Is Enterprise Canon?

[Hopeful Romantic]

From Marco Palmieri in Voyages of Imagination:

In the context of Star Trek, canon refers to the body of information the show and film writers adhere to when crafting new stories. That's all it means. Unfortunately, the word is frequently misunderstood and misapplied as a value judgment: 'Such-and-such a story is canon to me.' Or, 'Such-and-such a story isn't part of my personal canon.' This is the wrong way to use the word. It's not subjective.

It's also frequently and incorrectly used in place of the word 'continuity' or 'consistency.' These terms are not interchangeable.

From Paula Block, Director of Licensed Publishing for CBS Consumer Products and the studio's primary editorial contact in matters relating to Star Trek fiction, from the same book:

Canon is what is seen on TV and movie screens. End of story....

Which is not to say that there haven't been times when canon has contradicted itslef; those darn producers and scriptwriters don't always keep track of/remember/care about what's come before. So things can get confusing....

Gene [Roddenberry] had a habit of 'de-canonizing' (if there is such a thing) things when he wasn't happy with them. He didn't like the way that much of the animated series turned out, so he proclaimed that it was NOT CANON. He also didn't like a lot of the movies. So he didn't consider all of them canon either... Gene's view of canon was, I think, pretty fluid. He thought of TNG as canon wherever there was confict between [TNG and TOS]. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.... That's kind of like God telling you the stuff in that old bible...well, he [was] just not that into it anymore.

You can see why canon is such a difficult concept.... But I always fall back on the first and original rule-- what you see on the big and small screens is canon. When you stray too far away from that basic rule, you venture into the land of arbitrary decisions and personal biases -- and life just isn't long enough to spend a lot of time dwelling on non-issues like that.

I think the Great Bird gets a pass. But for the rest of us, I think Paula's definition works.

And, of course, alternate universes are helpful too.

 

[Noname Given]

I mean sure, there are some bits of Enterprise that contradict other stuff (the whole laser pistol thing, as established by The Cage)

I don't see a problem with that. So they use a variety of hand held weapons - no big deal. Nowhere in "The Cage" was it said that 'hand lasers' were the most powerful weapons, or the only ones, they had...

Besides The Cage contradicts later TOS bits as well.

Pike: "...Our time warp, factor 7"

Also, on the planet:

Ensign: "The Time barrier's been broken..."

Really, if that WERE so in later Sytar trek as well, why were Kirk, Spock, et al; so austounded whenever they encountered either a time warp, or time travel in general? If time manipulation were possible by a ship's engines, the ending incident in TOS - The Naked Time should have been no big deal; yet it was.

And BTW, I am a major TOS fan (it's #1 in my book; but ENT for me is definitely #2, and I've been watching Star Trek since 1969).

In all honesty, ENT overall did NOT stomp all over TOS continuity at all; and was in fact one of the more resopectful Star Trek series with regard to overall continuity. The majority of Star Trek fans claiming otherwise often just seemed to 'jump' on the bashing bandwagon (imo).

Common 'fannon' misconceptions of TOS that STILL get claimed here and there today:

1) Spock was the first Vulcan in Starfleet.
(Never stated in TOS EVER - and in fact in the TOS episode The Immunity Syndrome the starshipp U.S.S. Intrepid is crewed entirely by Vulcans)

I say this because during ENT's run many folks claimed the T'Pol joining Starfleet in the 3rd and 4th seasons was a 'continuity error' - nope.

2) Vulcans are incapable of lying.

This comes from dialogue in TOS - The Enterprise Incident where the Romulan ship commander asks whether or not it's a myth that Vulcans are incapable of lying, and Spock replies, "It is no myth."

Except: In previous TOS episodes, The Menagerie and Errand of Mercy; Spock was lying with te best of them - plus in the episode I'm discussing - Spock's response the the Commander was a lie itself.

Some fans then argued - "Well, Spock is half-human. Full blooded Vulcans don't lie."

Really, I suggest you watch Journey to Babel; where we find our Spock's father Sarek can lie too (both to his wife regarding his heath condition; AND to Kirk, where he says "I was in private meditation" - when in actuality, he suffered a heart attack, but did not wjant that fact known.

Then there's the full Vulcans T'Pring and Stonn who were in effect lying to Spock and the weeding party in Amok Time

And again, I bring te above up because many fans felt the portrayal of Vulcans in ENT in general was a major continuity violation; when (imo) in fact it was more TNG and VOY that got the Vulcans wrong during their runs. If anything ENT showed us Vulcans more directly in line with TOS Vulcans.

So, is ENT canon - yep.
Does ENT fit in with TOS (and the rest) continuity wise - yep.

I honestly have never understood why this question keeps re-appearing.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Not everything in canon agrees with everything else. Without using retconning (which I think is cheating) it get complicated. Multiple universes, with none of them being the "prime" universe is one way of looking at it.

The mirror universe is obviously separate.
The whole Archer/Nazi universe is separate.
Edith Keeler delaying the US entry into the second world war.
Spock's pet selat living a longer life.
All but a few minutes of Star Trek Eleven.
Others too.

Some items can be easily explained, Chekov met Khan off screen, in The Cage the weapons were never call lasers (I think), Odo was present in the bar during the original The Trouble with Tribbles we just didn't see him. The technology in TOS might seem primitive, but during In A Mirror, Darkly it was shown to be much superior to the technology in Enterprise.

From the beginning of Broken Bow through to the last scene in Nemesis it may not be a perfectly straight line, but it can be viewed as a unbroken one.

Exactly. Just because it doesn't fit perfectly into the continuity doesn't mean it's not canon.

In fact most continuity errors can be explained away like you've done above.

One big continuity problem I often see brought up is that the Borg shouldn't have been in the series. However, one explanation which I find entirely plausible is this, and I quote from Memory Alpha....

The episode introduces a potential predestination paradox into the overall Borg story arc. At the end of the episode, it is revealed that the assimilated Earth freighter dispatched a subspace message to the Delta Quadrant. T'Pol theorized it would take at least two hundred years for the message to reach the Delta Quadrant, implying that this may be how the Borg Collective originally learned of Humanity's existence (it is worth noting there is no evidence the signal was actually received). If the message was received, it may explain why, in the 24th century,the Borg specifically wanted Captain Picard to speak for them and why they sent at least one vessel to the vicinity of Federation space, destroying several Romulan and Federation outposts in 2364. (TNGhttp://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation: The Neutral Zonehttp://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Neutral_Zone_(episode)) A series of incidents with the Federation followed over the next several years, culminating in the Battle of Sector 001, wherein a Borg sphere traveled to the 21st century in an effort to assimilate Humanity in the past. (Star Trek: First Contacthttp://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Star_Trek:_First_Contact) The sphere was destroyed, and several drones from the vessel were frozen in an Arctic glacier in 2063, which were uncovered by the Arctic scientists 90 years later in "Regeneration," starting the causality loop all over again.

So, as far I'm also concerned, the timeline is bent in a lot of places, but it is one unbroken line.

 

[Mach5]

Thanks for the quotes, HopefulRomantic! I've already read the first one (by Palmieri) somewhere (Trek Lit forum probably) and have been paraphrasing it countless times when discussing canon with those canon-obsessed fans who worship canon like its the Holy Bible or something.

They used to tick me off by saying stuff like "why are you even bothering with these books, they're not canon, therefore they're not Star Trek at all"... It's kinda sad, really... In print, on screen, whats the difference? None of it is real anyway, for crying out loud...

I guess some people are so dependent of their refuge (this imaginary Star Trek universe), that every violation of this so called canon hurts them because it ruptures their bubble of illusion in which they are hiding from the real life...

To quote Leonard Nimoy:
"Canon is only important to certain people because they have to cling to their knowledge of the minutiae. Open your mind! Be a Star Trek fan and open your mind and say, 'Where does Star Trek want to take me now'."

 

[SFRabid]

... Vulcans are incapable of lying.

This comes from dialogue in TOS - The Enterprise Incident where the Romulan ship commander asks whether or not it's a myth that Vulcans are incapable of lying, and Spock replies, "It is no myth."

...

Don't they realize that Spock was lying when he said that?

 

[Nerys Myk]

... Vulcans are incapable of lying.

This comes from dialogue in TOS - The Enterprise Incident where the Romulan ship commander asks whether or not it's a myth that Vulcans are incapable of lying, and Spock replies, "It is no myth."

...

Don't they realize that Spock was lying when he said that?

Heck, the whole episode is buildt around an elaborate set of of lies constructed by Kirk and Spock! Context is everything.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

Thanks for the quotes, HopefulRomantic! I've already read the first one (by Palmieri) somewhere (Trek Lit forum probably) and have been paraphrasing it countless times when discussing canon with those canon-obsessed fans who worship canon like its the Holy Bible or something.

They used to tick me off by saying stuff like "why are you even bothering with these books, they're not canon, therefore they're not Star Trek at all"... It's kinda sad, really... In print, on screen, whats the difference? None of it is real anyway, for crying out loud...

I guess some people are so dependent of their refuge (this imaginary Star Trek universe), that every violation of this so called canon hurts them because it ruptures their bubble of illusion in which they are hiding from the real life...

Actually, I didn't post the quotes from Palmieri and Block as a free invitation for derisive comments toward those fans to whom Star Trek and the details of canon are important. You might consider taking a page from Mr. Nimoy's book -- he suggests that "certain" fans might widen their horizons, without disrespecting the fans themselves.

There's nothing wrong with being a canon advocate, any more than there is something wrong with dismissing canon. They are simply different perspectives. Things only get dicey when one faction presumes that their subjective, personal perspective is "right", and another faction is "wrong"... you know, "obsessed" or "sad" or "hiding from real life." Open your mind! as Mr. Nimoy said.

Canon can be stifling to a writer, or a creative challenge, or both. (Having written a canon-consistent story, I can attest to this personally. ) Over 40 years of Trek, there have surely been countless instances when a Trek writer had to choose between adhering to established canon, and telling an effective, creative story that was not perfectly lined up with canon. Roddenberry himself admitted to changing his point of view regarding canon over time, so he modified it -- presumably do shows with better stories, bigger budgets, more intricate makeup, higher production values, etc. It does make some sense, from the viewpoint of a storyteller or showrunner.

Jeez, George Lucas messed with canon between "Star Wars" and "Return of the Jedi," because as time passed, he wanted to tell a different story. Princess Leia was originally four years younger than Luke, and his love interest. Then, voila, by the third film, she was his twin sister and Han's love interest. But when you're the god of your universe, you can do stuff like that.

Of course there will be inconsistencies within any show's onscreen "canon." It's the nature of the beast. So a viewer is free to object, or to go with the flow and accept the creative intent of the revision, or to come up with some credible explanation for it. But it's all canon, for good or ill.

BTW, Trek fiction has never been regarded canon by its editors or overseers like Block, for good reason: most of the time, novels were being written while shows were on the air, producing new episodes, and therefore new elements of canon that could invalidate a book that had established something different. But Trek fiction is still Star Trek. At least to me.

Personally, I'm much more distracted by continuity gaffes, which a vigilant research staff might have avoided with an ongoing "bible." But it happens. With four writers writing four episodes simultaneously, all season long, under the godawful time pressure of television, there are bound to be some glitches. (That's how Archer's father died at two different times, for example.)

 

[Mach5]

I never said that ALL canonistas were no-life basement dwellers, but some that I know are EXTREMELY annoying and repetitive. There's only so much of "OMFG, CANON VIOLATION" that one can take.

BTW, I think there's a big difference between a canon advocate, and a canon-obsessed fan. My harsh comments were about the latter.

As for those inconsistencies... Yes, they tend to be distracting, but hey, they are bound to happen (for all the reasons you mentioned).

Canon can be stifling to a writer, or a creative challenge, or both. (Having written a canon-consistent story, I can attest to this personally. ) Over 40 years of Trek, there have surely been countless instances when a Trek writer had to choose between adhering to established canon, and telling an effective, creative story that was not perfectly lined up with canon. Roddenberry himself admitted to changing his point of view regarding canon over time, so he modified it -- presumably do shows with better stories, bigger budgets, more intricate makeup, higher production values, etc. It does make some sense, from the viewpoint of a storyteller or showrunner.

Bingo!

Your typical canon-obsessed fan usually dismisses Enterprise for featuring technology that looks more advanced that the one seen in TOS, not caring about the fact that TOS itself obviously looks outdated.

Your typical canon-obsessed fan usually dismisses Enterprise for featuring characters that are never mentioned in the *real* Star Trek.

Your typical canon-obsessed fan usually dismisses Enterprise because the ships in the *real* 22nd century were nuclear powered and didn't have means of visual ship-to-ship communication.

Your typical canon-obsessed fan will read what you wrote about canon being stifling to writers and say "To hell with them, they aren't trying hard enough."

In a cannon-obsessed fan's Star Trek universe, there's a fake god living on a planet located at the center of the galaxy, therefore, mentioning a super-massive black hole in a Star Trek episode is out of the question.

A canon advocate on the other hand might be more open minded and reasonable.

There are also fans who dismiss the USS Kelvin for having a registry number starting with a "zero," but I guess that's another story...

 

[C.E. Evans]

So, is ENT canon - yep.
Does ENT fit in with TOS (and the rest) continuity wise - yep.

I honestly have never understood why this question keeps re-appearing.

Yeah, I actually thought I had posted in this thread before, but it was really in a nearly identical thread not too long ago about ENT being canon.

So the question probably will be asked again in a couple of weeks...

But it is interesting that most of the debates about canon are actually debates about continuity. Continuity is a flexible thing, and always has been within Trek from day one, IMO.

Of course, I remember when it used to be fun resolving continuity issues. Most things I found could be easily explained away without having to toss out this or toss out that...

 

[commodore64]

Yes, Enterprise is canon -- at least the ones on air.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

I never said that ALL canonistas were no-life basement dwellers, but some that I know are EXTREMELY annoying and repetitive. There's only so much of "OMFG, CANON VIOLATION" that one can take.

However, derisive comments about people whose behavior doesn't sit well with you-- members of this board, by your own admission-- is not cool. It is, in fact, annoying and repetitive. And it has nothing to do with this thread topic, which concerns Enterprise, not the viewers who tick you off.

Trying to justify your earlier comments by taking more potshots does not strengthen your position. I don't care what you call them, or how many of them you are targeting, or how long your laundry list of alleged grievances is. They have as much right to their opinions as you do yours -- as long as they are expressed in a civil manner.

I asked you nicely before, and now I shall tell you directly: no more of this. If you feel a member of this board is causing a problem, hit the NM button or put that person on Ignore.

 

[cooleddie74]

YES.


End of discussion. Question answered.

 

[Withers]

Let me first say that I'm a big fan of Enterprise. I really liked the show and I honestly wish it would have gotten its full seven seasons. It took the chances Voyager didn't and I think they had a handful of really smart episodes etc. So, before I get lambasted, I'm not an Enterprise "hater."

All that being said I can't rectify Enterprise with TOS. Not just...visually speaking, but technologically and in the early Starfleets relationship with other powers, etc. One just doesn't gel into the next...so I look at it like this; It's cannon but maybe, due to the events of the TCW and the Xindi Arc, Enterprise altered small things in the time line. Basically, it would all be the same as was shown in later shows, but small things would be different.

So, it's cannon for me... but in order to reconcile the whole thing with what comes later, I view it as the beginning of a slightly altered universe than the one we see in TOS and then in the TNG era shows.

-Withers-​

 

[Mach5]

@Withers - Bingo!

I actually support the theory that the Borg sphere, Picard and the gang created an alternate timeline in "First Contact," a timeline slightly different than the one seen in TOS. In this new timeline, all four seasons of ENT took place.

Et voilà, no canon violation.

 

[Herbert1]

Who cares whether is is canon or not? The only reason it would matter is if you wanted to write licensed Star Trek fiction and reference past events or characters in your story or had written script a that you were trying to sell to Paramount.

The authors of the Pocket Books are forced to acknowledge Star Trek: Enterprise as canon.

Rick Berman is no longer the showrunner of Star Trek and the franchise has been rebooted by Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams. Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams are free to reference Star Trek: Enterprise or ignore it completely.

We just seem to have this perennial debate because Gene Roddenberry disowned Star Trek: The Animated Series.

If you want to write fan fiction, you can decide whether you want to make it follow canon or dismiss all or some elements of the Star Trek: Enterprise series as apocryphal or if you want to throw in elements of fan materials.

 

[Mach5]

Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams are free to reference Star Trek: Enterprise or ignore it completely.

You sure about that? Its not like Star Trek is now their property or something...

 

[Nerys Myk]

Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams are free to reference Star Trek: Enterprise or ignore it completely.

You sure about that? Its not like Star Trek is now their property or something...

They are the current renters.

 

[Herbert1]

Orci/Kurtzman/Abrams are free to reference Star Trek: Enterprise or ignore it completely.

You sure about that? Its not like Star Trek is now their property or something...

It's up to the writers writing licensed fiction to figure out canon violations and create continuity in the Star Trek universe. The showrunners are pretty much free to do what they want for their own creative purposes.

 

[Withers]

The more I think on it (and I rarely think too heavily on Enterprise) they should have pitched this show as the re-boot that XI was. I understand the writers wouldn't have been keen on re-booting their own work but it would have ended that debate once and for all if, in one action, they set in motion an altered time line. Then they would have had the freedom to do whatever they wanted rather than be chained to TOS (which they ignored when they felt like it anyway.)

-Withers-​

 

[Mach5]

The showrunners are pretty much free to do what they want for their own creative purposes.

I that were true, it would mean that canon itself doesn't really exist (I'd be more than fine with that, personally )