So how important is canon, then?

[Bry_Sinclair]

Canon and continuity are important, otherwise franchises wouldn't exist, everything would just be a new original product with no connection to anything else. What's the point in building up a universe and then ignoring all that world building?

If you want to create something in the same franchise, but not be bogged down by everything that's come before hand either brand it a reboot or establish that its a parallel universe, that way everyone can be happy as what has come before still exists in the way it is remembered and enjoyed, whilst also creating something new that isn't bound by restrictions that the PTB don't seem to care all that much about.

Now I'll sit back and endure all the comments telling me I'm a "toxic fan", etc.

 

[fireproof78]

Canon and continuity are important, otherwise franchises wouldn't exist, everything would just be a new original product with no connection to anything else.

That would be better, yes.

that the PTB don't seem to care all that much about.

Honestly, why should they?

 

[Christopher]

Canon and continuity are important, otherwise franchises wouldn't exist, everything would just be a new original product with no connection to anything else. What's the point in building up a universe and then ignoring all that world building?

Important, yes, but not inflexible. The mistake fans make is being absolutist about it, reducing things to a ludicrous binary where the only possible options are "Every last detail is 100% consistent" and "It's all chaos and nothing is connected to anything." There's a ton of middle ground between those hyperbolic extremes.

Again, a canon is just a body of stories, and stories are illusions. Something doesn't have to be absolutely perfect to create a convincing illusion -- it just has to be good enough that the audience is willing to play along with the make-believe and shrug off the imperfections because they're enjoying the fantasy.

I love worldbuilding. It's one of my favorite parts of writing, and I've always felt I'm better at it than I am at plotting the actual stories that take place in the worlds I build. But I still understand that the worldbuilding is not the end of the exercise -- it's just a means to the end of telling stories about people and ideas and emotions. It's there to serve the stories, not the other way around. You don't write a play so you can build a set, you build a set so you have somewhere to put on the play. So making a change in the setting or the continuity for the sake of the story is not "ignoring" the worldbuilding, it's just keeping it in perspective. The worldbuilding is a means to the end of telling the story, and subtle changes to the worldbuilding can sometimes be a means to that end just as much as consistent worldbuilding can be.

 

[fireproof78]

I love worldbuilding. It's one of my favorite parts of writing, and I've always felt I'm better at it than I am at plotting the actual stories that take place in the worlds I build. But I still understand that the worldbuilding is not the end of the exercise -- it's just a means to the end of telling stories about people and ideas and emotions. It's there to serve the stories, not the other way around. You don't write a play so you can build a set, you build a set so you have somewhere to put on the play. So making a change in the setting or the continuity for the sake of the story is not "ignoring" the worldbuilding, it's just keeping it in perspective. The worldbuilding is a means to the end of telling the story, and subtle changes to the worldbuilding can sometimes be a means to that end just as much as consistent worldbuilding can be.

*applauding intensifies.*

 

[Jetboogieman]

Honestly.

Canon I think is a personal choice.

Let me explain.

If one actually analyzes the timeline of things and especially with stuff like multiple dimensions and time travel, obviously any sense of real continuity can be easily dismissed because it all really doesn’t make sense if you put too much thought into it and I think it’s for each individual to decide.

For me, core trek as I like to think of it, that being.

TOS - TOS Movies - TNG - TNG Movies - DS9 - VOY

All form a RELATIVELY cohesive narrative as far as world building goes, yes you can break it down and scrutinize each individual line about technology and terms that were used but ultimately, there’s a semblance of a history that takes shape that is compelling, at least to me and when I view Star Trek, it simply helps with my enjoyment and immersion.

For myself, I completely discount ENT, Discovery, the Kelvin Universe, Picard and of course, Lower Decks.

If you don’t, nothing wrong with that, just the way I like to look at it and how I choose to enjoy Star Trek.

So how important is canon?

As important or not important as YOU want it to be.

 

[fireproof78]

Schrodinger's canon.

 

[1001001]

There's a bull inside a locked barn....

Schrodinger's Bullshit

 

[Vger23]

It seems really important to fans who want to imagine that this is all somehow "real." I don't mean that in a condescending way...but it just seems that for people who inherently need to be able to imagine living and working in this orderly universe in order for it to be entertaining, it is very important.

For me, this stuff is all just stories designed to entertain and make us happy/distracted for a little while. If I start nit picking minutia, I'm not going to be happy and I'm not going to enjoy things. So, for me, "But Spock didn't know about cloaking devices in 2266, so WTF!?!?" is just getting pissy over stuff that really doesn't matter. It's a make believe world made up by 100 writers and producers over 5 frigging decades who had no concept and little care as to how it would all hold together as a cohesive narrative. They wanted to tell stories and make money.

It's all for fun. The Star Trek Chronology is for fun. It's not there to drive me batcrap crazy and hate everything that doesn't conform.

 

[Phily B]

It's important to keep key points canonised, but then Enterprise came along and pretty much blew a lot of canon away and ignored it. I dislike that. I don't want the Federation, Earth or Starfleet to suddenly be bad guys or something daft like that. It is definitely something that should be canonised in Trek - Earth is a paradise, Starfleet don't start wars and just end them, the Federation are benevolent. For example, I wouldn't want to see the Federation ever truly become Borg like as Eddington says, they might use diplomacy with Bajor for example, but they'd never withdraw the support even if they remained independent.

But people who whine about visuals etc then claim its canon are just being stupid.

 

[Damian]

And I wouldn't call it "worrying" about canon. Again, "canon" is just a nickname for the original work as a whole. We don't "worry" about being consistent with it, it's just the definition of the job we're trying to do.

Yeah, worry is probably not the right word. I mean it's not worry in the sense of, OMG what do I do? sort of worry. More that canon only really matters to the tie in authors, not the fans.

I really do think though, when most fans talk about 'canon' what they are really talking about 'continuity'.

Now continuity, that we can debate until we're blue in the face (green if your Vulcan :P ). How much do we like things to be consistent, does it matter--and of course on that front you'll get great variety. I'm....well....I'm sure most people know where I stand on that front, LOL.

Canon. Well, honestly I can care less about canon....which behooves the question of what I am doing on a canon thread. What can I say? I'm a sadist

 

[Damian]

Honestly.

Canon I think is a personal choice.

Let me explain.

If one actually analyzes the timeline of things and especially with stuff like multiple dimensions and time travel, obviously any sense of real continuity can be easily dismissed because it all really doesn’t make sense if you put too much thought into it and I think it’s for each individual to decide.

For me, core trek as I like to think of it, that being.

TOS - TOS Movies - TNG - TNG Movies - DS9 - VOY

All form a RELATIVELY cohesive narrative as far as world building goes, yes you can break it down and scrutinize each individual line about technology and terms that were used but ultimately, there’s a semblance of a history that takes shape that is compelling, at least to me and when I view Star Trek, it simply helps with my enjoyment and immersion.

For myself, I completely discount ENT, Discovery, the Kelvin Universe, Picard and of course, Lower Decks.

If you don’t, nothing wrong with that, just the way I like to look at it and how I choose to enjoy Star Trek.

So how important is canon?

As important or not important as YOU want it to be.

I think you're making the same mistake a lot of fans do, myself included sometimes. I think you're equating continuity with canon. Canon is as Christopher noted. Just the body of on-screen Star Trek. Not the story so much, just the product.

But we each have a certain continuity we follow. I noted before I do follow all the continuity of the on screen shows/movies. But I also follow the novel continuity which now, thanks to Picard, is a separate continuity from the on screen canon's continuity. But the novel continuity is not canon.

I know some fans refer to it as 'head canon' but it'd probably be more correct to say 'head continuity' (though that adds an extra syllable or two). But as 'head canon' seems to be the preferred reference I guess we're stuck with it.

 

[NCC-73515]

Canon is important for consistency. If Vulcans in 2266 have pointed ears and green blood, they should have pointed ears and green blood before and after as well. If Section 31 is a secret organization in 2150 and in 2370, but well known in 2250 and 2380, it should be explained why. If Klingons in 2150 get a disease that makes them look human, and Klingons in 2266 are still affected by it, and slowly revert to their original form over the next decades, then they shouldn't have ridges, elongated heads, double nostrils, non-human ears, etc. in 2250. Some people here have said that Vulcans could have 3 points and purple skin and they wouldn't care XD

 

[BillJ]

Canon and continuity should never stop the creators from telling a story. Get the broad strokes right, the details are mutable.

 

[fireproof78]

If Klingons in 2150 get a disease that makes them look human, and Klingons in 2266 are still affected by it, and slowly revert to their original form over the next decades, then they shouldn't have ridges, elongated heads, double nostrils, non-human ears, etc. in 2250.

I think we just need an explanation as to why, i.e. the cranial reconstruction fad went way overboard (as alluded to in ENT), genetic engineering to reverse the effects had other effects, etc. Regardless, I think your previous observation about Section 31 applies to the Klingons as well.

As a general observation, since I knew these were Klingons in DSC, as @BillJ notes, the details are mutable. T'Kumva and Kol were Klingon enough for me to go, "Oh, those are Klingons" and move along with the story.

Now, does the lore nerd in me want the details as to why? Sure, but there is no need to end up in a full length episode called "Concerning Klingons" with enough prose and descriptors to make Tolkien go, "Maybe dial it back on the details."

 

[Trekkie27]

Important, yes, but not inflexible. The mistake fans make is being absolutist about it, reducing things to a ludicrous binary where the only possible options are "Every last detail is 100% consistent" and "It's all chaos and nothing is connected to anything." There's a ton of middle ground between those hyperbolic extremes.

Again, a canon is just a body of stories, and stories are illusions. Something doesn't have to be absolutely perfect to create a convincing illusion -- it just has to be good enough that the audience is willing to play along with the make-believe and shrug off the imperfections because they're enjoying the fantasy.

I love worldbuilding. It's one of my favorite parts of writing, and I've always felt I'm better at it than I am at plotting the actual stories that take place in the worlds I build. But I still understand that the worldbuilding is not the end of the exercise -- it's just a means to the end of telling stories about people and ideas and emotions. It's there to serve the stories, not the other way around. You don't write a play so you can build a set, you build a set so you have somewhere to put on the play. So making a change in the setting or the continuity for the sake of the story is not "ignoring" the worldbuilding, it's just keeping it in perspective. The worldbuilding is a means to the end of telling the story, and subtle changes to the worldbuilding can sometimes be a means to that end just as much as consistent worldbuilding can be.

Christopher,
I agree with you, especially about how worldbuilding is to support the story, not the other way round. And I also agree that no canon, over time, can be perfect, just very good, because perfection can never be the standard in anything - in fact, I once belonged to a writers' group where the members focused on cutting you down, finding all the flaws in your story, as opposed to constructive criticism - I think Neil Gaiman said that there are good writers' group and bad ones, so join the good ones.

 

[F. King Daniel]

In 2017 they essentially replaced TOS with Discovery, swapping out an aesthetic and the technology for something far more modern and advanced while (as we saw with Picard) keeping the rest of the franchise relatively intact.

And they're the people who own and run Trek. It's silly to worry more than they do.

 

[dupersuper]

My head canon is extremely important to me, and CBS and Paramount shan't pry it out of my cold dead hands...

I think we just need an explanation as to why, i.e. the cranial reconstruction fad went way overboard (as alluded to in ENT), genetic engineering to reverse the effects had other effects, etc.

Speaking of head canon, how's this: we know the affliction that removed the Klingons forehead crests hit in 2154, we know the Klingons seen in Discovery (and Axanar for that matter) still have them, that the Klingons in TOS don't (until the recent Year 5 comic), then they all seem back to normal by TMP, we know Kor (along with Kang and Koloth) had smooth foreheads in the 2260s (and 2250s according to the recent Aftermath comic book mini series), then bumpy ones in the 2370s, we know Martog hated Kor because Martog passed him over back in the day as Martog wasn't from a high born house like him, so...those effected by the augment DNA were sequestered and scorned for decades, until the condition finally made its way up the social hierarchy to nobles who wouldn't abide it and redoubled efforts to find a cure (say cosmetic surgery was seen as dishonourable), and by the 5th year of Kirks mission it was cured. This does require going through some older comics and drawing forehead ridges onto Klingon characters, but have pen will travel.

In 2017 they essentially replaced TOS with Discovery

What a depressing, horrifying thought...

 

[somebuddyX]

I'm happy to go the Transformers route and just put every new show into it's own continuity and so anyone can use any story element at any point without worrying about breaching canon. Make Kirk, Picard and Janeway all contemporaries or one generation removed. Maybe there's an android on every starship and Lore killed his crew whilst rebelling. Maybe the Vulcans and Klingons were both on Earth during the early 21st century doing some X Files conspiracy type stuff and Gowron was the Cigarette Smoking Man and Surak was the leader of the resistance with his son Tuvok. Let's go all in on this. All that matters is the story and if it's a good story I don't sweat the small shit.

 

[AresB]

My headcanon about the Klingons goes about this: when they were uplifted by the Hur'q, their genetic structure was adjusted to fit their masters' needs. And when the Klingons got rid of them, they were left with technology to do extensive genetic modification, and malleable DNA. Their genes are adjustable, but it also makes them vulnerable to genetic diseases such as the Augment virus and the one that the Albino used against the firstborns of Kor, Koloth and Kang.

After the Augment virus spread through the population, the major Klingon houses responded by aggressively enhancing the Klingon traits in their genome. This made them hairless, added redundancies to where they weren't exactly necessary (the double male parts!), and with so heavy features it made speech and expression difficult. Those whose houses couldn't afford treatments and thus were more human-looking were shunned and ostracized.

Then T'Kuvma's message "remain Klingon" addressed this: the unity of the Empire needed everyone to be recognised Klingon, no matter what they looked like. And so, when his followers got to power, Klingons began adjusting their looks back to more comfortable level, and ridgeless ones were accepted again.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What a depressing, horrifying thought...

Like it or not, Short Treks and Picard show us the Discovery/Strange New Worlds verison of the ship AS the TOS Enterprise when if they wanted they could have used the authentic 1960's look. The old has been swapped out and replaced.