XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv   
   From: ANIM8Rfsk@cox.net   
      
   in article 4464d36a$0$31652$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl, Wouter Valentijn at   
   liam@valentijn.nu wrote on 5/12/06 11:26 AM:   
      
   > David Johnston wrote:   
   >> On 12 May 2006 05:50:12 -0700, "videonovels@yahoo.com"   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> Wouter Valentijn wrote:   
   >>>> videonovels@yahoo.com wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> What I >do< know is that Gene Roddenberry said ST5 is "apocryphal"   
   >>>>> and since Roddenberry is the Creator/God of Star Trek, that movie   
   >>>>> can not be considered canon.  Neither can the Animated stories   
   >>>>> (again, per Gene's explicit command).   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> .   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Several times the official canon policy link has been posted. I   
   >>>> think that one's clear enough. The Franchise owners call the shots.   
   >>>   
   >>> .   
   >>>   
   >>> So who was it who decided the Animated Trek is "officially" not   
   >>> canon? Rick Berman?  Paramount CEOs?   
   >>   
   >> Neither.  Animation is a different medium from live action.   That's   
   >> what makes it not canon just as books being a different medium makes   
   >> them not live action.   
   >   
   > The medium itself has nothing to do with it. Some background facts from   
   > 'Yesteryear' *are* considered canon.   
      
   Of course, it's not canon WHAT part of Yesteryear is canon.   
      
   > Canon here  means: This is official. This is what actually happened within   
   > this franchise universe. This is what is sanctioned. This has the great   
   > stamp of approval by the powers that be.   
   > Of course, as soon as they are replaced, the new powers may decide what is   
   > canon as they please. Such is the nature of power.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)