MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: New Voyages (2004) Discussion > Star Trek Canon

Star Trek Canon

posted 12 years ago by bobj_1960
24 replies | jump to latest

There have been discussions in several threads on this board about what is 'Canon' within the Star Trek Universe.
So far I consider these sources as valid:

ST-TOS series and movies
ST-NG series and movies
ST-DS9
ST-Voyager
Enterprise
Bios (if any) on or by original cast and crew
Factual books on the subject (such as Jacqueline Lichtenberg's "Star Trek Lives")
********
How do we consider the following sources
ST - animated series
ST novels (which are plentiful and myriad)
Webisodes (New Voyages, New Frontiers, Exeter, et al)
Other fan works
=======
your thoughts?
==============
Carpe Carpio

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobj_1960 12 years ago

I am not trying to rewrite 'trek history' just trying to establish a common ground that defines the concept. Is this such a terrible thing?

==============
Carpe Carpio

[–] bobj_1960 12 years ago

I'm replying to my own post here as I decided to see if there is a definition (official or otherwise) of the canon. Here is what I found:

The Star Trek canon is generally defined as all live-action television series and feature films released by Paramount Pictures. With the release of Star Trek: The Animated Series on DVD, the studio appears to have changed its stance, and is now listing the cartoon series (aired 1973–1974), as a part of established canon. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Canon

Two other sites have excellent summarizations (with documentation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

http://www.canonwars.com/STCanon.html

Searching Startrek.com and paramount.com I could find no 'official' definition.

Is ST static? No. Gene Roddenberry stated that he hoped it would continue to grow and expand.

==============
Carpe Carpio

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] singanewsongtonight 12 years ago

"Internet Blogs like another opinionated biased sites are not reputable for true proven facts first hand."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAHHHHAHAHAHahahahahaha.... OMG!!! HAHAHAHAHahahahaha. The great BS artist and creator of "opinionated biased sites" speaks! HAHAHAHAHAhahahahhahhaaa Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa... oh, that's rich. Seriously, that's the bomb.....

Speaking of blogs and internet forums, have you seen this one?
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/checkingthebull/

PS: An apology for our pet nutball that appears here above. This is our IMDB forum stalker, bozo, wannabe actor whose IQ is the same size as his inseam. He has no manners at all, thinks everyone wants to hear his blah blah blah and should use every word he utters as verbal fairy dust to improve their lives each and every day by sprinkling words like "masturbating to internet porn" throughout the galaxy. He spends hours upon hours cataloging and filing every word uttered about Hidden Frontier, drives past Rob Cave's home, Thalek's house, and puts up signs all around Calabasas about the Trek Club, USS Angeles so everyone will remember him prior to a meeting.

Is that stalker-esk? Why yes. Yes it is.

[–] bobj_1960 12 years ago

I never said my links were evidential. I clearly stated that I could find no absolute definition from 'official' sites and posted the pages I listed as summaries of the other discussion pages I found.

Besides, who the heck are you to lecture me on using blog posts as not valid sources. You are the one that referenced a rambling posts in an obscure limited access blog as proof there are no gay characters in ST.

You stated your choice of sources for canon material as FACT. I could find no such 'fact' so what are your sources? You demand others provide sources, so where are yours?

As for the Roddenberry quote, I saw that on several different sites. Since Mr. Roddenberry died in 1991, his quotes being directly on the web are probably very rare (if at all existant).

I tried to start a reasonable and polite discourse on this toppic but you are the one that started with the vitriolic comments. So from now on, if you cannot make any factual statements without valid source links, everyone will know that you are talking out of your arse.

===============
People didn't like the Black Plague, but they still talk about it.

==============
Carpe Carpio

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sir_Loin_of_Beef 12 years ago

No one is is talking about *you*, Genovese. We're discussing your insane need to stick your opinions (which is all they are, as you've never had facts on your side) into places where both they and you are not welcome.

To everyone else, I'd like to apologize for the bloviating troll known as Anthony Genovese hiding behing the "oscar-35" username, since he doesn't have the morals to do so for his long history of attacks on various fan groups. His sad life consists of harping around the edges of groups he desperately wants to be a part of, but since they rightly shun him, all he can do in his cowardice is to rant and rave about inconsequential matters - as any perceptive person can see.

Go crawl back into your troll cave, Genovese - the adults are talking here, and your childish antics are not not appreciated...

'Nuff said: http://www.redshirtfilmette.com

[–] singanewsongtonight 12 years ago

Oscar dba Anthony Genovese:

Do you READ the posts people write? Seriously, do you even READ them? My God, pal, the absurdity and stupidity of your comments on this thread are just comical!

READ the post, Genovese. READ them. THEN you can respond. Otherwise, your daily appearance as the great IMDB idiot goes unimpeded and unchallenged!

I guess you'll become famous after all.................:)

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] indy_go_blue44 11 years ago

I've always read that the books and fan-fiction are not considered canon, only the shows and movies produced for/by Paramount and its affiliates. Is it true that the animated series is now also canon? Are the new JJ Abrams movies considered canon? They seem to do a little rewriting of "history" IMO.

[–] babel_on_5 10 years ago

Are the new JJ Abrams movies considered canon? They seem to do a little rewriting of "history" IMO.

I think that "Star Trek Into Darkness" answers your question, Indy.

***
Don't aim for the towers. Aim for the trolls! KILL THE TROLLS!!!

[–] BRagunton 10 years ago

A number of years ago (while Roddenberry was still alive) the official word regarding Trek canon was this...

All of the Star Trek TV series (except for the animated series which is NOT considered canon at all)
"Most" of the Trek movies.

The books are not canon at all, neither are any of the web series. Of course when Roddenberry was alive there was no such thing as web series so it's very possible that he might have given the web series his canonical blessing.

[–] filmbuff1974 10 years ago

I read so many posts about "canon" as if this was the last word on anything Star Trek. But truth be told, anything after Gene Roddenberry's exit from the franchise would fall off the established "canon" and that would include most of THE NEXT GENERATION.

Why not just enjoy all these web series for what they are, "fan" made Star Trek for Star Trek fans.

Live Full & Die Empty. Tap Your Potential and Realize Your Dreams!

[–] Adam_Newman 10 years ago

Without reading through all the replies, I will say this. I feel that anything that is legally licensed should be considered canon. From TV shows, movies, novels and even comics. Just because someone may not like to read a comic or novel, doesn't mean that the story within wasn't an officially licensed part of Trek lore. If it has been licensed as an official Star Trek product then I consider those things canon within the Star Trek universe. With that said, I enjoy most of the better done fan films and series. If something from any of those makes it way into the official Star Trek universe then so be it.

[–] MadMax-47 10 years ago

I think the ultimate problem with trying to define canon is that different groups are trying to define it for different reasons, and that leads to different definitions almost as a matter of course.

Roddenberry, as much as I respect what he accomplished, started to become very jealous of Trek in later years. It's a matter of opinion, but I think he wanted to be THE person who created Trek, not the person who was IN CHARGE of creating Trek. Dismissing Dorothy Fontana and David Gerrold from TNG was one example of this behavior; Fontana in particular was responsible for a several of the most important additions to Trek lore. Trying to define canon as not including the animated series was, I think, another example. Beyond being a consultant, Roddenberry had little to do with TAS. On the other hand, TAS used not only the bulk of the original cast but also several of TOS writers, and included several episodes that were direct sequels to original episodes. Admittedly, storytelling suffered from the move from one hour to an half hour, but overall I find no logical (pun unintended) reason to claim that TAS is not canon.

Art is not Truth. Art is a Lie that makes us realize Truth.

[–] feenix219 10 years ago

I hope and pray someone does another TAS before Shatner, Nimoy, Takei and Koenig are dead. Its the one place they can still play their characters properly. I'd even settle for CGI.

[–] domester82 10 years ago

I consider all the movies and tv series produced by Paramount Pictures as canon (this includes TAS, it completes the five year mission, is written by many of the same writers as the original series, features the majority of the same cast, and has several sequels to TOS episodes. Furthermore, I have the DVD right there on my shelf next to the other Trek television series and movies).

Whether you want to include the web series as canon or not , is up to your own discretion. I personally love Phase 2/New Voyages and wouldn't mind considering it the missing season of TOS which we never got. Star Trek Continues is also very good, despite only having two episodes so far. I enjoyed Of Gods And Men, the Tim Russ directed independent fan production, and am looking forward to Renegades when it comes out. I might donate to their site, and get the DVDs of those films to add to my Trek collection

[–] Polaris01313-1 10 years ago

As far as canon is concerned, here is my interpretation.

1. The Animated Series is the 4th Season.
2. New Voyages/Phase 2 is the 5th Season.
3. Of Gods And Men(even though I don't like Sky Conway and anything about him).

[–] bloodynuisance 9 years ago

has anyone mentioned to the OP that it is not real? television show kid, television show

[–] anthonyheaney2008 8 years ago

Hey bob 2 questions

1. Looking at thre warp Neacls movie type. Are they no longer on their 5 year mission
2. The forcefield suits aren't they from an episode of startrek animated show?

[–] tkainear 8 years ago

They are in the Phase II timeline...after the 5 year mission and before the movies.

Yes, the forcefield suits are from TAS.

[–] feenix219 8 years ago

Phase II would have been *instead* of the movies, and in my mind, its always been the 5YM set after TMP and before TWK. There is no room for a Phase II after the 5 Year Mission, but plenty of room after TMP - enough time for the brand new refit to become a training ship and obsolete.

Thats the fan series i'm truly waiting to see.

[–] knytrydr 8 years ago

My tagline explains it all 
----------
Star Trek Canon is more of what you'd call "guidelines" then actual rules!