RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,162
Posts: 5,402,646
Members: 24,751
Currently online: 499
Newest member: kaklina

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Fan Film Axanar Kickstarter Success
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27

Two New Starship Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26

Trek Actor Wins Emmy
By: T'Bonz on Aug 26


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 23 2013, 09:11 PM   #31
LobsterAfternoon
Commander
 
LobsterAfternoon's Avatar
 
Re: What is "canon?"

It's whatever you want it to be, cause clearly that's how writers treat it.
LobsterAfternoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2013, 09:27 PM   #32
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: What is "canon?"

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.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; March 24 2013 at 01:14 AM.
Greg Cox is online now   Reply With Quote
Old March 23 2013, 11:08 PM   #33
Galileo7
Fleet Captain
 
Galileo7's Avatar
 
Location: U.S.A.
Re: What is "canon?"

Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Trek canon = Onscreen history.

History is constantly told and retold, and details change in the retelling. Both in Trek and in real life.

It's all history but the details are fuzzy.
Agree.
Galileo7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2013, 03:27 AM   #34
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: What is "canon?"

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.
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2013, 04:45 PM   #35
Avon
Fleet Captain
 
Avon's Avatar
 
Location: Space Wales
Re: What is "canon?"

Canon is a demon that haunts obsessive trekkies and feeds on the energy of unimportant, repetitive arguements.
__________________

Hello to Jason Isaacs!
Avon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2013, 05:02 PM   #36
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: What is "canon?"

it seems to me that the JJ crew has made the novels canon.
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2013, 05:11 PM   #37
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: What is "canon?"

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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 25 2013, 05:59 PM   #38
indranee
Vice Admiral
 
indranee's Avatar
 
Location: Warrrrrrrrrshington, DC
Re: What is "canon?"

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.
indranee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2013, 10:41 AM   #39
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: What is "canon?"

indranee wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2013, 05:56 PM   #40
RPJOB
Commander
 
RPJOB's Avatar
 
Re: What is "canon?"

"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.
__________________
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill - today! - Kirk - A Taste of Armageddon
RPJOB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2013, 08:05 PM   #41
plynch
Commodore
 
plynch's Avatar
 
Location: Outer Graceland
View plynch's Twitter Profile
Re: What is "canon?"

The Hornblower series has contradictions, and Horatio is portrayed differently at different points in the series.

GR was just being true to his roots.
__________________
Author of Live Like Louis! Inspirational Stories from the Life of Louis Armstrong, http://livelikelouis.com
plynch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 26 2013, 09:13 PM   #42
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: What is "canon?"

solariabsg25 wrote: View Post

Is Kirk's middle initial R or T? Why did Starfleet forget the Romulans had a cloaking device 2 years after they saw it? Was it's Spock's ancestor or mother who was human? Is Spock Vulcan or Vulcanian? Were the Klingons conquered by the Federation, or just became allies?
It's "T", but Gary was referring to an old nickname he had for Kirk in school.

It was a new "improved" cloak they wanted intelligence on in Enterprise Incident. The original one was easy to track.

A mother IS an ancestor.

Vulcan and Vulcanian are interchangeable. Vulcanian fell out of favor because Vulcan is shorter and easier to say. See also "Englishman" and "Brit."

Allies.

Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 29 2013, 02:07 PM   #43
bbailey861
Admiral
 
bbailey861's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, ON
Re: What is "canon?"

King Daniel wrote: View Post
indranee wrote: View Post
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.
Yes, and that is what makes it interesting for me as well. Not having to 'like' everything about the first nuTrek film, there still was plenty to like. I still am waiting on the edge of my seat for the next one - and that makes this old(er) guy feel pretty damn good.

Re Canon - A life long Trekkie, while it bothered me at first, I no longer subscribe to any one definition of canon. Canon is whatever I want it to be. The screen may be official canon - but I look at all the books and comics as stories that my grandfathers told me - with a little misremembering in them. A bit of truth in them all - some more entertaining than others - but with me being unable to wait for the next story to come along.

Don't sweat canon - Star Trek is too big to let it get you wrapped around the axle - just hop on and enjoy the ride.
bbailey861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 07:07 PM   #44
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: What is "canon?"

The infamous "c word" as it is applied to Star Trek is a joke.

More to the point, it came about in the early 1980s and turned fan against fan. This practice is still going on today. Paramount in turn used it to exploit gullible geeks into buying (or Not buying) various publications.

It goes something like this... GR first comes along and says that only the first two season of TOS are canon and the rest isn't. That includes TAS as not being canon.
Then various TNG episodes and works obviously don't follow this, and why should they? It's all Star Trek. Then the geeks start to appear and begin asking questions about various books being canon. So some king geek invents new words such as Semi-Canon, Pseudo-Canon, and others. Or a Canon Scale. Fans keep arguing. After GR dies, Paramount starts issuing BS about old publications such as blueprints and manuals which were fully authorized by GR, but are now non-canon. This is because they weren't published by Pocket Books but by Bantam and Ballantine. Rival publishers. So in order to maximize their money, Paramount dictates that these are non-canon, despite their obvious influence on Trek films and even Appearance in films. Conversely, Paramount authorizes a few cutaway posters which sell for many times their worth as being Canon because they're making money on it. Their research is piss-poor as are simple spelling of words. But, you know, They're CANON because they're saying so. So fans buy the crud up in droves. Meanwhile a RPG company named FASA which was 100% Paramount licensed and enjoyed by many fans in the 1980s is later called Non-Canon by the same suits because FASA didn't want to pay the increased royalties and what not. So New RPGs are invented which are piss-poor researched and consist of lots of glossy photos and no substance but is called Canon by TPTB because they're licensed... This BS goes on and on, back and forth. Later episodes of spinoff Trek series start using info from TAS episodes--but is TAS canon? Not according to TPTB because of certain licensing issues like the use of Larry Niven's Kzinti who put them there from his own Known Space series into TAS himself but wants to be paid for so much as uttering their name. So TAS is a no-no despite virtually all TOS fans accepting it as a continuation of TOS, at least so far as the stories are concerned. Meanwhile some pipsqueaks who have Titles at Paramount Pictures Trek production offices like Michael Okuda and Rick Sternbach are The only people Authorized to publish anything Treknical for the fans, even if they take the material as half-jokes themselves and constantly contradict themselves because to them it's just a TV show. This automatically cuts out All of the more polished and professional Treknical experts who've published some really splendid works--Out of the Canon category.
While all the above is going on, Pocket Books original Star Trek novels went through various phases of changes including a "disclaimer" section following the copyright about the novel being strictly the author's interpretation of the Trek universe and should not be taken as gospel, blah blah blah... These things change as often as cover artists and fonts, but that doesn't stop some fans from noticing it and thinking that These books are Less Canon than other novels. So a big firefight erupts over that. Taken all together we have fans fighting over fans over what is more "real" in Trek and what is less "real" in Trek. This affects the sales of books and merchandise and makes Star Trek fans look like total assholes.

My take is that Canon is a kid's word and I avoid it like the plague. I take All of Star Trek in as a vast multiverse of Treks. Some things fit better than others. Those that fit the best I accept, even if it comes from some B novel written in the 1970s or some long-forgotten blueprint package or RPG. Even if someone new comes along which everyone is quick to accept, I will scrutinize it and see how well it fits into My own personal perspective of Trek, regardless of who or what came up with it. A good example is the atrocious publication called Star Trek Star Charts which contradicts a much older and more plausible Star Trek Maps, and is in fact a cheap rewrite of the former, shrinking UFP space down to fit the ridiculous demands of Star Trek: Enterprise. In it, Procyon is now the sun which Andor (or Andoria) orbits. For 40 years virtually every Treknical reference placed Andor in orbit of Epsilon Indii, but this new author had to be different or careless. I disregard the new and accept the old in this instance.
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 07:11 PM   #45
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: What is "canon?"

Canon in Star Trek is basically an opinion. Even the creators/producers can't agree on what is and isn't canon. People from those said producers/creaters to directors, authors, writers, actors and other people affiliated with the series, will give you official sounding explanations of what is/isn't but the fact of the matter is none of it's consistent.

So canon's what you want it to be. If you like that new Trek game and want to incorporate it in your universe, go for it. If you didn't like that new Trek movie and don't consider it part of it, go for it. People are intelligent enough to figure this out for themselves and don't need others to make official statements to define it when there's clearly no consensus among themselves anyways.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.