Is Enterprise Canon?

Nerys:

That's okay.

"Irrelevant - Non Canon!"

My apologies if I came off offensive. But you just kept ignoring my points or misunderstanding them in my previous posts. It gets a little old.

However, I am sorry for coming off that way. I know. I could have been nicer about it.

Again, my deepest apologies.

But as I mentioned before, Archer's starship was a very significant ship within the formation of the United Federation of Planets. Why would the computer ignore such an important starship or fact? It wasn't like Scotty said... "Show me the most recent starships with the name Enterprise". However, I did say this scene was not all that conclusive before. However, with the Deep Space Nine scene: it helps give a little more weight to prove my case with this TNG scene, though.

Anyways, I get it. You want to defend the show because you really love it. I am defending my viewpoints on the show based on what all the series of Trek overall tells me. If Enterprise had given me better evidence that it was a part of the Original Core Trek Time Line, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just don't buy into all the previous Trek episodes getting taken out of context of what they originally meant. I actually value throw away lines and believe Star Trek as a whole has a pretty descent canon structure for as many episodes and films that it has. I actually take pride and value each scene and line within each episode. Even the bad ones.

 

It is canon because its based on what was seen or said on screen. The ringship fits the on screen derived definition of "starship" even if its not directly called one.

You keep saying this. Frankly I'm not sure why you think this. I answer each of your points with a counterpoint. I quote your point as a reference to the statements or ideas I am challenging. How is that ignoring? Misunderstanding thats possible, but I dont think thats true in all cases.

But Archer's ship is not a Federation starship,( no matter what it's preUFP significance is) nor could Scotty have served on that ship. So its falls out of the parameter "my ship". The computer said "There are four Federation starships" It decided that only the Federation starships are valid. Why? I guess it was programmed that way. It "felt" the need to add that qualifier "Federation". Why would it do that? To distinguish Federation ships called Enterprise from non Federation ship called Enterprise. Other wise, "five starships called Enterprise" would suffice.


The DS9 scene features UFP personnel talking to UFP personnel about other UFP personnel. Its not surprising non UFP personnel or ships would be excluded. They have no authority over nonUFP related ships,events or people.

No, I defend it because I like Star Trek and rationalizing Trek's errors and incontinuity to make it all work together is a tradition among fans. And its a fun exercise in creativity. I would so the same for VOY ( A show I didnt care for) and STV and NEM ( two movies I disliked)

Sometimes it's the only way for Trek to work. TOS is among the worse offenders. It has errors that can be explained away. Much worse than Enterprise. Include three or four different timeframes. Also,inconsistant information about character histories and characterizations. Fit those into the "Core Star Trek Timeline". You can't take everyline as literal.

 

Well, I disagree.

 

Yes.

 

My goodness. This argument about what the computer meant with scotty on the holodeck. it's like watching a bunch of little kids.

 

Work these in to the "Core Star Trek Time Line"

That places Star Trek in the 28th Century. (19th Century plus 900 years)

That places Star Trek in the 22nd Century. (20th Century plus 200 years)

1990s/20th Century plus two Centuries. 22nd Centuries. Oddly enough TWOK is set in the 23rd Century

More TWOK

Hmmm. wouldn't that still the the 22nd Century not the 23rd if Kirk was right about the time in Space Seed? Unless Space takes place in the 2290s.

All future production places TOS in the mid 23rd Century.

Spock the "emotionless" Vulcan


These plants feel good



The Women!!!!!



Do Vulcans smirk?

There is some confusion abouts Kirks early career too.

Court Martial: Kirk serves as an Ensign aboard the Republic.
Obsession: He also is said to be serving with Capt Garrovick on the Farragut since the day he left the academy.

WNMHGB: Kirks middle intial is "R"
Court Martial ( and others): His middle intial is "T"

Who is Carol Marcus? Why is she never mentioned in TOS?

Other oddities

Spock and McCoy are both called Lt. Commanders in "Court Martial yet wear different rank devices.

The Cage Enterprsie has a crew of 200 plus, The TOS Enterprise has a crew 0f 400 plus.

Spock says Vulcan reproduction is a private matter in "Amok Time" yet talks about it to a stranger in "Cloud Minders".

Gary Mitchell is 23 according to his file seen in WNMHGB but has nown Kirk since they first met at the academy when Kirk was a Lt. (at least 10 years prior) Was Gary at the Academy when he was 13? Isnt 23 a bit young for a Lt Commander?


Well?

 

You two should get a room.

 

Its a typical argument about Star Trek.

Luther's not my type. Too literal. I prefer someone more flexible.

 

Very well rationalization is acceptable.
And I concur, Why is interpretable, how is interpretable but not the fact its self.

It's all one sentence the "which" in grammar refers to that immediately before.

I don't believe so. Sci Fiction stories have a lot more flexibility than writing structure itsself has. This to me just comes down to a choice to contradict a previous statement or work within it.

I'm not tossing the ship out.
I'm pointing out that the ship is apparently insignificant to the discussion like the Carrier and space shuttle.

Riker said in the episode where the Enterprise grew a conscious that the subsystems like sensors navigation and warp aren't interconnected they act independently at the control of the computer thus impossible for the ship to see some thing and thus move to avoid it.

The computer seems to be compartmentalized.
It may acknowledge through sensors that person is on the ship or not but it doesn't link that knowledge with a request being made...at least that has been evident. In other words it goes by known data and in certain situtations phenomenon was happening right out side the ship but the computer couldn't speculate as to exactly what was happening, (Remember me) It's been confirmed as limited.

That is a far too simple an explanation for me to accept. For me everything must have an evident reason.

Only one of those devices did what nothing had ever done before, computing with an electronic brain. Fly had been done just not refined. They've glided and knew it was possible for powered flight. I'm talking about real hurdles like manned rocket flight to another planet. The computer is a good one. What else significant has man done in technology?

I would say those all are good arguments except for the torpedos which for the last 200 some odd years is exactly the same but for color and the look exactly same active. I personally have a problem with that.

Uh...it was the otherside that said they were literal duplicates. Not me. But it doesn't matter they are too similar. This would never happen in 200 years of construction and design on coincident and to do so purposely would be extremely illogical for a combat ship and we're talking about similarities that ultimately have to do with how the ship was put together...those methods change...old methods fall away, new stable patterns are realized.

Maybe they would stay the same for a while...but not this long at this length of time it's just kind of blatantly copying the past or vise versa. I know these are different perspectives between you and I personally I can allow only so much plagiarizing in a creative work. At some point it has to fly on it's own.

 

Y'know what? I don't think these things need explaining. It's not like real life adds up all the time.
It's worth the mistakes just for the funny videos later

 

I'm starting to wonder what school teaches debate methods based on the premise that if you keep presenting opinions as facts the other side will eventually give up.

 

Canon is bursting with 'facts'. Don't you know anything?

 

I've been told I don't, but I'm still trying to figure out of that was an opinion or a fact.

 

When Picard passed Warp 10 to get to M31 Geordi said the helm never recorded them passing through warp 1.5.

 

Well said.

However, I also want to say...
I love you guys and I hope you don't think less of me if I wanted to prove my case to someone in a debate (no matter what that debate was about or how silly or irrelevant you may think it is).

I am sure all of you have been here in one form or another but under different circumstances. When you stand up for something you believe in, you are going to come under fire.

Even if it's over a fictional TV series and or line of films.

 

It would be safe to assume both.

 

I've been a Star Trek fan long enough to hold TOS in high regard, it's my childhood, it's my favorite Trek, and to me it's the best Trek...

But, TOS is Star Trek's rough draft, not it's bible.

We can't limit all of Trek to TOS, it was written by guys and gals unaware that 40 years later it was going to be held to such standards and scrutiny. It will never hold up, so let it be, as long as it serves as the template what more can we ask of it? It was written and produced in a time that has since moved forward and Enterprise reflects that change without destroying what Trek was and still is. TOS exists in a very real alternate timeline from ours: the 1960's.

(But god help me, I do love these debates )

 

Middleman:

You know. If I leaned a little more to the right... You can kick my rib cage in a little more.

Please, man. Have a heart. I was just trying to prove my side of the argument with someone. Like you are not guilty of doing the same yourself. Besides, there is nothing wrong with trying to prove my point while staying on topic. It wasn't like I was calling anyone names or intentionally trying to insult a person.

*Cough*

Which is kind of what your doing.

Anyways, lets get back to the discussion of canon and leave the petty insults out please. This is not whether or not canon is valid or note worthy subject to debate about. This thread is not about insulting other people's debates. It is about talking about whether or not Enterprise is canon.

So let's please put aside the petty insults and be civil and stick to the topic of this thread.

 

What I meant by evident reason was a cause and purpose even in the perspective of the fictional story, ma'am.

Story telling is an art form and skill. I extremely dislike having to story guess (not like a mystery) when they're are plot holes and consistency is always desirable in art. Rushed art is commercialism and that's what Trek has been for some time instead of an art.