If New Frontier was adapted into a TV series or movie, and changes were made from the source material (eg setting the Excalibur missions many years after TNG, since Patrick Stewart would be much older that Picard was in NF #1, which was set in 2373, if they wanted to have a Picard cameo, etc.), what would be considered "canon"... the filmed material, or the books they were based upon? It's like when the Harry Potter films change some elements from the novels ... which details are considered canon? I know the "rule" is that filmed Trek is the only canon material, but what about if a whole concept was based on a Trek book series?
If New Frontier was adapted into a movie or Tv series
- Thread starter Cadet49
- Start date
"The canon" is live-action material created by the copyright holder. The licensed tie-ins are not canonical, unless elements of them end up onscreen (eg. first names Nyota, Hikaru, etc.)
But Peter David is on record that he would prefer that "New Frontier" does not get adapted, because he prefers the freedom that the novels and comics permit his imagination.
With Potter it's unclear as JK has approval on the films, but I'd still say it's a book series so those are the canon.
Trek is a TV show first and foremost so TV is canon, even if many of the books are excellent.
As 'prime' Trek is now over, I'd like the continuation novels to become recognised as canon, but that's pretty unlikely. To the studio they're little more than an extra cash-in revenue stream...
But the book series is based in turn on the screen series -- it's built on the TV shows' concepts and characters, and wouldn't exist without them. It's a derivative work, not an original work, even though it contains some original elements. Because those original elements are created as extensions of the universe established onscreen. (And that's as true of my own or anyone else's Trek books as it is of NF.)
And, more fundamentally, it's owned by the studio that owns the screen franchise. It's a mistake to assume that the Trek novels we prose authors write, even the Trek novel series we create and populate with new characters, are in any way "ours." Before we write them, we sign contracts acknowledging that everything we write will be the property of the studio. We're working as independent contractors on behalf of CBS (or Paramount before it). What we create is theirs to do with as they wish.
So yes, whatever's onscreen would be the canon, and would naturally supersede any books that it drew on for inspiration.
The case I can think of that best approximates what you're thinking of is "The Slaver Weapon," Larry Niven's adaptation of his Known Space novella "The Soft Weapon" into an animated ST episode. In terms of the canon of Known Space, "The Soft Weapon" is still the canonical version of that tale. "The Slaver Weapon" is a separate, very similar tale that took place within Trek canon (although it has aspects that are difficult to reconcile with the rest of Trek canon). There's also TNG's "Tin Man," adapted from the original novel Tin Woodman, although I don't think that book is part of a larger series. Since they're parts of separate universes to begin with, the original work isn't overridden by the Trek adaptation. They coexist, and each one can be considered the "real" version of the story within its own distinct continuity. But adapting a Trek book into a Trek episode or movie would be a different matter, because the tie-in books are automatically subordinate to the screen canon of the universe.
I believe that a better way to ask Cadet49's question is:
If a new Star Trek: New Frontier novel were to be written after a live-action motion picture or television adaption, would CBS Studios or the editor allow the author to continue the continuity established by the previous novels? Or would the author be required to follow the continuity established in the motion picture or television adaption that was filmed, perhaps retconning these changes into the literary work?
If a new Star Trek: New Frontier novel were to be written after a live-action motion picture or television adaption, would CBS Studios or the editor allow the author to continue the continuity established by the previous novels? Or would the author be required to follow the continuity established in the motion picture or television adaption that was filmed, perhaps retconning these changes into the literary work?
This is pure speculation, of course, but you could end up with two separate lines of New Frontier novels, one based on the (hypothetical) tv show and one continuing the original book series.
That's what happened, more or less, with ROSWELL. You had the original ROSWELL HIGH novels, which went their own merry way, and a separate line of tie-in books set in the continuity of the tv show.
This would be more complicated, of course, because, in theory, you would have tie-in novels based on a tv show based on tie-in novels spun off from previous tv shows . . . .
That's what happened, more or less, with ROSWELL. You had the original ROSWELL HIGH novels, which went their own merry way, and a separate line of tie-in books set in the continuity of the tv show.
This would be more complicated, of course, because, in theory, you would have tie-in novels based on a tv show based on tie-in novels spun off from previous tv shows . . . .
Or like how DC and Marvel have often published comics set in the continuity of the various TV shows and movies based on their characters while still continuing to publish the original-continuity versions of those characters.
This would be more complicated, of course, because, in theory, you would have tie-in novels based on a tv show based on tie-in novels spun off from previous tv shows . . . .
Brain...just...blue-screened...
Stranger things have happened. I once read a novelization of Herzog's NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE, which, when you think about it, was a novelization of a remake of silent movie based on another novel!
And let's not forget the Marvel Comics adaptation of ANNIE, which was a comic book based on a movie based on a Broadway musical based on a radio show based on a comic strip! It practically came full circle!
And let's not forget the Marvel Comics adaptation of ANNIE, which was a comic book based on a movie based on a Broadway musical based on a radio show based on a comic strip! It practically came full circle!
Actually, you can't really adapt the situation around one fictional universe to another, because what's canon is wholly determined by the controllers of the universe, and isn't necessarily always a situation akin to Star Trek. Doctor Who, for example, there was never any word about canon in the old run. And as of the new run, the official word from the showrunners is that everything is canon, including stuff that contradicts other stuff. ("The Doctor just hasn't gotten around to changing that yet", to paraphrase Moffat.)
(In the specific situation you asked there regarding HP, Rowling's word is that the only canon are the books, though that includes the two (or three?) out-of-the-series fictional reference books she penned.)
Or "V".
AC Crispin wrote a big, chunky novelisation that adapted the first "V" mini-series and its "V: The Final Battle". Then came a procession of tie-in novels that often acknowledged the Los Angeles-based adventures of the ongoing TV series, but set the action in different locales over the world.
A few years ago, original producer of the first mini-series, Kenneth Johnson, wrote a long-promised sequel novel to that first mini-series (which ignores the events of the second mini-series and the TV series), quickly followed by a revised reprint of the first two-fifths of AC Crispin's novelization, with a new "ending" by Johnson that tied in to his novel. Characters who had died in "V: The Final Battle" and "V: The Series" lived to fight another day in Johnson's books!
And then came the recent, revisionist, TV remake - and Jane Badler playing Diana, the mother of her new mini-series analog, Anna.
Basically the thing to remember is that the canon is the original work as distinct from derivative works based on it, or the work of the original author/owner as distinct from works created by separate authors. In the case of Star Trek, the shows and films are the original works (created by the "author" Paramount/CBS), and the books are derivative works created by others. In the case of Harry Potter, the books are the original works by the original author, and the films are derivative works done by others. So in ST the shows are canon and in HP the books are canon. It's really not that complicated.
Most of the time, yeah, but not necessarily. It depends on what the original author/owner says, really; if they happen to say the work of other people unrelated and unsupervised by them is canon for their universe (which some authors have said), then what they say goes.
When Michael Chriction wrote his second Jurassic Park novel, didn't he bring back the Jeff Goldblum character (who had survived in the movie but died in the original novel)?
And Robert Bloch wrote a couple of sequels to PSYCHO that had nothing to do with various movie sequels to PSYCHO. Ditto for the DEXTER novels, which have a completely different continuity than the tv series based on the first book.
"Canon" is like comic book continuity. It's iron-clad, except when it isn't . . . .
And Robert Bloch wrote a couple of sequels to PSYCHO that had nothing to do with various movie sequels to PSYCHO. Ditto for the DEXTER novels, which have a completely different continuity than the tv series based on the first book.
"Canon" is like comic book continuity. It's iron-clad, except when it isn't . . . .
Last edited:
According to Arthur C. Clarke, every book in the 2001 series was set in a parallel reality from the previous, because he didn't want to be bothered keeping details of continuity straight from one to the next.
Well, yes, that's part of the same thing. The canon is the original work, by the original author or owner of the property. For instance, Joss Whedon created Buffy the Vampire Slayer and produced the show, so the comics written or "produced" by Whedon are part of its canon, while the comics and novels not under his direct supervision are not. But in the case of a franchise like Star Trek, the "author" is the studio, the owners and producers of the franchise.
The point is, people try too damn hard to turn "canon" into this complicated, confusing thing, when it really isn't. Yes, it has variations in practice, but all you really need to keep track of is the difference between what's the original, core work and what's a separate, derived work. As long as you understand the fairly simple basic rule underlying it all, you don't have to get confused by the differences in its specific application. The problem is that most people get so hung up on the details that they miss the fundamentals.
But what I'm saying is that isn't a basic rule underlying it all. There are many examples of franchises and fandoms where canon isn't just the original core work. There's even instances (though rare) where the authors say explicitly that there is no canon whatsoever.
and don't forget Transformers where Hasbro tends to view each iteration of the brand as seperate, but TakaraTomy has this uttrly bizarre view that it all takes place in one universe even when there's no way in hell it can like they view Animated (set in the 25th century) as being a prequel series to the Bay movies!
In David Morrell's original novel First Blood, Rambo died in the end. However, he survived in the movie version and Morrell was invited to, and did, write the novelisation of the sequel (and possibly the subsequent sequels too).
Yes, that's just it! The authors say! The decision comes from the originator/owner of the work! That's the common thread! You're fixating too much on the differences in detail and missing the underlying theme. No, it's not an absolutely rigorous and predictable rule, it's a theme, a broad principle. You can figure it out case by case, at least in broad strokes, if you understand that canon flows from the originator. Yes, there are variations in detail, but it should be screamingly obvious that what's onscreen is canonical for Star Trek because it started out onscreen while the books should be canonical for Harry Potter because it started out as books. If people can't even figure out something that obvious, then they're missing the forest for the trees.
Similar threads
