Star Trek canon

The Star Trek canon is usually defined as comprising the television series , ', ', ', ', and the ten motion pictures, and excluding everything else. [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html What is considered Star Trek "canon"?] FAQ entry at the official [http://www.startrek.com/ Star Trek website] . URL retrieved 25th November 2006.] However, the official Star Trek website acknowledges that this definition is not set in stone, but that the notion of what constitutes canon in Star Trek is fluid, open to interpretation and debate.

TV series

As a rule, all live action Star Trek TV series that aired are considered canon, while the cartoon ' and the planned but cancelled live action ' are not canon. However, this policy does not make clear which version of the live action shows is the canon one. Indeed, there exist longer and shorter versions of several episodes. For example, in the 1960s during the original run of "TOS", an hour-long show was actually 51 minutes excluding commercials, and modern DVD releases of "TOS" episodes are also 51 minutes long. However, as of 2007, an hour-long show on television is only about 42 minutes long. The canonicity of the missing nine minutes of material in modern airings of "TOS" episodes has never been addressed. Likewise, when special two-hour-long episodes are aired as two one-hour-long episodes in syndication, several minutes of material have to be cut to make time for the duplication of the opening and closing credits. The canonicity of this cut material has also never been addressed. Finally, the remastered "TOS" episodes released in 2006 present several visual differences from the episodes originally aired. [ [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/23775.html Remastering Star Trek: TOS FX, Music Enhanced] at the official [http://www.startrek.com/ Star Trek website] . URL retrieved 23th January 2007.] Once again, no official statements have been made regarding the question of which version of these episodes is canon.

To further complicate matters, it has been noted that Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to canon. People who worked with Roddenberry remember that he used to handle canon not on a series-by-series basis nor an episode-by-episode basis, but point by point. If he changed his mind on something, or if a fact in one episode contradicted what he considered to be a more important fact in another episode, he had no problem declaring that specific point non-canon.

See, people can easily catch us, and say "well, wait a minute, in 'Balance of Terror', they knew that the Romulans had a cloaking device, and then in 'The Enterprise Incident', they don't know anything about cloaking devices, but they're gonna steal this one because it's obviously just been developed, so how the hell do you explain that?" We can't. There are some things we just can't explain, especially when it comes from the third season. So, yes, third season is canon up to the point of contradiction, or where it's just so bad... you know, we kind of cringe when people ask us, "well, what happened in 'Plato's Stepchildren', and 'And the Children Shall Lead', and 'Spock's Brain', and so on — it's like, please, he wasn't even producing it at that point. But, generally, [canon is] the original series, not really the animated, the first movie to a certain extent, the rest of the films in certain aspects but not in all... I know that it's very difficult to understand. It literally is point by point. I sometimes do not know how he's going to answer a question when I go into his office, I really do not always know, and — and I know it better probably than anybody, what it is that Gene likes and doesn't like.Richard Arnold, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" research consultant and "Star Trek" archivist, 1991 interview with Tim Lynch.] — Richard Arnold, 1991

Another thing that makes canon a little confusing. Gene R. himself had a habit of decanonizing things. He didn't like the way 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 much consider them canon either. And – okay, I'm really going to scare you with this one – after he got "TNG" going, he... well... he sort of decided that some of "The Original Series" wasn't canon either. I had a discussion with him once, where I cited a couple things that were very clearly canon in "The Original Series", and he told me he didn't think that way anymore, and that he now thought of "TNG" as canon wherever there was conflict between the two. He admitted it was revisionist thinking, but so be it.Paula Block, VCP Senior Director of Licensed Publishing, TrekBBS posts, December 2005.] — Paula Block, 2005

Another factor that contributes to blur the line between canon and non-canon is the fact that some writers like to include elements from popular non-canon works into canon episodes. ["Do you think the Animated series should be considered canon? Or even more so, IS the Animated Series canon?" "We don't consider it canon, but it's kinda cool to throw in the odd reference here and there." - Ronald D. Moore, AOL's "Ask Ron D. Moore" message board, October 1998.] Such is the case, for instance, of several concepts that first appeared in the "Animated Series"' episode "Yesteryear", including The Forge and the city of ShiKahr, and which were later included in the "Enterprise" three-part story that started with "". ["The script even owes itself in no small measure to the animated episode "Yesteryear" written by D.C. Fontana — when Spock goes back in time to meet himself as a child — and that is where the term "Forge" is first used. [...] Among other things, the Earth embassy is located in the city of Shi'Khar, which in "Yesteryear" is identified as Spock's hometown." [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/6776.html Production Report: "The Forge" Begins Three-Part Vulcan Saga] article at the official [http://www.startrek.com/ Star Trek website] . URL retrieved 16 June 2007.] However, despite the fact that elements borrowed from the "Animated Series" are considered canon, the series itself remains decidedly non-canon. [ [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/features/intro/article/7694.html "STAR TREK:THE ANIMATED SERIES"] feature at the official [http://www.startrek.com/ Star Trek website] . URL retrieved 9th January 2006.]

One final issue comes from text that appears on props such as computer displays, but is not legible during the episode, except in modern HDTV broadcasts. The transcript of the text can often be obtained through behind-the-scenes pictures and interviews. This leads to the question of whether material that is in the episodes but cannot be seen clearly should be considered canon. Although there is no answer valid for all this material, some of it at least, such as the biographical information seen on a computer display in "In a Mirror, Darkly" , has been clearly declared not to be "hard canon"."I wouldn't really consider any of this 'hard canon,' so take it all with a grain of salt. Both bios were slapped together hastily and weren't approved by the exec producers." - Mike Sussman, "Enterprise" Producer, TrekBBS posts, 30 April 2005.]

Movies

All live action "Star Trek" movies are considered canon. However, much like for TV series, this policy fails to note which version of the movies is canon. This leaves unknown the canonicity of scenes missing from the theatrical version of a movie but included in home releases or director's cuts. Such is the case, for instance, of a scene revealing that the character of Peter Preston was the nephew of Scotty in "". ["The "Director's Edition" version of the film is not substantively longer than the original theatrical release, as he pointed out during last week's gala premiere at Paramount. But there were certain short scenes that Meyer felt needed to be restored. A couple of those scenes involve Midshipman Peter Preston in Engineering, with dialog establishing Preston as Scotty's nephew ("my sister's youngest")." [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/125294.html Spotlight: Meyer Speaks Proudly of "Khan"] article at the official [http://www.startrek.com/ Star Trek website] . URL retrieved 16 June 2007.]

Adding confusion to the issue is the fact that Roddenberry is quoted as saying he didn't like the movies, and "didn't much consider them canon". Unfortunately, there exists no definitive list of which movies in particular Roddenberry disliked, or what elements in them he didn't consider canon. For example, the reference book "Star Trek Chronology" states that Roddenberry considered elements of ' and ' to be apocryphal, but it does not specify which particular elements in the movies Roddenberry objected to. [cite book
last=Okuda
first=Michael
coauthors=Denise Okuda
year=1996
title=Star Trek Chronology: The History of the Future, revised edition
location=New York
publisher=Pocket Books
isbn=0-671-53610-9
pages=vii]

The canonicity of extra features found on home DVD releases, such as deleted scenes, has never been explicitly addressed.

Publications

Fictional novels

The original novels published by Pocket Books are not considered part of the canon. This was a guideline set early on by Gene Roddenberry, and repeated many times by people who worked with him.

And as long as Gene Roddenberry is involved in it, he is the final word on what is Star Trek. So, for us here – Ron Moore, Jeri Taylor, everybody who works on the show – Gene is the authority. And when he says that the books, and the games, and the comics and everything else, are not gospel, but are only additional Star Trek based on his Star Trek but not part of the actual Star Trek universe that he created... they're just, you know, kinda fun to keep you occupied between episodes and between movies, whatever... but he does not want that to be considered to be sources of information for writers, working on this show, he doesn't want it to be considered part of the canon by anybody working on any other projects.— Richard Arnold, 1991

However, even this rule is not without its exception. Two "Voyager" novels written by Jeri Taylor, "Mosaic" and "Pathways", were written early on in "Voyager"'s run and detailed the background of the show's main characters. These were meant to be canon, and to be used as references by the show's writers when fleshing out the characters. These two novels are sometimes named as exceptions to the "no book is canon" rule."Only the reference books (tech manual, encyclopedia, etc...) and two books by Jeri Taylor are considered canon outside the TV show and movies." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on [http://www.startrek.com/ StarTrek.com] forum, January 2005.] However, as some of the background information mentioned in those books was never referenced in an episode of "Voyager", their status as canon is still open to debate.

Novelizations

The novelizations of episodes and movies are not considered canon. This is a tradition that goes back to Gene Roddenberry himself. Roddenberry wrote a novelization of "", which included many tangents and new material that were not part of the movie, such as revealing that the woman who dies in the transporter accident was Kirk's lover. [cite book
last=Roddenberry
first=Gene
coauthors=
year=1979
title=Star Trek: The Motion Picture
location=New York
publisher=Pocket Books
isbn=0-671-83088-0
pages=66-67] While this novel filled in many gaps left in the movie, Roddenberry is quoted as saying it should not be considered canon."The novelization that Gene wrote himself, of "Star Trek: the Motion Picture", he does not consider canon either, because he also went off on tangents, that he said that it's okay for individual writers to do that, and he certainly had some fun with it himself, filling in parts of the puzzle that he never would've been able to do on film, it would've been a ten-hour movie, but he doesn't want even that used for canon, because otherwise, where do you draw the line? Which books are accepted and which aren't?" - Richard Arnold, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" research consultant and "Star Trek" archivist, 1991 interview with Tim Lynch.]

Reference books

A special case is made for non-fiction reference books such as "The Star Trek Encyclopedia", "Star Trek Chronology", ' and '. Unlike the novels and novelizations, these reference manuals have never been explicitly named as non-canon, and the fact that they were officially sanctioned by Paramount and given to episode writers as guides serves to give them an aura of credibility. Roddenberry himself considered it part of the "background" of "Star Trek"."Documents such as this Technical Manual help give some background to the vision we work so hard to create on "Star Trek". Rick and Mike have obviously had a lot of fun filling in the gaps and trying to find technical 'explanations' for some of our mistakes." - Gene Roddenberry, Introduction to the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual"] Meanwhile, Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach, two art and technical consultants since "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and the authors of several of these reference books, considered their work "pretty official"."How 'official' is this stuff? Well, this is the first technical manual done by folks who actually work on Star Trek. It's closely based on source material we've developed in conjunction with our writers and producers in our role as technical consultants for the series. In that sense it can be considered pretty 'official'." - Mike Okuda and Rick Sternbach, Introduction to the "Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual"] However, they stop short of naming the books canon, leaving the debate open.

Star Trek writer and co-producer Ronald D. Moore dismisses such official material as "speculation", and says that the writing staff did not consider it canon."You have to remember that things like CD-ROMs and the various "official" manuals put out by Paramount are not done in conjunction with the writing/producing staffs and that the authors are usually simply extrapolating information based on what's actually been seen on screen." - Ronald D. Moore, AOL's "Ask Ron D. Moore" message board, July 1998] "We do use things like the Encyclopedia, the Chronology, the Technical Manual etc. for reference, but unless it was explicitly mentioned on screen, we won't feel bound by anything stated even in those books." - Ronald D. Moore, "Star Trek Continuum" message board posting, September 1998.] However, Viacom, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. In a series of posts to the official Star Trek website's forums, Viacom Senior Director Harry Lang left no doubt that he considers the reference books as canon."The tech manuals are written by ST production staff, same as the Encyclopedia (Mike Okuda). Since their contents report on what is canon, they are technically canon." - Harry Lang, Senior Director of Viacom Consumer Products Interactive division, posts on [http://www.startrek.com/ StarTrek.com] forum, January 2005.]

Other publications

The Star Trek comic books and Star Trek magazines are not considered canon.

Other material

Nothing that takes place in Star Trek games, the attraction, Star Trek fan productions or Trekdom is considered canon.

Roddenberry-approved material

Based on the amount of creative control Roddenberry exerted over the first seasons of "Star Trek", some people argue that only Roddenberry-approved material should be considered canon."Gene rewrote virtually every "Star Trek" script for the first two seasons, often working around the clock, days at a time, to produce scripts that conformed to his view of what "Star Trek" was and could be. It was not unusual for Gene to be walking out of the studio in the morning as the actors were arriving. As Gene used to say, 'It isn’t "Star Trek" until I say it’s "Star Trek".' This ability to synthesize and improve input from others, adding his own special insights and touches, is best illustrated in the famous opening that set the tone for the series." - David Alexander, "Star Trek Creator: The Authorized Biography of Gene Roddenberry", 1994.] Such an approach would eliminate from canon anything Roddenberry didn't like, as well as everything made after his death, including five movies and three TV series.

However, Roddenberry himself pre-emptively rebuked such an attitude. He had hoped that Star Trek would go on after his death."I would hope there are bright young people, growing up all the time, who will bring to [Star Trek] levels and areas that were beyond me, and I don't feel jealous about that at all. [...] It'll go on, without any of us, and get better and better and better, because that's the... that really is the human condition. It's to improve and improve." - Gene Roddenberry, "The Star Trek Saga: From One Generation to the Next", 1988.] As "Star Trek" was constantly improved by each following generation, he expected people to look back upon its humble beginnings as just that, the simple beginnings of something much bigger and better."There's a good chance that when I'm gone, others will come along and do so well that people will say, 'Oh, that Roddenberry. He was never this good.' But I will be pleased with that statement." - Gene Roddenberry, "Los Angeles Times TV Times", article "Star Trek's New Frontier", 1993.] Roddenberry clearly never intended Star Trek to be limited to his work, but to include all the hopefully superior work of future generations.

Klingon language

The Klingon language was first conceived by James Doohan for the movie "Star Trek: The Motion Picture", and consisted only of a few words. Later, Marc Okrand proceeded to flesh out the sparse vocabulary into a real language, complete with grammar rules and phonology, and went so far as to publish "The Klingon Dictionary" and to create the Klingon Language Institute. [http://www.kli.org/tlh/ About the Klingon Language] article at the Klingon Language Institute. URL retrieved 5th December 2006.] Okrand's Klingon language was used to write the Klingon dialogues heard in several Star Trek movies and episodes. [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/library/creative/bio/3380.html Marc Okrand] short bio at [http://www.startrek.com StarTrek.com] , the official Star Trek website. URL retrieved 5th December 2006.] However, despite these facts, there is no exception to canon rules on record for this complete Klingon language. Therefore, only the Klingon words spoken on-screen qualify as canon.

References

See also

* Timeline of Star Trek

External links

* [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html What is considered Star Trek "canon"?] article at [http://www.startrek.com/ StarTrek.com] , the official Star Trek website.
* [http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWstcanon.html The Star Trek Canon] article at Canon Wars.