RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,622
Posts: 5,426,595
Members: 24,809
Currently online: 574
Newest member: down to earth

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing December Trek Comics
By: T'Bonz on Sep 17

September Loot Crate Features Trek Surprise
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

USS Enterprise Miniature Out For Refit
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Comic Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Trek 3 Shooting Next Spring?
By: T'Bonz on Sep 16

Star Trek: Alien Domain Game Announced
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Red Shirt Diaries Episode Three
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Made Out Of Mudd Photonovel
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Takei Has Growth Removed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 15

Retro Review: Tears of the Prophets
By: Michelle on Sep 12


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 April 18 2013, 07:17 PM   #46
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Saint Louis (aka Defiance)
Re: What is "canon?"

Canon actually is the established elements in a narrative (or series of narratives) established by the property's license owner for official purposes. Canon can contain elements that contradict each other or don't exactly line up well, but it's the official record of things that happened.
__________________
"Everybody wants to rule the world..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 10:37 PM   #47
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: What is "canon?"

Lenny is confusing "official" and "liscensed" with canon. the first two only meant that the owner of a property (in this case, Star Trek) has authorized someone to sell a book, poster, etc. using the aspects of that property. Doesn't imply or confer any binding effect on the continuity of that property.

Canon, on the other hand, is the collective body of work of that property. In the case of Star Trek this is generally accepted to mean the aired television episodes and movies.

Edit to add: C.E. Evans beat me to it, didn't see his message.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 18 2013, 11:34 PM   #48
Brolan
Commodore
 
Brolan's Avatar
 
Location: Backwoods Minnesota
Re: What is "canon?"

Canon is something Trek fans think is important, and argue over, while Trek writers think it is unimportant, and ignore it.
Brolan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 12:54 AM   #49
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: What is "canon?"

Mysterion wrote: View Post
Lenny is confusing "official" and "liscensed" with canon. the first two only meant that the owner of a property (in this case, Star Trek) has authorized someone to sell a book, poster, etc. using the aspects of that property. Doesn't imply or confer any binding effect on the continuity of that property.

Canon, on the other hand, is the collective body of work of that property. In the case of Star Trek this is generally accepted to mean the aired television episodes and movies.
Official, Licensed, Canon = All the same bullshit...

Or let's put it another way, Licensed only means TPTB are making money off of it's sale, which is in turn "Official" in that regard... Canon can mean any or all of the above...
TPTB can say one thing is Canon today and tomorrow say it's Not Canon... And whatever you call it, it need not be Accurate... Remember the DS9 cutaway posters from years back? It had official stamped all over it, even some sheets were extra-official carrying autographs and what not... In big letters the station was called "Terek Nor"
The correct spelling from day 1 was "TerOk Nor"... But because it was mispelled in a certain person's "official" encycopedia, Pocket Books kept churning out novel after novel with it spelled "TerEk Nor"... It wasn't until around the time of DS9's final season that someone managed to correct it... This is Not an uncommon case of the blind following the blind in Star Trek... In the 70s and 80s a certain dictator was named Khan NooniAn Singh... However, a certain person mispelled it as Khan NooniEn Singh in a certain "official" publication and it has remained mispelled that way to this very day... And then we have such things as the "hypospray" which fans of the 70s would tell you was called the Spray Hypo...

Either way Canon is a stupid term which goes against the thinking mind (no surprise, really, since it comes from religion)... You'd be better off using a more accurate phrase like "more substantial" or "less substantial" which is at least more descriptive...
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 09:10 AM   #50
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: What is "canon?"

A little canon violation and its fun to try to figure it out. A little more and you over look it.


Too much and you wonder if you can take the show seriously because it messes with your ability to suspend belief for a while.

If you ever watched a cartoon or show from the 60's, 70's or 80's it would be easy to understand why.

One example is the Klingons having smooth small foreheads in the 23rd century, then later have ridges. Its fun to imagine why.

Another is from Voyager--- the Borg being known and studied by Federation scientists decades before first contact--though the Federation never heard of the Borg before in TNG.

That one is hard to make sense of.
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 01:36 PM   #51
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: What is "canon?"

^Not to mention human Borg who claim to have been assimilated at Wold 359 - by the cube that blew up over Earth?
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 03:51 PM   #52
DonIago
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Burlington, VT, USA
View DonIago's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to DonIago Send a message via AIM to DonIago Send a message via Yahoo to DonIago
Re: What is "canon?"

It's entirely possible they sent a sphere back towards Borg space, but I'll be the first to admit that sounds like a weak rationalization being brought in after the fact.
__________________
--DonIago
It was the best of Trek, it was the worst of Trek...
"If I lean over, I leave myself open to wedgies, wet willies, or even the dreaded Rear Admiral!"
DonIago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 03:55 PM   #53
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: What is "canon?"

Forbin wrote: View Post
^Not to mention human Borg who claim to have been assimilated at Wold 359 - by the cube that blew up over Earth?
They assimilated a couple of the Federation ships that were attacking, which then returned to the Delta Quadrant?
__________________
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 April 19 2013, 06:06 PM   #54
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: What is "canon?"

You humans think in such three dimensional terms!

It's a canon explanation!
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 08:50 PM   #55
timmy84
Commodore
 
timmy84's Avatar
 
Location: Washington
View timmy84's Twitter Profile
Re: What is "canon?"

I could have sworn that a discussion here years ago about canon revealed that on startrek.com they actually define canon as being any onscreen (TV and movie) Trek and non canon is all other forms.

Which makes sense. Perfect sense, but for example today the books are trying very hard to stay consistent with each other. So really right now we have four different universes for Star Trek. Well, maybe five but someone can correct me on the fifth. And this is my opinion of course. Not a fact.

Old Universe (or Original Universe): This is Trek on TV and all the movies before the reboot. All Trek universes try to stay consistent to this universe when it can.

New Universe (or NuTrek): This is the reboot universe that creates an alternate universe using time travel. Everything in the Old Universe had to happen to cause this one. I bet to many fans disappointment (not mine, but just saying), ENT occurs in both universes.

Books (or BookVerse or BetaVerse): This is the current book continuity. The books that expand the original universe threw books. With no new content of the Old Universe this could be considered the continuation of that universe.

Star Trek Online (or Star Trek Online.... I guess): Star Trek Online uses all three universes to create this forth one. For those who don't know, it takes place in the 25th century after Nero travels to the past. The Federation and Klingons are at war, and they are about to add the Romulan Republic as a third playable faction. The Republic is the remains of the Romulan people after the destruction of Romulas as shown in NuTrek. At the same time, some aspects of the BookVerse has been incorporated into Star Trek Online, but none of the universe changing events of the past couple years.

Shatner's books (or the Shantnerverse): I've heard this term before to reference William Shatner's Star Trek books. I've read a few, and other then the fact Kirk is alive in the 24th century, the book universe almost entirely ignores these books.

Just my opinion of course and I'm not telling all of you to accept it. Its just something I've thought about recently talking to a friend who is a huge Star Wars fan explaining to me the convoluted mess that is Star Wars canon.

__________________
the cake is a lie.
timmy84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 09:25 PM   #56
Nightdiamond
Fleet Captain
 
Nightdiamond's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: What is "canon?"

Forbin wrote: View Post
^Not to mention human Borg who claim to have been assimilated at Wold 359 - by the cube that blew up over Earth?
Yeah, that one makes no sense. How can it be canon, when the situation is impossible?

How did the Voyager script ever get past that obstacle?

DonIago wrote: View Post
It's entirely possible they sent a sphere back towards Borg space, but I'll be the first to admit that sounds like a weak rationalization being brought in after the fact.
Its a fair explanation, but its too bad they didn't show that happening. All the scenes said the cube headed straight for earth.

I always wondered if Voyager had lost it when they did the episodes with the assimilated humans--and Klingons....and Romulans...and Ferengi wtf? .

R. Star wrote: View Post
You humans think in such three dimensional terms!

It's a canon explanation!
Wasn't that an explanation of how she survived the first explosion?
Nightdiamond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 09:34 PM   #57
Third Nacelle
Captain
 
Third Nacelle's Avatar
 
Location: The Denorios Belt
Re: What is "canon?"

You have to make your own canon. Gene Roddenberry once stated that Klingons ALWAYS had ridges, they just could not depict it with the makeup available in the 1960s. That was good enough for me, and watching TOS I always imagined the ridges there. Then Trials and Tribble-ations comes along and challenges my personal canon. I simply chose to ingore Worf's comments about the lack of ridges, as I choose to ignore Enterprise's augment virus explanation.

In my head the TOS uniforms are identical to the ST09 uniforms and Alternate Kirk is physically identical to a young Prime Kirk... there's just two different depictions of them. You have to keep in mind that you are not watching the events, you're watching a depiction of the events.

The various Star Trek series and films do not contradict each other as much as some nitpickers seem to think, and when it does it's best just to ignore the little things like forehead ridges or Tuvok's rank pips, and go with your gut feeling on big things like the Eugenics Wars/WWIII.
Third Nacelle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 19 2013, 09:48 PM   #58
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: What is "canon?"

[QUOTE=Lenny Nurdbol;7966270

Official, Licensed, Canon = All the same bullshit...

[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. But, if this is in fact the case, why were you so upset earlier that "official" and "licsensed" materials are overlooked because of "canon"? If it is indeed "all the same bullshit" as you put it, it shouldn't matter. Just relax already and enjoy the Star Trek you like, and ignore the Star Trek you don't like, and let everyone else do the same thing. Seems like your tantrums are quite un-needed after all.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 03:35 AM   #59
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: What is "canon?"

Tantrums? What tantrums?
I prefer to view them as wake-up calls...
The main point I was making was that just because a product may claim to be or advertised as "official" does not make it official OR Accurate... Conversely, many "unofficial" products by fans, with limited distribution you could say (because they're not sold nor licensed through a big publisher like Pocket Books) tend to be far better researched, consistent, and plausible extensions of the Trek Universe than the "official" ones...
And even with "official" products--just because they may be condemned Today because they are from defunct publishers or publishers Not Currently Licensed by Paramout--does not make them automatically invalid, as Some fans are quick to condemn them (often out of ignorance).
Lenny Nurdbol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 20 2013, 03:50 AM   #60
Lenny Nurdbol
Lieutenant Commander
 
Location: New Jersey, with the Jersey Devil...
Re: What is "canon?"

timmy84 wrote: View Post
Shatner's books (or the Shantnerverse): I've heard this term before to reference William Shatner's Star Trek books. I've read a few, and other then the fact Kirk is alive in the 24th century, the book universe almost entirely ignores these books.

Just my opinion of course and I'm not telling all of you to accept it. Its just something I've thought about recently talking to a friend who is a huge Star Wars fan explaining to me the convoluted mess that is Star Wars canon.

Star Wars "canon" is reasonable... That is, they take in Tons of stuff whenever and wherever they can and leave little to nothing behind... They actually treat continuity much the same way a certain late colleague of mine did: world-building, from lines mentioned in old novels on up...

But I'm not here to talk Star Wars, it's the above paragraph that pisses me off, and is One reason why I have so little faith in Pocket Books current editors...
Wherever you go there's this persistence of Shatner Hate that is unwarranted and now even extends to "his" books (yeah, they're really ghost-written by the Reeves-Stevens)... Yeah, I've always had Troubles with these novels for sure; they're classic examples of continuity porn, but they're well-polished, professionally written, and readable (IF you don't dissect them too closely, plotwise!). Overall though, when they are compared to some truly amateurish Trek novel entries, they're pretty interesting to say the least... But because it's "in' to hate and bash William Shatner, these novels are trashed by Pocket Books editors--which is really silly and stupid especially in light of these books not only being best-sellers but also Being Published By Pocket Books!
OK, so Kirk's alive and well and living in the late 24th Century--you don't like this fact, and you're an author of another novel--all you do is Ignore It and carry on... No problem there! There's no reason to Segregate these books as though they're a part of a different continuity. No Sir...

I've read much the same Bias in regards to the so-called Rihannsu novels because, of all stupid nitpicking things, mention is made of speeds warp 10 and above...which is Perfectly Allright on the Old TOS Warp Scale! And these books certainly are set in the TOS era... Or because Romulans call themselves Rihannsu instead of Romulans some sort of violation has occurred?! It's totally uncalled for, especially since the earliest novels were written During the period of the earliest TOS novels and build upon them... And Pocket Books' editors put a frigging Preface onto one or more of the later books explaining that they don't follow a certain continuity???!!
These are the same brains who magically did away with the Borg, killed Janeway, and committed all sorts of other atrocities for no reason (and yes, that includes resurrecting Trip as a super hero who can telepathically communicate with T'Pol across light years!).
Lenny Nurdbol 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 04:06 PM.

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