Posted by Christopher:
Posted by CaptainHawk1:
The only reason that I tend to disagree with the opinion of what is canon and what isn't is because Paramount itself (Star Trek.com) contradicts the statements here and the ones made by Steve Roby.
StarTrek.com is not "Paramount itself." It is, like the Pocket novels, a licensed tie-in to
Star Trek.
Canon is anything that was on TV or in the movies excluding the Animated Series (however there are exceptions to that as elements of TAS are considered canon). Novels are generally not considered canon. The only exceptions to this rule are Mosaic and Pathways written by VOY co-creator Jeri Taylor that provide the back-stories for Janeway and her crew.
That is a claim made on ST.com, but since ST.com is not Paramount, it does not actually represent official Paramount policy. It also conflicts with the simple facts, because a number of things in
Pathways were contradicted by later episodes of VGR.
Reference materials (TNG:Tech Manual, Trek Encyclopedia, etc.) are considered canon if they were written by Star Trek production personnel.
With all due respect, where are you coming up with your information? Check the
terms of use page as it clearly states the Star Trek.com is operated by Pramount Digital Entertainment, an affiliate of Paramount Pictures Corporation. The last time I checked Pocket Books was not an affiliate of Paramount, simply a licensee. I.e., Paramount runs that site and is responsible for its content including the statemnets made about what is canon and what is not.
Completely and utterly untrue. The authors of those works refute that in their own introductions. They say outright that they're merely offering one possible interpretation and do not intend to inhibit anyone's creativity in the process. Indeed, the shows themselves sometimes contradicted conjectural material in the Tech Manual, Chronology and so forth. Those works -- and even the official, behind-the-scenes writers' bibles -- were only meant as supplements to the shows, as possible sources of inspiration for future writers. They were not meant to restrict or limit future writers, so all they did was make suggestions which writers for the shows were free to use or ignore as they wished.
Therefore, nothing offscreen is canon. Even the most authoritative offscreen references are subject to onscreen contradiction, because they merely support the show, not the other way around. The show, the canon, is the work itself; everything else (including Startrek.com, by the way) merely supports or derives from it. It would be ridiculous for a TV show watched by tens of millions to be restricted by things from a book read by mere hundreds of thousands, let alone by an internal, behind-the-scenes reference read by mere hundreds. I don't get why that's so hard to understand.
Well, so what? Again, the way I look at it, if Paramount (see
revious paragraph) says it's canon, it really doesn't matter what Rick Sternbach or Mike Okuda think about even their own work. I'm well aware that many things in those reference materials have been contradicted by what's been on screen, and I don't suggest that any writer be strictly tied to using said reference materials as their unviolable source in their writing or creativity process. That being said, canon is changed all of the time in Trek and contradicted from episode to episode. My point is that the standard for canon that keeps being touted is first of all not the same as Paramount's own standard (see: previous paragraph) and second the argument against reference materials doesn't stand on its own because it is being ignored that the TV shows and movies contradict themselves, not just the reference materials. Just read the Nitpicker's Guides and you'll see the glaring sontradictions in onscreen Trek. It's not hard to understand, as you put it, and I don't suggest that anyone be strictly tied to anything published about Trek, even by production staff, but nonetheless, Paramount has made it official that they consider reference materials by Trek staff official. That doesn't mean it won't change or be contradicted.
By definition, the only people who have a right -- or a need, for that matter -- to decide what is canonical are the people writing new Trek episodes or movies.
This I really take issue with. It is
not the right of the writers to decide what canon in Trek is. It is at Paramount's (the owner of the property) sole discretion to decide what canon is and what can be changed. I've read on numerous occasions where writers would not stick to canon and the producers would shoot them down and make them change what they wrote to accomodate established Trek canon.
Canon isn't meant to be binding on the fans; it's a guideline for the makers of the shows. So asking other fans for opinions on what constitutes canon is a pointless exercise, because our opinions, by definition, don't apply to that particular question.
This I totally agree with. Canon, as far as Trek is concerned, is a guide. We are not talking about the Catholic Church's definition of canon. We are talking about Star Trek's canon, which has a tendency to be changed and contradicted all of the time on accident or simply because the creative process dictated it. This is not the same as what is considered canon by the Cathollic Church by any stretch of the imagination. Star Trek's canon is fluid and flexible and I believe meant to change every now and then. Again, I wouldn't go to fans to determine what is canon, I go to the source and everything that I keep digging up confirms what I said before about Star Trek.com.
As for those of us who write tie-in fiction, our mandate is to remain consistent with onscreen canon, but that doesn't forbid us from incorporating compatible material from other sources, including variant cuts of movies, or even deleted scenes if we wish
Of course not, and for the record the writers of Star Trek novels have done an excellent job over the past few years not only sticking to canon, but also walking the fine line as to not put in any material that may be refuted in future onscreen Trek. There have been many novels over the past few years that are so good and so no-contradictory that I've always thought they should be considered canon, but obviously, because they are novels, they won't be and I accept that.
In Ex Machina, I chose to treat the Director's Edition as the "true" story, since it represents the director's intended version of the film, the one he would've released to theaters originally if he'd had more time to finish it. But that's got nothing to do with canon. The people who make the shows define canon, and if they wanted to go by the theatrical or ABC version of TMP instead of the DE, that would determine canon. What I decided only determined the contents of my book.
First, I haven't read that book
. Second, the only point I was trying to bring up about SE/DC's of films is that
even Paramount cotradicts their own rules on canon and has never made a statement regarding SE/DC's canon and have left it vague and ambiguous for the rest of us.
The only way the novels would be considered canon is if the makers of some future Trek series decided to acknowledge them. Because, for the three millionth time, canon simply means what the makers of the actual show itself choose to be bound by. It's only relevant to them. And as long as nobody's making new onscreen Trek, canon is simply a non-issue.
...And as we've seen time and time again, they don't always bind themselves to anything. I've never had a problem with not considering novels as canon as the problem is that there is just way too much on screen Trek and there is no way that the novels are going to be able to keep up with all of the continuity.
-Shawn
The second edition also only covers the 21st century events in FIRST CONTACT, and not the 24th century events at the beginning.
