Is Enterprise Canon?

[Withers]

Both TNG, DS9 and VOY portrayed TOS accurately without fear of making itself illegitimate. ENT also did so in a last ditch attempt to save itself. But if it had started out with the same care then it's run would not have been so tumultuous. It would have had the support of the majority of the fans. It would have been a more challenging series, more creative and fresh concept for Trek to embrace.

Well, first of all, that's three shows not two (I thought since clarity of language is suddenly so important I'd point that out.) Secondly, that trio made just as many mistakes in regard to adhering strictly to the canon of TOS after the fact in the time line and they're forgiven based on the fact that people like those shows. I would postulate that Enterprise did way more to reconcile continuity errors than it ever added (like the Borg and the Klingons.) So there's something to be said for the attempt (which was never made with such boldness on any of the other series.) Thirdly, it is your opinion that it was tumultuous, your theory that were it not that way fans would have supported it en mass, reiterated by further opinions that under the aforementioned circumstances it would have been more challenging and fresh as a Trek series. Saying things in a factual way doesn't make them facts. It's still opinion fueled by speculation.

Rather than accept it's roots, Enterprise cast them aside. Is there really a problem with this? Well other than alienating the FANdom and fueling discussion such as this, no.

This suggests that everybody who loves Star Trek loves TOS and that isn't the case. It's also your opinion that Enterprise cast aside its "roots" which I also don't think is the case. They adhered to canon as much as I think a show that was made as a prequel to a show that came out 30 some odd years prior could possibly be expected to- but again, their real accomplishment was cleaning up the messes made by other series (or their attempts at doing so anyway.)

ENTERPRISE was the show that perhaps should have grown up from VOY leaving behind the perfect little endings and characters for something more realistic or more relate-able to the 21 century man.

Voyager keeps coming up as though that show were flawless. If anything Enterprise did take its cue from Voyager in that things must be explained. The criticism you're leveling at Enterprise should be directed at Voyager in light of TNG. By giving Enterprise a darker tone they did make it more appealing to 21st century man because the idea that started out in TOS, kept going through most of TNG, and was outright repeated verbatim in Voyager was that 42 minutes was enough to face, struggle with and solve problems on a galactic scale with no moral dilemma that couldn't be solved by the phrase "do the right thing."

Now, I'm not saying Enterprise was by any means perfect. I too think they were a little lazy when it came to the first two seasons (a fallacy every Trek series has had- starting out weakly only to gain strength in later seasons) and that there was a lot more than could have been done as opposed to some of the stuff they ultimately went with. "Canon" problems, specifically, adherence to TOS, doesn't bother me at all. Like I said when it comes to one not meeting up with the other I just disregard TOS as taking place in an alternate time line spawned from the Willy Wanka Chocolate Factory. So, that's not an issue for me. My issues are not entirely dissimilar from yours that aside. I just think going so far as to call the entire show lazy, uninspired, and boring is unfounded and ignores some of the work they produced.

-Withers-​

 

[Saquist]

Yes, Niles is hilarious. But you still haven't answered my question.

This is a bit off topic...
But I'll entertain it.

I didn't know. I never watched Cheers. It was boring a bit adultish humor. But yes, it does become illegimate in the face of those facts.

But just like any child born out of wedlock it doesn't mean you hate what is good because of the errors of it's creators. What merits does it itself have?

Fraiser had alot of merits...great acting, creative, unique and changing.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I think there were only two times when I had actual continuity issues with Enterprise.

The first one was that stupid Ferengi episode in Season 1. In contrast to the Borg in "Regeneration", they weren't even trying to give a logical explanation for the Ferengi's sudden appearance in the 22nd century. Of course the episode itself was pretty cringe-worthy and devolved the Ferengi back to their pre-DS9 state, so it would have been best had the episode never been written in the first place.

The second example was the infamous "Stigma", which tried to make us believe that only a tiny fraction of Vulcans are capable of mind-melds. So Spock, Sarek, Tuvok, and all other Vulcans which were seen conducting mind-melds over the years belonged to that minority? What the frack? Fortunately, this retcon was subsequently de-retconned by Season 4's Vulcan trilogy. Even "Stigma" made sense after that one.

Other than these two episodes I'm fine with Enterprise. The entire show is of course Canon by definition. The only part of the Star Trek franchise whose canonicity is debatable is TAS (which was Canon, then non-Canon, and then semi-Canon or something like that). Interestingly, I don't see Star Trek fans quibbling over TAS very often. Maybe it's because most fans don't give a rats ass about Animated Trek.

 

[Saquist]

This suggests that everybody who loves Star Trek loves TOS and that isn't the case.

I made no such statement nor was it leading to such an aboslute.

It's also your opinion that Enterprise cast aside its "roots" which I also don't think is the case. They adhered to canon as much as I think a show that was made as a prequel to a show that came out 30 some odd years prior could possibly be expected to- but again, their real accomplishment was cleaning up the messes made by other series (or their attempts at doing so anyway.)

I'm just drawing conclusions from the facts.

Voyager keeps coming up as though that show were flawless. If anything Enterprise did take its cue from Voyager in that things must be explained. The criticism you're leveling at Enterprise should be directed at Voyager in light of TNG.

Every show has a different reason to criticize not the same. There are similarities but nothing identical.

By giving Enterprise a darker tone they did make it more appealing to 21st century man because the idea that started out in TOS, kept going through most of TNG, and was outright repeated verbatim in Voyager was that 42 minutes was enough to face, struggle with and solve problems on a galactic scale with no moral dilemma that couldn't be solved by the phrase "do the right thing."

....hmmm.

Now, I'm not saying Enterprise was by any means perfect.

I would never draw such an absolute from your remarks.

"Canon" problems, specifically, adherence to TOS, doesn't bother me at all. Like I said when it comes to one not meeting up with the other I just disregard TOS as taking place in an alternate time line spawned from the Willy Wanka Chocolate Factory. So, that's not an issue for me. My issues are not entirely dissimilar from yours that aside. I just think going so far as to call the entire show lazy, uninspired, and boring is unfounded and ignores some of the work they produced.

Like what?
If I could pick one I'd say the only episode that was particularly creative was the Augments series of episodes. But it wasn't inspired they stole off the rest of Trek but it was well written.

But then that just goes into the act of desperation trying to save the show. I just don't give it alot of points for copying and trying to save it's tuckas from the firing squad so late in the game.

The interviews with the producers of Enterprise were down right degrading. I don't normally endorse sucking up to fans but they were so dismissive of the Fan concerns...they were riding with blinders on. They could do no wrong according to them.

 

[Withers]

I'm just drawing conclusions from the facts.

You're drawing conclusions from your opinions. There's nothing wrong with that (it's what everybody does) but there is a difference.

If I could pick one I'd say the only episode that was particularly creative was the Augments series of episodes. But it wasn't inspired they stole off the rest of Trek but it was well written.

If you can pick one how much do you want to bet there are people out there who could pick dozens of others? Ultimately, just because you say it's lazy, uninspired and boring, doesn't make that true. It makes it your opinion. The same is true for your interpretation of events in the writing room and the motivations of said writers. That's how you interpreted those transcripts (I've read them and didn't get the impression you did and I assure you I'm every bit as capable of reading as the next literate person) but that doesn't make it so for anybody except you.

You and I actually have a similar issue; we both write very emphatically and it can come off as "Anybody who isn't as dumb and worthless as a fresh horse plop won't disagree with me." In my case (in my brief time here) I've started to temper that with a little light humor here and there and friendly reminders along the way that, in spite of it all, I enjoy doing this and don't do it to piss people off or make enemies and that without the opposition it wouldn't be any fun at all. Just a thought.

-Withers-​

 

[Saquist]

You're drawing conclusions from your opinions.

An implicit contradiction rather than an explicit contradiction which means it's a baseless accusation so far.

If you can pick one how much do you want to bet there are people out there who could pick dozens of others? Ultimately, just because you say it's lazy, uninspired and boring, doesn't make that true. It makes it your opinion.

I have never represented my opinion as anything otherwise, nor would I expect anyone to take them in another way. Yet the course of conclusions is obvious and is not based on opinion but reality.

The concept of ENTERPRISE didn't exist in the previous shows and the errors bear that out. Making it fit or not is a matter of opinion

The same is true for your interpretation of events in the writing room and the motivations of said writers. That's how you interpreted those transcripts (I've read them and didn't get the impression you did and I assure you I'm every bit as capable of reading as the next literate person) but that doesn't make it so for anybody except you.

I'm not sure what what subject your are speaking to.
But I would posit that you are making assumptions that I in some sort of delusion that you believe that all of my criticism as founded factually.I am not so deluded. Of course only the explicitly detailed areas of my argument should be taken with such a context.

Yet you should know that when I say..."I don't like" or in my opinion" then you can properly deduce I'm stating an opinion. Other wise I work from the rules of informal and formal debate. Logic.

You and I actually have a similar issue; we both write very emphatically and it can come off as "Anybody who isn't as dumb and worthless as a fresh horse plop won't disagree with me."

I don't mean that at all. Although I do think you're right about the emphatic nature of my post. I do a great amount of studying the logic of debate and reason. Many people here don't know that every other sentence out of their mouth is a logical fallacy. People are also very unaccustomed to being told that an every day thought is usually illogical.

I've found that they way we draw conclusion in the American Society is inherently flawed even in Science (society). This maybe true else where. Just on this forum I have seen a Negative Proof Fallacy (for the first time), Strawmen abound, and circular reasoning. I've spent years engrossed in structured thinking. Learning there was a set of rules for such thinking was marvelous. I love rules. I use them.

Logic just works that way. From In my case (in my brief time here) I've started to temper that with a little light humor here and there and friendly reminders along the way that, in spite of it all, I enjoy doing this and don't do it to piss people off or make enemies and that without the opposition it wouldn't be any fun at all. Just a thought.

I always do this to maintain my skills in logical thinking. That's the part I find fun. It's kewl to be caught in an error. It's like a chess game. It makes the mind keener, faster.
I catch these fallacies now in real life far more easier than in school because of the practice.

Our mock debates in school were far more difficult and structured and usually ended in Ties on reasoning. Good practice for lawyers.

 

[Withers]

I went to nationals three times for CX debate (the polar opposite of LD debate) in the NFL but I've found that very little of that has much application here because this is neither a classroom nor a courtroom. People who don't have any experience or background in classical debate or logical fallacies (which is honestly most of the population) are neither entertained by the discussion of it nor are they very often persuaded by the application of it.

Rather, though often less logical, a witty post will be accepted more readily than one that is, perhaps, more logically/factually accurate. Such is the nature of an internet forum dedicated to Star Trek (where, believe it or not, a great litany of highly intelligent people post, debate background or not).

That is why I say, for people like us who write very emphatically and very... formally at times, humor is a good avenue toward greater acceptance and easing of potential tensions based on reaction to what we post. In my case it isn't because "I'm so smart I have to dumb it down" or anything of the sort. More, it is that what I say can easily be misinterpreted as more hostile or caustic than I mean it to be, and I would just as soon avoid that.

-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Myk]

Scott said, "of my old ship"
Perhaps the computer recognized Scott as a Star Fleet officer. His record is on file, and he was cleaned up and had a combadge so his record is likely updated at this point.

It just seems unlikely that the computer would make such an assumption as literal as its been in the past. I doesn't seem to be a artificial intelligence which could make these sort of deductions.

The only logical conclusion that remains is that the computer reflects the assumptions of those who wrote the lines for the computer, the writers...

Seems to me you reject any conclusion counter to your own.

 

[muzzleflash]

Okay Saquist, I'm going to sum up this thread for you very clearly.

Your reasons for believing Enterprise does not fit within the rest of Trek's continuity is based on contradictions in MINOR details. The counter-argument is that many other equally significant, if not more significant, contradictions in Trek's continuity have occurred prior to Enterprise. Thus, if your basis for disregarding Enterprise as part of Trek's continuity applies equally to ALL Trek series.

I'll give you the most obvious example: Klingon forehead problem. All Trek series' and movies except TOS depicted Klingons with bumpy foreheads. Should TOS then be disregarded as part of Trek continuity because of this contradiction?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Okay Saquist, I'm going to sum up this thread for you very clearly.

Your reasons for believing Enterprise does not fit within the rest of Trek's continuity is based on contradictions in MINOR details. The counter-argument is that many other equally significant, if not more significant, contradictions in Trek's continuity have occurred prior to Enterprise. Thus, if your basis for disregarding Enterprise as part of Trek's continuity applies equally to ALL Trek series.

I'll give you the most obvious example: Klingon forehead problem. All Trek series' and movies except TOS depicted Klingons with bumpy foreheads. Should TOS then be disregarded as part of Trek continuity because of this contradiction?

Apply that to TOS as well. Any TOS episode that contradicts the time period TOS is supposed to take place in should also be disregarded. (It's been nice knowing you Space Seed and Squire of Gothos)

 

[Saquist]

I went to nationals three times for CX debate (the polar opposite of LD debate)

*whistles*
NICE.

but I've found that very little of that has much application here because this is neither a classroom nor a courtroom. People who don't have any experience or background in classical debate or logical fallacies (which is honestly most of the population) are neither entertained by the discussion of it nor are they very often persuaded by the application of it.

Bingo.
As much as Star Trek Fans like vulcans, I've found they've not as much appreciation for it when it's applied to there own arguments. I wondered if anyone else had noticed. It's like McCoy and Spock on a far grander scale.

Rather, though often less logical, a witty post will be accepted more readily than one that is, perhaps, more logically/factually accurate. Such is the nature of an internet forum dedicated to Star Trek (where, believe it or not, a great litany of highly intelligent people post, debate background or not).

First days here I was astounded at the technical expertise in the form of engineers and designers from the UK here. I was...schooled so to speak.

That is why I say, for people like us who write very emphatically and very... formally at times, humor is a good avenue toward greater acceptance and easing of potential tensions based on reaction to what we post. In my case it isn't because "I'm so smart I have to dumb it down" or anything of the sort. More, it is that what I say can easily be misinterpreted as more hostile or caustic than I mean it to be, and I would just as soon avoid that.

My humor often involves thick basting layers of sarcasm with a frothy head of mockery. While fun for me not much fun to everyone else. I love Sarcasm. Mom says I use it far too much, she says it's condescending...along with the "eye-rolling".

So I stick to logic...In different flavors.., otherwise I come off as a , when I talk to people.

Seems to me you reject any conclusion counter to your own.

What seems to be and what actually is, are frequently at odds.

Okay Saquist, I'm going to sum up this thread for you very clearly.

Okay...

Your reasons for believing Enterprise does not fit within the rest of Trek's continuity is based on contradictions in MINOR details.

I don't agree.

The counter-argument is that many other equally significant, if not more significant, contradictions in Trek's continuity have occurred prior to Enterprise. Thus, if your basis for disregarding Enterprise as part of Trek's continuity applies equally to ALL Trek series.

Only if said contradictions affect the existence of an entire series and they do not.

I'll give you the most obvious example: Klingon forehead problem. All Trek series' and movies except TOS depicted Klingons with bumpy foreheads. Should TOS then be disregarded as part of Trek continuity because of this contradiction?

That's illogical. Bumpy heads could never be reasoned to effect the EXISTENCE of and entire series unless that series was one of all Klingons.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yes, Star Trek: Enterprise is canon. This is not an open or unresolved question.

The only meaningful definition that "canon" has in regard to Star Trek is that it is part of the television and film Star Trek franchise produced by Paramount Pictures and CBS.

They get to rule on what is and what is not "canon." Fans don't.

What fans argue about is whether ST:E or some other facet of Trek is consistent with other parts. That is not a matter of canonicity, simply an argument about whether continuity is good or not.

"Canon" does not mean "consistent." Not even a little bit.

Trek canon can and does contradict itself.

Trek canon can and does contradict itself.

This has always been true. It still is.

 

[SFRabid]

I think some people don't understand the concept of art. Enterprise and Star Trek are collections of stories written by authors. Several authors, along with producers, actors, directors, etc... Each episode is an expression of art, not a scientific textbook. And remember, science is not always consistent. The rules change with every new discovery.

Using debate team reasoning to argue flaws in the scientific consistency of a fictional series that spans 28 seasons and 11 movies could leave one open to a much more interesting analysis.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What seems to be and what actually is, are frequently at odds.

You manipulate the data to fit your conclusion, rather that presenting a conclusion derived from the data. Any data that doesn't fit that conclusion is rejected.

 

[Withers]

This is the worst episode of Law and Order I have ever seen.

-Withers-​

 

[Nerys Myk]

McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a District Attorney!

 

[Withers]

Oh dear God... that was so perfect its almost spooky

-Withers-​

 

[Michael]

McCoy: I'm a doctor, not a District Attorney!

Ha, brilliant!

 

[pookha]

I think there were only two times when I had actual continuity issues with Enterprise.

The first one was that stupid Ferengi episode in Season 1. In contrast to the Borg in "Regeneration", they weren't even trying to give a logical explanation for the Ferengi's sudden appearance in the 22nd century. Of course the episode itself was pretty cringe-worthy and devolved the Ferengi back to their pre-DS9 state, so it would have been best had the episode never been written in the first place.

The second example was the infamous "Stigma", which tried to make us believe that only a tiny fraction of Vulcans are capable of mind-melds. So Spock, Sarek, Tuvok, and all other Vulcans which were seen conducting mind-melds over the years belonged to that minority? What the frack? Fortunately, this retcon was subsequently de-retconned by Season 4's Vulcan trilogy. Even "Stigma" made sense after that one.

Other than these two episodes I'm fine with Enterprise. The entire show is of course Canon by definition. The only part of the Star Trek franchise whose canonicity is debatable is TAS (which was Canon, then non-Canon, and then semi-Canon or something like that). Interestingly, I don't see Star Trek fans quibbling over TAS very often. Maybe it's because most fans don't give a rats ass about Animated Trek.

i hate the ferengi episode (with the only worth is the little bit of humor in it) though the federation actually knew of the ferengi before official first contact.
really deep space nine presents issues with this too.

but despite some other short comings the thing with stigma isnt that most vulcans can meld but rather most dont know if they can because for some reason it has fallen into disfavor.

( i always thought an interesting take on why would be the infilltration of the romualns within vulcan society.
less chance of being discovered if the meld is frowned upon. )

but with the founding of the kirshara things change with how the meld was viewed.
and a 100 years can change things.

though oddly enough the first time we see the spock perform the meld he describes it as some thing that vulcans do not talk about among themselves,
that was viewed as being dangerous.

now the meld being so secretive seemingly changes later but there it was.

 

[Nerys Myk]

i hate the ferengi episode (with the only worth is the little bit of humor in it) though the federation actually knew of the ferengi before official first contact.
really deep space nine presents issues with this too.

Even the episode where we meet the Ferengi shows that the UFP is well aware of their existance. Their ship is identified as Ferengi and Starfleet has information on their societal structure which leads Riker (?) to compare them to Yankee traders. Picard even scares the Bandi in "Encounter At Farpoint" with tales of the Ferengi. So they must have been nipping at the edges of UFP space for quite some time.