Lucas has even said that as he was planning ROTJ he had trouble deciding whether it should be true or not that Vader was Luke's father. The whole thing was in flux.
Is the animated toon canon?
- Thread starter WiredPlanet
- Start date
Hmh? It is his first (assumed) name, rather than a title or a rank. His title and rank is Sith Lord, as explicated in the script although not in the movie.
Doesn't mean squat about whether he would be Luke's dad or not. He's a villain, he wears a mask, he naturally goes by assumed names.
Doesn't mean there'd already be a backstory figured out for him, either. But using this as an example of it being "evident" that the plans changed just doesn't wash.
Timo Saloniemi
Doesn't mean squat about whether he would be Luke's dad or not. He's a villain, he wears a mask, he naturally goes by assumed names.
Doesn't mean there'd already be a backstory figured out for him, either. But using this as an example of it being "evident" that the plans changed just doesn't wash.
Timo Saloniemi
It was not a first name once it was established that "Darth" is a title, otherwise, there would be no reason to refer to Darth Maul or Darth Tyrannus. In other words, to suggest it was a first name meant (in earth terms) that this select group were all given the same first name as in "Bob Smith" "Bob Jones" and so on. Lucas was never strong or clear on internal continuity when Star Wars first premiered.
As I said above, canon isn't something that's "determined," as a rule. It's just a shorthand term we use to talk about the work produced by the creators or owners of a franchise -- the "real thing" as distinct from licensed or fan-created emulations of it. Star Trek is owned by CBS Studios, the corporation that was known as Paramount Television prior to 2005. What they create is the genuine, original Star Trek, what we call "the canon" as a shorthand, so naturally they're the ones who define the form it takes and who have the authority to determine the existence, content, and relevance of the tie-ins.
I think it's not so much that she officially defined the book as "canon" (a word that's used more by fans than actual creators) as that she considered its content to be part of the backstory that informed her writing of the character. It was a resource in the same way as the series bible or technical manual -- either of which could be contradicted if a scriptwriter came up with a better idea.
Pretty much. Or rather, it's a term that only needs to be defined in relation to tie-in or fanfiction works. If there's only the core work, then there's no dispute over what "counts" because there's only the one thing -- well, unless it ends up retconning or ignoring parts of itself, like Dallas or the Highlander movies or the like.
As I've noted in similar threads, in all the twenty-plus years that I've been writing and editing tie-in books, I've never seen the word "canon" appear in any contract or licensing agreement, nor can I recall any actual discussions regarding "canon" with any of the various licensors I've worked with.
And that applies not just to Trek, but to Farscape, The 4400, Roswell, Warehouse 13, Alias, Buffy, Leverage, Freddy Krueger, Mortal Kombat, Species, Xena, The Green Hornet, you name it. The main editorial concern is that the books not contradict the TV shows or movies or comics or games whatever.
"Canon" is a fannish obsession. It has little or nothing to do with the practical realities of the business.It honestly never comes up when I'm talking with studios and licensing departments.
(Just to provide a little real-world perspective.)
And that applies not just to Trek, but to Farscape, The 4400, Roswell, Warehouse 13, Alias, Buffy, Leverage, Freddy Krueger, Mortal Kombat, Species, Xena, The Green Hornet, you name it. The main editorial concern is that the books not contradict the TV shows or movies or comics or games whatever.
"Canon" is a fannish obsession. It has little or nothing to do with the practical realities of the business.It honestly never comes up when I'm talking with studios and licensing departments.
(Just to provide a little real-world perspective.)
Right. Canon is a term used to describe a work from the outside. It's not a term insiders themselves need to use. It's like... oh, an American might refer to "the English city of Birmingham" to distinguish it from Birmingham, Alabama, say. But a Brit would just say "the city of Birmingham." They don't need to add the label "English," because for them, it goes without saying. And even if they're comparing it to some other Birmingham, they'd be more likely to refer to theirs as just "Birmingham" and call the one in Alabama "the American Birmingham."
When I moved to the East Coast from Seattle, I had to train myself to say "Washington state" instead of just "Washington" because otherwise people would think I was talking about that place in DC.
Back OT: It's like you said before, did Jeri Taylor actually declare her novels "canon" or was that something fandom assumed while she was busy running a TV show and worrying about more practical matters?
I think that when we say "Mosaic was canon," that's just a shorthand for saying that Jeri Taylor considered it to be part of the actual character backstory she was using when she wrote Janeway. As we've been saying, canon isn't a formal designation applied as part of the creative process, but a term used in discussing and analyzing the creative process from outside or after the fact.
I read on another site that StarTrek.com says the animated series is canon.
yep...which, getting back to the point, is completely irrelevant to the 98% of us who are not trying to commercialize a Star Trek product. So I do not understand the obsession in Trekdom with having the official imprimatur of a bunch of corporate rights-owners. What has that to do with ART?
Maybe, in part, some fans who like the animated series are concerned they will be shunned by others who disdain it. Maybe those people hope to counter, "Hey, don't look down at me! the Filmation series is official." Obviously, that doesn't account for everyone. That's why I use the caveat "some".
Sincerely,
Bill
Sincerely,
Bill
It sure doesn't account for me. First off, I don't think anyone should ever feel concerned about whether other people share their likes. If anyone ever tries to shame you for loving something, that's their problem, not yours.
And second, I don't think that whether something is "official" has anything to do with whether it's worthwhile. Its merits come from the work itself. The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.
That some do take in-continuity status as a measure of quality does give whether or not it has that status some relevance. As a kid reading the ST Encyclopedia I certainly interpreted the animated series not being canon as an indication that Roddenberry came to dislike it (and that he got his way as an indication that most other Trek makers agreed). His disliking/discounting Star Trek V and VI could have also led to a lot of people avoiding them (and maybe even the studio not releasing them widely) if not for that VI quickly got a pretty positive reception (and that other shows and movies without Roddenberry's involvement were made and liked made his view less relevant to the fans).
I don't know if a lot more of the series fans would have read more of the novels if they had been in-continuity but it's possible, I can see a fan not reading a novel, even if it's about a character they like, because they assume it'll probably be contradicted on the show later or that it's written in a different, more far-fetched style.
Edit: DC Comics has multiple continuities but with Marvel's Spider-Man the Ultimate comic was accepted as an alternate version of the character but the Chapter One miniseries (revised retellings of his early adventures) was intended to be his new official early history and was removed from that status, the original early comics retaining/regaining their position in the canon, because of fan dissatisfaction with the miniseries.
Last edited:
I've been saying essentially the same thing for years.
That the ST'09 writers leant so heavily on "Yesteryear" suggests to me that they considered it canon. We know Gene Roddenberry didn't, for whatever reason.
Kirk met Lucifer at the centre of the galaxy, and he turned out to be an okayish kinda guy, and Spock used magic to get the crew home. There's a 50-foot clone of Spock out there. Nurse Chapel unleashed a love potion on the crew. Not that much weirder than what normally happens in the Trekverse. I'm all for it.
Kirk met Lucifer at the centre of the galaxy, and he turned out to be an okayish kinda guy, and Spock used magic to get the crew home. There's a 50-foot clone of Spock out there. Nurse Chapel unleashed a love potion on the crew. Not that much weirder than what normally happens in the Trekverse. I'm all for it.
Yeah -- the idea that Roddenberry disliked something carries less weight when you realize how poor his judgment was by that point in his life and how much trouble he had sharing credit with other people (an attitude probably exacerbated by his lawyer's highly adversarial approach toward protecting Roddenberry's interests). And it's worth noting that, by that point, he considered a lot of TOS to be apocryphal as well. He seemed to want to exclude everything that he didn't directly control.
But according to Lou Scheimer's Creating the Filmation Generation, TAS was actually the only incarnation of Star Trek over which Roddenberry had absolute creative control. The network wanted him involved so badly that they agreed to a contract that gave him total control with no network notes -- an almost unheard-of state of affairs. The only other series I know of where the network has given its creators such total carte blanche is The Simpsons. So if TAS didn't turn out the way Roddenberry wanted it, he has no one to blame but himself. It was his decision to let D.C. Fontana run the show instead of taking charge of it himself.
Most TV fans don't read novels, period. I've always had the impression that people who claim not to read the books due to their non-canon status are just plain not interested in reading, and are using canon as their excuse. If canon weren't an issue, they'd just offer some other rationale for not reading.
Or at least for not reading works in a particular medium. There's a reviewer over on Tor.com who's a huge fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender and The Legend of Korra, but he dismisses the comic-book continuations of A:TLA as non-canonical even though they officially are considered canonical (at least for now) and are overseen and approved by the series creators. Some people just think that only the original medium is the "true" form of a story, no matter what the official policy is.
Or maybe they just considered it a story worth drawing on. As Greg's been saying, creators themselves don't really think in terms of canon at all. That's a fan concept. Creators aren't worried about classifying stories, they're focused on telling stories. If they see an idea they think is worth drawing on, then they'll use it. It doesn't matter what continuity it originally came from, because they'll make it work in their own continuity. All that matters is a) whether the idea is worth using and b) whether they have the legal right to adapt the idea.
Why? The art stands apart from the artist (let alone the corporate guy calling the shots). I remember an art teacher of mine once said, "I don't want to know you. Now you might say, 'What do you mean, how can you know my art without knowing me?' I'm here for the art. That should say it all."
Well that's silly. By the way, I disavow this response, so you shouldn't consider it. Let's pretend it doesn't exist.
So... Branaugh's Henry IV, Part I should be disregarded because someone did Henry V in modern dress with a completely different take on Falstaff?
Jesus, that's going the long way around the barn. Crazy idea: why not just tell a story?
Wasn't there also a full-size inflatable Enterprise?
The Enterprise-shaped balloon in "The Practical Joker" was even larger than the real Enterprise.
Similar threads
- Locked
