Canon: How many times is enough?

[Spot261]

You simply posted a dictionary definition, said that canon is not continuity, and then overstated that Star Trek has no real continuity except for "Broad Strokes."

All of which is true.

continuity is certainly a large part of a "canon."

No it isn't, canon and continuity are two separate concepts. The canon of scripture definition has no bearing here, canon status refers to the legitimacy of an entry into a body of work, not whether it is consistent with other such entries.

If you are going to post dictionary definitions, at least give an effort to explain what leads you to make these dramatic absolutes.

I didn't think it needed explaining to be perfectly honest, I thought "nope" followed by a definition which clearly refuted the post I responded to was a fairly clear statement.

When a writer is writing a Star Trek episode, what keeps them to following and rules of the fictional universe?

I'm guessing you mangled two versions of a question here mid edit, so I'll do my best to help you by referring you to someone far more qualified's comment:

I like to think there's a sane middle ground between changing everything every episode and clinging religiously to every last detail from every single episode produced in the last fifty-plus years.

Seriously, any position can be made to sound ridiculous if you take it to an absurd degree.

Writers can't be expected to base every detail of what they make on the minutiae of what someone else has done before, especially when their predecessors never intended for that. Trek is about the ideals first, the details second.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Canon is what the IP owners say it is. A writer can follow canon and be consistent and yet that doesn't make what he did in his story canon fact, or what the characters did canon fact.

If I were writing Trek story, I can tell you what I would do. I would check to see if anything I wrote was inconsistent with what has been said in other episodes (Google search or run it past a real Trek fan will often suffice in that regard). If it were at odds, I wouldn't just say, Eff it, but I would try to adjust my story so the offending element were removed or altered such that it no longer was at odds with other elements in that fictional universe.

Since it's science fiction, I would also attempt to ensure anything I said about science had some basis in current scientific knowledge, or was within the guidelines of the show's premises where their future science might depart from current known science. I wouldn't just say, Eff it, but would make adjustments.

If I couldn't do that, or was unwilling to do that much, I'd probably be better off writing a story for another fictional universe, or an independent story, or maybe even fantasy.

 

[Prax]

Saying that Star Trek has no real continuity except for in broad strokes is no more true than if I said "Star Trek has maintained a perfect continuity."

I included(but didn't limit my answer to) "canon scripture" in my earlier reply because 1. You included it when you posted the definition, and 2. It is the basis and origin for how we use the term, which I also said is misused in these franchises today. People use the words interchangeably. I pointed out that this is in error, but added that continuity is an inherent component of canon scripture and canon law. And in the modern use of "canon" as is used for popular fictional franchises, by both the owners and fans as almost exclusively meaning continuity.

Star Wars has "canon." And in that case, it does not include all licensed works, but only those that belong to a particular continuity.

And talk about taking things to an absurd degree. You yourself have done just that.

I don't understand where all this hostility towards "continuity" is coming from. Polarizing your position on a disagreement and making far out proclamations will neither help your argument, nor add any accuracy to the conversation. It will only embolden and harden the opinions of those who agree with you, and polarize those who don't.

 

[Kemaiku]

Star Trek's "canon" is extremely loose and often contradicting itself. It pretended to still be one large consistent universe, stretching that very thin by the end, as the world changed around it and left production values etc behind at a more embarrassing rate.

Now, the basic essense is kept, and the visual style is free to update itself when needed, and people these days understand that, and go a long with it for the entertainment value. Leaving the minutae dissection behind, as it just leeches the fun out of it.

The only people still complaining seem to want a perfect recreation of the 1950's/1960's which they know full well would never, ever happen.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The word originally referred to the canon of scripture. That is, a collection of writings, inspired, don't contradict(there's your continuity)each other, and written by those who the writing is attributed to,

The Bible is full of contradictions, especially in the four Gospels.
And there have been various Canons used in Christianity.

 

[JRTStarlight]

Considering it was put together hundreds of years after the fact, I'm surprised they couldn't do a better job. Maybe if there had been a Trek fan on the council . . .

 

[Prax]

They probably did better than Star Trek, but that's a can not meant for this thread

 

[fireproof78]

The Bible is full of contradictions, especially in the four Gospels.
And there have been various Canons used in Christianity.

Yes, that clearly relates to Star Trek

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, that clearly relates to Star Trek

The Council of Desilu is the true Canon. Do not accept the Paramount Heresy or the CBS Apostasy!

 

[fireproof78]

The Council of Desilu is the true Canon. Do not accept the Paramount Heresy or the CBS Apostasy!

I think you're straining your analogy to the breaking point

 

[F. King Daniel]

Continuity is rewarding. If you watch the original Star Trek, then the movies, you'll get rewarded by finding out what happens after that, and after that, and after that, and then before that, and before that, etc.

I think Logan was more rewarding because I'd enjoyed all of Wolverine's previous cinematic appearances - but that movie flat-out ignored one of those previous films (Days of Future Past) and even pretended the previous death of one of it's key characters (Xavier) in X-Men: Last Stand never happened!

In short, I was emotionally invested in the character I'd seen for 17 years, but the continuity he lived in was a complete mess. Trek is pretty much in the same boat. It was cool when Janeway and Tuvok met Sulu, even though if Voyager had one of those TOS warp engines they'd have been home in a month.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Have to agree on both points. They could have just made Sybok a notorious emotional Vulcan rebel that all Vulcans are aware of.

This.

I still loved Laurence Luckinbill's performance. It was one of the best things about the film.

 

[BillJ]

I don't understand where all this hostility towards "continuity" is coming from.

It isn't hostility. It's the fact that I've spent the last thirty years watching people treat continuity as more important than the stories being told.

 

[BillJ]

...even though if Voyager had one of those TOS warp engines they'd have been home in a month.

If we go with the admittedly non-canon (but used in official material) location of Kronos. Then the NX-01 is faster than Voyager as well.

Kronos is 112 light-years from Earth, meaning the NX-01 would cover 28 light-years per day. Voyager could travel 1,000 light-years per year, meaning it could cover 2.7 light-years per day.

In order for Voyager to be faster, Kronos would have to be less than 11 light-years from Earth.

 

[Ithekro]

I have the distinct feeling the point has been lost and the argument is going past people at this point.

For the argument about what is more important, the continuity or the story...they question becomes...if you have a good story to tell but aren't paying attention to the continuity, why bother calling it Star Trek? If the story is that damned good, it doesn't need to used an existing franchise, does it? If it does matter that the story is told in the Star Trek setting, than it needs to at least make the effort to appear like it belong in the continuity, or else why even set the story there in the first place?

The answer to that question could be as simple, as "they were on the air, and were willing to buy the screenplay". But if its not on the air yet (like Discovery), than it would need to convince people that it is still Star Trek like every other pilot since TNG came out (or in the case of Star Trek itself, have a pilot the network wants, because at that point you don't have to convince the audience, just the suits). With new Star Trek, they have to convince the suits, but also the audience that its Star Trek, or else it don't need the mix of prestige/stigma of the franchise to go on the air.

 

[BillJ]

...why bother calling it Star Trek?

Star Trek to me isn't the mindless adherence to names and dates. It's the type of stories being told. The optimism that we make it to space and that there is a future for mankind. Big, bold and fun stories.

Funny enough, I've been watching the first season of Space: 1999 and find it more like the original Star Trek than any of the spinoffs.

 

[Ithekro]

Not names and dates...looks. Feel. The little details can be glossed over, but the big details becomes glaring when ignored. Something like the Klingons in TMP, swept away because "bigger budget" made sense, but the question remained for decades "why would they look different?" Some authors decided there were multiple types of Klingons, or Human-Klingon hybrids that use to deal with the Federation. But that never appeared, until very late Enterprise, and the flashback in DS9 confirming that Klingons did look different in the 23rd century for reasons.

The Enterprise looked different..."Refit" (okay we buy that). But every time the Five Year mission version of the ship was seen, it was the old 1960s ship (even if updated). 2009, new film, new version of the original Enterprise...."alternate timeline" (accepted). Star Trek: Beyond felt the like most Star Trek in a long time.

Star Trek: Discovery...no answers yet...too soon, not yet come to that situation (aside from the Klingon...again.) We will see.

 

[BillJ]

Not names and dates...looks. Feel.

Nothing between TOS and the spinoffs "feels" connected. It is like they are from two distinct time periods, created by very different people with very different experiences. I have a feeling I'll feel the same way about Discovery feeling like it is part of the same universe as a show made thirty years ago (TNG) by completely different people who had completely different life experiences.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Nothing between TOS and the spinoffs "feels" connected. It is like they are from two distinct time periods, created by very different people with very different experiences. I have a feeling I'll feel the same way about Discovery feeling like it is part of the same universe as a show made thirty years ago (TNG) by completely different people who had completely different life experiences.

Yeah nothing about DS9 feels or looks like TNG or ENT or TOS or VOY. Yet despite how jarring it is to go from TNG to DS9, they're both still Star Trek. And Trek canon only occasionally comes up in DS9. It did it's own thing and canon pops in to say hello when it benefis the story.

 

[BillJ]

Yeah nothing about DS9 feels or looks like TNG or ENT or TOS or VOY. Yet despite how jarring it is to go from TNG to DS9, they're both still Star Trek. And Trek canon only occasionally comes up in DS9. It did it's own thing and canon pops in to say hello when it benefis the story.

Or when they are trying to save a show struggling in the ratings. Hello, Mr. Worf! Or the Deanna Troi, Reg Barclay appearances in Voyager. Or the Borg in Enterprise.