test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
creator intent vs on screen
markhawkman
Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
in Ten Forward
Personally I think both are important in their own ways. But some people try to say only on screen info is canon. Why? Well there was this statement published by Paramount: "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the real action series and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Series and the various comic lines are not canon." But that statement was modified greatly later.
Also, in 2007 Paula Block said: "'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."
It was replaced with this: "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind."
This lasted until 2010 when all statements about canon policy got erased entirely. There is a rather obvious change though in that the current database on the website apparently lists TAS as canon. Which means that the last published policy is no longer valid. It's possible it was removed because they didn't feel like updating it any more. At any rate there is no currently published reference as to what the policy is. Also it's debatable whether behind the scenes info was considered canon. The phrasing doesn't specifically include or exclude it. The general purpose seems to be about which stories are considered canon, not specific details.
At any rate the core focus of this discussion is not the precise details of the old(and out of date) canon policy. It's about whether creator intent and behind the scenes information is useful as part of canon.
The main reason why I like it is a simple matter of practicality. There's only so much info you can cram into a TV show. This is part of why TNG started the trend of Okudagrams. It adds background info without getting in the way of the story. There's a reason why only around half of the stuff from the LotR books made it into the movies. But even then the BOOKS are missing a lot of back story. There are some things Tolkein never wrote because he never decided what they should be. But then you have the Silmarillion.... which is mostly the backstory of where Sauron came from.... along with a bunch of other things like explaining why Numenoreans are special, and what Gandalf meant when he said "not even Ancalagon the Black".... Short version: Ancalagon made Smaug look like a puny weakling. Ancalagon was said to be so big that when he died he crushed a castle(or was it a mountain?) by falling on it or something.
See... the Silmarillion was published after Tolkein's death and was compiled from notes Tolkein had made about the backstory of the world. Thus it actually counts as behind the scenes info since it was not directly written and published by Tolkein himself. While he wrote the material, he didn't make it into a book and it's unclear how much of it he was planning to actually use.
In Star Trek, there are lots of things that are only seen in the scripts. Often these are descriptions of things that don't actually get described on-creen. One criticism of this is that this information is often ignored by later writers. Well that happens to things that get seen on-screen too. Then you have weird special effects that sometimes make things look different from how the writers had envisioned them. Like how TOS often showed planets with no atmosphere....
So, what do you guys think?
Also, in 2007 Paula Block said: "'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."
It was replaced with this: "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live-action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, video games, the Animated Series, and the various comic lines have traditionally not been considered part of the canon. But canon is not something set in stone; even events in some of the movies have been called into question as to whether they should be considered canon! Ultimately, the fans, the writers and the producers may all differ on what is considered canon and the very idea of what is canon has become more fluid, especially as there isn't a single voice or arbiter to decide. Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry was accustomed to making statements about canon, but even he was known to change his mind."
This lasted until 2010 when all statements about canon policy got erased entirely. There is a rather obvious change though in that the current database on the website apparently lists TAS as canon. Which means that the last published policy is no longer valid. It's possible it was removed because they didn't feel like updating it any more. At any rate there is no currently published reference as to what the policy is. Also it's debatable whether behind the scenes info was considered canon. The phrasing doesn't specifically include or exclude it. The general purpose seems to be about which stories are considered canon, not specific details.
At any rate the core focus of this discussion is not the precise details of the old(and out of date) canon policy. It's about whether creator intent and behind the scenes information is useful as part of canon.
The main reason why I like it is a simple matter of practicality. There's only so much info you can cram into a TV show. This is part of why TNG started the trend of Okudagrams. It adds background info without getting in the way of the story. There's a reason why only around half of the stuff from the LotR books made it into the movies. But even then the BOOKS are missing a lot of back story. There are some things Tolkein never wrote because he never decided what they should be. But then you have the Silmarillion.... which is mostly the backstory of where Sauron came from.... along with a bunch of other things like explaining why Numenoreans are special, and what Gandalf meant when he said "not even Ancalagon the Black".... Short version: Ancalagon made Smaug look like a puny weakling. Ancalagon was said to be so big that when he died he crushed a castle(or was it a mountain?) by falling on it or something.
See... the Silmarillion was published after Tolkein's death and was compiled from notes Tolkein had made about the backstory of the world. Thus it actually counts as behind the scenes info since it was not directly written and published by Tolkein himself. While he wrote the material, he didn't make it into a book and it's unclear how much of it he was planning to actually use.
In Star Trek, there are lots of things that are only seen in the scripts. Often these are descriptions of things that don't actually get described on-creen. One criticism of this is that this information is often ignored by later writers. Well that happens to things that get seen on-screen too. Then you have weird special effects that sometimes make things look different from how the writers had envisioned them. Like how TOS often showed planets with no atmosphere....
So, what do you guys think?
0
Comments
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Personally I'm inclined to take that as canon until it gets retconned by something more official.
About the new database.... I think parts of it might be derived from scripts and not aired episodes. If so it would suggest that CBS/Paramount considers that a valid source.
My character Tsin'xing
But only the parts actually used. It is a beginner's mistake to assume because some elements are taken into canon that suddenly everything is canon.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
On the flipside we are often left with glaring gaps in information where random stuff just never gets explained, generally because it was never relevant to the episodes script. In these cases fans are often left with little choice but to turn to side material such as production notes or licensed products to try and fill in the gaps. However that can lead to contradictions and confusion such as with ship classes like the Avenger/Miranda or the Hope/Olympic class.
In most franchises there is a degree of consistency with canon, once something is decided upon it becomes the law of the land. However Star Trek has never played by those rules, instead opting to make it up as they go and freely altering things when they become inconvenient, which has left us with a rather troublesome mess, particularly in the 22nd/23rd century time periods.
As for my personal take on it... I've long since given up worrying about Star Trek's inconsistencies. Considering the series sordid love affair with time travel and alternate universes one could argue that the canon is fluid and always in flux.
If some future Star Trek series set in the Prime Universe wants to introduce the Tzenkethi as humanoid ravenous bunnies instead of heavily armored lizards, then they are humanoid ravenous bunnies. So just because STO and the creator of the Tzenkethi introduced them as armored lizards, doesn't mean they are armored lizards in the Prime Universe.
This is a bit misleading. You are right with the multiverse thing, however "anything could be considered canon" is simply false. "Canon" is no in-universe concept, it's a real world concept which concerns the actually shown content. You are basically free to write your own fanfiction where crossover elements happen (even licensed works did that), however that has nothing to do with canon. Star Trek canon only concerns the episodes that are shown to us and references to other realities begin and end - canonically - when they are made on screen and the episode ends. It's not just the prime timeline any more since the KT is just as canonical
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
My character Tsin'xing
Each of those happened in their own individual continuity; none of them are canon. For that matter, neither Diane Duane's novel Dark Mirror (which has the Terran Empire as a going concern well into the late 24th century, contradicted by the Mirror Universe episodes in DS9) nor John M. Ford's previously-mentioned The Final Reflection (with its own explanation for why the Klingons in TOS had smooth foreheads, as well as a much more plausible (IMO) culture for an interstellar empire) is considered canon - the shows and movies take precedence.