Is Enterprise Canon?
- Thread starter Tiberius
- Start date
- Status
Why not? People have gotten lazy. A good book is supposed to let you fill in the lines and make assumptions. It forces you to think. Too many people expect TV and movies to answer everything and leave no space for individual interpretation. God forbid have a contradiction that you have to think through and draw your own conclusion.
Star Trek started contradicting itself by the third episode of TOS. What I don't understand is why people that cannot handle it keep watching it? Are ST canon freaks really just masochists?
Yes they are.
Why not? People have gotten lazy. A good book is supposed to let you fill in the lines and make assumptions. It forces you to think. Too many people expect TV and movies to answer everything and leave no space for individual interpretation. God forbid have a contradiction that you have to think through and draw your own conclusion.
Star Trek started contradicting itself by the third episode of TOS. What I don't understand is why people that cannot handle it keep watching it? Are ST canon freaks really just masochists?
Saquist
Commodore
Why not? People have gotten lazy. A good book is supposed to let you fill in the lines and make assumptions. It forces you to think. Too many people expect TV and movies to answer everything and leave no space for individual interpretation. God forbid have a contradiction that you have to think through and draw your own conclusion.
Star Trek started contradicting itself by the third episode of TOS. What I don't understand is why people that cannot handle it keep watching it? Are ST canon freaks really just masochists?
I'm not much for justifying errors with errors..
I expect a TV show and or movie to tell a complete story without errors or missing (necessary) information. That's why it's called story "telling" not story guessing.
The imagination of a good book isn't interpreting what is being related by events, it's interpreting the environment the realm, the personalities. It's not untill late 80's 90's and 2000's that story telling has taken a huge slump.
Rather than tell a good story with the time available movies and shows would rather sensationalize with sex and violence and eye popping displays of SFX. Most movies are looking for that "X" factor that will draw the masses.
I never forget that TV and movies are just an industry for the means to an end: Money. The quality of the product is usually poor and lack luster in all the important ways untill a person that is willing to take their time to tell a story, flush out important details and spin a tapestry worth being retold.
Why not? People have gotten lazy. A good book is supposed to let you fill in the lines and make assumptions. It forces you to think. Too many people expect TV and movies to answer everything and leave no space for individual interpretation. God forbid have a contradiction that you have to think through and draw your own conclusion.
Star Trek started contradicting itself by the third episode of TOS. What I don't understand is why people that cannot handle it keep watching it? Are ST canon freaks really just masochists?
I'm not much for justifying errors with errors..
I expect a TV show and or movie to tell a complete story without errors or missing (necessary) information. That's why it's called story "telling" not story guessing.
The imagination of a good book isn't interpreting what is being related by events, it's interpreting the environment the realm, the personalities. It's not untill late 80's 90's and 2000's that story telling has taken a huge slump.
Rather than tell a good story with the time available movies and shows would rather sensationalize with sex and violence and eye popping displays of SFX. Most movies are looking for that "X" factor that will draw the masses.
I never forget that TV and movies are just an industry for the means to an end: Money. The quality of the product is usually poor and lack luster in all the important ways untill a person that is willing to take their time to tell a story, flush out important details and spin a tapestry worth being retold.
I'd agree to some degree, but... I've seen much lazier storytelling. I've seen pandering to the masses, blow ups, endless pointless blood battles, titty monsters, exploding heads, and it's all justified by loose story and sensless plot... but not in Star Trek. No format is perfect, no fictional story is water tight. Often non-fiction has it's share of holes. But Star Trek just wants to be Star Trek, and they do a great job keeping the universe moving and even challenging itself. It's good quality TV sci-fi... especially compared to all the other cheese that gets spread over the genre.
WAIT, THERE'S MORE:
In my mind, a sci-fi story that spans so many real years, and fictional centuries, could never be a perfect line. And, I know what some say about Enterprise and it's seeming disregard for TOS and even some aspects of the other Treks, BUT, I can't really let that bother me too much, and that's my preference. But, I also think the creatives working on Enterprise did a good job at maintaining continuity in Trek while also trying to expand the universe, and maybe a few times some things don't gel with what came first. But I wouldn't want the show to be TOO limited by anything that restricts a good story, and in the end it's the story that wins. Give me a good story, and I can forgive small inconsistancies.
I'm sorry that so many let these things ruin their enjoyment of a show or movie, I know what it's like to be obsessed with something that no one else can understand why, but don't worry; you're safe here, you are among friends, even if we disagree.
I love you all !!!
Saquist
Commodore
I'd agree to some degree, but... I've seen much lazier storytelling. I've seen pandering to the masses, blow ups, endless pointless blood battles, titty monsters, exploding heads, and it's all justified by loose story and sensless plot... but not in Star Trek. No format is perfect, no fictional story is water tight. Often non-fiction has it's share of holes. But Star Trek just wants to be Star Trek, and they do a great job keeping the universe moving and even challenging itself. It's good quality TV sci-fi... especially compared to all the other cheese that gets spread over the genre.
WAIT, THERE'S MORE:
In my mind, a sci-fi story that spans so many real years, and fictional centuries, could never be a perfect line. And, I know what some say about Enterprise and it's seeming disregard for TOS and even some aspects of the other Treks, BUT, I can't really let that bother me too much, and that's my preference. But, I also think the creatives working on Enterprise did a good job at maintaining continuity in Trek while also trying to expand the universe, and maybe a few times some things don't gel with what came first. But I wouldn't want the show to be TOO limited by anything that restricts a good story, and in the end it's the story that wins. Give me a good story, and I can forgive small inconsistancies.
I'm sorry that so many let these things ruin their enjoyment of a show or movie, I know what it's like to be obsessed with something that no one else can understand why, but don't worry; you're safe here, you are among friends, even if we disagree.
I love you all !!!
I don't think it's a matter of ruining for me. I can't speak for anyone else. I've read too much good Sci Fi. I think that ENTERPRISE fell far short of my greater expectations. The whole show was a rehash of TNG in almost everyone.
I want those who read this to understand that ENT didn't do as to it's counterparts. It didn't separate itself from the rest. It didn't boldly GO where no one had gone before. Sisko, Janeway, the Diverse crews of the TOS and TNG. Rather, Enterprise rather unboldly went back to 24th century in spirit if not literally with the last episode.
Last edited by a moderator:
Some people call this "high concept" - a premise that will make potential viewers react with, "I gotta see that!" Sometimes high concept can override effective story structure.
Keep in mind that there can be a great many cooks besides the original writers stirring up a story as it's being written. Some of these cooks don't know as much about effective story structure as folks who have been well-trained in it (but don't have final say). The end product can suffer as a result. When I see a well-told story, I am always appreciative -- not just because of the storytelling, but because the good story survived the complex and convoluted development and production process.
Happiness = Reality / Expectations.
Enterprise did work for a lot of folks. Everyone has his/her own level of expectations going in, and interprets the material from their own unique perspective. Enterprise isn't perfect - I think perfection is an ideal, rather than a reality - but I think Enterprise told some really good stories that were compelling, thought-provoking, and emotionally evocative.
Back to canon: here is an interview with Michael A. Martin, one of the writers for the Enterprise Relaunch books. (WARNING: elements of the Enterprise books and the Destiny trilogy are revealed, so consider this a "spoiler" interview if you haven't read them.)
Martin discusses canon from a Trek writer's perspective -- acknowledging the "inalterable"-ness of canon while finding continuity loopholes that can be mined for a written story. Also how different writers working with the same characters sometimes compare notes in an effort to keep their stories consistent with each other.
Saquist
Commodore
Some people call this "high concept" - a premise that will make potential viewers react with, "I gotta see that!" Sometimes high concept can override effective story structure.
Keep in mind that there can be a great many cooks besides the original writers stirring up a story as it's being written. Some of these cooks don't know as much about effective story structure as folks who have been well-trained in it (but don't have final say). The end product can suffer as a result. When I see a well-told story, I am always appreciative -- not just because of the storytelling, but because the good story survived the complex and convoluted development and production process.
Happiness = Reality / Expectations.
Enterprise did work for a lot of folks. Everyone has his/her own level of expectations going in, and interprets the material from their own unique perspective. Enterprise isn't perfect - I think perfection is an ideal, rather than a reality - but I think Enterprise told some really good stories that were compelling, thought-provoking, and emotionally evocative.
Back to canon: here is an interview with Michael A. Martin, one of the writers for the Enterprise Relaunch books. (WARNING: elements of the Enterprise books and the Destiny trilogy are revealed, so consider this a "spoiler" interview if you haven't read them.)
Martin discusses canon from a Trek writer's perspective -- acknowledging the "inalterable"-ness of canon while finding continuity loopholes that can be mined for a written story. Also how different writers working with the same characters sometimes compare notes in an effort to keep their stories consistent with each other.
But if heaven doesn't exceed our grasp then why endeavor for anything?
Ender's Game, The Foundation Trilogy, Partnership, By the Light of the Moon Farenheit 451, even Maniac Magee, they all came wonderfully close to perfection in story-telling.
If I thought life was about dividing my expectations by reality I don't think we'd have survived the civil war in America or World War II. I encourage people to expect more, get more and go for more. Things should get better with time, I know I'm one of those things
Michael A Martin and his co-author (with all due respect to them are far from my favorite Star Trek authors.
Taking Wing and Red King were so boring and the alien characters in their hands never stood out. I thought I was reading a script.
Christopher L Bennett did a far better job.
Middle Man:
So, are you saying that if the writers were to follow canon exactly they would lose revenue?
Where is your evidence of this?
Actually, to my knowledge: fans of certain different franchises applaud directors, writers, and producers for getting the little things right.
Although, they also have to combine that with an excellent well told emotional story line with great characterization, too (of course).
But one link in the chain is no less in important than the other, though. So nothing should be sacrificed or made less of a priority. Every part of a TV episode or film should work together to create the best possible piece of product for the audience (Which in turn should create reasonable profits).
I mean, to me: It sounds like your just making excuses for Enterprise based on the fact that we should cut the producers a break because they are having such a hard time in trying to just make money with it.
Well, there are plenty of series that have quality characters and writing and have done well in the TV numbers. And Enterprise deserved the fate it got because it truly didn't deliver like it was supposed to from day one.
But that's just my opinion.
You meant spoon fed, right? Anyways, it's not that certain people wouldn't Know that Enterprise is a prequel to TOS. The series explains that to you (obviously). My point is that Enterprise really doesn't work as a prequel series in the Core Trek Time Line before TOS. And if you tried watching Enterprise first before the other series, it would be like skipping to the end of the book before you read the beginning.
Oh, and sure, Enterprise is supposed to be the beginning. But it doesn't really come off that way when it puts major canon into question and looks more like a 24th Century show than a 22nd Century one. So that is why it works best as some type of unexplained alternate time line.
I mean, just look at JJ Abram's Star Trek: He made the 23rd Century feel like the 23rd Century. There was no TR-116 rifles, or saucer separating starships, or holodecks. He also, came right out and told us it was an alternate time line, as well. Which was a smart move seeing there was bound to be things here and there that wouldn't quite match up.
Oh, and... the movie was a success, too.
Nerys Myk:
So that is why Branon Braga debated with fans in this article then?
http://talk.trekweb.com/articles/2003/08/21/1061438460.html
Yes, I know the studio is in charge of what is canon and what is not canon. But you were the one who brought up producers in the first place. I was merely commenting on your original post; and I was basically trying to tell you that canon is not to be determined by what the producers felt outside of the actual series (but what was in the series itself).
I never suggested that flaws within a series in not canon. I said that...
"the only real basis for canon is not in what this producer said or that producer said, but what it is in the series itself (flaws and all)."
I was suggesting that the real basis for canon, flaws and all is within the series and is canon. I didn't say that the flaws were not canon.
Side Note:
Oh, and I wasn't going to debate this topic with you. However, seeing the issue started to get out of hand, I had to step in (for logic's sake).
Last edited:
What I mean was that if they strictly follow canon they are at risk of loosing audience because they can't freshen things up when they become old and tired. After 35 years Trek was getting old and tired. I mean look what happend because of the canonistas, they rebooted the franchise and threw out 40 years of that precious canon. (I wonder how many people out there were slicing their wrists after they saw the movie)
I never feel the need to justify my opinion when it comes to something as trivial as entertainment. Just accept that this is how I feel. You don't have to agree with me or even like what I say; just respect the fact that I have it.
And much larger groups of people would applaud those same directors, writers, and producers for entertaining them. Those who strictly follow the canon of a franchise are generally small in number. certainly not the size audience today's Hollywood needs to get a return.
I'm not making excuses for anything. I thoroughly enjoyed Enterpise despite it's obvious flaws. I discovered the Enterpise 2 1/2 years after it's cancellation and It was responsible for bringing me back to Trek after a 17 year absence. I gave up on the franchise around 1990 because Patrick Stewart and Jonathan Frakes just bored me to tears. It's a funny thing, TNG bored me, but I don't go to any TNG boards trashing the series.
Sounds to me like you have an ax to grind against this series. Why don't you just accept that there are a lot of people out there who liked the series and that its fan base keeps growing now that it's in syndication. We don't want to defend it and we don't care about the precious Trek canon, which is gone now anyway. We just want to discuss the series with like minded people. After all, it's not our fault that B&B wrote Archer as a more important character in Federation history than Kirk (after all, that's what all this canon stuff is about anyway).
One that your entitled to and I respect, but also one that I think is wrong.
That shows he cares about continuity, not "The Core Star Trek Timeline" Any smart producer cares about it. but knows it is malable and ever changing. The "Core Star Trek Timeline" is some sort of fannish construct that would result in blank stares and shaking heads.Nerys Myk:
So that is why Branon Braga debated with fans in this article then?
http://talk.trekweb.com/articles/2003/08/21/1061438460.html
And you'd be wrong. because the "studio is in charge of what is canon and what is not canon".LutherSloan said:
And you'd still be wrong because the "studio is in charge of what is canon and what is not canon"LutherSloan said:
As for who brought up the producers, I'd direct you attention here: http://www.trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3987977&postcount=38
Middleman:
See, thats the thing. JJ Abram's Star Trek established canon by connecting it to the Prime Universe properly. Enterprise had more than one opportunity with that Temporal Cold War junk to make sense of the questionable canonical errors on the show and it never did anything about it.
At least, with JJ Abram's Star Trek you can explain the discrepancies in it (officially).
But I know you enjoy it for other reasons. Which is cool.
Yes, this is true to some extent. However, my point is that the really good TV and films within Hollywood that you appreciate are the ones that are intelligent and well thought out (regardless if they were huge at the box office).
I mean, I don't judge a movie or TV series on how well it did. I judge it based on whether or not it is smart and well thought out.
If you throw the book of intelligence out the window within a movie or TV series you are essentially lowering your standards of what makes quality video entertainment actually good in the first place.
Now, that is not to say there aren't popcorn films or TV series that are not meant to be taken as seriously. I am just saying that Star Trek has never set the tone that it was ever to be a popcorn type of a thing. Which is essentially what your making it out to be when it is not.
But however you enjoy it, again I am happy that you do, man.
Personally, I wish I could go back and turn my brain off again and enjoy the series. Really, I wish I could.
I know how you feel. I used to like Enterprise when it first aired. However, after much reflection and discussion with others on forums about it's apparent flaws, it is just now seems really silly to me in comparison to the other series (over all).
Also, have you ever not liked a TV show or a movie before because they did something stupid or unbelievable in it? That is kind of what I am getting at with Enterprise. I mean, if it was just a small handful of dumb things on the show I could ignore it. But the sheer number of idiotic things on Enterprise that I have added up over the years just makes me want to laugh every time I pop in the DVDs.
Oh, but I know how you feel about TNG to some extent. I really thought there were a lot of mind numbingly dull episodes. Especially the pilot episode (Encounter at Farpoint).
Canon is gone now? When did that happen?
Anyways, I just find it funny that people would close themselves off to what the other Trek episodes originally meant when they aired. I also find it funny that they can just turn their brains off whenever it suits them for something that is supposed to make them think and expand their knowledge and imaginations in the first place.
But that's just me.
Well, I hope you keep reading and expand your knowledge of the world and demand perfection out of more things, my friend. Anyways, I respect your opinion of the series, even though I may not agree with it. In fact, I am glad you are enjoying the series.
So keep on Trekking.
Last edited:
Canon is determined by the episodes, which are in turn determined by the writing staff, producers, et al.
And they wrtie the episodes based on what makes a good story. If the choice comes down to, "We can make a kick ass episode this week, but we have to contradict some point made three years ago in Next Gen to do it," they aren't going to decide that it's too bad, they can't make the episode after all. They're going to go ahead and make the episode and live with the fact that this great episode contradicts what Picard said three years ago.
And as long as what they contradict isn't some majopr thing, is it really that much of a problem? I mean, Voyager has done it. They changed the Borg history with the Federation. so if enterprise decides that they want to have the Ferengi in one episode and they provide an explanation that is at least reasonable, what's the big deal.
And face it, if you watched all the episodes in the order they are set in (starting with Entperirse and going from there), would you really know that those big eared dudes are Ferengi when they are first mentioned in Farpoint? of course not. so what's the big deal with it?
And they wrtie the episodes based on what makes a good story. If the choice comes down to, "We can make a kick ass episode this week, but we have to contradict some point made three years ago in Next Gen to do it," they aren't going to decide that it's too bad, they can't make the episode after all. They're going to go ahead and make the episode and live with the fact that this great episode contradicts what Picard said three years ago.
And as long as what they contradict isn't some majopr thing, is it really that much of a problem? I mean, Voyager has done it. They changed the Borg history with the Federation. so if enterprise decides that they want to have the Ferengi in one episode and they provide an explanation that is at least reasonable, what's the big deal.
And face it, if you watched all the episodes in the order they are set in (starting with Entperirse and going from there), would you really know that those big eared dudes are Ferengi when they are first mentioned in Farpoint? of course not. so what's the big deal with it?
Nerys:
I will be posting about Trek canon that I believe was either put into serious question or broken on Enterprise soon. But the very things Brannon was concerned about with the fans are indeed tied to the "Core Star Trek Timeline". Read what he posted in the link I sent you. Then scroll down, and read the fan's opinions.
You are either misreading my posts or you are claiming opinions that I do not share. So no. I am not wrong. Just because I said a certain series is canon doesn't mean I don't believe... " the studio is in charge of what is canon and what is not canon."
Okay. Sorry about that. I did bring up the producers first.
Just know that you also misunderstood what I wrote to you.
Anyways, lets move on and call a truce, my friend.
Tiberius:
Well said. As for the other stuff: I will be posting my opinions on Enterprise's canon issues soon.
Side Note:
Just know that I still believe Enterprise to be canon, despite the supposed canon issues I have with the series.
Whoa....flashback.....I actually commented in that thread seven years ago. And here's what I had to say then:
Memo to Brannon....
By The Lensman at 21:00:33 on August 21 2003
You're an idiot. Not too long ago, at the time of the Borg ep, you were making comments that Ent isn't neccesarily in the same timeline as the rest of Trek.
Now you seem to be saying it is with your whining about fans again.
Look, you and Rick were not the people to be doing a prequel. Period. Get over it.
BUT you could've saved yourself a lot of headaches by simply establishing the "alternate timeline" thing IN THE FIRST EP!
I wouldn't have a had a problem with this approach, and in fact would've prefered it to the half assed "it is\it isn't in the timeline proper" approach you guys have been taking.
If you're going to suggest that Ent is in an alternate timeline, then have the balls to actually say it ON SCREEN. Not in interviews. I mean, your target audience, the casual viewers, aren't reading your interviews because they give less of a shit about you than we do.
Stop trying to have it both ways.....make up your mind, then go with it.
As for "edgy". Yeah, when you start killing off the dull and useless members of the original Ent crew, like Mayweather and Hoshi, the show could be edgy. I have no doubt that you don't have the courage to kill off the Harry Kim and Chakotay of Ent.
You're introducing the MACO's so that you can kill some of them while keeping wortheless (dull with no story potential) around.
Kill them.....and while you're at it, kill Archer. You want to show the fans something they've never seen in a Trek show? That's it.
Is ENT canon? Yes. Like the new movie, it takes place in it's own bubble reality, not the original timeline. Braga was pretty much saying this around the time of the Borg ep. That FC had changed the timeline and that ENT took place in this altered timeline. As usual, there was a segment of fandom that screamed and moaned about it not being part of the proper timeline so they waffled the issue and tried to have it both ways.
Sorry, but as established, the NX-01 and Archer, are just too big to have been ignored by the rest of the series. We've got an aircraft carrier, a space shuttle and some funky other Enterprise in TMP....but not the ship that carried "the greatest explorer of the 22nd century"? The guy was there at the founding of the Federation and was a UFP prez for god's sake. That just doesn't get ignored.
It's in the post FC timeline. JJ wasn't the first to do an alternate timeline Trek. And knowing that made it much easier to enjoy ENT.
Braga was talking about continuity not canon or "The Core Star Trek Time line." Dont really care about the fan comments. Especially the ones that say things like "The plague infesting Star Trek are you and your bitch Berman; Moron with a captial 'M'. or "You're an idiot"
The studio determines canon and all series are currently canon according to the studio. So your belief that a certain series in not canon can only be wrong. So until the studio changes that, no amount of "proof" on your part will make Enterprise non-canon.
I don't have time to go into a long response over issues such as canon, which as I explained earlier, means much less to me than it does to you. I do however, want to say something about the time line because I've heard your position from others as well: The "Old Time Line Is Dead". The only place it will continue to exist is in the "soft canon" of the CBS/Paramount novels. I seriously doubt that either you or I will live long enough (at least I wont) to see the day the old time line returns to the big or small screen. Why? Because JJ "reset the time line" so he doesn't have to pay attention to the previously established canon. He and his creative staff can now pick and choose what canon they prefer to follow and they now have the creative freedom they need to move their vision of Trek forward. When the canonistas start whining, they just say, hey, it's the time line.
If fans had just been a little more flexible, a little less whiny and a little more loyal (myself included), Trek would still be on TV today. Now the most we can look forward, for the foreseeable future, is a movie once every 3 or 4 years in the "Alternate Time Line" with actors who are intimating other actors. Unfortunately,this franchise is now no better than "Batman Begins".
I think it's a shame that you don't appreciate Enterprise for what was right with it and what TPTB tried to accomplish instead of focusing on the canon. But ... hey ... everyone is entitled to their opinion. Enough said, I have to go earn a living.
Last edited:
In my estimate, Enterprise was not cancelled because of canon. Enterprise did not fail because of canon. Enterprise may not have been improved by adhering strongly to continuity and canon of what came before. In my estimate, canon is a small issue that doesn't really affect the show that much...
It makes me wonder if Enterprise was a better written show from the get go, with improved character development, thought provoking and compelling concepts and plots earlier in it's run, with each episode better than the last and was a certified hit-- But, had the same suppossed "canon issues", would it have been cancelled?
Just wonderin'
It makes me wonder if Enterprise was a better written show from the get go, with improved character development, thought provoking and compelling concepts and plots earlier in it's run, with each episode better than the last and was a certified hit-- But, had the same suppossed "canon issues", would it have been cancelled?
Just wonderin'
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
