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

Is the storyline of STO considered canon ? or non-canon ?

Report this
Created by: mel@warp10

mel@warp10

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Mar. 14 2012, 10:11 am

I was just wondering , as there is no more tv series already and STO is sort of an continuation of the star trek universe , should it be considered canon ? or non-canon ?

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Mar. 14 2012, 9:34 pm

The game is non-canon. However, the storyline is interesting enough to be considered a continuation, as long as it's not contradicted by a canon source.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

mel@warp10

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Mar. 15 2012, 1:14 am

well , as far as its goes it does not contradict the canon sources 

TX_TREKKER

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 193

Report this Mar. 16 2012, 1:17 pm

I would say that STO respects the ST canon. I wouldn't exactly consider it canon as the purpose of STO is pretty much open ended.

OneDamnMinuteAdmiral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1401

Report this Mar. 18 2012, 9:01 pm

Although I normally don't care either way I have to say no on the basis of how customizable it is. Everyone is in different uniforms and it has ships you can use that are well past their prime.


Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Mar. 19 2012, 12:17 pm

Nothing that is not on film is canon.  Period.  STO adds continuity but the continuity is different than that of the novel relaunch series.  How could it be canon since key events happen at the hands of the player?


Though STO can be fun, the writing is often of poor quality.  If I have to choose between novel or STO continuity, I'll choose the novels without a doubt.


 


And THANK GOD that hideous 1701-FAIL is not canon.  That monstrousity has all the elegance of the elephant man and flies in the face of canon starship design trends.


mel@warp10

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Mar. 19 2012, 12:21 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 19 2012, 12:17 pm

>

>Nothing that is not on film is canon.  Period.  STO adds continuity but the continuity is different than that of the novel relaunch series.  How could it be canon since key events happen at the hands of the player?

>Though STO can be fun, the writing is often of poor quality.  If I have to choose between novel or STO continuity, I'll choose the novels without a doubt.

>And THANK GOD that hideous 1701-FAIL is not canon.  That monstrousity has all the elegance of the elephant man and flies in the face of canon starship design trends.

>


 


well i kind of have to agree , it would be good if they had a tv series or movie to continue , also on the Enterprise-F part , quite true

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Mar. 19 2012, 12:33 pm

STO is enjoyable for what it is.  And I enjoyed some of the continuity they added such as resurrecting Data and what happened to Thomas Riker.


I also know that Peter David was not consulted in the use of Mackenzie Calhoun's use and doesn't like what they did with him.


Enjoy STO for what it is but don't be disappointed when later canon material ignores it.  Though I don't foresee any future canon material to challenge it.


Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Mar. 19 2012, 3:30 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 19 2012, 12:17 pm

>

>And THANK GOD that hideous 1701-FAIL is not canon.  That monstrousity has all the elegance of the elephant man and flies in the face of canon starship design trends.

>


Speak for yourself. I like the Odyssey-class. I think it's pretty elegant looking, myself, especially from the back or the top. Still not sure if I like it as an Enterprise, though.


And the Odyssey was designed with Saucer Seperation in mind, hence its necks. Supposedly the space in between them helps with Slipstream or something.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

mel@warp10

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4

Report this Mar. 19 2012, 11:11 pm

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Mar. 19 2012, 3:30 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 19 2012, 12:17 pm

>

>

>And THANK GOD that hideous 1701-FAIL is not canon.  That monstrousity has all the elegance of the elephant man and flies in the face of canon starship design trends.

>

Speak for yourself. I like the Odyssey-class. I think it's pretty elegant looking, myself, especially from the back or the top. Still not sure if I like it as an Enterprise, though.

And the Odyssey was designed with Saucer Seperation in mind, hence its necks. Supposedly the space in between them helps with Slipstream or something.


the change from enterprise-E to enterprise-F is sort of like the change from original enterprise (1701) to the enterprise-A , no much difference , just sort of like a minor upgrade  

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Mar. 20 2012, 8:53 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Mar. 19 2012, 3:30 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 19 2012, 12:17 pm

>

>

>And THANK GOD that hideous 1701-FAIL is not canon.  That monstrousity has all the elegance of the elephant man and flies in the face of canon starship design trends.

>

Speak for yourself. I like the Odyssey-class. I think it's pretty elegant looking, myself, especially from the back or the top. Still not sure if I like it as an Enterprise, though.

And the Odyssey was designed with Saucer Seperation in mind, hence its necks. Supposedly the space in between them helps with Slipstream or something.


How do 2 necks help with saucer seperation?  All previous cruisers have had saucer seperation capability.  Jefferies designed the original with the ability as was mentioned once in TOS.  In fact, seperation is easier with one neck as it means less connection points which means less chance of failure at seperation.  The Galaxy seperated into two craft with rejoining capability with only one neck.  If you look at the original sketches of the Sovereign, Eaves designed it with saucer seperation capability with no neck.


Let me also illustrate with airplanes.  Airplanes were once mostly biwings which gave way to monowings, and now you never see biplanes in a modern aircraft.  Why?  Because one wing is more efficient, less weight, and less drag.  Rockets once had fins for stabilization purposes but modern rockets do this by gimballing the engines, eliminating the fins which eliminates weight and drag.  The aerospace industry has continually tried to simplify air and space craft, as has Starfleet.


As to the arrangement helping with slipstream abilities, this is debunked as well.  Creating a slipstream corridor requires a massive amount of energy so ships utilizing it have a minimal frontal cross-section to minimize the radius of the corrdior.  This is why the species that created the false USS Dauntless had such small ships and why Voyager was able to use slipstream.  Starfleet designs that were designed with Slipstream philosophy, like the Vesta are also narrow in frontal cross section. 


The size of Starfleet capitol ships has been decreasing since the Galaxy as its successor, the Sovereign was smaller, the Vesta is smaller still.  The Odyssey bucks the trend in every way.  Now only does it not follow the Starfleet design evolution but it flies in the face of conventional engineering knowledge.


Phew, that was a good nerd rant.


J Kirk In Texas

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 108

Report this Mar. 20 2012, 10:00 am

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 20 2012, 8:53 am

Quote: Mitchz95 @ Mar. 19 2012, 3:30 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 19 2012, 12:17 pm

>

>

>

>And THANK GOD that hideous 1701-FAIL is not canon.  That monstrousity has all the elegance of the elephant man and flies in the face of canon starship design trends.

>

Speak for yourself. I like the Odyssey-class. I think it's pretty elegant looking, myself, especially from the back or the top. Still not sure if I like it as an Enterprise, though.

And the Odyssey was designed with Saucer Seperation in mind, hence its necks. Supposedly the space in between them helps with Slipstream or something.

How do 2 necks help with saucer seperation?  All previous cruisers have had saucer seperation capability.  Jefferies designed the original with the ability as was mentioned once in TOS.  In fact, seperation is easier with one neck as it means less connection points which means less chance of failure at seperation.  The Galaxy seperated into two craft with rejoining capability with only one neck.  If you look at the original sketches of the Sovereign, Eaves designed it with saucer seperation capability with no neck.

Let me also illustrate with airplanes.  Airplanes were once mostly biwings which gave way to monowings, and now you never see biplanes in a modern aircraft.  Why?  Because one wing is more efficient, less weight, and less drag.  Rockets once had fins for stabilization purposes but modern rockets do this by gimballing the engines, eliminating the fins which eliminates weight and drag.  The aerospace industry has continually tried to simplify air and space craft, as has Starfleet.

As to the arrangement helping with slipstream abilities, this is debunked as well.  Creating a slipstream corridor requires a massive amount of energy so ships utilizing it have a minimal frontal cross-section to minimize the radius of the corrdior.  This is why the species that created the false USS Dauntless had such small ships and why Voyager was able to use slipstream.  Starfleet designs that were designed with Slipstream philosophy, like the Vesta are also narrow in frontal cross section. 

The size of Starfleet capitol ships has been decreasing since the Galaxy as its successor, the Sovereign was smaller, the Vesta is smaller still.  The Odyssey bucks the trend in every way.  Now only does it not follow the Starfleet design evolution but it flies in the face of conventional engineering knowledge.

Phew, that was a good nerd rant.


 




First as this goes as cannon I tend to agree. As long as it doesn't debunk the books then ok. But the way it looks it indeed doesn't look like they are going to conflict with it. But with od class, it is an interesting look. But as Matthias Russell said, it doesn't really have any physical benefit. Except it might have a more powerful warp drive and a bigger ship so it can support larger weapons. But also the structure integrity field would be strained keeping the saucer from being ripped off in a high power turn. Just another problem.




Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Mar. 20 2012, 11:33 am

STo already disagrees with the relaunch books.  In the books, the Borg are gone for good, having been absorbed by the Caeliar and removed from the galaxy (see Star Trek Destiny) and the Romulans, Breen, Tholians, Gorn, and a few others have formed the Typhon Pact.  Donatra is dead.  The Breen are not one species which need refrigeration suits. 


There are already a number of things between the timelines which do not match up.  The biggest, of course, is the status of the Borg.


J Kirk In Texas

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 108

Report this Mar. 20 2012, 12:33 pm

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Mar. 20 2012, 11:33 am

>

>STo already disagrees with the relaunch books.  In the books, the Borg are gone for good, having been absorbed by the Caeliar and removed from the galaxy (see Star Trek Destiny) and the Romulans, Breen, Tholians, Gorn, and a few others have formed the Typhon Pact.  Donatra is dead.  The Breen are not one species which need refrigeration suits. 

>There are already a number of things between the timelines which do not match up.  The biggest, of course, is the status of the Borg.

>


 


Ah, do you think the relaunch books are like what would have happened if we had not lost spock? Basicly if the new movie had not happened? Or is your openion that Star Trek is just not Cannon?


Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Mar. 20 2012, 2:39 pm

Quote: J Kirk In Texas @ Mar. 20 2012, 12:33 pm

>

>Ah, do you think the relaunch books are like what would have happened if we had not lost spock? Basicly if the new movie had not happened? Or is your openion that Star Trek is just not Cannon?

>


Huh? If by "Star Trek" you mean the 2009 movie, that didn't replace the original timeline. The Abramsverse is a divergent timeline that runs alongside the original one. The prime universe is (in-universe, anyway) alive and well.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: DS9_FOREVER!

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