Super Hi Res Enterprise

[number6]

That's the best comeback you can muster? "No it's not"? That's not refutation, that's just simple naysaying.

How's this, then??

Taken directly from StarTrek.com:

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind.
In the publishing world, there used to be two exceptions to the novel rule: the Jeri Taylor- penned books "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters and were to be considered as references by writers on the show. Now that the show is over, some of those events may never be incorporated into a live action format, so the question of whether details from these novels remain canon is open to interpretation.

With regard to the Animated Series, there are a few details from the episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, that reveal biographical background on Spock and planet Vulcan. Details from this episode have been successfully incorporated into the canon of Star Trek (such as in "The Forge") and now that the Animated Series is out on DVD, we hope that even more can make its way in!

 

[Tom Servo]

That's the best comeback you can muster? "No it's not"? That's not refutation, that's just simple naysaying.

It's no better then you saying IT IS! IT IS! till you are blue in the face. If you want to make it your own personal canon, thats fine. But the producers of the show have no reason to look at it as canon. They can take ideas from it and add them to the live action shows as an homage, and therefore that thing becomes canon. But in no way do the producers of the other live action shows and movies have to adhere to anything shown in it.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

In the same way that you can't be only partly pregnant, TAS isn't partly canon. In Kor's last episode on DS9, he makes reference to his old ship, the Klothos, which is a direct reference to TAS' "Time Trap". In another episode, Garak makes a reference to Edosian orchids, a reference to the home planet of Lt. Arex. And so on and so on.

It aired on NBC, it was partially produced by Paramount, had the direct involvement of Gene Roddenberry, D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, and several other TOS writers, had Shatner as Kirk, Nimoy as Spock, Kelly as McCoy, Doohan as Scotty, Takei as Sulu, Nichols as Uhura, Barrett as Chapel and the ship's computer, it has just as much of a claim of canonicity as any other Paramount Star Trek production. The only reason TAS was set aside from being used as a reference for several years was because of the legal complications of the shutdown of Filmation; once that was wrapped up, the references started sneaking in and the DVD package finally came out.

TAS is canon. Deal with it.

It's not a matter of having a claim to being canon, Paramount does not and never has considered it canon. Cick the flippin' link, already for paramount's Official stand on it. I didn't post it for giggles. The canon in TAS is backwards compatible. The live-action offerings of Trek are the only thing that's considered canon, whether you like it or not. As far as canon is concerned, for all intents and purposes, the material that appeared in TAS and then subsequently in the live-action offerings should only be considered canon when showed in the live-action offerings. I'm curious, since you want to cling to this whole concept that TAS is canon, what happened to those force field suits? Also what about the Bonaventure?

HUH??? Canon and Offical are the same thing and the Encyclopeida ain't canon unless it's verfied on-screen.

Uh, no. Canon is what is shown on the screen. Official is any Paramount licensed publication. Two different things. And if something shown on the screen contradicts something printed in an official publication, then the publication is invalidated.

Of course, something shown on screen can also contradict something else shown on screen, but that's a whole different can of worms.

I've been doing this way longer than you, so don't try to argue semantics. Your out of your league, junior. There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon so don't muddy the issue by putting them in a discussion. Just because something is officially licensed, doesn't mean it's official. This distinction you're making is made up.

-Shawn

 

[Captain Robert April]

I listed reasons why it is canon.

You're just plugging your ears and going, "LALALALALALALALALALALA! NO IT ISN'T! LALALALALALALALALA!"

 

[trevanian]

That's the best comeback you can muster? "No it's not"? That's not refutation, that's just simple naysaying.

How's this, then??

Taken directly from StarTrek.com:

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind.
In the publishing world, there used to be two exceptions to the novel rule: the Jeri Taylor- penned books "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters and were to be considered as references by writers on the show. Now that the show is over, some of those events may never be incorporated into a live action format, so the question of whether details from these novels remain canon is open to interpretation.

With regard to the Animated Series, there are a few details from the episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, that reveal biographical background on Spock and planet Vulcan. Details from this episode have been successfully incorporated into the canon of Star Trek (such as in "The Forge") and now that the Animated Series is out on DVD, we hope that even more can make its way in!

That example sounds like it is trying to have its cake and eat it as well.

James 'Tiberius' Kirk was introduced onscreen in TAS, not TUC, which merely confirmed it. 'Hikaru' Sulu was also confirmed onscreen in TUC, but originated in the printverse with Pocket's first original novel in 1980.

It's easier to buy into, 'if it is good, THEN it can be canonical' (which is a formal way of looking at stuff the way Meyer did for TWOK, saying he only had allegiance to what worked, not the whole backstory), since that is just as arbitrary a call as the official franchise one. Therefore TIME TRAP wouldn't even need the DS9 reference, cuz it is a plain-out good show that belongs in the TOSverse. Ditto for several other TAS eps.

Note I'm not talking about stuff that totally rewrites the trek universe, like the new movie appears to do. If I'd pitched my CHRYSALIS story to TAS (unlikely, since I was 12 years old and hadn't thought it up yet), it would probably be one of the decanonized ones, since the basic precept is that suns are alive and those that go through full nova and compression to hypermass become aware and develop intelligence by 'eating' matter that comes their way. That would be a big step outside accepted trek standards for space, since you couldn't go around blowing up stars without being a murdererer or an abortionist (TNG turned it down for other reasons, more stupid ones actually.) I'm sure if they did the 'warp drive pollutes space' on TAS, that'd be one they'd be in a big hurry to forget about, since they never seemed to want to work within the new inconvenient truth parameters that put forth.

 

[Tom Servo]

I listed reasons why it is canon.

You're just plugging your ears and going, "LALALALALALALALALALALA! NO IT ISN'T! LALALALALALALALALA!"

Huh, I thought we were the one's showing you facts from STARTREK.COM. Until you can show us something similar, you can bitch about it till you are blue in the face.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I listed reasons why it is canon.

You're just plugging your ears and going, "LALALALALALALALALALALA! NO IT ISN'T! LALALALALALALALALA!"

You're just making shit up, though, and completely ignoring Paramount's position. That's the final word, not the fan-boy opinion.

-Shawn

 

[Captain Robert April]

startrek.com was working on second or third hand information. TAS' exclusion was for legal reasons, and that exclusion is no longer in effect (hell, when was the last time that part of startrek.com was even updated?).

The whole thing about TAS being completely decanonized appears to be Richard Arnold, again, overstepping his authority and misreading his master's wishes.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Why the hell would Paramount want to exclude product? They want to make as much money as possible, and declaring 22 episodes "noncanon" seems rather counterproductive on that front, doncha think?

This was never a Paramount position, it was a misinterpreted Roddenberry position.

 

[Tom Servo]

startrek.com was working on second or third hand information. TAS' exclusion was for legal reasons, and that exclusion is no longer in effect (hell, when was the last time that part of startrek.com was even updated?).

The whole thing about TAS being completely decanonized appears to be Richard Arnold, again, overstepping his authority and misreading his master's wishes.

Well it is what is. Until it is officially changed, thats what is considered canon. The day it changed, then you will be 100% correct, but until then....

 

[trevanian]

Paramount does not and never has considered it canon. Cick the flippin' link, already for paramount's Official stand on it. I didn't post it for giggles. The canon in TAS is backwards compatible. The live-action offerings of Trek are the only thing that's considered canon, whether you like it or not. As far as canon is concerned, for all intents and purposes, the material that appeared in TAS and then subsequently in the live-action offerings should only be considered canon when showed in the live-action offerings. I'm curious, since you want to cling to this whole concept that TAS is canon, what happened to those force field suits?

[/quote]

The forcefield suits and the holo- style rec deck could have been beta-tests for all anybody knows. Geez, the way the holo thing works, it should be off-limits even in century 24.

Why would you choose to buy off on a corporate notion about creativity or 'reality' in a show? That's like rewriting history on the making-of level (which Paramount also does), like saying only a bit of the kirk spock spacewalk in TMP was shot, when they shot with the actors on stage for over a week, and were still trying to keep it in the movie till after they switched vfx vendors in early 79. Paramount was so sensitive about how it botched tmp on so many levels that it held up the DE's release for the better part of a year so that the documentaries could be recut to take out all the offensive truths and such. Yeah, those are the kinds of folks who should determine what is ok or real in the shows you choose to watch, but not me.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The DVD set has been out for a while, TAS references in the later shows abound, and Richard Arnold is long gone from the franchise, so that day came a while ago.

 

[Dukhat]

I've been doing this way longer than you, so don't try to argue semantics. Your out of your league, junior. There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon so don't muddy the issue by putting them in a discussion. Just because something is officially licensed, doesn't mean it's official. This distinction you're making is made up.

Dude, what the hell is your problem? Because you don't agree with what I'm saying, you resort to personal attacks against me? First of all, don't patronize me by calling me "junior." I'm older than you are. And my "distinction" came straight from the mouth of Ronald D. Moore, when he was working on ST at the time.

There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon

Yeah, I know that. That's why I said they were "official," not canon. Go back and read what the fuck I said before copping your self-righteous attitude.

 

[number6]

Paramount's position on Star Trek canon is anything that appears on screen in the live action versions of Trek. The TAS stuff is known by all the writers, as is most of the novels, but they aren't "official" until they're represented onscreen-as we have seen.

That's Paramount's position and they own Star Trek.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

startrek.com was working on second or third hand information. TAS' exclusion was for legal reasons, and that exclusion is no longer in effect (hell, when was the last time that part of startrek.com was even updated?).

The whole thing about TAS being completely decanonized appears to be Richard Arnold, again, overstepping his authority and misreading his master's wishes.

Wrong and EPIC FAIL. GR said it was non-canon not Richard Arnold and there have never been any legal issues that have anything to do with canon.

You look like a 12 year-old with the argument of "When's the last time Paramount Updated the site" bullshit. So Paramount's not a good source but the fan-boy is? Second, the last time that particular information was updated was in 2003... like I said and you would know you had enough courtesy to read an entire post.

In fact, to clarify, the only thing that they changed was considering Trek reference Materials written by Trek Staff (it used to be canon) and the two VOY novels by Jeri Taylor (they used to be considered canon as well).

They don't need to update it if nothing's changed. You're wrong, grow up, be a man, admit it.

-Shawn

 

[SalvorHardin]

Why does nobody ever listen to one of the best internet advice :

Do not feed the troll.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Why the hell would Paramount want to exclude product? They want to make as much money as possible, and declaring 22 episodes "noncanon" seems rather counterproductive on that front, doncha think?

This was never a Paramount position, it was a misinterpreted Roddenberry position.

Because half the shit in them is fucking ridiculous and contradicts not only the rest of later Trek but TOS itself.

I actually love TAS but a lot of it is just nuts.

-Shawn

 

[CaptainHawk1]

I've been doing this way longer than you, so don't try to argue semantics. Your out of your league, junior. There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon so don't muddy the issue by putting them in a discussion. Just because something is officially licensed, doesn't mean it's official. This distinction you're making is made up.

Dude, what the hell is your problem? Because you don't agree with what I'm saying, you resort to personal attacks against me? First of all, don't patronize me by calling me "junior." I'm older than you are. And my "distinction" came straight from the mouth of Ronald D. Moore, when he was working on ST at the time.

First, it wasn't a personal attack, Mr. I joined in 2007 and have 144 posts. Second, I went to your profile too and this is the one thing I got out of it:

Friends

Dukhat has not made any friends yet

I'm just busting your balls, relax. But seriously, Ron Moore doesn't decide that shit either.

There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon

Yeah, I know that. That's why I said they were "official," not canon. Go back and read what the fuck I said before copping your self-righteous attitude.

I read it and it's still wrong, sorry.

-Shawn

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Captain April --

You keep referring to items from TAS that were referenced by other live action episodes/movies, and that's fine -- those items are now canon.

However, just because something is referenced from source such as TAS does not make the entirety of that source canon.

Take Kirk's mother's name for example. The name "Winona Kirk" is found nowhere but in novels and a comic. However in Abrams' new film, Kirk's mother will be given the name Winona. This will be the first use of that name in a live action TV show or film, so it will become canon when the film is released.

However, once "Winona" as Kirk's mother's name becomes official canon, that does NOT automatically canonize the original source of the reference. "Winona" is canon, the source novels are not. Kor's ship "Klothos" is was canonized by DS9, so it is now canon; the original source (TAS) for the ship's name is not.

It seems that using your argument, since Abrams and crew are using the novels 'Best Destiny' and 'Final Frontier' as references for the name of Kirk's mother, then those novels themselves should become canon.

 

[Dukhat]

I've been doing this way longer than you, so don't try to argue semantics. Your out of your league, junior. There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon so don't muddy the issue by putting them in a discussion. Just because something is officially licensed, doesn't mean it's official. This distinction you're making is made up.

Dude, what the hell is your problem? Because you don't agree with what I'm saying, you resort to personal attacks against me? First of all, don't patronize me by calling me "junior." I'm older than you are. And my "distinction" came straight from the mouth of Ronald D. Moore, when he was working on ST at the time.

First, it wasn't a personal attack, Mr. I joined in 2007 and have 144 posts. Second, I went to your profile too and this is the one thing I got out of it:




I'm just busting your balls, relax. But seriously, Ron Moore doesn't decide that shit either.

There are a shitload of officially licensed Star Trek products and publications that aren't canon

Yeah, I know that. That's why I said they were "official," not canon. Go back and read what the fuck I said before copping your self-righteous attitude.

I read it and it's still wrong, sorry.

-Shawn

My apologies. I didn't realize that this site was actually Facebook, where people value their self-worth based on how many people they can tag as friends.

So basically, cutting through all this drivel, what you're really saying is, "I know I was a jerk earlier, but I'm not about to admit it to you."

OK. I can live with that.