For this NuTrek universe is these two and upcoming there films the only canon ? I've read about some lame videogame and IDW comics as being possibly canon but I can't dismiss this feeling that the film writers don't ultimately care or even know what occurred in these and will probably only stay true to the films and upcoming series/films as canon. What do you guys think ?
Are the NuAbrams movies the only canon ?
- Thread starter quanchi112
- Start date
Canon, by definition, is the original work by the original creators. The Abramsverse comics and video game have some input from the filmmakers, but are made by different people and thus are not part of the canon. Into Darkness actually contradicted some of the early comics, since they had crewmembers die and STID had Kirk declare that no one had yet died under his command.
IIRC, there was one interview on TrekMovie.com where the interviewer basically tried to browbeat Roberto Orci into saying the comics were canon, and Orci eventually more or less went along with it -- presumably just so he'd drop the subject and move on -- but hours later he posted a comment walking it back. And he had said elsewhere more than once that the tie-ins were not canonical, because Trek tie-ins are never canonical.
IIRC, there was one interview on TrekMovie.com where the interviewer basically tried to browbeat Roberto Orci into saying the comics were canon, and Orci eventually more or less went along with it -- presumably just so he'd drop the subject and move on -- but hours later he posted a comment walking it back. And he had said elsewhere more than once that the tie-ins were not canonical, because Trek tie-ins are never canonical.
Way too much attention is given to the concept of "canon," which applies far more to companies wishing to license Trek for merchandise than to fans, IMO. As such, the TV shows and all the movies (both past and present) are canon.
I read that interview and Orci seemed to not want to answer the question and kind of did so probably to just change the subject. I figured the comics wouldn't be taken seriously anyways for future screenwriters for the franchise but more or less wanted to be sure.
Do you possibly have a link to where Orci says the Trek tie ins are never canon if at all possible or point me in the right direction.
^I don't have a link to that, but that's always going to be the default answer. Tie-ins are not canon for the same reason that ocean is not land. The whole reason the term "canon" exists in literary usage at all is to mean "the original stuff as opposed to the tie-ins." There are a few cases where the creators of the canon go on to create what are considered canonical tie-ins -- the Del Rey Babylon 5 novels outlined by J. Michael Straczynski, the Buffy, Dollhouse, or Serenity comics plotted or written by Joss Whedon -- but those are the exceptions. Even tie-ins that are declared "canonical" usually turn out not to be -- the Star Wars Expanded Universe being the most famous example.
Whenever I read Trek novels or comics, there's some big, nagging thing in the back of my mind that screams, "this doesn't count!" I can't get rid of it, no matter how good the story is.
Kor
Whenever I read Trek novels or comics, there's some big, nagging thing in the back of my mind that screams, "this doesn't count!" I can't get rid of it, no matter how good the story is.
Kor
I really love the freedom that some authors use to tell multiple stories about the same events or create things that don't necessarily line up with what's on TV.
I never take comics seriously. That's why I never buy or read them. If a movie were to require more than superficial knowledge of the comic, it's almost certain I will not see the movie. For example, Superman: I'll see Superman movies because I am familiar with the lore and watched cartoons in my extreme youth. But I've never read a Superman comic. Same for Spiderman and the rest.
^ In the case of superheroes, the entire mythology originates from the comics. And as comic books have matured in the last few decades, there have been excellent, innovative, sophisticated stories, and a lot of superb artwork.
Personally, I don't like to dismiss an entire medium of storytelling.
Kor
Personally, I don't like to dismiss an entire medium of storytelling.
Kor
, soon to be seven television series and soon to be thirteen films.
Well don't forget Enterprise. It still counts as in continuity with the Abrams films.
That's silly. That's like saying "I never take movies seriously" or "I never take novels seriously" or "I never take plays seriously." Comics are a medium, not a genre. There are comics that have won Pulitzers. There are brilliant comics, stupid comics, and everything in between, just as in every other medium.
And heck, these days there are so many comics writers working in TV/movies and vice-versa that you can hardly separate them anymore. They're practically symbiotic at this point.
Old Spock lived through it all, so it's all canon.
It's all in broad strokes, though, as always: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BroadStrokes
Comics and videogame are not canon by the definition of canon (remember that not even novelization written by Roddenberry was canon) Orci just said that the comics are as canon as you can get outside of the movies because they are approved by him (only the tie ins and ongoing series) so in that sense, they are a bit more reliable than other comics and novels and they try to keep a sense of continuity and expand things from the movies. You don't need to 'care' for the comics, but for those who read them they are a fun 'extra' to have in between movies.
Okay. I know that. So?
I don't dismiss them.
I'm interested in all those other things. So, obviously, they and comics are not alike for me. And as I say above, I don't dismiss them from the reality of a mythology's genesis. I do dismiss them from my head canon of all the other media. I'm just not interested.
Somehow you missed the part of my post that addressed the question of what makes them worthwhile:
Kor
"102. boborci - July 17, 2012
29. 0h please. have a little fun. i said and have said exactly what you just said forever, but Pascale pushed me, he wont give up! i have said a million times that we cant determine what is canon. on this day, i said something else. 'consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'..."
http://trekmovie.com/2012/07/17/exc...l-declares-movie-tie-in-comics-game-as-canon/
"We get asked that a lot, and it’s our understanding that canon is that which is filmed. As a strict Constitutionalist, I don’t support a change in the definition of canon during my tenure. Perhaps future courts can take up the issue, but in the meantime the comics are as close to canon as you can get without being on film."
http://www.startrek.com/article/orci-johnson-talk-countdown-to-darkness
Last edited:
This raises a point I've brought up before (as have others, I'm sure). If we adopt this as the general definition of canon -- "that which is filmed" -- does it include deleted scenes? Obviously it doesn't take much to edit these back into the film (director's cuts, extended releases, etc...).
So, based on the dropped scene from Marcus' office, can we say that TOS Constitutions exist in the prime timeline? TOS Khan had a baby on the Reliant? Klingons have no tear ducts (added scene in STVI not in theatrical release)? Colonel is a Starfleet rank?
Similar threads
- Poll
