Canon and deleted scenes

[los2188]

I was pondering this one earlier today...there was a scene filmed in TWOK, the Saavik is half Romulan and half Vulcan part, which was obviously seen by many at some point as it can be found on YouTube, so does that make it canon? I mean I know it's never mentioned again in any of the other Trek films, but it was filmed and seen. Another example is in Generations where Geordi was tortured by Soran with the nano-probes. I do remember that scene quite well at the movie theater many years ago due to it reminding me of LaVar Burton being in the movie Roots as Kunta Kinte which I then made a joke about. Point being is that still considered canon?

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Its one thing I've always wondered as well.

I think individuals take deleted scenes any way they want too, either accepting what was in them as canon or ignoring them since it was never actually officially on screen.

 

[Oso Blanco]

I consider deleted scenes canon as long as they don't contradict established canon or the story of the movie.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I was pondering this one earlier today...there was a scene filmed in TWOK, the Saavik is half Romulan and half Vulcan part, which was obviously seen by many at some point as it can be found on YouTube, so does that make it canon? I mean I know it's never mentioned again in any of the other Trek films, but it was filmed and seen.

It's "live action, onscreen".

Canonicity doesn't matter, unless you are writing for a licensed tie-in, in which case you must follow what CBS Consumer Products' team tell you to follow.

Saavik's half-Romulan heritage was covered by the novelizations of ST II and III, DC Comics and the novel "The Pandora Principle", but "filmed and seen" has nothing to do with that. Vonda McIntyre was expanding upon a stage direction in the script of ST II. Other tie-ins are free to ignore these publications and draw from ST III and IV if they like.

Does Saavik look like Robin Curtis or Kirstie Alley?

Unfilmed dialogue and stage directions are not canon. Bonus scenes added to DVDs are not.

The Saavik scene was not "onscreen", just in a presentation trailer made for a convention.

 

[DonIago]

I was basically going to ask why it matters whether it's canon...unless the question is just a matter of academic curiosity.

 

[R. Star]

Being Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Jeri Taylor and such all have differing definitions on what is and isn't canon, it's hard to take the concept very seriously.

It comes down to opinion and I can form my own. I'm sure you can too.

 

[Tiberius]

I consider deleted scenes canon as long as they don't contradict established canon or the story of the movie.

Same here.

 

[YARN]

It is only canon if it is part of the finished product.

Deleted scenes were deleted and are not part of the finished work. Rather they are a part of the mass of materials from which the final text emerges.

 

[F. King Daniel]

They aren't canon.

The novels (all tie-ins have to follow canon, it's the only realm where it really matters) go with the idea Saavik is half-Romulan from the STII deleted scene, but they ignore Martin Madden from the alternate ending to STX (Worf is first officer of the E-E now) as well as changing Wesley's reason for being at the wedding (he was just visiting, and unlike in the deleted scenes isn't back in SF and never joined the Titan crew). The Nero comic builds on the Rura Penthe scenes cut from STXI.

So, it's pick-and-choose. Apocraphyl. Not canon.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Being Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Jeri Taylor and such all have differing definitions on what is and isn't canon

Essentially, they agreed. The Star Trek Office at Paramount decreed, through Richard Arnold, Star Trek Archivist and a columnist for "Star Trek Communicator", that the canon consisted of as-screened, live-action productions made by Desliu/Paramount. Hence Filmation's TAS, additional aspects of Roddenberry's own TMP novelization, character biographies on the official "Star Trek" website, and even live-action footage filmed on Paramount sets for (and by) the licensed tie-in computer game companies, and the fan attractions at Universal Studios and the Star Trek Experience, were not canonical.

Roddenberry did note that he "considered parts of Star Trek V to be apocryphal" - but he wasn't writing anything after "Datalore" anyway, and no one really referenced Sybok (nor McCoy mercy killing his own father) in later productions. Brannon Braga eventually apologized for the Warp 10 salamanders of "Voyager", and promised they wouldn't be followed up. And Jeri Taylor, using her own behind-the-scenes production notes about Janeway's background for the novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways", suggested that her writing staff should consider this information canonical for the character - but when Taylor left the show, the writing staff immediately began to ignore some aspects of what her novels had laid out. Bad Robot did not go overboard trying to make the 2009 film fit exactly with details unveiled through the "Countdown" comic mini-series plotted by the film's own writers.

But "as-screened, live-action productions made by Desliu/Paramount" does essentially cover "What is canon".

 

[Nerys Myk]

Being Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Jeri Taylor and such all have differing definitions on what is and isn't canon, it's hard to take the concept very seriously.

It comes down to opinion and I can form my own. I'm sure you can too.

The difference is they worked on the show and you/we don't. Their's is more than an opinion.

 

[R. Star]

Being Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Jeri Taylor and such all have differing definitions on what is and isn't canon, it's hard to take the concept very seriously.

It comes down to opinion and I can form my own. I'm sure you can too.

The difference is they worked on the show and you/we don't. Their's is more than an opinion.

Not really. They're men, not gods dictating what we should and shouldn't think.

Roddenberry really did pick and chose what he thought was cannon.

Berman said anything on screen is cannon, which contradicts Roddenberry's comments about TAS not being canon and hinting at ST V and VI not being so.

Braga said the same thing, then followed up that he didn't care much about continuity.

Jeri Taylor implied her novels are canon and used them as references in some episodes.

A discussion on deleted scenes and such? I think the average viewer is intelligent enough to formulate their own opinion on the subject.

Being the creators can't get on the same page, throwing around "canon" like it's some sort of Trek Bible is contradictory to say the least. Guess it has something in common with the real one anyways.

I enjoy the extra scenes, and think they enhance the movies. I enjoy the books, I think they paint a more complete picture of the Trek universe than the movies. So to me they're "real" and if someone in a Paramount office or a random user on a message board doesn't agree, that's their privledge.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Being Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, Jeri Taylor and such all have differing definitions on what is and isn't canon, it's hard to take the concept very seriously.

It comes down to opinion and I can form my own. I'm sure you can too.

The difference is they worked on the show and you/we don't. Their's is more than an opinion.

Not really. They're men, not gods dictating what we should and shouldn't think.

Roddenberry really did pick and chose what he thought was cannon.

Berman said anything on screen is cannon, which contradicts Roddenberry's comments about TAS not being canon and hinting at ST V and VI not being so.

Braga said the same thing, then followed up that he didn't care much about continuity.

Jeri Taylor implied her novels are canon and used them as references in some episodes.

A discussion on deleted scenes and such? I think the average viewer is intelligent enough to formulate their own opinion on the subject.

Being the creators can't get on the same page, throwing around "canon" like it's some sort of Trek Bible is contradictory to say the least. Guess it has something in common with the real one anyways.

I enjoy the extra scenes, and think they enhance the movies. I enjoy the books, I think they paint a more complete picture of the Trek universe than the movies. So to me they're "real" and if someone in a Paramount office or a random user on a message board doesn't agree, that's their privledge.

They're dictating canon, not what we think. Those are not the same thing. Canon is also not continuity. Too many people confuse the two. An episode can be part of the canon but elements of it can be out of continuity.

The party line has usually been all filmed live action was though of as canon. The animated series was the red headed stepchild of Trek in Roddenberry, Berman and Braga's reigns. So it was consistent. Even though bit of TAS slipped in, usually through the art department. Taylor's book was only in continuity as long as she was in charge.

 

[Therin of Andor]

They're men, not gods dictating what we should and shouldn't think.

The only reason Richard Arnold started talking about "canon" was because Gene R. was getting frustrated when fans demanded to know such things as why the Franz Joseph dreadnought design hadn't appeared in the ST movie series yet, or why episodes of TNG referred to Romulans instead of Rihannsu.

"What is canon" really matters only to creators of the licensed tie-ins. Fans are free to think what we like, but GR preferred not being told - by them or tie-in creators - what ST should be like.

 

[R. Star]

They're men, not gods dictating what we should and shouldn't think.

The only reason Richard Arnold started talking about "canon" was because Gene R. was getting frustrated when fans demanded to know such things as why the Franz Joseph dreadnought design hadn't appeared in the ST movie series yet, or why episodes of TNG referred to Romulans instead of Rihannsu.

"What is canon" really matters only to creators of the licensed tie-ins. Fans are free to think what we like, but GR preferred not being told - by them or tie-in creators - what ST should be like.

David Gerold, a writer, said that Gene named Arnold the "archivist" only because he handed out titles instead of raises and that he was really just a glorified errand boy. Not sure how much truth there is to that, but I could definitely see a title going to someone's head. Certainly Arnold is the single person who's brought the concept of "canon" up more than any other person related to Trek.

 

[Therin of Andor]

David Gerold, a writer, said that Gene named Arnold the "archivist" only because he handed out titles instead of raises and that he was really just a glorified errand boy. Not sure how much truth there is to that...

Richard Arnold started out as a volunteer tour guide, and Susan Sackett and Gene Roddenberry came to realise his almost photographic memory for Star Trek trivia. His "errand boy" job, throughout the early 80s, turned into a paid position after ST IV made Paramount a lot of money, and Susan's workload increased greatly when GR started working on TNG. As "Star Trek Archivist", Richard oversaw all licensed tie-in proposals and manuscripts, accurate captioning of studio stills sent of for reference art, memos re upcoming continuity issues in scripts, weekend convention appearances on behalf of the publicity department, executive tours of the Star Trek sets, and a regular column in "Star Trek Communicator". And running errands.

In the final years of his position, RA required an assistant to get everything done, one of whom took over when RA was dismissed: regular TNG extra (and Data's hand model), Guy Vardaman.

 

[sojourner]

You guys are ignoring the bigger issue - Director's Cuts.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You guys are ignoring the bigger issue - Director's Cuts.

Since new canon supercedes old, the latest release is the canon one.

For example, Vulcan as it appeared in the original cut of The Motion Picture (with starry sky, several moons and a sister planet) is always ignored, and the CG landscape created for The Director's Cut (which is far more in line with Vulcan as seen in STIII and IV) was reused in Enterprise's fourth season.

 

[Therin of Andor]

You guys are ignoring the bigger issue - Director's Cuts.

Not ignoring it; Richard Arnold left Paramount before any Director's Cuts were released, so no ruling has been made on the canonicity of DE scenes. Robert Wise only left in a few of the "Special Longer Version" scenes in his TMP DE and Nick Meyer approved some of the extra scenes, from the TV extended edition of ST II, for that film's DE.

But what's the point of worrying? Novels can still say that Saavik is half Romulan, even though that scene was never restored into ST II. Kirk is alive in the Shatnerverse novels, even though he died canonically in "Generations". Scotty thought he was being rescued by Kirk in TNG's "Relics", even though "Generations" made that scene quite bizarre, as Scotty had seen him "die". The ENT episode "Acquisition" was first aired as "Aquisition" (sic), and the error was corrected for subsequent broadcasts. An ENT novel, "The Good That Men Do", altered many aired details showcased in "These Are the Voyages...", arguing that what was shown canonically was only a holodeck simulation.

Rules are bent to improve a story.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's worth noting that fans tend to be more obsessed with the subject of "canon" than the people actually making the shows or writing the books. Back when I was editing the FARSCAPE novels, I was on the phone to the Henson people every other day for a year or more, and you know what? The subject of "canon" never came up. Nor have I ever seen a single licensing contract or deal memo that included the word "canon."

The only time I ever heard the word "canon" was at sf conventions, when some fan would invariably ask if the novels were "canon."

My honest answer: "Hell if I know. I'm just trying to produce good books on time and on budget. Whether they are 'canon' or not is not something that has any impact on the creative process. And it is not something that I ever discuss with Henson."