Have the PICARD prequel tie-ins been announced as "Canon"?

[RonG]

Hi guys,

just to get something straight, as part of a discussion elsewhere -

Have the Picard: Countdown comicbook mini series or The Last Best Hope novel been announced as "canon" by CBS or any official Trek related person?

Or are they "official" until contradicted by future on-screen material?

thank!

 

[NCC-73515]

My impression is that they're canon for the show until contradicted by the show.

 

[Paris]

Good god. Another "Canon" query. See Christopher's various responses to this exact question in numerous other threads

 

[Desert Kris]

They are probably as canon, legitimate and bona fide as you want them to be. Especially if you find that you enjoy reading them.

In 20 or 30 years they will be as much the real deal as, say, the old TOS novels like My Enemy, My Ally, and The Final Reflection.

 

[Conzilium]

I've a feeling things are as they are until they appear on screen. I generally like continuity but perhaps we need just to treat them as related and intertwined rather than canon

 

[Conzilium]

I've a feeling things are as they are until they appear on screen. I generally like continuity but perhaps we need just to treat them as related and intertwined rather than canon

But having said that I'm not 100% of what's on screen is canon if you mean continuity so....

 

[Tosk]

They ain't canon. But you can enjoy them as though they are if you want.

 

[F. King Daniel]

What is canon these days? Does the classic Enterprise look how it did in "The Cage" and TOS or Discovery S2 and Short Treks?

I don't think canon has ever mattered less.

 

[Damian]

No. Extra universe stuff is never canon. CBS (and Paramount before that) has always been clear about that. The canon is only what is on screen and that's it.

Now that's not the same as continuity. The showrunners may consider the comics and books tied to Picard as part of the continuity, or world building. And right now they probably do. This showrunning team seems more interested in keeping a tighter continuity within their specific shows. But even there they may later decide to contradict or overwrite something (see Discovery "Desperate Hours"---though "The Enterprise War" did try to salvage some of that).

But we fans sometimes confuse canon with continuity. They are not the same thing. Canon is simply what is seen on screen. Canon is 'the thing'. Continuity is 'the continuing story'. So probably a better question is are the Picard prequel tie-ins part of the continuity of the show.

 

[Christopher]

Canon is just a nickname for the story told by the original creators/owners of a property, as opposed to outside creators borrowing their concepts. It's not a guarantee of consistency, even within a canon, since even a canon is just pretend and its creators can change their minds, or change what previous creators did. Canons contradict themselves all the time.

The best way to think of canon is not as some kind of official declaration, which it rarely is, but just a question of who created a work. As a rule, the only times that tie-ins really fit well into the canon is when they're written or plotted by the actual creators of the canon (e.g. the post-series Buffyverse or Firefly comics "showrun" by Joss Whedon, or the Del Rey Babylon 5 novels outlined by J. Michael Straczynski). The only thing that can really keep stories consistent is having a single creative mind with approval over their content, able to keep them compatible with a consistent vision of that universe. It's not about official policy, it's about creative unity.

However, even in those cases, the role of tie-ins is to supplement and support the primary work, not to impose restrictions or limits on it. No matter how "canonical" a tie-in may be at the time it's released, there's nothing to prevent the screen franchise from ignoring it as soon as its story needs conflict with what was in the tie-in. Canon is not a guarantee of consistency even within the core work, so it certainly isn't where the tie-ins are concerned. For instance, Discovery: The Light of Kahless was co-written by DSC staffer Kirsten Beyer, so it was about as close to "canonical" as you could expect a tie-in to get, but season 2 contradicted aspects of it, e.g. by retconning the Klingons' shaved heads in season 1 as a custom specific to wartime rather than a lifelong thing as in the comic.

So probably the same will be true of any future tie-in comic or novel. It might reflect the thinking of the show's writing staff at the time it comes out, but it's just a reflection, not a binding document. These are all just stories, imagined possibilities. You're free to treat tie-ins as part of the larger universe as long as they remain consistent with it, but there's never going to be a hard guarantee that they will.

 

[Damian]

I'm sure the moderators probably love anytime the word 'canon' pops up on any boards (like the yearly why I hate "These are the Voyages" threads)

But really, when you think about it, fans shouldn't even worry about what is canon. The only people that really should be concerned with canon are show runners because they are creating it (and even in that case as Christopher noted, they are not beholden to it---though it's probably a good idea for any show runner to be familiar with the canon). And more importantly tie in writers like authors and comic book writers because they have to be consistent with the canon. And that's it.

Really what we fans are interested and care about in all these questions is continuity. And like anything we Star Trek fans have varying opinions of how much we want a solid continuity. I personally fall in the tighter continuity clan. I prefer things to be consistent in story and in production design. Then there are those that wouldn't care if they threw everything out and started from scratch---and then there are those in between. They want some continuity but are flexible. But none of that is canon. And for me personally I've included many of the novels, particularly the relaunch novels, in the continuity I follow.

So for the question I would say for now it's probably safe to assume the prequel comics and novel coming out are probably part of the continuity. But as time passes it seems more likely they might contradict something in that extra universe stuff. They may not, but I think it's clear the current show runners, while they seem to want things to be tighter within the shows and their tie ins, they don't feel constrained by any of the tie ins if the story they want to tell necessitates that. Then it's up to future authors to try to reconcile that if they can and want to. Sometimes inconsistencies can be hand waved, and sometimes creative storytelling can reconcile stories, and sometimes you just can't and you have to let it go.

 

[Christopher]

But really, when you think about it, fans shouldn't even worry about what is canon. The only people that really should be concerned with canon are show runners because they are creating it (and even in that case as Christopher noted, they are not beholden to it---though it's probably a good idea for any show runner to be familiar with the canon). And more importantly tie in writers like authors and comic book writers because they have to be consistent with the canon. And that's it.

You're sort of contradicting yourself here, because what you're talking about is continuity, and you just said that's not the same thing as canon.

Creators don't have to "worry" about canon one tiny bit, because whatever they create is automatically the canon. "Canon" is a word that only has meaning in relation to the stuff outside the core work. If there's only the core work and no tie-ins, the question doesn't have to be asked, at least not unless later installments choose to ignore earlier installments, like in Dallas or the Highlander or Terminator film series. Generally it's a question that only applies to the tie-ins -- are they considered part of the canon or not? That's a tautological question where the canon itself is concerned, so the creators of the canon never need to ask it, unless they choose to concern themselves with the tie-ins, or unless they actively choose to remove some past piece of the canon from continuity.

Asking "Is this canon?" is kind of like asking "Are you on Earth?" People who live on Earth don't need to wonder if they're on Earth. People who create a canon don't need to wonder if what they create is canon. It only comes up once you move outside of the thing in question. Otherwise it doesn't even need to be thought about.

So for the question I would say for now it's probably safe to assume the prequel comics and novel coming out are probably part of the continuity. But as time passes it seems more likely they might contradict something in that extra universe stuff. They may not, but I think it's clear the current show runners, while they seem to want things to be tighter within the shows and their tie ins, they don't feel constrained by any of the tie ins if the story they want to tell necessitates that. Then it's up to future authors to try to reconcile that if they can and want to. Sometimes inconsistencies can be hand waved, and sometimes creative storytelling can reconcile stories, and sometimes you just can't and you have to let it go.

I've never understood this desire for some kind of official permission to count tie-ins or not. I've always seen that as my own choice. If I think a story is compatible with the screen continuity, I include it in my personal model of the universe. If a new screen story then contradicts it, I remove it from my model. I've been reworking my personal Trek continuity for decades, constantly adjusting it, taking tie-ins out or putting them back in -- sometimes taking episodes out or putting them back in, depending on whether I felt their ideas were too problematical to reconcile or not. I mean, why should I need any official permission for how I choose to see things inside my own head? As a professional author under contract, I'm obligated to follow CBS's lead, but when I'm just a fan using my own imagination, I can do whatever I want.

 

[Blooded]

My impression is that they're canon for the show until contradicted by the show.

Precisely this, which was what was stated by one of the current Trek producers (I forget who) back at the start of Discovery, if I recall.

 

[Damian]

You're sort of contradicting yourself here, because what you're talking about is continuity, and you just said that's not the same thing as canon.

Yeah, I guess I fell into the 'canon is continuity' trap. So really only tie-ins have to worry about canon really, and even there it is sort of continuity based because you guys have to be consistent with the continuity that falls in the canon.

So really, for show runners, the choice they are making is how consistent do they want to be with the existing continuity that falls in existing canon (and even beyond if they choose, including some facets of tie ins if they wanted). So far it seems they fall somewhere in the middle. They do seem interested in maintaining in story consistency with the previous shows and spin offs, but want some liberty with things like production design and make up design.

I've never understood this desire for some kind of official permission to count tie-ins or not. I've always seen that as my own choice. If I think a story is compatible with the screen continuity, I include it in my personal model of the universe.

Yeah, and I do that myself (sometimes even considering tie ins that are contradictory as an alternate reality). But this is more back to the original question of the thread. That being are the prequel stories in the tie-ins canon? I mean, we know the answer is no to that. But a secondary question might be do the show runners consider the prequel part of the continuity they are working on for the Picard show? So it's more do the show runners consider it part of the background for the show they are working on? For now I think the answer might be yes, but that can change at any time.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, I guess I fell into the 'canon is continuity' trap. So really only tie-ins have to worry about canon really, and even there it is sort of continuity based because you guys have to be consistent with the continuity that falls in the canon.

Of course. It's a given that tie-ins follow the lead of the show they tie in to. That's their purpose. The question that fans usually have is whether it goes the other way -- whether what's established in the tie-ins will be respected by the shows/films. And the answer to that is usually no. There are more cases these days where tie-ins are nominally canonical, but only rarely will you see elements from them openly acknowledged in the core work. (For instance, recent Star Wars movies have acknowledged TV characters like Chopper, Hera, and Ahsoka, but we have yet to see a reference to Doctor Aphra from the comics, say.)

So really, for show runners, the choice they are making is how consistent do they want to be with the existing continuity that falls in existing canon (and even beyond if they choose, including some facets of tie ins if they wanted). So far it seems they fall somewhere in the middle. They do seem interested in maintaining in story consistency with the previous shows and spin offs, but want some liberty with things like production design and make up design.

Again, the default approach is to treat the new installments as part of the same reality as the old. But that "reality" is still just a make-believe story, so the details of how it's told can be tweaked while the pretense of consistency remains. That's why Data suddenly became emotionless after having been written as capable of emotion for two seasons. That's why the Cardassian War was retroactively established as going on during a time when early TNG showed Starfleet as a strictly peacetime body that hadn't had to deal with warlike matters in Picard's lifetime. It still pretends to be the same continuity even while it rewrites that continuity.

Which is why it's so stupid when some fans say "They have holograms where they didn't before, so it has to be a completely separate reality!!!!" No. That's not how fiction works. The "reality" is only what the storytellers pretend it is, and so it can change. What defines a single, unified reality in a fictional series is the assertion of consistency, even when deliberate inconsistencies are introduced.

But a secondary question might be do the show runners consider the prequel part of the continuity they are working on for the Picard show? So it's more do the show runners consider it part of the background for the show they are working on? For now I think the answer might be yes, but that can change at any time.

It would probably be better to say that the comics are a reflection of the way the writing staff imagined the backstory of the show at the time the comics were written.

But really, fans worry about this too much. All fiction is illusion. The purpose of a tie-in is to create the illusion that it's part of the reality of the series it ties into. Whether that illusion actually holds up after the fact is a secondary consideration. You don't go to a magic show and say "I'll only enjoy this if the woman stays sawed in half after the show." (Well, not unless you're a serial killer or something.) The point is to enjoy the illusion while you're experiencing it, whether or not it persists afterward.

 

[Damian]

It still pretends to be the same continuity even while it rewrites that continuity

That's where I suppose my preference for a tighter continuity is a bit more flexible. I don't expect every last detail to be consistent (that'd be impossible anyway--no matter how tight it is, at the very least mistakes will happen--it is as you noted make believe). I do prefer a nice continuity in the overall story line and I can live with retcons, like the Cardassian Wars, when they can either be handwaved away or explained away with a creative imagination or writing.

That's why Data suddenly became emotionless after having been written as capable of emotion for two seasons.

I have a feeling this one bugs you. o be completely honest I don't notice a significant difference in Data between the early episodes and later as far as his emotions go. Now he seemed more naïve and perhaps verbose with information in the early seasons but it seemed as he gained more experience he modified his behavior and he learned. I attributed any changes in his character over time to just him learning and adapting. But did he lack emotions? That always seemed an open question to me. He never had human emotions. That much is clear, and likely to be expected. Of course the writers focused more on his lack of human emotions in later episodes and I don't deny the focus of his character changed over time. But does he ever really lack emotion? There were a couple times when the writers seemed to want you to think about that. For instance, after he met Tasha's sister, the end of the episode indicated that the question is much deeper than a yes or no. Or in "The Most Toys" after they think he died Geordi questions whether he really lacks emotions and comments on how Data brought about feelings in others. And Data's friendships. Geordi is clearly his best friend. A machine without any emotions wouldn't have a best friend. There is something more than just machine intelligence at work. So I always thought even the later writers wanted you to question whether Data truly lacked emotions.

Which is why it's so stupid when some fans say "They have holograms where they didn't before, so it has to be a completely separate reality!!!!" No. That's not how fiction works.

Well, and "The Making Of Star Trek" indicated holograms were intended to be featured how the show went on and were part of the ship. And I know I've read somewhere even things like the viewscreen showed things in 3-d (even if we couldn't see it since we were watching it in 2d). The closes I came to ever seeing that was at the very beginning of TSFS when Kirk is standing by the viewscreen and he moves, you can see the stars on the screen move just a bit as the camera moves, like a 3d display would as you moved away from it.

I'll admit for a second I was like, wait, what? when I saw it in Discovery. But it's not really that inconsistent. There's no indication in the brief holodeck scene we saw to say they were interactive on the level of TNG for instance. And "The Practical Joker" had it's version of a holodeck with the rec room. So it's in keeping with that.

 

[Christopher]

That's where I suppose my preference for a tighter continuity is a bit more flexible. I don't expect every last detail to be consistent (that'd be impossible anyway--no matter how tight it is, at the very least mistakes will happen--it is as you noted make believe). I do prefer a nice continuity in the overall story line and I can live with retcons, like the Cardassian Wars, when they can either be handwaved away or explained away with a creative imagination or writing.

Ideally, I prefer a continuity that's as tight and consistent as possible. But I accept that it's unrealistic to expect it in a franchise that's lasted for over a half a century and been created by countless different people.

o be completely honest I don't notice a significant difference in Data between the early episodes and later as far as his emotions go. Now he seemed more naïve and perhaps verbose with information in the early seasons but it seemed as he gained more experience he modified his behavior and he learned. I attributed any changes in his character over time to just him learning and adapting. But did he lack emotions? That always seemed an open question to me.

The original intent behind the character was that he had the potential for emotion but it was underdeveloped from lack of experience. You see him grinning when he's "drunk" with the Psi 2000 virus in "The Naked Now." You see his subdued rage toward Armus for killing Tasha -- "I think you should be destroyed." You see his sentimental attachment to the holo of Tasha in "The Measure of a Man." And you can see it in Jean Lorrah's novels Survivors and Metamorphosis, which spend a lot of time within Data's POV and portray him as a being unquestionably capable of emotion and motivated by it, even if it's more subtle and less passionate than the human kind. At the time those books were written, in seasons 1 & 2, their portrayal of Data as an emotional being was perfectly consistent with canon, or they would never have been approved.

Granted, in "The Schizoid Man," Deanna expressed confusion at sensing "a human emotion" from Data when he was possessed by Ira Graves, but that fits with Data's own emotions being less intense and more subtle -- and since Graves's consciousness was running on Data's positronic brain at that point, it implicitly requires that brain to be capable of strong emotion already, without needing any extra "chip" plugged in. It's not until "Peak Performance" that Picard says "Data is not capable of the emotions which you are assigning to him," but even then, Pulaski counters that the effect of his "android algorithms" is functionally no different from human emotion.

It's not until "The Ensigns of Command" that Data himself explicitly states "I have no feelings of any kind." And it's only from season 3 onward that Data's "lack of emotion" becomes an overriding, defining trait of his personality. Even at the time, it stood out to me as a retcon. Hearing Data say that in "Ensigns" when it first aired annoyed me no end, because it was a misunderstanding of his character in the first two seasons, and because it was already a tired, stupid cliche even then to portray AIs as incapable of emotion because "all they have is programming." (Emotions are programming. They're hardwired, preset responses to stimuli. They should be far easier to replicate in a machine than sentient thought, because they're far simpler. They only become complex when they interact with conscious thought, when your desire to do something conflicts with your goals or beliefs.)

 

[Damian]

It's not until "The Ensigns of Command" that Data himself explicitly states "I have no feelings of any kind." And it's only from season 3 onward that Data's "lack of emotion" becomes an overriding, defining trait of his personality. Even at the time, it stood out to me as a retcon.

I wonder, is it really a retcon though? I mean, maybe Data himself misunderstands emotions. I actually don't think the writers believed he had no emotion, but that Data, the character, believed he had no emotions. And true, Data does not laugh, cry, feel sad or happy like humans do. But as the show went on I think they wanted the viewers to doubt Data had no emotions. I noted some later examples during the shows run that added some nuance to Data's perceived lack of emotion.

I guess I see it from a different angle than you do. Any changes in Data's personality over the years I attributed to him learning, adapting, and 'growing up' for lack of a better word. He was designed to adapt. For instance, later on he no longer computes time to the millisecond, even commenting that he noticed people get annoyed when he computes things too accurately. I just assumed other changes were similar. He learned how to interact with people and how he projected himself changed accordingly.

But I always thought the writers wanted us to doubt that Data had no emotions. Data may have said he had no feelings, or emotions. But I always felt we as the viewer were meant to question that.

 

[Damian]

By the way, "Metamorphosis" was a great novel. I'd recommend it to anyone wanting a good Data story. I'll have to add that to my re-read list someday in fact.

 

[BillJ]

What is canon these days? Does the classic Enterprise look how it did in "The Cage" and TOS or Discovery S2 and Short Treks?

All are canon. Especially considering the TOS ship made an appearance in "If Memory Serves..."