In a Doc Brown style diagram: ENT --> 2233 --> TOS, ST I-VI --> TNG, DS9, VOY, ST VII-X --> 2387 ................\ .................\___ ST XI+ --->
There's really no such thing as old or new canon. It's all the same thing, with just new stuff added to the old. In such instances where things match or don't match, you're then talking about continuity.
That's why we're watching a show featuring a Vulcanian aboard the UESPA starship class vessel Enterprise, commanded by James R. Kirk.
That's just a difference in terminology. I don't think using one precludes the other one from existing.
Imagine there's no canon. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no memorybeta too. Imagine all the Kzinti. Living life in peace..
Good point. The Vulcan vs. Vulcanian one is particularly lame. Tell me, what is Kirk? A Man? A human? A Terran? A Homo Sapien?
Canon is the thing that would cause the end of all life everywhere if anybdy figured out it's true meaning.
Honestly, I'm not sure anybody actually involved in the production really thinks about "canon" all that much. "Canon" is a fannish obsession. In all the years, I've been dealing with media tie-ins and licensed properties, I don't think I've ever discussed "canon" with anybody on any show. The word "canon" appears in no publishing contract or licensing agreement I've ever laid eyes on. It's only when talking to fans at conventions or online that the topic ever comes up. On a practical level, it's simply a matter of treating the original screen versions as the primary source--and assuming that the screen versions automatically trump the tie-ins when it comes to matters of continuity.
It comes from a word that means measuring-stick; in deciding (oops, I mean being led by the deity) what books were scripture, those that "measured up" were included in what eventually became known as The Bible.
Canon is a demon that haunts obsessive trekkies and feeds on the energy of unimportant, repetitive arguements.
Borrowing characters and other elements from the novels doesn't make them canon any more than, say, a Superman movie using an obscure comic book character would make all of the comics featuring that character part of the movie's backstory. If that makes any sense.
Sure, but it seems to me that they are in the process of giving at least the supernovels "validity". Maybe "canon" is the wrong word to use for them.
They do seem to be drawing on the whole of Trek lore for inspration rather than the old mentality that anything besides filmed Trek is worthless. It's cool.
"Canon" is the vague continuity that the powers that be want to promote at any given time. The canon of Trek includes everything...books, comics, cartoons, etc. If it's good enough for them to put the Star Trek label on and expect people to pay for then it all counts. At any time "Canon" can be expanded or withdrawn from any of the canon materials. If it's on the screen (TV or movie) or page, it's part of Trek. If one part is contradicted by another just remember that there's an infinite number of universes out there. Episode A just occurs in a slightly different one than Movie B or Novel C.