Is Enterprise Canon?

Well, we have no reason not to trust him. In fact, the character has done nothing but help them. Daniels left temporal technology that helped the crew. Daniels sent them on missions to protect time. And each time, the end result was positive because he was essentially protecting Enterprise and it's crew or the time line.

Sure, you can hypothesize that he was this or that. I could hypothesize that Janeway had a fetish for dressing up in black leather every other night. The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that we shouldn't trust him.

I mean, you can believe whatever you like, but it is pretty clear (on the show) what type of character he was. At least in my humble opinion, anyways.

 

I agree. The timeline Daniels comes from may not be the one that contains the TOS, TNG et al that we know.

At the Xindi conflict, the timeline goes two ways. One where the attack never happened, and leads to the timeline daniels knows. The second to TOS and TNG and all the others.

 

I don't know if we can logically concluded anything at this point. The canon give no indication that ENT is a show that never should happened so it's alignment with TOS and TNG and DS9 is precarious. These series don't ever note the existence of an Enterprise before NCC-1701 so I personally don't think Daniel resolves anything but the Temporal Cold War.

I think that is how it was meant to be.

 

No.We vare looking at the SAME timeline we have been for the past 44 years. There's ZERO evidence for anything else. Yes, Daniels timeline WAS altered and as a result it BECAME the timeline where we witnessed the adventure of Kirk, Spock, McCoy (in the 1966-69 Star Trek series); Picard, Riker, Data (in the 1987-94 TNG series), etc.

Any other logic implies, for example, that Kirk and McCoy's trip to 1930ies Earth somehow modified the timeline; when in fact it was PART of the timeline that lead to their era (and the same could be said of any teperal time travel, incursion, etc - INCLUDING TNG's First Contact
^^^^^^

All this has kead and is part of EXACLTY what we have 'seen' oven the 44 year history of Star Trek in TV and film (including Enterprise.

 

Stop stealing my fantasies dammit!

 

Noname Given:

Well that's your fanon viewpoint. My fanon viewpoint is that there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

In fact, I strongly recommend in checking out the following posts in more detail (if you haven't done so yet)...

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3997372&postcount=224

http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3997390&postcount=71


Also, I know this is just my opinion, as well: But entirely ignoring my fanon viewpoint or saying that it doesn't have a leg to stand on kind of reminds of this quote from Alias...

Haladki: "It's like 666, guys. You see the writing on the kid's scalp, you know there's some problems at home."


But we are all entitled to our own opinions. Which is totally cool. Not everyone is going to think the same way. I get that.


Side Note:

In fact, you could say that I even know where you are coming from. Long ago I did have fanon excuses in defending Enterprise as a part of the Prime Time Line once, too. I used the theory that there must have been some disastrous major electro magnetic phenomenon that hit the Alpha Quadrant and the Romulan / Klingon Empire. Which resulted in the loss of certain historical records, technology and other things. Thus explaining the radical differences or changes we see between Enterprise and the other series. As for the differences in TATV: I just chocked that episode up to being an alternate future that just took a while longer to be altered due to the subtle little time changes that were made in the other Star Trek series.

 

Given that the last episode of ENT (as much as I dislike said episode) showed William Riker taking part in an ENT era story, how is my timeline viewpoint considered 'fanon'? As I said in my earlier post (of which you only quoted one line in your reply); there's zero on screen evidence in Star Trek franchise continuity to show the events of ENT occured in some divergent timeline seperate from the rest of the various Star Trek series over the past 4 decades.

(And I'm honestly not trying to be overly argumentative or anything, just amazed how many people want to twist stuff in an attempt to show ENT as 'non-canon'. Again, there isn't one Star Trek series that hasn't had a major continuity/canon gaffe in it's run and honestly as someone who's watched Star Trek first run since 1969 - ENT is hardly the most egregious series in that regard).

 

Did you look at the links I sent you?
It pretty much says it all in there.

 

What it all boils down to is this: If you LIKE Enterprise, you believe it's in continuity. It's those who hate the show that claim it is not. It's all about personal opinion.

 

I don't "believe" in continuity. I prefer to have as few plot holes and inconsistencies as possible. At the same time I acknowledge the fact that is an unrealistic expectation to have no inconsistencies at all. Especially after 40 years and more then 700 episodes of Star Trek. For me, the number of Enterprise's inconsistencies were well within the acceptable limits.

I enjoyed Seasons 3 and 4 of Enterprise. Without these two I would think that the show was mostly crap. Its status as a crappy show wouldn't have much to do with inconsistencies though.... more with blandness and unoriginality.

 

^Agreed. 3 & 4 did a lot to assist my opinion of Enterprise. It's a shame that 4 in particular was too little, too late for the series.

 

Mr Laser Beam:

I can enjoy Enterprise for what it is. In fact, I can still get enjoyment in watching them. So in my own unique way I do like the series. I mean, even if the cast was perfect, and the acting was awesome, and if there was amazing character development on the show, and if there were more believable situations (and things)... I still would think the show would be slightly flawed because it is open to interpretation to the viewer on how this series fits in as a prequel before the other series.

It's not to say that other shows don't have flaws. But those other series didn't rest on the foundation of pre-existing long established canon that is supposed to be the very concept of what this series is try to be (a prequel series).

So do I like the series for what it is?
Yes.

Can I still enjoy the series?
Yes.

Do I think it is canon?
Yes. But it also broke canon, too. So fanon or different viewpoints or perspectives are needed to explain the discrepancies in a more plausible way within the confines of the rules already established within the other series.

 

^All Star Trek broke canon at some point, Enterprise is no different than any other series in that regard. TPTB seemed to be working to make it part of the main continuity, that's good enough for me.

 

Not to get into a debate, but that's the difference.

 

It's not canon. It was Rikers fantasy at the time. It was why he started it sit lower tech and moved to higher tech. He got bored and adjusted it.