the problem with canon

[foxmulder710]

Thanks, Misfit Toy.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

Re: So, just what IS canon?

While it is a fun question, it is not in any way an important one.

The answer is canon is whatever works for you.

For instance...

canon is TOS, TNG S1-6, DS9, Star Trek movies 1-4, 6, FC, and then this Abrams Trek.

WOw, amazing! Star Trek canon is more or less batting 100% in terms of being at least "good and entertaining"

LOL, I notice glaring absences: TNG S-7, ENT, ST:V, and so many TNG films.

Better question, now: if you understand that, say First Contact operates within the universe created by Generations, and you accept the universe of First Contact as canon, does that not make you implicitly accept Generations as canon also? I mean, there's a *cough* reason why the Enterprise-E exists, isn't there?

*shrugs* Enterprise D was old and probably decommissioned at some point between the end of TNG Season 6 and First Contact.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Canon gives the universe consistency and substance.

No, because canon contradicts itself and there's nothing in the definition of canon that denotes consistency.

You actually expect people to know the definition of a word before they start arguing about it? Next you'll be telling me that they should know how to spell it too....

 

[JustKate]

Re: So, just what IS canon?

Ah, but then to argue at all about canon is to presume that a fan has the right to decide for themselves. I agree with the Paramount canon because I actually like the tension which inconsistencies create in a work of art. Just as when with Christian-Scripture-study (I used to be intensely Catholic) I enjoyed the creativity of the mental gymnastics I had to make to cause it all to hang together non-contradictorily, so also do I find it fun to try to make the, say, "Admiral Archer" comment or Spock Prime recognizing Chris Pine as if he truly were a young William Shatner (which he isn't) all fit with what I already know about Star Trek.

One could argue that, like all myths, the stories change but there's a kernel which stays the same. In this case, it happens to be the crew, not the actors; the general story, not the specifics.

As far as a "recognizable Trek universe," to me that's a stylistic question more than anything else. I like variability as much as general consistency. For example, throughout the films and shows, the transporter has been a main feature. But look at the differences between the TOS transporter effect and the new movie: I find that interesting.

Where a stickler for "continuity" would be upset at the change, I see the (ostensibly, change-in-art-director) as a reason for investing more meaning into the show for myself, like, "How, within the Trek universe as it presents itself, could transporter technology exist in such-and-such a way NOW when it existed there in that way?" Not that those are necessarily questions worth asking, but I find asking them pleasant and fun.

Same with the ship designs.

Oh, sure - I enjoy such discussions myself, and I also enjoy coming up with in-universe explanations for any inconsistences I find. I personally, however, just can't reject a chunk of Trek simply because of those inconsistences. On the other hand, if the Federation ceased to be the Federation that I know, love and am occassionally irritated by - you know, basically the Good Guys in White Hats who mean well, but who are also more than a bit bland and oftentimes smug - well, I don't think I could accept that. There are things that make Trek unique, and one of them is that humanity and many of its neighbors in the Alpha and Beta quadrants manage to live in peace with one another, work together for the common good, and fight against common enemies. If the franchise goes all nililistic and grimdark, I would lose interest and retreat into my Trek past. But it hasn't done that yet, so yay!

 

[cwl]

oh look what i started

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'll just reiterate the attitude I've had for many many years now.

If writers violate canon, they better have a good reason.

To make a better story = perfectly good reason.

Because they're lazy and can't be bothered to check whether they are violating canon = not a good reason.

and there's insanity (writing an episode to justify why the Enterprise-D fired phasers out of its photon torpedo tube in a previous episode, or the Klingon forehead deal)... and sometimes I've felt the writers went overly far in that regard.

The Klingon Forehead Explanation episode was surprisingly good. I didn't need an explanation but who cares where an idea for a good episode comes from, anyway?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

"good" is subjective. I found it to be barely watchable fanwank.

 

[Zeppster]

Canon died in Star Trek when it started production as a series in the 60s. And hasn't really been followed since then.

 

[barnaclelapse]

Canon is good to have as a means to rein in such a large universe of characters, worlds, philosophies and the like. I do think there's a tendency to take it a little too far with some fans.

Me, I like it, and I like to see it followed through in reference to larger storytelling elements. But with little tiny technical details and the like, I honestly very rarely notice that stuff.

 

[Praetor]

"The problem with canon" to me is that some people seem to see any apparent deviation from canon as sacrilege or heresy and some people seem to see any direct reference to another series as fanwank.

 

[Strider]

I don't see cannon so much as precise details in timeline, as I do in the fact that Star Trek was not just some general science fiction show. What I see as "cannon" is the formula - action and adventure revolving around a premise, a moral theme; I think what has always made startrek stand apart is that it picks a tough issue to discuss. (Star Trek 6, the Cold War, etc.)

oh it's really not that complicated. just think of a cannon as being a really big gun!

 

[Michael]

For me, the problem with canon is that way too many people take it way too seriously. Canon is about the last thing I am concerned about when I try to enjoy a new episode or movie. Granted, it serves the function of letting all incarnations of Star Trek feel like they take place in the same fictional universe. But at the end of the day I care about more substantial things. What I can't stand is when people equate canon to continuity. What I outright hate is when people act like canon is somehow related to factual history. Also, for me, canon has nothing whatsoever to do with the look of characters or ships.

 

[AeroSquid]

*old Spock voice* Ahh; Canon, canon, canon. Bill Shatner is currently writing a Starfleet Academy series that bears little to no resemblence to any ST canon (Kirk and Spock entering the academy together after working as S.I. operatives.) Take a deep breath and think of it as another alternate reality. LOL.

 

[JTK2099]

The ideas that Star Trek fans apply to canon can be found in other aspects of life. Take Christianity for example. The Bible is filled with contradictory accounts of the same events and vastly different portrayals of the same god. The reason is, like TV, the texts were written by humans that make mistakes. So, humans use their intellects and imaginations to make square pegs fit into round holes and rationalize the contradictions away.

In religion we call this theology and apologetics. In Star Trek we call it canon. Both serve the same purpose in the human mind, to create order is a disordered world. You can't dismiss fans who hold canon close to their hearts simply because they do it with something like TV that everyone presumes to be frivilous. It is something that humans seem predisposed to do when presented with a complex idea system.

 

[azebelys]

i think canon is important, it helps maintain a level of consistency. at the same time though, it can limit what stories can be explored. people do take it too seriously though because at the end of the day, as long as you enjoy watching the show it doesnt really matter if it sticks to the canon law perfectly (though you should not ignore canon all together).

mirror universes and time paradox'es are a useful way round canon anyway

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

i think canon is important, it helps maintain a level of consistency.

No, it doesn't. Canon has nothing to do with consistency. "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is canonical, but is not consistent with the rest of the series about Kirk's middle initial. The word you're looking for is 'continuity.'

 

[captcalhoun]

the problem with canon is people getting it muddled up with consistency and continuity.

consistency and continuity says that when you blow Vulcan up it should stay blown up. canon says it blew up.

 

[I am not Spock]

Canon: All the live action film and TV Trek productions, including the new JJ Abrams film. Nuff said.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Does Canon Even Matter?

some people just take canon waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.

I came across this article today:

Does Canon Even Matter?
17 May 2010

And then you take the novels and comic books into account, and there’s even more canon to take into account. Unless, of course, none of that actually took place. Is anybody else as confused as I am? Good.

I would like to think that canon matters, even if it isn’t held in high regard by anybody but those of us that go that extra mile to learn more about the series that we love. Extended works enrich the universes of our heroes, and add depth by adding new characters and worlds to explore, while further developing the characters we are already invested in. And keeping to some sort of continuity helps keep the stories straight without constantly contradicting everything we’ve already seen and read, making for a more pleasurable time spent enjoying those adventures.

There's some stuff about Star Trek but not very interesting as it's been discussed on TrekBBS before.

A related TrekBBS older thread:
A Canon Discussion

 

[Shatnertage]

consistency and continuity says that when you blow Vulcan up it should stay blown up. canon says it blew up.

So could you say it was blown up by a canon cannon?

Are cannons in Trek canon?