They may not be blatantly contradicting what was established with this whole Klingon issue, but (in my opinion) it's going against the built-up "feeling" of what things were like in the mid 22nd century. Some people didn't have a preconception. I, for one, never went into too much detail. But even the feeling is in direct conflict with what we've seen the past month on the air.

Like I said before, I'll still watch "Enterprise." But it is decidedly for entertainment value only, not for incorporation. It's my choice to make, and every fan must make their own decision likewise, if they already haven't. I can keep it all separate from previous Trek, it's not like being in my own little world is a new thing with me. ;-)

Fans were upset before because a decade's worth of self-created material was chucked out the window when they revived Trek, proper. Now, they have several hundred hours of material to base things on, not just 70-something hours. It just doesn't feel right. I, for one, loved DS9 as much, if not MORE than TNG. I taped nearly every episode of Voyager, too. I am one of the fans of all 4 series, so, for me to be taking this continued stance on "Enterprise" has got to be saying something.

For what it's worth, I've been trying *not* to read about what's going on with the next movie. Like SW Ep. II, I want to be surprised when I go into the theatres. I can only *hope* that the entire Star Trek franchise doesn't turn "south of cheese." I love each and every of the previous Star Trek films (yes, even 1 & 5, to slightly lesser degrees - come on, I think a Special-edition VFX makeover for 5 would help a bit, don't you?), and would really hate to have to watch ST:10 in the same way as "Enterprise" - for entertainment at the time of watching, only; not for personal canon.

Still, we know the Ent-D/E crew, they've been good to us so far. I've heard rumours ranging from Voyager cast coming aboard, to tying in "Enterprise," so who knows what it'll turn out like...? Like "Enterprise," I shall reserve judgement until I see it for myself. I just hope I'm less disappointed, this time around.

quote:

---

But (for some reason), if there is one thing I can NOT stand, it is historical revisionism.

---

The history of Star Trek has always been one of revision, though. The Original Series never really had a specific date in mind as to when Captain Kirk was in command of the Enterprise. To go from examples that Ryan mentioned, some say around 2210 for his command and others say as late as 2290 or so. In episodes themselves, they flucuated between being 200 and 300 years in the future from the production dates. Then Okuda came along and gave a specific date, and that has been modified a bit by Voyager. Okuda's invalidated a lot of earlier work done by fans.

quote:

---

I believe that these techie Trek fans have a right to be upset, for as long as it may last (even as long as Dixon, apparently), because they do revise quite a bit - the Eugenics Wars being a prime example.

---

Everyone has the right to be upset when they don't like something. If the writing on Enterprise of the characters were bland, I'd be upset, too. The difference is that I know that my dislike would be the result of the show going against my personal tastes. That hypothetical situation is analagous to the "problem" of the Enterprise's design to the technical crowd. The design goes against what they thought a ship should look like for the time period or what others had said they looked like in non-canon and fandom works. Since we've only seen one ship from the period, the Daedalus, one cannot say that this is a fact. It's an opinion. But a lot of people are carrying on that the design is a continuity violation when there isn't one shred of evidence to support that.

quote:

---

Like I said before, I'll still watch "Enterprise." But it is decidedly for entertainment value only, not for incorporation. It's my choice to make, and every fan must make their own decision likewise, if they already haven't.

---

And that is every fan's perrogative. Anyone watching the show can deem whatever parts they don't like to be non-canon. Roddenberry himself decanonized The Animated Series and parts of The Final Frontier and The Undiscovered Country because he didn't like them. That was his personal decision, but most of fandom does accept them wholesale. However, this is becoming a problem because some people who choose to excise Enterprise from their personal scripture of canonicity are doing nothing more than showing up in message boards, throwing insults, and then leaving. It's essentially becoming similar to the three-year-old throwing a fit because his parents wouldn't buy him a candy bar.

quote:

---

Fans were upset before because a decade's worth of self-created material was chucked out the window when they revived Trek, proper. Now, they have several hundred hours of material to base things on, not just 70-something hours.

---

Right, fans were upset because the had built a softball field on an empty lot and here comes the city parks department to build one up to code. The hard work they poured into their projects is suddenly in jeopardy because Trek has decided to thoroughly examine this period. However, anyone who does work for Trek cannot realistically expect his or her work to stand up to the test of time and be regarding as the truth of Trek. The only people who can really have an honest expectation of such are those working for Star Trek. And, even then, if the story is vague enough, the writers can change even that.

Enterprise does have a lot riding on it. There are nearly six hundred hours worth of Star Trek out there that Enterprise has to adhere to. In my opinion, Enterprise is doing fine in this regard. The possibility always exists for that to change since it can be assumed that Enterprise will last six and a half more seasons. On the plus side of this, the executive producers have had a hand in just about all of modern Trek. Mike Okuda is still onboard offering his opinions; he certainly doesn't seem to be upset that his opinion of Klingon first contact is not contrary to canon. Braga admitted that he and Berman have been watching The Original Series to understand that facet of the Trek universe. Minor screw-ups are bound to happen. Ron Moore, an admitted lifelong fan of Trek, fudged the date for the Eugenics Wars in one of his DS9 scripts. It's bound to happen to anyone. If it makes a regular habit of major snafus, then is the time for fandom to take some action.

quote:

---

Still, we know the Ent-D/E crew, they've been good to us so far.

---

It reminds me of conflict between hardhats and hippies (to overly simplify things) from the 60s. Anyone who found fault with US involvement in Vietnam was labeled a pinko or commie and told to either love America or leave it. Those who agreed with the US's support of anticommunist governments was labeled a fascist or baby killer.

quote:

---

Anyone watching the show can deem whatever parts they don't like to be non-canon.

---

If I get a warning for flaming, so be it. I have no specific ill will towards you, Siggie, but that is complete and utter f*cking bullshit! I am so sick of hearing people say this. THE FANS do not decide what is canon. RODDENBERRY does not decide what is canon. PARAMOUNT decides what is canon. They own Star Trek. They decide what happens to it.

This crap about being able to declare non-canon anything in Trek that you don't like is just that: CRAP.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]

James Bond has been a spy for fifty years without aging a day. Hes had half a dozen facelifts. Nobody questions it.. hes just 007 and thats it. People are just paying their 7.50, being entertained, and going home. They arent trying to explain why in Bond's eyes the fall of the Berlin Wall occurred a few months after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Its entertainment and escapism, and people are willing to suspend disbelief because its well put together eye candy effects and action sequences, good music and enjoyable dialogue with good acting and character play.

So how come you cant let the guy sitting next to you say 'well, i dont think that Voyager happened the way it did because it didnt make sense' Hes enjoying it.

And Paramount are a bunch of brainless suits who see Star Trek as a cash crop to be raked in. The creative personnel, while not perfect in our eyes (read every thread here about the producers) are trying to keep star trek working. The novelists, the comic book artists have passion for the characters and the look of star trek. I think they have more validity in my eyes than the licensing office.

I try to play the 'continuity' game as much as everyone else here, because i like that a well done universe can be catalogued and analyzed the way i do on my page with star trek. Thats what makes watching Star Trek more fun that watching Mad About You. But i dont try to tell everyone what to think.. Star Trek is OWNED by the person watching and enjoying it.

i think that the Yamato's registry is 1305-E. Thats my prerogative because ive made it my show.

And as to TAS, I have pointed out before and will point out again that Paramount no longer seems to view TAS as non-canon. DS9 refers to TAS in several episodes. The TAS episode guide is listed right alongside those of TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR, and now ENT on the official Paramount Star Trek website.

As for The Animated Series, actually, you are wrong. Just because the episode guides for The Animated Series is on the official Paramount site in no way says that they've changed their stance on TAS. Let's look at the Frequently Asked Questions, shall we?

quote:

---

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

---

My previous comments still stand. Paramount has allowed the backstory of Spock from TAS to be canon since it fleshes out his character. Ronald D. Moore is a fan of TAS and included small references to little things in his scripts for DS9. Those in and of themselves do not make TAS canon, as the FAQ says above.

[ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: Siegfried ]

What is being said is that the fact that one wasn't does not constitute a crippling blow to internal consistancy. Nor does it represent, in my opinion, any fundamental lack of imagination.

I had the opportunity to watch this episode with some decidedly casual fans this past Saturday. They haven't studied the press releases. They haven't bought the magazines or visited the websites or read the interviews. They've watched Star Trek in no particular order and with no particular concern for overarching plots. And when a Klingon ship they could recognize showed up, they were suddenly gifted with dramatic insight. They knew something the characters didn't. They enjoyed a basic element of drama.