Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by cwl, May 10, 2009.
Thanks, Misfit Toy.
Re: So, just what IS canon?
*shrugs* Enterprise D was old and probably decommissioned at some point between the end of TNG Season 6 and First Contact.
You actually expect people to know the definition of a word before they start arguing about it? Next you'll be telling me that they should know how to spell it too....
Re: So, just what IS canon?
Oh, sure - I enjoy such discussions myself, and I also enjoy coming up with in-universe explanations for any inconsistences I find. I personally, however, just can't reject a chunk of Trek simply because of those inconsistences. On the other hand, if the Federation ceased to be the Federation that I know, love and am occassionally irritated by - you know, basically the Good Guys in White Hats who mean well, but who are also more than a bit bland and oftentimes smug - well, I don't think I could accept that. There are things that make Trek unique, and one of them is that humanity and many of its neighbors in the Alpha and Beta quadrants manage to live in peace with one another, work together for the common good, and fight against common enemies. If the franchise goes all nililistic and grimdark, I would lose interest and retreat into my Trek past. But it hasn't done that yet, so yay!
oh look what i started
I'll just reiterate the attitude I've had for many many years now.
If writers violate canon, they better have a good reason.
To make a better story = perfectly good reason.
Because they're lazy and can't be bothered to check whether they are violating canon = not a good reason.
The Klingon Forehead Explanation episode was surprisingly good. I didn't need an explanation but who cares where an idea for a good episode comes from, anyway?
Canon died in Star Trek when it started production as a series in the 60s. And hasn't really been followed since then.
Canon is good to have as a means to rein in such a large universe of characters, worlds, philosophies and the like. I do think there's a tendency to take it a little too far with some fans.
Me, I like it, and I like to see it followed through in reference to larger storytelling elements. But with little tiny technical details and the like, I honestly very rarely notice that stuff.
"The problem with canon" to me is that some people seem to see any apparent deviation from canon as sacrilege or heresy and some people seem to see any direct reference to another series as fanwank.
oh it's really not that complicated. just think of a cannon as being a really big gun!
For me, the problem with canon is that way too many people take it way too seriously. Canon is about the last thing I am concerned about when I try to enjoy a new episode or movie. Granted, it serves the function of letting all incarnations of Star Trek feel like they take place in the same fictional universe. But at the end of the day I care about more substantial things. What I can't stand is when people equate canon to continuity. What I outright hate is when people act like canon is somehow related to factual history. Also, for me, canon has nothing whatsoever to do with the look of characters or ships.
*old Spock voice* Ahh; Canon, canon, canon. Bill Shatner is currently writing a Starfleet Academy series that bears little to no resemblence to any ST canon (Kirk and Spock entering the academy together after working as S.I. operatives.) Take a deep breath and think of it as another alternate reality. LOL.
The ideas that Star Trek fans apply to canon can be found in other aspects of life. Take Christianity for example. The Bible is filled with contradictory accounts of the same events and vastly different portrayals of the same god. The reason is, like TV, the texts were written by humans that make mistakes. So, humans use their intellects and imaginations to make square pegs fit into round holes and rationalize the contradictions away.
In religion we call this theology and apologetics. In Star Trek we call it canon. Both serve the same purpose in the human mind, to create order is a disordered world. You can't dismiss fans who hold canon close to their hearts simply because they do it with something like TV that everyone presumes to be frivilous. It is something that humans seem predisposed to do when presented with a complex idea system.
i think canon is important, it helps maintain a level of consistency. at the same time though, it can limit what stories can be explored. people do take it too seriously though because at the end of the day, as long as you enjoy watching the show it doesnt really matter if it sticks to the canon law perfectly (though you should not ignore canon all together).
mirror universes and time paradox'es are a useful way round canon anyway
No, it doesn't. Canon has nothing to do with consistency. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is canonical, but is not consistent with the rest of the series about Kirk's middle initial. The word you're looking for is 'continuity.'
the problem with canon is people getting it muddled up with consistency and continuity.
consistency and continuity says that when you blow Vulcan up it should stay blown up. canon says it blew up.
Canon: All the live action film and TV Trek productions, including the new JJ Abrams film. Nuff said.
Does Canon Even Matter?
I came across this article today:
Does Canon Even Matter?
17 May 2010
There's some stuff about Star Trek but not very interesting as it's been discussed on TrekBBS before.
A related TrekBBS older thread:
A Canon Discussion
So could you say it was blown up by a canon cannon?
Are cannons in Trek canon?
Separate names with a comma.