Is Enterprise part of your personal canon?

[F. King Daniel]

The cloaking device being so "shocking" in TOS can be seen as more of an "explain it to the dumb audience" thing. Nowadays invisible ships are pretty common in sci-fi. That wasn't the so much the case in 1965 - they needed to explain how it worked and what it's limitations were to the viewers who were seeing a cloaking device for the first time ever. Nowadays they would have had McCoy or some other "vegetable" (character who's real purpose in the scene is to have info relayed to the viewers through) on the bridge asking about it rather than have the "smart" staff discuss it.

 

[Melete]

Well, of course it is. It's one of my favourite Trek series. Especially the first and fourth season and part of the second. "Strange New World" (1x04) for example is a really good episode IMHO.

I'm not so fond of that whole "Xindi War" season. And I still can't understand why it was cancelled after the fourth season. The series finale was a huge disappointment.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I dont have a personal canon ( its an oxymoron), but I do have stuff I dont like. I like Enterprise, though.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I always accepted ENT as being part of the official canon and never had any problems referencing it as such.

But personally, I regarded it as apocryphal until the fourth season and "In A Mirror, Darkly" in particular...

 

[Kemaiku]

Enterprise is part of my personal canon as is its 'season 5' novel continuation.

 

[jgdst]

Is Enterprise part of my personal continuity? Why not? There's nothing in it that is so outlandishly out of line with what came before.

The quality of the stories were very hit or miss. But the same can be said for every Trek series.

This. Enterprise and DS9 both fight for the place as my favourite series, it just depends what mood I'm in at the time.

 

[Amaris]

Whether I have a "personal canon" or not, doesn't really matter. It would be like whether I decided the Civil War never happened. Whether I acknowledge it or not makes no difference to it's existence.

Well, some people think that the moon landing never happened. It matters to them. But you're right of course, there's no such thing as "personal canon". It's interesting though for what reasons someone refuses to accept "Enterprise" as Canon. Some do it because of continuity errors (like that didn't happen before...), others because they think "Enterprise" was simply a bad show (like this thread's OP).

This raises a question. If a show is full of continuity errors and retcons but has top-notch stories and actors is it more likely to be accepted as "Canon" than a show who fully and unconditionally adheres to previous continuity, but has mediocre plots and actors (or the other way around)? Maybe we should do a poll about it.

As for "Enterprise"... I refuse to acknowledge the existence of "personal canon" myself, because the term constitutes an oxymoron. That being said, the first two seasons of the show were mostly bland and uninspired. Simply a waste of time. It definitely got better from Season 3 onwards. But I guess it was too little, too late at this stage.

However, it wasn't necessarily a mistake to do a show right after "Voyager". The mistake was to have it produced by Berman and Braga (or any other people previously involved with producing Trek so much). Right from the start, they should have done what they did with ST09: Bring new people in. Get fresh prespectives. If anything, Manny Coto should have been showrunner from day one. Just like the Reeves-Stevens' should have been on board from the start as well. Paramount's mistake was that they neglected to do a real shake-up.

I agree they needed new blood, new writers, and they got them in Season 4 but by then it was too late.

^I'm a bit mystified by those who is comparing deciding what's canon or not to whether historical events happened. Trek isn't real. And there are plently of evidence that the Civil War. It would be too absurd to believe someone just up and made up the civil war, especially when those over 70 were born when there were still a good number of living civil war veterans.

Of course, Trek isn't real, but the show was produced, so pretending it's not there is a bit silly, in my opinion.

 

[Hermiod]

No, it just doesn't fit with what was previously established. I disregard it.

Yes, it does. Voyager was worse for continuity problems than Enterprise was.

 

[sbk1234]

I will agree that Paramount, IMHO, should have waited a while. I will not argue whether Enterprise is a good series, or not. That's personal opinion, and we're all entitled to it. For my own opinion, for the record, I liked it.
As for actual can0n? Of course. Enterprise happened. They have the film to prove it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

No, it just doesn't fit with what was previously established. I disregard it.

Yes, it does. Voyager was worse for continuity problems than Enterprise was.

Such as?

 

[Kemaiku]

No, it just doesn't fit with what was previously established. I disregard it.

Yes, it does. Voyager was worse for continuity problems than Enterprise was.

Such as?

"Flashback" for one.

 

[RodrigoBrowncoat]

Yes, it is.

But not Voyager.

 

[Shatnertage]

I don't really worry about what's "personal canon" and what isn't. Every second of written and televised Trek is out there, whether I watch it or not, right?

At this point, the question is which episodes do I prefer to rewatch. Many of them are definitely Enterprise episodes. I can understand why some don't like the show, but there's certainly a lot there to like.

There are definitely episodes from each series that I'll probably never watch again--either I just don't like them, or I've seen them too many times. But I wouldn't deny that they are part of the show.

 

[Finn]

^I'm a bit mystified by those who is comparing deciding what's canon or not to whether historical events happened. Trek isn't real. And there are plently of evidence that the Civil War. It would be too absurd to believe someone just up and made up the civil war, especially when those over 70 were born when there were still a good number of living civil war veterans.

Of course, Trek isn't real, but the show was produced, so pretending it's not there is a bit silly, in my opinion.

I'm talkiing about the comparsion between what's canon or not, to debating whether historical events (at least major events like the American Civil War at large) happened.

 

[jgdst]

Yes, it does. Voyager was worse for continuity problems than Enterprise was.

Such as?

"Flashback" for one.

Dark Frontier came instantly to my mind. It managed to retcon a number of things from first contact with the Borg, to technology and ship design, the number of crewmembers on the ship... Oh and apparently Janeway's commbadge twiddling, which she never does before or after.

In general, you never knew where you were with regards to number of crewmembers, shuttles or torpedoes on Voyager as it would miraculously top-up every now and then for no reason

To my knowledge, Enterprise didn't manage to make any continuity bloopers on such a large scale in one episode.

Apologies for digressing off the main topic tho...

 

[The Wormhole]

Voyager was pretty weak when it came to internal continuity. They did alright in the first two seasons, particularly with the Kazon arc, but as the show went on, less so.

Take for example that episode Ashes to Ashes, where Harry Kim's dead girlfriend returns, re-animated and transformed into an alien. This episode would have had more significance had she actually appeared previously in the show, instead of just being introduced in this very episode where we learn she's been dead for a few years.

The near non-existence of a supporting cast didn't help matters much. Sure in season 1 there was Seska, Lt. Carey and a few other random crewmen. Seska was eventually killed, Lt. Carey just disappeared until season 7 when they killed him. Okay, the later years had Naomi Wildman (who made more apperances than her mother), Icheb and the Borg kids. And also, Vorik made a couple of appearances every year since being introduced in the third year. The problem here was they were trying to imitate TNG, but TNG was a show of its time, late 80s, early 90s. By late 90s, 2000 and 2001 the TV ladscape was changing and becoming different from the TNG days.

Enterprise did better with internal continuity. The first season frequently makes referaces to previous episodes. Mind you, in the first two seasons they didn't really think out continuing arcs too well, as proven by the non-development of the Temporal Cold War and the fact the Vulcan Andorian storyline didn't get any real attention until the fourth season. Mind you, it wasn't until seasons 3 and 4 they really pulled it together in terms of internal continuity. The show even had a small recurring cast throughout its run.

Mind you, Enterprise's continuity with the other Trek's left much to be desired. You could say it was just fanon that was violated and that much can fit into established continuity, but there were still some hoset continuity errors. Like the Romulans having a cloaking device in Minefield, which Braga has even admitted is a continuity error.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Yes, it does. Voyager was worse for continuity problems than Enterprise was.

Such as?

"Flashback" for one.

Which gets an excuse, in that everything we see in that episode (the scenes on the Excelsior, anyway) take place inside Tuvok's memory. Any inconsistencies vanish when you consider that, because no one's memory - not even Tuvok's - is perfect.

 

[Nerys Myk]

^I'm a bit mystified by those who is comparing deciding what's canon or not to whether historical events happened. Trek isn't real. And there are plently of evidence that the Civil War. It would be too absurd to believe someone just up and made up the civil war, especially when those over 70 were born when there were still a good number of living civil war veterans.

Of course, Trek isn't real, but the show was produced, so pretending it's not there is a bit silly, in my opinion.

I'm talkiing about the comparsion between what's canon or not, to debating whether historical events (at least major events like the American Civil War at large) happened.

In Star Trek, the episodes, series and movie make up the "history." And canon has one rule: Was it presented in an
episode, series or movie by Paramount/CBS? If the answer is "yes", its canon and it "happened".

 

[StarryEyed]

I'm amazed at the anality (is that a word) of some of the posters here. For crying out loud, we all know the rules for official canon. Nerys Myk summed it up albeit forgetting the "live action" qualifier. Paramount/CBS decries what is official canon. That canon is law regarding writers of future Star Trek products - accept of course, when they choose to ignore it.

Where does anybody get off thinking that an individual fan must pay slavish devotion to this canon? We're talking about ENTERTAINMENT here, people! If in my no-life, in practice of my nerdy hobby, I decide that Star Trek: Enterprise is apocryphal, do you really think I'm in violation of some physical principal? Do you you think the agents of Paramount/CBS should arrive in black helicopters, break down the door to my mother's basement and haul me away in hand cuffs?

C'mon, man! Everyone is entitled to their own personal Star Trek universe where THEY are the Great Bird of the Galaxy and their word is LAW. There is no absolute canon handed down from on high which one must subscribe to or die! Official canon is only important for future writers (except when they choose to ignore it) and as a frame of reference when we no-life Trek-nerds are talking about Star Trek. There is absolutely nothing wrong with individual Star Trek fans having their own private Trekverse.

 

[Amaris]

^I'm a bit mystified by those who is comparing deciding what's canon or not to whether historical events happened. Trek isn't real. And there are plently of evidence that the Civil War. It would be too absurd to believe someone just up and made up the civil war, especially when those over 70 were born when there were still a good number of living civil war veterans.

Of course, Trek isn't real, but the show was produced, so pretending it's not there is a bit silly, in my opinion.

I'm talkiing about the comparsion between what's canon or not, to debating whether historical events (at least major events like the American Civil War at large) happened.

So am I. Trek isn't real, I never said it was, but it was produced. It does exist. Enterprise exists as a television series. The television series is authorized by the official word on Trek canon. So whether one wants it to exist or not, the fact is that it does exist in the Trek universe. Since that is where it counts in the matter of canon, it happened, whether one's "personal canon" allows it or not.

The Civil war is a real, historical event. It is silly for one to deny it happened. Star Trek Enterprise is an authorized, officially produced television show. It is a part of canon, just as the real Civil war is a part of real world history. So whether one wants to acknowledge it's existence (whether real or imagined) or not, it exists in it's own form and no amount of wishing or "personal canon" justification will change that.

That is what I mean.