posted
I think the problem is that canon doesn't exist. Which is to say, there is no inviable rulebook. All filmed material is "canon" only until it is contradicted. Or simply forgotten.
Is there "really" a huge energy field surrounding the galaxy? In a few episodes of TOS there was. But no one has seen hide nor hair of it since, despite getting a fair number of references to things extragalactic. Does UESPA exist? Is Kirk's middle initial R or T? When did Data graduate from Starfleet Academy? Can you fire phasers out of the torpedo launchers? And so on.
I think, rather than thinking in terms of canon vs. noncanon, we should probably be thinking of...a continuum of probabilities. Filmed material that isn't goofy is extremely likely to be included by later writers. Filmed material that is goofy is slightly less so. Reference materials by certain people have one probability of being used, those by others, another. And so on. Tie-in novels are way down on the other end.
posted
On a slightly different note, I have noticed a somewhat strong bias against "noncanon" materials here. Not in the sense of...well, using them to form some conclusive overall picture of Star Trek. But just in the discussion of them in and of themselves. I myself came down a bit quickly with the sarcasm when CaptainMike tried to start a thread about the new Voyager novels.
Personally, I haven't read a Trek novel in a long time, and I admit to being strongly biased against media tie-ins in general. But just because a thread is about, say, Diane Carey, doesn't mean it has to be about making everyone believe that what she writes about "actually" happened.
posted
Why does everyone seem to think ST5 was decanonized? It wasn't. As bad as it may have been, it's still canon. TAS is the only TV/movie Trek that has been decanonized.
And the Encyclopedia itself is not canon. The information in it is, by virtue of having been in the TV shows or movies.
Similarly, if I say "The USS Enterprise had a registry number of NCC-1701.", that's canon. Does that mean this post is canon? No. It just contains canonical information. Same w/ the Encyclopedia.
posted
I think ST5's curent status is that there are too many things about it that, as Sol said, get ignored/forgotten because they don't make any sense. The Enterprise has 55 decks, numbered from the bottom; you can fly to the Galactic Centre and back in an afternoon; the PLanet of Galactic Peace. . . Very little of it has been actually contradicted on screen, so technically it's still canon.
-------------------- "Nah. The 9th chevron is for changing the ringtone from "grindy-grindy chonk-chonk" to the theme tune to dallas." -Reverend42
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
For example: Star Trek V
The writers intended for there to be a great barrier that the Enterprise could reach.
The writers didnt intend for the Enterprise to have 55 decks. That was the idea of the graphics crew.
But Gene didnt intend for Spock to have a brother.
So who should be given the keys to making canon
Paramount (who are legally in charge, and are interested in ST making good business sense for them [i.e. the current production is the only one that matters, everything else is just milking sales dollars]),
Gene Roddenberry (who is the orginal creator, and thus given the most credence, but disagreed with the way his creation was treated),
The writers of the individual episode (Who have a story to tell, but dont really have a clue about the continuity sometimes)
The designers and actors who sometimes violate the intentions of all three previous by interpreting something in a wrong/different way in their portrayal and presentation.
Because if we go back and ask the writer X of episode X what he intended species X to look like when he introduced him, he'll tell us they had three heads. But then writer Y wrote episode Y and showed that species X has two heads. The original writers intentions are moot, because a second writer, a design team and TPTB changed that for him. Canon and intention become separated.
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
posted
Call be crazy, but I'd say that Rick Berman is in charge of what's canon or not. He does run the franchise. Paramount could care less whether ST V is included in a tie-in reference book.
'Simply saying "if it was filmed, it happened" is the best thing, I think.'
And that's what they do. With the proviso of "unless we contradict it. In which case, go with the most recent reference, or the least silly. Or try and come up with an explanation yourselves. We know you like to do that."
-------------------- 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
I think the "religious connotations" of the word canon are appropriate, for the ways of my religion, Roman Catholicism, are analogous to the canon versus non-canon debate in the Star Trek universe. As I am sure many of you know, the head of the Church, the Pope, is the supreme leader of the Church, infallible on matters of faith. What he says goes; he is right, you are wrong. On any particular issue, say, ordination of women, he gets the last word. Now, a thoughtful, intelligent Pope might consult his cardinals and bishops, or "poll the people," to reach a conclusion on the issue, but, no matter how he reaches a decision, the decision is his, alone, and is the law of the religion. I, personally, believe that God would have no problem if my religion ordained women, but, the Pope disagrees, so I am wrong. My opinion might be more logical and thoughtful than his, but, by definition, his "opinion" supercedes mine. Does that make me a bad Catholic? I do not think so. Does that make him a bad Pope? No. He has a complex and large religion to "run," is far more educated and intelligent than I, and probably could write volumes on why women cannot be ordained.
Likewise, in Star Trek, Paramount Pictures is the supreme leader, though they often operate through their "vicar," currently Rick Berman (with help from Brannon Braga). What they say goes; they are right, you are wrong. On any particular issue, say, the look of a series set in the 2150's, they get the last word. Now, they might consult their advisors, like Mike Okuda, or examine what fans have already established, or desire, for the look of the 2150's, but, no matter how they go about establishing a look, the look is theirs, alone, to create. A fan might think that the look would be reminiscent of the original series, but if PB&B disagree, the fan is wrong. Does that make the producers evil? No. They have a complex and large "universe" to manage, are more educated and experienced in the ways of television production than most fans, and could probably write a treatise on why their look would work better than a sixties set rehash.
The issue of canon versus non-canon is a non issue. I may disagree with fellow Catholics about the ordination of women, but I must concede that ultimately those who are against it are currently "right." Your interpretation of the Star Trek universe may differ with that of PB&B, but, by definition, theirs is right. We do not need a new word for canon; what we need is to agree to disagree. If you think there are three-nacelled dreadnaughts roaming Federation space, more power to you. You have that "right." However, as the Star Trek universe currently stands, there is no evidence to support that thought, and I have the right to call your though non-canon, because it is.
posted
You can't "decanonize" something. Canon can only be added to, not excised out of. If TAS can be 'removed' from canon, how long shall it be before TOS follows? Thirty years from now, (and I have no doubt that Trek will still exist in some form then) will they be able to say TNG is non-canon?
And the Encyclopedia contains details never seen onscreen, but which ARE considered canon by Paramount. (e.g., the Constitution-class registries.) Same counts for the TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals. That stuff is canon. It's a part of the official ST continuum that TPTB rely on when creating new stories.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Wal, ah's reckonin' ah's a-gonna hafta agree wif Mighty Monkey ("Star Wars Episode IV: A Noo Hope: Special Edishun")of Mim, dawgone it. Canon is aired 'Star Trek' ... ONLY. A future Executive Prodoocer kin't decide t'add stuff at will t'whut is/is not kinon, as enny fool kin plainly see.
posted
You can "de-canonize" something. To use a religious analogy again, my religion has changed its position on a number of issues throughout history. I admit, "de-canonization" is a slippery slope (I may hate "Star Trek V," but if I could "de-canonize" it, and did so, someone of a different Star Trek persuasion could "de-canonize" my own series were I lucky enough to make one), but, Paramount Pictures (and their "vicars," B&B) are the dictators of canon, so, if they say the animated series is not canon, then it is not.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Yup. For instance, the Roman Catholic church doesn't believe any more that the sun goes around the Earth, or that the universe was literally created in six days.
"And the Encyclopedia contains details never seen onscreen, but which ARE considered canon by Paramount. (e.g., the Constitution-class registries.) Same counts for the TNG and DS9 Technical Manuals. That stuff is canon. It's a part of the official ST continuum that TPTB rely on when creating new stories."
No, no, no. We've explained this. The Tech Manuals, Chronology and what not are "special". They are canon by dint of having been writen by people who work on the shows, and because if someone were to ask "so, er, how many transporter rooms has the Enterprise-D got", they'd ask Okuda, who'd look in his tech manual, and tell them.
But if a writer wanted a plot point that conflicted with what the technical manual said, he'd ignore it. Episodes have ignored the fact that the ships computer can turn of hand phasers on board ship, and many other things stated in the tech manual. The warp speed chart alone is just there to be pointed and laughed at.
And Mim, you're point about TAS doesn't hold. TAS wasn't excersised from canon for being old. It was taken out for being really, really silly. I can live without the Trek universe having contained a planet of giant Spock clones, thank you very much.
-------------------- 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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
