Stop using B.C.E. and C.E. you cretins!

A series which has long been established as not being canon.
It was re-canonized years ago, when some of the events of "Yesteryear" were incorporated into the live ST series. There are some ST pro authors who even consider the Kzinti to be canon (from the animated episode "The Slaver Weapon") - and if they do, that must mean that the publishers/Roddenberry's estate consider it canon.

As far as I am aware, there is very little that is currently disowned as canon: Star Trek V (the horrible mess William Shatner directed), and the Voyager episode "Threshold" (where achieving Warp 10 means you evolve super-fast into a lizard). There are one or two others, but I don't remember which ones.

Personally, I don't consider either Enterprise or the nuTrek movie to be canon, since they so egregiously violate what was previously established. There is NO WAY to reconcile them with the rest of the Trek universe.
 
TAS has not been canonized. Certain elements from TAS have later been acknowledged by canonical sources, but only those are canon. Not that being canon is an altogether desirable category; I'd happily accept TAS to decanonize ENT.

No element from canonical series have ever been disowned; as far as I'm aware Roddenberry only said that Star Trek V was "apocryphal", whatever the heck that means, and Berman said that "Threshold" was a terrible episode and he's ashamed of it. Of course what is "canon" nevertheless changes all the time as elements from previous episodes are either completely ignored or retconned.

Also, who cares what some fanboy book authors think? Expanded universes suck.

Also, what's inconsistent about Star Trek 2009? Its very plot makes inconsistencies with later events impossible. Now if you're talking about inconsistencies with the laws of physics instead :mischief:
 
It was re-canonized years ago, when some of the events of "Yesteryear" were incorporated into the live ST series. There are some ST pro authors who even consider the Kzinti to be canon (from the animated episode "The Slaver Weapon") - and if they do, that must mean that the publishers/Roddenberry's estate consider it canon.
Only the live action TV and movies have been considered canon. There are elements from books and TAS that have become canon by being incorporated into one of the above, but that doesn't make the rest of it any more valid.
At best, it is be treated like Star Wars does with the expanded universe, it can be considered canon unless contradicted by any of the main works in which case it immediately becomes non-canon.
 
At best, it is be treated like Star Wars does with the expanded universe, it can be considered canon unless contradicted by any of the main works in which case it immediately becomes non-canon.
It seems more like this is the rule that applies to the official live action series and movies already, since they are not exactly known for their consistency either.

So the Borg were canonically only after assimilating technology until VOY changed them to Space Vampires.
 
Are we going to have a Star Trek appreciation discussion for much longer in this thread? :)
 
Now if you're talking about inconsistencies with the laws of physics instead :mischief:

That, if anything, suggests greater consistency with the whole of the Star Trek franchise.
star-trek-tos-202-who-mourns-for-adonais-02.png
 
That bit was explicitly divine power. God does not play dice with the universe, remember? :)
 
This is for YOUR benefit, El Mac! If we can be in negative numbers now, you will be able to tell your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-repeat 100 more times-grandchildren that, yes, you were in fact alive before year zero (which the new calender will have.) You -will- still be alive then, I assume...

shut-up-and-take-my-money.jpeg
 
That, if anything, suggests greater consistency with the whole of the Star Trek franchise.
star-trek-tos-202-who-mourns-for-adonais-02.png
Touché.

But if I'm honest, I wouldn't be particularly troubled if TOS was eliminated from canon as well.
 
I for one am fine with having my personal canon. It has the (in ST very valuable) advantage of not requiring total logical consistency to feel legit.
I can somewhat understand why people urge for such consistency - but it also seems a lost battle over a questionable cause.
And I knew that this was going to be about ST the moment I posted the Archer picture :D (and I agree with Random that ENT is not that bad, better than VOY in any case).
 
As far as I am aware, there is very little that is currently disowned as canon: Star Trek V (the horrible mess William Shatner directed), and the Voyager episode "Threshold" (where achieving Warp 10 means you evolve super-fast into a lizard). There are one or two others, but I don't remember which ones.

The thing about Star Trek is that there are TONS of examples of stuff like that.

For example, in one of the earlier TNG episodes, it is revealed that the Klingon Empire is a part of the Federation. That idea is quickly swept under the carpet without an explanation and next thing you know the Klingon Empire is fully sovereign.

You can ignore that whole episode and pretend that it's not a part of Star Trek "canon", but playing such silly games is just.. well, silly.. IMO of course, but it's just a TV show.. It's not fully self-consistent, but there's no need to try to figure out what's a part of "canon" and what isn't. Why? Can't we just enjoy the episodes and movies on their own merits? :)

The writers/creators of the TV shows just sort of came up with whatever, for each episode. You can't expect the entire universe to make coherent one-Universe type sense. That's an over the top expectation for a franchise that spans over 30 seasons of TV and 10 movies.
 
Well I think many people are especially intrigued by Star Treks' epic scale. By its monumental story arch, the vastness of this universe and of the time period covered. And doing so means to exactly not just view movies or episodes as works of their own, but works of something bigger. That is just the appeal many see - including me.
And from that POV - the call for consistency isn't just nerdy pointless nit-picking. It is the demand of consumers of a piece of art that it nurtures an aspect considered important to the enjoyment of it. If you want to enjoy ST as one giant universe, inconsistency can ruin the fun.
That said - I also partially agree with you. To want total consistency is somewhat a fools game. What is called for is some lightness and relaxation, a little open-mindedness to the lack of sense, then one can still enjoy the "universe-feeling" without getting angry about all the inconsistencies all the time.
 
That bit was explicitly divine power. God does not play dice with the universe, remember? :)
As I understand it, the Greek gods of the episodes were merely very powerful aliens, not supernatural entities. And by Clarke's Law, I suppose we can assume that they've simply circumvented everything we know about physics with technology somehow. Perhaps more egregious is the sound in space. I understand its utility as a dramatic convention, but it's just odd when characters acknowledge it, like in The Voyage Home and ENT: "Breaking the Ice."
Touché.

But if I'm honest, I wouldn't be particularly troubled if TOS was eliminated from canon as well.

I don't see the point in calling it a Star Trek canon without TOS. What parts do you like?
 
At best, it is be treated like Star Wars does with the expanded universe, it can be considered canon unless contradicted by any of the main works in which case it immediately becomes non-canon.
Star Wars canonicity is more complex than that. It even has a central arbitration group.

I think the best approach for Star Trek fans - and I'm not one of them - is to go the headcanon route, because there's really no other guideline as to what did and did not take place.
 
Eh, I'm not sure that there isn't literature that spells out the Star Trek canon.

Shoot, I used to have Star Trek 'technical' manuals, (but then I got a girlfriend - not insulting my fellow treckies, I just wouldn't be caught dead with it at the time) so I wouldn't be surprised if there were works that sort out the canon from the non-canon.
 
I don't see the point in calling it a Star Trek canon without TOS. What parts do you like?
I was introduced to Star Trek with the later seasons of TNG, so I simply don't care that much for TOS. But what I meant was that if you really look at what TOS established about the universe that still holds true in the later series, there really isn't that much left than can exclusively be found in TOS. Plus there's a lot of silliness in there which I really wouldn't want to be canon - the already mentioned Apollo episode is part of it, or every plot that involved a planet where for convoluted reasons everything was just like a certain period of Earth's history, such as Modern Rome Planet and Chicago Mobster Planet.
 
Eh, I'm not sure that there isn't literature that spells out the Star Trek canon.

Shoot, I used to have Star Trek 'technical' manuals, (but then I got a girlfriend - not insulting my fellow treckies, I just wouldn't be caught dead with it at the time) so I wouldn't be surprised if there were works that sort out the canon from the non-canon.

There isn't any literature because the official canon has been very simple, live action TV series and movies. Reference materials are accepted in a limited fashion mainly in the form of details added to otherwise canon material (such as specifications of starships). In comparison a Star Wars equivalent would be to say the entire Expanded Universe is non-canon.

That said, fans commonly accept content (such as TAS) to flesh out the universe and different groups will have different ideas as to just what is accepted there is no standardization.
 
There isn't any literature because the official canon has been very simple, live action TV series and movies. Reference materials are accepted in a limited fashion mainly in the form of details added to otherwise canon material (such as specifications of starships). In comparison a Star Wars equivalent would be to say the entire Expanded Universe is non-canon.

That said, fans commonly accept content (such as TAS) to flesh out the universe and different groups will have different ideas as to just what is accepted there is no standardization.

So all of the Star Trek novels are non-cannon?

I do remember one novel I read that completely destroyed the first Romulan/Federation War timeline, so that's probably for the best then.
 
So all of the Star Trek novels are non-cannon?
Yes.

I understand there have been arguments made lately for including TAS, mostly arising from Paramount promoting the DVD release and recent release on Netflix.
 
Back
Top Bottom