ENT or ST XI - which one was better recieved?

[Luther Sloan]

Yes, all true. But with a weekly series the lackluster follow-up episodes led to the audience erosion. If we had only seen an Enterprise episode every two years, people may have reacted differently to it.

Bill:

I don't think so. A bad quality product (poop) spread out over a prolonged period of time wouldn't have been any better, in my book. B & B had already lost their way in not just creating a prequel TV series, but they also failed miserably at creating the majority of the last few Trek films, which each came out over a significant period of time, as well.

 

[Nerys Myk]

But something thats part of the canon doesn't have to share 100% continuity with all parts of that canon.

Nerys:

There are many examples of similar words that essentially mean the same thing but can also be used to describe something more specific, too.

The point you are getting at is that the word canon can also be used to describe works within a certain field of study and not each of those pieces of fiction don't have to refer or connect with one another.

Another way of putting it is that "canon" can be a group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" (William Styron).

However, that doesn't mean that canon cannot be a collection of one big continuous piece of work or connected as a whole either (like within the world of Star Trek).

In fact, the words "canon" and "continuity" have both been interchangeably used in many cases to describe nitpicks as a whole or within a particular chapter or story line (not just within Star Trek, but within other series, as well).

Sure, the word "canon" can be used in a unique or specific way to better describe or explain a particular sentence. However, there are a ton of words out there that basically have the same meaning and have a more added particular definition attached to it.

Trust me, I know what they mean and how they are used. And also who decides whats included in each. And in fact, its not me or you. That fans use the terms interchangaebly shows their lack of understanding of how the terms are used by those in charge of the franchise. Canon as defined by those in charge is explictly: All filmed live action Star Trek movies and TV shows produced by the owners of the property. That's the only definition than applies in this case. Continuity is how well those elements fit together.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Nerys:

I didn't mean to rub you the wrong way. I also didn't mean to imply that you didn't have knowledge about these two words either. If I have. I deeply apologize. Everyone has their own interpretations on the english language.

Well, anyways, personally: I believe canon and continuity each have their unique specific meanings but can also mean the same thing, too. The word "canon" can be used when referring to things that are considered official within a connected series of work as whole or within an umbrella of stories that are not directly tied to each other (but related). In other words, the word "canon" wouldn't be used to describe continuity within an episode. But it can be used to describe continuity with an entire series, though.

In fact, both continuity and canon can mean the same thing when you used properly within a certain context. So although these words can be used in different ways, they can also be used to mean the same thing, too.

What I am getting at is that at the core, they essentially mean the same thing. Canon is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official". That body of material is the very make up of continuity or connected story lines (or chapters) of certain things or events.

When I say that there was no Romulan cloaking devices within Star Trek within the 22nd century but they existed in the 23rd century, I am talking about canon and I am also referring to the overall continuity of the time line, too.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What I am getting at is that at the core, they essentially mean the same thing. Canon is a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official". That body of material is the very make up of continuity or connected story lines (or chapters) of certain things or events.

But that body is more a Frankenstein's Monster than a normal human being and sometimes the parts doent fit exactly and the stitching is a bit crude. Even within one area of this body the parts are mismatched. TOS for example. has it own internal continuity problems (Everyones favorite tombstone to name one) but we still say all of TOS is Canon. The body still works after a fashion, so there's no need to start excising parts that seem a bit off.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Nerys:

Good comparison. However, I would chop off my right arm if it had gain green. If I was Frankenstein, I would chop off a body part that didn't work anymore, too.

Anyways, it is cool. We each have our own interpretations on this issue. I am all good with that, and totally understanding of it.