Star Trek V's canon status

[Valin]

middyseafort wrote:

---

THIS. 100 TIMES. THIS.

It's story that matters. Canon be damned.

Agreed. The original series wasn't obsessed with canon; it just tried to tell good, interesting stories.

One of the reasons that Trekkies/Trekkers have been mocked (perhaps, rightly so), is due to the obsession with canon that some fans exhibit.

[The Overlord]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

^ What's contradictory about Spock having a half brother or Kirk making peace with the Klingons?

The fact that Kirk seemed to hate the Klingons again in Star Trek 6 is a big contradiction and why did Spock never mention he had a brother in the past?

[Christopher]

Peter Q Taggart wrote:

---

Since none of it ever REALLY happened, canon is what you want it to be. Liked a particular novel or comic book? Then it happened.

No, that's not what the word canon means. You're referring to personal continuity, and a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that's what the word "canon" refers to, but that's completely wrong. The word "canon" comes from religious usage and refers to official Church-approved texts, specifically as opposed to texts that people not affiliated with the Church might want to believe in but that the Church doesn't count. Those texts are apocrypha, not canon.

So "canon," in a fictional context, doesn't mean "what I think is true." It's not a value judgment or a declaration of "rightness." It simply refers to the core body of work from the original creators, as distinct from derivative works. Saying that individual preference can be called "canon" is like saying that personal tastes in food can be called USDA regulations. It's misusing the vocabulary. Yes, you are absolutely free to define your personal continuity however you want; you're completely right about that. But "canon" is the wrong term to use for that concept, because it means something completely different, despite how constantly the fans get it wrong.

The Overlord wrote:

---

The fact that Kirk seemed to hate the Klingons again in Star Trek 6 is a big contradiction

But then, doesn't that mean the problem is with ST VI rather than ST V? You can't blame a film for contradicting something that didn't exist yet.

and why did Spock never mention he had a brother in the past?

Are you kidding? First off, Spock is an intensely private person. He didn't even tell his best friends who his father was until he came aboard the Enterprise. So there's certainly precedent. Second, Sybok was an embarrassment to the family and was essentially disowned/excommunicated. Spock would not have volunteered the information without need.

Besides, Kirk never mentioned he had a son until TWOK; why aren't you complaining about that?

[los2188]

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

^ What's contradictory about Spock having a half brother or Kirk making peace with the Klingons?

I don't think Spock having a half brother is a bad thing or that there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's more of a common sense sort of thing. If Spock and Kirk are best friends, chances are that the subject of having any brothers or sisters would come up at some point in a 30 plus year friendship much like me and my two best buds that I've know for 25 plus years. At least that's my take on it. As far as the Kirk making peace with the Klingons, I think given Kirk's comments about Klingons, "let them die" and so forth is what some people have issues with. I appreciate consistency in movies, but the truth of the matter is that you can pick apart any movie no matter what. I just prefer to enjoy the movie instead of worrying about how Nu Kirk has blue eyes, while Kirk prime has greenish brown eyes.

[RPJOB]

I didn't have a problem with the trip to the center of the galaxy in TFF. TOS ships were much faster than their TNG era counterparts. In Obsession, the Enterprise followed the cloud creature over 1000 light years from Argus X to Tycho IV and still had time to make it's rendezvous with the Yorktown.

in That Which Survives they're thrown 990.7 light years and Spock simply orders the ship to return to the Kalandan Outpost without any mention of how it would take years or decades. Granted, they make the return trip much faster than planned due to the engines running wild but not so fast that the ship is torn apart before Scotty can fix things.


"Can you give me warp eight?"
"Aye, sir. And maybe a wee bit more. I'll sit on the warp engines myself and nurse them."

Based on the speeds we saw, the center of that Galaxy wasn't decades distant in the TOS era.

[Christopher]

los2188 wrote:

---

I don't think Spock having a half brother is a bad thing or that there's anything wrong with it, but I think it's more of a common sense sort of thing. If Spock and Kirk are best friends, chances are that the subject of having any brothers or sisters would come up at some point in a 30 plus year friendship much like me and my two best buds that I've know for 25 plus years. At least that's my take on it.

But he didn't tell Kirk who his father was either. And it's not just "oh, I have a brother who never comes around for a visit." It's "I have a brother who's shamed our people and our family and is an outcast and renegade and we disowned him so he technically isn't part of my family anymore." We know Spock is an intensely private person, and Vulcans have a strict sense of family propriety. Even bringing up Sybok's existence and acknowledging the relationship would've been violating custom. Even on Earth we have instances of families who've disowned members and refused to acknowledge their existence.

Besides, Spock only knew Sybok in his youth. We can safely assume that Sybok was banished before Spock turned seven, since he wasn't in evidence in "Yesteryear." So he would be a distant memory at best, not something Spock would normally give any thought to.

Anyway, the movie offered several explanations for why Spock never brought it up. "I do not often think of the past." "I do not have a brother... I have a half-brother." "I was not prepared to discuss matters of a personal nature." All that is perfectly in character for Spock. If Kirk or McCoy ever asked if he had brothers or sisters, he would've rationalized that technically Sybok wasn't a brother but a half-brother, and felt he could honestly answer "no" and allow them to misinterpret, thus sparing him from having to address a deeply uncomfortable and shameful subject that had no relevance to his adult life.

As far as the Kirk making peace with the Klingons, I think given Kirk's comments about Klingons, "let them die" and so forth is what some people have issues with.

But as I said, that was what was out of continuity, not ST V. Throughout TOS, Kirk was portrayed as someone who was able to look past his anger and soldierly aggression and strive to make peace when the opportunity arose. TUC's introduction of this deep-seated racism against Klingons was a radical retcon, unlike anything we'd ever seen in James Kirk's character for the 26 previous years. It's the exception, so it's bizarre to treat it as the rule.

I just prefer to enjoy the movie instead of worrying about how Nu Kirk has blue eyes, while Kirk prime has greenish brown eyes.

I gather that the word for Shatner's eye color is "hazel."

[ssosmcin]

Christopher wrote:

---

But he didn't tell Kirk who his father was either.

Which seems a bit wonky to me on its own. Kirk doesn't know his own first officer and best friend is the son of the Vulcan Ambassador to the Federation. This little tidbit never came up when he was reviewing the personnel files? Or did Kirk just take over from Pike without once checking out the senior staff? Sarek is too high profile for it to be a real secret. But fine, it could have been a secret to everyone else on board, but not Kirk. Of course, that leaves Shatner out of the sting, which could have been an issue.

It was simply a dramatic hook to hang the episode's teaser on, but it's wacky for Kirk not to know and, frankly, inappropriate for him to ask Spock if he wants to visit his folks in front of visiting dignitaries. I would have bought it if Kirk walked off camera with Sarek and Amanda, leaving Bones to say "well Spock, now that you have some time on your hands, why not beam down and visit your parents?" Then Spock's line remains the same and we get the big dramatic fade out. Later, Bones can be cranky at Kirk for not telling him.

Huff puff, that was longer than I anticipated. Slid off topic there for a sec. Sorry.

[Christopher]

Again, we know Vulcans are intensely private. And Sarek and Spock hadn't acknowledged that they were related to each other for 18 years prior to the episode. I suppose it's possible that Spock had the "family" fields in his personnel records put under a privacy seal.

[BillJ]

Does canon vs. non-canon really matter in the home video era? I own it and can watch it whenever I want.

[Greg Cox]

And Spock didn't tell Kirk about his engagement to T'Pring, about ponn farr, about Leila Kalomi, and (later on) about that business with the katras. Or about his secret peace negotiations with the Klingons.

If Trek is consistent about one thing, it's that Vulcans are awfully tight-lipped about personal matters!

[Redfern]

I just attribute Kirk's loathing Klingons in Trek 6 to brooding over David's death. After all, he mentions this point in the movie while dictating a personal log. Maybe not much time has passed between the events of Trek 4 and Trek 5, while considerably more time has elapsed between 5 and 6. That gap has given Kirk time to reflect and then brood over the loss of David, thus turning his opinion about Klingons personal and very bitter.

Maybe not a perfect explanation, but it suits me well enough.

Sincerely,

Bill

[BillJ]

Redfern wrote:

---

I just attribute Kirk's loathing Klingons in Trek 6 to brooding over David's death. After all, he mentions this point in the movie while dictating a personal log. Maybe not much time has passed between the events of Trek 4 and Trek 5, while considerably more time has elapsed between 5 and 6. That gap has given Kirk time to reflect and then brood over the loss of David, thus turning his opinion about Klingons personal and very bitter.

Maybe not a perfect explanation, but it suits me well enough.

Sincerely,

Bill

This and the fact that he's retiring and the Klingons took away the only positive thing to come out of his personal life. Plus, these thoughts are private thoughts that were only expressed openly to Spock. He was operating in a far different capacity when being cordial to the Klingons in The Final Frontier.

[Therin of Andor]

sonak wrote:

---

I heard a reference to TFF being "stricken" from canon. My view was that whatever was on the screen for Trek was canon, but then TAS was onscreen and not canon.

Richard Arnold, on behalf of Roddenberry's Star Trek Office at Paramount frequently described "Star Trek canon" as anything "live-action onscreen, produced by Desilu or Paramount", meaning that licensed comics and novels, novelizations (even GR's), unfilmed script fragments, RPG manuals, fact books, Filmation's TAS or even live-action material filmed for exclusive use in video board games, computer games, studio tour attractions, the official website, or the "Star Trek Experience" were not canonical, even though they may have featured original cast members or sets. He was dismissed before he could make a ruling on "director's edition" home videos, since these created an alternative "onscreen" version to a previously canonical work.

So was it a joke about TFF? I know Roddenberry made that comment about it being "apocraphyl," but what's the real official status of TFF?

No joke. Roddenberry was quoted as saying that he "considered parts of ST V to be apocryphal", but he never actually specified exactly what parts. Based on previous comments, he probably meant Sarek having another son, Sybok, prior to the birth of Spock, and McCoy mercy killing his own father. (Based on GR's early reactions to the shooting script of ST VI, he probably also would have ruled out Valeris - originally Saavik - and Cartwright betraying their oaths to Starfleet. And Kirk hating Klingons.)

But that doesn't mean he couldn't be overruled by any future decree by Paramount, Berman, Abrams or Bad Robot. As "creative consultant" on the movies, GR had to be offered every version of scripts for comments, but no one had to listen to him.

Fans are free to believe what they like. The "What is canon?" ruling only ever affected the creators of licensed tie-in material, anyway; such material has to reflect current canonicity at the time of publication.

A beaker full of death wrote:

---

What's contradictory about Spock having a half brother

During the years of TOS in TV production, DC Fontana was entrusted with keeping tabs on the evolution of Vulcan traditions, as new insights were developing from each script. DC wrote an early memo to the writers about what she felt was a necessity to keep the character of Spock fresh and unique: that they refrain from introducing siblings. Not a canonical factoid, of course, because it was never filmed in live-action, but a production office agreement.

[Captaindemotion]

BillJ wrote:

---

Does canon vs. non-canon really matter in the home video era? I own it and can watch it whenever I want.

'Home video era'?!! And hello to you out there in the 1980s too!

[BillJ]

Captaindemotion wrote:

---

'Home video era'?!! And hello to you out there in the 1980s too!