What If: Voting on which fan films are officially canon

[uniderth]

They didn't change faces. The productions hired new actors.

I'm also referring to stand-ins/stunt doubles. But from a canon perspective Star Trek isn't a production. Based on the "everything seen on screen" cliche, even production mistakes are considered canon. So when a Kirk walks around in a long distance shot and it's really his stand-in. Then canonically at that point the Character Kirk's face changed to somebody else's. Or when Spock breaks the wall of the set. Canonically Spock really did break that starship bulkhead. Etc.

The mistakes of the show prove that not everything seen on screen is canon.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

I'm also referring to stand-ins/stunt doubles. But from a canon perspective Star Trek isn't a production. Based on the "everything seen on screen" cliche, even production mistakes are considered canon. So when a Kirk walks around in a long distance shot and it's really his stand-in. Then canonically at that point the Character Kirk's face changed to somebody else's. Or when Spock breaks the wall of the set. Canonically Spock really did break that starship bulkhead. Etc.

The mistakes of the show prove that not everything seen on screen is canon.

I really think the "face swapping" thing is....a silly criticism of the "on screen is canon" standard. Come on.

 

[BillJ]

It would just represent something else meaningless for fans to argue over.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm also referring to stand-ins/stunt doubles. But from a canon perspective Star Trek isn't a production. Based on the "everything seen on screen" cliche, even production mistakes are considered canon. So when a Kirk walks around in a long distance shot and it's really his stand-in. Then canonically at that point the Character Kirk's face changed to somebody else's. Or when Spock breaks the wall of the set. Canonically Spock really did break that starship bulkhead. Etc.

The mistakes of the show prove that not everything seen on screen is canon.

It's the reality of TV/film production. Obviously there will be exceptions in those cases. Just as seeing a seam on a make up appliance or a zipper on a costume do not make those canon.

 

[Mudd]

The ideal state is what we have now. Content providers produce what is "official" or "canon", fans play in that sandbox.

Yep.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

It's the reality of TV/film production. Obviously there will be exceptions in those cases. Just as seeing a seam on a make up appliance or a zipper on a costume do not make those canon.

Exactly. The context of storytelling is important. Once we start bickering over whether Lokai and Bele were actually black on one side and white on the other, or whether they were trying to kill each other over grease paint, we will have reached peak "why do we even do this" meaninglessness.

 

[urbandefault]

In this context, "canon" = "official."

CBS would be opening a galaxy class Pandora's Box if they started letting fans determine what is "official."

(I'm waiting for one magic word here, and I'm pretty sure everyone will recognize it when it's posted. )

 

[Matthew Raymond]

I can't imagine. It just sounds so unwieldy. There's just so much information in that non-canon universe, and so much of it conflicts with itself and the canon, that parsing through it all would be a nightmare.

So the problem is so hard we shouldn't try to solve it? I don't things as being that dire. I think a process like the following could work:

1) Submission - Productions would need to submit their own work to the non-profit organization in order to be considered. This would include supporting materials; if they want their ship to be considered part of canon, they need to include some kind of model or blueprint of the ship so that others could include it in their productions. Some productions could be submitted with the understanding that they will be distributed under a non-canon classification (parodies, for example).

2) Review - The submissions undergo a review period where the community can comment on the pros and cons of inclusion in canon and what problems the inclusion might cause. (I think a good review period length would be 90 days.) At the end of the review period, all comments will be compiled into a single document containing all relevant criticisms and benefits of the submission.

3) Qualification - A panel of experts would determine if a reviewed submission is eligible to become part of canon based on an established set of criteria (quality, backward and forward compatibility, et cetera). In addition, they would give the qualified submission a series of scores to indicate how well it met certain categories of criteria. An initial panel would be selected by CBS/Paramount for the first year, but would be elected afterwards. Only people who have made submissions ("submitters") would be allowed to vote for panel members. The experts could also propose amendments to the criteria, and the submitters would vote on those amendments.

4) Public Vote - A qualified submission would be voted on by the public. Voting would be open for a definite period (perhaps 30 days). The vote must reach a 60 percent threshold for the submission to be accepted.

Note that, in theory, there does not have to be a single canon. For instance, both Terminator 3 and the Sarah Connor Chronicles might be considered as being in their own separate canons.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I can't see the egos involved going for that.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

So the problem is so hard we shouldn't try to solve it?

But there isn't a problem. That's my whole point here. Trying to merge non-canon material with the canon would be like trying to sew a head onto a body that already has a head. You're creating difficulties where there weren't any to begin with.

 

[BillJ]

So the problem is so hard we shouldn't try to solve it?

Honestly? I don't see the problem. You're trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't and never has existed.

 

[BillJ]

1) Submission - Productions would need to submit their own work to the non-profit organization in order to be considered. This would include supporting materials; if they want their ship to be considered part of canon, they need to include some kind of model or blueprint of the ship so that others could include it in their productions. Some productions could be submitted with the understanding that they will be distributed under a non-canon classification (parodies, for example).

Why would a non-profit be in charge of Star Trek "canon"?

 

[uniderth]

I really think the "face swapping" thing is....a silly criticism of the "on screen is canon" standard. Come on.

It may be silly but it makes the point.

It's the reality of TV/film production. Obviously there will be exceptions in those cases. Just as seeing a seam on a make up appliance or a zipper on a costume do not make those canon.

So then, it is factual to say that not everything seen on screen is canon. Therefore, while catchy and easy to say, "everything seen on screen is canon" is not factually true.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

A panel of experts

Okay this phrase is fraught with peril. Who exactly are these people? Why are they deciding this?

Also, anytime something is "added to the canon" under this model, you're basically telling CBS and Paramount that they have to adhere to this new information. In a sense, they would have to agree to this entire system from the get-go. Which basically allows the masses, the viewers, to dictate to the creators what is and isn't "true" as far as canon is concerned. You're taking control out of the hands of creators and putting it into the hands of the masses. Nothing could be more suffocating from a creative standpoint.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It may be silly but it makes the point.



So then, it is factual to say that not everything seen on screen is canon. Therefore, while catchy and easy to say, "everything seen on screen is canon" is not factually true.

Most people understand what the phrase means

 

[Balok's Decoy]

It may be silly but it makes the point.



So then, it is factual to say that not everything seen on screen is canon. Therefore, while catchy and easy to say, "everything seen on screen is canon" is not factually true.

It really doesn't. Although I gather you're serious from your tone, the idea that production snafus and stand-in actors would qualify as in-universe canon is so absurd that it feels like trolling.

When people talk about canon, they're talking about the stories, the characters, the events. What happens. Who's involved. That kind of thing. And that content is limited to the tv shows and the films. It's really not that complicated. Once you start getting down to the level of boom mike shadows, the discussion becomes silly and pointless.

 

[uniderth]

Most people understand what the phrase means

Apparently, not if they aren't including mistakes. But if they really do mean "everything seen onscreen, except for the parts I don't like, is canon" then why do people get ragged on when their own list of excluded parts differs from the general consensus?

 

[Matthew Raymond]

But there isn't a problem. That's my whole point here. Trying to merge non-canon material with the canon would be like trying to sew a head onto a body that already has a head. You're creating difficulties where there weren't any to begin with.

There is a problem: There is no creative collaboration with the fan base. CBS/Paramount exclude input from the very people who keep the franchise going. You may think that is for the best, but you can't expect me to accept that without a sufficient supporting argument.

As for sewing another head onto a body, one could argue that the J.J. Abrams movies are exactly that. Also, as seen with Star Wars, some limbs get amputated after the fact. Seems more like an argument for parallel canon than the rejection of a process for canon.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Apparently, not if they aren't including mistakes. But if they really do mean "everything seen onscreen, except for the parts I don't like, is canon" then why do people get ragged on when their own list of excluded parts differs from the general consensus?

No one has said they consider "the stuff they don't like" not to be canon. What you brought up are production errors, stand-ins and gags not meant to be seen. Not the same thing. All the films, episodes and series I don't like are canon.

 

[urbandefault]

When people talk about canon, they're talking about the stories, the characters, the events. What happens. Who's involved. That kind of thing. And that content is limited to the tv shows and the films. It's really not that complicated. Once you start getting down to the level of boom mike shadows, the discussion becomes silly and pointless.

This pretty much says it all.