A beaker full of death wrote:
See, questions like this are the reason the recent Star Trek movie spent 80 percent of its time trying to explain why canon was no longer binding.
It's like DC Comics having to totally reinvent its universe every 20 years.
Star Trek isn't some religion. There is no council of cardinals making vital decisions about whether interpreting Kirk 2:16 means you have to eat worms on Friday.
"Canon?" Come on.
Star Trek V is a movie. A 90 minute story. Like it or don't like it.
This canon stuff is nothing but a time-waster that brutally detracts from the things that actually matter: story, plot, acting, production values. You know: art.
Actually, oddly enough, I fall on the other side of this argument...
"Canon" and "Continuity" are two things that I value greatly when it comes to any media... TV, movies, books... whatever...
If you have a series as long running as Star Trek, then having a canon or continous history is something that's important, not just to fans, but to writers who have a history that's been built on, expanded, grown and fleshed out... it's something for new writers to be respectful of, looking back at 40+ years of TV and Movies, and going 'yeah, that's the history built here by god knows how many writers, now i'm going to add to it.'
I do enjoy discussions about canon and continuity, as sometimes people do forget how important have a solid continuity for any series is... People would soon be up in arms if half way through an series of Voyager, the writers suddenly decided to change the fact Warp Drives needed Deuterium to run, changing it to converting the waste products from the crew / mess hall into energy instead... So i think people should be respectful of what writers work on, both for a long time series built continuity, and for what is decided is and isn't canon...
It doesn't detract from the enjoyment of what isn't canon, but i'd say it's pretty important to know what is and isn't, for the sake of current and future storylines.