Canonicity
- Thread starter Darth Thanos
- Start date
Star Trek canon is very simple. It consists of:
Nothing else is canon.
See? Simple!
- Star Trek: The Original Series (1964; 1966-1969)
- Star Trek: The Animated Series (1971-1972)
- Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
- Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
- Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
- Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
- Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994)
- Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
- Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
- Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999)
- Star Trek: Generations (1994)
- Star Trek: Voyager (1995-2001)
- Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
- Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
- Star Trek: Enterprise (2001-2005)
- Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
- Star Trek (2009)
- Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)
- Star Trek Beyond (2016)
- Star Trek: Discovery (2017-present)
- Star Trek: Short Treks (2018-2020)
- Star Trek: Picard (2020-2023)
- Star Trek: Lower Decks (2020-present)
- Star Trek: Prodigy (2021-present)
- Star Trek: Strange New Worlds (2022-present)
Nothing else is canon.
See? Simple!
I believe everything is Canon that is shown on screen, except for Discovery and Picard. I know that is an unpopular opinion, but I cannot consider those two canon personally. I do not consider Lower Decks canon either.
You can chose not to include them in your personal headcanon, but the actual canon is a matter of objective fact determined by the owner of the intellectual property rather than of your subjective opinion. Objectively, Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, and Star Trek: Lower Decks are all part of the canon because the owner of Star Trek, Paramount Global, says so. You have no more authority to remove them from the Star Trek canon than you have the authority to remove, say, A Clash of Kings from the Song of Ice and Fire canon; only the owner of A Song of Ice and Fire, George R.R. Martin, has that authority.
Even then, there might be some (minor) ambiguity.
For example, I remember having a difference of opinion about a minutia a long time ago with someone where the released script said something different from what the actual actor on screen actually said- possibly simply a misremembering of the line by the actor. Might have been as trivial as a difference in a number or other detail in technobabble which they didn't think important enough to reshoot. Not really important, but even so, what is canon, then? The line as actually uttered by the actor in the released material, or as it was in the released script?
Last edited:
Canon to the right, cannon to the left....
That will make conversations very interesting.
What's shown on screen trumps what was written down, at least until TPTB declare otherwise.
I told what I heard in the episode. Then he said I heard it wrong, so I relistened to the copy I had a few times. Nope, absolutely certain the actor actually said something different from what that script said. Then I got berated for my arrogance, because the script clearly said otherwise and how dare I assume anything else!
I never replied to that anymore because I simply refuse to engage in discussion with people with such an attitude.
Other than that, the detail in itself really was extremely trivial and not worth having a row about, but it did prompt the question in me as to what the 'canonical version' would be if push came to shove in case of such inconsistencies.
Last edited:
I can give those fans the number of a good shrinkBecause fans believe they own the property. It matters so much to them that the actual owners of the property don't know what they are doing. Those who have invested the hours and hours of reading books, or fan fiction or trivia details feel that as part of their identity and so there is this sense of ownership. With it comes a sense that the actual owners either don't care, or are evil in use of their property. Which is quite the interesting perspective in Star Trek in particular since there is this idea of embracing multiple perspectives.
I think whoever you were in dispute with spoke in error.
I would agree with that, except with some limitation on the 'until TPTB declare otherwise' part.
For example (a nonsense example) , if 'TPTB' would declare today 'Vulcan blood is blue, always was blue, and never has been anything but blue' I could never accept that statement, since TOS clearly tells us it is green.
However, I would have no problem with the statement 'Vulcan blood is now supposed to always have been blue, even though TOS said otherwise'.
Similarly, I'm not sure I could accept 'TOS is no longer canon; it never happened', but I have no problems with 'releases from now on are no longer in the same timeline as the original one'.
Well, one of the lynchpins of canon is that it doesn't matter whether we accept it. We don't work for the studio and don't have to care what they say.
As has been said before and will be said again, fans seem to care much more about canon than anyone else.
Well, of course. Fans are in it because they love the series. People who work for it are in it because they earn their money with it. It's an added bonus if they also love the series/universe, but it's not an absolute prerequisite, like it is for being a fan.
The line that is actually in the released material is what is part of the actual canon. Scripts are not part of the canon.
Even with that, there might be some wiggle room.
If the writer of the episode states what they intended to convey with a particular episode or scene, and maybe points to something that may have originally been in the script, or if an actor states the backstory they worked up for their character, when explaining the context of a scene or story, that usually becomes something people point to when they interpret whatever messages or themes being conveyed.
It sort of exists as semi-canon, where unless its explicitly contradicted later, people usually view it through that lens when analyzing the story. If Andrew Robinson says he believes Garak did X, Y, and Z before coming to Deep Space Nine, and that was where he was coming from while playing the character, it's not canon since we didn't see it on the show, but it is something that adds context when analyzing what is canon on the show.
Religious canon can be whatever a given group agrees it is, but that hasn't stopped multiple interpretations of the text by adherents based on different reasons throughout the centuries. And in a lot of those interpretations, people go beyond the text to what they believe it is trying to get at, adding things that may not have been put there explicitly by the writer.
Everything is canon, except you have to translate the seriousness level and tone to explain how the sillier Treks are canon.
Well, one of the lynchpins of canon is that it doesn't matter whether we accept it. We don't work for the studio and don't have to care what they say.
I would add the caveat that if something on screen is so bad everyone hates it, the fans consensus overrules it.
Similar threads
