Clearly you were very smart by avoiding the ENT Forum. I watched from a distance after the first few months.
Plus TNG was garbage - it will never last!
Transport this guy from the Reagan Era to Today, and he'd fit right in on here.
When did canon become such a hot-button issue?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
Clearly you were very smart by avoiding the ENT Forum. I watched from a distance after the first few months.
Transport this guy from the Reagan Era to Today, and he'd fit right in on here.
Amen
You answer your own question. Making prequels brings the canon question into particular focus.
It isn't asking too much to maintain a certain level of logical consistency when making prequels and to respect the source material as much as is feasible without sacrificing the creative direction. Imagine if Rogue One showed a luminous pink Death Star under construction and a Darth Vader suddenly able to fly around like Superman and travel through time without explanation.
Yeah...but only one of those ships has giant eight-legged teleportation bears, warp drives powered by 'shrooms and a non-existent Spock sibling. As such, I find myself more willing to give ENT the benefit of the doubt, as I was when it premiered.
While the continuity bugbear has been something that's going on since the days when the Enterprise belonged to about six different organizations before they eventually settled on Starfleet, I think the whole concept of canon really became a big thing when Gene Roddenberry tried to hint that he didn't consider The Final Frontier to be canon. After that, we had years of debate between those who thought that anything Gene said on the subject ought to be taken as gospel truth, those who seized on it as just a handy excuse to ignore a seriously sub-par film, and those who thought that the thing was just overblown and that a work's quality isn't an excuse to just pretend it never happened or mattered.
Fans have always been debating over continuity. If you look at the old Best of Trek collections of fanzine articles, there was a whole series of "Star Trek Mysteries -- Solved!" columns where the columnist tried to answer reader questions about continuity problems and contradictions in TOS. And there have always been fans who refused to accept any new incarnation of Trek as the same reality as the old, from the animated series to the original movies to TNG and beyond. TOS purists hated TNG for years and it took a long time for them to accept it.
However, fandom's obsession with the specific word "canon," and the myths that have arisen around the importance of that label, date primarily from a memo that Gene Roddenberry and his assistant Richard Arnold issued in 1989, claiming that they no longer considered the animated series canonical. This memo had no actual binding power on the shows themselves; Roddenberry had been eased back to a ceremonial role by that point, and the shows actually did reference TAS during the period the "ban" on TAS was supposedly in effect. The only actual power of the memo was over the tie-in books and comics, which Arnold was in charge of approving at the time.
But the memo created a false impression in fans' minds that "canon" was a stamp of approval or legitimacy handed down from on high, rather than just a nickname for describing the original body of works as distinct from outside emulations like fan fiction and licensed tie-ins. And it created the myth that "canon" was a status that could be assigned or revoked, and that it was defined by what it excluded. So it created an artificial fixation with the label itself, a misinterpretation of the label as something that created a work's status by being applied to it, rather than merely describing what it already was.
So while fans had always argued about continuity and what to include, it was around 1989 and after that those arguments started to narrow in on being over the word "canon" itself, often to the point that parsing the usage of the word overwhelmed any meaningful discussion of the underlying concepts it was meant to describe.
It didn't help that Lucasfilm Licensing started applying the label "canon" to its Star Wars tie-ins -- wrongly, as it turned out, since George Lucas never considered the tie-ins canonical and freely ignored them when making the prequels. What LFL really meant was that the books and comics were all consistent with each other, which is not really the same thing as canon, so their use of that term confused the issue even further, as well as perpetuating the myth that canon was an officially assigned seal of approval rather than simply what something intrinsically was by its nature.
If we could forget about the label "canon" and get back to just talking about continuity, it would eliminate a lot of wasted noise and time and confusion and myth. But it wouldn't end the arguments altogether.
Holy crap, you couldn't be more wrong. The arguments about Enterprise during its run were exactly like the arguments about Discovery today, often beat-for-beat. And the same thing happened with every previous series too -- again, people today have no idea how much fandom hated the idea of a Trek show about some bald French guy in the 24th century instead of Kirk and Spock.
Back then, I even predicted that the arguments about ENT being an alternate universe or an unforgivable corruption would eventually fade and that the next generation of fans 10-20 years later would regurgitate identical arguments about the how next new incarnation of Trek was incompatible with the "true" canon of TOS through ENT. And as it turned out, I was absolutely right. It's a cycle that repeats every single time a new Trek incarnation comes along.
Yet nonetheless was damned with a savagery every bit as fierce as that leveled against ENT before it and DSC after it.
Actually it was ST:TMP, set only a few years after TOS, that first introduced a complete, radical redesign of everything in the Trek universe. TNG's look was largely a recycling of TMP's look, in that it literally reused the sets built for TMP, as well as reusing starship miniatures built by ILM for the sequel movies in the same design style as TMP. So if anything, the implausible thing was that Starfleet ships and tech looked so much the same 80 years after the movies, despite being completely and radically redesigned in just the 2.5 - 3 in-story years between TAS and TMP.
I doubt they could've put it in the Kelvinverse, because Bad Robot and Paramount are not involved with the production of Discovery, so there would be permission and royalty issues to work out. Since CBS has full, sole ownership of the Prime timeline, it makes business sense for a CBS-made show to remain in Prime.
Whereas those of us who grew up on, say, DC Comics and old Universal monster movies kinda snicker and roll our eyes at the modern reverence for "canon." You make a good point, though. It does often seem to me that it's the TNG generation, as opposed to us old-school TOS fans, that takes this stuff much more literally than we did back in the day. As I like to joke, I never lost sleep worrying about whether THE GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD was "canon" or not, but nowadays it sometimes seems like that's all folks want to talk about, and not just regarding Star Trek . . .
Excellent summary, thanks for the thoughtful post.
I definitely think you hit on it by saying that "canon" is a phrase completely misunderstood by many as being some sort of a label that is bestowed upon elements of the franchise either confirming or denying their legitimacy. You see the questions about "yes, but it is CANON??!!?" all the time, and I strongly believe that your interpretation of the question is exactly what is being asked.
I think there is a big difference between debate, discussions, disagreements and hot-button. It's the amount of vitriol that has brought the heat, in my opinion
Yep, and the idea that "canon" should be revoked where certain controversial projects are concerned also grants the label way too much authority. (See the silly petitions demanding that THE LAST JEDI be officially declared "non-canon.")
Honestly, I still remember the moment I began to loathe the word "canon." I was at a convention doing a presentation on Tor's upcoming line of FARSCAPE novels. Understand that, at that point, I had devoted the better part of a year to securing the rights, co-editing the novels with our British partner, working with the authors and the licensors and the art department and so on, and was finally unveil the fruits of our labors. Ta-da!
And, sure enough, the very first question from the audience was "But . . . are the books canon?"
Groan.
Honestly, I still remember the moment I began to loathe the word "canon." I was at a convention doing a presentation on Tor's upcoming line of FARSCAPE novels. Understand that, at that point, I had devoted the better part of a year to securing the rights, co-editing the novels with our British partner, working with the authors and the licensors and the art department and so on, and was finally unveil the fruits of our labors. Ta-da!
And, sure enough, the very first question from the audience was "But . . . are the books canon?"
Groan.
All that would have been avoided had they decided to not make any shows that took place before the events in the original series. They should have just kept moving forward in time, not backwards.
However, I find it far more exhausting to read theories and conversations from people who try to tie 50+ years of Star Trek shows and movies into some kind of cohesive continuity. There was no plan from the beginning for a cohesive history and continuity and trying to shoehorn everything into some kind of paradox free timeline seems foolish. I get it that it might seem like a fun puzzle or exercise for some to attempt but it's ultimately pointless.
Continuity has always been a topic, but it used to be more about having fun and explaining away inconsistencies. At least from where I sat during the great Before TMP Time.
Social media, mixed with the prequels and reboots of ENT/2009 helped it morph into the quasi-religious headache it is today. Honestly, it used to be fun, and now I cringe every time I hear it invoked. I hate fundamentalism in all its forms, and it being about a pretend space show makes it laughably bad, if it weren't for the fact that people have become downright abusive about it.
The religion analogies fit. We have a body of myth gathered into a series of contradictory foundational texts. Some people choose the "midrash" route, and pretend that everything fits nicely, and go ballistic when something new is ventured to *any* degree. It's what some person here called "Straw Trek," where you become convinced that your head canon is actual scripture.
And some people get that there's a basic thread of themes and archetypes, and there is room to disagree about whether it's okay to play a guitar in church, as it were. The saying goes, the guy who is more observant than me is a fanatic, and the guy who is looser is a heretic.
When I hear the word "canon" now, I reach for my disruptor. There are days I hope the new shows and movies just throw everything out and just worry about making entertaining stories, because the fans are becoming increasingly undeserving of fan service. Just let it be fun. I honestly denied myself the joy of the novels and comic books for too long because "they didn't happen." This kind of idiocy limits people's ability to enjoy simple entertainment.
Social media, mixed with the prequels and reboots of ENT/2009 helped it morph into the quasi-religious headache it is today. Honestly, it used to be fun, and now I cringe every time I hear it invoked. I hate fundamentalism in all its forms, and it being about a pretend space show makes it laughably bad, if it weren't for the fact that people have become downright abusive about it.
The religion analogies fit. We have a body of myth gathered into a series of contradictory foundational texts. Some people choose the "midrash" route, and pretend that everything fits nicely, and go ballistic when something new is ventured to *any* degree. It's what some person here called "Straw Trek," where you become convinced that your head canon is actual scripture.
And some people get that there's a basic thread of themes and archetypes, and there is room to disagree about whether it's okay to play a guitar in church, as it were. The saying goes, the guy who is more observant than me is a fanatic, and the guy who is looser is a heretic.
When I hear the word "canon" now, I reach for my disruptor. There are days I hope the new shows and movies just throw everything out and just worry about making entertaining stories, because the fans are becoming increasingly undeserving of fan service. Just let it be fun. I honestly denied myself the joy of the novels and comic books for too long because "they didn't happen." This kind of idiocy limits people's ability to enjoy simple entertainment.
Last edited:
I have actually encountered people, as recently as a few weeks ago, who sincerely believe that there is some sort of studio executive whose actual job is to issue some kind of documents or seals or rubber stamps or something that declares productions "canon." Which is tantamount to believing that the government has to issue a proclamation declaring the contents of a lake to be water before it becomes water. I mean, seriously, this is insane. That one Roddenberry memo from 30 years ago, a memo that had no actual power beyond the tie-ins and that ceased to apply even to them when Richard Arnold was fired in 1991, has caused a whole generation of fans to sincerely believe a notion of canon which is utterly delusional.
No, none of it would've been avoided. Remember what I said about fan outrage over TNG? It was years before TOS purists stopped screaming over TNG's inauthenticity and corruption of everything that Star Trek was supposed to be. Even several TOS cast members were hostile to it for the first couple of years, if not longer. I don't think Shatner came around until Generations.
It's got nothing to do with when a series is set. There are just some people who can't accept a version of Trek that differs from their familiar image and expectations -- but it's a given that anything that adds something new to the Trek universe in any way is going to do that.
I hope the Discovery producers ignore the Canon mafia. I cringed when Pike and Number One gave a correction for the holocommunicators on the ship. It's true humans don't do well with changes, even fictional ones .
This. I think we will see this when The Picard Show airs. Everyone who was saying "we'd solve all the problems that Discovery had by setting it after Nemesis" will be sending CBS spreadsheets outlining how the new show has violated Gene's Vision® by contradicting this episode of Voyager, this arc in DS9, this character's statement in TNG etc etc etc
Instead of one (very inconsistent) show to worry about (well, plus ENT), you will have 21 more seasons of content (that most casual viewers won't remember) to worry about. "No Prequels No Problems" is a specious argument.
Fans are complaining about continuity and canon in Best of Trek, published 1978. It's a forever thing. But ENT was when social media and the internet became mainstream to the point we had it on our phones, so suddenly everyone had a voice and not just people who could be arsed to write a letter.I've been trying to put my finger on when Trek fans became so obsessive over the consistency of the Star Trek canon/continuity. The time I started to notice this happening was probably when ENTERPRISE was announced as a prequel and then nearly every Star Trek production being a prequel after that.
Personally, I get so exhausted having conversations with eagle-eyed fans who let canon get in their way of enjoying a new Star Trek series or film. I've found that when it comes to both ENTERPRISE and DISCOVERY, it's not so much there are violating the Trek canon, but that it's perceived as so simply because they were two starships not ever spoken of before in the earlier shows.
I could go on and on, but I won't.
Amen. And if we have to turn Star Trek into a religion, can we at least not be quite so fundamentalist about it?
Don't laugh. I've actually seen folks using terms like "blasphemy" and "abomination" without irony, while the endless debates about what constitutes a "true fan" and what the "real fans" want often don't sound that far removed from doctrinal disputes against heretics . . . . .
The only explanation I would find remotely comforting would be that Kurtzman has a more healthy desire to maintain stricter connection / continuity with how things were portrayed earlier than Fuller and/or Berg / Harberts. In fact, you could already see it going from S1 to S2, with the change in the Klingon make up and the mention of holocommunications early on.
True enough. I loooovvvveeee to argue continuity. Almost to a fault (I was going to mention spore drive again....but I'll restrain myself
). And I do think sometimes people confuse continuity with canon. They are not the same thing.I don't get as hyped up about 'canon' stuff. I'm familiar with it but it's not a big deal to me. Maybe because I'm a huge novel reader and in my own 'head canon' as folks around here call it I've included the expanded novel verse in my larger Star Trek continuity----just as an example in my mind at this point the Borg are gone. Now the nu-TNG show may undo that, but I'll cross that bridge if and when that happens.
I've followed Star Trek since 1986. Thinking back the first time I recall any mention of canon was probably around the time First Contact came out. I was a bit distressed that the whole "Strangers from the Sky" history was unraveled in that film and I remember reading somewhere around that time that novels were not considered canon. That also sort of answered some questions for me about how the novels were looked at in canon, that is, not at all.
It heated up more around the time Enterprise came out, at least from my perspective. Then the Abramsverse movies brought it too the fore again. That was around the time I started visiting the trekmovie.com website and that was my first real exposure to 'message boards'.
I think others are correct though, as the internet started becoming more common and websites started coming out devoted to Star Trek like this one, canon arguments became more obvious and easier to find.
Yeah, I was one of those. I mean, I wasn't outraged, just ambivalent. And the first season was uneven leading to my fears that this show would fail and be the end of Star Trek. But I came to love that show. But that's more of a 'can you have Star Trek without Kirk and Spock' and less a canon issue I think.
Continuity wise, I just dismissed any inconsistencies to it being almost 80 years after TVH so that was never an issue for me. Canon, well, I wasn't familiar with canon in 1987.
The issues I've had with Discovery is more 'continuity' related. Does it reasonably fit 10 years prior to the original series. I don't feel it really evokes that time period real well. Others feel differently.
But is it canon? Well, yes. Because we are told anything told on screen is considered canon so I sort of have to accept it as canon.
Similar threads
