ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

What do you consider canon?

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 2:13 pm

I've had a few conversation here and on other sites and I've noticed that the answer differes with everyone.


Officially, canon is as seen and heard in the series/films, but some consider outside sources as casnon as well.Whats your guys take on the issue?


Photobucket

Cpt_krk_wna-b

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 365

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 2:30 pm

Every Series and Movie


The 2009 is canon, and, as explained in the movie, changed the events of what should have happened.


So it's a reboot, but it's a self-aware reboot, making it canon.


And I don't know about the books.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 2:42 pm

Quote: Cpt_krk_wna-b @ Feb. 17 2012, 2:30 pm

>

>Every Series and Movie

>The 2009 is canon, and, as explained in the movie, changed the events of what should have happened.

>So it's a reboot, but it's a self-aware reboot, making it canon.

>And I don't know about the books.

>
Not really the responce I was looking for.


I was just wondering what other sources some consider canon.


production notes, creator statements and so on


Photobucket

Cpt_krk_wna-b

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 365

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 2:47 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Feb. 17 2012, 2:42 pm

Quote: Cpt_krk_wna-b @ Feb. 17 2012, 2:30 pm

>

>

>Every Series and Movie

>The 2009 is canon, and, as explained in the movie, changed the events of what should have happened.

>So it's a reboot, but it's a self-aware reboot, making it canon.

>And I don't know about the books.

>
Not really the responce I was looking for.

I was just wondering what other sources some consider canon.

production notes, creator statements and so on


Well then, way to ruin all of my fun!


PS, kidding


Also, if the director/producer says it's true, then I would consider it to be true.


Annie Lennox traveled the seven seas. I, on the other hand, have traveled all 139 seas.

bvbpl

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 189

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 2:47 pm

If it didn't make it to the screen then it's not canon.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 3:07 pm

So anyway I know what is official "canon" (movies and tv) and I know what it means ("Thou Shalt Not Contradict!") but I don't really think it should be taken as seriously as some people seem to take it. The term itself implies some kind of sacred doctrine!


Okay, so that's the official version. And probably one that people who want to write within the Star Trek universe should -- at the very least, loosely -- follow.


My personal version: Whatever each fan / reader / viewer / audience member wishes to incorporate into their "reality" of the Star Trek universe is valid. And this "canon" relates to that validity. However, if another person wishes to contradict this -- then by that definition, they are entitled to do so. Ultimately Star Trek is fiction and the experience of reading for example is ultimately of no value if the reader cannot incorporate (at the very least, temporarily) the events and characters therein to his / her own personal "reality".


It is not history in the sense of even lost and forgotten events being literally true.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 3:44 pm

TOS, TAS (despite what people claim roddenberry said, i don't see what the problem is) and the first 6 movies


probably also TNG and /or STY / DS9 - i don't know enough about them - definitely NOT JJ abrams


"There are always alternatives" Spock

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 4:02 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>The only other arguable source of canon was the mouth of Gene Roddenberry himself. The Animated Series is considered not a part of canon because he said so.

>
I would personally love to accept the weord of God, but Rodenberry once said he would like to discount most of the 2nd film, and Spocks death from canon


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 5:23 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>I never heard he didn't approve of the end of The Wrath of Khan.

>I DID hear that he once dubbed The Final Frontier "apocryphal" and that he was the one who objected to Saavik being a traitor in The Undiscovered Country, which led to the creation of Lt. Valeris. If I remember right, he didn't even create the character of Saavik!

>
I read an article which reported he didnt approve of TWOK because it featured "revenge" emotions in both Khan and Kirk.that he didnt like the idea of Killing Spock, and even more hated the idea of bringing him back


I heard the same about Trek 5


Photobucket

TheDriver

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1652

Report this Feb. 17 2012, 7:30 pm

Like OtakuJo, I definitely believe in "personal canon." For instance, Babylon 5 ended with Season 4 (I'll also include the "In the Beginning" made-for-TV movie) ... and the animated Transformers saga ended with Transformers: The Movie ... and 21 Jump Street ended with Season 2. I mean, there are instances when franchises "jump the shark," and I simply refuse to acknowledge the poor material as part of my "personal canon."


As a comicbook fan (for pretty much my entire life), I live by this doctrine. Otherwise, I would go insane. Ha.


That said...


My "official" outlook on, say, Star Trek's canon is this:


Anything seen on screen (TV and movies) is indeed canon. Anything seen on screen that was not given a name or description, yet was given a name or description in designer/production notes? Canon. (This includes "technical manuals" written by the folks who worked on the various series.)


Deleted plot points? Not canon.


Novels? Not canon.


Comicbooks? Not canon.


Video games? Not canon.


Fanfic? Obviously not canon.


TAS was seen on screen and does not seem to conflict with anything we witnessed in the films. (In fact, the Caitians make an appearance in Star Trek IV.) So yeah, TAS should be viewed as canon.


"Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast."

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Feb. 18 2012, 2:17 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>And that should be corrected.

>


Make TAS canon or correct the series?


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Feb. 19 2012, 7:25 am

Quote: OtakuJo @ Feb. 18 2012, 2:17 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>And that should be corrected.

>

Make TAS canon or correct the series?



Sorry if I've misunderstood but if you mean correct the TAS series, how do you mean? Ok, I've still only watched about half of it, but I've not yet seen anything that contradicts anything else?

"There are always alternatives" Spock

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Feb. 19 2012, 8:24 am

I think there's good canon and bad canon. TOS-TNG-DS9 = good canon. voyager and enterprise and animated series = iffy canon.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Feb. 19 2012, 12:55 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>I think there's good canon and bad canon. TOS-TNG-DS9 = good canon. voyager and enterprise and animated series = iffy canon.

>

How do you define "iffy canon"? Why would Voyager be "iffy" if it is part of the same progression of TOS-TNG-DS9?


I think the whole premise of "iffy canon" runs something like, "If I didn't like it, it never happened." Which is fine on an individual viewer basis (I often make believe that Winn and Dukat never shacked up together) -- not so much if writers also adopted the same principle.


Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

tribblenator999

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3818

Report this Feb. 19 2012, 1:52 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>And that should be corrected.

>

Make TAS canon or correct the series?

Make The Animated Series canon.


 


http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/6-reasons-star-trek-voyager-worked.html


these are the 6 reasons why I think voyager failed besides the weak canon i mentioned earlier.


"take us out"...

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: 22123magic

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum