Do you not feel, RedImperator, that the sort of preliminary difficulties you suggest can easily be avoided by clearly stating which canon is being used when arguing for or against Star Trek?
Publius
Is "Enterprise" Canon (Off Topic Maybe)
Moderator: Vympel
So, in that sense, Mr. Wong, would everything produced after Roddenberry's death be non canonical? (ie: his canon would end somewhere near the end of TNG?)
Though even then it wouldn't be that cut and dried, he did have writing credit in some other stuff, including (possibly) DS9 and even the pilot for Enterprise "Broken Bow" IIRC (see imdb.com for exact details, assuming they got their facts right).
For a franchise, the owner of the franchise gets to decide what's part of the official continuity, but perhaps one can say the creator of a work creates the only "official" canon.
I know the analogy isn't perfect, but what if this were put back to the original context of "canon" (in the religious sense)?
The book we now call "the Bible" is a collection of individual works, developed over decades and even centuries by a myriad of different authors. The "canon" of these works has been determined by ecclesiastical authorities (by the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformers, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, etc).
Islam is an interesting case as well, because in general, they look at the Bible (both Jewish and Christian Scriptures) sort of as the EU, and the Koran as the movie canon.
Of course, a believer would say that the author of the Bible is actually God, and so its all part of the same work. In theory, "God" could write "the Bible 2" and it would still be canonical, of course matters would be complicated by the fact that each ecclesiastical group has determined its own canon.
Okay, maybe that doesn't help things... nevermind. It's late and I'm tired from too much holiday merriment.
Well, it could be worse... we could be trying to make sense out of Highlander canon/continuity ; )
Though even then it wouldn't be that cut and dried, he did have writing credit in some other stuff, including (possibly) DS9 and even the pilot for Enterprise "Broken Bow" IIRC (see imdb.com for exact details, assuming they got their facts right).
For a franchise, the owner of the franchise gets to decide what's part of the official continuity, but perhaps one can say the creator of a work creates the only "official" canon.
I know the analogy isn't perfect, but what if this were put back to the original context of "canon" (in the religious sense)?
The book we now call "the Bible" is a collection of individual works, developed over decades and even centuries by a myriad of different authors. The "canon" of these works has been determined by ecclesiastical authorities (by the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformers, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, etc).
Islam is an interesting case as well, because in general, they look at the Bible (both Jewish and Christian Scriptures) sort of as the EU, and the Koran as the movie canon.
Of course, a believer would say that the author of the Bible is actually God, and so its all part of the same work. In theory, "God" could write "the Bible 2" and it would still be canonical, of course matters would be complicated by the fact that each ecclesiastical group has determined its own canon.
Okay, maybe that doesn't help things... nevermind. It's late and I'm tired from too much holiday merriment.
Well, it could be worse... we could be trying to make sense out of Highlander canon/continuity ; )
The only way I make sense of Enterprise in my head is to say that "Time Travel Screwed Everything Up" and we're really seeing it from the point of view of the present (ie: some omniscient observers from the 30th century or whomever it is pulling the strings in the Temporal Cold War).
Odd, and probably unnecessary from an artistic point of view, but it makes some sense in its own crazy fashion.
Odd, and probably unnecessary from an artistic point of view, but it makes some sense in its own crazy fashion.
-
Darth Wong
- Sith Lord
- Posts: 70028
- Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
His canon would not cover anything which didn't carry his stamp of approval. That does not preclude the existence of a separate canon carried on by Paramount, but basically, what you end up with is B&B Trek and Roddenberry Trek as two different entities.Kurgan wrote:So, in that sense, Mr. Wong, would everything produced after Roddenberry's death be non canonical? (ie: his canon would end somewhere near the end of TNG?)
Keep in mind that "canon" is a legal non-concept. We, the fans, invent it because we want some method of deciding what is the "truth" for a given sci-fi series. It has nothing to do with copyright (copyright is about preventing unlawful duplication, not deciding the "truth" of fictional universes) and its closest (but still imperfect) parallel lies in "moral rights".For a franchise, the owner of the franchise gets to decide what's part of the official continuity, but perhaps one can say the creator of a work creates the only "official" canon.
Right. Any chuch has the right to make its own extensions; the Catholic Church has done quite a bit of this, and so have the Mormons.I know the analogy isn't perfect, but what if this were put back to the original context of "canon" (in the religious sense)?
The book we now call "the Bible" is a collection of individual works, developed over decades and even centuries by a myriad of different authors. The "canon" of these works has been determined by ecclesiastical authorities (by the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformers, Jewish Rabbis, Muslims, etc).
Right, but suppose God gives the rights for Biblical work to his anointed "prophets", who continue to churn out new Bible additions (this is exactly what the Mormons do). In their case, they consider them valid, but not able to contradict the Bible itself.Of course, a believer would say that the author of the Bible is actually God, and so its all part of the same work. In theory, "God" could write "the Bible 2" and it would still be canonical, of course matters would be complicated by the fact that each ecclesiastical group has determined its own canon.
That's actually a good example; if continuity problems are severe enough, most fans are content to simply argue that they can't be the same canon, and treat them as unrelated.Well, it could be worse... we could be trying to make sense out of Highlander canon/continuity ; )
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
My question is just this... have "we" the "fans" really created the canon? Or are we just interpreting some concept handed to us from the creator(s) of the franchises?
That is.. continuity might not matter at all (even in a "just for fun" sense of a fictional universe), so why does any official SW person bother to comment on canon?
I know we the fans could make up whatever we wanted. I could pretend, for example, that ANH never happened like that, but SOTE did, etc. But nobody has to agree with me, and it doesn't have to make any sense.
; )
That is.. continuity might not matter at all (even in a "just for fun" sense of a fictional universe), so why does any official SW person bother to comment on canon?
I know we the fans could make up whatever we wanted. I could pretend, for example, that ANH never happened like that, but SOTE did, etc. But nobody has to agree with me, and it doesn't have to make any sense.
; )
-
Publius
- Jedi Council Member
- Posts: 1912
- Joined: 2002-07-03 08:22pm
- Location: Novus Ordo Sæculorum
- Contact:
Could you possibly re-state your point, in a more coherent manner?Kurgan wrote:My question is just this... have "we" the "fans" really created the canon? Or are we just interpreting some concept handed to us from the creator(s) of the franchises?
That is.. continuity might not matter at all (even in a "just for fun" sense of a fictional universe), so why does any official SW person bother to comment on canon?
I know we the fans could make up whatever we wanted. I could pretend, for example, that ANH never happened like that, but SOTE did, etc. But nobody has to agree with me, and it doesn't have to make any sense.
; )
God's in His Heaven, all's right with the world
-
Illuminatus Primus
- All Seeing Eye
- Posts: 15774
- Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
- Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
- Contact:
I don't think there is a point.Publius wrote:Could you possibly re-state your point, in a more coherent manner?Kurgan wrote:My question is just this... have "we" the "fans" really created the canon? Or are we just interpreting some concept handed to us from the creator(s) of the franchises?
That is.. continuity might not matter at all (even in a "just for fun" sense of a fictional universe), so why does any official SW person bother to comment on canon?
I know we the fans could make up whatever we wanted. I could pretend, for example, that ANH never happened like that, but SOTE did, etc. But nobody has to agree with me, and it doesn't have to make any sense.
; )
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
I'll give it a shot.... it's not a "point" its a question, or series of questions...Could you possibly re-state your point, in a more coherent manner?
What is "canon"?
Who decides on what is canon and what is not?
Why is the concept of "canon" important (just verses debates?)?
(important, in the sense of fandom or franchises.. I know that ultimately there's a universe of things more important than continuity in a sci fi series of movies or shows)
Answer if you can, using any reliable information you can to support your answer.
-
Slartibartfast
- Emperor's Hand
- Posts: 6730
- Joined: 2002-09-10 05:35pm
- Location: Where The Sea Meets The Sky
- Contact:
Highlander continuity...
I'll agree with you there.
There seems to be some discontinuity between the first Highlander film and Endgame, the same discontinuity that exists between Highlander 1 and the TV series.
Between the TV series and Highlander Endgame, there seems to be excellent continuity. Events are referred to in Endgame that occured in the first movie, but others totally contradict (ie: in the first movie Connor MacLeod is the last immortal left standing in 1986, despite the fact that in the series, other immortals are still alive in the 1990's, and many of these are contemporaries of Connor or even older).
So yeah, right there it feels like three different continuities:
Series, Endgame
1, 3
1, 2 (Renegade version or "The Quickening" take your pick)
Then there's the cartoon series that is a totally different timeline in its own right (most "Fans" don't call it canon, but then again, I'm not sure what they could do with the rest).
Most fans I've talked to say (though I haven't really checked to see what they think of Endgame in all this) that they just pretend that 2 never happened, and a few (but not as many) say that 3 also never happened.
I've heard some try to reconcile the first movie with the series, but usually it ends up something along the lines of: it was a hallucination or a skewing of history, or something like that.
One explanation I could put forth would be to say that all the movies up to Endgame (1, 2, 3) were hallucinations that Connor had while he was in the "Sanctuary" which skewed real events. The series and Endgame were the only "real" events. And, as suggested in the director's commentary on the Endgame DVD, the series began in 1992, and Endgame took place in 2002 (around xmas time, incidentally, as the new "ending" of the movie shows a new years celebration, and other hints are dropped in added scenes that this is the time of year).
However, this seems awfully odd for any long-time fan, because its saying the original canon material never happened, and the new material is the real thing.
Sort of like somebody's explanation in a previous thread (sorry I forget the url) where we're to believe that TOS is actually just a dreamed up tall tale version of history by Kirk or Kirk's fans, and the real history is the TOS era movies or the extra-Roddenbarry canon events (like Enterprise).
The other option is to say that each one is an alternate universe. Its getting to be like the Arthurian legends... a myriad of different stories, using the same characters, but with little continuity between stories (Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur being the most valiant attempt to meld the main stories into a coherent narrative).
I honestly don't know what the series/movie creators have said on the subject of canon. I've heard rumors that the series and movies are different timelines and the cartoons aren't "canon" but that is hearsay, I don't know what they consider for their own franchise (they seem not to really care too much about it).
There seems to be some discontinuity between the first Highlander film and Endgame, the same discontinuity that exists between Highlander 1 and the TV series.
Between the TV series and Highlander Endgame, there seems to be excellent continuity. Events are referred to in Endgame that occured in the first movie, but others totally contradict (ie: in the first movie Connor MacLeod is the last immortal left standing in 1986, despite the fact that in the series, other immortals are still alive in the 1990's, and many of these are contemporaries of Connor or even older).
So yeah, right there it feels like three different continuities:
Series, Endgame
1, 3
1, 2 (Renegade version or "The Quickening" take your pick)
Then there's the cartoon series that is a totally different timeline in its own right (most "Fans" don't call it canon, but then again, I'm not sure what they could do with the rest).
Most fans I've talked to say (though I haven't really checked to see what they think of Endgame in all this) that they just pretend that 2 never happened, and a few (but not as many) say that 3 also never happened.
I've heard some try to reconcile the first movie with the series, but usually it ends up something along the lines of: it was a hallucination or a skewing of history, or something like that.
One explanation I could put forth would be to say that all the movies up to Endgame (1, 2, 3) were hallucinations that Connor had while he was in the "Sanctuary" which skewed real events. The series and Endgame were the only "real" events. And, as suggested in the director's commentary on the Endgame DVD, the series began in 1992, and Endgame took place in 2002 (around xmas time, incidentally, as the new "ending" of the movie shows a new years celebration, and other hints are dropped in added scenes that this is the time of year).
However, this seems awfully odd for any long-time fan, because its saying the original canon material never happened, and the new material is the real thing.
Sort of like somebody's explanation in a previous thread (sorry I forget the url) where we're to believe that TOS is actually just a dreamed up tall tale version of history by Kirk or Kirk's fans, and the real history is the TOS era movies or the extra-Roddenbarry canon events (like Enterprise).
The other option is to say that each one is an alternate universe. Its getting to be like the Arthurian legends... a myriad of different stories, using the same characters, but with little continuity between stories (Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur being the most valiant attempt to meld the main stories into a coherent narrative).
I honestly don't know what the series/movie creators have said on the subject of canon. I've heard rumors that the series and movies are different timelines and the cartoons aren't "canon" but that is hearsay, I don't know what they consider for their own franchise (they seem not to really care too much about it).