Is Enterprise part of your personal canon?

[F. King Daniel]

If "canon" is the on-screen Star Trek, "fanon" is the long-held fan assumptions (i.e. all the stuff contradicted by Enterprise and STXI), then can this "personal canon" thing (which I think is something to do with make-believe?) be called...

"Panon"?

 

[jayrath]

Is "Enterprise" part of my personal canon?

No. No way at all. The whole concept was such a violation of all that had gone before that I had no interest.

I could have lived with it, buit there was no sense of wonder, no sense of discovery.

 

[StarryEyed]

Personal canon is an oxymoron. Which doesn't mean I think its stupid or I want a "fight to the death" because you hate something I like. I just find the concept to be absurd and slightly weird. Not going to jury duty in a Starfleet uniform weird, but weird enough for me to scratch my head in wonder.

I wouldn't have thought that someone with nearly 19,000 posts on a Star Trek board would find ANYTHING weird.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Personal canon is an oxymoron. Which doesn't mean I think its stupid or I want a "fight to the death" because you hate something I like. I just find the concept to be absurd and slightly weird. Not going to jury duty in a Starfleet uniform weird, but weird enough for me to scratch my head in wonder.

I wouldn't have thought that someone with nearly 19,000 posts on a Star Trek board would find ANYTHING weird.

Yes, I enjoy discussing Star Trek, but that has nothing to do with finding certain behavoirs weird.

 

[RookieBatman]

Let me put it this way; I loved ENT, and it is not a part of my personal continuity (as far as taking place before TOS). I have my own personal conceptions and imaginings about what the past of TOS would logically have looked like, and ENT didn't jibe with that. So, in my version of the Trek universe, ENT was not the past of TOS, but I still enjoy it greatly on its own terms. Here's another way to say it; just because Andromeda isn't part of the Star Trek canon doesn't mean I can't enjoy that. What's a part of my personal continuity is based on what I feel fits best with what I consider to be the most coherent version of Trek, as far as continuity details and such. For myself, it has nothing whatever to do with how much I liked the thing or not. If I don't like an episode, book or whatever, I just ignore, I don't take it out of my personal continuity.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

It is not part of mine. lol.

My own view was that they should have taken Trek off TV for a while, after Voyager ended.

And as Paramount is a huge studio, with the resources to boot, they should have conducted a thorough analysis as to why Voyager was not as critically acclaimed as TNG or DS9. DS9 can use the excuse of competition for its poor ratings, even though in terms of acting, writing, etc. it is arguably the best series (IMO on par with TNG).

If I were the Paramount CEO in 2001 (or otherwise in top management there) I would have ceased Trek production for a few years, and with an analysis of what went wrong in Voyager come back in 2005/2006 with a new series, either a post-Dominion War story, or set in a new era (25th century) with new scenarios, aliens and enemies.

From a business point of view, the WB and UPN were merging into the CW, which was embarking on a strategy of targetting a young female audience in order to attract advertisers who want to reach that group and to focus their efforts so that they aren't competing with larger competitors - a good strategy for a small company trying to survive in a tough environment.

So "what was wrong with VOY" really never was a factor. The assumption was, sci fi doesn't appeal to CW's new target audience.

I have no doubt that Star Trek could do very well on TV again. The bigger problem is, with CBS in charge of the TV rights, who would have the motive to do it? Star Trek doesn't fit CBS's demographic any better than the CW. It doesn't really fit Showtime either (which is part of the CBS family as well). The way the TV biz has changed, I'm not sure any space opera show could survive on network TV, which is going very mass market, with all niche programming migrating to cable.

I accept ENT just fine, but I also understand the motive to have a personal canon. I'm okay with Trek's official cannon overall (maybe with some tweaks to that Dukat-paghwraith malarky and certainly editing out Trip's bullshit death), but have rewritten huge sections of both Star Wars and Heroes in my brain so that I don't have to accept that they are the train wrecks they became in the so-called real world.

 

[Cadet49]

It is not part of mine. lol.

My own view was that they should have taken Trek off TV for a while, after Voyager ended.

And as Paramount is a huge studio, with the resources to boot, they should have conducted a thorough analysis as to why Voyager was not as critically acclaimed as TNG or DS9. DS9 can use the excuse of competition for its poor ratings, even though in terms of acting, writing, etc. it is arguably the best series (IMO on par with TNG).

If I were the Paramount CEO in 2001 (or otherwise in top management there) I would have ceased Trek production for a few years, and with an analysis of what went wrong in Voyager come back in 2005/2006 with a new series, either a post-Dominion War story, or set in a new era (25th century) with new scenarios, aliens and enemies.

Well, I find Enterprise conflicts a bit with the various Trek TV series, but is perfectly in line with the new movie, so I definitely consider it a part of the ST XI continuity, anyways! :-)

 

[Cadet49]

Just speaking for myself, but I didn't really mean anything about "personal canon". Doesn't matter to me that much. It's just that just at a glance, it's easier to take ENT, a 21st Century series, as a prequel to Star Trek (2009), a 21st Century movie, than it is to see it as a prequel to something from the middle of the 20th. I really don't think that's some weird, "out there" opinion.

TOS is my favorite series. Having said that: TOS is irrelevant. Yes, I said it (don't even think about quoting that out of context! ). ST XI+ is what's current. As long as I accept ENT under ST XI terms, who really cares about how I think it connects to TOS? If you do, then you care a lot more than I do.

I definitely agree with this!

 

[SFRabid]

If I am going to enjoy Star Trek in the company of others I have to accept that I neither own Star Trek or dictate what happens. I'm watching the same Trek that everyone else watches. I could tell myself that much of TOS, the first two years of TNG, and the middle of Voyager don't exists in my world but I would only be fooling myself. Other people like those parts. If I want to talk about Trek with others I have to accept that some people like parts of Trek that I don't like.

I'm fine with that, so yes, if I have watched it then it is in my personnel canon. Liking it makes no difference.

 

[Rarewolf]

not part of mine. Just about wiped the 6 episodes I lasted through from my memory.

Funny enough the finale is the only one I regret not seeing; there's a few minutes of Riker and Troi I've not seen.

 

[StarryEyed]

...just at a glance, it's easier to take ENT, a 21st Century series, as a prequel to Star Trek (2009), a 21st Century movie, than it is to see it as a prequel to something from the middle of the 20th.

I REALLY like this idea. It's a tidy way to throw out the bathwater with the other bathwater.

 

[Arpy]

Personal canon is an oxymoron….I just find the concept to be absurd and slightly weird. …On one side of the line is "Man I hated Enterprise, that show sucked." On the other side is "Enterprise is not part of MY personal canon. It does not exist in MY Star Trek Universe."

What they're saying is that they'd prefer to imagine that it didn't happen, not that it actually didn't happen. I may choose to consider the Star Trek universe as presented to me, or I may choose to consider it in parts. ...Something you're forced to do anyway given its many contradictions.

So you say What If? What If it were just these series and those movies? ...It's no different than considering What If I asked that girl out? Or What If Rick had stopped Ilsa from getting on that plane?

When they tweek continuity to change Kirk's middle initial or Data's graduation date they're not ignoring canon. Those episodes are still part of the canon, only certain elements of continuity have altered/updated/changed…

When writers ignore Kirk's middle name, they break continuity by ignoring canon. Not necessarily an entire episode, but certainly the part they're not continuing. You can't break continuity without ignoring that it happened in canon.

As for fans vs writers. To paraphrase Mel Brooks: "They are the writers, you are the audience. They outrank you."

You don't wait to hear a writer's interpretation of what they've written to know how to process what you've seen. I don't change my opinion about something if say I find out a writer thought he was calling it in that week or that they think it's the best work they've ever done. The writer creates and presents. The reader considers and judges.

Looking specifically at the Brooks quote, I don't know the context in which Mel meant it. He could have meant that the writers have more pull at what gets aired, given that it's unfeasible to replace them after every show. But they're not absolute monarchs or ratings wouldn't matter.

Nor would they want to be or they'd be even more alienated than many tend to be or wouldn't care about praise for their work.

 

[Amaris]

I am honestly baffled by the responses of those who who just don't get "personal canon" or "personal continuity", which ever you want to call it. I understand that different people have different brain-wiring; this is something I become more and more aware of as I get older. Some people just can't comprehend the way other people think. This phenomena is most evident when it comes to religion but as Sarek of Vulcan/J. Allen alluded, fans seem to think in the same way when it comes to Star Trek. So here is a simple, step-by-step description of what goes on in my head regarding personal canon or continuity:

1. I love the Star Trek universe. Immersing myself in it is basically a hobby and escapism. I immerse myself in this fictional universe by watching shows on DVD and Youtube, reading novels/fan fiction and by interacting with other fans online. I even create my own ships, characters, scenarios for my personal enjoyment. Another words, I am a total geek like most everyone else here. I don't actually live in my mother's basement but I probably should. Everyone with me so far?

2. There are some series, episodes, characters, races and overall assumptions that I like more than others. There are some I don't like at all. There are some that I loath.

3. In my private mind, I have my own little idealized Trekverse. It doesn't include all of the Star Trek we have seen onscreen. It does include some non-canon stuff, some of my own creation. It's like an alternate universe that exists only for me. I have no illusions that it has relevance for anyone but me. I understand that when I'm communicating with other mental patients - er, I mean fans - I must speak within a common frame of reference - official canon/continuity. My own little alternate Trekverse is mine alone. I may throw out my own ideas - such as Enterprise being hopelessly incompatible with the series and movies that came before it - but I realize that regardless of my personal opinion, Enterprise is officially canon. I simply reject it in my own private Trekverse. Get it?

4. IMHO, anyone who cannot make peace with the fact that some fans have their own private Trekverse for their own personal pleasure has issues. Anyone who actually thinks those that do are petty and immature...well, this isn't TNZ so just use your imagination.

5. Is there anyone here who actually doesn't understand that Star Trek is fiction? This might seem like a condescending question but a fan at a convention once asked Michael Dorn what it felt like to go through the transporter. I wonder how many people here have seen Galaxy Quest and regard official canon from Paramount as "The Historical Documents." Does anybody not understand that my personal Trekverse and the official Trekverse as handed down by Paramount have exactly the same relevance to reality (zero)? So why does anyone begrudge me the right to have my own personal Trekverse?

Perhaps I should clarify.

I have no problem with people throwing out episodes they don't like. I, personally, despise TATV from Enterprise, and prefer that it were never made. I have no problem with people who do similar things, and really, I have no problem with people who pretend an episode was never made, until they decide that the episode I am discussing was never made, thus making discussion much more difficult when one party absolutely refuses to acknowledge the (begrudged) existence of a particular episode/series, and for the record, yes, I have had that issue crop up before.

Believe me, I more than empathize with the idea of ignoring the horrible episodes/series in favor of one's own universe, after all, as it was said Star Trek is not real. It's a television show/movie franchise. It can also be many other wonderful things, but when it boils down to the bottom, it's still a TV show/movie franchise, and I have no problem with people substituting their own Trek universe. I just want to make that perfectly clear.

 

[I am not Spock]

The term is 'personal continuity'

Everything that has been produced for television or film is part of the Star Trek 'canon'. They are very separate entities, 'canon' and 'continuity'. TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and all the movies are canon.

Some of it is good, some is not. But its silly to pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Deckerd]

But its silly to pretend it doesn't exist.

How dare you!

 

[RookieBatman]

...just at a glance, it's easier to take ENT, a 21st Century series, as a prequel to Star Trek (2009), a 21st Century movie, than it is to see it as a prequel to something from the middle of the 20th.

I REALLY like this idea. It's a tidy way to throw out the bathwater with the other bathwater.

I don't understand. How does anything get "thrown out" with this model?

 

[SPCTRE]

My "personal canon" doesn't work like that.

I usually don't throw out episodes and movies (even the ones I don't like), I rather add stuff from the novels and even some of the games (e.g. VOY Elite Force).

 

[Vanyel]

Looking over this thread it seems the real question is "Do you hate Enterprise enough to want it purged from canon?" So why not ask that question? Don't hide behind the euphemism of "personal canon." Just come out and ask the question.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Personal canon is an oxymoron….I just find the concept to be absurd and slightly weird. …On one side of the line is "Man I hated Enterprise, that show sucked." On the other side is "Enterprise is not part of MY personal canon. It does not exist in MY Star Trek Universe."

What they're saying is that they'd prefer to imagine that it didn't happen, not that it actually didn't happen. I may choose to consider the Star Trek universe as presented to me, or I may choose to consider it in parts. ...Something you're forced to do anyway given its many contradictions.

None of it happend

Yeah, I get how "personal canon" works. I just find it an immature reaction to something one doesn't like. Similar to a child sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting "lalalalalala" when faced with a statement they dont like. I also find it intellectually lazy. Being a "creative" type I prefer solutions that do not include the dustbin. So, I'm not inclined to disregard: Voyager, "Spocks Brain" and Star Trek V no matter how much they disappoint me. I'll work as hard as I can to make them "fit". If I was a writer and could spin a bit of continuity from them to create a story I'd do so with relish.

So you say What If? What If it were just these series and those movies? ...It's no different than considering What If I asked that girl out? Or What If Rick had stopped Ilsa from getting on that plane?

I see a difference. In one your simply altering the ending of a movie. You're not pretending the entire movie did not exist because it didn't fit your vision of the Rick/Ilse relationship.

When they tweek continuity to change Kirk's middle initial or Data's graduation date they're not ignoring canon. Those episodes are still part of the canon, only certain elements of continuity have altered/updated/changed…

When writers ignore Kirk's middle name, they break continuity by ignoring canon. Not necessarily an entire episode, but certainly the part they're not continuing. You can't break continuity without ignoring that it happened in canon.

Canon is "big picture" and continuity is the details. "WNMHGB" is canon, "James R Kirk" was continuity.

As for fans vs writers. To paraphrase Mel Brooks: "They are the writers, you are the audience. They outrank you."

You don't wait to hear a writer's interpretation of what they've written to know how to process what you've seen. I don't change my opinion about something if say I find out a writer thought he was calling it in that week or that they think it's the best work they've ever done. The writer creates and presents. The reader considers and judges.
Looking specifically at the Brooks quote, I don't know the context in which Mel meant it. He could have meant that the writers have more pull at what gets aired, given that it's unfeasible to replace them after every show. But they're not absolute monarchs or ratings wouldn't matter. Nor would they want to be or they'd be even more alienated than many tend to be or wouldn't care about praise for their work.

It's not about interpretation its about authority. Writers have the authority to make changes and decisions about continuity, characters and canon. ( all of which happen before we see it) We, as consumers do not. We can dislike what they've done, but we are in no postion to change it or pretend it didn't happen because of that. Of course if there is enough consumer "backlash" changes might be made but those changes will be made those empowered to do so. ( and they might not be exactly what the consumer wanted) Also "lalalalala" is not the best way to critique and express displeasure. Not sure it that will ever reach the TBTB or if they'd pay attention if it did.

The Brooks quote is from his film and play, The Producers The writer of the "Springtime for Hitler",the play within the play/film, makes that remark to a member of the audience.

Ratings matter because of revenue. Any changes based on ratings are reactive and not always creative.

 

[ProtoAvatar]

This thread should be renamed as 'Do you like 'Enterprise?'

This debate evidentiates that 'personal canon' has no other value.