How Important or Not is Canon to you?

[A l t e r E g o 9]

 

 

I was going to add a whole heap of options to suit any taste but decided to make it more difficult with just these two, I choose:

 

Canon is NOTHING! Keeping perfect Canon only stifles Storytelling.

 

EDIT: Changing my vote. I said canon is nothing as a way of making myself feel better about ENT loss.

 

Over the course of the last few days I realised that & everything hinges on canon being mostly intact especially for the sake of revisiting and talking about the saga. The illusion of Treks reality is reinforced with intact canon.

Edited May 26, 2005 by Alterego

[Sam The Smuggler 1]

Considering How Much Star Trel Contradicts Itself...Why Bother With Canon?

[sea trooper 0]

Since I don't believe in this stuff, I picked Canon is NOTHING!

[Jack_Bauer 1]

I said Canon is Everything. While it may get in the way of stroytelling on occasion, I still feel it is necessary, otherwise it would be chaos.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

 

 

That's cool Jack. I'm curious though; on a scale of 1 to 10 how would you (and anyone else responding who cares to say) rate the over all continuity of the saga?

[Sam The Smuggler 1]

They Do A Pretty Good Job, But Still Mess It Up Enough For Me To Say "Screw Canon"

 

In Star Trek, I Pick My Own Canon,lol

[Mike 5]

Canon is NOTHING! Keeping perfect Canon only stifles Storytelling..Canon just isn't that important to me. I'm more interested in entertaining stories and great character relationships..

[Kor37 9]

I couldn't care less about canon. Just give me a well written episode with good acting and I'll be happy.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

 

 

That's cool Jack. I'm curious though; on a scale of 1 to 10 how would you (and anyone else responding who cares to say) rate the over all continuity of the saga?

324036[/snapback]

 

Overall continuity? Well considering that other series don't mention each other all that often and that most of the complaints against Enterprise's relation to canon hold little to no merit, I'd say that the overall continuity of the series ranks about an 7 (on a scale from one to ten, with ten being the highest). Occasionally, you get a messed up reference but that has to be expected when you look at how many different writers have written episodes of Star Trek.

 

I brought this down from an 8 because of the level of poor intra-series of continuity of TOS. For instance in 'A Piece of the Action' they state that subspace radio didn't exist in 2168 but in "Balance of Terror" they state that the end of the Romulan war was negotiated using subspace radio (the war ended in 2160). What bugs me about that is Enterprise gets bashed because it has subspace radio to an extent.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

 

 

I was thinking about a six but I do agree TOS is the worst, given all its internal continuity problems it is a wonder ENT did as well as it did to stay within the lines.

 

Did anyone hear about Bragas response to those who said they totally broke canon with ENT? He says: "Prove it!" I'd like to see him and one of the people claiming ENT broke canon in a debate.

[Jack_Bauer 1]

 

 

I was thinking about a six but I do agree TOS is the worst, given all its internal continuity problems it is a wonder ENT did as well as it did to stay within the lines.

 

Did anyone hear about Bragas response to those who said they totally broke canon with ENT? He says: "Prove it!" I'd like to see him and one of the people claiming ENT broke canon in a debate.

324072[/snapback]

Well Braga is right. A lot of the alleged continuity violations cannot be conclusively proven. Here's an article I found on the Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_En...inuity_problems

[MrPsychic 1]

I like canon since it keeps everything in order, plus it prevents fanboy ships. However, if it gets too structured, then new ideas can't be created. Maybe a mix between the two would be good. At least TOS didn't have to worry about contradicting itself too much.

[ussacclaim 0]

I am a big canon person. I like minutiae (I think I completely butchered the spelling on that word) and starship specs and things like that. I think that canon aids storytelling since it gives concrete landmarks to guide the story and make it believable within the contexts of the particular genre. I'm a particiapnt in a particular Star Trek simulation and try to use canon alot. I use my Star Trek: Star charts book for reference to destinations, and canon material from the series to gauge the starships capability and that of other starships that may show up.

 

I think that canon provides reasonable boundries for a broad idea, while still allowing for a degree of freedom within the genre.

 

Funny thing, this is getting out of the Star Trek area, but a friend of mine who likes Babylon 5 said the creator, in response to a bit of canon minutiae (killed the word again!) said "they move at the speed of plot."

 

Ok, that's all I have to say.

[Admiral Kirk 1]

I think canon is important to an extent because without a general framework most of the overall themes and plotlines would be a disorganized jumble. As for ENT going against canon? I personally think it did on several occasions but the other Trek series did too to some extent.

[Takara_Soong 4]

Given only the two choices I voted "canon is nothing". I do believe canon is important but I don't think there is such a thing as "perfect canon". Life is full of contradictions so why should Trek canon be perfect.

 

For me, if it is a major violation of canon (which I can't think of any off the top of my head) then that would really bother me but the nitpicky stuff doesn't bother me at all.

[Yillara Skye 1]

Major conflicts would be the only time I would scream that canon is important, but otherwise it is not that important,IMO.

 

So many times, non canon becomes canon and canon gets changed ....so it makes it kind of difficult to really get a direct Yes, this is canon and No, this is not.

[krysis 2]

I didn't vote cos there wasn't a balance between the two choices. I'd prefer canon but I do understand that storytelling is important too. There's no way anyone can make sure everything it perfectly canon cos even in historical real life... there are things that are not so consistant. Besides, since its fiction, its cannot be perfectly done. I would appreciate "near-canon" (whatever thsat means:))

[gul_nodrog 2]

Did anyone hear about Bragas response to those who said they totally broke canon with ENT? He says: "Prove it!" I'd like to see him and one of the people claiming ENT broke canon in a debate.

324072[/snapback]

 

Man, I really don't like that little weasely Braga ... he just bugs me. I find that most of the episodes he wrote for TNG are just bizarre and are the ones I most often skip over.

 

Anyway, I voted CANON IS EVERYTHING ... because canon is what keeps B&B from pretending DS9 never happened.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Canon is important but flexibility is also important. Stay in canon as much as is possible but if you need to stretch a little here and there just don't go to far outside the realm of canon.

[mj 7]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Canon is important but flexibility is also important. Stay in canon as much as is possible but if you need to stretch a little here and there just don't go to far outside the realm of canon.

324800[/snapback]

 

 

I did not vote because I do not hold to either extreme. I think it is alright to modify bits and pieces to make Star Trek consistent with what has developed on Earth. For instance it would be foolish to not have viewscreens on Enterprise when we have cell phones that transmit pictures.

( In fact I am going to shock people and say that communicators should be upgraded in the future to also transmit images.) Even with viewscreens, they have managed to interact with the Romulans and not see them. So if they continue to be careful they can maintain 'canon' without making starfaring vessels that are implausible in light of human advancement.

 

What I am saying is they have to adapt Star Trek to what has happened in the world. No one expected the series to last long enough for there to have been no Eugenics war, requiring an alternate human history, and I know we are hopeing there is not a World War 3!

 

So I beleive in 'reasonable' canon. We need enough consistency to keep chaos away, but we have to adapt to the fact that Star Trek is continuing through the years about which it made up a future history. There are going to have to be some adjustements or it won't make sense to try to keep up the saga.

[Spockstellaiter 0]

Uh, what's canon? :blink: I thought it was a brand of cameras Edited May 19, 2005 by Spockstellaiter

[Takara_Soong 4]

Uh, what's canon?   I thought it was a brand of cameras

324990[/snapback]

 

The official facts of Star Trek are referred to as canon. According to st.com:

 

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, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

 

There are only a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)

 

Here are some links that might help:

 

Canon definition from Ex Astris Scientia website

 

Canon section at Ex Astris Scientia website

 

False Canon section from Ex Astris Scientia website

[LordOfTheBorg 1]

ARGH! NEED MORE THEN TWO OPTIONS!!!! Had to pick CANON IS EVERYTHING! because canon is important, to keep on track, even though ST goes off roading a lot. I think that without canon, all it would be would be[read that sentence again, it makes sense] random scenes from a person or persons life.... OH WAIT, THATS WHAT IT IS.... oh well, the canon in movies is still pretty good.

[RikerChick 5]

Canon means nothing to me

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Canon means nothing to me

You sure about that?

[RikerChick 5]

Canon means nothing to me

You sure about that?

 

Yes

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Canon means nothing to me

You sure about that?

 

Yes

What was your reaction to my suggestion that we go see the new Star Wars cartoon movie in Vegas?

[RikerChick 5]

Canon means nothing to me

You sure about that?

 

Yes

What was your reaction to my suggestion that we go see the new Star Wars cartoon movie in Vegas?

 

Ok that's different, we're talking trek.

[GhostofMajorHayes 10]

Imo, canon is fairly important to me because it maintains the integrity of the Star Trek saga intact. However, I would hate to see a potentially great story prevented from being produced solely due to any adherence to strict canonical interpretations. On a scale of 1 to 10 with ten being of utmost importance, I would rate canon a 7. Very important, but not absolutely important to keep the stories of Star Trek good and interesting.

[VaBeachGuy 12]

Canon means nothing to me

You sure about that?

 

Yes

What was your reaction to my suggestion that we go see the new Star Wars cartoon movie in Vegas?

 

Ok that's different, we're talking trek.

 

lol Canon is canon. Trek or Star Wars. If Canon matters in one then why wouldn't it in the other? Especially with Trek where there is an extensive history and timeline. At least with Star Wars there's only been 6 "episodes". With Star Trek there's what, 800 hours of history?

 

LOL I knew you weren't thinking about that SW movie though