Canonicity

[Nyotarules]

Star Trek canon is not infallible, some fans need to accept that you get episodes that are serious, funny, adventurous and down right stupid. As long its produced by the copyright holders and shown on screen its canon. Like it or not, canon does not and never did mean infallible film production.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It's also funny that episodes deemed non-canon at the time, even unofficially by producers etc have been made 100% canon later. Just look at Sybok in SNW or Janeway in Prodigy talking about the time she was turned into a salamander

 

[Henoch]

Canon without Continuity is still Canon. (I don't buy it, but that's what the show runners want us to believe.)

 

[Citiprime]

I do think there are cases where the IP holder fiddles with their canon to the point that what is and isn’t canon becomes anyone’s guess. The IP holder can dictate what’s in the canon of the property, but they can also devalue that canon from having storytelling value with bad decisions.

I think the biggest example of that is Star Wars and the multiple iterations of the original trilogy. Did Han shoot first? I don’t know because they’ve messed with it and other things so many times to the point that the answer to the question depends on which version of the movie you watch and it becomes a joke.

Disney, when they acquired Lucasfilm, reset Star Wars canon where books that Lucasfilm had classified as official Star Wars canon were shunted over into its own apocryphal thing called “Legends.” Disney did it to clear up space within the timeline around the original trilogy so they can develop their own properties in the setting instead of being limited by what a book writer had put down on paper years before.

Hypothetically, if Star Trek was acquired by Netflix and Netflix deemed the Paramount+ shows and everything beyond the TNG era non-canon, so they could create their own versions of Star Trek, they could do that since they would own it. But would it be a good choice if you want your fans to give a shit about canon?

 

[Shawnster]

This is the equivalent of Catholics who don't accept Vatican II.

They're called Eastern Orthodox.

Well, actually, the split was long before Vatican II, but the comparison stands nonetheless. One group refused to accept certain points of church canon that the other side accepted. In 1054 the Catholic Church split into Eastern Orthodox and Western Orthodox, or Catholic Church

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/great-schism/

So, to your point, yes, this forms a different religion. They may accept or believe 85% the same, but that last 15% is the divide.

The only difference is the fans that reject Star Trek:XYZ cannot go off and make their own Star Trek. They can, however, go off and make their own show that's similar to Star Trek like The Orville, Galaxy Quest, etc...

 

[Ovation]

There’s a vocal number of fans that say “canon doesn’t matter”

Maybe it doesn’t to them. The shared continuity certainly does matter to me. Indeed I stopped watching “superman and Lois” after it was clear it wasn’t the same universe as the arrowverse.

For me, the value tends to increase as the size of the world increases.

Canon really, really does NOT MATTER. It’s ALL “CANON” (and thus ALL “Real Trek”).

Continuity (which is what all the “canon debates” are actually about) can matter to an extent. Kelvinverse continuity should not have stories set after Beyond where Pike is on Talos IV, or recreate Amok Time, or have Chekov run into a former girlfriend hanging out with space hippies. If it did have such stories, and respecting continuity was an ironclad clumsy (or perhaps clever) explanations would likely be part of the stories. Zero explanations would create continuity violations. Some people still wouldn’t care (just as they don’t care about the numerous existing continuity violations or inconsistencies), but those who do care would at least have some basis for their complaints. “Canon”, however, cannot be “violated”. It’s impossible. It’s very nature makes it so.

 

[SJGardner]

They're called Eastern Orthodox.

Well, actually, the split was long before Vatican II, but the comparison stands nonetheless. One group refused to accept certain points of church canon that the other side accepted. In 1054 the Catholic Church split into Eastern Orthodox and Western Orthodox, or Catholic Church

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/great-schism/

So, to your point, yes, this forms a different religion. They may accept or believe 85% the same, but that last 15% is the divide.

The only difference is the fans that reject Star Trek:XYZ cannot go off and make their own Star Trek. They can, however, go off and make their own show that's similar to Star Trek like The Orville, Galaxy Quest, etc...

While the Great Schism is indeed the most well-known such split coming from different interpretations of canon, I find post-Vatican II schismatic Traditionalist Christians to be a much more fitting analogy that is also easier to understand - the Western and Eastern Churches have long since diverged wildly from each other, but sedevacantists and the like can still be recognized as variations of Catholicism. The way I see it, Catholic and Orthodox Trek would be more like if one half of the fandom not only rejected everything made after 2005 but actually made their own distinct storylines continuing from where Voyager and Enterprise ended and regarded them as canonical.

 

[fireproof78]

But would it be a good choice if you want your fans to give a shit about canon?

The bigger question is do they want their fans to give a shit about canon? Now, the answer might appear to be a "Yes, of course," as a knee jerk reaction but when you pause and think about it was does canon do for the overall story? What does it mean to the story I'm watching.

It's funny you mention Star Wars because I recall a discussion between two friends of mine and discussing one of the prequels. One friend notes that there were books, and character biographies and the prequels messed with that (back when the prequels were considered less than stellar) and my other friend goes, "No one asked you to do that." I get it from a fan perspective organizing it all in to a nice and neat little categories probably appeals to many fans for their own pet interests and timelines.

The question of investment for me comes down to "am I invested in the characters and stories." For others it might be more "how does this all fit together as a larger narrative." Neither side is right or wrong, but it impacts the choices in engaging with the story. To me, trying to get it to all hang together is leading to not enjoying the individual stories themselves, focusing on the minutia over the substance of the characters.

 

[Shawnster]

The way I see it, Catholic and Orthodox Trek would be more like if one half of the fandom not only rejected everything made after 2005 but actually made their own distinct storylines continuing from where Voyager and Enterprise ended and regarded them as canonical.

Yes. Only fans do not have such power due to IP and copyright. All they can do is make their own shows with similar themes and stories.

Come to think about it, there are aspects of Catholic belief that some members choose to ignore, such as birth control. Maybe that's similar to fans ignoring certain episodes or series.

 

[Shat Happens]

something released on screen as an official Star Trek series is canon, and always will be canon. No amount of fan hate can 'decanonize' it.

It has occurred to me if you consider Lower Decks (or TAS, or the cgi show with Janeway) and any or all of the live-action series to be in the same universe, and take onscreen visuals to determine what is canon, you end up in Toontown watching Roger Rabbit.

 

[Tuskin38]

Indeed I stopped watching “superman and Lois” after it was clear it wasn’t the same universe as the arrowverse.

Man you missed a whole lot of an amazing series by doing that..

Disney, when they acquired Lucasfilm, reset Star Wars canon where books that Lucasfilm had classified as official Star Wars canon were shunted over into its own apocryphal thing called “Legends.” Disney did it to clear up space within the timeline around the original trilogy so they can develop their own properties in the setting instead of being limited by what a book writer had put down on paper years before.

It actually wasn't Disney that suggested that, it was LucasFilm.

According to one employee, the discussions started before George sold the company when he was brainstorming his own sequel ideas. Because just like with the sequels we got, anything he would have made would have invalidated all post ROTJ EU canon as well. It would have been easier just to start anew.

 

[SJGardner]

Yes. Only fans do not have such power due to IP and copyright. All they can do is make their own shows with similar themes and stories.

Come to think about it, there are aspects of Catholic belief that some members choose to ignore, such as birth control. Maybe that's similar to fans ignoring certain episodes or series.

I would also like to add that the Great Schism only happened because of different interpretations of canon on the surface - the two churches have already grown wildly different by 1054, leading to a power struggle between the Pope and the Ecumenical Patriarch who both wanted to be the undisputed head of Christendom; the differences in theology and liturgy were mostly excuses to formalize a de facto schism that had already been happening for centuries when they both realized the other won't submit. Modern post-Vatican II traditionalist Catholics would instead break off for reasons that would be much more familiar for the Trek fandom - the new guys came and took over, introduced new, heretical material to the existing canon that ruined it, so we chose to disregard it.

 

[1001001]

If we’re done nailing our theses to the church door…

 

[Shawnster]

I would also like to add that the Great Schism only happened because of different interpretations of canon on the surface - the two churches have already grown wildly different by 1054

So, the Fandom started to split by 1979 with the TMP and the great schism happens in 1987 with TNG, 2009 with ST09 or 2017 with DISCO?

Fascinating

 

[The Wormhole]

Has it been decanonised because of its poor performance?

It will be when Kathleen Kennedy is fired. Which according to trusted sources YouTube will be any day now.

( )

 

[fireproof78]

It will be when Kathleen Kennedy is fired. Which according to trusted sources YouTube will be any day now.

( )

Good. I need a new job.

 

[JoseNoodles]

Canon to the right, cannon to the left....

Damn the Twitter posts, full speed ahead.

 

[mb22]

What about TAS, when Roddenberry (and Richard Arnold the enforcer) decanonized that series, despite his titular involvement (as 'executive consultant') with the show when it was produced? Or when Paramount recanonized it when they started selling the series on DVD? How are fans and everyone else to think? Can canon status shift back and forth?

 

[fireproof78]

Can canon status shift back and forth?

Yes.

Because it's not up to us.

 

[The Wormhole]

What about TAS, when Roddenberry (and Richard Arnold the enforcer) decanonized that series, despite his titular involvement (as 'executive consultant') with the show when it was produced? Or when Paramount recanonized it when they started selling the series on DVD? How are fans and everyone else to think? Can canon status shift back and forth?

IIRC, the only reason Paramount played along with Roddenberry's claim that TAS wasn't canon was because throughout the 90s there were rights issues regarding TAS which weren't resolved until mid-2000s, which led to the DVDs and Paramount deciding to incorporate it into canon again.

If it weren't for those rights issues, Paramount would likely have ignored Roddenberry's claims the show wasn't canon, just like they ignored his claims TFF and TUC weren't canon.