posted
As many others here likely have, I've become tired seeing battles about what is and is not considered canon. The term canon has unnecessary religious connotations and is used to bash others over the head. It also divides the material too inexactly. I think we should use another term and maybe think of Trek materials in another way.
Maybe we should consider anything appearing in a TV ep or in a movie on-screen evidence, primary material, or primary sources.
Anything written about or interpreting on-screen materials, such as encyclopedias and chronologies, officially liscenced or not, would be considered secondary material or secondary sources.
Behind the scenes information, quotes from scripts, rumors from model makers, would be called what they are but not labeled "canon" or "noncanon."
Something like the animated series, which appears onscreen but has not been considered "canon" would be "not considered part of the official universe" (or something like that)
Any other suggestions?
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
Complete non-issue. Canon is canon, giving it another name won't change it. The only people who have issues with canon are FASA nerds who seem to think that if it becomes OK to accept material by really important fans as canon, then maybe one day something they make up might get classed as canon too. Leave them to it, yearning to be mentioned in the same sentence as Franz Joseph et al seems a rather pointless waste of a life, but then I have sex regularly. 8)
posted
Gee, I didn't expect you guys to be so dismissive! I just think that "canon" is such an inexact, divisive term that other, less "loaded," more accurate terms should be used. Try to be a bit more open-minded, please.
I think the desires of "nerds" to have their works considered "canon" is part of the problem. Their belief (or maybe the practice) that the imprimatur of canon can be bestowed like that by TPTB on a gaming system (or a fan work, or a novel) is an indication of the problems with the term.
There have been too many arguments about this term for it to be only a concern of fanboys, regardless of whether they are virginal or fornicating.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
posted
It doesn't matter what fanboys want canon to be ... canon is anything live-action 'Star Trek' seen on TV or in the theater. In other words, produced by Paramount ... not produced by someone paying Paramount a licensing fee.
posted
"Their belief (or maybe the practice) that the imprimatur of canon can be bestowed like that by TPTB on a gaming system (or a fan work, or a novel) is an indication of the problems with the term."
It's not a belief. It's fact. It is what it is. The people who make the show deceide what actually "happens" in their universe. If they want to say that TAS never happened, then we can bitch and scream about it all we want, but TAS will still not have happened in the Star Trek universe.
Likewise, it doesn't matter if someone spends YEARS coming up with a timeline that successfully incorporates every single line from every single episode, film, book, and commemerative plate. If Berman says "we're not using that", then they won't use it. And it's just a really elaborate "what if?"
Ultimatly, Berman says what is canon, and what isn't. And he says the TV shows, the films, and Okuda's stuff. And he also says that it can be contradicted. That is Trek canon. Changing the name won't change the facts. Canon is canon. And fat people are fat.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
And I think the entire concept of canon that they have perpetuated is flawed.
The reason that they do that is for user-friendliness.. they want the casual viewer to be able to continuously tune in and not have missed anything, to instantly know the premise. They imply that if they gave the ability to change the premise to someone not on the writing staff of one show, they ruin their marketability. (i.e. If a novelist portrays Riker and Troi getting together, that obviously conflicts with what the TNG writers are planning, so they avoid the issue altogether. If they had to do an episode where they said 'Oh Riker and Troi started dating again two months ago,' The Casual Viewer would be confused and betrayed, because they watch every show loyally, but shouldnt be expected to buy the novels.) No one besides the honchos can decide to take any concept anywhere now.
This makes sense of course. How could you let some one time writer of a comic book or novel establish something really stupid that would just confuse the viewers if they had to stick to it when it came to light in a filmed production? The rules for the novels started to evolve: You can play in the universe, but put everything back where you found it. The Enterprise saves the day, Riker's new girlfriend dies and they set a course for Starbase X.
But this leads to this continued divisiveness in the ranks of the fans. My favorite novelists for Trek are Peter David, Diane Carey, Diane Duane & Greg Cox. Their novels each capture a specific portion of the Star Trek experience so well, and represent Star Trek to me at its purest. It really irks me when i percieve that they have captured something special about Star Trek, that isnt contradictory in the least with filmed material, and i open my mouth about it and some jackass says 'thats not canon! go away'
If someone, who is licensed by Paramount to be creating a novel, comic, technical manual or role playing game, made such a product and it did not contradict anything continuity wise and did not change any premises presented on the TV show, why couldnt they get behind it? Why isnt there anyone who reads what is being produced and sold to make sure it fits into the picture. The producers of the show and the movie couldnt really care less about anything else but the little picture, the piece that is in front of them at the moment. And why should they? They are trying to produce a story. I could understand wanting to make it easier to produce Enterprise by making it the sole domain of the writing staff thats there now. But wouldnt it work if they also had said writing staff or a proxy who worked both with the film producers and the creators of other media, a supervisor or simply a go-between that could take their intentions and translate them to the other media. I think that by neglecting the licensed works to maintain the filmed works, Paramount is devaluing the overall franchise. When someone writes a crappy-ass novel or ridiculous comic, no one really bothers to edit it because, hey, its not canon or anything. Its printed and sold. The buyer is aware they gotten something shoddy, and is pissed at the fact that they would put 'Star Trek' on the front of a lame-ass product. So many people just dont go back to Star Trek merchandise because Paramount just doesnt police whats going on there.
I have more to say, but I have to go to the bathroom. Scuse me.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
I also like some of the Trek novels. But I can quite happily accept that Vendetta never happened.
The thing is, it doesn't really matter for the small novels. Who cares that in the last TNG novel, the Enterprise went to a planet, Picard and, oh, let's say Troi got kidnapped. Riker panicked a bit. And everything worked out. No-one cares.
OTOH, to take Vendetta as an example, everyone cares. 3 Borg Cubes invade the Federation. Picard goes through the pain of remembering Locutus. Big Doomsday Machine mk 2 blows shit up. Hugely important. And also potentially runinous to future episodes. We'd have had to insert a scene into "I, Borg".
TROI: You're not over Locutus, are you? PICARD: No. Especially when that Ferengi got turned into a Borg. And there were those 3 Borg Cubes...
The chances of the viewer at that point having seen "BOBW" is fair. The chances of them having read Vendetta is tiny. Confusion, and sulking ensues.
And comparing to Star Wars doesn't work either. There are 8 filmed hours of Star Wars. There are roughly 9 million filmed hours of Star Trek. If you have to compare it to something, compare it to B5, which adopts a similar policy of "It's canon if JMS says so", so most of the books are in the universe, but not strictly canon. One book is 10% canon, and one is 90%. Everything else, it's one a case by case basis. And that's for a show that lasted 5 years.
So, essentially, with Trek; small books: No one cares. Big books: Too important NOT to mention, and confuse everyone.
Besides, Okuda already has enough trouble compiling all the info from a couple of hundred filmed hours of Trek. You want to add the hundred odd novels to his workload too? Poor bloke...
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
Well, the information in the Encyclopedia is canon. But not because of the fact that it's in there. It's canon because it was in the show/movies. The additional information that Okuda threw in is not canon.
And why make up a new term to replace "canon"? You say the problem is w/ fanboys wanting their stuff to be canon, and it creates divisiveness. Okay, so what?
Current situation: fanboy: "i red a boook where rieker and troy has teh hot sexx0r on teh bridge and i tihnk that shuld be cannon!"
Proposed solution: Rename "canon" to something else. Maybe, for example, "peanut butter".
Resolved situation: fanboy: "i red a boook where rieker and troy has teh hot sexx0r on teh bridge and i tihnk that shuld be peenut butter!"
Changing the name isn't going to have any effect on the way people think. They'll just be using a different term. A fanboy by any other name will still come in his pants when he sees a fleet of fifty Akiras and Promethei.
posted
Of course simply changing "canon" to "peanut butter" is meaningless. What is needed is a less loaded, more descriptive term. As has been suggested, I think that only filmed material (and events mentioned therein) should be recognized as actually occurrng in the ST universe and must be accepted and adhered to by everyone (unless contradicted by a preponderance of other filmed material or shown to be simply a stupid mistake ). Filmed material should be considered the primary source, and anything else is just commentary on the primary material or supplementary to it.
I think the trouble lies in the declaration of other, nonfilmed material (books) as canon (or not) and in the banishment of some filmed material (STV, TAS) from canon. Simply saying "if it was filmed, it happened" is the best thing, I think. (I'd like to think the animated events also happened. too). Saying that some non-filmed material is canon gets people thinking that any non-filmed material is potentially canon. This is the fault of the producers.
How can the Encyclopedia (and the Chronology) be considered canon? They are both reference works that by the very act of putting material in a different (written) form change it. They are by definition secondary sources. That's like saying the Holy Bible is canon and that "Asimov's Guide to the Bible" is canon as well.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
). Filmed material should be considered the primary source, and anything else is just commentary on the primary material or supplementary to it. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic
