RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,523
Posts: 5,512,399
Members: 25,138
Currently online: 396
Newest member: Tosty82

TrekToday headlines

Captain Kirk’s Boldest Missions
By: T'Bonz on Dec 25

Trek Paper Clips
By: T'Bonz on Dec 24

Sargent Passes
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

QMx Trek Insignia Badges
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
By: T'Bonz on Dec 23

TV Alert: Pine On Tonight Show
By: T'Bonz on Dec 22

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17


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 May 9 2013, 03:34 PM   #16
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
It works both ways. There are those who follow a strict adherance that only that which is firmly established on screen should count.
But that is the definition of canon.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 03:40 PM   #17
Tosk
Rear Admiral
 
Tosk's Avatar
 
Location: On the run.
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Deckerd wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
It works both ways. There are those who follow a strict adherance that only that which is firmly established on screen should count.
But that is the definition of canon.
Not really. Discounting the religious uses of the word, canon simply means 'a standard'. As far as Trek is concerned, canon is fanon. Or fanon is canon. I forget.
Tosk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 03:41 PM   #18
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Canon in the precise sense of Star Trek. I thought you might have picked up on that, given the context.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:00 PM   #19
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

I was trying to think of examples of 'fanon' that were so all encompassing that people accepted them as fact even though they had never been stated as such on screen.

One which occured to me was the old chestnut about Spock being the first Vulcan in Starfleet. Somebody came up with this one back in the 1970s and it was accepted wholeheartedly by a lot of fans for decades... right up to the point where Enterprise "contradicted" it, and people were in an uproar. Despite, you know, it never having actually been said on screen in the first place.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:08 PM   #20
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

People who get in an uproar over something like that aren't destined to have a happy journey through the entire oevre of shows, are they?
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:12 PM   #21
Pavonis
Commodore
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

The worst fanon items are those that are made up by the fans, promulgated for years without any support from the show, then rewritten by the show - exactly like the "Spock is the first Vulcan in Starfleet" example of Lance's.

I was not around during the 1970s when Trek was only in reruns, and the fans had only their own ideas about character names and histories and "plot holes" that needed to be filled. I wasn't around when Franz Joseph was releasing blueprints for the Enterprise. I'm sure it was an exciting time, when the three seasons of TOS were the entire Trek universe, and fans were free to play in that universe to their heart's content. But to expect the producers to hold to fanon that developed in that void is unrealistic.
Pavonis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:15 PM   #22
Tosk
Rear Admiral
 
Tosk's Avatar
 
Location: On the run.
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Deckerd wrote: View Post
Canon in the precise sense of Star Trek. I thought you might have picked up on that, given the context.
What I mean is, "canon", as it gets thrown about in these here parts, is a largely fan-created/perpetuated thing. The creators rarely (if ever) bother to say "this part is real, this other part is made up" ...it's all as real as they decide it is on any given day. They declare a computer game or comic "official!" on one day, and ignore it completely the next. (Which I have no problem with.)
Tosk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 04:40 PM   #23
Deckerd
Fleet Arse
 
Deckerd's Avatar
 
Location: the Frozen Wastes
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

But it's never been a voluntary creative aim, not since the very first show. It just grows from all of the shows. Whatever the writers say is irrelevant since for the purposes of nailing what canon is (as opposed to fanon); it's whatever appeared on the screen. The only leeway is whether or not you include the movies. It's more amusing if we do since they tend to contradict themselves, the shows and other movies, as well as inventing lots of extra stuff which gets the fans tied in knots.
__________________
They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.
Deckerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 08:22 PM   #24
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

I don't take anything too literally. There is so much imagination exercised to explain the unexplained or to fill in story gaps, with some of it believable and a lot of it just personal preference. It's entertaining to see what people have to say, but I don't take it seriously to strive fervently to prove my point of view any more.

Funny thing is, many episodes have mistakes and conflicting information. Either one of them is right, or they're all right under "interpreted circumstances." All too often people try to "fit" it all in... I prefer to chalk up obvious mistakes and just move on. The Star Trek universe is far from perfect, so why bother trying to make it so? It's imagination, not reality.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 09:35 PM   #25
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Pft, even the show's creators, producers and writers can't come to a consensus on what is canon. Is it any wonder that "fanon" is just as messed up?

We're all people who can think for ourselves. If you want to accept fanon as part of our Star Trek experience do it. If you don't want to, fine don't. Regardless stop dickwaving if someone doesn't share the same opinion as you.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9 2013, 09:56 PM   #26
Kelthaz
Rear Admiral
 
Kelthaz's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Lance wrote: View Post
I was trying to think of examples of 'fanon' that were so all encompassing that people accepted them as fact even though they had never been stated as such on screen.
I can't think of anything in Star Trek, but a good example would be the slayer line running through Faith rather than Buffy after her first death.
__________________
"Who are you?! And how did you get in here?!"

"I'm the locksmith. And... I'm the locksmith."
Kelthaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 02:51 AM   #27
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Deckerd wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
It works both ways. There are those who follow a strict adherance that only that which is firmly established on screen should count.
But that is the definition of canon.
Still, there should be a little lee-way. Like on the Bolian issue, everything about them seems to imply they are Federation members, yet since it's never been explicitly stated on screen there are those who won't accept it. Although, admittedly it doesn't help matters that they originally weren't intended to be Federation members.

And how far do we take this anyway? What about characters who are named in the scripts, but are never identified by name in the episode. Best example, Picard's Cardassian torturer in Chain of Command played by David Warner is well known as Gul Madred, but that name is never actually spoken in the episode. If we follow strict adherance to canon that only that which is on screen counts, then he's just Cardassian Interragator or something and Gul Madred is a fanon name.

There comes a point where you do have to accept stuff as fact even if they're not established on screen.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 03:02 AM   #28
ZapBrannigan
Fleet Captain
 
ZapBrannigan's Avatar
 
Location: New York State
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Regarding the latinum business, I'm in the camp that says you can replicate all the liquid latinum or gold-pressed latinum you want. No limits.

The only thing is, replicators are not powered by fairy dust. They consume anti-matter. The whole reason latinum is used as a currency is that it costs more to replicate it than the resulting product is worth.
ZapBrannigan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10 2013, 02:56 PM   #29
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Pavonis wrote: View Post
The worst fanon items are those that are made up by the fans, promulgated for years without any support from the show, then rewritten by the show - exactly like the "Spock is the first Vulcan in Starfleet" example of Lance's.

I was not around during the 1970s when Trek was only in reruns, and the fans had only their own ideas about character names and histories and "plot holes" that needed to be filled. I wasn't around when Franz Joseph was releasing blueprints for the Enterprise. I'm sure it was an exciting time, when the three seasons of TOS were the entire Trek universe, and fans were free to play in that universe to their heart's content. But to expect the producers to hold to fanon that developed in that void is unrealistic.
While I agree it was unrealistic to expect that, it sure would have been nice. Would it have killed the producers of Enterprise to find a story adviser who had a good knowledge of the fanon that was developed during those years, and throw us a bone? Manny Coto did it in the last season. While Berman was in charge for the first 3 seasons, a lot of us kept going "What?! But that's not... Aw come oooonn!!"
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 02:29 AM   #30
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

ZapBrannigan wrote: View Post
Regarding the latinum business, I'm in the camp that says you can replicate all the liquid latinum or gold-pressed latinum you want. No limits.

The only thing is, replicators are not powered by fairy dust. They consume anti-matter. The whole reason latinum is used as a currency is that it costs more to replicate it than the resulting product is worth.
That makes a lot of sense.
Lance 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 01:29 PM.

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