This is topic Canon vs Official in forum Starships & Technology at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/511.html
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
 
I promise this is my penultimate new topic for today...

It seems to me like a lot of "official" stuff (DS9 Tech Manual, Official Star Trek Fact Files, ST: The Magazine, and others) makes significant mistakes. The shows themselves do contain inconsistencies, but that's only to be expected.
Therefore, I want to make two proposals:
1. That the term "canon" be used only for hard data compiled from all sources (including official ones) and checked; and,

2. That not all official material is canon - given the number of goof-ups, we should be suspicious of this stuff. For example, Defiant length, and the recent Nova/Noble argument.

Anyone want to try compiling a canon reference source?

------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave
may be hazardous to your health!


 

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
 
Ah, the eagerness and naivet� of youth. . . someone kill him, he's depressing me.
 
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
Hey! Can't blame him for trying!

(or can we?)

------------------
-You're crazy!!!
-I thought I was pisces!

 

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
 
I can. }B)
 
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
The term "canon" cannot be arbitrarily defined by you or anyone else here. It's a term for the things are officially part of the Trek universe, i.e. the things that are not allowably contradicted in future Trek. Of course, that doesn't mean that canon always isn't contradicted. However, it isn't supposed to be. Things like the STMag and the Tech Manuals are not canon because the writers are under no obligation to follow what's put forth in them.

------------------
"Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?"
-Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
TSN is entirely correct.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Stuff" - Nobody
 

Posted by Dax (Member # 191) on :
 
Only the show is canon, yet the show likes contradicting itself. You can all abuse me for saying that but you know I'm right.

------------------
"Forgive me if I don't share your euphoria!" (Weyoun to Dukat, Tears of the Prophets)
Dax's Ships of STAR TREK
 

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
I second that motion.

[Lights fuse] And now for some REAL canon!

------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.

http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm


 

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
 
Dax: Yes, but we can rationalise most contradictions on the show. If non-show issues are thrown in, though, it complicates things further.

Baloo: Maine!

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Stuff" - Nobody
 

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Is a punch in the mouth?

Anyway, as Frank said, there are really very few outright contradictions that are impossible to explain away. Given enough cunning on our part, anyway.

------------------
"And if we weren't good to you, Dave, you shouldn't take it all the way to your grave."
--
Will Rigby
 

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
That's the spirit!

------------------
-You are crazy.
-I thought I was pisces.


 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
More specifically, at the moment, only the shows/movies are canon. However, if TPTB decide that some future (or even past) publication will be thenceforth considered canon, it is. "Canon" means "what is officially part of the Trek universe". Therefore, the people who control the official Trek universe, also control what falls under the term "canon".

------------------
"Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?"
-Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
 

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
 
Fair enough...

I still think we should have some way of identifying this stuff... how about calling the results of SWDAOs and similar error correction "accepted" material?

------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave may be hazardous to your health!



 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Of course, that raises the issue: "Accepted by whom?" Perhaps "majority opinion" would be a more accurate terminology...

------------------
"Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?"
-Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
 

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
Yes, or perhaps "Generally accepted (except, of course, by Frank, but you know him)".

Seriously, I have no problem with "canon" as long as the explanation for the inconsistencies does not offend my sense of logic. If you have to bend over backwards to accommodate a real stupid error on the part of the writers, you have to remember that Star Trek is not a documentary, but a videoplay presented for our entertainment. It is produced by fallible humans (who, without exception, slept through their science classes ) and is subject to the occasional (or even more frequent) error.

Not every error needs to be accommodated. The writers work against deadlines and within budgets. They can't make the show perfect without running the risk of getting fired or otherwise penalized. Deal with it.

--Baloo

------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.

http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 19, 1999).]
 

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
 
Are you seriously telling me Nick Sagan (writer and son of cosmologist Carl Sagan) and Andre Bormanis (science advisor) slept through their science classes?
*ROTFLMAO*

What about all those silly inconsistencies they *can't* explain - and all those little things we're forever SWDAO-ing?

So, the challenge stands - who wants to start writing the definitive Treknology reference book??

------------------
WARNING: Storing semtex in the microwave may be hazardous to your health!



 

Posted by Baloo (Member # 5) on :
 
Children of people talented in one area are not necessarily inclined in the same area. Everyone in my family but myself is musically gifted. I on the other hand, have a knack for mathematics. Just because Sagan, son of Sagan, had a scientist father doesn't mean he is equally gifted in that area. He might've gotten sick of all that science stuff he heard when growing up and decided to excell at something else. As far as Trek having a science advisor, judging by many of the scripts, they'd be just as well off buying Asimov's Guide to Science and putting it on a shelf somewhere. They don't often give evidence of having much more scientific knowledge than the typical 5th-grader.

--Baloo

------------------
It is less important that you agree with me than it is for you to to understand what I'm saying.

http://members.tripod.com/~Bob_Baloo/index.htm

[This message has been edited by Baloo (edited November 19, 1999).]
 

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
 
I see your point...
Well if nothing else, the pseudoscience is usually reasonably consistent... although I'm getting kinda sick of something-metric scans, something-genic particles, and "innoculations" against radiation poisoning... I could write more scientifically accurate scripts and I'm an undergraduate biologist!

------------------
"Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
 

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
Don't forget that every other term starts w/ "iso-"... :-)

------------------
"Alright, so it's impossible. How long will it take?"
-Commander Adams, Forbidden Planet
 

Posted by The First One (Member # 35) on :
 
Indeed. 8)

------------------
Remo Williams: "Chiun, you're amazing!"
Chiun: "No! I am BETTER than that!"

- Remo: Unarmed and Dangerous (1986)

Starfleet Weapons & Tactics


 

Posted by Jim Phelps (Member # 102) on :
 
iso-: prefix, abbrev. for isolated (from angry scientist fans).

Boris

------------------
"Wrong again. Although we want to be scientifically accurate, we've found that selection of [Photon Energy Plasma Scientifically Inaccurate as a major Star Trek format error] usually indicates a preoccupation with science and gadgetry over people and story."

---a Writers' Test from the Original Series Writer's Guide


 

Posted by Starbuck (Member # 153) on :
 
Actually, it just occurred to me:

Astronomer Carl Sagan was also an author - he wrote several textbooks (including "Cosmos"), and the novel Contact. The latter was recently made into a movie starring Jodie Foster.
So there!
*smirks triumphantly*
Like father, like son

------------------
"Replicate some marmalade, Commander - helm control is toast!"
 

Posted by Elim Garak (Member # 14) on :
 
Yes, science fiction at that.

------------------
Elim Garak: "Oh, it's just Garak. Plain, simple Garak. Now, good day to you, Doctor. I'm so glad to have made such an... interesting new friend today." (DS9: "Past Prologue")
 

Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
 
This has been done SOOOOO many times before. All "canon" means to me is "from the TV shows or Movies". If somethings not "canon" but official i could care less i still consiter it part of trek until or if they say otherwise on the show/movies. Who really cares anymore? Remember? its Science *Fiction*.

------------------
Wes Button � [email protected]
TechFX Graphics � The United Federation Uplink � AxisIRC
------------------
Janeway: "Dimissed"
Neelix: [stands there dumbfounded] "b..but.."
Janeway: "That's Starfleet for get out"


 



© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3