What If: Voting on which fan films are officially canon

[Matthew Raymond]

Theoretical Situation: Suppose CBS and Paramount decided to allow fan films to be nominated and voted on for canon. How could this be done?

1) Nomination - How would a fan film be nominated for voting? Who would nominate it? Would it have to be pre-screened for compatibility with existing canon, or could anything be nominated? Would it have to meet certain criteria regarding quality?

2) Voters - Who could vote for a fan film? Could anyone vote, or would it be limited to people who've been part of a fan production?

3) Guideline Compliance - Would only films that comply with the Star Trek Fan Film Guidelines be allow to be voted on, or would "grandfathered" films also be eligible?

4) Voting Method - Could people simply go to a non-secure website and vote, or would they have to get accounts, be verified in some way, and login to cast their vote?

5) Core Canon - Would it be fair to allow original Star Trek properties to automatically be canon? Does the concept of canon require a predetermined core, like some kind of nucleogenic particle around which canon forms? If not, could certain stories incompatible with a particular Trek property be voted in as canon, resulting in the property being rejected as canon for its incompatibility with existing canon?

Any other thoughts on this idea?

 

[BillJ]

Will never happen. Why would you want to hold high dollar creative people to the things that are only seen by a scant few?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Will never happen. Why would you want to hold high dollar creative people to the things that are only seen by a scant few?

It's a hypothetical. The idea is to explore how franchises in general, and a sci-fi franchise like Star Trek in particular, should involve their communities in the establishment of canon. It's not so much a question of what they will do, so much as what would be the ideal.

 

[BillJ]

It's a hypothetical. The idea is to explore how franchises in general, and a sci-fi franchise like Star Trek in particular, should involve their communities in the establishment of canon. It's not so much a question of what they will do, so much as what would be the ideal.

The ideal state is what we have now. Content providers produce what is "official" or "canon", fans play in that sandbox.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The idea is to explore how franchises in general, and a sci-fi franchise like Star Trek in particular, should involve their communities in the establishment of canon

They shouldn't. If the "community" wants to be involved in the establishment of canon they need to get hired by CBS/Paramount to make Star Trek. Then they can drop references of their fan works into their pro work and it becomes canon.

Star Trek isn't a democracy.

 

[BillJ]

Star Trek isn't a democracy.

Thank God. Or else we'd have Donald Trump running it.

 

[Jedman67]

A better way of putting it might be, what if fandom could vote on which production(s) fans would consider to be the most "canon"?

 

[BillJ]

A better way of putting it might be, what if fandom could vote on which production(s) fans would consider to be the most "canon"?

Still not sure I see much of a point? There is nothing from the fan sphere (or pro literature for that matter) that I consider the "most canon".

 

[Firebird]

Still not sure I see much of a point? There is nothing from the fan sphere (or pro literature for that matter) that I consider the "most canon".

What's it hurt to have a purely intellectual exercise for the purposes of having a discussion?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

They shouldn't. If the "community" wants to be involved in the establishment of canon they need to get hired by CBS/Paramount to make Star Trek. Then they can drop references of their fan works into their pro work and it becomes canon.

Star Trek isn't a democracy.

Is the general argument against voting in fan films the idea that fan films can never be good enough to include in canon? Or that people will vote in low-quality productions that damage the franchise? Or just that democracy is overrated and CBS/Paramount know best?

Well, if that's your viewpoint, let me re-frame the discussion for you: If a group of fan productions wanted to create a common continuity where everything was happening in the same "universe", how would they decide what fan films are in this continuity, and who would get to decide?

What's it hurt to have a purely intellectual exercise for the purposes of having a discussion?

Thank you. Exactly that.

 

[BillJ]

Well, if that's your viewpoint, let me re-frame the discussion for you: If a group of fan productions wanted to create a common continuity where everything was happening in the same "universe", how would they decide what fan films are in this continuity, and who would get to decide?

You've tossed out an impossible premise, since we know none of the players or how they feel about a shared universe.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I don't think expanding the canon by laying 50 years of non-canon Trek peripherals and saying to the fans, "Pick and choose" is a very logical or reasonable course of action. I mean, you're asking for a huge, incomprehensible mess.The "what's seen on screen and on film" rule works fine. The rest is just gravy. And as soon as you start accounting for fan stuff as "canon," it has to fit within previously established canon, which is by definition an act of limitation. A benefit of fan fiction, novelizations, and other non-canon lore is that you can kinda do whatever you want. You have more freedom. And voting on non-canon stuff to become canon is basically an exercise in favoritism, not necessarily what "deserves" to be included. There are just so many problems with this idea.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Is the general argument against voting in fan films the idea that fan films can never be good enough to include in canon? Or that people will vote in low-quality productions that damage the franchise? Or just that democracy is overrated and CBS/Paramount know best?

Nope it's not about quality. Some of the stuff is pretty impressive.
Not about what people will vote for either.
Democracy is fine for running countries, cities and various clubs and organizations. But not for creating fiction. CBS/Paramount hires the people. Those people create the canon.

Well, if that's your viewpoint, let me re-frame the discussion for you: If a group of fan productions wanted to create a common continuity where everything was happening in the same "universe", how would they decide what fan films are in this continuity, and who would get to decide?

The folks in charge of those fan production would work it among themselves

 

[Balok's Decoy]

The closest thing I've seen to this idea is Rod Roddenberry saying that he considers Star Trek Continues canon, and he speculates that Gene would have seen it as canon too. Star Trek Continues is impressive, but even that I think it's probably best not to slide down that slippery slope.

 

[uniderth]

The "what's seen on screen and on film" rule works fine.

Except it doesn't. I have yet to see Kirk and Spock cited as having face changing abilities or any numerous other on screen errors or jokes included as canon.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

Democracy is fine for running countries, cities and various clubs and organizations. But not for creating fiction. CBS/Paramount hires the people. Those people create the canon.

This basically boils down to "A central, unelected authority is good for canon because of reasons." Keep in mind that television shows often have dozens of writers and directors, some of which are guests invited in to create a single episode, and all of their efforts have to integrate into a single continuity. So this isn't a question of different people developing stories for the same universe. The real question is why they all have to work for the same production company.

To be clear, I'm not saying CBS and Paramount aren't within there rights to do as they see fit. My intent is to determine how a fan community could work together to establish and create canon if hypothetically given the opportunity to do so.

Well, if that's your viewpoint, let me re-frame the discussion for you: If a group of fan productions wanted to create a common continuity where everything was happening in the same "universe", how would they decide what fan films are in this continuity, and who would get to decide?

The folks in charge of those fan production would work it among themselves

Now you're just dodging the question. The whole point of this thread is to determine the best way for them to "work it among themselves". Ad hoc agreements that must be negotiated from scratch and individually for an ever growing list of parties are hardly ideal.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except it doesn't. I have yet to see Kirk and Spock cited as having face changing abilities or any numerous other on screen errors or jokes included as canon.

They didn't change faces. The productions hired new actors.

 

[Matthew Raymond]

You've tossed out an impossible premise, since we know none of the players or how they feel about a shared universe.

Okay, let's say we live in a parallel universe where CBS and Paramount have decide to give away all of Star Trek under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license and created a non-profit organization to distribute these materials, except new submissions and derivative works from the community, and establish canon to serve as a guide for new productions. How should such an organization be structured and how would it function?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Okay, let's say we live in a parallel universe where CBS and Paramount have decide to give away all of Star Trek under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license and created a non-profit organization to distribute these materials, except new submissions and derivative works from the community, and establish canon to serve as a guide for new productions. How should such an organization be structured and how would it function?

I can't imagine. It just sounds so unwieldy. There's just so much information in that non-canon universe, and so much of it conflicts with itself and the canon, that parsing through it all would be a nightmare.

 

[Nerys Myk]

This basically boils down to "A central, unelected authority is good for canon because of reasons." Keep in mind that television shows often have dozens of writers and directors, some of which are guests invited in to create a single episode, and all of their efforts have to integrate into a single continuity. So this isn't a question of different people developing stories for the same universe. The real question is why they all have to work for the same production company.

To be clear, I'm not saying CBS and Paramount aren't within there rights to do as they see fit. My intent is to determine how a fan community could work together to establish and create canon if hypothetically given the opportunity to do so.

I know how TV works. They have people in charge called "Producers". Those people guide the writers and directors. They shape what the writers produce. Sometimes rewriting it so it longer resembles the original. They also have staff writers who work for the show.
They work for the same production company because that's who owns the property. It's called "quality control". Ford doesn't let any one who slaps a car together call it a Ford.

Now you're just dodging the question. The whole point of this thread is to determine the best way for them to "work it among themselves". Ad hoc agreements that must be negotiated from scratch and individually for an ever growing list of parties are hardly ideal.

The best way is to get together and decide what remains and what get left out. Something best left to the people doing the work, not the viewers. If someone else wants to join the party, their work goes through the same process.