Is "Enterprise" Canon (Off Topic Maybe)

[TrekWarsie]

Do you guys consider the new Star Trek show Enterprise to be canon?

[Publius]

Enterprise is canonical insofar as Paramount is concerned, as the series falls into the official site's "rule of thumb," which states that "the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts."

Similarly, Mr Ronald D. Moore, an executive co-producer on Deep Space Nine, has been quoted as saying, "We consider only the filmed episodes (and movies) to be canon for our purposes."

As such, Enterprise is indeed canonical, regardless of how well it fits the established continuity of the other canonical series (as it happens, "canonical series" is not redundant, as there is, in fact, a non-canonical series).

If, however, one takes into consideration the explicit writings of the late Mr Gene Roddenberry, one makes an interesting discovery: Whilst canonical, the original series is not accurate, but rather a badly exaggerated depiction of the actual events (according to Admiral Kirk), and the only record known to be a completely accurate depiction of one the USS Enterprise's activities is the novelisation of The Motion Picture.

Publius

[BenRG]

Well now that is an interesting concept. So, if I understand your last paragraph properly, the Star Trek canon (at least as far as TOS goes) isn't actually what happened in their universe. It is merely the story that Kirk later told someone after too many Rigellian Brandies.

I'm sorry, but that is just the strangest concept that I've ever heard. Doesn't the Starfleet have fact checkers? Couldn't they simply check the log tapes to confirm or debunk his stories?

[Lord Poe]

If, however, one takes into consideration the explicit writings of the late Mr Gene Roddenberry, one makes an interesting discovery: Whilst canonical, the original series is not accurate, but rather a badly exaggerated depiction of the actual events (according to Admiral Kirk), and the only record known to be a completely accurate depiction of one the USS Enterprise's activities is the novelisation of The Motion Picture.

Roddenberry didn't write the novelization. Alan Dean Foster did. Someone put this in a FAQ or sticky, please.

[Publius]

According to the novelisation of The Motion Picture, the original Star Trek series is an inaccurate and misleading depiction of the actual events -- not because of Admiral Kirk, but because of Mr Roddenberry himself.

Admiral Kirk's Preface includes the following passage:

I have always found it amusing that my Academy class was the first group selected by Starfleet on the basis of somewhat more limited intellectual agility.* It is made doubly amusing, of course, by the fact that our five-year mission was so well documented, due to an ill-conceived notion by Starfleet that the return of the U.S.S. Enterprise merited public notice. Unfortunately, Starfleet's enthusiasm affected even those who chronicled our adventures, and we were all painted somewhat larger than life, especially myself.

Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of "modern Ulysses" and it has been painful to see my command decisions of those years so widely applauded, whereas the plain facts are that ninety-four of our crew met violent deaths during those years -- and many of them would still be alive if I had acted either more quickly or more wisely. Nor have I been as foolishly courageous as depicted. I have never happily invited injury; I have disliked in the extreme every duty circumstance which has required me to risk my life. But there appears to be something in the nature of depictors of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration. As a result, I became determined that if I ever again found myself involved in an affair attracting public attention, I would insist that some way be found to tell the story more accurately.

As some of you will know, I did become involved in such an affair -- in fact, an event which threatened the very existence of Earth. Unfortunately, this has again brought me to the attention of those who record such happenings. Accordingly, although there may be many other ways in which this story is told or depicted, I have insisted that it also be set down in a written manuscript which would be subject to my correction and my final approval. This is that manuscript, presented to you here as an old-style printed book. WHile I cannot control other depictions of these events that you may see, hear, and feel, I can promise that every description, idea, and word on these pages is the exact and true story of Vejur and Earth as it was seen, heard, and felt by...

James T Kirk

______
* Editor's note: We doubt that "limited intellectual agility" will stand up in the face of the fact that Kirk commanded the U.S.S. Enterprise on its historic five-year voyage and became the first starship captain in history to bring back both his vessel and his crew relatively intact after such a mission.

Then, in the Author's Preface, Mr Roddenberry writes:

Considering Admiral James Kirk's comments in his own preface, it may seem strange that he chose me as the one to write this book. I was, after all, somewhat a key figure among those who chronicled his original five-year mission in a way which the admiral has criticized as inaccurately "larger than life."

I suspect that the thing which finally recommended me to the admiral was the fact that I have always cherished books as much as he does. Or perhaps he thought I would be more trustworthy when working with words rather than with images. Either way, it is clear he knew he could guarantee the accuracy of this by insisting that the manuscript be read, and, where necessary, corrected by everyone involved in the events being described. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Admiral Nogura, Commander Scott, the Enterprise bridge crew, and almost everyone else listed on these pages have been given the opportunity to review every word describing the events in which they took part. These final printed pages reflect their comments as well as Admiral Kirk's determination that this be the whole and full truth of what actually happened in the events described here.

Finally, on a more personal note, why am I concerning myself with the Enterprise and its crew once again? Having depicted them already with at least some popular success, could I have not given this same effort to new and freshly challenging subjects? Of course. Any civilized individual, whether author or not (one is hardly a prerequisite to the other), has no end of events and subjects clamoring for and doubtlessly deserving attention.

The novelisation contains many interesting details not seen elsewhere in the Star Trek canon (assuming, of course, that one accepts the novelisation as being canonical -- which is not necessarily a given), but these particular excerpts are among the more important ones, as they indicate quite clearly that the original series is an unreliable source (the degree of unreliability is unknown).

Essentially, then, we, the audience, are presented with the curious state of affairs in which Mr Roddenberry -- who would naturally be presumed to be the most competent authority at describing Star Trek "fact" -- is self-admittedly unreliable and prone to exaggeration in his audio-visual depictions!

Is this, then, why Enterprise does not appear to fit well with the original series? Is Enterprise, in fact, an accurate representation, and is it Mr Roddenberry who played fast and loose with the facts? Did the Enterprise really have the garish colour scheme in its internal décor seen in the original series, or was that merely "artistic licence"?

The novelisation is a rather interesting work. A rather interesting work, indeed.

Publius

[Darth Wong]

The novelization wasn't even written by Roddenberry!! Lord Poe already pointed this out; didn't anyone notice?

[Publius]

Where has that been stated, Mr Poe? The cover of the novelisation itself states "A Novel by Star Trek's Creator Gene Roddenberry, Based on the Screenplay by Harold Livingston and the Story by Alan Dean Foster."

The rear cover of the novelisation says, "The Great Bird of the Galaxy Writes a Star Trek Novel! The writer-producer who created Mr. Spock and all the other Star Trek characters -- who invented the Starship Enterprise, who gave the show its look, its ideals -- puts it all together again here in his first Star Trek novel!"

[Joe Momma]

Alan Dean Foster did ghost-write the Star Wars ANH novelization (though it's still Lucas's name alone on the cover), as noted on his own website:

http://www.alandeanfoster.com/version2. ... sframe.htm

and in interviews:

http://www.jointhesaga.com/otherviews/foster.htm

Foster also novelized the Star Trek cartoons as Star Trek logs 1 - 10 (and IIRC those books were pretty good) and wrote the original story behind ST:TMP.

I couldn't find anything where Foster stated that he wrote the TMP novelization, thought he's quite open about the ANH ghost-write. I found a couple of sites where it was stated that Foster had written the TMP novelization, but none of them included quotes from him or any other sources.

Still, this lack of evidence doesn't mean lot one way or the other. Foster may be under contractual obligations not to discuss novelizing the ST movie, for example. Roddenberry was an anus about trying to slap his name (and often his name alone) all over things he was attached to regardless of how much work he actually did on them, as has been noted on a great many occasions including the script work for ST1. Also, I'm only going off of a few different web searches, which leaves plenty of holes.

Still, seeing a source cited would be good.

From what I recall of the TMP novelization, the book didn't read at all like Foster's works. That's not saying much though. My memory may be faulty, it's only a subjective impression anyway, and Foster may have adapted a different style for the ghost-write if he in fact did so. Still, some of the book analogies (such as Roddenberry comparing Kirk's and Decker's first interaction on the Enterprise to an old bull versus a young stud) reeked of Roddenberry IMO.

-- Joe Momma

[HemlockGrey]

As such, Enterprise is indeed canonical, regardless of how well it fits the established continuity of the other canonical series (as it happens, "canonical series" is not redundant, as there is, in fact, a non-canonical series).

Which one is this?

[Darth Garden Gnome]

As such, Enterprise is indeed canonical, regardless of how well it fits the established continuity of the other canonical series (as it happens, "canonical series" is not redundant, as there is, in fact, a non-canonical series).

Which one is this?

The one that sucks, the one thats playing on UPN right now, the on ewiht a blatant disregard for continuity, character development, awe wonder or spectacle! ITS GARBAGE!

More to the point though, it would appear canon, most unfortunate.

[Joe Momma]

As such, Enterprise is indeed canonical, regardless of how well it fits the established continuity of the other canonical series (as it happens, "canonical series" is not redundant, as there is, in fact, a non-canonical series).

Which one is this?

I'm guessing it refers to the animated series. A couple of elements of that series may be canon now. I can't remember. Christ, I can't even make heads or tails of whether the words canon or continuity even have any fucking relationship to ST at this point.

-- Joe Momma

[Publius]

As such, Enterprise is indeed canonical, regardless of how well it fits the established continuity of the other canonical series (as it happens, "canonical series" is not redundant, as there is, in fact, a non-canonical series).

Which one is this?

I'm guessing it refers to the animated series. A couple of elements of that series may be canon now. I can't remember. Christ, I can't even make heads or tails of whether the words canon or continuity even have any fucking relationship to ST at this point.

-- Joe Momma

Quite so. The Animated Adventures is non-canonical, although details from the episode "Yesteryear" have been subsequently made canonical. This does not, however, make "Yesteryear" canonical, any more than the Starfleet Technical Manual is canonical because some details from it have appeared on screen (the same has happened to the novels Mosaic and Pathways).

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Oh sorry! I thought you were refering directly to Enterprise.

[consequences]

Oh my gosh, his crew suffered less than 25% casualties. For exploring the unknown, that's pretty damned good.

[Sea Skimmer]

Enterprise is canon. However TOS is the only series, which doesn't have massive contradictions in its self.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

)

Enterprise is canon. However TOS is the only series, which doesn't have massive contradictions in its self.

Well it's harder to have inconsitencies when you are the first series of your kind. Advancing time forward and trying to keep continuity is where it gets hard. Besides a massive increase in technobabble (Data ) the show remained fairly true to its roots.

[Vertigo1]

Ok, let me ask ya'll this. How can Enterprise be considered canon as far as Trek is concerned when they've stated several times that Enterprise, while exhibits similarities to Trek, that it is "seperate"? Notice how the show doesn't bear Star Trek in its name, just Enterprise.

[Darth Wong]

Here's the question: is Gene Roddenberry the creator of star Trek? If so, then any Star Trek without his stamp of approval is not canonical.

Suppose Time-Warner bought the rights to LOTR and made LOTR 2: the Revenge of Sauron. Would anyone on Earth consider it canon? Of course not. Why should Enterprise be any different?

[Vympel]

I don't think Enterprise or Voyager is canon. Since I hear that Rodenberry knew about DS9, I'll let it pass.

[Publius]

Here's the question: is Gene Roddenberry the creator of star Trek? If so, then any Star Trek without his stamp of approval is not canonical.

Suppose Time-Warner bought the rights to LOTR and made LOTR 2: the Revenge of Sauron. Would anyone on Earth consider it canon? Of course not. Why should Enterprise be any different?

An excellent point.

However, that has the effect of creating two canons: The Gene Roddenberry canon, and the Paramount Pictures canon, the former being more "authentic." The latter is fairly well defined; the films and television series (except The Animated Adventures) are canonical.

But, what is included in the Gene Roddenberry canon? The (exaggerated) original series, obviously, and The Motion Picture (and its novelisation), but what of the other films? Is it not said that Roddenberry expurgated The Final Frontier from the canon? No films after The Undiscovered Country are canonical, then.

Regarding the other televised series, part of The Next Generation is canonical, but what parts are not? And Deep Space Nine? What parts are canonical, and what parts are not?

It is fairly certain, then, that Voyager and Enterprise are non-canonical, as are the novels and books and such (although Mr Franz Joseph's Starfleet Technical Manual was originally considered somewhat quasi-canonical, Mr Roddenberry subsequently excluded it). Does anyone know of Mr Roddenberry's opinion of The Animated Adventures?

From this perspective, will you continue using the Paramount Pictures canon on your site, Mr Wong?

[Vertigo1]

Here's the question: is Gene Roddenberry the creator of star Trek? If so, then any Star Trek without his stamp of approval is not canonical.

That's a good point, however didn't Roddenberry hand over the reigns to Berman leaving everything concerning Trek in his hands? If so, wouldn't that make atleast Voyager canon? (Not trying to dis-prove your point there Mike, just asking an honest question.)

[RedImperator]

Wouldn't it be possible to treat Rodenberry's Trek as "canon" and non-Roddenberry Trek as "official", sort of like how we deal with the SW EU? Blatent contradictions that couldn't be rationalized in later series can simply be disregarded, without throwing out the entire series. Just a thought.

[Darth Wong]

As pointed out earlier, "canon" does not necessarily have to unified. Voyager is canon for Voyager. Enterprise is canon for Enterprise. But to claim that Voyager and Enterprise are the SAME canon as TOS/TNG is wrong.

In debates, it's tricky because if someone asks "would Voyager beat Slave-1", you obviously must use Voyager canon, so I couldn't discard Voyager from my site because some people might be specifically comparing Voyager (whose creator is B&B) to SW rather than TOS to SW.

But if somebody tries mixing and matching tech and precedents from TOS, Voyager, Enterprise, TNG, and DS9 in debates as if they're all a single unified canon, you have to point out that this is really not the case. Roddenberry created Star Trek, his creation is done. Finished. Even if he gave the production rights for subsequent material to somebody else, they can't mutilate his work or alter it after the fact, which means their additions cannot modify his intent (this is known as the "moral rights" argument, and moral rights in copyright reside with the creator in perpetuity with no possibility of transfer). In other words, his canon cannot be altered by THEIR tack-on canon.

[RedImperator]

As pointed out earlier, "canon" does not necessarily have to unified. Voyager is canon for Voyager. Enterprise is canon for Enterprise. But to claim that Voyager and Enterprise are the SAME canon as TOS/TNG is wrong.

In debates, it's tricky because if someone asks "would Voyager beat Slave-1", you obviously must use Voyager canon, so I couldn't discard Voyager from my site because some people might be specifically comparing Voyager (whose creator is B&B) to SW rather than TOS to SW.

But if somebody tries mixing and matching tech and precedents from TOS, Voyager, Enterprise, TNG, and DS9 in debates as if they're all a single unified canon, you have to point out that this is really not the case. Roddenberry created Star Trek, his creation is done. Finished. Even if he gave the production rights for subsequent material to somebody else, they can't mutilate his work or alter it after the fact, which means their additions cannot modify his intent (this is known as the "moral rights" argument, and moral rights in copyright reside with the creator in perpetuity with no possibility of transfer). In other words, his canon cannot be altered by THEIR tack-on canon.

All of which is perfectly reasonable and understandable, but unfortunately it will also turn any Trek vs. Wars debate into a quagmire of "this is canon!" "no it isn't!" preliminaries. Ultimately, it doesn't matter all that much because there's nothing B&B can do in Enterprise that would dramatically alter the result of an Imperial-Federation war, but some sort of policy for dealing with all of Trek as a quasi-unified whole would be useful for swatting cannonicity nitpickers before they can derail a debate.

I think concept of moral rights over an artistic creation strengthens my argument that post-Roddenberry Trek should be treated the same way the Star Wars EU is treated. It would be as if George Lucas died tomorrow and Ep. 3 was finished by someone else involved in SW, and when it came out, an ISD was demonstrated to have 200 megaton heavy turbolasers. Movies are canon, according to Lucasfilm, but Lucas's moral rights over Star Wars make Lucas canon outweigh any non-Lucas canon.

I should point out that this policy could still end up with nearly all of Enterprise invalidated anyway, if some crucial detail of the "temporal cold war" ends up violating Roddenberry canon. We might end up with nothing more detailed than "100 years before the time of Kirk, a pre-Federation Earth Starfleet built a prototype starship called Enterprise, commanded by Jonathan Archer, which had many adventures and accomplished many things". Not that that would be a bad thing.

[Sam Or I]

Hehehehe............... No wonder why Kirk always got the girl, if he was the one telling the story.