posted
I think I understand Nevod's question. Undoubtedly, both series are canon because, well, they were both shown on screen
However, I'm taking Nevod's question to mean that as Enterprise goes along for seven years, it will most likely generate inconsistencies with what we've seen in TOS. Some of those inconsistencies can be explained away, of course, but some others will have their credibility stretched to the point that there's just no good explanation to justify it.
Nevod, all I can say is that TOS was made in the '60's, with a '60's vision of the future. Enterprise's vision is a 21st century vision. It's just like what Tom Paris said about those Captain Proton holonovels: This is what people of the time thought the future would be like. And who knows? Maybe fifty years from now, Enterprise's vision of the future will be overshadowed by the reality of the mid-twenty-first century.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
posted
Maybe there should be a new 'canon-category' called "Grey-Canon-Ent"
Consistant facts between Enterprise and TOS can be regular Canon .. and then there can be "Grey-Canon-Ent" for Enterprise canons that seem inconsistant with the rest of ST.
It's almost as if Enterprise is messing with our Temporal-Prime-Directive isn't it!?
posted
ummmm. You guys. ENT IS messing with our Temporal-Prime-Directive! One of the major story arcs is about some wierdo from the future f**king with the Star Trek timeline as we know it.
Hell. If it hadn't been for him, the Klingon dude would never have crashed on Earth. The ENT wouldn't have been launched at the time it did and it probably wouldn't have encountered those holo-tech guys which in turn allowed the Klingons to get holo-tech hundreds of years before the Feds.
People like Bernd here are bitching about the inconsistancies, but what he doesn't seem to get is that there is a guy who is running around and altering history! When someone is doing that, your are gonna have inconsistancies!! That is kind of a no brainer.
posted
Yes, but that kind of explanation is too easy. It would be similar to the Star Wars tech analysts actually taking The Force into consideration, which they never do.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Yes, but that kind of explanation is too easy. It would be similar to the Star Wars tech analysts actually taking The Force into consideration, which they never do.
Good point. If we have a universal explanation for everything that is illogical or implausible, where is the limit to it? Why bother about continuity at all, if it's a parallel timeline anyway?
Just imagine that the whole Trek Universe could develop to something like the Mirror Universe in which nothing seems to make sense. As much as I dislike the idea of "The Final Frontier has a new beginning", I don't want to let that happen.
posted
I didn't mean that the temporal thing can be used as an explanation for everything. It sure as hell doesn't explain that whole D-7 look alike in Enterprise. I'm just saying that most of the "inconsistancies" in Enterprise thus far can be attributed to the tampering with the time line. I already explained that whole holo-tech/Klingon thing.
P.S. I still don't agree with the Andorian Incedent rating. Beaming down a S.W.A.T. team WAS more logical than beaming down stun grenades and blowing out the wall WAS more logical than shooting through the f**king holes.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
