posted
But here's the thing for me, why would you create a whole mass of ships and their classes if they're not going to be seen? I would in his place but them under the classes already shown. Because in a extremely small sense (about one to billion odds) that these unheard of ships could limit any future ideas. On the other hand, it is just me, and it personally makes no sense.
I adhere to my own cannon rules. Every Trekkie/Trekker has their own right to ahhere to their forms of cannon. To force a concept of cannon on another, is like me trying force you to be not gay or to be gay. My cannon rules might contradict what you feel is cannon. But most Trekkies/Trekkers will adhere to the basic princible of what you see in the movies and on TV is cannon, everything else is not said by Roddenbery.
Personally my cannon is what is seen on TV, then to fill in the blanks left in the TV shows and movies, I use semi-cannon and extremely good non-cannon (SotF, ST TM, and so on). Now this might be Satan worshiping, but thats just me.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
dude.. canon
a cannon is a large metal object that fires projectiles. Assuming that you didnt mean 'cannon' when you typed 'cannon', i agree with you
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Would people please look up the definition of "canon", already?! You do not decide for yourself what is and is not canon. Canon is something that's decided by the people in charge. If random people's personal opinions are referred to as canon, what's the point of even having the word "canon"? Referring to your own personal, non-officially-sanctioned beliefs as "canon" is exactly the same thing as referring to your own opinions as "fact".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Exactly. Everyone may have personal opinions, but excluding anything canon amounts to a subjective discussion, while published unlicensed sources legally are not Star Trek.
[ May 02, 2002, 10:13: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Matrix, it's not that we'd never see the ship; the Ulysses in this example played a major role in the game while other ships, like the ships from the Creator, are either used because we already saw them and they want to use familiar names but still bring in some new stuff. It's not that these would be ship we never saw and we'll never see, they are all somehow important - some more, some less - for a story.
And the ship Ulysses was Admiral - Captain - Ross' ship that was destroyed by a cardassian ambush after they found one of the orbs of the Pah-wraiths on SR-3. The cardassians were not able to get the orb, and the ship was abandoned before it crashed. I think that'S the basic outline of its story. I didn't play the game for some time now so I can't remember the exact details, but Sisko was later sent out with Worf to recover the orb (as part of the game's primary story-line), but they were overwhelmed by Jem'Hadar forces after they found it.
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd just like to say... I'm am 100% thankful that the novels are never considered canon. Most of them a utter crap--- even the ones that are published by Pocket Books. I have not read many, only a few, but I do follow the reviews of a great many of the books--- and I read through the entire James Dixon Chronology [which does contain every bit of Trek-lore... let's see if I can find that URL http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Crater/2077/scifi.htm (the act of moi putting this URL here is not an act of endorsement... thank you)].
As near as I can tell, a good portion of written Trek is wishful thanking. You've got more sex than Vulcan [the planet] has every seventh year, Kirk coming back to life, Bones being able to fight the Borg in 2360's [chronological correct, biologically impossible], the Romulans and the Borg joining forces [was that ever stupid], and [one of my favorite laughs] the TOS big three [Kirk, Spock, Bones] being switched with their actor counter parts [Shatner, Nimoy, DeForest]. I've mentioned some things already but I still have a lot of trouble with many of Shatner's trek books. I've also found the books by Peter David [while a very good Sci-Fi writer] not good trek. I tried to read the Day of Honor books but they didn't catch my attention and I dropped the books within a few chapters.
All in all, my ultimate opinion is that Trek belongs on TV and rarely can it be made good in print. Which is an extremely good reason why I prefer to have novels on the level below the semi-canon material.
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
Well, another reason why the novels can't be consiered canon is that many of them not only contradict what is shown on screen, but they also contradict other novels. Michael Jan Freidman isn't going to do research into what Peter David or some other author has previously written, so that his novel matches the same stories of the others. For example, I believe that there are three different novels dealing with the Mirror Universe, which were written by three different authors and portray the MU in three different ways. The novels are just that particular author's take on a Star Trek related subject, that's all. The only difference between them and fanboy fan-fiction is that they have Pocket Books as their publisher. And although I agree that many of the books written today are of the same calibre as the romance novel genre, some of the best novels were the ones that came out in the intervening time between TOS & the movies, "The Final Reflection," for example. Because the writing wasn't dictated as much by what was on screen (because there was very little at the time), the writers were able to pump out some truly imaginative stories.
As far as the Encyclopedia is concerned, I'm of the majority that feels that the book can be counted as official until something on the screen contradicts it. The first edition listed the Crazy Horse as a Cheyenne class ship, but when it was shown later, TPTB just reused old Excelsior stock footage. The next edition fixed this, but left the high 5XXXX registry (better suited for a Cheyenne) the same. But until/unless there's more info to the contrary, that's what we have to go with. Period.
[ May 02, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Which is exactly why the novels are merely official, and not canon. If we apply a system by which certain official works rank higher than the others, then by the time we get down to the level of the inconsistent novels, there's not much that can disturb the spirit of the show.
Hence the procedure would be something like this:
Step 1) Analyse the canon to the last possible detail, form the general framework of your theory.
Step 2) Fill in the gaps with the TMs and the Encyclopedia, including a number of production notes and online comments.
Step 3) Fill in the remaining gaps with other reference books amd novels.
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 15:52: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
That's how I do it as well. Some people just like to stick with the definition of canon that Roddenbery has said, which is fine. But to tell me that everything else is not my own opinion to use them to fill in the gaps for my own personal history of Star Trek is just plain Bull****.
As for my spelling for canon, using cannon, yes I know how to spell canon. It was just that I really fats typing and had no chance to correct any spelling.
-------------------- Matrix If you say so If you want so Then do so
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Listen, the schtick bout only the live-action shows and movies being canon is simply not true. It's just a cop-out answer TPTB give people in order to cause them the least confusion. In actuality, there's a lot more than just what was stated explicitly onscreen that fits into the canon. The class, reg, and tech info in the Okuda and Sternbach books *is* considered canon. So are some details (though it remains unspecified as to exactly which ones) from Jeri Taylor's novels are as well. And there's no fucking way you can ignore that TAS did happen, and the stuff in there is just as canon as any other show. How does a show being animated make any difference as to whether it's canon or not? That wouldn't even make any sense. Canon is what can be reliably counted upon as being "real" in the ST universe. Sternbach's Intrepid-class info and similar such articles in Star Trek: The Magazine are canon, too, as are many statements given by various inside sources.
Why? Because you can feel fairly safe that it will hold true.
Sure, this stuff may end up being contradicted eventually, but so does lots of stuff from onscreen. Revisionism is part of the game. It's a necessary evil. But obscure factoids from the actual shows/films themselves have just as much chance as being contradicted as these "semi-canon" sources.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
You're confusing "canon" with "real". I agree with you that these materials form an important part of the universe, and that they shouldn't be excluded.
However, canon materials are clearly different from official materials. The producers have always tried to rationalize the perceived inconsistencies between TOS and Enterprise -- they never said, "well, parts of TOS aren't canon any more." On the other hand, every time someone mentioned inconsistencies with the official books, they automatically said that these books aren't canon and need not be rationalized. By your argument, they could've easily labeled parts of TOS non-canon, and spent time explaining away the TMs.
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 18:20: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I give up. Some people are just too dense to understand that words have definitions and can't just mean whatever you want them to mean. The spirit of the Jabberwocky will haunt us forever...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Let me edit this for clarity: "Well, from the observer's point of view, Star Trek's 'reality' is whatever you can choose to believe about Trek that hasnt been disproved. That means that until the show goes ahead and states 'There was never a Miranda-class USS Ulysses', it doesnt hurt anything for us to treat it like it was canon. The only non-canon points that can't be believed as part of Star Trek 'reality' are ones that are directly contradicted by filmed Trek from TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR and the movies (ENT too, supposedly).
So basically, we may never have a chance to perceive a canonical view of SF in the 2350s, so it doesnt hurt to regard a backstory from a game as fact, simply because theres little or no chance of it being contradicted. Ditto with those crew histories... we're never going to see Carey again, so why bother saying that history isn't correct?"
ok i removed two inappropriate uses of the word 'canon' but my point remains.. if non-canon sources fill in blanks that aren't contradicted by canon Trek, and probably never will be, i dont feel it hurts to acknowledge them. Especially since much of the Star Trek licensed 'non-canon' adventures are far superior to Trek thats been filmed in the past four years or so. Thats my opinion, not the fact, but what is factual is that the filmed Trek has left behind eras like the 2350s and characters like Carey, so i think that officially licensed Paramount material like the games should be given credence until directly contradicted. If for some reason the next movie features a flashback to Carey's early career (it could happen!) and disproves the game, then we can say 'Damn! the game was wrong!' but until then, its a moot point..
Oh, and this is just too much fun, i have to go ahead and be a smartass.. let's go to the blooper reel:
quote:I adhere to my own cannon rules.
Like dont point it at the wrong guys, clean it between firings, cover your ears?
quote:Every Trekkie/Trekker has their own right to adhere to their forms of cannon.
Just dont use that superglue that stings my eyes
quote:To force a concept of cannon on another, is like me trying force you to be not gay or to be gay.
I believe Napoleon was forcing cannons on others.. not sure about making them be gay also.. well, he was French...
quote:My cannon rules might contradict what you feel is cannon.
Hey as long as it blows away many advancing soldiers, we can all get behind the cannon issue
quote:But most Trekkies/Trekkers will adhere to the basic princible of what you see in the movies and on TV is cannon, everything else is not said by Roddenbery.
Actually, for TV they might not show you cannon. Sometimes they use small plastic mock-ups of cannons because real cannons are expensive and heavy
quote:Personally my cannon is what is seen on TV, then to fill in the blanks left in the TV shows and movies, I use semi-cannon and extremely good non-cannon
like catapults and the such..
quote:Now this might be Satan worshiping, but thats just me.
My spine is pierced and I'm totally into Satan!
I need to sleep.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
