RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,432
Posts: 5,507,165
Members: 25,131
Currently online: 575
Newest member: Robert100a

TrekToday headlines

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

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 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 May 11 2013, 12:10 PM   #31
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Melakon wrote: View Post
Pavonis wrote: View Post
Fanon is sometimes held to more tightly than canon. Witness the claims that latinum is not replicable, something that was never mentioned in any show, but is endlessly repeated.
The claim shows up in Memory Alpha's article too, but fails to specifcally cite the source for the statement.
It is conjectural, but it definitely fits with the way latinum is regarded in DS9 (if latinum could be replicated, then it really wouldn't be worth anything).
Exactly. That Latinum can't be replicated or can only be replicated using extreme amounts of energy makes perfect sense. End of discussion.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 12:40 PM   #32
F. King Daniel
Admiral
 
F. King Daniel's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Here's some annoying fanon: "Kirk was born in Iowa."

When what he said in The Voyage Home was "No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
F. King Daniel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 01:41 PM   #33
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Well, wasn't Trek IV's line a nod to the people of Riverside who had already decided to publicly declare themselves Captain Kirk's birthplace?
__________________
"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 11 2013, 02:24 PM   #34
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Well, wasn't Trek IV's line a nod to the people of Riverside who had already decided to publicly declare themselves Captain Kirk's birthplace?
I thought that came as a result of the line in The Voyage Home?

Why, oh why, doesn't everyone simply accept my interpretation of the ST universe as the only valid one?
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 07:41 PM   #35
Merry Christmas
Vice Admiral
 
Merry Christmas's Avatar
 
Location: tantalizing t'girl's techno temenos
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Here's some annoying fanon: "Kirk was born in Iowa."
That from the original Star Trek (TOS) writer's guide, the shows "bible."

That Kirk is from Iowa is repeated in the 1968 book The Making of Star Trek.

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Exactly. That Latinum can't be replicated or can only be replicated using extreme amounts of energy makes perfect sense. End of discussion.
My personal "fanon" explanation is that the replicator can't make living organisms, so what latinum is is a living organism (maybe like a slime mold) that can only reproduce in a unusual biological environment on Ferengar. It lives inside it's gold container and very slowly feeds off of it.


Last edited by Merry Christmas; May 11 2013 at 07:57 PM.
Merry Christmas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 07:48 PM   #36
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

King Daniel wrote: View Post
Here's some annoying fanon: "Kirk was born in Iowa."

When what he said in The Voyage Home was "No, I'm from Iowa, I only work in outer space."
That's not fanon, though, just a reasonable conclusion from onscreen dialogue. There really was no reason for people to believe that Kirk wasn't born in Iowa. In fact, there's no reason to believe that still isn't the case for Kirk Prime who may not have been born until after the Kelvin came back to Earth in the original timeline.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 11 2013, 11:37 PM   #37
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

BillJ wrote: View Post
The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Well, wasn't Trek IV's line a nod to the people of Riverside who had already decided to publicly declare themselves Captain Kirk's birthplace?
I thought that came as a result of the line in The Voyage Home?
Riverside declared themselves the birthplace of Captain Kirk in March 1985, over a year before Trek IV's release (November 1986). Read more on Memory Alpha.
__________________
"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 11 2013, 11:39 PM   #38
Cookies and Cake
Admiral
 
Location: North America
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

T'Girl wrote: View Post
King Daniel wrote: View Post
Here's some annoying fanon: "Kirk was born in Iowa."
That from the original Star Trek (TOS) writer's guide, the shows "bible."

That Kirk is from Iowa is repeated in the 1968 book The Making of Star Trek.
It's mentioned in TMoST, Chapter 4, page 215, of the 13th printing from 1974 (1968 edition).

However, I can't find it mentioned in the Star Trek Writers/Directors Guide, third revision from April 17, 1967.

Can you provide a citation in the writer's guide?
__________________
CorporalCaptain
Cookies and Cake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 02:45 AM   #39
_C_
Commander
 
_C_'s Avatar
 
Location: _C_
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Lance wrote: View Post
There is a lot of 'fanon' which is generally accepted by the audience, such as dates and times of events or character back stories, in leiu of any actual on-screen evidence establishing different. I can understand why we do this. Especially in terms of TOS, these kinds of details were never fully established in any linear form. There are gaps in where characters come and go, whether they were aboard all along or only transfered there later (hello Chekov!); the dates and times that these events take place, like where The Motion Picture stands in relation to The Wrath of Khan; and so on. Later spin-off shows were produced at a time when continuity mattered just a bit more, so in those cases a lot of these fine details were actually filled out on-screen. All the same, there are always gaps.

Fandom has of course decided to fill in these gaps with their own theories. This 'fanon' is naturally often seen as being better than nothing, and in some cases there's a kind of general consensus about certain things where the 'fanon' has transcended its roots and become firmly established as being the 'correct' view. And even though it might never have been established on-screen per se, for the lack of any better explanations a lot of us find ourselves more than happy to accept this kind of 'fanon' as being fact. Even the Star Trek Wiki, Memory Alpha, contains articles which play fast and loose with the distinction between fanon and fact (Memory Beta is of course even looser still).

IMO even the Okudas, who actually came the closest to canonising a lot of this stuff, really only ever peddled a commerical form of 'fanon'. Their views held more water as a result of them being part of the on-going production team. But what is oft forgotten is that much of what was published in the Encyclopedia and the Chronology was really just higher profile 'fanon', rather than Canon. Even the Okudas themselves admit that a lot of what they wrote was simply conjecture on their part, and some things that they 'established' got debunked in subsequent episodesbut. But again, for a lack of better explanations, many of us are happy to accept what they said as being a general rule of thumb. I suspect this is because we all need to have a common ground on which to talk about events in the Trek universe.

On another tangent, sometimes when a later Trek series like Voyager or Enterprise broke the conjecture that we fans had already accepted as being 'fact', the producers would be accused of contradicting the established continuity... even though more often than not that continuity had never actually been established on-screen in the first place! Is it possible for the series to contradict something that was only ever the purview of fan conjecture? It would appear that the answer is: sometimes it can.

My question is therefore: do we as fans sometimes accept this 'fanon' too readily as being firm 'fact'? Should we instead be questioning and debating these so-called 'facts' more strongly? Or is the use of 'fanon' a crucial tool in our understanding of the Trek universe? Do we need to have this kind of firm foundation in order to help us all join the dots together?
I think fanon is okay to a degree, like an author uses their own ideas of fanon in a fanwork.

It can become something else entirely if said author tries to push that idea off into the fandom like they are right and anybody else who writes or draws otherwise is wrong.

Sometimes a fanon "thing" ends up picked up by the entire fandom, and that's fine too. As long as nobody pushes their personal fanon in other peoples' faces like it's established fact, I don't mind it at all.
__________________
_C_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 04:53 AM   #40
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Like the issue of Bolians' membership in the Federation, supposedly it has never actually been said they are members, and there are those who insist they can't be because of that.
There was a TNG script mentioned in an interview that featured Mr Mot's barbershop conversation that would have revealed that the Bolians' homeworld wasn't a member of the UFP, but the scene was dropped, unfilmed, for time.

Since then, of course, DS9 had made a Bolian the Commandant of Starfleet Academy.

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
Riverside declared themselves the birthplace of Captain Kirk in March 1985, over a year before Trek IV's release (November 1986).
Correct. The line in ST IV was an in-joke callout to the Riverside campaigners.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 05:41 PM   #41
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

^^^
There could be a bolian serving as the Commandant at SFa without the Bolian homeworld being a UFP member.

Ro Laren served in Starfleet before Bajor was a member world, in fact while Bajor was still under occupation by the Cardassians.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 06:33 PM   #42
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Mysterion wrote: View Post
^^^
There could be a bolian serving as the Commandant at SFa without the Bolian homeworld being a UFP member.

Ro Laren served in Starfleet before Bajor was a member world, in fact while Bajor was still under occupation by the Cardassians.
Still, the Commandant of the Academy (or any flag officer for that matter) is likely going to be a Federation citizen. Similar to how people are allowed to serve in a country's military today without citizenship in that country, but they aren't going to be flag officers or running the military academy.
__________________
"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 12 2013, 06:38 PM   #43
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Well, IIRC, there is a bolian in Starfleet uniform seen in STVI. If they've been serving in Starfleet that long, some of them are bound to have made flag rank by the time of DSN.

And I think the UFP/Starfleet probably judges people by their own merits as far as position/promotion, rather than by origin. Beside which, an individual bolian could have become a citizen of the UFP without his/her homeworld having become a member of the Federation.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12 2013, 10:32 PM   #44
Therin of Andor
Admiral
 
Therin of Andor's Avatar
 
Location: New Therin Park, Andor (via Australia)
View Therin of Andor's Twitter Profile
Re: Do we take "fanon" too literally?

Tosk wrote: View Post
They declare a computer game or comic "official!" on one day, and ignore it completely the next.
But "official" simply indicates it is a licensed product, and not something cobbled together by someone who won't be earning the owners of the franchise any money.

Mysterion wrote: View Post
Well, IIRC, there is a bolian in Starfleet uniform seen in STVI.
No, that was "Insurrection".

There were blue humanoid aliens in ST VI, but there was no facial bifurcation on them.
__________________
Thiptho lapth! Ian (Entire post is personal opinion)
The Andor Files @ http://andorfiles.blogspot.com/
http://therinofandor.blogspot.com/
Therin of Andor 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 11:31 PM.

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