This is a bit more than just an idle curiosity... I'm wondering just how the idea of a "canon" for the Trek franchise came to be adopted. Was it with the advent of the official reference books, like the Encyclopedia and the Chronology? Was it earlier, as they started publishing novels? Was it really started by Gene Roddenberry specifically to make sure that Franz Joseph's work was never used in any later Trek productions?
I'm curious because I'm writing an article on the subject... and it's occurred to me that I have no idea just how it came about.
So when did people start shouting, "That's not canon!"? Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Mostly that last. And that mostly came about when GR was squeezed out of a position of having any say in what made it to the screen (around Star Trek III-IV). When he started pre-prod on TNG, Berman and Okuda latched on quite fervently when he started saying what was to be considered officially acceptable reference material. Anything he didn't comment on, they went with Paramount Liscensing as the guide. This is why Okuda's fleet stuff is more in line with FASA than fandom -- at the time, FASA had the liscense to do that stuff, and fandom was all built off of a book that was published through a rival company by an individual who not only no longer had a liscense, but whome GR publicly vilified.
So, short version, around 1987-88 is when the concept first started showing up. By 1994, it was in full swing.
--Jonah
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Are you citing the Paramount Trek canon for those dates, P? I thought those dates were considered only semi-canon as they were never seen onscreen. Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
*smack*
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Why exactly was Roddenberry so opposed to the FJ stuff anyway?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Cannon envy.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
lol
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Thanks, Peregrinus! I had a feeling it was more office politics, but forgot about how FASA figured into the equation... Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
FASA's history and stories of the pre-TMP era starfleet is great to read. They made really detailed histories for each of their ship designs and a completely plausable background for the whole Klingon/Romulan "technology exchange" thing.
As for Canon, two FASA ships designs were briefly displayed on a computer screen in TNG's Conspiracy. So at least a small bit of FASA is canon.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
The story of GR's relationship with FJ is long and gory and probably best told in Greg Tyler's (of The Lost History of Star Trek website) 1999 interview with FJ's daughter, at http://www.trekplace.com/interviews/fj-kdint01.shtml.
The short version: FJ didn't understand how the TV industry works, and GR didn't understand engineers, so they both all unwittingly stepped on each other's toes. Then Paramount more or less took Star Trek away from GR at just about the same time FJ's stuff--for which all royalties went to Paramount, not GR--was breaking every sales record in the publishing industry.
It's like a latter-day Greek tragedy. There isn't really a bad guy so much as bad timing.
And it's a shame, too, because FJ had some really cool ideas. His vision of the Federation was much less humanocentric, for one.
Marian
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I get a 404 Error following that link....
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Dammit, show some initiative. Delete everything after the ".com" and follow the links. "Interviews", "Franz Joseph", and then the top and bottom ones in that list of buttons (interview with FJ's daughter and timeline of GR and FJ's relationship).
--Jonah
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Cool link, thnks.
Posted by MarianLH (Member # 1102) on :
"Cool link, thnks."
Welcome. Sorry about the 404. I cut-n-pasted the link, so I don't know what happened. Maybe putting a period at the end of the sentence threw it off?
Marian
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
Just checked -- that was it. Delete the last period.
--Jonah
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Thanks for the link Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Peregrinus, I did, I was just informing you of the error.....
I was thinking that it may have occured several thousand feet over the Pacific in the mid 40's....
But I could be wrong....
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
Did Rodenberry himself ever address it publically? If not, has anyone thought to contact Majel or Rod to get their take? I mean, I'm no big defender of Roddenberry, but it seems only fair to get both sides if you're trying to do a factual article on the subject.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Factual?????
Spin Zone Ahead
Posted by MrNeutron (Member # 524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Factual?????
Spin Zone Ahead
Cynicism is smoke rising from scorched ideals, and there's a 4-alarm fire on here!
David Gerrold mentions the canon issue in this interview about TAS. Posted by Capped in Mic (Member # 709) on :
i remember the concept of 'canon' being explained to me in 1989 by Richard Arnold himself (he was the archivist/licensing guy back then.. most likely the 'errand boy' Gerrold refers to)..
i was 9 yrs old and there was a panel at a convention Arnold was speaking at, he was entertaining discussion about Nichelle Nichol's comments during her audience session.. the topic of Uhura's real first name was in issue, and Arnold summed it up by saying that, even though Uhura has been given a first name in novels and comics, none of those mean anything, and that if Kirk turned to Uhura in the next movie and said 'Barbara' then that would be her name and the novels will just have been wrong. Many fans took offense to Uhura having a dumb name such as 'Barbara' in his analogy, some booed him. He apologized for using a goofy example and assured us that Uhura was not named Barbara.
At that moment i realized that a) Star Trek sucked without the novels, and Arnold's explanation (and the concept of canon in general) stinks like steamy shit b) Nyota is a better name than Barbara c) angry sci-fi fans are frightening
He went on to explain that TV and movie writers are very busy people that can't be bothered to know everything about Star Trek and how audiences would be confused and dismayed by characters in filmed Trek referencing any situations or characters from Trek that wasn't filmed, because that ould be Disastrous and the audience Wouldn't Understand.
hrmph
Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
So why can't the hire a continuity editor who can and would keep track of all that stuff and tweak scripts as appropriate?
No, no -- don't answer. I know. They could give a shit about the integrity of the fictional universe they're being allowed to play in. And it would cost more money than what they do now, which seems to work just fine.
--Jonah
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I feel 'canon' came about with the first encyclopaedia - as the Okudas set out some rules reguarding what the producers considered canon etc. Quadrants, Ranks, episodes etc.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It is sad that all licensing must go through Paramount, and they do even care to get the universe staight. Plus, does it never occur to them that those that like the series & movies, might also like the books???
Of course, that would slow down book production, which would cost money....
I loved this part of the article...
TAS: Did you have to make changes because of the Saturday morning time slot?
Gerrold: Not really. The only thing we didn't do was give Kirk a love affair in every episode. That gave us an extra twenty minutes per episode for more story and more action.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: So why can't the hire a continuity editor who can and would keep track of all that stuff and tweak scripts as appropriate?
No, no -- don't answer. I know. They could give a shit about the integrity of the fictional universe they're being allowed to play in. And it would cost more money than what they do now, which seems to work just fine.
--Jonah
And that, of course, we-the fans- fould villify said editor for every percieved flaw and probably burn him in effigy more often than not.
While several of us might deam of such a job, it'd be a huge pain to make every script go through this editorial position because the editor's personal view of what Trek is and should be would often get in the way. I can just see Comic Book Guy telling them not to use the CGI model of the USS Farragut without removing all those extra windows first. We'd agree, but everyone involved in making the model would kill him. He'd have to be everywhere at once in every art department and script session to make it work.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Factual?????
Spin Zone Ahead
Please, no Bill O'Reilly on these boards please. Ugh - how annoying is that man. Smug git.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: David Gerrold mentions the canon issue in this interview about TAS.
LOL comment from that interview:
"When in doubt, Gene always had Kirk get into a fight with God."
And another: heheheh
TAS: Did you have to make changes because of the Saturday morning time slot?
Gerrold: Not really. The only thing we didn't do was give Kirk a love affair in every episode. That gave us an extra twenty minutes per episode for more story and more action.
And another (is he talking about Richard Arnold?)
Gerrold: Arguments about "canon" are silly. I always felt that Star Trek Animated was part of Star Trek because Gene Roddenberry accepted the paycheck for it and put his name on the credits. And DC Fontana -- and all the other writers involved -- busted their butts to make it the best Star Trek they could.
But this whole business of "canon" really originated with Gene's errand boy. Gene liked giving people titles instead of raises, so the errand boy got named "archivist" and apparently it went to his head. Gene handed him the responsibility of answering all fan questions, silly or otherwise, and he apparently let that go to his head.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No more so than Rush.... But hanging up only makes it hard to post a reply... Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Plus, does it never occur to them that those that like the series & movies, might also like the books???
Yes, but it also probably occured to them that only 0.00001% of all the people who watch the show have read even two of the novels.
If they did make the books canon, it would involve a lot more than just getting in a continuity guide to tweak the scripts. The novels themselves would have to be massively rewriten, or large parts simply ignored. People would complain that Vendetta should have been mentioned in "I, Borg", Strangers in the Sky completely ruins lots of "First Contact" and Enterprise, and so forth.
And do we really want a lot of the late 90s books to be canon? Oh look, the TNG crew arrive at a planet and everything is nice. Oh look, Picard beams down OH NO THEY ARE CAPTURED!!!!WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR HEROES???!!
Posted by Treknophyle (Member # 509) on :
I always thought that phaser canons were invented for USS Reliant in TS:TWOK
(sorry, but I've been wanting to say that for months).
None of the stuff I produced is 'canon' - nor is it likely that any future projects will be. All I try to do is make my itsms as close to pre-existing 'canon' tech as possible - so I won't conflict with same. I also try to 'look ahead' and make my stuff as flexible as posible, so that future 'canon' shows won't conflict - but short of a time machine, that's a losing battle.
When TNG first came out, some friends and I wrote Paramount and mentioned that a 'Star Trek Expert' could be consulted on a weekly basis to go over scripts and models, to keep continuity correct. There are people who make Comic Book Guy look relaxed on the subject. I suggested the FIAWOL Butch Day for the job - I know from personal experience that he and Gene R go way back - and what he doesn't now about the Trek mythos isn't worth worrying about. However, they chose not to go that route.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)