Another one of those "What is canon exactly?" threads...

nebfab

So we have canon as-seen in-the-shows Vulcans and (mostly, if not contradicted by the game itself) Diane Duane's Romulans...

But how much Duane's Vulcan lore still applies? Did Vulcan, for example, almost leave the Fed once, or is Vulcan "logic" being partly a result of the bug in universal translator* and partly Spock's peculiar interpretation of it? (and anything else I don't know can't remember right away.)

* the correct translation of the concept would be more like "pragmatism" or "objectivity," IIRC.

artan42

Game canon? It follows CBS' canon (excluding TAS) and any EU content it wants. The key word being concepts. Not works, concepts. As for which ones specifically? A mixed bag from Captain Dax of the Aventine to bits and bats of the old Romulan and Vulcan stuff.
Generally there's no way of telling which bits of the EU STO has taken and which it has dumped unless you come across it in-game or in a story blog.

snoggymack22

This is the org chart for Canon:

My Head Canon > Your Head Canon > Everyone else's Head Canon > Star Trek TV Shows > Star Trek Films with Shatner in them > Star Trek Films with Patrick Stewart in them > Memory Alpha > Cryptic's Path to 2409 Timeline > The Countdown Comic > Penguin Books > The Star Trek Encyclopedia > FASA > The Tech Manual > The OFFICIAL Star Trek Chronology > Memory Beta > Gold Key Comics > Some dude on the Internet's Blog > THESE Forums > JJ Abrams

ventureforth

I'm with Snoggymack on this one. Head Canon trumps all.

jonsills

In Duane's novels, the "translation error" crept in during the transition from Old High Vulcan to Modern Vulcan, and resulted in the phrase which Surak used to mean "passion's mastery" becoming a phrase meaning "suppression of all emotion". Basically, all of modern Vulcan society got it wrong, according to her novels.

Novels are what's called "soft canon", meaning that later works can use them or not as pleases the individual writer. (Parts of the Rihannsu novels are adapted as canon for the game - for instance, there's one star named for a Rihannsu noble house in The Romulan Way - while others, like the House naming conventions where males take a tr' prefix to the House name while females take a t', are set aside, else everyone's least favorite Rom character would be named Tovan tr'Khev). "Hard canon", that which must be respected, consists of what was filmed for TV or movies, with the exceptions of the VOY episode "Threshold" and the ENT episode "These Are the Voyages", both of which are pretty universally acknowledged to suck out loud ("Threshold" was so bad that the VOY writers semi-officially struck it from canon later that season).

Later in-game canon is difficult to set, as the moment the game starts it becomes all about you and you could be any species, any gender, and respond to situations in any number of ways.​​

nebfab

jonsills wrote: »

In Duane's novels, the "translation error" crept in during the transition from Old High Vulcan to Modern Vulcan, and resulted in the phrase which Surak used to mean "passion's mastery" becoming a phrase meaning "suppression of all emotion". Basically, all of modern Vulcan society got it wrong, according to her novels.

I plead reading Duane's Trek novels long ago, mostly in translation (:D) and probably not all of them.

nebfab

snoggymack22 wrote: »

This is the org chart for Canon:

My Head Canon > Your Head Canon > Everyone else's Head Canon > Star Trek TV Shows > Star Trek Films with Shatner in them > Star Trek Films with Patrick Stewart in them > Memory Alpha > Cryptic's Path to 2409 Timeline > The Countdown Comic > Penguin Books > The Star Trek Encyclopedia > FASA > The Tech Manual > The OFFICIAL Star Trek Chronology > Memory Beta > Gold Key Comics > Some dude on the Internet's Blog > THESE Forums > JJ Abrams

Of course, this creates the issue of this list itself being an instance of fairly soft canon. But I agree with the general gist of it

admiralkogar

ventureforth wrote: »

I'm with Snoggymack on this one. Head Canon trumps all.

At the end of the day, it provides the most certainty, doesn't it?

Qapla'!

nikeix

'Canon' would be the shambling self-contradictory hodge-podge that mysteriously regards writers operating under savage deadline and often openly bereft of ideas then having their options run the twin meat grinders of network television standards and the constraints of TV budget special effects as being the only thing that matters in a larger constellation of about forty times as much written and illustrated storytelling.

I would pay good money, excellent money even if somebody as CBS would cowboy up and actually sift all the Star Trek material for some grand unified canon instead of a one sentence piece of dogma the mouthbreathers cling to because no matter how stupid the output, it's simple and doesn't require them to even know how to read.

artan42

jonsills wrote: »

"Threshold" was so bad that the VOY writers semi-officially struck it from canon later that season.​​

No they didn't. No matter how many times people claim it it was never even slightly expunged.

[Part of the post breaking Forum policies modded out]

angrytarg

Star Trek canon means all Star Trek TV shows and movies, so everything "on film". This is it, as stated by CBS head of licensing Paula Block in 2007:

Paula Block wrote:

“Canon” in the sense that I use it is a very important tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that. Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that. Part of my job in licensing is to keep track of TV and Movie continuity, so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products. It gets a little tricky because it’s constantly evolving, and over the years, Star Trek’s various producers and scriptwriters haven’t always kept track of/remembered/cared about what’s come before. Source: http://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/

This is the baseline all licensed works have to respect and the baseline discussion should as well.

Star Trek Online canon (STO) follows the rules for licensed works, meaning they have to respect the baseline of CBS set canon, but are free to include if the original authors agree or add original content however they want. It's best to ask Cryptic wether the novels in question are considered in-game lore, but technically only the parts explicitly referenced are STO "canon" for sure.​​

nebfab

PPL, please... I just asked a nerdy question in good faith... Some logic and mastery of emotions would be appreciated.

skullblits

cannons are weapons on.. ohhh canon

nebfab

angrytarg wrote: »

Star Trek Online canon (STO) follows the rules for licensed works, meaning they have to respect the baseline of CBS set canon, but are free to include if the original authors agree or add original content however they want. It's best to ask Cryptic wether the novels in question are considered in-game lore, but technically only the parts explicitly referenced are STO "canon" for sure.​​

So, basically if it isn't in the game but doesn't contradict any CBS canon or anything in the game already either, it's not in-game canon but it might be someday?

angrytarg

nebfab wrote: »

So, basically if it isn't in the game but doesn't contradict any CBS canon or anything in the game already either, it's not in-game canon but it might be someday?

It might, but that's a "it might" like "health insurance might actually care about your health one day"

Seriously though, I'd say this is where "headcanon" comes in - basically you fill your character's gaps as you see fit and if it isn't contradicting anything it might just be that way. For isntance, my Romulan character is for all intends and purposes actually a Garidian, a citizen of a Romulan client state featured in another Star Trek game, the point and click adventure "A Final Unity" by Spectrum Holobyte. There is no chance that will ever become STO lore, but since it doesn't ruin anything and I like that story arc I just "made it so" ​​

mustrumridcully0

nikeix wrote: »

'Canon' would be the shambling self-contradictory hodge-podge that mysteriously regards writers operating under savage deadline and often openly bereft of ideas then having their options run the twin meat grinders of network television standards and the constraints of TV budget special effects as being the only thing that matters in a larger constellation of about forty times as much written and illustrated storytelling.

I would pay good money, excellent money even if somebody as CBS would cowboy up and actually sift all the Star Trek material for some grand unified canon instead of a one sentence piece of dogma the mouthbreathers cling to because no matter how stupid the output, it's simple and doesn't require them to even know how to read.

Software Standards:
"What, we have x many standards for this? We need a real standard."
"You're right, let's get on with it."
*later*
"What, we ahve x+1 many standards for this? We need a real standard."

I assume it would be the same with Star Trek. If someone really had the "ego" to build such a "True Canon", he'd probably be hated by many, and be later replaced by someone else that has "True True Canon" to offer, which will be hated by other people.


Of course, I understand the sentiment. Let's just reimagine Star Trek. We can start with Voyager, because it needs it most IMO. Great basic idea, interesting characters concepts, but partially terrible execution with lame reset buttons betraying its premise.

artan42

nebfab wrote: »

PPL, please... I just asked a nerdy question in good faith... Some logic and mastery of emotions would be appreciated.

I answered in the very first post.

The second post of mine was directed towards a certain individual who appears to have run off to a mod to get my attack on them removed by who is apparently allowed to keep their own attacks up. Now if my post had a mods name directly next to it I could address them directly as to who only certain attacks are moderated and others aren't, but as it stands I can't.​​

meimeitoo

When it comes to canon, Star Trek is probably the worst of all franchises. Star Wars, for instance, mostly gets it right (they messed up the metichlorian stuff a bit, but hey). Trek, however, is simply horrible with canon -- up the point where it's almost non-existent. Max warp speed changes at a whim, uniforms and badges change with every movie. Seven's parents allegedly embarked on a research project to study the Borg; yet this happened years before Q introduces humanity to the Borg, ostensibly years ahead of schedule. Why, you get the point. The entire Trek franchise is simply too internally inconsistent to speak of true canon. It has Kirk, and Spock, and Klingons, and Romulans: that's pretty much it. The rest appears to be one huge variable, made up by whatever new film-maker that wants to have a go at it.

neoakiraii

Whatever I say is canon....Voyager not canon....ok done

jorantomalak

neoakiraii wrote: »

Whatever I say is canon....Voyager not canon....ok done

GASP!! i thought of all people gul dukat would say "Bajorans are not and never will be canon, therefore we should wipe them from existence".

admiralkogar

None of it is canon enough ! Bwah hah hah !

Qapla'!

snoggymack22

meimeitoo wrote: »

speak of true canon.

My org chart clearly defines "true" canon.

snoggymack22

nebfab wrote: »

snoggymack22 wrote: »

This is the org chart for Canon:

My Head Canon > Your Head Canon > Everyone else's Head Canon > Star Trek TV Shows > Star Trek Films with Shatner in them > Star Trek Films with Patrick Stewart in them > Memory Alpha > Cryptic's Path to 2409 Timeline > The Countdown Comic > Penguin Books > The Star Trek Encyclopedia > FASA > The Tech Manual > The OFFICIAL Star Trek Chronology > Memory Beta > Gold Key Comics > Some dude on the Internet's Blog > THESE Forums > JJ Abrams

Of course, this creates the issue of this list itself being an instance of fairly soft canon. But I agree with the general gist of it

True. Very true.

Or ... is it?