The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   General Trek Discussion (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)
-   -   Barely-legible graphics canon? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=224371)

Noddy August 31 2013 11:53 AM

Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
When it comes to information glimpsed briefly from a distance on things like display screens and the like on the various Trek shows, is what is written there considered canon?

Tosk August 31 2013 12:22 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Sure, why not? ;)


I'll go with "Yes, unless contradicted elsewhere."

King Daniel Into Darkness August 31 2013 12:38 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
I put them in the category of fun Easter eggs, nothing more.

The Wormhole August 31 2013 01:40 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
That might get a bit tricky, particularly in TATV when Riker is looking over the computer file of one of his Pegasus crewmates. It actually says "I wonder if this can be read in HD? Need to come up with something long-winded to pad this out so it looks like an authentic computer file. Blah, blah, blah, blahdy-blah. Who the hell is this guy pictured anyway? Obviously someone Riker cares about..."

jpv2000 August 31 2013 02:19 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Quote:

Tosk wrote: (Post 8580436)
I'll go with "Yes, unless contradicted elsewhere."

That is the way I've always looked at it.

Christopher August 31 2013 02:39 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
"Canon" is not about individual details, but broad strokes. There are countless details in any long-running series that contradict each other, that are ignored by later installments, or that are simply mistakes. It's important not to forget that a canon is a work of fiction -- it's one author or a group of filmmakers and actors telling stories about an imaginary reality. The pretense is that there's a "real" world underlying it all, but the way the storytellers depict the details of that reality is subject to error, differences of interpretation, or changes of mind.

Is it "canonical" that there's a giant rubber ducky somewhere inside the Enterprise-D, or that Yoyodyne Propulsion had a shop on the Promenade? You might as well ask if it's canonical that NCC-1701's nacelle struts blinked out of existence in that matte shot in one episode, or if it's canonical that Sylvia and Korob's true forms had wires puppeteering them, or if it's canonical that Saavik had extensive plastic surgery right after Spock's funeral, or whatever. Of course none of those are part of the imaginary underlying reality that we think of when we refer to the canon. They're part of the way that reality is interpreted by the creators of the fiction, and they can't be taken too literally. Think of it like how different comic-book artists draw the same character, or the way different actors play the same character. Different writers, directors, set designers, etc. also bring their own differences of interpretation to the work. When different people work on the same thing, there are bound to be inconsistencies in the details. But the audience is expected to suspend disbelief about the minor inconsistencies or errors and buy into the pretense that there's a consistent underlying reality. That's what canon is supposed to be -- a thing of the broad strokes, not the niggly details.

So no, barely legible graphics are not "canon" any more than any other single detail is "canon." Canon is the overall aggregate that you see when you step back and look at the whole. An individual detail may be relevant to the whole or it may just be a joke, mistake, or inconsequential bit of scenery.

King Daniel Into Darkness August 31 2013 02:54 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
What are you saying, that Buckaroo Banzai isn't a part of the Star Trek canon?:eek:

Green Shirt August 31 2013 04:33 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Quote:

Tosk wrote: (Post 8580436)
Sure, why not? ;)


I'll go with "Yes, unless contradicted elsewhere."


Yeah, like Starship Class.

T'Girl August 31 2013 04:35 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8580619)
What are you saying, that Buckaroo Banzai isn't a part of the Star Trek canon?:eek:

Given the number of references to "Yoyodyne" I would say that it safe to say they do in fact manufacture warp engines. Starships come to DS9 needing repairs in some episodes, it would make sense that there would be businesses to provide those services. Yoyodyne on the promenade? Sure.

In the vampire series Angel, Yoyodyne was a client of the law firm of Wolfram and Hart.

While there are some out and out goofy things in the graphics, my position is you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to the information presented on them, and the barely legible graphics are canon.

:)

Greg Cox August 31 2013 04:44 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Quote:

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: (Post 8580451)
I put them in the category of fun Easter eggs, nothing more.

That seems like a sensible approach, especially if nobody involved ever intended them to be legible . . . .

R. Star August 31 2013 04:56 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Oh yay... another canon debate. If you want it to be part of your Star Trek experience it is. If you don't, it's not. You really don't need anyone else to define your Trek experience for you.

Tosk August 31 2013 05:01 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
A canon discussion.

RPJOB August 31 2013 05:07 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Everything released to the public counts. All of it. Every episode, every movie, every comic, every novel. If the owner of Star Trek sees fit to put their stamp of approval on it then it counts.

However, there are contradictions. How to handle those? Simple. Just watch Parallels. If an episode contradicts something that has been seen before then we're actually seeing Something from a very similar but different dimension.

Gorn look different in Arena, IAMD and STIX? Different dimensions.

Was Fermat's Last Theorem ever solved? The Royale says no yet Facets says yes. Different dimensions.

Kirk's middle initial R or T? You get the drill.

Don't let anyone tell you something doesn't fit or isn't canon or is wrong. It's all good.

DS9forever August 31 2013 05:31 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
If barely-legible graphics are canon, Jerry Maguire lived on DS9 ("Things Past").

Nerys Myk August 31 2013 05:55 PM

Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?
 
Quote:

RPJOB wrote: (Post 8581003)
Everything released to the public counts. All of it. Every episode, every movie, every comic, every novel. If the owner of Star Trek sees fit to put their stamp of approval on it then it counts.

However, there are contradictions. How to handle those? Simple. Just watch Parallels. If an episode contradicts something that has been seen before then we're actually seeing Something from a very similar but different dimension.

Gorn look different in Arena, IAMD and STIX? Different dimensions.

Was Fermat's Last Theorem ever solved? The Royale says no yet Facets says yes. Different dimensions.

Kirk's middle initial R or T? You get the drill.

Don't let anyone tell you something doesn't fit or isn't canon or is wrong. It's all good.

It's all part of the canon. The real question should be, it is part of the continuity? :p

As for the "stamp of approval". That can be removed on a whim. What's okay one day can be trash canned the next.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.