Do you have any source for this? Because as we have discussed, I have been here since beta, and never saw anything like that stated from anyone at Cryptic. What players say is pure conjecture so obviously doesn't count.
One point to clarify: CBS does have to *approve* what they do in this game, and it's storyline. But getting their *approval* does not mean it is canon. There is plenty of proof of that =P
True.
Seriously though, do you really want me to go back through 7 years of game news to find this particular page which I can't even remember the name of? I'm not even sure if the new site goes back that far!
Seriously though, do you really want me to go back through 7 years of game news to find this particular page which I can't even remember the name of? I'm not even sure if the new site goes back that far!
*Goes to check. See you in 500 years. :P*
Not if you don't want to, I just seriously do not remember reading anything *official* that ever said STO's story was canon. And I have followed the game pretty closely. But I'm sure I've missed a thing or 2 over the years, so I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to read it myself.
Not if you don't want to, I just seriously do not remember reading anything *official* that ever said STO's story was canon. And I have followed the game pretty closely. But I'm sure I've missed a thing or 2 over the years, so I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to read it myself.
I remember something similar being said also, I think it was in some of the pre release stuff, shortly after they announced Cryptic had obtained the license from Perpetual Entertainment.
Not if you don't want to, I just seriously do not remember reading anything *official* that ever said STO's story was canon. And I have followed the game pretty closely. But I'm sure I've missed a thing or 2 over the years, so I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to read it myself.
Will Star Trek Online be considered canon in any respect? How much of the game will stick to the canon?
Al "Captain Geko" Rivera (lead designer): Every series and movie is considered canon, and we are staying very true to this in our development. Star Trek is rich with lore and history, and there is a great deal of material to build upon as we move into the 25th century with Star Trek Online. We are working with CBS to ensure that everything we create is true to Trek and makes sense.
We know that fans want to play Star Trek Online because they want to explore the Star Trek universe, and we are striving to deliver as authentic an experience as possible. Our team has seen all the shows and movies and we're watching them again every single day. We are also studying other soft canon resources such as novels and comics. From those, we are looking for inspiration and references to further enhance our game. Where it makes sense, we will include some soft canon elements in Star Trek Online as well
Basically, exactly what you expect; a Cryptic response!
I remember something similar being said also, I think it was in some of the pre release stuff, shortly after they announced Cryptic had obtained the license from Perpetual Entertainment.
Well I'd love to read it if anyone has it. That said, if it was something Jack Emmert said at a Vegas interview...well, he said a lot of stuff :P
Basically, exactly what you expect; a Cryptic response!
I'll show myself out.
So um, there was nothing in that that said STO was canon. Or did I miss it? Because it looks to me like they side-stepped the question because they didnt' want to say "no, it's not".
BTW, good work finding that! And yes I do remember reading that, which is why I also do not remember anyone ever saying STO was canon =P
So um, there was nothing in that that said STO was canon. Or did I miss it? Because it looks to me like they side-stepped the question because they didnt' want to say "no, it's not".
BTW, good work finding that! And yes I do remember reading that, which is why I also do not remember anyone ever saying STO was canon =P
If you want to get technical, nothing is canon outside of the shows and movies. Even the novels and whatnot are considered soft canon. So STO could not be canon even if we wanted it to be.
So um, there was nothing in that that said STO was canon. Or did I miss it? Because it looks to me like they side-stepped the question because they didnt' want to say "no, it's not".
BTW, good work finding that! And yes I do remember reading that, which is why I also do not remember anyone ever saying STO was canon =P
Yep, like I said, looks like I misinterpreted it. I was much younger then (11), and the idea of a Star Trek MMO? I was understandably excited.
I was also untempered by Cryptic's characteristically cryptic responses.
If you want to get technical, nothing is canon outside of the shows and movies. Even the novels and whatnot are considered soft canon. So STO could not be canon even if we wanted it to be.
I miss your old signature...
:P
You are technically correct (the best kind of correct!), but it should also be noted that with Gene Roddenbury's passing, CBS technically calls the ball on what's canon and what isn't. They've just chosen to (mostly) respect Gene's wishes.
And when I say mostly, I of course mean because CBS only retconned 1 episode from ST: Voyager as opposed to the whole series!
If you want to get technical, nothing is canon outside of the shows and movies. Even the novels and whatnot are considered soft canon. So STO could not be canon even if we wanted it to be.
I don't think its "technical", I think its just a matter of simplicity: as you said, the shows and movies are canon. Anything else isn't, and therefore future shows and movies are not bound to follow events set down in the non canon material.
Like I said in the OP, I think the term "canon" ruins a lot of fun people could otherwise have, because they affix too much importance on the term and some people choose not to read "non canon" things, when it might be something they would really enjoy!
So for me, canon is the shows and movies, period. But I love reading the IDW comic series set in the JJ-verse, because for me it adds more depth to the movies. But I'm sure the next movie will have something in it that contradicts something put down in the comics, which is fine with me.
PS: Orci actually said the comics were canon, although Orci is not CBS, so his personal opinion does not necessarily dictate fact.
Orci is also a 9/11 truther. So his opinion on anything should be taken with a dyson sphere full of salt.
Personally, I could not care less what he thinks about RL issues. His views about 9/11 or any other RL issue do not effect my interest in what he says about Trek in any way(as long as he is still working on it).
I don't think its "technical", I think its just a matter of simplicity: as you said, the shows and movies are canon. Anything else isn't, and therefore future shows and movies are not bound to follow events set down in the non canon material.
Like I said in the OP, I think the term "canon" ruins a lot of fun people could otherwise have, because they affix too much importance on the term and some people choose not to read "non canon" things, when it might be something they would really enjoy!
So for me, canon is the shows and movies, period. But I love reading the IDW comic series set in the JJ-verse, because for me it adds more depth to the movies. But I'm sure the next movie will have something in it that contradicts something put down in the comics, which is fine with me.
PS: Orci actually said the comics were canon, although Orci is not CBS, so his personal opinion does not necessarily dictate fact.
I agree with you completely. If I accepted STO as canon, I'd have to accept the Iconians being evul as canon, which I don't, because it completely disregards what Picard said in TNG.
Worf: But the Iconians were conquerors!
Picard: Only according to the history of the ones who destroyed this world. The victors invariable write history to their own advantage.
That said, I do appreciate a great deal of what is in the Path to 2409 and consider it part of my headcanon. I also appreciate the Countdown Comic, although a fleet of Klingon B'rels going after the Narada? Worf, can you even Klingon? :P
Personally, I could not care less what he thinks about RL issues. His views about 9/11 or any other RL issue do not effect my interest in what he says about Trek in any way(as long as he is still working on it).
I normally don't mention it, because he does write Star Trek and does it well enough his films make money. But it is an observation that his grasp on reality is about as ambiguous as what 'canon' is.
I'd personally say the IDW comics are ambiguously canon. I'm of the opinion if the same writer of the movie does a tie-in comic, it should be at least be considered canon. I feel the same way about deleted scenes. Like Nero's time in Rura Penthe after the Kelvin rams it into KDF territory.
It's just that what Bob Orci thinks and what is actually fact in terms of the muddied waters of canonicity, should be questioned at the very least.
Similarly, I find the STO stories that Christine Thompson and Jesse Heinig write for the Star Trek magazine to be ambiguously canon, since I don't think they've gone on record for stating they are canon for STO -- so at the very least since they're written by STO's writers and therefore should at least be considered possibly an expansion of the STO storyline.
I normally don't mention it, because he does write Star Trek and does it well enough his films make money. But it is an observation that his grasp on reality is about as ambiguous as what 'canon' is.
I'd personally say the IDW comics are ambiguously canon. I'm of the opinion if the same writer of the movie does a tie-in comic, it should be at least be considered canon. I feel the same way about deleted scenes. Like Nero's time in Rura Penthe after the Kelvin rams it into KDF territory.
It's just that what Bob Orci thinks and what is actually fact in terms of the muddied waters of canonicity, should be questioned at the very least.
Similarly, I find the STO stories that Christine Thompson and Jesse Heinig write for the Star Trek magazine to be ambiguously canon, since I don't think they've gone on record for stating they are canon for STO -- so at the very least since they're written by STO's writers and therefore should at least be considered possibly an expansion of the STO storyline.
I get what you mean, and it's a reasonable position. My only thing is this: these things you call "ambiguously canon" are things that CBS/Paramount doesn't even have to *try* to stick to in future shows or movies. On the other hand, they will at least *try* to stick to previous shows/movies when making new ones, even if they don't always do it as much as we may like. So I am not personally going to call something canon that I know full well they will just toss out whenever it suits them. But hey, whatever is fun for you is all that matters, which is basically my point for this thread.
To me it's similar of having Harrison Ford stating that Deckard wasn't a replicant, or having people tell Ray Bradbury what Farenheit 451 is really about.
Harrison Ford is an actor with his own opinion. The character he plays is the intellectual property of somebody else. So whether or not Harrison Ford believes Rick Deckard is a replicant is ultimately irrelevant. He's just playing the character.
Bob Orci is a writer. He writes the stories, but whoever decides if the stories are intertwined with some other story is handled by somebody above him, he doesn't really have a say in it unless the person who handles that kind of thing gives it the greenlight.
There were writers from the Star Trek show who went on to write books and similar tie-ins, but we don't consider those canon, either. They were not referenced in the shows.
We can still enjoy the books they write, sure. And they could be written in such a way that the reader could consider them ambiguously canon.
The only possible logical reason canon matters to me, is because I want to know all I can and whether or not certain plot elements, characters, and what have you 'bleed over' into something else, and whether or not I should consider those events as having happened. It also prevents me from being blindsided like I had been when I still read DC Comics on a monthly basis.
If I only read Batman, that is really the only thing I'd care about. But then if something happens in an issue of Batman caused by something that occured in Superman (which I don't read), then there I am confused as hell why this thing happened, since it was not a previous part of the story up until this point.
If I don't read the stories Jesse and Christine put in the Star Trek magazine, and then maybe a FE or two in the future an event specifically referenced in those stories shows up -- I'd just be hearing about it for the first time, and I'd be confused. And of course somebody else would say, "You should have read this one story in Star Trek magazine!"
People bring it up in regards to the Path of 2409 on the forums on a regular basis. People like to know what canon is so they can get a full grasp of the big picture.
I think deleted scenes and tie-in comics are fun, but, I don't tend to accept deleted scenes as canon simply because they never made it (for whatever reason) into the final cut of the movie. Equally, the same with even the tie in comics as linked to earlier. While it certainly explained Khan's appearance and was quite cool, the fact it was written afterwards (possibly even as an intentional smoothing of the issue) makes it less relevant to me than what was actually shown on screen (although I have to admit, I would have much prefered them to have actually shown those scenes in the movie, but, as above, I suspect the writers didn't even consider the issue at all) I also think that a film which relies on tie-in comic to support its plotholes, is simply lacking as a story (although I've probably watched ITD over a dozen times and qu ite enjoy it...)
Also, Deckard is a replicant, Sir Ridley Scott has said so in interview
Absolutely, but until he does, we have to go by what he has previously said...
My point is simply that if it is *in* the movie, it is official. If it is not, it is open to interpretation. Even Ridley Scott does not *own* the Bladerunner franchise, so his off screen opinion does not necessarily represent the owner's(Warner Brothers?), and the owner is the only one who can officially decide that question.
My point is simply that if it is *in* the movie, it is official. If it is not, it is open to interpretation. Even Ridley Scott does not *own* the Bladerunner franchise, so his off screen opinion does not necessarily represent the owner's(Warner Brothers?), and the owner is the only one who can officially decide that question.
Absolutely, I see the distinction you're making.
I would have to point out though, that there is enough evidence in the film regardless of Sir Ridley's spoken views to support that Deckard is a replicant
- He displays replicant eye-shine after washing his face in the apartment with Rachael.
- Gaff's line: "You've done a man's job, sir..." A rather strange praise to give, unless the implication is that Deckard was not 'a man', hence why he would be praised as having done 'a man's job'...
- The origami unicorn showed that Gaff was aware of his memories/dreams
From those things, I always believed Deckard was a replicant, and when Sir Ridley confirmed that in two separate interviews over the years, his opinions as director were sufficient for me...
It should be remembered that Jean-Luc didn't know anything about the Iconians either, except that they cared even less than the Federation about cyber security (Starfleet might be lax about things like antivirus software, but at least they don't have worms running in the background for millions of years, waiting for the next vulnerable system to download into). His opinion about what the Iconians might have been like was just that - his opinion. And sometimes the history written by the victors is correct; there are multiple examples of this from human history (the most blatant example of this risks running afoul of Godwin's Law, while others are left as an exercise for the alert student).
And the only person who knew for sure about Deckard was Philip K. Youcan'tusehisnameintheforums, who created the character.
And the only person who knew for sure about Deckard was Philip K. Youcan'tusehisnameintheforums, who created the character.
In his story, yes. But once that story was acquired by WB they were able to do it any way they wanted. So even if PKD said Deckard was a replicant in his story, that does not necessarily mean the same is true in the movie.
PS: I'm not saying Deckard was or wasn't, only that it is neither PKD or Ridley Scott's decision, but WB's. And even if WB let's Ridley do what he wants with the story, that is still ultimately *their* decision to make, not Scott's.
It should be remembered that Jean-Luc didn't know anything about the Iconians either, except that they cared even less than the Federation about cyber security (Starfleet might be lax about things like antivirus software, but at least they don't have worms running in the background for millions of years, waiting for the next vulnerable system to download into). His opinion about what the Iconians might have been like was just that - his opinion. And sometimes the history written by the victors is correct; there are multiple examples of this from human history (the most blatant example of this risks running afoul of Godwin's Law, while others are left as an exercise for the alert student).
And the only person who knew for sure about Deckard was Philip K. Youcan'tusehisnameintheforums, who created the character.
I believe he, and the original screen writer wrote the character as being Human, but what Sir Ridley actually produced, on the other hand... And of course, BladeRunner is pretty different to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, and I'd go so far as to say that the characters involved, as you said to worffan the other week with regards his Voyager rewrite, were simply different characters with the same names... As above, I think there's enough evidence in the movie to say that he was a replicant, and that's what Sir Ridley's stated until now. If that changes in the future, or in Blade Runner 2, only time will tell...
Canonical when applied to star trek has little to no meaning now
why?
1) Every fan based book that is released is called canon
2) Every comic book that comes out is called canon
2) Anything with the star trek tag is called canon
seriously it seems that anything and i do mean ANYTHING!! related to star trek people call it canon so the word canonical loses its meaning when everything thing is included.
For me personally except for JJTrek anything with the original TOS/TNG/VOY/DS9 actors like movies and TV shows is canon.
Cartoons fan fiction novels and video games are not canon imho just the TV and Movies imo are the only thing canonical.
But this is just one guys opinion on this subject among a sea of geeks who call everything trek canonical.:rolleyes:
To add a thought to my last post, even George Lucas can no longer decide what happens with Star Wars, since he sold it. He can say what he originally intended, and give his opinion on what happens, but it is now Disney who gets to decide canon, not him.
Canonical when applied to star trek has little to no meaning now
why?
1) Every fan based book that is released is called canon
2) Every comic book that comes out is called canon
2) Anything with the star trek tag is called canon
seriously it seems that anything and i do mean ANYTHING!! related to star trek people call it canon so the word canonical loses its meaning when everything thing is included.
For me personally except for JJTrek anything with the original TOS/TNG/VOY/DS9 actors like movies and TV shows is canon.
Cartoons fan fiction novels and video games are not canon imho just the TV and Movies imo are the only thing canonical.
But this is just one guys opinion on this subject among a sea of geeks who call everything trek canonical.:rolleyes:
I've always considered licensed novels/comics/games to be soft-canon, ie valid until directly contradicted by the hard-canon of an episode or film. I don't consider cut scenes as canon, simply because they didn't make it into the final cut of the show/film, so can't be considered any more than the equivalent of a writer's notes or an artist's concept doodle (although they can still be very entertaining :cool: )
Fanfiction, on the other hand, is completely non-canon, because it has no official backing, so is simply the ideas of an un-comissioned writer. On a personal level, I prefer fanfiction which stays as true to canon as possible, rather than simply being someone re-writing or writing something as they want it to be, but I don't ascribe it any kind of canon status at all...
Comments
Not really, the overall discussion has been mostly civil, but now sammys troll pet is getting fed and doesn't want to leave.
True.
Seriously though, do you really want me to go back through 7 years of game news to find this particular page which I can't even remember the name of? I'm not even sure if the new site goes back that far!
*Goes to check. See you in 500 years. :P*
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Not if you don't want to, I just seriously do not remember reading anything *official* that ever said STO's story was canon. And I have followed the game pretty closely. But I'm sure I've missed a thing or 2 over the years, so I'm not saying you're wrong, I'd just like to read it myself.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I remember something similar being said also, I think it was in some of the pre release stuff, shortly after they announced Cryptic had obtained the license from Perpetual Entertainment.
Found it! Looks like I misinterpreted it. From the August 25, 2008 Ask Cryptic.
Basically, exactly what you expect; a Cryptic response!
I'll show myself out.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Well I'd love to read it if anyone has it. That said, if it was something Jack Emmert said at a Vegas interview...well, he said a lot of stuff :P
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
So um, there was nothing in that that said STO was canon. Or did I miss it? Because it looks to me like they side-stepped the question because they didnt' want to say "no, it's not".
BTW, good work finding that! And yes I do remember reading that, which is why I also do not remember anyone ever saying STO was canon =P
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If you want to get technical, nothing is canon outside of the shows and movies. Even the novels and whatnot are considered soft canon. So STO could not be canon even if we wanted it to be.
Yep, like I said, looks like I misinterpreted it. I was much younger then (11), and the idea of a Star Trek MMO? I was understandably excited.
I was also untempered by Cryptic's characteristically cryptic responses.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
Wow, read some of the other things in that ask cryptic ... I got a good laugh from that, lol.
I miss your old signature...
:P
You are technically correct (the best kind of correct!), but it should also be noted that with Gene Roddenbury's passing, CBS technically calls the ball on what's canon and what isn't. They've just chosen to (mostly) respect Gene's wishes.
And when I say mostly, I of course mean because CBS only retconned 1 episode from ST: Voyager as opposed to the whole series!
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I miss the concept of accountability.
I don't think its "technical", I think its just a matter of simplicity: as you said, the shows and movies are canon. Anything else isn't, and therefore future shows and movies are not bound to follow events set down in the non canon material.
Like I said in the OP, I think the term "canon" ruins a lot of fun people could otherwise have, because they affix too much importance on the term and some people choose not to read "non canon" things, when it might be something they would really enjoy!
So for me, canon is the shows and movies, period. But I love reading the IDW comic series set in the JJ-verse, because for me it adds more depth to the movies. But I'm sure the next movie will have something in it that contradicts something put down in the comics, which is fine with me.
PS: Orci actually said the comics were canon, although Orci is not CBS, so his personal opinion does not necessarily dictate fact.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Orci is also a 9/11 truther. So his opinion on anything should be taken with a dyson sphere full of salt.
Personally, I could not care less what he thinks about RL issues. His views about 9/11 or any other RL issue do not effect my interest in what he says about Trek in any way(as long as he is still working on it).
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I agree with you completely. If I accepted STO as canon, I'd have to accept the Iconians being evul as canon, which I don't, because it completely disregards what Picard said in TNG.
That said, I do appreciate a great deal of what is in the Path to 2409 and consider it part of my headcanon. I also appreciate the Countdown Comic, although a fleet of Klingon B'rels going after the Narada? Worf, can you even Klingon? :P
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I normally don't mention it, because he does write Star Trek and does it well enough his films make money. But it is an observation that his grasp on reality is about as ambiguous as what 'canon' is.
I'd personally say the IDW comics are ambiguously canon. I'm of the opinion if the same writer of the movie does a tie-in comic, it should be at least be considered canon. I feel the same way about deleted scenes. Like Nero's time in Rura Penthe after the Kelvin rams it into KDF territory.
It's just that what Bob Orci thinks and what is actually fact in terms of the muddied waters of canonicity, should be questioned at the very least.
Similarly, I find the STO stories that Christine Thompson and Jesse Heinig write for the Star Trek magazine to be ambiguously canon, since I don't think they've gone on record for stating they are canon for STO -- so at the very least since they're written by STO's writers and therefore should at least be considered possibly an expansion of the STO storyline.
I get what you mean, and it's a reasonable position. My only thing is this: these things you call "ambiguously canon" are things that CBS/Paramount doesn't even have to *try* to stick to in future shows or movies. On the other hand, they will at least *try* to stick to previous shows/movies when making new ones, even if they don't always do it as much as we may like. So I am not personally going to call something canon that I know full well they will just toss out whenever it suits them. But hey, whatever is fun for you is all that matters, which is basically my point for this thread.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Harrison Ford is an actor with his own opinion. The character he plays is the intellectual property of somebody else. So whether or not Harrison Ford believes Rick Deckard is a replicant is ultimately irrelevant. He's just playing the character.
Bob Orci is a writer. He writes the stories, but whoever decides if the stories are intertwined with some other story is handled by somebody above him, he doesn't really have a say in it unless the person who handles that kind of thing gives it the greenlight.
There were writers from the Star Trek show who went on to write books and similar tie-ins, but we don't consider those canon, either. They were not referenced in the shows.
We can still enjoy the books they write, sure. And they could be written in such a way that the reader could consider them ambiguously canon.
The only possible logical reason canon matters to me, is because I want to know all I can and whether or not certain plot elements, characters, and what have you 'bleed over' into something else, and whether or not I should consider those events as having happened. It also prevents me from being blindsided like I had been when I still read DC Comics on a monthly basis.
If I only read Batman, that is really the only thing I'd care about. But then if something happens in an issue of Batman caused by something that occured in Superman (which I don't read), then there I am confused as hell why this thing happened, since it was not a previous part of the story up until this point.
If I don't read the stories Jesse and Christine put in the Star Trek magazine, and then maybe a FE or two in the future an event specifically referenced in those stories shows up -- I'd just be hearing about it for the first time, and I'd be confused. And of course somebody else would say, "You should have read this one story in Star Trek magazine!"
People bring it up in regards to the Path of 2409 on the forums on a regular basis. People like to know what canon is so they can get a full grasp of the big picture.
Also, Deckard is a replicant, Sir Ridley Scott has said so in interview
And yet, even that won't matter if he decides to change his mind in the 2nd movie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My point is simply that if it is *in* the movie, it is official. If it is not, it is open to interpretation. Even Ridley Scott does not *own* the Bladerunner franchise, so his off screen opinion does not necessarily represent the owner's(Warner Brothers?), and the owner is the only one who can officially decide that question.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Absolutely, I see the distinction you're making.
I would have to point out though, that there is enough evidence in the film regardless of Sir Ridley's spoken views to support that Deckard is a replicant
- He displays replicant eye-shine after washing his face in the apartment with Rachael.
- Gaff's line: "You've done a man's job, sir..." A rather strange praise to give, unless the implication is that Deckard was not 'a man', hence why he would be praised as having done 'a man's job'...
- The origami unicorn showed that Gaff was aware of his memories/dreams
From those things, I always believed Deckard was a replicant, and when Sir Ridley confirmed that in two separate interviews over the years, his opinions as director were sufficient for me...
And the only person who knew for sure about Deckard was Philip K. Youcan'tusehisnameintheforums, who created the character.
In his story, yes. But once that story was acquired by WB they were able to do it any way they wanted. So even if PKD said Deckard was a replicant in his story, that does not necessarily mean the same is true in the movie.
PS: I'm not saying Deckard was or wasn't, only that it is neither PKD or Ridley Scott's decision, but WB's. And even if WB let's Ridley do what he wants with the story, that is still ultimately *their* decision to make, not Scott's.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
why?
1) Every fan based book that is released is called canon
2) Every comic book that comes out is called canon
2) Anything with the star trek tag is called canon
seriously it seems that anything and i do mean ANYTHING!! related to star trek people call it canon so the word canonical loses its meaning when everything thing is included.
For me personally except for JJTrek anything with the original TOS/TNG/VOY/DS9 actors like movies and TV shows is canon.
Cartoons fan fiction novels and video games are not canon imho just the TV and Movies imo are the only thing canonical.
But this is just one guys opinion on this subject among a sea of geeks who call everything trek canonical.:rolleyes:
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Fanfiction, on the other hand, is completely non-canon, because it has no official backing, so is simply the ideas of an un-comissioned writer. On a personal level, I prefer fanfiction which stays as true to canon as possible, rather than simply being someone re-writing or writing something as they want it to be, but I don't ascribe it any kind of canon status at all...