And therefore non-canon.
Canon Excerpt That Explains The Enterprise
- Thread starter Tom
- Start date
And therefore non-canon.
Yes. Also, fanwanky.
Yeah, adopting a nameless character who dies onscreen and giving her a name, a history and making her crucial to the Trek universe is massive fanwank isn't it?
Yeah, adopting a nameless character who dies onscreen and giving her a name, a history and making her crucial to the Trek universe is massive fanwank isn't it?
Hey, you're finally catching on!
Unfortunately, Alan Dean Foster's novelization came out of Alan Dean Foster's ass, just like the "canon" in Alan Dean Foster's novelization. If it ain't onscreen, it might as well come from Kirk/Spock gay slash fiction for all it's worth.
Remember when we thought that COUNTDOWN was similarly canon, and then Orci up and said, uh, no, it's all fanwank and everyone wasted their time buying it...
A fanboy and his money are soon parted....
Remember when we thought that COUNTDOWN was similarly canon, and then Orci up and said, uh, no, it's all fanwank and everyone wasted their time buying it...
A fanboy and his money are soon parted....
What's annoying is that canon for Star Trek is that some things go "in and out" of canon often. Some 'facts' are declared non-canon for years, then a tv episode or movie semi-canonizes the fact, but then later on its ignored or something.
I think I'll stick with me "canon is what we make it."
I think I'll stick with me "canon is what we make it."
The live-action episodes and movies are part of canon. Everything else is not.
I don't understand what's so hard here. And it's more than a bit counter-intuitive that in Treklit, a forum devoted to non-canon Trek, what is and isn't canon is widely known and not an issue, while here in a forum devoted to something that is actually part of canon, there seems to be such confusion.
I don't understand what's so hard here. And it's more than a bit counter-intuitive that in Treklit, a forum devoted to non-canon Trek, what is and isn't canon is widely known and not an issue, while here in a forum devoted to something that is actually part of canon, there seems to be such confusion.
I like it!
Official Canon(tm) or not - it's a very creative - and plausible - explanation for the changes!
Except it doesn't explain why the Kelvin looks different from TOS designs.
That doesn't need any explanation because there was never any TOS design of a USS Kelvin, nor any TOS sources indicating that all ships looked like the TOS Enterprise or were built the same way.
In fact, on TOS, I recall seeing only one Starfleet ship design ever, with mentions of other types of ships, but none of them ever showing on screen. There is nothing in TOS or "canon" that precludes the USS Kelvin from looking the way it does.
Mel Brooks beat you to it by about 22 years. Ever heard of Spaceballs?
Other than a head-turning transporter, there wasn't much Trek into that. It's a Star Wars spoof. And we had lots of additions to the available material in the last 22 years. I'm telling you. Canon:The movie is in the works!
