Spock and McCoy are NOT TOS's Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Trek XI is not TOS. Far from it.

 

[BillJ]

Your post is resentment without arguments to back it up.

What resentment?

I'm not the one who wants to take and ignore the fundamental building blocks of Trek as we know it today. I also don't see the value in dismissing what comes later.

Especially since I own the following:

Star Trek Seasons 1 - 3 on Blu-Ray
Star Trek I - VI on Blu-Ray
Star Trek 2009 on Blu-ray
Enterprise Seasons 1 - 4 on DVD
The Next Generation Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Deep Space Nine Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Voyager Seasons 2 - 4 on DVD
Star Trek VII - X on DVD
Star Trek: The Animated Series on DVD

You might want to push whatever it is you're peddling elsewhere.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

Your post is resentment without arguments to back it up.

What resentment?

I'm not the one who wants to take and ignore the fundamental building blocks of Trek as we know it today. I also don't see the value in dismissing what comes later.

Especially since I own the following:

Star Trek Seasons 1 - 3 on Blu-Ray
Star Trek I - VI on Blu-Ray
Star Trek 2009 on Blu-ray
Enterprise Seasons 1 - 4 on DVD
The Next Generation Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Deep Space Nine Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Voyager Seasons 2 - 4 on DVD
Star Trek VII - X on DVD
Star Trek: The Animated Series on DVD

You might want to push whatever it is you're peddling elsewhere.

Your resentment that all trek was not a slavish imitation of TOS, of course.

And this current post of yours is equally baseless. Trek 'as we know it today' comprises much more than merely TOS.
Its 'fundamental building blocks' are present in all trek productions to date.
You not 'seeing the value in dismissing what comes later' is directly contradicted by your previous posts, in which you do 'dismiss what comes later'.

 

[BillJ]

Your post is resentment without arguments to back it up.

What resentment?

I'm not the one who wants to take and ignore the fundamental building blocks of Trek as we know it today. I also don't see the value in dismissing what comes later.

Especially since I own the following:

Star Trek Seasons 1 - 3 on Blu-Ray
Star Trek I - VI on Blu-Ray
Star Trek 2009 on Blu-ray
Enterprise Seasons 1 - 4 on DVD
The Next Generation Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Deep Space Nine Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Voyager Seasons 2 - 4 on DVD
Star Trek VII - X on DVD
Star Trek: The Animated Series on DVD

You might want to push whatever it is you're peddling elsewhere.

Your resentment that all trek was not a slavish imitation of TOS, of course.

And this current post of yours is equally baseless. Trek 'as we know it today' comprises much more than merely TOS.
Its 'fundamental building blocks' are present in all trek productions to date.
You not 'seeing the value in dismissing what comes later' is directly contradicted by your previous posts, in which you do 'dismiss what comes later'.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?

I've never insinuated that I find Modern Trek to be any more or less valuable than Star Trek. The ones who are making value judgments are the ones who want to shunt Star Trek off into a corner because they can't make it jive with what they like.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

What resentment?

I'm not the one who wants to take and ignore the fundamental building blocks of Trek as we know it today. I also don't see the value in dismissing what comes later.

Especially since I own the following:

Star Trek Seasons 1 - 3 on Blu-Ray
Star Trek I - VI on Blu-Ray
Star Trek 2009 on Blu-ray
Enterprise Seasons 1 - 4 on DVD
The Next Generation Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Deep Space Nine Seasons 1 - 5 on DVD
Voyager Seasons 2 - 4 on DVD
Star Trek VII - X on DVD
Star Trek: The Animated Series on DVD

You might want to push whatever it is you're peddling elsewhere.

Your resentment that all trek was not a slavish imitation of TOS, of course.

And this current post of yours is equally baseless. Trek 'as we know it today' comprises much more than merely TOS.
Its 'fundamental building blocks' are present in all trek productions to date.
You not 'seeing the value in dismissing what comes later' is directly contradicted by your previous posts, in which you do 'dismiss what comes later'.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?

I've never insinuated that I find Modern Trek to be any more or less valuable than Star Trek. The ones who are making value judgments are the ones who want to shunt Star Trek off into a corner because they can't make it jive with what they like.

"I've never insinuated that I find Modern Trek to be any more or less valuable than Star Trek."
Really?:
"You're probably seeing the biggest reason Modern Trek failed in the long run... it deviated to far from the source material. It got so self-important that it was no longer fun."

"Which is why Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise have all been resounding long term successes. Carrying the franchise to new heights and in successful new directions. Can you imagine how idiotic it would be to bring Kirk, Spock and McCoy back to the big screen... it would absolutely bomb...

Oh wait."
And I could go on.


"Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?"
This question you should ask yourself, not me.

 

[BillJ]

Your resentment that all trek was not a slavish imitation of TOS, of course.

And this current post of yours is equally baseless. Trek 'as we know it today' comprises much more than merely TOS.
Its 'fundamental building blocks' are present in all trek productions to date.
You not 'seeing the value in dismissing what comes later' is directly contradicted by your previous posts, in which you do 'dismiss what comes later'.

Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?

I've never insinuated that I find Modern Trek to be any more or less valuable than Star Trek. The ones who are making value judgments are the ones who want to shunt Star Trek off into a corner because they can't make it jive with what they like.

"I've never insinuated that I find Modern Trek to be any more or less valuable than Star Trek."
Really?:
"You're probably seeing the biggest reason Modern Trek failed in the long run... it deviated to far from the source material. It got so self-important that it was no longer fun."

"Which is why Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise have all been resounding long term successes. Carrying the franchise to new heights and in successful new directions. Can you imagine how idiotic it would be to bring Kirk, Spock and McCoy back to the big screen... it would absolutely bomb...

Oh wait."
And I could go on.


"Do you even know what you're arguing at this point?"
This question you should ask yourself, not me.

This is gonna hurt a bit...

Star Trek projects (live-action) currently in production featuring the cast/characters of Star Trek: The Next Generation: 0

Star Trek projects (live-action) currently in production featuring the cast/characters of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: 0

Star Trek projects (live-action) currently in production featuring the cast/characters of Star Trek: Voyager: 0

Star Trek projects (live-action) currently in production featuring the cast/characters of Star Trek: Enterprise: 0

Now Paramount has never been afraid to have multiple Trek productions in the pipeline when they thought their was an audience for it. Now what does that tell you Paramount thinks of the chances that a Modern Trek project would be successful?

Since Deep Space Nine, Voyager and Enterprise will never see another live action project with the characters... I would categorize them as 'long-term failures'. They had their run and Paramount will not be capitalizing on them again.

Next Gen at least made it to the big screen... even though those outings were lackluster at best. And Paramount finally pulled the plug.

So as much as I like the series... they are long-term failures. Where the original series flourished in strip syndication and on the big screen, its off-springs did not.

Will throwing out TOS somehow make you feel better about Modern Trek and its failures?

 

[Anwar]

TOS itself was a "failure" by your standards, as it was canceled after 3 seasons.

TNG+ are all in syndication still, equal to TOS.

Why are they going back to the original characters? Nostalgia, more than anything else. JJ Abrams could easily have done a reboot with the TNG characters and it still would've worked.

Hell, Kirk and co weren't even characters in TOS. They were archetypes, who just HAPPENED to be acted well.

 

[BillJ]

TOS itself was a "failure" by your standards, as it was canceled after 3 seasons.

TNG+ are all in syndication still, equal to TOS.

Why are they going back to the original characters? Nostalgia, more than anything else. JJ Abrams could easily have done a reboot with the TNG characters and it still would've worked.

Hell, Kirk and co weren't even characters in TOS. They were archetypes, who just HAPPENED to be acted well.

Of course Star Trek was a failure in its original run. But it definitely took on a life of its own in syndication.

In the U.S. I'm not sure where DS9 and Voyager are still airing... maybe you can help me? Enterprise is airing on HDNet and occasionally Sci-Fi. If I remember correctly only TNG is actually airing in strip syndication currently.

Doesn't change the fact that I don't think any of them should be thrown out.

 

[Anwar]

I'm in Canada, here nearly all the Trek shows are repeated on the Space network.

 

[Cornholio]

What I don't get is why a single passing reference in TOS is treated as being more valid than a huge plot point in some other non-TOS episode.

simple:

TOS = the Original series

TOS is the series that LEAST fits the universe created by all the other series/movies.

what you're arguing implies a fault in the other series/movies.

BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

Argumentum ad nauseam

'nuff said.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

What I don't get is why a single passing reference in TOS is treated as being more valid than a huge plot point in some other non-TOS episode.

simple:

TOS = the Original series

The name is irrelevant. It's the content that matters.

TOS is the series that LEAST fits the universe created by all the other series/movies.

what you're arguing implies a fault in the other series/movies.

I disagree. That's because I don't view TOS as the peak of perfection, a view necessary to make your above statement.

BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

Argumentum ad nauseam

'nuff said.

So - you have no counterargument. But you don't care - Why that? Because you're a 'believer'?

 

[Cornholio]

What I don't get is why a single passing reference in TOS is treated as being more valid than a huge plot point in some other non-TOS episode.

simple:

TOS = the Original series

The name is irrelevant. It's the content that matters.

'the original series' is not a name.

I disagree. That's because I don't view TOS as the peak of perfection, a view necessary to make your above statement.

I expressed no view. I simply spelled out an acronym.

BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

Argumentum ad nauseam

'nuff said.

So - you have no counterargument. But you don't care - Why that? Because you're a 'believer'?

I simply pointed out the fallacy in your argument.

and yes, I am a 'believer'.

I believe in God. I believe Jesus Christ died for my sins.

 

[buckeyenation]

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

Well, of course they could have given the show a TOS look, but why bother? We've seen it already. Let's see something different.Let us see what 100 years before TOS looked liked from the perspective of the year 2000. That being said, Enterprise bent over backwards to "go back" and show us Andorians, Klingons as the bad guys, and Tellerites. Enterprise did everything it could to appeal to everyone;perhaps that was its downfall.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

simple:

TOS = the Original series

The name is irrelevant. It's the content that matters.

'the original series' is not a name.

This is supposed to be an argument?

TOS is the series that LEAST fits the universe created by all the other series/movies.

what you're arguing implies a fault in the other series/movies.

I expressed no view. I simply spelled out an acronym.

Really? Claiming that any changes made by the other series to the TOS universe are a 'fault' of these series IS 'expressing a view'. A view that requires you to view TOS as the peak of perfection.

BillJ, the very simple fact is, TOS is the series least consistent with the rest of televised trek.
How did this come to pass, was it right or wrong that it happened, etc, etc - all this is irrelevant. None of this changes the fact that, if one series should leave the cannon, TOS is this series - the universe it depicts differs the most from the universe depicted in the other trek productions.

Argumentum ad nauseam

'nuff said.

So - you have no counterargument. But you don't care - Why that? Because you're a 'believer'?

I simply pointed out the fallacy in your argument.

Fallacy? Judging by your definition of 'fallacy' you have no ideea what the word means.
Your "fallacy"- 'argument ad nauseam' - is a non sequitur: had no logical connection to my argument.

 

[Cornholio]

The name is irrelevant. It's the content that matters.

'the original series' is not a name.

This is supposed to be an argument?

it is a statement.

Really? Claiming that any changes made by the other series to the TOS universe are a 'fault' of these series IS 'expressing a view'. A view that requires you to view TOS as the peak of perfection.

I've made no such claim.

So - you have no counterargument. But you don't care - Why that? Because you're a 'believer'?

I simply pointed out the fallacy in your argument.

Fallacy? Judging by your definition of 'fallacy' you have no ideea what the word means.

fallacy

check out examples 2a and 3.

Your "fallacy"- 'argument ad nauseam' - is a non sequitur: had no logical connection to my argument.

it does. you just can't see it.