[radoskal]

Hi all,

When Enterprise first came on the air, I did not like it, what irked me right from the get go was the liberties they took with established continuity, I made my opinions about this known on this forum and elsewhere, and while I frown somewhat on JJ taking those same liberties with the new Trek film, I must thank him for starting a new continuity that allows traditionalists like me to watch Enterprise and try to enjoy it without having the trek "historian" in us screaming at the Borg or Ferengi on the screen.

JJ Abrams new time line establishes, with the reference to Adrimral Archer, that the events of Enterprise hold true in the JJ verse. So with that in mind I am going to watch Enterprise and throw all my cannon concerns out the airlock...after all...it's a whole new universe out there right?

I still may cringe on ocasion but...that's just the nature of things.

[chator]

I've been a fan of ENTERPRISE, since it first aired. I only began to have a problem with the show beginning with the third season Xindi story arc, up to that point, I have no complaints about the show. As far as canon concerns, i think the main two were the Borg episode you mentioned, which i enjoyed, and the episode that introduces the Ferengi, who originally were first introduced on TNG. But the Borg episode is in continuity with the TNG film First Contact. As for the Ferengi episode, i realize telling a good story, or getting a good script is a more pressing concern than continuity errors for the producers.

What turned me off the show was the Xindi story arc, which seemed to give indirect support to Bush's invasion of Iraq in search of WMD's, also i felt the mission of Enterprise changed with that story arc from one of peaceful exploration, which i didn't like. In addition, the story was poorly conceived and executed, it was hardly credible. It just didn't make good sci-fi storytelling, IMO.

Have fun with ENTERPRISE! Awesome show while it lasted, and prefigures the direction J.J. would take Trek with his film.

[celticarchie]

I had my doubts about Enterprise. There were some things that I felt were done in a "fan unfriendly" way, and a lot of it could have been presented better.

The first season kinda won me over pretty quickly. The rumour of a Borg episode in season two really turned me off, I didn't get to see that season until much later, however I did enjoy that overall season and that Borg episode.

Season three was were it really kicked into gear for me. At last a season long story arc, as far as I'm concerned Star Trek should have been doing that from The Next Generation Season One.

[chator]

Originally Posted by celticarchie

Season three was were it really kicked into gear for me. At last a season long story arc, as far as I'm concerned Star Trek should have been doing that from The Next Generation Season One.

The reason they don't, I believe is related the nature of syndicated television. Episodic tv series fare better on syndication, which can be on at irregular hours, and sell better as reruns.

[celticarchie]

Originally Posted by chator

The reason they don't, I believe is related the nature of syndicated television. Episodic tv series fare better on syndication, which can be on at irregular hours, and sell better as reruns.

Oh yeah, I understand why they don't do detail series arcs. I just feel that keeping the series episodic after a while made the series stale. By the 6th & 7th TNG seasons I was really craving more ongoing story lines. DS9 maintained a good balance of stand alone and arc. Voyager was killed by having no arc other than getting home. Had it more ongoing story then I feel the series would have been better received.

Enterprise's season three story arc was 13 years to late for me. Okay, season one TNG is too early for that kind of storytelling. Season one Voyager is not.

The Xindi arc can be seen as a allergory, however the story can only be told in a Star Trek fashion. In which our characters go out for revenge, but on the quest for that revenge, they discover the situation is less straight forward than they first thought and they then have to make friends with the enemy in order to put things right.

Do we really see that in real life? The allergory kinda disolves in the nature of Star Trek.

[MrQ1701]

The Ferengi shown on ENT were never identified as Ferengi. They were just unknown alien pirates. I'm sure when the Federation later learned of the Ferengi, in TNG, then historians couls say "it was Ferengi Pirates that boarded the NX-01!". I see NO continuity issue with that episode. Same for the Borg episode.

[MrQ1701]

Originally Posted by celticarchie

Oh yeah, I understand why they don't do detail series arcs. I just feel that keeping the series episodic after a while made the series stale. By the 6th & 7th TNG seasons I was really craving more ongoing story lines. DS9 maintained a good balance of stand alone and arc. Voyager was killed by having no arc other than getting home. Had it more ongoing story then I feel the series would have been better received.

Enterprise's season three story arc was 13 years to late for me. Okay, season one TNG is too early for that kind of storytelling. Season one Voyager is not.

The Xindi arc can be seen as a allergory, however the story can only be told in a Star Trek fashion. In which our characters go out for revenge, but on the quest for that revenge, they discover the situation is less straight forward than they first thought and they then have to make friends with the enemy in order to put things right.

I also think Voyager would have benefited from more general story arc from one episode to the next. I can see how a newbie to ENT just watching an episode in the middle of the Xindi arc could be turned off, but I think enough standalones were thrown in that barely touched on the bigger story arc.

Do we really see that in real life? The allergory kinda disolves in the nature of Star Trek.

I too LOVE ongoing story arcs. I LOVED the Xindi story arc. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head when you explain how revenge turned into cooperation. Earth would have been destroyed if it were not for the help given by the Aquatics and the other good guy Xindi species.

[horatio]

I wonder who came up with that urban myth that ENT is that big continuity violation show. No more or less continuity glitches than in any other Trek show.

Originally Posted by MrQ1701

I too LOVE ongoing story arcs. I LOVED the Xindi story arc. I think you hit the nail squarely on the head when you explain how revenge turned into cooperation. Earth would have been destroyed if it were not for the help given by the Aquatics and the other good guy Xindi species.

Well said. Archer's job was to prevent the launch of the weapon, not to unleash mankind's revenge upon the Xindi. A paradigm for how to deal with (potential) enemies and threats.

[LordJuss]

Yup, right with you on the Xindi arc.

I was interested in how they were going to play it, given how anti the war on terror the first couple of series are (particularly Detained and Desert Crossing).

I thought they handled it well. Essentially Earth responds to a 911 allegory (which let's face it, it was) by militarily defeating the genuine zealots (the Reptilians), bringing on board the moderates (the aquatics etc.) and removing the influence on their political masters (the sphere builders). Damn fine strategy as far as I'm concerned.

I actually felt it continued to be a critique of the Bush approach, just one that engaged with the issues more directly.

As for the original point about continuity, there are actually very few continuity problems in Ent. The writers were incredibly careful. So careful that people seemed not to notice hw they had got round the continuity issues.

Examples... the Ferengi were never identified. Neither were the Borg. No reason anyone on the Ent-D 200 years down the line would remember a single incident from centuries past.

Similarly, the ridged Klingons and so on.

Where they did violate continuity, they were very explicit about it being the Temporal Cold War that was responsible (and it can be used as a get out clause in any case).

(just my two'penneth)

LJ.

[HippyDave]

Originally Posted by LordJuss

As for the original point about continuity, there are actually very few continuity problems in Ent. The writers were incredibly careful. So careful that people seemed not to notice hw they had got round the continuity issues.

Examples... the Ferengi were never identified. Neither were the Borg. No reason anyone on the Ent-D 200 years down the line would remember a single incident from centuries past.

Similarly, the ridged Klingons and so on.

Where they did violate continuity, they were very explicit about it being the Temporal Cold War that was responsible (and it can be used as a get out clause in any case).

Yep, absolutely. Nothing's guaranteed to get me rolling my eyes faster than people trotting out the ol' "Enterprise DISREGARDS CANON!!!11!" garbage. I can't think of a single example of the show openly showing something we've been told never happened, or shown something we know would be impossible, WITHOUT providing a neat method of side-stepping what we've already been told elsewhere. Whether or not you buy it is a whole different argument, I guess, but I don't think it's in any way fair to accuse Berman/Braga etc of openly disregarding canon.

It's ages since I've seen an episode of Enterprise. I think I need to go out and (finally!) buy those DVD box sets...