Mach 5: Also, I was doing some reading at MJ Young's time travel site and he theorizes that parallel realities is not time travel. http://www.mjyoung.net/time/brothers.html Either I am misunderstanding the point he is trying to make or he doesn't view time the way that I do from a fictional or theoretical stand point. For me it makes no difference if your time line gets duplicated or destroyed when you create a diverging time line or alternate reality. You are still traveling through time. Granted, the time line is protecting itself and creating an alternate version of the past when you go back. But you are still essentially going back in time. Otherwise you wouldn't have caused the diverging time line in the first place. Now, this is not to suggest that all parallel realities are a result of time travel. It simply means that if parallel realities can exist, it slightly suggests that alternate or multiple time lines could exist, too. As far as real time travel is concerned: I do believe you can go back in time with the help of God (If He allows it). Maybe He could show you different possibilities of what could have been, but you obviously couldn't alter anything, though. The only way I believe someone can time travel on their own force of will is to the future by using the power of light speed. Essentially when traveling at light speed you are slowing time down so that you do not age. Which is simply another way of putting yourself in a state of suspended animation.
I gave Enterprise another try... you know, not that bad, but still puzzled by WHY they did a prequel, and then also by a few choices they made: Temporal Cold War - ...why? Phased/Photonic - missles and lasers/particle cannons wouldn't be Trek enough? Treknobabble over the head - sometimes Archer looks like he wants to roll his eyes during bridge scenes. Basically, wow, could have been better. I think I'd have dug that first season 'on Earth, as they build the ship' idea.
So in conclusion and much reflection again: What is my view on Enterprise? Star Trek Enterprise (The entire series) is an official Star Trek prequel that is more than likely a First Contact and Temporal Cold War Time Line. 1. The event of First Contact is confirmed to exist within Enterprise's time line in the episode "Regeneration". 2. The Xindi Attack was brought about by the Sphere Builders who were apart of the Temporal Cold War. 3. Both the events of First Contact and the Xindi Attack continue to exist within the events we seen within Enterprise's time line. 4. Also, the studio has confirmed that all Star Trek TV episodes and films are canon. So the events we seen on Enterprise suggest that things are not in the Original Prime Time Line, but in an Altered Time Line. What is my view on Enterprise as a Star Trek series? 1. Star Trek Enterprise has the weakest cast. 2. Star Trek Enterprise has some of the worst performances. 3. Star Trek Enterprise has the worst believable setting or things within it's universe. 4. Star Trek Enterprise has a knack for not explaining things that are important. 5. Star Trek Enterprise does have a lot of entertaining episodes. However, you have to turn your brain off sometimes to enjoy them, though. 6. Star Trek Enterprise has helped explained a few mysteries within the Star Trek universe. 7. Star Trek Enterprise gives you the impression that it has a different history than the one that was described to us in the other Trek series. Is my viewpoint more fanon than canon? Well, fanon is defined as... Well, there is a lack of a proper explanation on part of the TV series itself or the studio on whether or not Enterprise is an Altered Time Line or a part of the Prime Time Line; So this forces Trek fans to come to their own conclusion on what "Star Trek: Enterprise" really was. So no matter which way the fan decides to interpret Enterprise, his interpretation is going to be viewed as fanon and not canon, I suppose. Sources: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Xindi_Incident http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Regeneration_(episode) http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Canon
Or not. Some viewers don't need this timeline question answered definitively, or at all, in order to "define" the show in their eyes. I never thought the show "gives you the impression that it has a different history"; it referred constantly to events, races, and characters from the rest of Trek, both past and future. It was easy for me to accept as another part of the vast and wondrous Trekverse. Happily for me, I enjoyed Enterprise very much, including the casting, the performances, the characterizations, and the "world" in which it was set. And my brain was fully engaged when I watched it. Any series, every series, has plot holes or dangling story threads that don't get followed up. (Especially a series that is prematurely cancelled.) But this isn't reality; it's TV. There's not enough time or budget for writers to do everything they might want to do, and I understand that. If the show had had a guaranteed 7-year run, which would have enabled the staff to plan and execute overall character and story arcs -- rather than struggle just to stay on the air and keep the network off its back -- we might have gotten more. But I'm glad we got what we did. I enjoy speculating about what took place offscreen, or coming up with a satisfying explanation for different things that weren't spelled out on the show. But after 40 years and dozens of writers and producers, I'm not surprised that there are inconsistencies, and it doesn't bother me. If a show gives me characters I care about and compelling stories (and Enterprise did that), I'm happy. And I thought ENT came up with some fun and creative ways to reconcile some of these inconsistencies. Enterprise entertained me and gave me some of the best hours I've watched in all of Trek. I loved the characters. I am sorry we weren't able to watch the show for many more years -- it ended far too soon for me.
There is a reason that the arts are not dominated by scientists and mathematicians. Faultless logic leaves nothing for the imagination.
Hopeful Romantic: Hey, it's all good. In fact, there is nothing wrong with having a slight apathetic view towards fiction. Not every one needs every little detail to be explained in order for them to enjoy it. I get that. In fact, I used to enjoy certain movies when I was younger. However, some of these flicks are no longer are as enjoyable to me anymore because I have knowledge of how things really work in the world now. Granted, no TV series or movie is going to be perfect. But in my extensive Trek experience: I believe there is a huge difference between the mistakes made in the other Trek series in comparison to the blatant and in your face canon breakers made on Enterprise. Now, of course someone who loves "Star Trek: Enterprise" is going to ignore or explain those mistakes on the show. I get it. If that works for them. I have no problem with that. All I am saying is that if they do decide to turn on their brain to explain Enterprise someday: that viewpoint is going to be fanon because the series really never properly explained it's existence within the Trekverse like JJ Abram's film or the other previous Trek series did. Yeah, it just seems like we have different ways in going on about enjoying Enterprise. Well, at least we both enjoy it in our own unique ways. It is really cool you can look past the problems so easily on Enterprise and enjoy it like you do. I wish I could enjoy it on that level. However, each time I try, I can't help but be reminded of this popular science fiction scene, though... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM Honestly. I am glad you enjoyed it. On occasion I can enjoy it sometimes for what it is, too. SF Rabid: Yes and no. What about all the architects and car designers out there? Do you think they rely on straight imagination or just pure cold hard logic in their designs? There are many people that use both sides of their brains when they create things. I mean, that's like saying that all art shouldn't have no real rhyme or reason to it. Personally, I am an artist. And I believe that rhyme and reason within my artwork is just as equally important as inspiration and imagination.
IIRC, it was because Rick Berman thought Star Trek had gone as far as it could. He wasn't interested in doing any series set after VOY (much less after the 24th-Century). The studio (or network) wasn't 100% sold on a TOS prequel so they insisted that Berman & Braga add something that could could tie ENT with a post-VOY era. What they came up with was the TCW...but it wasn't exactly something B&B were totally thrilled about doing (and it showed in the series), IMO. I think the idea was that "Phase pistols/cannons" and "Photonic torpedoes" would sound more Trek-like to casual viewers, while at the same time sound like they were the predecessors to the weapons in TOS and later shows.
Your interpretation of my comment is that my view is "apathetic"? From Dictionary.com: I am not "apathetic." I merely disagree with you. I have very strong (positive) feelings and opinions regarding Enterprise, which I have expressed all over this forum, and in my earlier post in this thread. If I were indifferent about the show, I wouldn't be here. As I said before (not clearly enough, apparently ), the niggly little continuity inconsistencies don't interfere with my enjoyment of the show. I am not "apathetic" toward fiction in general either, but that's not really relevant here. Not necessarily. My love of Enterprise does not blind me to its flaws. There's a lot I wish had been done more effectively. However, I prefer to focus on its strengths. And playing "fill in the blanks" is a great exercise for any storyteller. [moderator hat on] You appear to continue assuming that a positive opinion of Enterprise requires an absence of all intelligent thought on the part of the viewer. That is simply not true. There is no need to cast aspersions on any person's thought processes simply because you don't agree with his/her viewpoint. I suggest you concentrate on the opinion and refrain from judging the opinion-holder. [moderator hat off] For me, Enterprise's existence is not dependant on timelines or whatever. As presented, it fits with the rest of Trek just fine for me. I require no further explanation. And I say this with a fully engaged brain.
Well sir, I like you and I've had fun watching you analyze Enterprise, reading your posts is interesting and enjoyable. BUT, lately you've been throwing around comments about turning on and off the brain, or some such business, in relation to the E'prise (that's my new urban dictionary word for the show; feel free to use it at social gatherings). To me it sounds a bit elitist to say that because Enterprise didn't service your brain by telling you exactly how it fits into this Trek universe and didn't diagram all it’s motivations is a mark against the enjoyment of the show. Your use of the term “apathetic” I find a bit insulting and a little narrow minded… and pisses me off a bit, I don’t mind telling you. Let me say this: I think Enterprise wanted to be on its own and not be saddled with other Star Treks, especially at first. It may not have had the same level of pseudo-scientific tech speak that prior shows relied on but I think that was the point. Archer and the crew were on their own, alone in space, they were the Lewis and Clark's of Star Trek. No huge Federation infrastructure or friendly planets, outposts, space stations, and fleet of sister ships jetting about to give support. Everything they encountered for the most part was for the first time. By design the show was showing us early Trek history when they were just fumbling around space the best the could in basically a big tin can without all the conveniences/contrivances of 23rd or 24th century Trek, by comparison they were roughing it. That's what set it apart, and that's what I respected about it, it opened up some very new ideas about exploring space when you’re out there all alone, Voyager at least had the newest 24th century technology and experience when they were lost in a new frontier. Enterprise shows us a simpler time in contrast. Less tech, less knowledge about what they were getting into, it was the like the first moon landing... and I'm sure all that can be debated, and might well have been, so stay with me… BUT, when you say that it was somehow dumbed down, or less challenging, or that any fan who enjoys it on a different way than you is somehow less advanced, I have to say "Hold up there fella"... In Trek, it's the stories that are meant to challenge your brain not always the tech or its connections to all of Trek. The futuristic aspects are meant to be a plot device to tell the story. In TNG and so on, yes it was fun to see the crew come up with fancy science to win the day, but as should be pointed out, most of the science was theoretical at best... some of it was just made up shit, but that's okay, cuz it's a sci-fi adventure show, and at the end of the day it's meant to be entertainment with some interesting outlooks on our society and culture, where it's been and where it's going, where it is now. And in many ways those other Treks were too bogged down in the science, losing some of the essence of original Trek. At its roots Star Trek is a sci-fi western and I think Enterprise tried to regain that frontier feel of being alone in the wilderness of space, trying not to get eaten by a moon bear and make peace with the natives the best they could while expanding their knowledge of the world/universe around them. And for once, to be a small fish in a huge pond full of bigger fish, using their wits and limited resources to survive on a mission to explore and gain further knowledge and understanding. But it’s concept is still quite high-minded. More so than other episodic shows about bedhopping and back stabbing (although, I love that stuff too, no one is too smart to enjoy some silly fun) Perhaps, early on, Enterprise tried too hard in some cases, and not enough in others, failing a bit and stumbling some. But it did try to show us a different Trek without all the lifelines of advanced tech and weapons, because it was about the people. Enterprise was a work in progress as were all Trek shows. The Xindi arc is the best example of Enterprise dealing with a threat bigger than themselves and trying to figure out how to solve the issue with pure bravery and hopefully peaceful understanding and diplomacy, which of course didn’t always work. They were so over their heads, and had to make hard choices to not just survive but save the world without a Galaxy Class starship and a space experienced ultra commander like Picard to resolve the Xindi conflict. It's those limitations that create a writing challenge. Trek has always been about humanity and how we get along and work together to survive and how we handle huge adversities even among ourselves. Trek is about moving beyond what holds us back and moving forward, and living better for it. And never let it be forgotten that Trek is concept laced with adventure, not purely science and technology. The very relationship of Kirk and Spock illustrates the dichotomy of Trek and is the blueprint for the concept itself… The foundation of Star Trek is a simple concept with the option to over think it, but never to lose sight of it’s true meaning or message… but no matter, as long as you remain respectful, all opinions are loved. But it should have nothing to do with the intellect of one type of fan interest over the other, we are all different and diverse (learned that from Star Trek I did). To be a fan, in fact, is to be somewhat obsessed or fanatical (as its word has its ancestry) but all minds can respect what Trek is, and none should be diminished out of a simple differences of interpretation… In fact, I may wonder about someone who needs every little thing explained to them... but I'm just saying. Personally, I don't think Enterprise should be considered only as a pre TOS show, even in our real world life our culture was vastly different 100 years ago, even 50 years ago. Enterprise was the "Little House on the Prairie" of Star Trek, it was not a dumber show and no less poignant, it may in fact have been a bit smarter about itself than TNG, DS9, and VOY... it was a different show; it was its own show. And to speak of art, as with all art: Enjoy it or not on any terms you wish, but no one has the definitive view, all art exists as personal interpretation... without that: art dies.
First off I want to say that I don't think anyone here is less advanced mentally if they like Enterprise. If you recall I said I enjoy the show myself. But in a different way. Also, I was using the word apathetic (not interested or brainless) in regards to the people who are content to ignore the facts within the very show itself. In other words, you are telling me there are people that don't care about the time travel presented within the show or don't care if it fits within the Prime Time Line. From what I understood: both of you have your own unique theories on the show and care about it. So I was not talking about either of you being apathetic. Just the people who don't care about the details of the show or Star Trek canon as a whole. In fact, here is the quote I was responding to in regards to certain viewers being apathetic (or unconcerned) towards the definition of what Enterprise is... All I am saying is that it is fanon whenever someone has an opinion on how Star Trek Enterprise fits within the Trek time line; And anyone who doesn't care about how Enterprise fits within the other series is apathetic. Side Note: However, I do apologize if I pushed the Matrix video towards you personally. In fact, I should have applied that lesson to the people who don't care about the details of Enterprise. And not towards the Enterprise fans who have a fanon point of view of it (like you or me).
That's right. Both sides. Yet much of the argument in this thread focuses on logic only. By the way, I spent a few years as a full time professional musician before getting my degree in computer science. I know a bit about applying both sides of the brain either to a stack of synths or a recursive algarhythm.
SF Rabid: I used my imagination to theorize in detail the events after Picard and crew's influence on Lily and Cochrane (Which created the advanced technology we see on Enterprise). I used my imagination to theorize that time lines cannot be altered or destroyed but duplicated into diverging or alternate time lines whenever there is a change made as a result of time travel (in a multiple time lines theory). I theorized that whenever a time line looks like it is being destroyed or is claimed as being erased... it simply is continuing on into a diverging time line (unknown or unseen to us). I used my imagination to theorize that the Q and or the Temporal Future Agency corrects any time line problems within a fixed time line. Besides, even if I didn't use examples of my imagination within this thread. It wouldn't make my argument on the matter have any less weight. Imagination can be used to explain things on Enterprise, but it also has to be tempered with logic in order for it to make sense, though. I mean, you make it sound like logic is a dirty thing. Logic is simply a form of using one's intelligence properly and is nothing to be ashamed of. Even if there is no imagination anywhere in site: logic is still an admirable quality to have in communicating and getting one's point across in the first place. Imagination by itself can only go so far if it isn't tempered by logic or knowledge. Ah, so you see that rhyme and reason is just as important as inspiration and creativity then. Very good.
ENT is my favorite Trek series of all time. And I don't see any problems at all with its relationship to the rest of Trek continuity (NOT CANON - those words do not mean the same). Any supposed inconsistencies can be easily explained.
Mr Laser Beam: You may or may not have seen this. But I created this post in regards to Enterprise's canon (if your interested)... http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=3997372&postcount=224
^ Some good points there, although the bit about "No viewscreens" is hardly definitive. They never said that the concept of the viewscreen did not exist. Only that no human, Vulcan or ally ever saw a Romulan. It could just as easily be that the Romulans simply refused all attempts at communication. Which would fit in nicely with Spock's line about "nor was there visual communication".
Mr Laser Beam: I replied to your post in the following thread... http://trekbbs.com/showpost.php?p=4023920&postcount=328
LS, my concern is that you keep presenting your personal, subjective opinion as if it were indisputable fact, which it is not. Coupled with your tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions and inaccurately label people and viewpoints according to your subjective definition ("That view is apathetic," "People who love ENT ignore the mistakes," "People who don't 'explain' ENT have their brains turned off," "That makes it fanon") often results in posts that can be (and judging from other comments, already is) off-putting. It's not this or that way simply because you say so. It's your opinion, one of many, many opinions shared here by the community. News flash: anyone who takes the time and trouble to read and make substantive posts on a Star Trek bulletin board about a Star Trek show is not "apathetic" in any sense of the word. It has nothing to do with whether they are concerned with something that is holds particular importance to you. Dude, there is no one "definition" of Enterprise. Each viewer has his own viewpoint, which is valid for them. For example, when I say I don't need to identify Enterprise's timeline to "define" the show, it doesn't mean I'm "content to ignore the facts." It means I don't need to identify Enterprise's timeline to "define" the show. For you to read anything else into that statement without asking me for clarification, or come to erroneous conclusions based on your views rather than mine, is inaccurate. Kindly stick to your own opinion and characterize it as such, and refrain from trying to tell other people what their opinion is, and things will go more smoothly here. Okay?
And hopefully you understand that music that is exactly on beat and does not vary from scale is considered lifeless. A painting that is exact in detail might as well be a photograph. A story that leaves nothing to the imagination is boring. Now that you see that ... very good.
Hopeful Romantic: Look, I don't want to fight or debate what I originally stated in my posts. But I never claimed that I was 100% right or that my opinions were not viewpoints. I even acknowledged in my previous post to you: that we both enjoy it in our own unique ways. Also (IMO), someone can love somebody or something immensely and still be apathetic towards certain aspects of that person or thing. For example: Someone could say that they love their car a great deal, but they really don't care (i.e. apathetic or brainless) about how it runs. So they might have a deep affection for their vehicle but their view on the actual mechanics of what makes it work is not important or an apathetic point of discussion for them. Also, I am simply relaying what the word fanon means (in my opinion). If people don't share that interpretation that is up to them to decide differently. I never claimed that people have to believe my point of view either (on what it means). After all, it is just my humble opinion. However, if you or anyone else is curious about the definition of the word canon in multiple sources, and would like to come up with your own interpretations of the word (in regards to the show and the fans); here are a couple of links... http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fanon http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Canon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanon_(fiction)#Fanon But just know that if you or anyone else shares any unique perspectives on fanon in regards to fan's viewpoints on Enterprise, I am not going to automatically assume that is being stated as a fact. Unless it is clearly stated otherwise of course. SF Rabid: Yes. But we are not creating a song or a piece of artwork here. We are discussing the believability of what you think Enterprise is based on the fictional facts the entire Star Trek universe presents to us. Sure a bit of imagination is going to come in to play. That is natural, but it is also very minor in a case like this. In other words: if imagination over runs the original meaning of what the Trekverse actually is, then it runs more into the camp of Trek fanon than it does Trek canon. If imagination over takes a piece of artwork or a song over it being logical, it is still can be a successful piece of artwork. We are not creating a piece of artwork here. The work has already been created by other people. We are simply discussing it. Granted, this is all just my humble opinion and you might think differently about such things. But I am totally cool with that.