Well, according to UPN, it's now Trek...

[Dan Stack]

To be frank, I don't really care if the animated series is canon or not. It was Star Trek. Made by Paramount, with the Star Trek label on it. Paramount owns Trek - they decide whether to use it in future productions. And if they go against the wishes of the audience too many times they probably won't need to worry about many future productions.

To be honest, I can handle the argument that Enterprise is a horrible Star Trek show. I view it as more a mediocre one - some interesting ideas, poor execution - I've lost interest in it quite a bit - I still usually manage to catch it, but I don't lose sleep if I miss it. However, the whole canon violation thing seems silly to me. I could probably think of a couple places where they've had out and out contradictions with other series, a lot more where they violated commonly held assumptions or stretched the bounds of reasonableness (for example, the Ferengi episode was pushing it).

However, to not call it Star Trek seems silly. (I'm not referring to the name of the per se, more the "is it a Star Trek show?" argument. Indeed, I liked the standalone "Enterprise" title better.) As for the "based on Star Trek", that's a legalism which one also finds on Deep Space Nine.

Let me ask this. Is an issue of Superman from the 1950's still Superman? Was the 1970's Superman movie a Superman movie? Was "Lois and Clark" a Superman show. What about "Smallville"? Action Comics #721?

[Modem]

The only 'thing' to really change Superman was 'The Man of Steel' mini-series done by John Byrne, roughly six months after "Crisis on Infinite Earths" maxi series...
a series where the 'Golden Age' Superman (the '50's' one) was wiped for existence (he only exists in 'Hypertime' now).

The '70's' Superman exists, mostly in 'Hypertime'.

'Lois and Clark' only changed the dynamics of Superman and Lois' relationship (note that they got married around the same time), but THAT IT...no villains, nor other scenarios appeared from the series, in the source material (the comics).

Likewise 'Smallville' has not changed the comic; 'Metropolis' is still on the East Coast, NOT KANSAS...

[Dan Stack]

Sigh. I'm sorry I let myself get pulled into this.

[Karg]

Originally posted by Liz Not Beth
Learn well my young padawan does.

BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAW

[Sea Tyger]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Sigh. I'm sorry I let myself get pulled into this.

Yeah, I've given up trying to argue with these people....I have better success arguing logic with my 2-year-old daughter.

[C5]

These discussions about Enterprise really remind me of the worst possible political discussions and why I used to avoid them. It seems to me all of these Enterprise debates share the same features :
- Neither side is willing to change its mind in the course of the discussion
- The same arguments are used over and over and over ad nauseam from one discussion to another and even in the course of the samed discussion
- In the end absolutely no useful result is reached.

Basically I think arguing about the quality of Enterprise would be like arguing about which color is the most beautiful. I like Enterprise and for me it's Trek, and I said why on numerous occasions. It may not be the best Trek possible so far (and I've yet to actually watch season 3), but it's quite watchable. Now it is so for me because I have some criteria for judging a series and judging its "Trekity", and Enterprise fits most of them. If someone else has a different set of criteria and that according to these Enterprise is the worst piece of trash ever conceived, then too bad, and can we get on with it please. I really fail to see the need to enumerate over and over the qualities/flaws of the show over and over again and argue about nitpicks.
My favourite color is green, if someone likes blue better I fail to see the interest to argue for hours with this person about why green is better than blue. Period.

Not that I expect this post to stop this debate, of course...

[Scarecrow]

Well, this forum is called 'Star Trek Chat', meaning it's for chatting about Star Trek. As far as I am concerned, discussions on the merits and flaws of Enterprise is chatting about Star Trek. Like you, I'm not really interested in that particular topic, but if people want to discuss such things on a board appropriate to the subject then I don't see a problem. I think a problem arises when individuals are under the impression that their opinion is right and expect to 'win' by expressing it and then become enfuriated when other individuals take issue with it.

There are other posts concerning the Star Trek setting in the 'Star Trek Chat' section. If some of them do not interest you or annoy you then simply don't read them.

Works for me.

Crow

[Tobian]

Well said Scarecrow!



I think this is one of those arguments which will never be settled, however, unlike politics - I actually care, so hence I post here and not on a politics forum

[C5]

Hey, I like too discussing about Star Trek... I just don't like when I realise that I find all Enterprise discussion turning into an exact replica of one another. At this point, I get the feeling it's more a matter of copy/paste than discussing... You see, it's a bit like seeing some friends having the exact same discussion together every time you see them.

That and the fact that some Enterprise opinions tend to appear in threads where no one would expect them (nope, not talking about this thread).

[Don Mappin]

Originally posted by Dan Stack
Sigh. I'm sorry I let myself get pulled into this.

That's why I just posted ratings numbers and let the facts speak for themselves.

Very difficult to argue against that.

In different news, I went to TrekToday and read the transcript for the trailer to next week's episode and watched said trailer. Sad. Very sad.

[General Chang]

An argument circular this is! Go nowhere it does! A religion, Trek is not! A Holy war we do not need! Watch, or watch not! I care not!

Another great Yoda-ism, brought to you by,
General Chang

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
That's why I just posted ratings numbers and let the facts speak for themselves.

Very difficult to argue against that.

In different news, I went to TrekToday and read the transcript for the trailer to next week's episode and watched said trailer. Sad. Very sad.

Oh I agree with your comment about the ratings and the trailer. My issue was just that Enterprise is a Trek show. Good or bad I leave to the beholder.

[D.S.McBride]

I decided to take the Pepsi Challenge and went to trektoday for the preview and the trailer. It's official: I've died and gone to hell. The only other possibility is that Bob Guccionne has somehow taken control of Rick and Brannon's bodies, a la The Puppet Masters, and is gradually turning UPN into a hardcore sex channel for the eighteen to twenty-five year old male demographic.

[Space_Cadet]

Originally posted by Don Mappin
.....

In different news, I went to TrekToday and read the transcript for the trailer to next week's episode and watched said trailer. Sad. Very sad.

oh great moderator.. i do not wish to incite your wrath as i am one of the humble servants of your message boards..but i've noticed that a lot of trailers, especially the ones that are sexual are typically misleading and are not what they seem to be.

[C5]

That and the fact that ratings are not always a good representative of a show's quality. After all, I think TOS had very average ratings and recent series like Firefly (which I haven't seen but heard very good reviews about) probably had bad ratings (since they led to cancellation).