Paramount Policy Quotes

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-02 11:28pm

Any available with links for those who argue TNG and other publications are canon?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-10-03 12:40am

Hmm... why don't we stick with what the man himself- Roddenberry- has said? I mean, so many dickfors want to play that game with Lucas quotes, right?

"It isn’t Star Trek until I say it’s Star Trek."

That's a direct quote from him. Here's another:

"I wouldn't want to do a third generation of 'Star Trek.' I'm 'Star Trek'ed out. It has satisfied many of my needs. It satisfied my needs for respecting myself... And it gives me a good feeling that it's a body of work in my life that is worth considering."
--from a conversation at La Costa, 1990

http://www.insidetrek.com/quotes/quoteweeklog.html

Currently, on http://www.startrek.com, they deem the novels "Pathways" and "Mosaic" canon because Jeri Taylor worked on Voyager and wrote them. So why isn't the novelization to ST:TMP canon? RODDENBERRY wrote it. AND, he said that TOS was an "exaggeration" of actual events. Which may allow "Enterprise" to slide right into canon nicely.

But then that means disallowing anything we have accepted about the power of the "Connie" or anything else from TOS. Oh well. The MAN has spoken.

But WAIT! What about DS9 and Voyager? They're OUTTA HERE too! Roddenberry died during production of the fifth season of TNG. DS9 was introduced during TNG's (non canon?) 6th season!

So all we have left that are absolute canon are also the Trek movies, right?

BUT WAIT!

Roddenberry stated that he considers ST5 NON CANON! He also considered parts of ST6 NON CANON! (As stated in the ST Encyclopedia)

And of course, everything after ST6 is non canon as well....

"It isn’t Star Trek until I say it’s Star Trek."

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-03 10:59am

Canon's a sticky thing with Star Trek. For example, Kirk's middle name (Tiberius) came originally from the Animated Series, and was later added to TOS. According to Roddenberry, only things he approved are Star Trek. According to Paramount, only what's on the screen is canon. Those are two conflicting versions of what's canon. Essentially, there is no universally accepted definition of canon for Star Trek.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-10-05 07:14am

I think as long as majority of the fans accepts something it should be considered canon.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-10-05 12:24pm

evilcat4000 wrote:I think as long as majority of the fans accepts something it should be considered canon.

Hell why not. Paramount doesn't give a shit about a proper canon policy.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-05 01:34pm

Hey Wayne, do you think you could post some of those Roddenberry quotes about ST5 and ST6, not to mention the TMP? I'm thinking of revamping my Canon page. I already found a link on the official Gene Roddenberry homepage for the "It isn't Star Trek unti I say it's Star Trek" line.

PS. Your new avatar is great!

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-10-05 07:16pm

You might remember this discussion from before, Mr. Wong. The following are the relevant quotes from Star Trek: The Motion Picture (Pocket Books, 1979), whose cover features the claim "A Novel by Star Trek's Creator Gene Roddenberry, based on the screenplay by Harold Livingston and the story by Alan Dean Foster":

From Admiral Kirk's Preface (specifically, pp. 7 - 8):

It is made doubly amusing, of course, by the fact that our five-year mission was so well documented, due to an ill-conceived notion by Starfleet that the return of the U.S.S. Enterprise merited public notice. Unfortunately, Starfleet's enthusiasm affected even those who chronicled our adventures, and we were all painted somewhat larger than life, especially myself.

Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of "modern Ulysses" and it has been painful to see my command decisions of those years so widely applauded, whereas the plain facts are that ninety-four of our crew met violent deaths during those years -- and many of them would still be alive if I had acted either more quickly or more wisely. Nor have I been as foolishly courageous as depicted. I have never happily invited injury; I have disliked in the extreme every duty circumstance which has required me to risk my life. But there appears to be something in the nature of depicters of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration. As a result, I became determined that if I ever again found myself involved in an affair attracting public attention, I would insist that some way be found to tell the story more accurately.

As some of you will know, I did become involved in such an affair -- in fact, an event which threatened the very existence of Earth. Unfortunately, this has again brought me to the attention of those who record such happenings. Accordingly, although there may be many other ways in which this story is told or depicted, I have insisted that it also be set down in a written manuscript which would be subject to my correction and my final approval. Thisis that manuscript, presented to you here as an old-style printed book. While I cannot control other depictions of these events that you may see, hear, and feel, I can promise that every description, idea, and word on these pages is the exact and true story of Vejur and Earth as it was seen, heard, and felt by...

James T Kirk

From the Author's Preface (specifically, pp. 9 - 10):

Considering Admiral James Kirk's comments in his own preface, it may seem strange that he chose me as the one to write this book. I was, after all, somewhat a key figure among those who chronicled his original five-year mission in a way which the admiral has criticized as inaccurately "larger than life."

I suspect that the thing which finally recommended me to the admiral was the fact that I have always cherished books as much as he does. Or perhaps he thought I would be more trustworthy when working with words rather than with images. Either way, it is clear he knew he could guarantee the accuracy of this by insisting that the manuscript be read, and, where necessary, corrected by everyone involved in the events being described. Spock, Dr. McCoy, Admiral Nogura, Commander Scott, the Enterprise bridge crew, and almost everyone else listed on these pages have been given the opportunity to review every word describing the events in which they took part. These final printed pages reflect their comments as well as Admiral Kirk's determination that this be the whole and full truth of what actually happened in the events described here.

Finally, on a more personal note, why am I concerning myself with the Enterprise and its crew once again? Having depicted them already with at least some popular success, could I have not given this same effort to new and freshly challenging subjects? Of course. Any civilized individual, whether author or not (one is hardly a prerequisite to the other), has no end of events and subjects clamoring for and doubtlessly deserving attention.

Why STAR TREK again? I suppose the real truth is that I have always looked upon the Enterprise and its crew as my own private view of Earth and humanity in microcosm. If this is not the way we really are, it seems to me most certainly a way we ought to be. [...]

PUBLIUS

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2003-10-05 09:05pm

Little goofy moment...Darth Vader and Miss Piggy can be seen in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, when Spock travels through V'Ger, according to a movie review:

SciFlicks.com wrote:When Spock travels through V'ger and sees all the incredible imagery, Darth Vader and Miss Piggy can be seen. It comes right after his line "Who or what are we dealing with?".

One problem with ST:VI...Klingon blood is purple in that movie, as opposed to red every other time we see a Klingon bleed. It was for ratings purposes, but it's still on-screen.

According to a Trek list here, Roddenberry declared every novel (including his) non-canon.

The interesting thing is that if the Animated Series is canon, then Larry Niven's Kzinti exist within the ST galaxy (they appear in "The Slaver Weapon").

It's hard to find definitive information on what's really canon, though. Everything seems to be "I heard," or "It's generally accepted."

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-10-05 09:58pm

Publius, now that I've seen those quotes, I'm not sure that they mean what we've been thinking that they mean.

Shouldn't they be taken with a grain of salt, since they appear to be written "in-universe"? The Kirk quote seems to be saying that Kirk is unhappy with the way he's portrayed in the shows; it does not actually mean that anything about the shows is inaccurate. It could just as easily mean that lots of things were cut out of the shows which would make him appear to be a less warmongering character. We hear about this a lot with respect to documentaries, where people use real facts and real footage but the subjects still complain that they have not been fairly portrayed. Similarly, the author is another "in-universe" character, and appears only to be concerned about not offending the Great Admiral Kirk.

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2003-10-05 10:32pm

Yes, Adm. Kirk's comments are rather vague, but his complaint about a "modern Ulysses" suggests that Mr. Roddenberry did a bit more than simply romanticise his personality (especially with his remarks about "fictionalization" and "exaggeration"). At the same time, Mr. Roddenberry himself refers to 'STAR TREK' in his preface, which places the original series itself "in-universe". Even if it is more or less accurate, that could have substantial impact on continuity (such as the fact that "special effects errors" and "author's error" would be valid objections to it).

As you yourself mentioned, the editor can make a substantial difference in the way an event is perceived. The fact that these "depictions" are sponsored by Starfleet may mean that embarrassing details have been ommitted.

Still, there remains the fact that Adm. Kirk and Mr. Roddenberry both testify to the complete accuracy of the novelisation, theoretically superior even to the film itself (which would be one of the "other depictions" mentioned in Admiral Kirk's Preface). Even if one ignores the implied derogation of the original series' accuracy, the novelisation itself should still be treated as canonical, Paramount Pictures' stated policy notwithstanding.

The last time this subject came up, it was suggested that there should in fact be two Star Trek canons, the Roddenberry canon and the Paramount canon. The former would include the original series, The Motion Picture and its novelisation, the other original series films (except The Final Frontier and parts of The Undiscovered Country), and all of The Next Generation up to the fifth season; the latter would include all the live-action series and films, and parts of Pathways, Mosaic, and selected bits from The Animated Series, but not the novelisation.

This would mean that each canon would include material not included in the other (and that Earth in the Roddenberry canon is actually surprisingly different from that in the Paramount canon, e.g., the damming of the Straits of Gibraltar, the discovery of pre-Minoan ruins in the Mediterranean basin, the violent Eugenics Wars in the 1990s, and comcon technology, all of which happened in the Roddenberry canon, and the reduction of Florida to an island by the Xindi, the bombing of Starfleet Command by the Breen, the attempted "silent coup" of Adm. Leyton, &c., all of which happened in the Paramount canon).

This would of course complicate versus debating, as it would be rather less streamlined than the Star Wars canon, which is simply composed of two complementary "parallel universes", to use Mr. Lucas's clumsy phrase.

PUBLIUS

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2003-10-05 11:20pm

What about ST6 did Roddenberry not like?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-10-06 01:35am

Darth Wong wrote:Hey Wayne, do you think you could post some of those Roddenberry quotes about ST5 and ST6, not to mention the TMP? I'm thinking of revamping my Canon page. I already found a link on the official Gene Roddenberry homepage for the "It isn't Star Trek unti I say it's Star Trek" line.

Well, Plubius has covered most of this for you. The other two quotes about ST 5 and 6 can be found in the ST Encyclopedia preface, which I don't own. Does anyone here have it?

PS. Your new avatar is great!

Thanks. Thought it would be appropriate for Halloween!

Sidious · Post by **Sidious** » 2003-10-09 09:40pm

Uranium235 wrote:What about ST6 did Roddenberry not like?

Same reason he didnt care for ST2 all that much I believe. Too much military.