Spock/Burnham

[Donker]

Yes it is, they own the rights to make that call.

No it isn't because CBS will say everything is canon for merchandising purposes.
Is Lego Lord of the Rings canon because EA have the rights to Lord of the Rings?

It isn't a debate.

It clearly is. Because you consider literally random suits who sit in a boardroom who HATE STAR TREK as the arbiters of canon instead of the writers, creator, showrunners of Star Trek.
Way to be a capitalist bootlicker and abstract the actual work of the CREATORS of Star Trek from their own creation.

 

[Spot261]

No it isn't because CBS will say everything is canon for merchandising purposes.
Is Lego Lord of the Rings canon because EA have the rights to Lord of the Rings?


It clearly is. Because you consider literally random suits who sit in a boardroom who HATE STAR TREK as the arbiters of canon instead of the writers, creator, showrunners of Star Trek.
Way to be a capitalist bootlicker and abstract the actual work of the CREATORS of Star Trek from their own creation.

Still exactly how it works, regardless of your opinion

 

[Donker]

Still exactly how it works, regardless of your opinion

No it isn't.
Canon is not a legal concept. Canon is what it the setting and story means to the writers, story and fans. The idea that rights holders say what is canon is absurd. If the writers do not consider something canon, it obviously isn't canon.

 

[Spot261]

No it isn't.
Canon is not a legal concept. Canon is what it the setting and story means to the writers, story and fans. The idea that rights holders say what is canon is absurd. If the writers do not consider something canon, it obviously isn't canon.

If you say so

 

[Tallguy]

No it isn't because CBS will say everything is canon for merchandising purposes.

Historically this is not true. Some of the actual writers here can confirm or deny, but I remember meeting Peter David and he complained that when you wrote for Star Wars it "counted" but writing for Star Trek (unless it was an episode) it didn't. CBS has been very particular about what they are calling "canon" and books or comics have never made that list.

The creative teams of Star Trek have been throwing TAS stuff into later Trek because 1) they love it and 2) it was all created by the same people who made TOS. I'd argue that TAS has more of a foothold on being "real" Star Trek than anything that came after.

 

[Donker]

Historically this is not true. Some of the actual writers here can confirm or deny, but I remember meeting Peter David and he complained that when you wrote for Star Wars it "counted" but writing for Star Trek (unless it was an episode) it didn't.

This is because with Star Wars, George Lucas actually worked quite closely with novel and comic writers and thus actually a lot of the events and concepts from the novels and their characters get mentioned in The Prequels and Clone Wars.

Star Wars is actually a good example of showing that rights holders do not control canon and that canon is actually largely a fan-concept. According to Disney, basically everything outside of the original trilogy and prequel films are not canon, yet the vast, vast majority of fandom would consider, Knights of the Old Republic canon. It's probably one of the single most beloved settings and stories of Star Wars and I've only ever rarely met anybody who doesn't consider KotoR and KotoR II not canon because Disney said so. Apparently they're not canon according to Disney, but they're canon according to pretty much everyone else, even the writers of Rebels and The Clone Wars.

Go read "Disney Canon" on Lightsabers as well. The Disney Lightsaber "canon" stuff is absolute nonsense and even contradicts their own writers on TFA. The vast majority of fans and writers, would consider "Legends" Lightsaber construction and the reason behind Sith red lightsabers "Canon" (Sith use fake mass produced Kyber crystals) over the crap Disney has now put out. (Lightsabers turn red because they're sad ((, also Sith never make lightsabers, they steal them from Jedi they kill (Wut) ) again, "Disney canon" literally contradicts their own goddamn story around Kylo Ren.

 

[Spider]

Maybe Spock had a Luke Skywalker moment with his sister and never spoke of it again.

 

[T'Bonz]

If it airs, it's canon. If you don't like that, pretend it isn't. Who really cares? Not worth getting all upset over this.

 

[Tallguy]

If it airs, it's canon. If you don't like that, pretend it isn't. Who really cares? Not worth getting all upset over this.

That sounds like you've never even BEEN on these boards!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

^ Bonz is timeless. She was here before the boards began and she'll be here long after they have faded into distant memory.

If you're bootlicker to corporations and not actually accept what are obviously the views workers and creators of the franchise.

Way to be a capitalist bootlicker and abstract the actual work of the CREATORS of Star Trek from their own creation.

Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM.

 

[fireproof78]

Go read "Disney Canon" on Lightsabers as well. The Disney Lightsaber "canon" stuff is absolute nonsense and even contradicts their own writers on TFA. The vast majority of fans and writers, would consider "Legends" Lightsaber construction and the reason behind Sith red lightsabers "Canon" (Sith use fake mass produced Kyber crystals) over the crap Disney has now put out. (Lightsabers turn red because they're sad ((, also Sith never make lightsabers, they steal them from Jedi they kill (Wut) ) again, "Disney canon" literally contradicts their own goddamn story around Kylo Ren.

It really does't.

 

[Tim Thomason]

TAS has been referenced by the writers or production team in:
- Star Trek IV (Caitians)
- Star Trek V (Amanda *Grayson*)
- Star Trek VI (James *Tiberius* Kirk)
- TNG (Conspiracy map with 7 TAS refs, Sepek, ShiKahr)
- DS9 (Edosians, IKS Klothos, Vulcan's Forge)
- ENT (Edosians, kahs-wan, Lunaport, sehlat, ShiKahr, Vulcan's Forge)
- TOS Remastered (Robot Grain Ships, ShiKahr)
- DIS (Robert April)

I usually agree with the idea that the copyright holders determine "canon" (in this case CBS, especially since GR sold his share and has been dead for 27 years), but if you believe it's the writers who determine canon, then the above references prove what they consider valid. Manny Coto and Ronald D. Moore have both gone on record supporting TAS canonicity.

But, look, I was raised on the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Three volumes of which I studied end-to-end as a child. I never saw an animated episode until I downloaded them on Kazaa or some nonsense. They were just this weird thing I learned was nonconsequential.

I've since gone to appreciate them more and more, and really there are far more nonsensical elements in Voyager and, yes, Discovery than any animated episode. I believe that denying TAS's place in canon is really just denying D.C. Fontana's place in Star Trek's history.

And, as for Star Trek V, it is true there are no references to Sybok (DIS might change that), but I did find one explicit reference to the movie. TNG's Evolution states that no starship has had a system-wide technological failure in 79 years. That is a direct reference to the events of Star Trek V according to Michael Piller (and it was written while the movie and episode were both in production).

 

[CaptainMurdock]

I hope the Discovery has a decoy balloon of itself for season 2.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

No it isn't. That isn't how REALITY works.

CBS DOES NOT MAKE STAR TREK. CBS DOES NOT WRITE STAR TREK. They're basically just bankers. All they do is provide funding and enforce the license. That's it. The people who decide canon are the WRITERS OF THE SHOW. These are the people actually making the show. They're the ones that actually craft the story, characters, setting. Do you consider Allen & Unwin the decider of canon for Middle Earth or JRR's Tolkien? If Allen & Unwin, oh boy, Shadow of Mordor is canon, War in the North is Canon, Lord of the Rings Online is canon.


People with the massive cognitive dissonance to not accept that TAS has been heavily retconned out of existence. Because elements of TAS make it into other Star Trek shows, doesn't make TAS canon. They were just testing out ideas that didn't make it into TOS and took the ideas from TAS that they liked and dropped the 95% that didn't.

TNG takes elements of TAS and presents them as new, this is because, The writers do not consider TAS canon.



It would make them shitty hack writers but it would be canon. It would completely BREAK canon but it would still be canon.



Yeah trust the hacks suits at CBS who have constantly tried to turn Trek into Star Wars and constantly forced in the worst elements of Trek over the actual creator, show runners and writers of Star Trek. Great choice. Btw, Leslie Moonves, the guy that says TAS is canon, actually hates Star Trek and Sci-Fi in general.

If Sybok is canon, explain why he is never seen again, never shown in any flash backs, never mentioned by Sarek when talking about his family, never mentioned by Spock when talking about his family, Never mentioned by Amanda when talking about her family.

Sybok isn't canon, he's been retconned out of existence.

Yeah it is how reality works. The people who write star trek are ultimately answerable to CBS executives. That is why CBS executives and not other writers fired Bryan Fuller because they did not like his take on Star Trek and how he was running things. CBS executives like all other studio executives throughout hollywood get final sign off on what we see on screen. Hence why people are always bitching about studio interference. You are right in saying that writers do create canon, because obviously they create what we see. However writers come and go and ultimately as you acknowledge what they write as canon can be changed or contradicted or outright ignored later on by other writers. Writers contribute to the franchise but they don't own it. It's kinda like saying that Mcdonalds workers own Mcdonalds because their labour makes the burgers that people eat. CBS own the licenses to trek and they have every right to decide what they want the intellectual property that they now own to encompass.

Sybok is canon because he appeared in a Star Trek film. And as previously asserted by various producers and paramount execs and later CBS execs what we see in regards to trek on screen is 100% canon. Who cares if Sybok was never mentioned again? Sarek's relationship with Spock is one of the character's defining features. Their relationship has more resonance for the audience than Sarek and Sybok. That doesn't mean that Sybok is not canon. Do you consider Michael Burnham non-canon because Sarek and spock never mentioned that spock had a sister?

Also how can you accept that something hypothetical like The Enterprise being destroyed in season 2, something that Gene would hate, as potentially canonical because it would be appearing on screen and yet decide that sybok who we have seen on screen isn't canonical because you don't like him? That makes zero sense.

 

[DigificWriter]

TAS has been referenced by the writers or production team in:
- Star Trek IV (Caitians)
- Star Trek V (Amanda *Grayson*)
- Star Trek VI (James *Tiberius* Kirk)
- TNG (Conspiracy map with 7 TAS refs, Sepek, ShiKahr)
- DS9 (Edosians, IKS Klothos, Vulcan's Forge)
- ENT (Edosians, kahs-wan, Lunaport, sehlat, ShiKahr, Vulcan's Forge)
- TOS Remastered (Robot Grain Ships, ShiKahr)
- DIS (Robert April)

DIS (Amanda reading Alice's Adventures in Wonderland to young Spock)

That is why CBS executives and not other writers fired Bryan Fuller because they did not like his take on Star Trek and how he was running things.

Fuller was fired because he was trying to multitask and wasn't able to give Discovery the attention it needed, which was resulting in a rising budget and script delays.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Nobody aside from CBS considers TAS canon.

That's demonstrably false, so....

 

[Agony_Boothb]

DIS (Amanda reading Alice's Adventures in Wonderland to young Spock)



Fuller was fired because he was trying to multitask and wasn't able to give Discovery the attention it needed, which was resulting in a rising budget and script delays.

Hence why I said how he was running things

 

[DigificWriter]

^ You also said he was fired because CBS didn't like "his take on Star Trek", which isn't true.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

^ You also said he was fired because CBS didn't like "his take on Star Trek", which isn't true.

No, it is true. They didn't want fuller to make the new series an anthology, they didn't like his ideas for the uniforms and other creative decisions. The executives were unhappy with him even before American Gods became a thing.

How about you google 'why fuller was fired' and read some of the articles that come up. You may find them enlightening.

 

[T'Bonz]

^ Bonz is timeless. She was here before the boards began and she'll be here long after they have faded into distant memory.

Online perhaps. I have mulled over retirement though. My old man retires in 2021 and if this BBS is still here, who knows?

Back to canon. Crap (that's regrettably canon) that I hate:

- Threshold and those damned lizards
- Sybok. Really?
- Abrams-verse
- Seven of Nine
- Kirk's death
- Perrin
- How nuTrek dealt with Kirk, Sarek, Scotty, etc.
- The horrible ending of VOY
- Chakotay/Seven
- The horrible ending of ENT
- Nemeshit. What they did to the Romulan intelligence...ugh.

So far nothing has irked me that much on DISC. But it's early days, *grin*

If other people think the things I hate are great and I'm a moron for my opinion, well I just don't care. It's just a TV show. It's actually a compliment to the writers/actors if something irritates you so much that you want to de-canonize it. It means you care about what you're seeing on the screen. Better that than indifference/not watching.

Although I've been known-to "hate watch" before (see: Jericho). WHAT? It's great fun to do that sometimes!