Canon is an agreed upon established storyline/history. Would you say the same if they changed something in Star Wars where they changed something in these new films where it didnt fit that Darth Vader eventually turns up.
Canon: How many times is enough?
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
Canon is simply the body of work made by the rights holder.
Is the story good? Then I don't care if they contradict something.
The prequels did not fit perfectly into Star Wars canon, either. For example, given what we saw in Episodes 1-3, Obi-Wan should have instantly recognized R2D2 on Tattooine in episode 4. He didn't. We all know why, so is it a "canon violation" or a little creative license to broaden the overall story?
Each to their own - personally I like the huge established universe thing.
There are probably thousands or millions of R2 units in the Galaxy.
Or he was just pretending.
But that is speculation not actual canon.
I saw a great video on YouTube about how Obi-Wan most likely pretended not to know R2-D2 on purpose.
C
C57D
Guest
I have long thought that TOS and TAS are one timeline
The TOS movies are questionable.
TNG (including movies), DS9, VOY & ENT are another.
And, obviously the Kelvinverse another.
And STD is shaping up to be a whole new one.
If we need to talk canon (and I would rather NOT!) Then I dont see how we can discuss it across the various eras/timelines without dispute.
Which for me is part of why I am a TOS grognard. THAT timeline is ST for me all others are just its cousins.
The TOS movies are questionable.
TNG (including movies), DS9, VOY & ENT are another.
And, obviously the Kelvinverse another.
And STD is shaping up to be a whole new one.
If we need to talk canon (and I would rather NOT!) Then I dont see how we can discuss it across the various eras/timelines without dispute.
Which for me is part of why I am a TOS grognard. THAT timeline is ST for me all others are just its cousins.
You misunderstand, as we were discussing Ford's Klingons, not on screen Klingons.
But, it will never fit perfectly together, which means it ca be contradicted, often is, and the story moves forward.
How do you know he didn't?
At the beginning of TNG there was Kempec (sp?), who seemed quite the politician. TUC featured a Klingon political leader. All the heads of the big Klingon families were indicated to have a political role in the Klingon governmental council.
Obi Wan looked over, saw R2 and said "Hello there."
Hey, there's Anakin's old R2 unit, he right where the force said he would be behind that rock.
Obi Wan in the prequels (to my memory) never seemed overly friendly towards droids in general, they were machines who had a function.
After greeting R2, Obi Wan promptly dismissed it, until he need to access the recording it held.
Nope.
From the Oxford Dictionary:
Canon does not remotely require continuity, nor did anyone conceiving of trek foresee such an expectation to be placed on them. TOS has little real continuity even in the first few episodes, is it any real surprise there are such discontinuities fifty years later?
Trek has no real continuity except in varyingly broad strokes. This is largely not by accident, the expectation of that continuity is externally imposed and for the most part hasn't been a driving factor in the storytelling.
Canon is misnomer in these circumstances anyway. Continuity is the more appropriate term, unless we want to devalue "canon" of its meaning.
The word originally referred to the canon of scripture. That is, a collection of writings, inspired, don't contradict(there's your continuity)each other, and written by those who the writing is attributed to, as opposed to a pseudopigraphical work(not written by the real person whom the book is said to be written by.) or apocryphal (which are not considered inspired works, but have historical value)
"Canon" has other additional meanings in religion, but they don't change the original meaning.
Canon Law (which is very similar to "canon of scripture")also needs continuity. It's important that laws don't contradict each other, or if they do, to know which law has precedence.
Continuity of Characters: The characters in the original series continue on to the movies, and appear in the following series. They are also occasionally mentioned in the other series. Likewise for further crossover between the later series. Even Enterprise does this a lot.
Continuity of Setting: The Federation, it's laws and treaties, Starfleet, etc, have a continuity.
-Continuity of time, and dates
-Continuity of Technology
-Continuity of Aesthetics
All of Star Trek TV shows have followed a continuity of story, with a lot of crossover elements between films and movies. They create a fictional universe that feels real, even if implausible at times. Having a continuity gets one more invested, and the pay off is larger.
The word originally referred to the canon of scripture. That is, a collection of writings, inspired, don't contradict(there's your continuity)each other, and written by those who the writing is attributed to, as opposed to a pseudopigraphical work(not written by the real person whom the book is said to be written by.) or apocryphal (which are not considered inspired works, but have historical value)
"Canon" has other additional meanings in religion, but they don't change the original meaning.
Canon Law (which is very similar to "canon of scripture")also needs continuity. It's important that laws don't contradict each other, or if they do, to know which law has precedence.
By overstating your case, you only diminish it. Star Trek has followed the following types of continuity:
Continuity of Characters: The characters in the original series continue on to the movies, and appear in the following series. They are also occasionally mentioned in the other series. Likewise for further crossover between the later series. Even Enterprise does this a lot.
Continuity of Setting: The Federation, it's laws and treaties, Starfleet, etc, have a continuity.
-Continuity of time, and dates
-Continuity of Technology
-Continuity of Aesthetics
All of Star Trek TV shows have followed a continuity of story, with a lot of crossover elements between films and movies. They create a fictional universe that feels real, even if implausible at times. Having a continuity gets one more invested, and the pay off is larger.
When you read a book that's part of series, and enjoy it, you'll want more. When you read the entire series and still enjoy it, you'll want more stories.I hear people keep saying this, but I've yet to actually see it.
If you read the Lord of the Rings and like it, you probably want to read the Hobbit, or vice versa. After that, you might even be inclined to read some other related books.
When you watch Star Trek and enjoy it, you'll want more, and more, AND MORE.
Continuity is rewarding. If you watch the original Star Trek, then the movies, you'll get rewarded by finding out what happens after that, and after that, and after that, and then before that, and before that, etc.
Does that explain it?
Doesn't everyone think like I do? I think most people who read fiction share these inclinations when it comes to fiction.
And non fiction: When studying history, like a culture, an individual, or a place. The more you learn that interests you, the more you want to learn. And you'll seek out more material, more sources, etc.
I find good stories rewarding, it doesn't matter where they come from. And finding out "what happens next?" led to bad stories like Generations.
I don't find building a story off of a one-off line from some previous show or series particularly fulfilling. YMMV.
Nice of you to reiterate the dictionary definitions I posted.
Even if we are going to stretch to using the canon of scripture definition of the word (and that really is a stretch) the scriptures are full of continuity errors anyway.
Again, thank you for reiterating my point you had quoted:
Trek routinely and deliberately fails on most of your points anyway, which is exactly why we are having this discussion. As I said, broad strokes.
It gets some people more invested sure, not all and for many it just gives them something to pick the inevitable holes in, besides which having some elements of continuity does not consistency make. Trek has always been riddled with inconsistencies from the very start, very often not by mistake.
There really should be a disclaimer right at the end of each show like this.
You simply posted a dictionary definition, said that canon is not continuity, and then overstated that Star Trek has no real continuity except for "Broad Strokes."
While I gave some explanation for the term canon, a wee bit of context, and EVEN said the term is a misnomer for things like Star Trek. But however the word is used or misused, continuity is certainly a large part of a "canon."
If you are going to post dictionary definitions, at least give an effort to explain what leads you to make these dramatic absolutes.
As for Trek, how about some examples that back up your bold claims? When a writer is writing a Star Trek episode, what keeps them to following and rules of the fictional universe?
And don't say they don't, because that would be intellectually dishonest.
Of course. It can't be rewarding for everyone every time. When you get invested in a character, you then find enjoyment watching them, and care what happens to them.
Similar threads
- Poll
