Triaxiansilk.com

Here's the thing, "canon" is a business term. It isn't something we fanfic people made up. There is an actual set up here. I again will use SW's as a reference. LucasArts the company that owns everything that is labled with Star Wars, and when I say "owns" I mean get's paid more money when other companies use it. Determines any and all canon for Star Wars.

Now let me explain... As most people are aware SW's encompasses more than just the movies. There's a whole Expanded Universe commonally known as EU. It involves books, video games, comics, the Cartoon Series and audio. Now all of these things are run through LucasArts submitted, and sent for approval. While GL maintains COMPLETE control over any movie stuff, he let's his staff at LucasArts sift through proposals and then signs off on recommendations. But EVERYTHING that he signs off on is considered canon no exceptions!

And people in the SW's fandom may hate what he does, but nobody would dare say, "oh just because he said Han didn't shoot first doesn't mean he's right." HAN DIDN'T SHOOT FIRST! Why? Because like it or not GL said so. And that my friends is canon.

Same thing with ST like it or hate it, canon isn't about our opinions or what we want. It's about what the creaters approved and the writers did ON SCREEN. So everything that is spoken and shown in the movies and TV is canon. It has nothing to do with us and everything to do with business. We don't get an opinion on what is canon.

I look at it this way, we play with it, they own it. TPTB have defined what they consider to be the official ST canon, the TV series (except the Animated Series) and the movies (except Undiscovered Country). That's a business decision. Anything else is strictly opinions. To TPTB, Trip is dead because *the_abomination* says he's dead.

Look I'm noticing that Trek fans seem to care less about this stuff and understanding how it works than SW's fans. But the two businesses work the same way. It's a standard business model for genre entertainment. The genre defines it's canon and that is that. Nobody has a more complex canon than SW's but that's what makes it easiest to use as an illustration.

Actually, "canon" is a religious term referring to authoritative scripture. Computer science people started using it in the 70's and since there's a lot of overlap between CS and SF, it started being used in the SF world.

And people in the SW's fandom may hate what he does, but nobody would dare say, "oh just because he said Han didn't shoot first doesn't mean he's right." HAN DIDN'T SHOOT FIRST! Why? Because like it or not GL said so. And that my friends is canon.

Who you going to believe? Me or your lyin' eyes?

I'm sorry, I saw that movie in 1977 and Han shot Greedo first.

Now, if you want to talk about "canon" from a business point of view, Lucas and LucasFilm are quite welcome to change things around, retcon, etc. as much as they like. If they come by with a small truckload of cash and say "Please, please please write a Star Wars novel and adhere to our 'canon'" I would say - No Problemo! Greedo shot first! No Problemo!

But, you're setting canon up as not even what was seen - but what TPTB say was seen. That puts canon even farther from "reality" and into the "truthiness" regime. Basically, canon from Lucasfilm is the equivalent of an "Authorized Biography" or "Official History". That's all fine and well, but it doesn't make it TRUE.

That's also contradictory with what's going on at Memory Alpha. From a fan point of view, you have to take Star Wars, as it was shown in 1977, as at least one official point of view. The re-release, where Greedo shot first, is either an alternate universe or the original was an alternate universe. It WAS on the screen, though, and it's not subject to interpretation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1YbFnkZwZk

And I know canon is originally a religous term, it's also a computer science, sci-fi, business, and legal term! One word used for sooooooo many things.

You didn't see the re-release in theaters where Greedo shot first?????????????????? Oh how sad! Sorry but you're wrong they had an artical about it in major news papers at the time. Sorry.

That said I personally refuse to watch the re-release! Because I like Han shooting first too! BUT the OLD versions are no longer canon because GL and LucasArts says they're not, that influences copyright laws, re-distribution, and a host of other things having to do with making money. THAT is what canon is for! Not to please fans.

I am surprised that you wouldn't know about hte re-release though. The original movies as they were in 1977 aren't even sold anymore.

But I should clarify that different Powers that Be define their canon differently. As I said before ST states that "canon is anything shown or said on screen" but they also reserve the right to "retcon" any canon they want. Like saying Undiscovered Country or TAS is not canon. We have it much easier in this fandom. No "pope".

WarpGirl wrote:But I should clarify that different Powers that Be define their canon differently. As I said before ST states that "canon is anything shown or said on screen" but they also reserve the right to "retcon" any canon they want. Like saying Undiscovered Country or TAS is not canon. We have it much easier in this fandom. No "pope".

It maybe interested in this respect that canon in theology are the books that the body of believers in the first century accepted as "the real thing". No pope or church leaders, but a general acceptance which eventueal lead to the official acknowlegment of being canon.

I wouldn't say Undiscovered Country or TAS or even *the_abomination* isn't canon. I know nobody can ever change your mind but the fact remains "did we see Trip die? No." We only saw a HOLOPROGRAMM. And a lousy episode in which Troi commented on an event that she hasn't witness herself and only have read about in history books. Which can be inaccurate. Like she would make a remark about the Romulan war or the Genetic Wars. It's her interpretation.

Panyasan I hope everyone realizes I'm not knocking their opinions. Heck you read my work, you know I've thrown out a ton more canon than just *the_abomination*. My only objective in this debate was to make clear that canon in fandoms has a VERY specific definition and purpose. All of which has NOTHING to do with fans.

We can take or leave any canon we like or dislike. If you want to believe that believe that Trip and T'Pol slept together off and on for months and months, go ahead! If you want to believe that *the_abomination* is nothing but a terrible hologram and Troi is misinformed, go ahead. Be happy! I believe *the_abomination* NEVER happened at all because it took an episode of TNG that I loved and shredded it into a pathetic waste.

My only point is this, canon is not defined by US. It is defined by the company that approves the writers ideas. We get no say in it. They can change it at will.

Dear, you totally missed my point I was trying to make and you are ignoring the basic question of this discussion "How important is Star Trek canon to you".

I know what canon in ST is. I know the owners and creators of canon. I know the facts of canon. But the facts are not always crystal clear. That is my point.

By the way, for a good discussion you don't make fun of someone's views. You don't repeated your statements again and again. You at least show some interest in what that other person has to say. That's how a forum can work and be a nice and safe place for everybody to post and bring their views to the table. Because everybody is important. That's my "canon" and I am sticking to it.

It wasn't my intention to make fun of anyone. I was being perfectly sincere when I said that anyone can believe whatever they want too. I guess I just don't understand how a person can say the facts aren't clear. If you saw or heard it on TV or a movie screen then it's canon. If you did not see or hear it on the TV or movie screen it is not canon. And any canon cand be changed by TPTB. No confusion. The place where things get sticky is whether you like what they did or not. I didn't make the business model. And this isn't my opinion, it's what Gene Rodenberry said many many times. So I really don't get it.

It's not that I'm not interested in what people think or how they feel. I just do not understand. And I am trying.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or mean spirited. I'm not trying to make people angry or anything else. If you mean my new sig, that's a quote from my favorite TV show. That's all. But I'll fix it.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying you were intentionally said something mean. Bottom line is that you still not getting my point, because you don't get into the subject. Guess there isn't a way I can make it clear to you what I was trying to say. So I give up.

WarpGirl wrote:Here's the thing, "canon" is a business term. It isn't something we fanfic people made up. There is an actual set up here.

You may be thinking about copyright and trademark law. That defines very clearly who has the right to use these fictional characters and concepts and publish stories/TV shows/films/books etc about them.

That is quite separate from canon. Canon isn't a business term and I don't believe you'll find it defined in any legal books. It simply refers to the concept that there is an authoritative definition. It is a matter for each of us to decide who to accept as the ultimate authority in a given subject. By convention, for published works like this, it refers to the publisher. It's a pretty strong convention and you'll certainly confuse people if you use it to refer to anything else, but it's still only a convention. Canon is whatever you decide (singly or collectively) to accept as the authoritative definition.

Hmmmm......Andorians! They're almost as bad as software engineers!

WarpGirl wrote:You didn't see the re-release in theaters where Greedo shot first?????????????????? Oh how sad! Sorry but you're wrong they had an artical about it in major news papers at the time. Sorry.

So what am I wrong about? The original had Han shooting Greedo and the re-release had Greedo shooting and missing and then Han shot Greedo. Did I miss the memory eraser at the re-release? Sorry, my theater didn't have that.

Going to see Star Wars in 1977 (at the Coronet Theater in San Francisco) remains the best theater experience of my life. I was 11 years old, loved science fiction and had no idea what the movie was about. I was completely blown away. Nothing since has come close. A large part of it was that Star Wars raised the bar, incredibly, for science fiction on the screen. Add to that walking into it cold (I went with my friends, we knew there was a lot of buzz about the film, but we had absolutely no idea what the plot was. They weren't even running TV ads for it at that point) and with no expectations and it was mind-blowing.

The re-release was disappointing because I hadn't seen the original on the big screen since that summer. I was hoping to at least see the same movie!

So, where we often wind up in these little discussions is you seem to start off in one corner and then start moving around.

You were initially after Asso because he's not 100% appreciative of Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha is a fan-driven site that records not only "facts" (that is things that were directly, unequivocally shown on the screen) but it also has some amount of "conclusions" that are based on facts. They may be completely logical conclusions, but they are conclusions. There's also a certain amount of inference. This is not a value judgement on Memory Alpha, it's just the way that I see it.

You used Memory Alpha as a strong example of "canon"

Then, you were off into Star Wars, the definition of canon and now, canon, according to you, is whatever The Powers That Be define it as, regardless of what's seen on the screen.

That's kind of a direct contradiction of Memory Alpha's version of canon.

Now, the original questions was, "How important is Star Trek "canon" to you?" I'll pose a new one - why should I care about what canon is? As you pointed out, Lucas tries to keep close control over what is and isn't "canon" but that's largely with regard to the business and what's allowed to be done and what's allowed to be written.

(Oh, and I have to weigh in on Cogito's side. "Canon" is NOT a business term. It's a fan term that Lucas has picked up, probably because he got three millions letters asking him what was and wasn't "canon" back in the day)

Canon is important to me because the most vivid images are usually the ones I've actually seen rather than read/imagined. Things that happened on the screen are immediately easier to believe, because I've seen them. Reading that T'Pol is a Vulcan hottie with a taste for Triaxian silk is very different from actually seeing Jolene bursting out of those silk jammies.

Unfortunately, a lot of what happened on screen is also lacking in consistency, common sense or realistic development of the characters. So, from my point of view, I prefer to take the scenarios and characters and keep my imaginary universe broadly consistent with what was shown on screen, but I've got no compunction about rationalising my way past any bits of canon I dislike, or just plain ignoring them.

If Canon is what is shown on screen we are in trouble. Some of the episodes so insulted the viewers intelligence it was criminal. I cannot remember the name of the episode but it was the one where silik "kills" Danaiel. It was so filled with errors and plot holes. No explanation of anything. When did Daniel come on board? He obviusly hd been on board for some time. why didn't he have thinngs set up long before silik came on board. The list is endless. Yet we are to accept it as Canon That silik can fall through space without a EV suit for a few minutes, not be instantly frozen or popped like a baloon. when he hits the space ship his velocity doesn't squash him like a bug against the side of the ship?

Or Archer in one Episode is shot in to space without an EV suit and only has a light coating of frost when he is finaly beamed aboard the Enterprise. He was not instantly frozen, his lungs didn't get shoved out through his mouth. More canon.

I believe that in Sci fi Canon is what the fans desire that TPTB have to bow to. I think that if we had a season 5 Trip would still be alive. Someone would come along and declare that the hologram was a student project and not true. Trip Lives!! Because so many fans did not like the Abomination or Trips death and let TPTB know it. The suits would want Trip back because of the threat of losing what audience the series had and the potential that it was starting to pick up fans again under Coto.

SB

Thanks, SB. You just pointed out the points I try to make, but weren't understood. For me, to determine what really happened, you need logic.

This is an absurd example, but it isn't canon that Beverly Crusher and her husband ever had sex. We don't see it on the screen. Nobody ever says they did. So it isn't canon.
However, if you use logic, of course they had. The proof is their son. So in the narrow definition of canon, the Crushers never had sex. But the fact that they did, is Wesley.
That's what I meant that the facts of canon aren't always clear (the Crushers never had sex) because if you use logic, it woudl suggested the opposite (their son Wesley).

panyasan wrote:So in the narrow definition of canon, the Crushers never had sex. But the fact that they did, is Wesley.

I'd say it would be more accurate to say that, in the narrow definition of canon, it's unknown if the Crushers ever had sex.

That may seem silly, but it means you could toss in something like the following without breaking "canon":

1) Wesley's father isn't Mr. Crusher
2) Wesley is adopted
3) Wesley is a test-tube baby (ooh, maybe he's an Augment?)

The challenge of writing "missing scenes" is on fitting things into those interstices of "canon" where we don't know what happened. You can fit in something there, but it needs to fit with what's on either side of it.

putaro wrote:

panyasan wrote:So in the narrow definition of canon, the Crushers never had sex. But the fact that they did, is Wesley.

I'd say it would be more accurate to say that, in the narrow definition of canon, it's unknown if the Crushers ever had sex.

That may seem silly, but it means you could toss in something like the following without breaking "canon":

1) Wesley's father isn't Mr. Crusher
2) Wesley is adopted
3) Wesley is a test-tube baby (ooh, maybe he's an Augment?)

The challenge of writing "missing scenes" is on fitting things into those interstices of "canon" where we don't know what happened. You can fit in something there, but it needs to fit with what's on either side of it.

Exactly. The only "fact" that is above questioning is the existence of Wesley. We can use logical arguments to make our case what is the most logical background of Wesley would be (even when life it self isn't always logical).
So when we "limit" our playground of "what really happened" to canon (what we seen and heard on screen), lot of times we can't determine what really happened based on canon. I find this especially true of an episode which had so much inconsistencies, OCC-acting, and illogical, not realistic actions as *the_abomination*.