Is Enterprise part of your personal canon?

[Deckerd]

You can "accept" whatever you like. I think the whole concept of "personal canon" is petty and immature.

Hilarious!

I have this fantasy world in my mind that I enjoy as a hobby. It includes some (but not all) elements of the pure fiction presented by Paramount in the form of live-action television episodes and movies of the Star Trek universe.

You have a fantasy world in your mind that you enjoy as a hobby which includes all elements of the pure fiction presented by Paramount in the form of live-action television episodes and movies of the Star Trek universe.

You're cool but I'm petty and immature?

I'm no psyche professional but that sounds like utter lunacy.

Anybody who takes the OP question seriously is most definitely immature. Anyone who seriously takes the word 'canon' applied to Star Trek is immature. I'm with J. Allen on this one.

 

[RookieBatman]

I believe the correct term is "personal continuity." In mine, the time-travel in First Contact created an alternate timeline which led to ENT, and then STXI. This appeals to my sense of aesthetics.

That said, it doesn't too terribly affect my enjoyment of the show. I watched it all the way through on DVD, and enjoyed it. While TOS is by far my favorite Trek show, I enjoyed ENT just as much as any of the other spin-offs. Bakula and Trineer are both are both very good actors, and season 4 had a lot of fun stuff in it. So, in-continuity or not, I was entertained.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You know, since "Encounter at Farpoint" and "First Contact" already retconned World War III from Spock's "1990's" to the 2050's, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say Voyager bumped the Eugenics' War up, too (perhaps merging it with WWIII). It's 2010, and we have neither sleeper ships nor artificial gravity. I think it's a fair retcon.

I'm already dreading the moaning when nuKhan shows up, former ruler of a quarter of the Earth way back in 2096!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't think it's too much of a leap to say Voyager bumped the Eugenics' War up, too

I don't think it did.

Sure, we didn't see that war when they showed up in 1996, but the USA was not involved in the Eugenics Wars in the first place.

And Rain Robinson had a model of Khan's ship on her desk...

 

[indolover]

You can "accept" whatever you like. I think the whole concept of "personal canon" is petty and immature.

You're entitled to your opinion, but to me Enterprise was so bad that I refuse to acknowledge it as a bonafide Trek series.

I kind of conveniently/selectively forget about its existence.

 

[BillJ]

I'm already dreading the moaning when nuKhan shows up, former ruler of a quarter of the Earth way back in 2096!

Which would have never been an issue if Abrams and Company had the balls to do a full re-boot of the franchise. You also run into the fact that you begin to compress events into tighter and tighter time frames. With a re-boot they could have actually spread things out, perhaps pushing TOS to the 25th century.

 

[Shatnertage]

Do people do this with music, too? Take any band: odds are they've got a few albums that you don't like. Does that mean you create your own "personal discography" and exclude the clunkers from it, pretending the band didn't make them? Or do you just not re-listen to those albums?

 

[Vanyel]

It is a part of canon, period! People may not like it but the show was getting stronger starting with season three and an awesome season 4 that ranks right up there with TNG's season 3.

 

[StarryEyed]

Do people do this with music, too? Take any band: odds are they've got a few albums that you don't like. Does that mean you create your own "personal discography" and exclude the clunkers from it, pretending the band didn't make them? Or do you just not re-listen to those albums?

Why would you have to pretend the band didn't make the clunkers? Just ignore them! That's what we do with episodes or whole series we don't like. Nobody is pretending they didn't get made.

 

[T'Girl]

You know, since "Encounter at Farpoint" and "First Contact" already retconned World War III from Spock's "1990's" to the 2050's,

Spock spoke of "the eugenics war" and "your third world war" as seemingly two separate event, using two separate terms.

... exclude the clunkers from it, pretending ...

Just ignore them! That's what we do with episodes or whole series we don't like. Nobody is pretending they didn't get made.

Perfect description of "personal canon."

 

[Nerys Myk]

Isn't ignoring them more or less pretending they didnt get made?

And personal canon is still an oxymoron.

 

[Shatnertage]

I just don't get the point of bringing "canon" into it. There's been a lot of entertainment produced under the Trek banner over the past 45 years. Some of it I like, some of it I don't like. But it's all still there, whether I'd include it as "canon" or not. So why bother personally canonizing it?

It just seems to me to be a fancy way of saying "I don't like it." Or is there something I'm missing?

 

[Vanyel]

It just seems to me to be a fancy way of saying "I don't like it."

That is the perfect definition of "Personal Canon."

 

[Gigas]

I really liked ENT, so I'm glad they made it. Too bad they didn't get to finish the storyline though. I thought it was exciting. The first two seasons were the best in my opinion. Season 3 seemed to last forever.

I wish they would make a new Star Trek show further into the future than TNG, DS9 and VOY. I probably won't get my wish though.

 

[StarryEyed]

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?

 

[Lord Garth]

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.

All the same, I know Paramount considers it all connected and that's fine with me. If ENT's also a prequel to TOS-VOY, no big deal. It is what it is.

 

[Arpy]

The writers ignore canon whenever it suits them. Why shouldn't the fans?

Is ENT part of all that is live-action on-screen Trek? Yes. Is it part of the Star Trek universe I daydream about in my imaginings? Not most of it.

They might ignore continuity, but canon? Dont think so. Everything they write becomes part of the canon, even if it contradicts what some other guy wrote. Classic example: Jame R. Kirk and James T. Kirk are both canon, but only James T. Kirk is part of continuity.

What's the difference? They're ignoring live-action on-screen Trek, and we're talking about fans ignoring live-action on-screen Trek.

And if you're going to say what I think you're going to say, I refer you to what I've already said - put in bold for clarity. To reiterate, I said: 1) ENT is canon, 2) it's not (mostly) in my personal canon.

You think personal canon is stupid. I think ENT is stupid. Are we supposed to fight to the death now?

 

[number6]

Do people do this with music, too? Take any band: odds are they've got a few albums that you don't like. Does that mean you create your own "personal discography" and exclude the clunkers from it, pretending the band didn't make them? Or do you just not re-listen to those albums?

That's a great analogy. That's exactly how I feel about it.

 

[Hermiod]

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.

You are, of course, welcome to interpret the shows any way you wish. I have no interest in dictating the terms of anyone's enjoyment of Star Trek.

The only issue I would have is if someone can't separate their own personal view from what the writers think. If they say something that contradicts your personal view of the Star Trek universe then that's just tough. I'm sorry to put it in such harsh terms but that's the way it is.

As a result, when I used to contribute to Memory Alpha I saw people creating entries for characters from novels, deleting information because it contradicted their 'personal canon', adding data about warp engine output levels and other such nonsense to articles about random Starships we saw in pieces after Wolf 359 and so on.

I'm even partly guilty myself, I do not consider TAS to be canon, just as the Star Trek Encyclopedia doesn't. When helping out with MA, however, the ruling was that it was canon. I disagreed, but that was the rule so I stuck to it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The writers ignore canon whenever it suits them. Why shouldn't the fans?

Is ENT part of all that is live-action on-screen Trek? Yes. Is it part of the Star Trek universe I daydream about in my imaginings? Not most of it.

They might ignore continuity, but canon? Dont think so. Everything they write becomes part of the canon, even if it contradicts what some other guy wrote. Classic example: Jame R. Kirk and James T. Kirk are both canon, but only James T. Kirk is part of continuity.

What's the difference? They're ignoring live-action on-screen Trek, and we're talking about fans ignoring live-action on-screen Trek.

And if you're going to say what I think you're going to say, I refer you to what I've already said - put in bold for clarity. To reiterate, I said: 1) ENT is canon, 2) it's not (mostly) in my personal canon.

You think personal canon is stupid. I think ENT is stupid. Are we supposed to fight to the death now?

Canon: Every live action Trek product okayed Paramount/CBS. Such as Where No Man Has Gone Before or Encounter At Farpoint.

Continuity: The various elements in those products. Such as Kirk's middle initial or Data's date of graduation from the Academy.

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.

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

I've no idea what you think I'm going to say. But I will repeat what I've said before. 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. To my way of thinking there is a line in fandom and when you cross it you're headed towards "jury duty". 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."

Blunt perhaps, but thats how I feel.