Why a we calling it a tie-in? Is this not a Trek show that just happens to be delivered in the audio format? Would we cast aside Lower Decks because it's a cartoon? Isn't that effectively saying audio-plays are some sort of "lesser than"
Okay, granted, looking into it now, I see it is from CBS Studios' podcast division and Secret Hideout. Still, it's a side production in a different medium than usual. (The
Lower Decks analogy doesn't work because that's a television series on the same streaming service as the live action shows.) And its writers are Kirsten Beyer, who's now a Trek producer but started out as a tie-in novelist and co-writes or oversees the Secret Hideout tie-ins, and David Mack, who's usually a tie-in author (although I know he's trying to break into film/TV). So it seems kind of borderline to me.
It’s not a tie-in. It’s an official CBS/Paramount production. The question about canonicity arose because in the past, TPTB had always said that only on-screen material (TV shows, movies) was considered canon. This would be the first time that a non-on-screen work could have that distinction.
Okay, first, all licensed tie-ins are official. The word "official" doesn't mean "canonical," it just means it's authorized by the property owners to exist and be sold for profit. Licensed
Star Trek action figures and bedspreads and Hallmark ornaments are official. It's a business and legal term, not a storytelling term. Like "canon," it's a word that people read far too much meaning into.
Second, it wouldn't be the first time, because as I said, Jeri Taylor's
Voyager novels were considered canonical when she wrote them, since she was the showrunner at the time. But they were ignored after she left the showrunner job. Canon status is never a guarantee, especially with supplementary works that have a much smaller audience than the core works (ask any
Star Wars Expanded Universe fan). Which is why it's a trivial thing to make a fuss over. Even if they do call it canon, it still means nothing.
Count me with the people who don't think this has to be seen as a tie-in. It's not licenced. IMDB lists Star Trek TV writers as its writers and Star Trek TV executive producers among its credited producers.
I don't agree that something
can't be a tie-in if it's from the owners of the original work. I mean, Disney owns Marvel and publishes
Star Wars comics as well as making the movies and shows, but the comics are still considered tie-ins, albeit "canonical" ones (the kind of "canon" that gets contradicted by new screen canon as casually as non-canon tie-ins, making it a meaningless label). For that matter, the
Star Wars and Marvel Cinematic Universe TV shows can be considered tie-ins to the movie series. The term just means something that ties into something else. Like "canon" or "official," it is merely a description of what something is, not an assessment of its worth or validity.
