What is star trek canon and where is the authorative reference?

[erebus]

ok, folks lets see whats out there: what is this star trek canon thing and where do we find out about it?

I mean there seem to be some people who definently know what is or what is not canon: to these people, how do we bone up on it?

Also, who decides when new star trek is canon or not and where does it get recorded for reference.

My opinion: star trek is many things to many people and it is what gives them enjoyment and engagement.

But when someone says 'this is against canon' i'd like to know where to check it for myself.

I mean i just read the wikipedia entry and it couldn't point me to an authoritative source, but (logically ) there must be one since a number of fans seem to speak with such unshakable authority.

Please note i am not trying to stir things up (if you feel i am please don't post anything in the thread): this is just a general enquiry from an on/off trek fan in a convenient forum.

 

[Tom]

Canon is anything onscreen, anything else is questionable.

 

[Islander]

The canon is essentially the sum of all media relating events within the universe (series, films, books ...). What happened in those story, what was explain (how technology works, who did what ...) becomes cannon.

In order to be considerable for canon, a new story must respect what is already established. If the store breaks the continuity of the universe, it cannot be considered.

With this film, there is a debate as the events themselves are not possible within the continuity of the previous movie (we know Vulcan is not destroyed and Spocks mother live, for example) but it explains that a villain from the future (from after the Nemesis events) travels through time a CREATE an ALTERNATE timeline, which is canon within the previously explained laws of quantum mechanics.

 

[Deckerd]

The general consensus on this board is that if it appeared on a screen it might* be considered canon. Anything else is not canon.

*but only if everyone agrees it is, which in reality means every event collapses under its own mass of arguments and counter-arguments** and forms a small black hole. These are stored in a highly toxic, lead-lined forum that you have to request membership in order to view.

**very occasionally the arguments and counter-arguments are so equal they cancel each other out and become background energy in the universe

 

[Shaper079]

I don't think there is a single source. But all shows have a canon per se, except maybe Lost... It is simply a matter of not violating that which has come before. The reason Star Trek refers to it as "canon" is because of the books. The books are not canon when they conflict with the TV/Movie versions and can be overwritten but subsequent versions. They do offer an interesting insight into the Star Trek unverse though. I highly recommend "Q Squared" by Peter David to anyone interested in the multi-universe theory. That book is a barn burner, complete with a Captain Jack Crusher dealing with the death of his young son Wesley.

In answer to your original question canon is the five series and now eleven movies.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The canon is essentially the sum of all media relating events within the universe (series, films, books ...). What happened in those story, what was explain (how technology works, who did what ...) becomes cannon.

No, it's not.

"Canon" is what is shown in the five live-action Star Trek television series and eleven movies produced by Paramount Pictures. Other things - books and so forth - may be officially licensed but are not considered by the studio to be "canonical."

And canon may be self-contradictory and in fact it is.

 

[Carpe Occasio]

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

Canon is a list of often contradictory 'facts' we have seen on screen in the various movies and series. These facts may be bent at will.

 

[Butters]

There is no canon. Its a myth, a bedtime story, a rumour, an assumption.

Trek is too inconsistent and contradictory to have a canon. Its meaningless. Fans like to bend and twist and manipulate with brute force the dialogue of the show to fit one unified truth. This is the fun part of trek. Unfortunately, this canon, is abused. Its thrown into a debate to justify a rant, its treated as fact in lieu of reason.

Its also a dimmly understood word, despite its clear definitions on the net, and one that people will argue as much about what canon means to them as to what the canon should encompass. Personal Canon for example . Imagine if any old Bishop or priest could go round canonising who and whatever they fancied...

Canon is a word and a concept that trek could stand to lose.

 

[Islander]

No, it's not.

"Canon" is what is shown in the five live-action Star Trek television series and eleven movies produced by Paramount Pictures. Other things - books and so forth - may be officially licensed but are not considered by the studio to be "canonical."

And canon may be self-contradictory and in fact it is.

Being a book (especially technical productions) is not automatically dismissed just because it is a book. Deckerd best described it stating "if everyone agrees it is". The studio may have a saying but will always bow to the fans. They wouldn't be able to sell their movies and t-shirts otherwise.

 

[Deckerd]

Hey I was kidding.

 

[Therin of Andor]

ok, folks lets see whats out there: what is this star trek canon thing and where do we find out about it?

When Richard Arnold was working for Gene Roddenberry, he put out a memo on behalf of the Star Trek Office at Paramount that clarified that the Star Trek "canon" consisted of all live-action episodes and movies. Licensed tie-ins had to take their lead from the parent shows, not from each other. Scripts, novelizations, novels, short stories, comics, the animated series, RPGs and even live-action footage, filmed on the ST sets, and made for tourist attractions, did not count. ("Count", as in they do not inform the development of a series or movie. Although there have been exceptions - such as Sulu's and Uhura's first names.)

After Roddenberry died, no one retracted the existing memo, but Paula Block (of now-CBS Consumer Products), oversees all manuscripts and is the final arbiter of exactly what elements can/will appear in the tie-ins of today. She makes decisions on a case by case situation.

 

[gilmour1899]

Obviously there is no one place where "canon" exists because it is not reality. Nor is it silly to have a fictional universe that is largely consistent which is a major reason why all of us are here. There shouldn't be a problem either way.

 

[erebus]

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Portal:Main

Thanks for the above reference and thanks all for your comments so far.

It does seem that canon doesn't reside with a single individual or authority (let me know if this is a false conclusion from what has been said) and subject to interpretation (as to what is actually seen on screen, considering all the versions of the films/episodes, outakes , extended editions etc).

And so those fans that care to quote something as breaking canon ought to refer exactly to the canon point being broken (perhaps by using the above accessible web site as the canon reference as that seems to be closest to an authority).

This would definently save a person having to read the 30000 or so articles before appreciating any objections!

Ah yes, now i understand why people keep replying 'source?' to many of the claiment's posts.

Ok thanks again all Happy Trekking!

 

[Carpe Occasio]

Canon is whatever the Paramount television and/or film producers put on screen.

 

[erebus]

...After Roddenberry died, no one retracted the existing memo, but Paula Block (of now-CBS Consumer Products), oversees all manuscripts and is the final arbiter of exactly what elements can/will appear in the tie-ins of today. She makes decisions on a case by case situation.

Ah thanks, i only saw your post after i'd posted the above reply. Good, so now we have one person who is the final arbiter and a web site that can be a source of reference in any claims.

Well, anyway, i bet Ms Block is one busy woman

 

[KirkusOveractus]

...and I, for one, have considered TAS to be canon, like it or lump it. Just because Roddenberry was in a bad mood that day and didn't like it doesn't matter. He would also dictate to Richard Arnold that he didn't feel certain parts of movies weren't canon because he didn't care for them at any given time.

It was made by Paramount via Filmation, scripts by the original series writers and some sci-fi writers, and used TOS cast voices.

 

[Deckerd]

I think you'll find a rather large lump.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I think you'll find a rather large lump.

LOL! I know, I know. But it was the first Trek series I ever saw, and for me it has quite a sentimental attachment to it.

Plus, although I enjoy the thought and debate that can be provoked from the best of Star Trek, I more enjoy it all because it's fun and a way to just be away from reality for a little bit at a time.

Just a good tonic to prevent me from lapsing into psychotic episodes...
(kidding on that...)

 

[erebus]

...and I, for one, have considered TAS to be canon..

Thats intresting because the below link seems to confirm that TAS is canon now when once it wasn't.

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Canon

Also from the above it looks like the useful definition as quoted by Carpe Occasio and FleetLord apply.

Intrestingly they also introduce a new term 'Fanon', which is canon as agreed by a large number of fans.