Which means it is non-canon.
Are We Being Gaslighted in Regards to Canon?
- Thread starter uniderth
- Start date
Which means it is non-canon.
I already acknowledged that it isn't screen canon and that I'm not Batman, Jeff. There's no need to be a dick about it.
I already acknowledged that it isn't screen canon and that I'm not Batman, Jeff. There's no need to be a dick about it.
Not being a dick about it. It is just posts like yours is what muddies the waters and has people calling pretty much any and everything canon.
Yes. Definitely the posts like mine where I clearly outlined the differences and started and ended with what is 100%-without-a-doubt canon and put obvious disclaimers on the rest. Those are the confusing ones.
Someone here once called it Straw Trek, I wish I could remember who.
If she remains as Colt then probably a shapeshifter of some kind. However, since she was not explicitly called Colt in the episode then it is not canon and can be changed at any time, with no consequence.
Yeah, I don't think we need to fret about the "canon" being devastated by a few shots of a minor character whose name is never actually spoken onscreen.
Just to keep things in perspective.
This is much like the other thread we were discussing. But sort of the point some of us made over there is that there is a tendency to misconstrue canon and continuity. They aren't necessarily the same thing (though I guess they may share some elements). We are told canon is what happens on screen. And that's more an issue for tie-ins. And canon is not always consistent (though I would say there is a general continuity to on screen canon--it just gets more inconsistent the more detailed you look at it).
Now how showrunners have treated canon has varied. The current writers have indicated some of the novels, particularly the Discovery novels (and I assume comics) have canon value...."until they don't" I think was the quote. That is a bit different from prior regimes like the Berman regime. Berman's regime was much more concerned with continuity and on screen canon being the only source. It's just a change in focus. And we now with regards the nu-TNG show that the showrunners are reviewing some tie-in works like the relaunch novels and comics---this is quite a bit different then how they were handled in the past. That does not mean the relaunches will play a role in the new show, but it's possible elements of the relaunches may be adopted, perhaps some storylines or characters for instance.
So if there's confusion I don't think it's what canon is. I think officially it's always been what's on screen is considered canon. It's how the current show runners view canon and tie-ins relationship to canon. And canon is not continuity--I think that's an important distinction. Canon is not production design for instance. In your mind you could substitute how Klingons appeared in the original series for how they appeared in Discovery but the story will be the same.
Awe. I always liked that they addressed it. It was one of those things that many fans (and some novelists) speculated on for years. DS9 added to that, making the difference sort of official. I was happy to finally get an in-universe 'canon' explanation for it. Discovery pretty much blew that all up....but I'll restrain from ranting about that yet again
Now how showrunners have treated canon has varied. The current writers have indicated some of the novels, particularly the Discovery novels (and I assume comics) have canon value...."until they don't" I think was the quote. That is a bit different from prior regimes like the Berman regime. Berman's regime was much more concerned with continuity and on screen canon being the only source. It's just a change in focus. And we now with regards the nu-TNG show that the showrunners are reviewing some tie-in works like the relaunch novels and comics---this is quite a bit different then how they were handled in the past. That does not mean the relaunches will play a role in the new show, but it's possible elements of the relaunches may be adopted, perhaps some storylines or characters for instance.
So if there's confusion I don't think it's what canon is. I think officially it's always been what's on screen is considered canon. It's how the current show runners view canon and tie-ins relationship to canon. And canon is not continuity--I think that's an important distinction. Canon is not production design for instance. In your mind you could substitute how Klingons appeared in the original series for how they appeared in Discovery but the story will be the same.
Awe. I always liked that they addressed it. It was one of those things that many fans (and some novelists) speculated on for years. DS9 added to that, making the difference sort of official. I was happy to finally get an in-universe 'canon' explanation for it. Discovery pretty much blew that all up....but I'll restrain from ranting about that yet again
And re: consistency as more and more shows are added to the mix (to the canon if you prefer) and the more and more people that take the reins, the more inconsistencies crop up. As you add more stuff to the pot I think it just naturally becomes harder to keep it all straight.
I don't think show runners intentionally go out to be inconsistent in story lines (production design is a different issue as it seems each new showrunner wants to put their own stamp on things). Sometimes they are aware of a story inconsistency and have a plan to address it at some point (I figure the spore drive will be one of those things that will be forever eliminated prior to the end of Discovery). But other times it probably just happens because there are 100s (maybe even 1000s) of hours of shows, sometimes that aren't consistent themselves all the time, and something just gets missed.
I don't think show runners intentionally go out to be inconsistent in story lines (production design is a different issue as it seems each new showrunner wants to put their own stamp on things). Sometimes they are aware of a story inconsistency and have a plan to address it at some point (I figure the spore drive will be one of those things that will be forever eliminated prior to the end of Discovery). But other times it probably just happens because there are 100s (maybe even 1000s) of hours of shows, sometimes that aren't consistent themselves all the time, and something just gets missed.
Not only that, the Yeoman wasn't explicitly called Colt in "The Cage." Go nuts with it!
And, oh boy, they don't.
I already acknowledged that it isn't screen canon and that I'm not Batman, Jeff. There's no need to be a dick about it.
Easy, Tiger....
Again, no. The canon is the whole work. Star Trek is a work that consists, in its original form, of TV shows and movies. That's all that meant by "the canon is onscreen." It's not a literal statement of cause and effect, merely a clarification that Star Trek books, comics and games, and the contents of interviews or behind-the-scenes production materials, are not part of the canon defined by the TV shows and movies.
It's not that great a difference. Berman-era Trek did draw on the novels at least once, adopting the Klingon Day of Honor concept invented for a novel crossover and basing an episode on it. And the movies did incorporate characters' first names invented for the novels.
The thing is, the creators of fiction aren't overly concerned with defining what is or isn't "real," because none of it is real. They're just telling stories. Past continuity, ideas from novels or comics, it's all just concepts that can be drawn on as raw materials for building stories. They don't have any time to waste building walls between one set of ideas and the next; that's something Roddenberry had time to be preoccupied with late in life because he no longer had a hands-on role on the show, and it's something that fans have the luxury to obsess over because they don't have to do the actual work of creating a TV series. What the producers of a show have to focus on is telling the actual stories, putting things onto the screen. Anything else is just a means to that end, and if they're able to pay attention to tie-ins and borrow ideas from them, then that's fine, but they usually can't be bothered to worry about staying absolutely consistent with the tie-ins, because they're just too busy.
The main reason they're paying attention to the novels now is because Voyager novelist Kirsten Beyer got a job on the writing staff. The fact that she's worked on the novels means she gives them a new resource they can use, and they're taking advantage of that. But if they do borrow any ideas, they'll adapt them to fit the needs of the shows, rather than adapting the shows to fit the prior continuity of the novels.
I was happy to finally get an in-universe 'canon' explanation for it. Discovery pretty much blew that all up....but I'll restrain from ranting about that yet again
No, it didn't. "Affliction"/"Divergence" established that the population of Klingons who lost their forehead ridges numbered only in the millions, a small fraction of the entire Klingon population. So it's easy enough to assume they were just not involved in the events of DSC. Somewhere in between DSC and TOS, policies must have changed in a way that put more smooth-headed Klingons on the front lines with the Federation, at least for about 5 years.
But why does it bother you so much? What species was Tuvix, for example?
Using them as canon fodder to allow the non-afflicted Klingon population to recover would solve two problems at once, for some members of the High Council at least.
Yeah, that's what I meant
Yeah, that's true enough. Some of us get hung up on continuity and sometimes even equate it with canon. It's one reason I try to avoid the word 'canon' when making arguments about continuity.
Ok, I'll grant you that. I would love to see a smooth headed Klingon on Discovery at some point. I sort of liked how they were depicted briefly on Enterprise...basically ridged Klingons without the ridges (I know that sounds obvious but what I mean is as opposed to original series that just looked like humans for the most part--hopefully people know what I mean).
Now some of this was prior to Enterprise, but some novels speculated this was done because the Empire felt it would help them deal with the Federation better, that these smooth headed Klingons would relate better with the human-centric Federation, or something to that effect. For the Empire's benefit of course. It's been a while since I read those earlier novels but if I recall that was one of the rationales.
More recent books have indicated these smooth headed Klingons were not held as high esteem as well, and they had to fight for prestige. While they eventually earned their place in the military hierarchy, I could see them being thrown on the front lines as a sort of cannon fodder in some respects. Perhaps a combination of fodder and keeping the Federation a bit off balance.
I tend to put "canon" in quotes just to cast shade on the whole concept and knock it off its pedestal.
As opposed to folks who think of it as "Canon" with a capital C.
"Canon and canon...what is canon?"
No we were already crazy. The canon issue just gave us away to articulate it. Or should I say one of the many ways to articulate it. For proof I offer James R Kiirk,Tuvix,Starfllet money, Starfleet being a military as my evidence. Got lots more but my fingers would hurt typing it all out. Still I guess one more wouldn't hurt. Chief O'Brien wearing Lt pipes in early seasons of TNG.
Jason
Still I guess one more wouldn't hurt. Chief O'Brien wearing Lt pipes in early seasons of TNG. Jason
Similar threads
