Whatever Paramount produced for both TV, and movies screens are canon, but I don't have to like everything done.
How Do You Interpret "Canon"?
- Thread starter BillJ
- Start date
Although I am under the impression that "canon" is only the content that has appeared on-screen, my version of "canon" tends to be a bit different (and since it's fiction anyway, who cares).
What I mean is this ... if there is an interesting book or fan production which doesn't directly contradict the official show, I have no problems suspending my disbelief and treating it as part of the universe unless directly contradicted later.
Regarding "continuity," I also tend to be more liberal than some. First, I don't take throwaway lines very seriously. For example, Picard states that first contact was "disastrous." Yet we see in Enterprise that it really wasn't. This could be an "error" or it could simply be a man misremembering chapter four of his Federation History 102 class from the academy. Maybe he had a track meet that day, or maybe he learned the information from the Federation wikipedia page. In addition, even today history books (especially school texts) tend to get things wrong or events distorted. This isn't a continuity error in life but it happens all of the time (especially in facebook memes).
Another one is Picard's shocking first contact with the Borg, only to later learn that 7 of 9's family was Borg chasing many years prior to Picard's contact and the Enterprise NX-01 encountered the Borg before that. Is this a continuity error (sorta, yeah) but in a galaxy filled with androids or robots, is it possible that these previous events were never connected? Plus, I always imagined 7 of 9's parents as the future equivalent of UFO hunters.
Second, and finally, unless two things directly contradict each other, I tend not to worry about it too much. If the story (or stories) leave enough of a hole to "explain it away" then in general I tend not to get too frustrated about it. A good example of this is when we discover a new technology and promptly forget about it for later episodes or one crew encountering a race (Ferengi or Borg in Enterprise) but later crews not knowing about it. There is plenty of time for the technology to be absconded or the story whitewashed by a Section 31 type group or even Starfleet Command themselves. However, I care more about direct contradictions (usually within an individual episode).
What I mean is this ... if there is an interesting book or fan production which doesn't directly contradict the official show, I have no problems suspending my disbelief and treating it as part of the universe unless directly contradicted later.
Regarding "continuity," I also tend to be more liberal than some. First, I don't take throwaway lines very seriously. For example, Picard states that first contact was "disastrous." Yet we see in Enterprise that it really wasn't. This could be an "error" or it could simply be a man misremembering chapter four of his Federation History 102 class from the academy. Maybe he had a track meet that day, or maybe he learned the information from the Federation wikipedia page. In addition, even today history books (especially school texts) tend to get things wrong or events distorted. This isn't a continuity error in life but it happens all of the time (especially in facebook memes).
Another one is Picard's shocking first contact with the Borg, only to later learn that 7 of 9's family was Borg chasing many years prior to Picard's contact and the Enterprise NX-01 encountered the Borg before that. Is this a continuity error (sorta, yeah) but in a galaxy filled with androids or robots, is it possible that these previous events were never connected? Plus, I always imagined 7 of 9's parents as the future equivalent of UFO hunters.
Second, and finally, unless two things directly contradict each other, I tend not to worry about it too much. If the story (or stories) leave enough of a hole to "explain it away" then in general I tend not to get too frustrated about it. A good example of this is when we discover a new technology and promptly forget about it for later episodes or one crew encountering a race (Ferengi or Borg in Enterprise) but later crews not knowing about it. There is plenty of time for the technology to be absconded or the story whitewashed by a Section 31 type group or even Starfleet Command themselves. However, I care more about direct contradictions (usually within an individual episode).
My head canon: TOS/TAS, Star Trek: 25th Anniversary computer game, Star Trek: Judgement Rites computer game, Star Trek films 1 - 6, TNG, DS9, Star Trek: The Next Generation - A Final Unity computer game, and Star Trek films 7 - 9, with Abrams Trek in its own happy continuity.
ENT/VOY/Nemesis, you ask? What ENT/VOY/Nemesis? :P
The particulars beyond that don't matter.
ENT/VOY/Nemesis, you ask? What ENT/VOY/Nemesis? :P
The particulars beyond that don't matter.
I tend to ignore Enterprise for 2 reasons.
1.It felt out of place in the Star Trek continuity.
2.It sucked.
I'm not a canon whore. Some details can be contradicted and I won't care. As long as everything is in the same continuity I'm fine. I don't care enough about Enterprise to waste my time reconciling it with the other shows so I'd rather just ignore it. TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, Voyager and the first 10 movies may not fit together perfectly but they were entertaining enough to look past any continuity errors. Enterprise was not.
Technically the JJVerse is part of the established continuity since it's an alternate reality sprung from the PrimeVerse. There's nothing to stop both universes from crossing over with each other or converging into one.
Yes. It needs to be understood that there are elements in the canon that are contradictory, but they are still canon.
Canon would be best described as "that which is an official Star Trek story". The novels are an ancillary part of merchandising, which has been defined as non-canon by TPTB.
It's amusing to make connections and look for contradictions, but ultimately I recognise what I see on screen as the product of the artistic efforts of many people. And people are, well, only human.
For me, it doesn't even try to steer the series to the look and feel of Star Trek. Tech-Lingos were too defined and it's supposed to be a prequel. On Star Trek, the series was a work in progress in defining what the tech and sciences (STAR TREK SCIENCE) were, but too many times on ENT the lingo felt out of place.
They had secret rooms which kept super-advanced technologies and used it whenever it needed for their dumb plots. It's like the rabbit in the magic hat for Archer and the crew. The crew can handle the Borg better than their 200 year old counterparts??? Come on. Having them handle the Borg the way it was done makes the crew from the future look quite stupid since, from what I'd seen, had no clue how the hell to handle them.
Why would Star Fleet keep this a secret??? Why would the doctor of the so-called prequel Enterprise keep such an important technique to prevent being a Borg never resurfaced... for 200 years??? The series has to be ignored by default because nothing seen on Enterprise feels as if it's progressive to what I know from the original Star Trek.
So yeah, I'd rather ignore it too. Just like some stuff on DS9, and most of Voyager, and all of TNG movies.
The old "official" definition of canon (used for the Encyclopedia) was:
- TOS
- The TOS Movies
- TNG
- DS9
- VOY
- The TNG Movies
- ENT
The lack of TAS comes from Gene Roddenbury's preferenaces.
This is the definition of canon accepted by most Star Trek fans - what happens on screen is gospel.
Obviously VOY/ENT/NEM didn't exist before Gene's death, but the same principle was applied.
However a new consensus seems to have developed that TAS (which never had anything wrong with it to begin with), is canon. That makes the official canon look like this (used by Memory Alpha):
- TOS
- TAS
- The TOS Movies
- TNG
- DS9
- VOY
- The TNG Movies
- ENT
- JJ Trek
So that's as close to "official" as we get; the definitions used by the Star Trek: Encyclopedia and Memory Alpha.
As for my own personal fan-canon - I include some games in my personal canon, because they are simply so faithful (Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, Star Trek: Judgement Rites, Star Trek: A Final Unity, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, Star Trek: Klingon Academy) - they are literally like lost episodes with full voice acting by the crews - even full acting in the case of SA/KA.
I disregard a lot of Pocket Books stuff, because it's so fanwankish at times, despite having moments of genius.
I definitely disregard Z-canon shite like Star Trek Online.
- TOS
- The TOS Movies
- TNG
- DS9
- VOY
- The TNG Movies
- ENT
The lack of TAS comes from Gene Roddenbury's preferenaces.
This is the definition of canon accepted by most Star Trek fans - what happens on screen is gospel.
Obviously VOY/ENT/NEM didn't exist before Gene's death, but the same principle was applied.
However a new consensus seems to have developed that TAS (which never had anything wrong with it to begin with), is canon. That makes the official canon look like this (used by Memory Alpha):
- TOS
- TAS
- The TOS Movies
- TNG
- DS9
- VOY
- The TNG Movies
- ENT
- JJ Trek
So that's as close to "official" as we get; the definitions used by the Star Trek: Encyclopedia and Memory Alpha.
As for my own personal fan-canon - I include some games in my personal canon, because they are simply so faithful (Star Trek: 25th Anniversary, Star Trek: Judgement Rites, Star Trek: A Final Unity, Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, Star Trek: Klingon Academy) - they are literally like lost episodes with full voice acting by the crews - even full acting in the case of SA/KA.
I disregard a lot of Pocket Books stuff, because it's so fanwankish at times, despite having moments of genius.
I definitely disregard Z-canon shite like Star Trek Online.
Last edited:
Yeah, if ever there was a cause to ignore part of Star Trek, ENT would be it. In fact, it fits better with JJ Abrams Trek (in some ways) than with the original stuff - almost as if the canon was:
Canon A: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, Movies
Canon B: ENT, JJ Trek.
I divide Star Trek into three types of canon, and yes, I have put way, way to much thought into this
I study theology and borrowed terms used by Christians in designating the Hebrew Scriptures. These are ‘Proto-canon’ (which has a nice sci-fi sound to it!), ‘Deutero-canon’ and ‘Narrow-canon’.
In Theology:
· Protocanonical: The Old Testament (accepted as canon by all Christians)
· Deuterocanonical: The Apocrypha (accepted as canon only by Catholics and Orthodox)
· Narrow-Canonical: Writings only accepted as canon by certain devout Orthodox groups, but rejected by the mainstream.
In Trek:
· Protocanonical: All official live action series and movies.
· Deuterocanonical: The Animated Series, novels and computer games (e.g. ‘Star Trek Online’). Whilst these are all official Trek they do not need to conform to the continuity of Proto-canon.
· Narrow-Canonical: All Star Trek fan Productions. Accepted as head-canon by certain devout Trekkies, rejected by the mainstream
As to the continuity issues between TOS and Enterprise, I attribute these to fluctuations in the timeline causes by the temporal cold war.
Whoa whoa whoa - hold on there just a damn minute!!!!!
Who the hell would place something like Star Trek Online in the same catagory as The Animated Series!!!
You must be MAD!!!
(I'm only exaggerating for comedy - this is actually an utterly awful interpretation since some fan productions are more faithful than that awful awful cash-in stuff like STO).
Canon C: TOS, DS9, ENT, movies.
Really, the only ones that should be concerned about canon are merchandisers, and it's really extremely easy for them. For some reason, though, fans began to mistake canon as something they should worry about (or have a say about it).
I don't really spend much time worrying about canon. None, in fact.
My headcanon is that ENT depicts a history corrupted by the Temporal Cold War, and this is not the 'real' history of ST universe.
I think people can get way too worked up about it. I think the lyrics from the Mystery Science Theater 3000 theme offer some guidance:
"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax"
That said, when confronted with conflicting elements in Star Trek one can use the JJ approach and get past it by saying "hey, it's an alternate universe."
For example, that's how I looked at the Hannibal TV series. It ranged pretty far from the books and the movies. I just thought "hey, alternate universe Hannibal" and enjoyed the show.
"If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show,
I should really just relax"
That said, when confronted with conflicting elements in Star Trek one can use the JJ approach and get past it by saying "hey, it's an alternate universe."
For example, that's how I looked at the Hannibal TV series. It ranged pretty far from the books and the movies. I just thought "hey, alternate universe Hannibal" and enjoyed the show.
This has always been my take on it too. There have been so many time travel episodes over the years that I like to think the chances of Trek history retroactively being exactly as it was during TOS are minimal. I like the fan theory that NX-01 was named by Zefram Cochrane after the Enterprise-E following the events of First Contact, and that it was "originally" called something else (Dauntless, perhaps, in keeping with the ship of that name from VOY's 'Hope and Fear' being designated NX-01-A).
I like the idea that Jonathan Archer was the noted captain of the first Warp 5 ship in the TOS timeline (hence the mention of Archer IV in 'Yesterday's Enterprise'), but that ENT depicts a version of his voyages corrupted by many years of time travel in the Trek universe, with an NX-01 with an alternate name and the incursions of the Temporal Cold War leading to a somewhat different timeline. In the original timeline, the 1701 was the first Enterprise, explaining why there's no NX-01 in the various displays of previous Enterprises, and 'These Are the Voyages...' takes place in the 24th Century of the ENT timeline, accounting for any discrepancies with 'The Pegasus'; perhaps in that version, it was the fact that NX-01 was an Enterprise that inspired Troi to suggest to Riker that he engage in the holodeck program, which she didn't think to do in the TNG episode when, according to history, NX-01 was called Dauntless or whatever.
Last edited:
I like all of this except for the TATV part - I just ignore that episode altogether, plus, if you're right, it seems unlikely that all of the butterflies would still allow for anything so very similar to what we saw on TNG to be happening in the 24th century in Archer's NX-01 Enterprise's future.
That's true; it involves a fair bit of squinting. Ignoring it works just as well!
Similar threads
