It’s getting mighty hard to tell what’s canon and what’s not nowadays. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. If you would like to know more about Franz Joseph's background, please visit, - accounts which are incorrectly regarded as canonical in fandom or in official Trek, - examples of if and how visual continuity was maintained through the generations, - from a single timeline to a multiverse, and how to deal with that, - dealing with possible continuity and compatibility issues, - thoughts on the continuity and the canon status of the movie, Dealing with Continuity Issues of the Abramsverse. 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. Note that, over the years, background information from non-canon works has worked its way into canon Star Trek. The actual reason cited for TAS: "Yesteryear" to be canonical is that it adds to the background of Spock's character. It was a time when no Star Trek was on air and when fans were hungry for any kind of information. The Star Trek Encyclopedia and all other official manuals written since the late 1980s (since the canon exists) are without references from The Animated Series. seeing Captains Kirk and Picard trading Gorn-based puns instead of Gene liked giving people titles instead of raises, so the errand boy got named "archivist" and apparently it went to his head. We encourage you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY. [23][24] However, CBS Corporation, the parent company of Paramount, seems to believe differently. With regard to the Animated Series, there are a few details from the episode 'Yesteryear,' written by D.C. Fontana, that reveal biographical background on Spock and planet Vulcan. Parts of the fandom or of licensed literature that are in irreconcilable contradiction to canon facts may be called "anti-canon". First of all, a definition of canon didn't technically exist when the STTM was written. The Star Trek canon is generally defined as all released television series and feature films. But its quality alone should not be the reason to include it to the canon, especially considering the problems of partially canonical material. Gamers who are racist. Yet, the series does not adhere to the existing canon at all on the visual side. Secondly, no printed publication, not even the official technical manuals by Sternbach or Okuda, are regarded as canon themselves, but at most as apocryphal. Gamers who are homophobic. As a rule, all Star Trek television series that aired are considered part of the canon. Keeping looks and events in new episodes compliant with canon was a quality mark of the show, at least until the end of Star Trek Enterprise in 2005. Why is Soulknife's second attack not Two-Weapon Fighting? Yet, owing to its arbitrary nature and limited validity a "personal canon" usually obstructs the assessment of canon material. Sorry, guys – not trying to rain on your parade. Books are non-canon because of their printed nature, even those officially released by Paramount/CBS via Pocket Books and with people working on the show as authors (reviews). Very often ideas of False Canon or "headcanon" are involved too. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Something of further interest is that at startrek.com canon is now stated to be a question of if and when something from the previously non-canon realm is incorporated into a canon series. For instance, the Miranda class was never called by that name in any episode, not even in a screenplay. [1] While not explicitly stated, the most complete released version of the films, including scenes missing from the theatrical version of a film but included in home releases or director's cuts, appear to be canonical. Unless you count Discovery, which I don’t. From 2006 to 2010, the following more elaborate explanation could be found at startrek.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. I’m looking directly at you, Disney Star Wars. Side note The notion that any books could be canonical is contested by writers posting at the TrekBBS. [5] There exists no definitive list of which films in particular Roddenberry disliked, or what elements in them he did not consider canonical. @ThePopMachine Im not sure theres an authoritative “United Nations Organisation for the Canonicity of Star Trek Shows”, so a showrunner is probably the best there is... Oh Valorum like you don't downvote for any trivial reason you doth protest too much. Only televised Star Trek is canon. These for example include the first names of Hikaru Sulu and Nyota Uhura, but also James T. Kirk's middle name "Tiberius" from The Animated Series when it was still considered non-canon. What's the canonicity of Star Trek: Lower Decks? Still, it was planned to finally include them in the fifth season of Enterprise. On the contrary, it can help avoid rehashes of a previous story. Stack Exchange network consists of 176 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers. Even if we attempt to establish an exception, the STTM as a whole fails to fulfill the requirements for canon data in several regards. Irrespective of any concerns of how they could possibly fit together, this definition of canon encompasses the live action TV shows (TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, Discovery, Picard) and the feature films (classic and Abramsverse), all in the versions in which they were shown on TV or in the theaters, respectively. A vague recollection to something once read. In an interview with Trekmovie.com, dated 9 December 2008, "Star Trek (2009)" writer Bob Orci said that he personally considered some novels canon, but that it is not up to him to declare Countdown canon. We can't. Paramount's policy that Jeri Taylor's novels should be canon is said to be non-existent and may have been made up just for the fans. In cases of conflicts, I will give the existing Star Trek precedence, and I will never try to blend in Discovery with far-fetched explanations, unless these are hinted at in the stories themselves. But this must be seen rather as an accident because the Art Department is usually quite careful not to include copyrighted material. The Paramount timeline (The Kelvin universe from the recent movies, and all the games based on it). This may include The Animated Series, the books by Jeri Taylor, reference books, deleted scenes or behind-the-scenes information. For example, the remastered episodes of the original series, released in 2006, present several visual differences from the episodes originally aired.[3]. The changes are much more than only cosmetic. This doesn't mean that EAS slavishly follows the interpretations put forth in reference works. So, for us here – Ron Moore, Jeri Taylor, everybody who works on the show – Gene is the authority. TOS-R is designed to be more internally consistent. Although the concepts are different (which becomes evident as soon as we're looking at more than one timeline), "canon" and "continuity" are often used interchangeably. Yet, the classification of Lower Decks being fully canon is in contrast to the status of TAS, which is commonly debated and still not fully recognized until today. That’s how art works. (How) should we mark the 10th anniversary of SFF.SE? Well, this is the first technical manual done by folks who actually work on, "You have to remember that things like CD-ROMs and the various "official" manuals put out by Paramount are not done in conjunction with the writing/producing staffs and that the authors are usually simply extrapolating information based on what's actually been seen on screen." A "personal canon" may and is supposed to be more consistent than the official canon and may contribute to a "fanon". But the key statement is that only "events within the real action series" are canon. From which episode of Star Trek TNG is the lower part of the picture? Harry Potter. This is the practical explanation of canon as it could be found at the official Star Trek website until 2006: "As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the real action series and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. 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.