The Star Trel Cartoon. Do you consider it canon?

[JM1776]

Well you have to ask yourself this: Do they really have the authority?

To decide upon the canon? There's no need for an argument if you don't, so ... absolutely. To tell you what goes into your personal continuity? No effin' way.

They can't stop us (the fans) from considering something canon or not.

What you or I consider is immaterial to the principle.

You're using the concepts of "canon" and "continuity" interchangeably. They must be kept distinct in a discussion of this sort.

The canon is the basis to which we adhere, or from which we all deviate. Those deviations, if any, are personal continuity.

I'm employing "canon" in its stricter theological sense, here, of course.

 

[AxelFoley]

It's not a matter for debate. While a fan may put whatever he or she prefers into their purse*-onal continuity, TAS is, according to those with the authority to make it so, not canon.

* – I allow myself one horrendous pun every April 1st.

Well you hve to ask yourself this: Do they really have the authority? They can't stop us (the fans) from considering something canon or not. All they can do is mandate what the writers can and can not do on any given project at the time. They can control what the fanbase thinks.

Well said, I feel the same way. Apparently Terminator 3 is "out of canon" nowadays with The Sarah Chronicle and T4 on the way

 

[SeerSGB]

Well you have to ask yourself this: Do they really have the authority?

To decide upon the canon? There's no need for an argument if you don't, so ... absolutely. To tell you what goes into your personal continuity? No effin' way.

They can't stop us (the fans) from considering something canon or not.

What you or I consider is immaterial to the principle.

You're using the concepts of "canon" and "continuity" interchangeably. They must be kept distinct in a discussion of this sort.

The canon is the basis to which we adhere, or from which we all deviate. Those deviations, if any, are personal continuity.

I'm employing "canon" in its stricter theological sense, here, of course.

At most, absolute most, and it's a slippery grasp, they can do is mandate what the writers and licensees can use or not use as "official source material". If the fanbase woke up one morning and said "this is canon...", there isn't a thing Paramount can do about it. There is no 'Trek pope, there is no college of Trekkies, and there is no bible, there is just what is: Our own little personal world which with we tend to view the 'Trekverse.

 

[JM1776]

There is no 'Trek pope, there is no college of Trekkies, and there is no bible, there is just what is: Our own little personal world which with we tend to view the 'Trekverse.

But there is a group with authority granted (de facto) by those who own the franchise, which means they function as the College of Trekkies, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not ... and that the Trek Bible consists of what they say it consists of. Those guys at StarTrek.com wouldn't put out a statement (on Star Trek's official site, no less) in large measure defining canon if they didn't have the legal right to do so, and hadn't been prompted to do so by those Trekkies interested in adhering to such.

I am not arguing that if you don't acknowledge (or give a shit about) this central authority that it remotely affects your enjoyment of/what you consider Trek, or should. But it is the starting point.

 

[cultcross]

It's not a matter for debate. While a fan may put whatever he or she prefers into their purse*-onal continuity, TAS is, according to those with the authority to make it so, not canon.

* – I allow myself one horrendous pun every April 1st.

Well you hve to ask yourself this: Do they really have the authority? They can't stop us (the fans) from considering something canon or not. All they can do is mandate what the writers can and can not do on any given project at the time. They can control what the fanbase thinks.

And that authority defines what the canon is. The authorities of the Catholic Church define which texts are part of its canonical Bible. You can argue others are or aren't 'to you' but they hold the ultimate authority on the matter, what they say on the matter is inherently correct (within their own church, obviously) by definition of the word.
The ultimate authority on the matter with regard to Star Trek's canon has decreed that TAS is not canonical. Just because things mentioned or seen in it have made their way onto other Trek series doesn't make TAS canonical, merely those elements, entirely due to their appearence on a canonical show.
Now you can have 'personal continuities' till the cows come home, and I certainly have one of my own. TAS isn't part of it, but that's by the by - some stuff that TPTB declare canonical I'd also rather pretend didn't happen. But within Star Trek's canon, the live action series and the movies are included. all of them, and nothing else.

 

[JM1776]

Well and truly said.

 

[Aaron McGuire]

There is no 'Trek pope, there is no college of Trekkies, and there is no bible, there is just what is: Our own little personal world which with we tend to view the 'Trekverse.

We need a Trek Pope. I nominate myself. I shall reign as Trekpope Tiberius I.

My first decree shall be to have all future episodes of trek be aired in latin.

Habemus Papam!

Aaron McGuire

 

[ktanner3]

It's not a matter for debate. While a fan may put whatever he or she prefers into their purse*-onal continuity, TAS is, according to those with the authority to make it so, not canon.

* – I allow myself one horrendous pun every April 1st.

Well you hve to ask yourself this: Do they really have the authority? They can't stop us (the fans) from considering something canon or not. All they can do is mandate what the writers can and can not do on any given project at the time. They can control what the fanbase thinks.

And that authority defines what the canon is. The authorities of the Catholic Church define which texts are part of its canonical Bible. You can argue others are or aren't 'to you' but they hold the ultimate authority on the matter, what they say on the matter is inherently correct (within their own church, obviously) by definition of the word.
The ultimate authority on the matter with regard to Star Trek's canon has decreed that TAS is not canonical. Just because things mentioned or seen in it have made their way onto other Trek series doesn't make TAS canonical, merely those elements, entirely due to their appearence on a canonical show.
Now you can have 'personal continuities' till the cows come home, and I certainly have one of my own. TAS isn't part of it, but that's by the by - some stuff that TPTB declare canonical I'd also rather pretend didn't happen. But within Star Trek's canon, the live action series and the movies are included. all of them, and nothing else.

QFT.

 

[SeerSGB]

It's not a matter for debate. While a fan may put whatever he or she prefers into their purse*-onal continuity, TAS is, according to those with the authority to make it so, not canon.

* – I allow myself one horrendous pun every April 1st.

Well you hve to ask yourself this: Do they really have the authority? They can't stop us (the fans) from considering something canon or not. All they can do is mandate what the writers can and can not do on any given project at the time. They can control what the fanbase thinks.

And that authority defines what the canon is. The authorities of the Catholic Church define which texts are part of its canonical Bible. You can argue others are or aren't 'to you' but they hold the ultimate authority on the matter, what they say on the matter is inherently correct (within their own church, obviously) by definition of the word.
The ultimate authority on the matter with regard to Star Trek's canon has decreed that TAS is not canonical. Just because things mentioned or seen in it have made their way onto other Trek series doesn't make TAS canonical, merely those elements, entirely due to their appearence on a canonical show.
Now you can have 'personal continuities' till the cows come home, and I certainly have one of my own. TAS isn't part of it, but that's by the by - some stuff that TPTB declare canonical I'd also rather pretend didn't happen. But within Star Trek's canon, the live action series and the movies are included. all of them, and nothing else.

Authority? So, when I say that I think that TAS is canon the Paramount law-givers are going it kick in my door and absorb me so that I think it isn't? Or is it, just remotely possible, that their "authority" extended only to their staff and licensees, and has no bearing what so ever on the fans?

And maybe, given the "fluid" nature of canon that there is, in reality, no such thing as "canon" and that it's all merely BS spewed by various show-runners to make their version/project appear more "real" to the fans that salivate like starving dogs over such things.

 

[Sector 7]

[/quote]...there isn't a thing Paramount can do about it. There is no 'Trek pope, there is no college of Trekkies, and there is no bible, there is just what is: Our own little personal world which with we tend to view the 'Trekverse.[/quote]

Wait... wait... I see smoke coming from the Jeffries tube... the College of Trekkies has voted on the Star Trek Pope... I'm being handed a bulletin... it's a statement from the spokesperson for the College of Trekkies... the new Pope is

 

[cultcross]

Authority? So, when I say that I think that TAS is canon the Paramount law-givers are going it kick in my door and absorb me so that I think it isn't?

No, you'd just be wrong. You can think TAS is part of Star Trek to you, a part of your personal continuity, but you can't say it's canonical and be correct, because inherently it isn't unless Paramount says it is. The canon is not open to debate, it is defined. The only things you could argue the toss on are things that are live action, but unaired, such as deleted scenes on DVDs, which kinda fall under the definition but kinda don't. TAS just plain doesn't.

Or is it, just remotely possible, that their "authority" extended only to their staff and licensees, and has no bearing what so ever on the fans?

Their authority extends to the definition of the Star Trek canon. You are confusing 'canon' with what the fans accept or want to be in Star Trek. The canon is defined, set in stone. well, Paramount press releases anyway. What you think of any given bit of Star Trek, as a fan with a personal opinion, is entirely up to you. But your decision, heck even a collective decision by all of us has no bearing whatsoever on whether that bit is canonical.

And maybe, given the "fluid" nature of canon that there is, in reality, no such thing as "canon" and that it's all merely BS spewed by various show-runners to make their version/project appear more "real" to the fans that salivate like starving dogs over such things.

How is the canon 'fluid'? for a very long time, Star Trek's canon has been defined as 'all live action tv shows and movies. all of them, and nothing else'. That definition is pretty static. In terms of an internal fictional universe in a TV show or film franchise, the concept of a 'canon' is more than just for the fans. It is for the writers and show runners, to know what has gone before/will come after which they must adhere to within that universe, and what bits they can ignore, contradict or ride roughshod over.
Star Trek, being an ongoing project, needs a set canon to maintain a sense of internal realism, without expecting viewers to read every novel, play every game, and absorb every comic, an exercise which would grant you a thousand total contradictions which undermine the suspension of disbelief in a fictional universe.
The concept is somewhat different for, say, George Lucas - he can merrily announce all Star Wars novels to be canonical, because chances are he'll never have to untangle the mess of his universe to write any more new stuff.

 

[SeerSGB]

Again, you miss the point: Paramount has no authority to affect what the fans accept as canon or not. It simply doesn't apply to us, only to their staff and licensees. There is no penalty if the fanbase turned it's back on, for example, Voyager and declared it "non canon". There is no holy-writ in place, not fandom damnation. The only people bound by edicts of canon are licensees and production-staff.

As far a canon being set in stone, the shows can even maintain a level of internal continuity and canon, much less something on the level of the overall franchise. How much "canon" has be contradicted over the years? How much retconing has 'Trek had to do in order make all the various abritary moments in the stories lock into place in some sort of chronological order, that was never intended till someone realized "hey, we can make money on doing this".

A set-in-stone canon is not a requirement for a enjoyable series. You suppose to watch a show for its entertainment value, not worrying about nitpicky little details.

 

[ktanner3]

Again, you miss the point: Paramount has no authority to affect what the fans accept as canon or not. It simply doesn't apply to us, only to their staff and licensees. There is no penalty if the fanbase turned it's back on, for example, Voyager and declared it "non canon". There is no holy-writ in place, not fandom damnation. The only people bound by edicts of canon are licensees and production-staff.

No one's saying that you can't choose what you want to consider as canon.Consider the Star Trek legacy game as canon if you wish because it's no different than the cartoon or novels as far as show conituity is concerned.

As far a canon being set in stone, the shows can even maintain a level of internal continuity and canon, much less something on the level of the overall franchise. How much "canon" has be contradicted over the years? How much retconing has 'Trek had to do in order make all the various abritary moments in the stories lock into place in some sort of chronological order, that was never intended till someone realized "hey, we can make money on doing this".

A set-in-stone canon is not a requirement for a enjoyable series. You suppose to watch a show for its entertainment value, not worrying about nitpicky little details.

Well guees what? It's been happening ever since the days of the superman comics. Loyal fan bases like continuity.It makes the series more enjoyable and acts as a reward to the fans that stick around the longest. And the writers that write the shows also try and stick with continuity because every show has it's own set of rules. And you can't fault Star Trek for breaking a few rules over a 40 year period. No show can be expected to be perfect for that long, but that isn't a valid argument for throwing the doors open and using cartoons,games or novels as canon.

 

[SeerSGB]

It's a perfectly valid argument for tossing everything in the pot. If the showrunners themselves can't keep it straight, then it doesn't matter what is and isn't canon.

 

[ktanner3]

It's a perfectly valid argument for tossing everything in the pot. If the showrunners themselves can't keep it straight, then it doesn't matter what is and isn't canon.

For you it doesn't, for others it does. But hey, we're all here on a Star Trek message board so we at least have that in common. Personally I like what the Legacy game did with the Borg origins,but I don't consider it canon because it wasn't an episode. If sometime in the future I see it on the television as part of an episode, then that aspect of the game will be canon. But that doesn't mean the entire game will be.From what I understand the cartoon was very well written so I can see why others want to put it in their own little universe.

 

[Sector 7]

It's a perfectly valid argument for tossing everything in the pot. If the showrunners themselves can't keep it straight, then it doesn't matter what is and isn't canon.

Only TREK fans get so worked up about the smallest details. I leave us these words to live by:
"Can't we all just get along?" -Rodney King
"Stop beating me with that brick (just because I'm white)!" -Reginald Denny

Which just goes to show, there are two sides to every story.

 

[dougkeenan]

Trek wouldn't be the same without TAS.

 

[cultcross]

Again, you miss the point: Paramount has no authority to affect what the fans accept as canon or not. It simply doesn't apply to us, only to their staff and licensees. There is no penalty if the fanbase turned it's back on, for example, Voyager and declared it "non canon". There is no holy-writ in place, not fandom damnation. The only people bound by edicts of canon are licensees and production-staff.

You are the one missing the point here: it is irrelevant "what the fans accept as canon or not". The canon is defined by Paramount, as the authority figure here. It is what they say it is. Your concept of the Star Trek universe, what you want to accept as part of it or otherwise is entirely up to you, but it has no effect on the canon!!! No, paramount don't 'enforce' the canon by bringing hellfire and damnation on those who say otherwise, but that's because it's the fictional 'histroy' of a TV show, not a religion or a national law. An example of factual authority; I can say Sheffield Wednesday Football Club won the Premier League in Britain last year. It isn't remotely close to true, and the ultimate authority telling me that is the Football Association. I will suffer no sanctions by believing something else, but I'm certainly not right.

As far a canon being set in stone, the shows can even maintain a level of internal continuity and canon, much less something on the level of the overall franchise. How much "canon" has be contradicted over the years? How much retconing has 'Trek had to do in order make all the various abritary moments in the stories lock into place in some sort of chronological order, that was never intended till someone realized "hey, we can make money on doing this".

Actually, Trek's continuity as a whole is excellent, given the ludicrous amount of it that's been made. But once again you are confusing a canon with continuity. Enterprise and TOS, arguably, contradict each other's continuity - pretty badly in parts, imho. But both are and have always been, part of Trek's canon. The definition of a canon isn't altered by continuity errors within its works.

A set-in-stone canon is not a requirement for a enjoyable series. You suppose to watch a show for its entertainment value, not worrying about nitpicky little details.

In 'The Return' novel series, Kirk is resurrected, and the Romulans ally with the Borg. Onscreen, this never occurs, and we ally with the Romulans in the Dominion war. The canon isn't about 'little nitpicky details', or minor continuity errors, it's about saying 'this story happened in the universe and thus its consequences are a part of that universe. this one did not, so its consequences are not.' Without that, a series either becomes a wildly inconsistent joke, or deliberately becomes a show without event follow through (such as Star Trek: New Voyages' killing of Chekhov). Star Trek hasn't chosen the latter path, so a definition of canon is necessary to establish which history, which storylines, represent the 'actual' story of Star Trek for the purposes of writing more.

 

[Sector 7]

Again, you miss the point: Paramount has no authority to affect what the fans accept as canon or not. It simply doesn't apply to us, only to their staff and licensees. There is no penalty if the fanbase turned it's back on, for example, Voyager and declared it "non canon". There is no holy-writ in place, not fandom damnation. The only people bound by edicts of canon are licensees and production-staff.

You are the one missing the point here: it is irrelevant "what the fans accept as canon or not". The canon is defined by Paramount, as the authority figure here. It is what they say it is. Your concept of the Star Trek universe, what you want to accept as part of it or otherwise is entirely up to you, but it has no effect on the canon!!! No, paramount don't 'enforce' the canon by bringing hellfire and damnation on those who say otherwise, but that's because it's the fictional 'histroy' of a TV show, not a religion or a national law. An example of factual authority; I can say Sheffield Wednesday Football Club won the Premier League in Britain last year. It isn't remotely close to true, and the ultimate authority telling me that is the Football Association. I will suffer no sanctions by believing something else, but I'm certainly not right.

As far a canon being set in stone, the shows can even maintain a level of internal continuity and canon, much less something on the level of the overall franchise. How much "canon" has be contradicted over the years? How much retconing has 'Trek had to do in order make all the various abritary moments in the stories lock into place in some sort of chronological order, that was never intended till someone realized "hey, we can make money on doing this".

Actually, Trek's continuity as a whole is excellent, given the ludicrous amount of it that's been made. But once again you are confusing a canon with continuity. Enterprise and TOS, arguably, contradict each other's continuity - pretty badly in parts, imho. But both are and have always been, part of Trek's canon. The definition of a canon isn't altered by continuity errors within its works.

A set-in-stone canon is not a requirement for a enjoyable series. You suppose to watch a show for its entertainment value, not worrying about nitpicky little details.

In 'The Return' novel series, Kirk is resurrected, and the Romulans ally with the Borg. Onscreen, this never occurs, and we ally with the Romulans in the Dominion war. The canon isn't about 'little nitpicky details', or minor continuity errors, it's about saying 'this story happened in the universe and thus its consequences are a part of that universe. this one did not, so its consequences are not.' Without that, a series either becomes a wildly inconsistent joke, or deliberately becomes a show without event follow through (such as Star Trek: New Voyages' killing of Chekhov). Star Trek hasn't chosen the latter path, so a definition of canon is necessary to establish which history, which storylines, represent the 'actual' story of Star Trek for the purposes of writing more.

Logical argument.

 

[SeerSGB]

Star Trek hasn't chosen the latter path, so a definition of canon is necessary to establish which history, which storylines, represent the 'actual' story of Star Trek for the purposes of writing more.

NO there isn't a need for a "canon" in order to write more 'Star Trek'. It's simple: Hey, you writer, write me a story 'Star Trek' story. All you need in internal story continuity to a given series, nothing more. 'Trek does not need, and actually suffers, under the concept that there has to be an overall "canon" and "real history" in order for the franchise to work.