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

[The]

You too have deemed what is and what isn't valid to keep control,

How so?

and fail to see that to most in the real world posting on a Star Trek messageboard makes you a "hardcore" Trekkie too.

You are missing the point, and are instead dissecting the terminology. The defining aspects of such a label as I laid out are determined by the acceptance or perception of the Star Trek universe, not whether someone posts on a message board, dresses up in a costume, or can speak all the alien languages. I know there are plenty of those fans out there that dress up on the weekend for conventions, but just for enjoyment. They don't use Star Trek's fantasy as an escape or social crutch, and have no problems with any "continuity" or "canon". On the flipside, I know there are those out there that would never be caught dead at a convention, but have a fanatical devotion to whether a registry code on a starship is accurate when compared to a previous episode in the 1960's. And if it isn't, it causes them such valid and personal torment as to maintain a constant, conscious opposition to any disagreeable element of the franchise, unwilling to compromise or rationalize perspective.

And to be honest, I actually post on the Doctor Who forums here. I went and saw the movie, loved it, and thought what better place to discuss Trek than here?

 

[erebus]

It's the same as with religion: There are always those who see every written word as "canon", even though it might be contradictory, unlogical or simply non-sensical. But most still review everything on a case-by-case basis, as they believe it's the basics that matter, not the details. And they believe half off the stuff in any religious text is nonsense anyhow; only those details that matter to you personally are important...

Yes, i agree with you that there are parallels here between canon and the religious mindset, but i dare not start that debate because i'm an atheist and i will probably get banned from this board (the moderators are probably sick of me reporting people with religious advertising in their signatures anyway). But i'll risk saying i agree with a lot of what you have said and it confirms some rather uncomplementary conclusions i have about the religous mindset.

But better stick to discussing canon

 

[erebus]

... And to be honest, I actually post on the Doctor Who forums here. I went and saw the movie, loved it, and thought what better place to discuss Trek than here?

Its good to have you here, welcome.

there are those... that .. have a fanatical devotion to whether a registry code on a starship is accurate when compared to a previous episode in the 1960's. And if it isn't, it causes them such valid and personal torment as to maintain a constant, conscious opposition to any disagreeable element of the franchise, unwilling to compromise or rationalize perspective..

Ah, so sort of like how Dustin Hoffmann's character in Rainman went berzerk if a detail in his schedule went awry?

 

[Islander]

It's the same as with religion: There are always those who see every written word as "canon", even though it might be contradictory, unlogical or simply non-sensical. But most still review everything on a case-by-case basis, as they believe it's the basics that matter, not the details. And they believe half off the stuff in any religious text is nonsense anyhow; only those details that matter to you personally are important...

Yes, i agree with you that there are parallels here between canon and the religious mindset, but i dare not start that debate because i'm an atheist and i will probably get banned from this board (the moderators are probably sick of me reporting people with religious advertising in their signatures anyway). But i'll risk saying i agree with a lot of what you have said and it confirms some rather uncomplementary conclusions i have about the religous mindset.

But better stick to discussing canon

The point is that divergence of opinion exists everywhere and that is documented facts. So we can say that some are Orthodox Trekkies, some are JJAbramic...

On the subject on religion, however, I was happy to see that Star Trek does reach out to multiple communities. I saw several Muslims and Hindous in my theater and it is easy to extrapolate the ret was a mix of diverse Christians, Jews and Atheist.

 

[gilmour1899]

You too have deemed what is and what isn't valid to keep control,

How so?

and fail to see that to most in the real world posting on a Star Trek messageboard makes you a "hardcore" Trekkie too.

You are missing the point, and are instead dissecting the terminology. The defining aspects of such a label as I laid out are determined by the acceptance or perception of the Star Trek universe, not whether someone posts on a message board, dresses up in a costume, or can speak all the alien languages. I know there are plenty of those fans out there that dress up on the weekend for conventions, but just for enjoyment. They don't use Star Trek's fantasy as an escape or social crutch, and have no problems with any "continuity" or "canon". On the flipside, I know there are those out there that would never be caught dead at a convention, but have a fanatical devotion to whether a registry code on a starship is accurate when compared to a previous episode in the 1960's. And if it isn't, it causes them such valid and personal torment as to maintain a constant, conscious opposition to any disagreeable element of the franchise, unwilling to compromise or rationalize perspective.

And to be honest, I actually post on the Doctor Who forums here. I went and saw the movie, loved it, and thought what better place to discuss Trek than here?

As a Doctor Who fan it is no wonder you have a decent perception of emotional retards.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

And to be honest, I actually post on the Doctor Who forums here. I went and saw the movie, loved it, and thought what better place to discuss Trek than here?

Ah, that's the explanation then; I thought you seemed too perceptive and intelligent to be a real trekkie, seems I'm right.

 

[Tom]

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

Which is where I think a lot of folks get stumbled up. They'll declare what they think is canon for Trek, but in reality they are defining their own version of it, which is "Fanon".

I've heard that term quite a bit over time regarding Trek.

Fanon killed Enterprise.

..And video killed the radio star, but you don't see me complaining..

 

[TheArsenal]

Never cared about either continuity/canon. It strangled Star Trek to death.

Even so, with Abrams heading up such shows as Fringe and LOST, shows with built in mysteries and sleight of hand which invite in depth examination; I imagine he has grown accustomed to fans crawling across every frame of his work with microscopes at the ready. Accordingly, I have great faith that - however long this new film series runs under his guidance - it will be very consistent with itself.

 

[erebus]

Canon, as it relates to what makes up a Star Trek TV show or movie, does not have a deep philosophical meaning, nor is it to be interpreted. When the Paramount approved creators of Star Trek put something on the little or big screen for us to watch it's Star Trek, it's canon (in this case Star Trek = canon). Sometimes they make mistakes, sometimes they change things, that's Hollywood.

ok this is proably the most clearest working definition of what canon is. It even includes a get-out for inconsistencies. So we just have to agree on what onscreen means.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

"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 what is your source for this? Where has the studio declared that this is their canon criteria? The OP wanted to know the authoritative canon reference. And don't quote Roddenberry to me about TAS not being canon, because he also felt STV was non-canon, despite it--by your criteria--being live action movie produced by Paramount.

Trek is too inconsistent and contradictory to have a canon.

Canon doesn't equal consistent. It is just an officially accepted body of work. The Bible is a collection of books held to be canonical by certain religious groups (Several of which hold a (sometimes) slightly different canon), but there are many apparent inconsistent accounts within those books. They are still part of the canon.

Its meaningless.

This is very true. In the Star Trek context only those creating the shows/movies need worry about what is canonical and what is not, so they know what they are not supposed to contradict. For fans it is meaningless. It isn't a sign of quality, as there is much crap that is canon (Spock's Brain). People act as if being canonical makes it more "real," but this is BS. None of it is actually real and you are free to accept as "real" anything you wish in a fictional world.

 

[RoJoHen]

Canon is the single most annoying, overused word on the TrekBBS. It should be banned from the English language.

I am the authority on this.

References can be seen in various threads around the board.

 

[erebus]

Where has the studio declared that this is their canon criteria?

hi, here is a link i posted earlier that indicates the studio position on canon:

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

To you and RoJoHen, yes i think what you're saying if i understand you correctly is what i'm getting at: what makes some people believe they know canon so well as to declare catagorically that something is or is not star trek (e.g star trek 11).

This thread has revealed to me its the tv and film makers who produce what comes 'onscreen' are who decide what is canon along with Paula Block of CBS. The rest (and the arguments) falls into the 'fanon' category or 'canon guidance/background'.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

Hah! I like this definition!

 

[superdeluxe]

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

People are mis-using the word when they say that. Whoever controls the franchise, when they release something, it makes it canon.

 

[erebus]

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

People are mis-using the word when they say that. Whoever controls the franchise, when they release something, it makes it canon.

Yep, thanks i get that now at last , and thus armed i will sort those rascals out in future!

 

[dreadpiraterose]

Canon is anything onscreen, anything else is questionable.

Actually that's not true. Gene Roddenberry officially declared The Animated Series to not be canon.

But aside from TAS, everything on screen (TV/Movie) was canon under Roddenberry and Berman. Books and comics were not. Some books were considered "blessed"/"unofficial canon" by the Okudas, such as the technical manuals, and the Jeri Taylor novel "Mosaics" about Captain Janeway (and I believe it's sequal "Pathways" as well).

As for this movie... if its considered canon, it would probably be called "alternate reality" canon.

 

[superdeluxe]

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

Fanon is acceptable only when it does not directly contradict established canon. Fanon is to give 'flavor' to the canon.

 

[Greg Cox]

It might be worth pointing out that "canon" is mostly a fannish obsession. In all the years I've been writing and editing tie-in novels, I don't think I've ever discussed "canon" with a licensor. Back when I was editing the FARSCAPE novels, I was on the phone to Henson every other day, but the word "canon" never ever came up. We were too busy trying to get the books out on time . . . .

 

[dreadpiraterose]

And what is your source for this? Where has the studio declared that this is their canon criteria? The OP wanted to know the authoritative canon reference. And don't quote Roddenberry to me about TAS not being canon, because he also felt STV was non-canon, despite it--by your criteria--being live action movie produced by Paramount.

Link:

http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/help/faqs/faq/676.html

There you go. Source for what Paramount says is canon.

 

[superdeluxe]

For example, I write fanon for a game called Fallout 3. Basically I am expanding on a universe in the fallout world. As long as it does not directly contradict something from fallout 1 and fallout 2, then it is okay (Worked on some fallout communities/history in the puget sound area)