Poll Is Star Trek: Khan khanon?

[Steve Roby]

Count me with the people who don't think this has to be seen as a tie-in. It's not licenced. IMDB lists Star Trek TV writers as its writers and Star Trek TV executive producers among its credited producers.

I seem to remember some of the people who hated Discovery tried to argue it wasn't canon on the grounds that it wasn't a TV show, but a streaming show. And that was rightly seen as silly. So... if the people who make the TV shows decide to change a Star Trek TV series into Star Trek without visuals, is that a tie-in, or primary Star Trek on another platform? It's not the same situation as something like the Pocket Captain Sulu tapes from the 1990s.

 

[UssGlenn]

It’s not a tie-in. It’s an official CBS/Paramount production. The question about canonicity arose because in the past, TPTB had always said that only on-screen material (TV shows, movies) was considered canon. This would be the first time that a non-on-screen work could have that distinction.

Yeah, that's right. All the previous audio works went through the book publishing (or similar) license. This one didn't

 

[Dukhat]

Thank you, Digits, and welcome to all the members who don’t usually visit here.

This is certainly new ground for us in this forum. Usually our canon discussions are much more straightforward.

“Is [random book or comic] canon?”

“No.”

“But [some counter-argument].”

“Yeah, still no.”

But anyway, enjoy the discussion!

Being a professional audiobook narrator, I have an affinity for this project.