It could be a modified form of "Xindi" for PC reasons, same as Bombay is now Mumbai, and Peking is now Beijing.
WHy there are no Denobulans/Xindi in TOS and TNG?
- Thread starter xvicente
- Start date
It could be a modified form of "Xindi" for PC reasons, same as Bombay is now Mumbai, and Peking is now Beijing.
^Those aren't "PC" changes, just improvements in accuracy. "Bombay" was a Portuguese corruption of the name of Mumbai, and "Peking" was based on a Cantonese dialect that preserved an old pronunciation for "Beijing" that hasn't been used for centuries in the city itself.
Anyway, the Trek universe has Tellarites, Talarians, Tarellians, Terrellians, Tyrellians, etc. Similar names happen. In this case, as I said, the star system was identified as Xendi Sabu, not just Xendi. I'd call that pretty distinct.
Anyway, the Trek universe has Tellarites, Talarians, Tarellians, Terrellians, Tyrellians, etc. Similar names happen. In this case, as I said, the star system was identified as Xendi Sabu, not just Xendi. I'd call that pretty distinct.
In the books and in Star Trek Online, their new homeworld is New Xindus.
You'd think they'd do some research and maybe find some TOS or TNG references to species that were never actually seen and use those names instead. There must be plenty of candidates.
Plus it would have been cute for fans to know that they had been mentioned before. Little touches like that are always pleasing (and also momentarily make you think the writers care as much as the viewers).
Plus it would have been cute for fans to know that they had been mentioned before. Little touches like that are always pleasing (and also momentarily make you think the writers care as much as the viewers).
If by "they" you mean the writers of Enterprise, they did, in fact, do that from time to time. The first season introduced us to the Axanar, Malurians, and Coridanites, races known only by their names in TOS. And the fourth season showed us the first Orion males ever seen in live action, as well as a new interpretation of the Rigelians. They also showed us more of species we'd only briefly glimpsed before -- primarily the Andorians and Tellarites, but also the Nausicaans, Orions, Tholians, and Gorn.
Given that the Expanse did not seem to be near Klingon or Romulan territory, using the arrangement of the powers in the AQ and BQ that has become if not canon, but commonly assumed, I would consider it possible that the Expanse either included, or is behind what later became Cardassian / Breen territory. Hence the Xindi and other species in the area are safely out of the way for the rest of the televised Trek timeline.
But certainly, I think that too many new species were included with associated continuity issues. I guess however it could be easiest to assume that some of them became quiet federation members (or just not particularly involved in front line Starfleet operations), some, for example the Axanar and the Malurians (and probably the Suliban) did not survive and others would have been overrun by expansionist regimes such as the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians or Tholians.
But certainly, I think that too many new species were included with associated continuity issues. I guess however it could be easiest to assume that some of them became quiet federation members (or just not particularly involved in front line Starfleet operations), some, for example the Axanar and the Malurians (and probably the Suliban) did not survive and others would have been overrun by expansionist regimes such as the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians or Tholians.
Last edited:
It's worth keeping in mind that space is 3-dimensional, and territories can be "above" or "below" each other as well as alongside. The Stellar Cartography book that came out a year or two ago puts the Expanse somewhere "above" or "below" the area of Federation space roughly between Beta Rigel and the Klingon border, IIRC.
No worse than the continuity issues we already had with all the background aliens who were introduced in crowd scenes in TMP, TVH, and TUC and then completely absent from the TNG-era shows.
No reason to assume the Axanar don't still exist. "Fight or Flight" established that they breathe a nitrogen-methane atmosphere, meaning they couldn't survive in class-M conditions. So they probably don't interact that much with oxygen-breathing humanoids.
And the Suliban were mostly a peaceful nomadic people; only the Cabal underwritten by Future Guy was aggressive. Once the influence of the Temporal Cold War on 22nd-century events subsided and the Cabal ceased to be a threat, the bulk of the Suliban probably just remained on the margins of history.
They're still around here and there. DTI: Watching the Clock features a Suliban DTI agent, and touches on the resolution of the Suliban-Tandaran conflict.
ENT is problematic for a variety of reasons people (like me) have spent 10+ years complaining about. The retconning and the prominence of species that are never referred to ever again are two of the more obvious reasons. Although I thoroughly enjoy the series for what it is; I freely admit that it muddies the waters to the point where it really contributes little to the Star Trek mythology and may as well have not been made as far as being a part of the ST franchise.
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "muddies the waters". Every Trek series has introduced new stuff and screwed with continuity.
ENT has contributed to the mythology by creating new characters and incidents that have been referenced and developed in the novel-verse, and also in NuTrek. Apart from the substantial development of known species like Vulcans, Andorians and Orions, I think a number of people who aren't necessarily ENT fans find the Xindi and the Expanse interesting additions to the universe.
ENT has contributed to the mythology by creating new characters and incidents that have been referenced and developed in the novel-verse, and also in NuTrek. Apart from the substantial development of known species like Vulcans, Andorians and Orions, I think a number of people who aren't necessarily ENT fans find the Xindi and the Expanse interesting additions to the universe.
Last edited:
My thinking is: just because we haven't seen them doesn't mean they're not there.
The likes of the E-D and DS9 have hundreds of people onboard at any given time, whilst we have only saw a small proportion of characters both featured and in the background there aren't nearly enough to account for all of them, so we don't know if there are Denobulans, Xindi, Rhaandarite, Deltans, Saurians, Phylosians, Skorr, or any of the other 150 races that make up the Federation (as well as those from outside it as well).
It's part of the reason when I do fanfic I work out just how many aliens (as well as how many of each species) is onboard the ship's I create. But then again, I take issue with the "homosapians only club" that Trek sometimes presents with its crews, so try to shoehorn in as many aliens as I possibly can.
The likes of the E-D and DS9 have hundreds of people onboard at any given time, whilst we have only saw a small proportion of characters both featured and in the background there aren't nearly enough to account for all of them, so we don't know if there are Denobulans, Xindi, Rhaandarite, Deltans, Saurians, Phylosians, Skorr, or any of the other 150 races that make up the Federation (as well as those from outside it as well).
It's part of the reason when I do fanfic I work out just how many aliens (as well as how many of each species) is onboard the ship's I create. But then again, I take issue with the "homosapians only club" that Trek sometimes presents with its crews, so try to shoehorn in as many aliens as I possibly can.
Space is vast, and in Star Trek, it seems like every other star system has either a native species or a colony of a star faring species.
Consider, Federation space in TNG is considered to be something like 8,000 light years across (somewhere). There are known species likely within a thousand light years beyond Federation space in all directions as starships, allies, and enemies provide information about the galaxy. So an area of say 10,000 light years in diameter with Sol at the center (so a radius of 5,000 light years from Earth). In that area, there are something like 600 million stars.
600 million stars! Think about that. If even 1 % have a native species that is still 6 million species. That's kind of a "damn" moment. Starfleet has way more to explore and very little chance of logging it all without all those species also providing details of other worlds as they go. And that's even if a large part of the 75,000 NCC numbered Starfleet ships actually even attempt to find new worlds for a hundred years.
Consider, Federation space in TNG is considered to be something like 8,000 light years across (somewhere). There are known species likely within a thousand light years beyond Federation space in all directions as starships, allies, and enemies provide information about the galaxy. So an area of say 10,000 light years in diameter with Sol at the center (so a radius of 5,000 light years from Earth). In that area, there are something like 600 million stars.
600 million stars! Think about that. If even 1 % have a native species that is still 6 million species. That's kind of a "damn" moment. Starfleet has way more to explore and very little chance of logging it all without all those species also providing details of other worlds as they go. And that's even if a large part of the 75,000 NCC numbered Starfleet ships actually even attempt to find new worlds for a hundred years.
Except that both of those things have been part of the Trek franchise all along. Retconning has been going on since 1966, which is why we don't have James R. Kirk and his shouty Vulcanian first officer commanding an Earth ship whose time warp drive is powered by lithium crystals. And every Trek series, plus the movies, has introduced species that were never referred to again. What happened to the Argelians? The Kelvans? The Antosians? The Edoans? The Vendorians? The Kazarites and Megarites? The Arkenites and Bzzit Khaht? And so forth.
In fact, if this is what really matters to you, then you should be praising Enterprise for bringing back multiple TOS species that were largely ignored by the intervening shows and films, as I pointed out in post #86 of this thread.
Not to overuse a culturally popular trope, but haters gonna hate. Let's face it Christopher, refuting arguments like these is a waste of time. I have no problem with someone not liking ST:ENT - to each their own - but I'd be much happier if these folks just said "I hate it... I hate Enterprise - it sucks" because that's what the really mean to write before they come up with some argument they feel is obvious. I mean, it doesn't matter if their chosen series commits the same egregious mistake, it's their sacred cow, so that's ok. I love ALL ST - minimal warts and flaws included - and I continue to hope beyond hope, to see ST appear from the ashes once again.
Regardless, keep up the good work Christopher!
Regardless, keep up the good work Christopher!
^Exactly. If people don't like Enterprise, I wish they'd just come out and say "I don't like Enterprise," instead of making up these illogical justifications based on the fact that the show has the same kind of mistakes and problems that every Trek show has had since the beginning. I have no problem with people disliking the show, but I can't stand the factually inconsistent excuses they offer for it.
Although, to be fair, I can understand why the perception exists. It's the same psychology behind the nostalgia illusion, the pervasive myth that the past was better than the present. Over time, we forget or gloss over the stuff that annoyed us in the past, and we rewrite our memories into a version that fits our preferences and wishes, emphasizing the good over the bad. So the problems and annoyances in present-day stuff are clear to us, while the problems and annoyances in older stuff are obscured or forgotten.
This is a universal self-deception, so I can't blame anyone for having it, but that's exactly why it's so important to point it out, to let people know how their own memories are deceiving them. We all need to question our own preconceptions and assumptions in order to guard against the ways our own brains lie to us and prejudice us.
Although, to be fair, I can understand why the perception exists. It's the same psychology behind the nostalgia illusion, the pervasive myth that the past was better than the present. Over time, we forget or gloss over the stuff that annoyed us in the past, and we rewrite our memories into a version that fits our preferences and wishes, emphasizing the good over the bad. So the problems and annoyances in present-day stuff are clear to us, while the problems and annoyances in older stuff are obscured or forgotten.
This is a universal self-deception, so I can't blame anyone for having it, but that's exactly why it's so important to point it out, to let people know how their own memories are deceiving them. We all need to question our own preconceptions and assumptions in order to guard against the ways our own brains lie to us and prejudice us.
Similar threads
