XPost: alt.startrek, rec.arts.startrek.current, rec.arts.tv
From: mdicenso@seds.org
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Wouter Valentijn wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
For all that people say about Berman, he actually stuck to the canon
policy that Roddenberry laid out. Notice that out of the dozen or so TAS
references in modern Trek, all but one is from "Yesteryear".
-Mike
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
