If it fits is completely irrelevant when it comes to the question of being canon.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Star Trek Franchise |OT| To Boldly Go.....
- Thread starter Deleted member 3812
- Start date
Doesn't mean much. There are hundreds of officially produced books, are they canon? Are all the officially produced videogames canon? May have been their intent as creators, but it was not the result as it just doesn't fit. Death of the author etc.
Last edited:
Star Wars handled it in a pretty specific manner by establishing what materials outside of the main movies were and were not canon (to the point where after the Disney purchase they changed the definition to exclude a lot of stuff that previously was considered canon or semi-canon). Not sure if Star Trek does the same, but I imagine someone at CBS/Paramount have some ideas about this.
Re: death of the author, I think that's a valid stance to take, but I feel like that taking a hardline stance on canon as something that can't be established by the author (or else ignored completely) just means the concept of "canon" doesn't exist. As a reader you're free to decide whatever elements of the franchise are canon to you or not, and justify potential contradictions using whatever connective tissue you like.
It's not if canon does or doesn't exist, it's probably being used in the wrong context. It's more what continuity it belongs to. I see Star Wars as two continuities, the original (now called Legends, I think?) and the new. Both are canon, just separate.
I see Trek the same, it's all canon but I (and a lot of people) don't believe it is the same continuity as 'Prime' universe, same as Kelvin.
Ohhhh, I see what you're getting at. Got confused.
I can't imagine much appetite on anyone's part for too many parallel continuities, so I feel like that alone would make all these new shows part of the Prime universe. I assume no one's making anything new for the Kelvin universe at this point.
The interpretation of a lot of people is seeing redesigned Klingons after 35 years of consistency (and which was acknowledged on DS9 and explained on Enterprise), redesigned iconic ships (not minor changes like the Enterprise, but completely unrecognisable things like Bird of Prey or D7), redesigned visuals (remember TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all visited these eras and kept the look identical as original, STD is breaking this consistency like those shows never did), technology other shows have made a point doesn't exist in that era etc etc, they interpret all this as being a different continuity.
Unlike minor continuity errors like missing a line some other show said that conflicts with another line, which you can fairly interpret as an error and not an attempt to be different, STD seems to have gone out of its way and made an intentional attempt to be different, ignore establish things and break continuity. Well it worked, many now interpret it as a different continuity, and that is where it 'actually happens'.
Edit: was typing this while you replied above. Was trying clarify but I see you got it.
For Star Trek the current rule is that all live action series and movies are canon, everything else is not. This might change with the new animated series, we'll see.
But it's important to remember that what is and isn't canon isn't important unless you write a novel or a game aka tie in media. Tie in media have to adhere to canonical material and cannot contradict or add to it. Writers of canonical material can do whatever the fuck they want.
As a fan it doesn't matter, you either enjoy a story or you don't.
That reminds me, STO has announced its new update, featuring...
Guess that's why they got her actress onboard.
Guess that's why they got her actress onboard.
Why has STO never featured any Captains? Too costly to hire? Only thing they done is I think a badly voiced Sisko impersonation speaking out of the wormhole for like 2 words.That reminds me, STO has announced its new update, featuring...
Guess that's why they got her actress onboard.
Thanks for explaining further. I see what you mean. I agree, a lot of the changes in S1 of disco are odd, especially the changes to the Klingons. I've often thought that the series makes more sense as a sequel series than a prequel, but I'm willing to wait and see a Fuller-less season 2 proceeds.
Almost certainly cost. Plus that's not even a Sisko impersonator, rather an old voice clip from the show - they did the same with Odo before they brought back the cast sans Sisko proper.
That's the dumb thing about it. In the original series basically nothing required being a prequel besides the "here's the adopted sister we never talked about" connection for Burnham. Set it in the 25th century and two-thirds of the issues with the show go away instantly.
Instead they made it a prequel, and now we're getting Star Wars level "it's a tiny universe" syndrome with Spock and Pike and the Enterprise.
I mean, the familial connections are rather stupid, but the fleet is only but so big, and the Enterprise is the flagship, so I don't really think it popping up everywhere is all that amazing.
Star Trek Discovery is 100% part of the Prime Universe canon. We have been told this officially by the production and the studio.
It is as canon to the Prime timeline as TOS and TNG. This is undisputable fact. It is not open to opinion. The production studio that owns the franchise says its Prime. Your opinion is irrelevant to the fact the production is officially in the Prime Timeline.
For example, Star Trek Online was never classified as canonical. The studio behind Star Trek, however, has made it 100% official on the record statements that Discovery is part of the Prime Timeline.
Fan annoyances don't overrule the actual production. We don't get to overrule the production on what is canon. You can have your own "head canon" like many people do in fandom, but that doesn't change what is official and that is Star Trek Discovery is part of the Prime timeline and part of that canon no different than TOS, TND, DS9, etc.
Last edited:
Yes that's kind of annoying, but at least most of season 1 included all new ships with the exception of the Enterprise at the end and the Defiant in the Mirror Universe. That's why I want the red star things to be something completely new, like the spore drive was.
They just changed the makeup, like Star Trek the Motion Picture did (before DS9 and Enterprise made up an excuse for it). There doesn't need to be a story reason for it.
It's like that old saying "If it's old and broken 1960's low-budget TV mess, fix it. If it's fixed and popular peak Star Trek, break it while arrogantly trying to prove how much better you are than peak Star Trek."
I think they said that they might try and make up a story excuse for the new makeup during Season 2 of Discovery. Something about these Klingons being the cousins of the Klingons everyone knew and liked. Still Klingon, but they look different. Or something like that.
How will they explain the hair? Weren't the customs also different?
Yup (it appears this is an official release)
Still look like they're made out of sculpey but it's certainly better.
Google Death of the Author, because you clearly do not understand. Creator intent, opinion and statements are not used to judge a work, only the work itself is. A large part of the fanbase have judged it not in continuity with good reasons, and it a perfectly valid judgement. Death of the author is not 'head canon' or "I don't like this so it not canon" (also head canon) and there are a good amount of reasons to only judge a work on itself.
I know what Death of Author is. That has nothing to do with this. We aren't "interpreting" anything. There is no author intent at work here. It's an official production of the timeline. There is nothing about intent there. This is what the is. That's like saying death of the author means we can claim Star Trek The Next Generation actual part of Star Wars and not Star Trek because the authors "intent" was its Star Trek is irrelevant
It's officially canon. Fans do not get to decide what is deemed official canon of the franchise.
You can have your own opinions your own fan canons, but as it stands this is is an official production of the prime timeline.
You say you understand but keep making statements to the opposite. Author intent doesn't matter, only the work does. Doesn't matter if an official production. That has nothing to do with it. At all.
Explanation per the actress is that at this point Klingons are supposed to shave their heads in a time of conflict, and since they've been in such for the last hundred years, that became the default. The explanation in turn for later works is that, of course, customs change over time, and eventually the whole 'shave your head' thing was simply lost to a Klingon people who became relatively accustomed to peace.
Well, in TNG Mott comments how much of a pleasure it is to cut Klingon hair because of how luxurious it is, so maybe the Klingon barbers union mounted a massive and successful campaign to abolish head shaving.
The work is canon. There is nothing about Discovery that breaks canon. It very much fits the Prime timeline. This is sci-fi we are talking about. There is always an explanation. There is nothing about it so far that makes it impossible to accept as prime timeline. It's canon, it's prime timeline. Just as much prime as DS9 and treated as such by CBS.
ItI mean the production of Star Trek has made it pretty clear since day one. All film and tv content is canon. All non film and tv content is not canon. Everything is part of the prime universe except the Kelvin films which they make explicitly clear.
Paramount and CBS have been very clear about this nearly the entire run of franchise. You don't get to change it just because you disagree with their decisions as a fan.
Last edited:
A lot of people enjoy it (myself included), check out the thread
https://www.resetera.com/threads/star-trek-discovery-ot-to-boldly-go-into-the-new-streaming-era.708/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/star-trek-discovery-ot-to-boldly-go-into-the-new-streaming-era.708/
Absolutely. Discovery is one of the best first seasons in Trek. In terms of first seasons (first seasons only!) I think it's second only to TOS.
Death of the Author is just an opinion, it's not intrinsically authoritative. There are other opinions, and your disagreement with them doesn't invalidate them.
If the current license holder of the IP states that something counts as "canon" then it is. If the license transfers to another corporate entity and it decides that some things no longer count, and new things that it produces do count, then it will be so. As the license holder, you get to make those decisions. As a consumer of IP you don't, because you don't own it. And unlike the opinions of a 20th century Frenchman, that's actually authoritative, because you're empowered to do pretty much whatever you want with your own property.
Death of the author makes nobody authoritative, not even the creator. The creator's view is just an opinion too, as valid as anyone else's judging a work. The creator only has an intent.
If I said I'm making a Superman fan film, then make a film about a guy in a red and blue webbed suit firing web from his wrists and swinging from buildings, anyone who watches it and concludes it's a Spiderman fan film would be valid in their opinion. My intent and statement as the creator that it is a Superman fan film is meaningless.
Your comparison makes no sense since you don't own the IP. It's a fan film. CBS owns the IP. They decide what is canon. It's that simple. You can't go into a thread about people ranking the films of the MCU and include a random fan film you made in the rankings. We have IP, we have license holders who own the IP. They decide what is official media and what isn't. They are called fan films for a reason. They aren't official productions.
There is literally nothing less or more canon about Discovery than TNG or TOS or what have you. You may not like it but your opinion is meaningless as you have no stake in the IP. They own. They control its content.
It's canon. It's part of the prime timeline. That's facts. If we start deciding official content from the IPs owner doesn't matter then I decide the intent of CBS that Picard is a human is wrong. He is actually James Bond from the Bond series and is time traveling. Oh and DS9 is now part of the Kelvin timeline because I said so.
You don't get to decide what is official canon from the IP. You don't have to like it or watch it or include it in your personal headcanon but it's not your call. You don't own the franchise or make the official content.
Fan films are completely different than official productions. Not even close to comparable. The license holder controls the brand.
Last edited:
Talk about fail to understand the point.
If I said the film was about Super Long, a guy who can stretch his limbs and is my creation, but the film had no such character and instead was a guy called Super Hot who can set himself a flame, also my creation, would you understand?
CBS own STD, they do not own people's opinion on it and don't get to tell them what their opinion of it is.
Just cos your having trouble, a Trek example too.
If CBS came out and said there was no Dominion war on DS9, are you going to say "Well they own it so I guess there never was!" or are you going to point at the countless episodes about it and say "Sorry, I disagree, you're wrong CBS"?
That is an absurd comparison because DS9 has that war. There is nothing about Discovery that directly contracts the Prime timeline and is impossible to explain (it's sci-fi after all, people were all bent out of shape over the Klingon ridges for years). Discovery is an official production of the prime timeline. That's it.
Your opinion can be you don't like it or don't want it in your head canon but you cont get to decide things officially or definitively. Only the IP license holder can.
While I agree with things you are saying about the theory of Death of the Author, he isn't contradicting you. Death of the Author is irrelevant to canon. They are different things. He is talking about canon, you are talking about the messages and meaning of a work of art. They have nothing to do with each other.
^^^ That's all he is saying. That it's not a relevant concept to this.
I think that "death of the author" and "canon" are two different but related concepts.
"Death of the author" is an idea which says that the author's wishes and intent are irrelevant. All that matters is what the audience reads into the text. Like, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is explicitly a Christian allegory, but you can choose to ignore what CS Lewis has to say about that and read it as a simple fantasy story. The Lord of the Rings is explicitly not an allegory, but you can choose to ignore JRR Tolkien and project your own religious beliefs upon it. JK Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, but she never actually wrote that in the Harry Potter books, so the audience is free to accept or deny Rowling's word on that matter. "Death of the author" is an option, not a rule. Nobody is required to ascribe to death of the author, nor are they required to do it at all times.
"Canon" is different. "Canon" and "non-canon" basically describe "real" and "not real", but non-canon stuff exists, so how can we say it's not real? We can't say it's not real, which is why we have a more specific term, "not canon". Sometimes an author might make two different versions of the same story, like how Tolkien originally said in The Hobbit that Gollum gave Bilbo the Ring with little hesitation, but a later version of the story said that Gollum freaked out about it, because the Ring was given greater importance in the sequels. Tolkien says that the first version is non-canon and the second version is canon (because that supports the sequel), so that's how it is.
Dragonball Z saw the rights-holders make a filler story while they waited for the author to deliver, which involved Krillin finding a girlfriend, but then the author got around to giving Krillin a girlfriend, and he rejected the filler story, making it non-canon.
George Lucas sold the rights to his sequel trilogy and let another author (Timothy Zahn) write it, but then he struck upon the idea that he can have multiple levels of canon. His own canon is superior to the Expanded Universe canon. Then he sold the franchise to Disney, and Disney purged his EU canon, building a new canon out of his George-canon (despite jettisoning the scripts he gave them for his own sequel trilogy, and letting new authors write their own George-canon sequels).
Fan-fiction is often given the label of non-canon, even though it had nothing to do with any official production. But it was inspired by the original text.
The rules of "canon" don't seem to be strict, and seem to be made up by whoever has the power, but it's entirely within the audience's power to reject anyone's definition of "canon", for any reason. This is called "head canon". It's the canon that exists exclusive to you, because it exists inside your own head. You can decide that DBZ filler arcs are canon, because you really loved that one episode where Goku and Piccolo learned how to drive cars. Or you can decide that that's the only piece of DBZ filler that can stay. You can decide that Disney's version of George-canon is the only real Star Wars canon. You can decide to reject Disney's sequels because they did George dirty. You can reject the prequel trilogy and accept the Disney sequels. You can reject everything after Return of the Jedi. Everything is fair game inside of your own head canon, because you're the one who makes the "canon" rules there, and you get to decide the rules, and you can make the rules better, or worse, or even embrace conflicting rules.
"Head canon" is very similar to "death of the author", but death of the author is about how we interpret text, while canon is about which text we choose to interpret.
Gene Roddenberry is dead. He can't give his opinion on canon, although it's not clear that his opinion on canon would ever be considered definitive. Star Trek the Animated Series is probably not canon, while Deep Space Nine (often cited as a betrayal of everything Gene stood for) most assuredly is. But Paramount is still around. And Paramount hired JJ Abrams and Kurtzman&Orci to make a reboot movie. A reboot would normally jettison the existing canon and build a new one, but they did a time travel thing which gave them room to make their own thing while shuffling the old canon off to a side timeline. That's remarkably respectful of the existing canon. Star Trek 2009 was a reboot, and yet the old canon is still canon (note: this doesn't mean that plot holes or story conflicts will never exist).
Kurtzman is still around since Star Trek 2009 and still producing more Trek. He has the right to add to Star Trek canon and to build upon it, as much right as anyone else who worked on Star Trek has had. He specifically notes which timeline his works are placed in (I don't know which, the timelines are confusing, and bad, and I wasn't paying attention). If the Picard show takes place in the "Prime Timeline", shortly after the events seen in All Good Things (minus Q's timeline tinkering, plus the black holes and red matter shit from Star Trek 2009), then the Picard show takes place in the Prime Timeline. Kurtzman's work on the series is canon, and if he wants to move from the Kelvin Timeline back to the Prime Timeline, that's his perogative. It's entirely possible to reject Kurtzman's work on the show, but that would be a case of head canon, not death of the author.
"Death of the author" is an idea which says that the author's wishes and intent are irrelevant. All that matters is what the audience reads into the text. Like, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe is explicitly a Christian allegory, but you can choose to ignore what CS Lewis has to say about that and read it as a simple fantasy story. The Lord of the Rings is explicitly not an allegory, but you can choose to ignore JRR Tolkien and project your own religious beliefs upon it. JK Rowling says that Dumbledore is gay, but she never actually wrote that in the Harry Potter books, so the audience is free to accept or deny Rowling's word on that matter. "Death of the author" is an option, not a rule. Nobody is required to ascribe to death of the author, nor are they required to do it at all times.
"Canon" is different. "Canon" and "non-canon" basically describe "real" and "not real", but non-canon stuff exists, so how can we say it's not real? We can't say it's not real, which is why we have a more specific term, "not canon". Sometimes an author might make two different versions of the same story, like how Tolkien originally said in The Hobbit that Gollum gave Bilbo the Ring with little hesitation, but a later version of the story said that Gollum freaked out about it, because the Ring was given greater importance in the sequels. Tolkien says that the first version is non-canon and the second version is canon (because that supports the sequel), so that's how it is.
Dragonball Z saw the rights-holders make a filler story while they waited for the author to deliver, which involved Krillin finding a girlfriend, but then the author got around to giving Krillin a girlfriend, and he rejected the filler story, making it non-canon.
George Lucas sold the rights to his sequel trilogy and let another author (Timothy Zahn) write it, but then he struck upon the idea that he can have multiple levels of canon. His own canon is superior to the Expanded Universe canon. Then he sold the franchise to Disney, and Disney purged his EU canon, building a new canon out of his George-canon (despite jettisoning the scripts he gave them for his own sequel trilogy, and letting new authors write their own George-canon sequels).
Fan-fiction is often given the label of non-canon, even though it had nothing to do with any official production. But it was inspired by the original text.
The rules of "canon" don't seem to be strict, and seem to be made up by whoever has the power, but it's entirely within the audience's power to reject anyone's definition of "canon", for any reason. This is called "head canon". It's the canon that exists exclusive to you, because it exists inside your own head. You can decide that DBZ filler arcs are canon, because you really loved that one episode where Goku and Piccolo learned how to drive cars. Or you can decide that that's the only piece of DBZ filler that can stay. You can decide that Disney's version of George-canon is the only real Star Wars canon. You can decide to reject Disney's sequels because they did George dirty. You can reject the prequel trilogy and accept the Disney sequels. You can reject everything after Return of the Jedi. Everything is fair game inside of your own head canon, because you're the one who makes the "canon" rules there, and you get to decide the rules, and you can make the rules better, or worse, or even embrace conflicting rules.
"Head canon" is very similar to "death of the author", but death of the author is about how we interpret text, while canon is about which text we choose to interpret.
Gene Roddenberry is dead. He can't give his opinion on canon, although it's not clear that his opinion on canon would ever be considered definitive. Star Trek the Animated Series is probably not canon, while Deep Space Nine (often cited as a betrayal of everything Gene stood for) most assuredly is. But Paramount is still around. And Paramount hired JJ Abrams and Kurtzman&Orci to make a reboot movie. A reboot would normally jettison the existing canon and build a new one, but they did a time travel thing which gave them room to make their own thing while shuffling the old canon off to a side timeline. That's remarkably respectful of the existing canon. Star Trek 2009 was a reboot, and yet the old canon is still canon (note: this doesn't mean that plot holes or story conflicts will never exist).
Kurtzman is still around since Star Trek 2009 and still producing more Trek. He has the right to add to Star Trek canon and to build upon it, as much right as anyone else who worked on Star Trek has had. He specifically notes which timeline his works are placed in (I don't know which, the timelines are confusing, and bad, and I wasn't paying attention). If the Picard show takes place in the "Prime Timeline", shortly after the events seen in All Good Things (minus Q's timeline tinkering, plus the black holes and red matter shit from Star Trek 2009), then the Picard show takes place in the Prime Timeline. Kurtzman's work on the series is canon, and if he wants to move from the Kelvin Timeline back to the Prime Timeline, that's his perogative. It's entirely possible to reject Kurtzman's work on the show, but that would be a case of head canon, not death of the author.
As I said in a post above, canon is not the right word. It's continuity.
Prime Universe is canon.
Kelvin universe is canon.
Star Trek Online is canon.
Novels are canon.
Videogames are canon.
But to their own continuities (or not! It totally depends on your interpretation), and a huge amount of people believe STD doesn't fit with Prime, with good reasons. Same as those who argue that Trek 09 erases Prime timeline because time travel in Trek doesn't work like shown in 09, with many episodes and even a movie all about changes to the past altering the timeline, not creating alternate ones like 09 does. And it's a valid view based on the history of Trek. Some people see the novels as fitting in fine with the Prime universe and take it as same continuity, others don't. Neither are wrong.
The novels, STO, and video games have never been considered canon. They have always been clear about that unlike the old pre-Disney Lucasfilm.
And we know that Trek 09 did not erase the Prime timeline because we have been told the Picard show takes place in the Prime timeline showing the aftermath of Romulus being blown up.
Yep. The only thing that's considered canon is anything that officially appears on screen.
Yep, for such a big franchise Star Trek has always been very clear about canon. If it's in a film or tv show it's canon. If it's in any other form of media be it a book, video game, comic, etc it is not.
Actually a lot of stuff from books and other not on screen stuff was once fully canon to the TOS continuity, as TNG grew in popularity it was decided to 'take back' control from these third parties and try to ignore it (while at the same time reusing it because fans liked it and saw is as canon).
Also if wanna go with owners having final say, how's this.
http://www.startrek.com/database_article/cloaking-device-klingon
Similar to the Romulan cloaking device, the Klingons received this technology from the Romulans circa 2268, when the two civilizations shared a political alliance. The Klingons outfitted many ships, particularly their Bird-of-Prey type vessels with the devices.
This is official material by the owners of Star Trek and 100% canon, has been for around 50 years, it also completely contradicts STD. You cannot say it isn't canon because The Enterprise Incident shows it is. Conflict of canons.
Or not, if wanna go by death of the author and just decide one doesn't fit the others continuity so isn't part of it.
I really don't think you understand what death of author means. It has nothing to do with canon. Retcons exist in big media franchises like this all the time. It's sci-fi, there is an explanation for just about anything.
And yes, I can say Discovery is canon with TOS because the owners of the IP who create the content say it is. The licence holder determines canon. You may not like it, you may not want it in your own headcanon that is fine but you don't get to overrule official productions with your personal opinions as definitive statements.
And yes, I can say Discovery is canon with TOS because the owners of the IP who create the content say it is. The licence holder determines canon. You may not like it, you may not want it in your own headcanon that is fine but you don't get to overrule official productions with your personal opinions as definitive statements.
Then stop using the word canon. Canon means approved by an official source. The Catholic Church has one canon of books in the Bible. Protestants have a different list of canonical books. (And both overlap with and differ from Jewish canon.)
Canon is literally about what an authority figure says.
So, I fully support you dropping the use of the word and not arguing against people who correctly point out that canon is something else.