Talk: Star Trek: Enterprise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cancellation

As of February 2, 2005-Enterprise has been cancelled – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.16.130.13

I would say All Good Things.......... but I would be lying. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebelstrike2005 (talk • contribs)

Enterprise was just getting better. Those fools. They can't leave us like that... Perhaps they continue the story with a movie? Or the show restarts later on, dealing with the foundation of the Federation or the Romulan War? .... Why am I dreaming? --BlueMars 11:14, Feb 3, 2005 (CET)

I would rather see Enterprise continued on the big screen, instead of assembling a new cast.-Rebelstrike2005 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)

I would like to remind every one that talk pages are not discussion forums. If you want to talk about the cancellation of Enterprise, please visit the SCN or TrekBBS, et al. -- Michael Warren | Talk 17:55, Feb 3, 2005 (CET)

"Closing the franchise for good"?

What's the source for this quote? It seems odd to me: I can understand a Paramount spokesperson saying that they were closing the Star Trek office that's been at Paramount/Viacom since 1987 or so, but what does it mean to close a franchise? It seems improbable to me that a Paramount spokesperson would close the door on all future Trek, instead of saying that it "needs a rest" or something like that.

The current wording on the page indicates that Paramount plans never to make any more Star Trek ever again, which isn't the case AFAIK. What is the case is that they have no plans to make more Trek at this time, which is different from "closing the franchise for good". -- Josiah Rowe 03:56, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I wonder if this means that the restrictions on publishing fan fiction Via Pocket Books will be lifted. I would love to see both professional writers and amature writers come up with various and different adventures for starships other than the USS Enterprise... I suppose I mean, where the writer will have no restrictions at all. Like what had been in place before the Next Generation. Time Travler 03:37am 15 Feb 2005 (USCST)

I heard they were working on a Trek 11 movie, set sometimes after Enterprise.

Perharps it would be time for something really different. Something not focused on a starfleet crew. Something with aliens, or federation civilians heroes, but with lots of connection with starfleet (so that it remains trek).

A long-lasting proposal : a klingon ship. In TNG era, klingons and Fed ar more or less allies, this facilitates a klingon POV series : klingons are not so "bad guys" as they used to be, and we could easily have one or two starfleet "observers" on board (being there bcause of officier exchanges, like T'Pol and Phlox on the NX-01). Watchers would probably feel better if one of the main cast is Human.

The maquis could be a nice candate too. It would allow lots of connections wih existing DS9 plots. It would also give the writer the possibility to use characters from all usual species (including Humans!). Also, a change would be the limited supplys : our heroes would struggle to get spare parts for their ships, weapons, antimatter fuel, torpedoes, and so on. No wealthy starfleet to give supply! Also, it would be an occasion to explore more of the "undergrounds" of trek Galaxy : arm dealers, terrorists, missionaries, an so on.

Yet anoher proposal : The Dyson sphere from "Relics". It's a fascinating construction. Probably the largest object in the galaxy. It has the internal space of 250 000 000 planets. It must have extremely advanced technologies. The whole Quadrant could try to get an hand on it. It may also have served as a hiding place for defectors or refugees for millenias. It's a shame this Sphere ended up as an "object of the week" that was never mentionned again! There could be dozens of stories to write about it. It could be the frame for a short series. --Rami

I couldn't stand the testosterone levels of a Klingon-POV movie/show and a Maquis one would be pointless since we already know their fate. The other idea sounds interesting though. --Ben Sisqo 21:30, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I fear you're right about the klingons. In fact, most alien species (especially those featured as ennemies) in trek are very stereotyped, with behabiours heavily twisted toward one or two distinct traits : Warrior's Glory for klingons, Greed for Ferengi, Arrogance for Romulan...

This makes them uneasy to feature as main heros. Good charaters for a movies, a novel, or, for that matter, a series, need to be multi-faceted. On the oyther hand, we could learn from them POV that while a iven species gives a very caricatural apparereance to foreigners, they're not that simple, and not all alike when you know them better.

A maquis series (say Star Trek:Val Jean) would be a ind of tragedy, where we know from th beginning that the heros are doomed. I agree this would be very difficult for writers to make it interesting enough.

The Star Trek:Dyson Sphere idea would bring less different to previous series : It would be Federaton, but partly civilian. Half of the geros could be archeologiest from the Daystrom institute, half would be starfllet (given the sphere's strategic importance, starfleet would probably assign a pair of ship to defend it. --Rami 14:52, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) 14:45, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

What we need is a DS9 movie damnit. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 14:59, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Who's up for a series taking place immediately after the founding of the Federation (or the interspecies alliance that would give birth to it), with Archer in command of the USS Daedalus NCC-100 and Shran as his first officer? :D --From Andoria with Love 07:23, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

PNA

What is this PNA thing that is posted at the top of the page? -- Enzo Aquarius 16:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

it's not a good thing, so don't ask about it – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.45.249.91

WooHOO!!!!!

NOT A SPOILER, it's on enterprise's website[1]: ENTERPRISE ISN'T REAL!IT'S JUST A HOLODECK PROGRAM ON THE ENTERPRISE-D! HOOOORAY! NON-CANON! just another screwy TNG holodeck program gone wrong!!!! Star Trek has been saved!

-of course Jonathan Frakes gaining 100 lbs and playing a TNG era riker is a minor continuity problem, but WHO CARES! ENTERPRISE IS A HOLODECK PROGRAM!

On a side note, didn't they used to try and hide the fact that they've been owned by the Scifi Channel for the last two years, oh well, so their last episode looks a lot like babylon 5's last episode on scifi, and so what if they were dumb enough to reuse the headset thingie from farscape, at least they're ending it!--BringerOfDoom 01:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC) (AKA 24.45.249.91)

I'm not really interested in any bashing of the show because it was cancelled, it was actually a pretty enjoyable, if uneven, series -- and this page wasn't meant for criticism, just discussion of the quality of the article itself ("MA is not a forum" and all that).

I know ENT's last episode was presented as a Star Trek:TNG holoprogram, what was said that would lead you to believe it wasn't a depiction of a real event? (I haven't seen the episode, just the last few minutes). Was it stated, or simply implied? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 04:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither. Clearly aimed at being history. Tyrant 04:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Tyrant

Ditto. I just watched the episode, and it was clearly a holo-recreation of a historical event. Randee15 05:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Good to know. Riker did look out of place. His weight wasn't as wierd as his gray beard -- they could have added some coloring or something. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 05:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

As a responce to the first post in this section, "These are the voyages..."was the only episode recreated in the holodeck. Riker and Troi were watching the crew shortly before the NX-01 was retired. The rest of the series was real(what i define as real is not a holodeck program" Janewayfan4497 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise and Star Trek timeline

I had an unsettling thought as I was reading about the possibility that Daniels' death was reverted as the timeline reset itself.

If Daniels and Jonathan Archer were kept out of normal space-time as it reset itself, the implication would be that the previous three years had not happened in the "real" timeline and noone but Archer and Daniels could know about events preceding the end of "Storm Front, Part II". By that logic, all references to those events (such as in "These Are The Voyages...") would render those episodes and references as existing in a parallel universe, not unlike the principle of the Krenim Timeship in (VOY: "Year of Hell" and "Year of Hell, Part II").

Technically, events preceding the 4th Season could be apocryphal.--Mike Nobody 08:23, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That would mean the Temporal Cold War itself never happened, which clearly wasn't the case, since Daniels stated that the war would be coming to an end (not prevented) thanks to Archer. (Also, you can see an image of Archer running in "Zero Hour" when the timeline was resetting). Daniels was killed after the Cold War turned "hot", but Archer's actions prevented that from ever happening, so Daniels, in turn, never died. The Cold War was still fought, but Vosk was stopped before he initiated full-scale warfare. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 08:34, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think whether fans like it or not, the powers-that-be are going to render a LOT of Star Trek as apocryphal (as alernate universe/timelines). Why? Maintaining the integrity of the franchise is too cumbersome and limiting for writers. Ronald D. Moore and Brannon Braga almost admitted as much in the commentary on Star Trek: First Contact. That, somehow, to make their jobs easier they need to clean the slate and start over. While I would personally abhor "cleaning the slate" in such a way, I understand what they mean. Designating chunks of 'Trek history to another universe would be a logical, pragmatic way to clean up the innumerable mistakes accumulated over the decades. It would also be the most merciful way to ignore abominations like "Threshold". I mean, c'mon, TNG's "Parallels" is a damn good episode. But, it takes place entirely in dimensions outside the canon 'Trek universe. Voyager is riddled with continuity screw-ups that cannot be explained any other way. I know fans are very protective of the original intent of the writers, producers, actors, etc. But, retcon is no stranger to Star Trek.--Mike Nobody 09:49, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) As for the argument that the Temporal Cold War "never happened", regardless of whether anyone but Archer and Daniels remember those events, those events still happened...to Archer and Daniels (in each version of the timeline they experienced). Everyone else would just go, "Huh? What the hell are you talking about?"--Mike Nobody 10:08, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider the work required to be all that daunting. I mean, what are they, a bunch of pussies? "It's too much work" is a pretty poor excuse. But what is the point of having a solid continuity anyway? Why is it necessary? Just leave it be.--TheCurse Feb. 18, 2006

Enterprise lizard people episode?

Did Enterprise have an episode like this? Or I have I been at the Romulan ale again? Ben Sisko 22:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe so. There was one episode in Season 3 called "Extinction" where Archer, Reed and Hoshi are turned into another species, but not lizards (to my recollection). There was no transformation episodes in Season 4, and my knowledge of Seasons 1 and 2 are shaky. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 23:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The Xindi-Reptilians are all through Season 3 as well, is that what you're thinking of? The Suliban have a salamander-quality too... --Aurelius Kirk 07:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Or the Arkonian seen in "Dawn"--Tim Thomason 07:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Canon

I was wondering if Enterprise is really considered Canon...I mean it goes against so much of what we see in the previous series' It has been bugging me forever...I would like to hear some thoughts – The preceding unsigned comment was added by RamdarGoftar (talk • contribs)

Yep, it's canon, it was live-action, on TV, supported (and made) by Paramount and all that jazz.--Tim Thomason 03:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition, it should be noted that the only people who have trouble accepting the show as canon are those who like to be "spoon-fed" their canon rather than using their own imagination and intelligence to come up with their own explanations. In reality, if people would stop and think about things, Enterprise did not contradict anything. Also, they're not the only series to presumably go against established canon. For my entire rant on this subject, see this discussion here. --From Andoria with Love 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir I do not believe that your theory is correct. I enjoy thinking up explanations for things. For one I enjoyed trying to think up explanations for the Klingon forehead ridges...however, when I tried to think up explanations for the disregard of the canon when the Enterprise meets ferengi and borg...I cannot think of any explanation. I even go as far as saying the the existance of the NX Enterprise is against canon due to the fact that it has been mentioned in several episodes prior that the USS Enterprise NCC-1701 was the FIRST starship Enterprise. I would also like to state that I do not hate the show Enterprise at all. I think it is a very good show. I however think that it should not be considered canon--Ramdar Goftar

This conversation is going to end, now. Enterprise is canon. Live with it. Anything else on that subject does not belong on this talk page. They are not here for long out discussions on personal issues people have with the different series. If that is what you want, go to TrekBBS, not here. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this discussion must end now and I apologize for making my comment in the first place. However, I would like to direct Mr. Goftar to this page here. And that's it; this discussion is over. --From Andoria with Love 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Accepted, the Enterprise series is "official" canon; nevertheless, it does contradict many points established in previously written canon sources, significantly more then in other series. This is not just opinion; It is a verifiable fact that there are contradictions. That there are more then in any other series, is something that I lack the time to verify (have to watch every episode veeery carefully, counting...). However, I do think that this is worthy of at least a passing reference in this page. I would even advocate mentioning the existence of disagreement as to whether this is canon or not. Granted it is officially, but there are a LOT of people (not just a minority) who believe that Enterprise does not take place in the same universe as Star Trek, and should be considered a seperate series which just happens to be very similar. ~Darkling (not a member :()

But there were just as many people who believed that TMP or TNG weren't in the Star Trek universe because of their differences. Point is, aside from the fact that Paramount said so, they are part of the same universe and their production teams always intended them to be. The bigger issue, I think, will come with the new film in 2009, where (at least visually) the team aren't too concerned with fictional Trek history or keeping in with what has gone before. --Mada101 02:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"This is not just opinion; It is a verifiable fact that there are contradictions." Actually, that's your opinion and the opinion of a vocal group of fans, not necessarily a fact. You can say that Enterprise seems to contradict from other Star Trek movies and show, but you can't verify it because every so-called contradiction you come up with, people like me will be able to explain them from an in-universe perspective. Then again, since every single movie and nearly every single episode of every single Trek series seem to contradict other movies and episodes, stating that Enterprise seems to have also contradicted things is pointless. I never got how Enterprise became the culprit of so-called continuity bashing when every other show has done the same thing, sometimes to a greater extent. In any case, what one group of fans think about the show is irrelevant to this project. --From Andoria with Love 08:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Ok, I've heard people complaning about VOY and ENT but WHY! State your reasoning because personally I like all of them. --From TrekkyStar ^{Open Hailing Frequencies} 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Memory Alpha, and especially this talk page, is not the place for this discussion. This talk page is only for discussion on changes needing to be made to the content of the article, not personal feelings. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 17:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise reference website

I discovered a helpful site full of trivia and references related to Enterprise written in note form - [2]. I just thought I'd share that with the MA community! --Defiant | Talk 14:08, 9 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Planned episodes for Enterprise's 5th season

After Enterprise was killed off after season 4, the producers revealed several things they were planning for season 5 and so on. They planned to add Shran to the regular crew of the Enterprise, they wanted to make an episode on the foundation of the first starbase and they planned to revisit (actually previsit) the cloud city Stratos from TOS: "The Cloud Minders". Here they planned to show how the society split up in the two castes. Damn it, i'd love to see those episodes... :-(

Anyone with further information? --BlueMars 21:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We'd also have visited Denobula, brought back Section 31, and returned to the Mirror Universe at some point. This was all revealed in an interview with Manny Coto, and there's a link to it somewhere, but I can't seem to find it... - AJ Halliwell 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Should we create a page, where all info concerning the hypothetical 5th season is collected? --BlueMars 12:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a background section at Star Trek: Enterprise would be a better place for this, as technically it is completely background information. - AJ Halliwell 15:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That could work, maybe in a sub heading "Planned season five episodes" or something.--Terran Officer 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There was talk about the possiblity of FINALLY doing A "Kzinti" episode. Coto wanted to do it, anyways, and SOME work was done on concepts for it, including a test rendering of a Kzinti ship.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah what? Sorry, I dont know what your talking about :(--Terran Officer 03:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Kzinti" are a race from the animated series, I doubt they'd have done an episode since the TV series doesn't count TAS as canon, but if you can cite this by all means we can add it. I know the other ideas come from an interview I plan to search for one of these days. - AJ Halliwell 03:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Heres a link to the gallery page with the Kzinti ship and the Enterprise S5 mention. I have an email in to the site owner asking for more details: http://www.glitchwerk.com/gallery/startrek.htm Capt Christopher Donovan 08:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a reply back from the mesh designer with the information...I'm waiting for his OK to post it...Capt Christopher Donovan 06:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text of the email, posted with permission by the author:

• Okay, well first I'll admit that the facts stated about Kzinti and season five are a bit over simplified. Basically, I was commissioned by writer Jimmy Diggs to design an "Enterprise" era Kzinti cruiser as part of an overall pitch to Paramount. Jimmy had been a long time writer for Star Trek, and was looking to add his contribution to the Enterprise series. We were in our third round of talks with the producer when the show got canceled.
• With the show taking a new direction, and paying more homage to the original series, they were very interested in reviving old-school favorites such as the Gorn and "original" Klingons. The Kzinti was being seriously considered as part of this revival. As for my ship design, truth be told, Paramounts people would've probably re-designed it a billion times before it hit the screen. But, still, I would've at least provided the starting point for the concept.
• -Josh http://www.glitchwerk.com

--Capt Christopher Donovan 07:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I recommend removing the section on the supposed Guinan story. Following the citations reveals that it is a spec script written by a writer without any connection to the creators or even an agent. It is highly unlikely that it would have even been read by the creators, much less bought and produced, and therefore should not be considered part of the planned 5th season. An earlier version of the section had already been deleted before (See #Removed) but it was reinstated by the author of the script himself.

Rikochet9 14:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. God bless Mr. Coates- this is not intended as a slam in any way. It's just that his story has no place on Memory Alpha. Tens of thousands of fans wrote, copyrighted, and registered scripts with the WGA throughout Trek's run, and mailed them to Paramount. During TNG and early DS9, these scripts were read if submitted properly. By the time of Enterprise, however, such submissions were ignored and remained unopened, unless submitted by an agent. CBS has since verified that "The Treatment" was never read or considered- it was not opened. I believe that Coates probably did a phenomenal job, but it was never considered as part of season 5 and, had there BEEN a season 5, it would not have been included because it was not submitted through an agent, and therefore it was never read. If every fan who sent in a script to Paramount was permitted to add their spec storyline ideas to Memory Alpha, we'd need many, many more servers! This sort of thing is what Memory Beta's for. 69.231.210.19 10:49, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

TAS is canon. --Soulkeeper (Talk·contribs) 13:16, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

What?? -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:40, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Spin offs?

Just wondering... are there any Enterprise spin offs? I know theres going to be at least one novel, but I'm hoping for a game or movie, similar to the stuff that TNG spun off. --Jacen Solo 05:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only are there no spin-offs of Enterprise, but there are no spin-offs currently planned, and it is highly unlikely that any such spin-off will ever be made due to Enterprise's poor ratings. Paramount Pictures will want to profit from whatever new series they make, so they're not going to create something based on a show they deem as a failure. Sad, but true. --From Andoria with Love 17:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Awe... it's just that I loved this series. Was something new and creative, after watching 7 seasons of TNG, 3/4 movies, etc. --Jacen Solo 12:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. Sadly, there aren't enough people like us with star trek. So the ratings always go down. Alexbeard 14:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was just looking at the Enterprise NCC-1701's page and I was thinking... Is Star Trek Enterprise the only series to star (that is, the main ship) a ship that the max speed is lower then warp 9? --Jacen Solo 14:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is. While the NX-01 acquired a max speed of warp 5.2 ("Affliction", I believe), the NCC-1701 and the ships of the later spin-off series (TNG, DS9, and VOY) each had the ability to travel at least at warp 9... and sometimes faster! Of course, the warp factor scale changed a bit between TOS and TNG; see warp factor scale (22nd and 23rd centuries) and Warp factor scale (24th century) to see what I mean. --From Andoria with Love 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK suggestion

that Star Trek: Enterprise is the only spinoff where none of the actors directed any episodes?

Is this relevant? If so, find a way to add this to some article before suggesting it as a DYK. -- Cid Highwind 23:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a DYK? --Soulkeeper (Talk·contribs) 13:13, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Each of the portal pages has a section titled "Did you know", with relevant trivia facts. —Josiah Rowe (talk) 03:23, May 12, 2020 (UTC)

Opening credits from Star Trek Enterprise

There are several in-universe articles about things which appeared only in the opening credits of Star Trek: Enterprise, like Alan Shepard or B-1B Lancer. Are the opening credits really canon, in sense that they're in-universe. Doesn't that mean we'd also have to create an in-universe article for say, Scott Bakula whose name was visible alongside Shepard's picture (or whenever his name appears)? My personal opinion is that the opening credits (like the end credits) should not be used for in-universe articles, but if anything for real world articles. --User:Kennelly 19:04, January 8, 2007

It's a collage of images depicting exploration up to the time of Enterprise NX-01. If we consider that ship, shown in the credits canon, then why not the rest of the images that lead up to it? With regards to the credits, the same could be said about those that appear following the title, of all guest stars, director and the like. --Alan 03:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following paragraph:

Additionally, the El-Aurian character "Guinan" (portrayed in Star Trek: The Next Generation by Whoopi Goldberg) had been talked about for a visit to the NX-01 by series creators should a story be found worthy of bringing her character to an earlier era in Star Trek history — she had been seen on Earth as early as the late 19th century, in TNG's two-part "Time's Arrow"---and when Executive Producer Manny Coto hinted the series would open up script-writing opportunities to freelance writers for the fifth season, as was done for the previous three Trek series, a flurry of writers began scripting potential stories. A two-hour, controversial and provocative drama entitled "The Treatment," centering around Guinan---with Hoshi Sato as the pivot character---was ready for shopping to the show's creative staff for a fifth season story, using a contemporary moral issue dilemma "turned on its ear" by the writer, and inspired by the optimism of Gene Roddenberry's intention for how adventures of the original series would seek to boldly explore "what's out there." (The episode also featured various tie-ins to both ST:TOS and ST:TNG, as third and fourth season episodes began to accomplish.)

This appears to me to be almost fanon if it was a legitimately written script that they never sent. It could partially go back in if there is a citation to the Guinan info and/or the freelance script opportunities.--Tim Thomason 21:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I also removed the following uncited info, though if the citation can be found, please restore:

• An episode had been discussed where the Enterprise crew encountered a previous alias of Flint.
• Further planned topics included the Enterprise finally visiting Phlox's homeworld, Denobula. A return of Section 31, which had its last appearance in "Terra Prime", was planned as well.

As for this, following the cite links shows that the script was unopened and unread, and no citation of the change in script submission policy was added (see Tim's post above and the last two posts under "Planned episodes for Enterprise's 5th season").

• Guinan (Whoopi Goldberg) might have been seen as well: an 80-page teleplay for a two-hour drama introducing Guinan to the NX-01 crew and centering around Hoshi Sato was submitted for Season Five, entitled "The Treatment" (Writer's Guild-East Registration R18220-00) and written by Rhett Coates. The script was sent on 1 February 2005 and registered by the Writer's Guild on 11 April, two months after the series had already been canceled. The story features Guinan under the assumed name of "Madam Claranna" and serving as acting personal assistant of the head of the United Earth Space Probe Agency. It also would have introduced Skon, father of Sarek and grandfather of Spock (referenced in Star Trek III: The Search for Spock). The story included many tie-ins to TOS and TNG, more background information about Guinan, an explanation as to why Vulcan delayed helping Earth in its warp drive program, the introduction of the newly-established starship-design designation call-letters NCC (referenced in the teleplay as "Naval Construction Contract"), and Hoshi's prime motivation for creating the linguacode translation matrix (as mentioned in "In A Mirror, Darkly, Part II"). A scene early on in the story was written as a special nod to Gene Roddenberry (and to fans): a Capellan woman sings a song called "Remember Me" [TOS theme - but slowly, as a love-theme] in the space station lounge. The author envisioned Chase Masterson to play the role - and named the character "A'tee-el" as a reversal of actress Masterson's DS9 character name, Leeta. Coates wrote two story synopses on two different TrekUnited forums; the first reads as follows:

Enterprise NX-01, docked at an alien space station [or newly-established star-base], is to undergo a systems re-fit with a new technology called LinguiTran, recently created by one of Henry Archer's former students, Madam Pres. Shaka Almashad (of the United Earth Space Probe Agency). While work begins, an error in translating an alien language results in a horrifying medical [condition] regarding crewman Hoshi Sato, forcing the crew and their guests to face a controversial moral issue that tests everyone's faith in their future, and that may also decide the fate of an entire species - and Hoshi's life. Tempers begin to flare as the situation worsens, with a developing threat to the lives of everyone aboard the ship. Finally, an unexpected and shocking twist to their dilemma, with a revelation about the origin of life, could either spell doom for everyone or - depending upon their actions - bring an optimistic and hopeful outcome to what is otherwise a harsh subject topic.[3]

His second synopsis reads as follows:

Guinan and Skon visit Capt. Archer's starship Enterprise, and try to help avert a 22nd century moral issue disaster when a dangerous, unborn fetus -- still in it's mother's womb -- makes it's own choice if it will live or die. HOSHI is the one with the "creature" inside her (the story's pivot character), and the way the story pans out is what instigates her decision to perfect the Linguicode Translation Matrix. (You'll have to see the story to understand exactly why.....) Everyone is thrown into a fit (the entire NX-01 crew goes nuts), and Reed nearly has a nervous breakdown for thinking he caused the incident. T'Pol and Phlox go up against the Captain in the "moral issue" part, and even Section 31 comes into play. This one is a story I think the fans will truly enjoy, particularly when references are made to future 'Treks (TOS and TNG) that should be obvious to us, but not to anyone in the story except Guinan.....[4]

- Archduk3:talk 00:17, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Original 'Enterprise' Premise

Brannon Braga has recently stated here (see post #124) that Rick Berman's original idea for the first season of the show was to have it set entirely on Earth as Humanity were building the very first warp ship. Is this noteworthy? If so, where would it go? In the main article or the page for Season 1? - Mada101 01:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That would go in the section on background information, my friend. :) --From Andoria with Love 08:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) I put it in the main article's background section. - Mada101 21:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Opening credits article

Enterprise Title Sequence

I've been looking around and there are several references to the ships that feature in the Star Trek: Enterprise Opening Title Sequence, but not a real world article that draws them together. I think this would be a great idea. Both the usual titles and mirror ones feature s many ships and events that the articles would only really be worth reading if there were photos of each of them, is that potentially too many photos for one article?

There would be less material for articles about the other series titles, but there is some potential: what changed and when? Which planet is the Enterprise/Voyager flying past? Was footage reused from specific episodes? What ships are docked at DS9?

I'd write them myself but I have never started an article from scratch, plus one so dependant on visual media I'm not sure exists. Does anyone else think these are good ideas for an article? Igotbit 15:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening credits

Is there a list anywhere on the wiki noting the various images, persons, and vehicles seen in the opening sequence? I know they have individual entries (i.e. Alan Shepard, Spirit of St. Louis), but a list noting each of them, I think, would be useful. --T smitts 05:02, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, perhaps an article called "Star Trek: Enterprise opening titles images" or something like that. It could also include descriptions of the IAMD titles sequence(or that could be a separate article)--31dot 11:40, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

I Know one of them was the Phoenix – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.197.174.48

Redux

I recently had the idea to this myself so just wanted to double check to see if the issue had been raised before and I can see that it has and seemed popular. As far as I can tell nobody has actually gone ahead and done it so unless anybody has any objections, I intend to go ahead and create an article on the opening sequence? --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 17:04, January 27, 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created the article at Star Trek: Enterprise opening title sequences. I'll be adding to it over the coming days. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 00:12, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Background edit

I took out/replaced the following. It was just too "opinion-y" even for background, I think:

too many fans had been alienated by Enterprise's earlier outings and rumors of its cancellation persisted into season four when it was ultimately announced that the voyage of the NX-01 would be a far shorter one than previously expected.

While some fans explain alleged inconsistencies between this and the other Star Trek series with the theory that Enterprise was set in a slightly altered timeline created by the events of Star Trek: First Contact, many point to its perceived loose handling of established continuity as the reason so many die-hard Trek fans abandoned the show. Some pointed to details like costumes and even the design and name of the ship, calling them inconsistent and inspiring fan outcry. While the series did ultimately skew back toward more recognizable Star Trek staples, many facets of Enterprise are popularly considered out of sync with canon.

Despite criticism, Enterprise nevertheless held onto a loyal (if smaller) fanbase, one vocal enough to prompt public protests following UPN's announcement of its cancellation in February 2005.

The final episode: "These Are The Voyages...", touted by producers as a love letter to Star Trek, was generally panned by fans and critics alike.

Capt Christopher Donovan 05:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate to create a "Reception" section for commentary like this?--Cougurrd 03:22, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Only if such criticisms can be traced to reputable sources. MA does not accept commentary attributed to "Many fans" or "some fans".–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:29, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

2161

"No part of the show was set in 2161. The events of the holodeck simulation took place in '61, but that was just a simulation." And so 2161 was removed as a year during which the series is supposed to have taken place. OK, but, the holographic simulation was a simulation of historical events, it's not some fictional holonovel. So, can't it be included? --TribbleFurSuit 20:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If the holographic simulation was the only thing in the series set during, then no, it couldn't be added. However, I just remembered that Archer was transported to the founding of the Federation in 2161, so a part of the show did take place in '61. I also noted that some parts (i.e. in "Shockwave", "Shockwave, Part II") took place in the far future. --From Andoria with Love 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't match how we have handled it in other series pages, Shran. Look at Star Trek: Voyager, no mention of the 2350s (Dark Frontier), 2404 (Endgame), 1996 (Future's End), because the series itself did not take place in those time periods. You'll find the same for the other series, TOS page doesn't say the series took place in 1968, for example. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Fine by me. :) For the record, though, the entirety of "These Are The Voyages..." takes place in 2370 and did not involve time travel. --From Andoria with Love 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Involving time travel isn't really the point. It was a single episode oddity (with none of the ENT characters, to boot), the series itself didn't take place there, just one odd episode. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 02:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. a whole episode was set in 2370.. so it does count.. Segway

Technically speaking, the last few seconds were set in the 2260s (when we see the USS Enterprise) and then the 2150s (when we see the NX-01 flying into a nebula). So it wasn't the whole episode... but I got what you meant. :-D --From Andoria with Love 01:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

2370

I'm for removing this date, for the same reason Cobra said above. It seems wrong that 2370 is listed here but 3074 isn't on the VOY page, as the same reasoning would apply either way. - Archduk3 21:33, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

A more encompassing, "you-are-there" style of storytelling?

I've been reading this article on and off for a while but the line 'tending towards a more encompassing, "you-are-there" style of storytelling' seems a bit vague to me. The way it is put in the sentence is to separate it from the point creating every costume or piece of furniture. Without further explanation it feels a bit like TV speak to me and really means very little. Do we have any more information about from where that quote was taken? Bcoleridge 13:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Timespan

I am curious, why is the timespan mentioning the final episode? Technically, it wasn't the crew as we know them in the episode, so posting the series as taking place then seems a bit off, doesn't it? Especially considering that date (or dates, rather) are for a single episode. --Terran Officer 07:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

An episode of Enterprise depicted events that took place in 2370. That's all there is to it. --TribbleFurSuit 09:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Undeveloped Star Trek episodes?

Should the section "The would-be Season 5" be moved to Undeveloped Star Trek episodes for consistency? -- Connor Cabal 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd Cast Photo in Sidebar

I fail to see the need for two cast photos in the side bar when the cast never changed. The only change that was made was T'Pol's outfit. This does not warrant lengthening the sidebar with another cast photo for Season 3 up. To me, more than one cast photo is necessary only to show any changes in the cast. – Crimsondawn ^{hears you...} 23:08, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

The custom has been to have one picture from the first season and one from the last season. We do this with major characters, as well.--31dot 23:44, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Understood. – Crimsondawn ^{hears you...} 23:45, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

USS Emmett

http://Fantastic-Plastic.com/USSEmmettCatalogPage.htm ~ anonymous (as always), 11:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Speculation

Removed the following regarding the unexplored T'Pol-is-half-Romulan plot, as uncited speculation:

This is possibly taken from a similar plot with the character of Saavik, as to have her be a half-romulan for the movie Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. This plan was also scrapped and the character of Valeris took her place.--31dot 11:26, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Fan mods

• However, Enterprise mods have been used in other Trek games. Fans have made mods designed to include both the Enterprise NX-01 and the mirror universe NX-01 in Star Trek: Armada II, as well as other games.

Elite Force
One of the mods made for the popular Star Trek: Voyager: Elite Force game is the "NX-01 Mod". The mod is set during an episode of Enterprise, and uses voice clips from the show for its cut scenes. In the mod, the player assumes the role of Malcolm Reed, and must stop a force of Klingons from sabotaging Enterprise's warp core. Unfortunately, this mod has since been abandoned and remains unfinished.

Temporal Cold War
Another mod that is no longer active is the Halflife 2 engine mod, Star Trek: Enterprise - Temporal Cold War. However, this mod features none of the original actors.

Removed the above, as we don't cover fan mods. 31dot 18:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw this earlier and wanted to remove it. But I'm not an admin, any more.... --Defiant 22:54, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to be an admin to remove something from an article. 31dot 23:09, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I know, but it sure makes it a heck of a lot easier to edit boldly! --Defiant 23:22, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

We do cover the existence of fan mods, we just don't cover what the mods are in any detail. The existence of notable and popular mods is mentioned on a few pages. - Archduk3 02:51, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't though. We don't cover fan films or fan fiction; fan mods are no different.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:03, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I could accept mentioning a fan mod that was mentioned in something citeable, like the official Trek website or magazine, but these mentions weren't that. 31dot 03:17, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cleanse's latest post here. --Defiant 09:14, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Possible finale theories?

As many shows have those finales that completely catch viewers off guard, I have a theory about Enterprise that hopefully I'm not the only one who shares.

If the finale is REALLY a hologram as projected from the TNG era and we know holograms are not 100% historically accurate, should that mean that the entire series IS in fact a holographic program that was accessed in the 24th century? How would the hologram designers know exactly how the characters would act and be that precise? --William5000forever (talk) 08:19, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting, but article talk pages are not for discussing our personal theories on how we think a series should have ended, they are for discussing article changes only. 31dot (talk) 10:33, December 11, 2012 (UTC)

Only Star Trek Series Unaffected by events of 2009 film.

How do we fully know this is the case? For instance. The Borgs who crash land on Mars that are seen in the Enterprise episode Regeneration. How do we know that in the alternative reality they ever attempted to go back in time and assimilate Earth in the first place? Without the alternative timeline fleshed out to the Next Generation/ DS9 era it seems premature to say definitively that Enterprise was unaffected . You know time and it being wibbly wabbly, timey, wimey. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historydude2012 (talk • contribs)

The assumption with most of Trek's time travel is that time is a tree-like structure. That means that any point in time can have multiple futures, of which one is realized through the actions at that point in time. Just because those Borg are no longer in any future branch of the JJ-present, it doesn't mean they couldn't have been in a possible future branch earlier. Sounds crazy, but doodle that up on a sheet of paper and you'll see that it really is still a valid tree-structure. -- 91.48.235.147 18:13, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that section should be removed, since it has not been cited and appears to be an assumption or made-up. Given that Kirk was about to be born on a ship and not Earth, it's apparent the past (before Nero's incursion) has been altered. Until the creators decide otherwise, we cannot assume either way that Enterprise was/was not affected. 184.166.6.102 04:28, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

It's not an assumption; it's information based on what the writers have said about the alt timeline, and I think they have even specifically said everything before the split is the same in each universe. It would just need to be cited. 31dot (talk) 08:35, July 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hold the phone, didn't the creators of the 2009 film say that the events took place in an alternate quantum reality? If so, NO Star Trek events are affected by the 2009 film. See the page Quantum reality and this page: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-orci-explains-how-the-new-star-trek-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/ Rebmaboss2 (talk) 07:54, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

It is a quantum reality created because of the changes in the timeline made by Nero and his crew. It separates from the prime universe at the point of their arrival in the alternate reality. Before their arrival everything occurred the same as it did in the primary universe. --BorgKnight (talk) 09:32, May 6, 2014 (UTC)

Technically NONE of the series are effected by the 2009 movie. Other than Romulus being destroyed, all the events are the 11th-13th movies take place in an alternate reality and have no impact on the real timeline. So in the real timeline, everything that happened in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY stay the same and the only things that will change is that anything set after VOY will deal with Romulus being gone. So the line in the article should be removed because the 2009 film had no impact on the events of any Trek show. Other than Romulus being destroyed, it's essentially non-canon (like TAS) because none of the events of Into Darkney or Beyond count in the real timeline. TJ Spyke (talk) 04:52, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

What the line refers to is the fact that the events of TOS/TNG/etc won't be the same in the alternate reality, which we already saw with STID. 31dot (talk) 09:59, September 15, 2016 (UTC)

Title sequence of in a mirror darkly

Why isn't this title sequence just a reversed version of the normal? --Soulkeeper (Talk·contribs) 13:25, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

What? -- Renegade54 (talk) 14:32, May 11, 2020 (UTC)

Polarizing

Perhaps the most controversial and polarizing of all the Star Trek spin-offs

I noticed someone changed this line recently, but I think every new series/film has been controversial and polarizing since Enterprise. Does this line still make sense? Pedronog (talk) 07:10, May 13, 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed the line.

I have also added a PNA-cite to that section, as there are many claims being made there without any citation--Cleanse ^(talk) 08:07, May 13, 2020 (UTC)