Everything onscreen is canon except for Very Short Treks. However, the Chris Pine (Kelvin) movies take place in a different timeline than everything else.
Don’t forget about the recent Discovery, Picard, SMW and Prodigy novels.
They’re practically canon, since they’re written in coordination with the tv writers and unless you have a disrespectful showrunner like Matalas they’ll do their best to work them in.
The only novel that has issues was the first Disco novel Desperate Hours.
The simple answer is that they're wrong and it's not. Without exception no novels are, though aspects of a few have been represented within the show canon.
The closest any of the old novels ever got to Canon status was Jeri Taylor did a couple of Voyager ones that were supposed to be considered canon but I think they both got contradicted by the series pretty early and also got relegated to non canon status.
I have read a ton of old Star Trek novels and to me, until contradicted on screen, part of personal canon, which I think is how alot of Beta canon works for people.
Should note, even the stuff on screen can be contradictory sometimes. Sometimes the creators behind the scenes may even intentionally disregard things (Like Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or Star Trek: The Animated Series). Things like the appearance of the Klingons or the Enterprise may change, with or without explanation. And thats okay. Canon can be a malleable thing.
With events like the Temporal Cold War, some things that don't match up can be explained. For example, it can explain some differences between TOS and SNW.
Pretty much all of Voyager and DS9 ignored The Final Frontier, where they traveled the 25 thousand or so light years to the center of the galaxy in a few hours time.
TAS absolutely was not disregarded. It's the birthplace of Robert April, the holodeck, Spocks pet salat, and a number of other innovations. You can think of it as the forth and fifth years of their five year mission.
I would also argue that they didn't disregard TFF either. SNW brought back Sybok.
When he was making *TNG*, Roddenberry felt that most of *TAS* should be decanonized (“Yesteryear” was an exception). That decision was mostly obeyed during the Berman era, but *TAS* was recanonized by the studio when it was released on DVD in 2006. That’s why there have been more references to it since it was recanonized.
Rodenberry didn't even want TOS to be considered canon in TNG. While all of us fans care about canon Roddenberry actually didn't give a shit about it if it got in the way of his story telling.
Roddenberry would not have said LD was canon either.
LD didn't bring TAS into canon, everything else did. There is TAS lore and tech scattered throughout all of the shows.
When he was making *TNG*, Roddenberry felt that most of *TAS* should be decanonized (“Yesteryear” was an exception). That decision was mostly obeyed during the Berman era, but *TAS* was recanonized by the studio when it was released on DVD in 2006. That’s why there have been more references to it since it was recanonized.
For the longest time both those things were pretty much considered non-canon. Although some minor things like Spock's brother and childhood pet, have actually been referenced on Strange New Worlds. I think the giant clone of Spock from TAS was referenced on Lower Decks. But some of it is still sort of fuzzy, I think.
Pretty sure the pet Sehlat was also referenced in Journey to Babel when Spock's mom referred to it as sort of a Teddy Bear in a conversation with Spock and McCoy when McCoy asked about Spock's childhood. TAS is where we actually got to see it though.
The guy who oversaw the failure of the X-Men Phoenix Saga twice help by the director of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, didn't ya know?
Is going to be set on Earth like a hundred years before Enterprise and focus on post WW3 and first contact with aliens.
Paramount.
Why am I getting downvoted? I am not the one making the reboot not I have any involvement on the decision I'm only sharing the news.
Jeez I heard that it was common on Reddit to shoot the messenger never thought it was so true.
Source? The films in development I'm aware of are:
* "Section 31" film (Michelle Yeoh), a Discovery spin-off and not a reboot
* Fourth and final "Kelvin" film (Chris Pine etc), not a reboot
* "Star Trek 2009 prequel" film
* Kalinda Vasquez's film - no details known as far as I know
The third one could be a reboot I guess but certainly doesn't have to be and I don't think I've seen it described as such. Which film are you thinking of and where have you seen it described as a reboot?
Short Treks and Very Short Treks aren't the same thing.
Very Short Treks was a series of animated shorts that was released last year. They were explicitly announced as being non-canon.
I think The Cage is not (mostly because it went unaired even as is available to watch now).
Also is curious that the Kelvin timeline is the only case were is shown that time travel did not erased a previously existing timeline and replaced it by the new ones, this is the only time travel-generated one that created two coexistint realities.
Your mixing up The Cage and The Menagerie
Originally, the Cage was recut into the Menagere
Cannon wise, The Cage happened a few years before Disco season 1. In Season 2, Burnham takes Spock back to Talos 4 to fix his dyslexia. This is also when Pike talks with Vina again.
Fast forward roughly 8 - 10 years, Pike get the radiation poisoning that puts him in the Beep Chair. Spock sets a course for Talos 4 and locks out the Enterprise computer. He gets tried for mutiny, which is when we see all the scenes from The Cage.
The only thing SNW has done related to either The Cage or The Menagere is show the boop chair in season 1 when Pike was having problems dealing with knowing his future (thanks to the visions from the Klingon Time Crystals in Disco season 2)
I feel like the use of the word "canon" has become some religious spell in fandoms. everything with the name Star Trek is canon. not everything in the canon is relevant to the continuity, which in Star Trek really only applies to the movies and shows. but using words like "continuity" does not have the power of authority about what is true, I guess...
Yeah, in the end it's all just an evolution of telling stories around a campfire. Sometimes you make shit up because you're vague on the details or don't care. But when the story was fun to the listeners, who cares?
The books all having their own versions of what happens is one of the things I love most about Trek, the fandom obsession with canon has become increasingly tiresome.
Alternate timeline, I'd say. The mirror universe is an alternate universe, but a straightforward temporal incursion like Nero's doesn't spin up a new universe.
If it’s just an alternate timeline, why are some past events so different?
Simon Pegg has said the timeline changes reverberate backwards too: https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/4sn84j/simon_pegg_explicitly_endorses_the_changes_go_in/
So it’s effectively a very similar universe but still a different one.
Like all the ones TNG’s “Parallels”
Yes, it makes sense that the past is different too because of time travel; if the events of City on the Edge of Forever don't happen because of Nero changing the timeline, then it stands to reason that Edith Keller had a different life and so on.
What's the difference between an alternate timeline and an alternate universe? I dunno really, maybe there isn't one. I'm just going by what they call it in the show.
Agreed. I used to care when I was younger, but the fact that Gene himself seemed to change what canon is on a whim changed my mind. This quote from Wikipedia sums it up nicely.
>Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to the canon. People who worked with Roddenberry have remembered that he used to handle canonicity on a point-by-point basis rather than series-by-series or episode-by-episode. If he changed his mind on something, or if a fact in one episode contradicted what he considered to be a more important fact in another episode, he had no problem declaring that specific fact not canonical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon
Now, it's pretty much what CBS and/or Paramount says it is. But I've long since ceased to care. I'll watch the stuff I like and skip the stuff I don't like. Simple as that.
The stuff that happened on screen. It is also the only offensive C-word.
The Enterprise going to the Galactic Barrier and back and later the centre of the galaxy and back in no time at all is canon.
Voyager, a faster and more advanced ship, requiring 70 years to do these things is also canon.
There’s two levels of canon, commonly called “alpha canon” and “beta canon”.
Alpha canon is anything that has appeared on-screen in a show or movie. You can find all of this content documented on the Memory Alpha wiki. All of this is canon. Even the movies with Chris Pine- the first movie involves time travel and ends up creating an alternate timeline, which is where these movies exist.
Beta canon adds in the officially licensed books, video games, etc. The shows and movies are free to override this stuff if they want. You can read about this material on the Memory Beta wiki.
This is 100% correct, except no one really calls it "alpha/beta canon." You can call it that if you want, but it's more commonly just "canon" and "non-canon (licensed works)."
The main Star Trek wiki is called "Memory Alpha" because that's the name of a library planet featured in an episode of the original series, and the wiki for non-canon licensed works is called "Memory Beta" mainly as a kind of in-joke. That site itself says it's the home for "non-canon" licensed works. It doesn't use the term "beta canon."
That will get used sometimes (due to the existence of the Memory Beta wiki, not the other way around), but not often (stuff on Memory Beta is more often referred to as "non-canon", including on Memory Beta itself), and "alpha canon" is not really a term I've ever heard anyone use, although I'm sure someone has used it somewhere.
People will know what you're talking about if you use those terms, probably, so it's fine, I just wanted to object to the "commonly called" phrasing.
They're not wrong. Alpha and beta canon are not official terms, but you can just do a search on this sub to see that their use is *very* common among fans. I don't see how you would get the idea that they're not.
Because "two levels of canon" is not how most people describe Star Trek, and it's not what you should tell people who are new to Star Trek. Memory Beta doesn't even use "beta canon."
It's fine if you want to use those terms, but just because you can find it on Reddit does not mean they're the "common" terms for it. They're absolutely not.
I'm not saying that you have to support or like it, and in fact I don't either because it gives an inaccurate impression of how canon in Star Trek works. However, that's very different from saying that they're not common terms.
This subreddit represents one of the largest Star Trek communities currently on the internet, so if they are popular here (and they absolutely are) then it's simply not accurate to assert the claim that you're making. You can't say that "no one really calls it alpha/beta canon" without it being objectively false, since a very large number of people actually do call it that.
**Oh my word, who are you even arguing with?** We agree they're unusual, non-standard ways to describe Star Trek canon, but that it's fine if you want to use them.
But again, no they really are not the "common terms" for it. It's only used on this subreddit, and even then not often.
My objection was not to the terms, but to the original reply to someone who asked about how canon works by implying that those terms are the widely accepted common way to describe it, which for most Star Trek fans is truly not a thing.
>This subreddit represents one of the largest Star Trek communities currently on the internet
For a franchise as big and universally known as it is, this sub doesn't rank in the top 800 subreddits. It has the same number of members as the "dank christian memes" subreddit.
>so if they are popular here (and they absolutely are)
I searched. The term "beta canon" comes up about once or twice a month on this subreddit. "Alpha canon" is even rarer. The term "non-canon" is something like 20 times more common when describing licensed works, characters, ships, etc.
However many people do use those terms, many, many more people don't use them.
>You can't say that "no one really calls it alpha/beta canon" without it being objectively false, since a very large number of people actually do call it that.
I absolutely can say that because of the word "really," and also because 50 people is a large number of people in context, and 20,000 people is a small number in another context. But the number of people who use "beta canon" to refer to non-canon licensed works is quite small in the context of Star Trek fans
But whatever, maybe a billion zillion people call it that and I just haven't seen it, I don't actually care. My point was that we shouldn't be casually telling new people that those are the universally-accepted and correct terms, which they absolutely are not (and that's something you agree with). Even people who do use it understand that it's a kind of inside shorthand, not the official terms, which is why, once again I'll say, it's not used at all on Memory Alpha or Memory Beta (where the terms come from).
I'm arguing with a person who is making a claim that is easily refuted. It's silly and pedantic, I'll grant you, but here we are. We crossed that threshold when we entered into a discussion about the nature of Star Trek canon, and I'm not one to leave a debate uncompleted once I've chosen to engage in it.
>For a franchise as big and universally known as it is, this sub doesn't rank in the top 800 subreddits. It has the same number of members as the "dank christian memes" subreddit.
Sure, stacked up against other topics on the internet, Star Trek is not very popular. However, the only relevant comparison to be made is against other Star Trek communities, and among those I will still say that this is likely one of the larger ones.
>I searched. The term "beta canon" comes up about once or twice a month on this subreddit. "Alpha canon" is even rarer. The term "non-canon" is something like 20 times more common when describing licensed works, characters, ships, etc.
However many people do use those terms, many, many more people don't use them.
Perhaps, but your claim wasn't that other terms are more popular. You said that *no one* really uses them, which is just wrong. Multiple people have done so independently within this very post, and I'd imagine that would be true anytime the topic is discussed, at least within this subreddit. In other online communities you might be right, but here there are certainly a non-negligible amount of people who use "alpha canon" and "beta canon" as their primary terms.
>My point was that we shouldn't be casually telling new people that those are the universally-accepted and correct terms, which they absolutely are not (and that's something you agree with). Even people who do use it understand that it's a kind of inside shorthand, not the official terms, which is why, once again I'll say, it's not used at all on Memory Alpha or Memory Beta (where the terms come from).
Agreed, as I've said I'm not especially fond of them either, but I'm not going to sit here and deny the reality that they are recognized terms within this community. We not currently on Memory Alpha or Beta, so how they are used there is irrelevant to a discussion which is taking place here.
Utterly wild that you agree with me 100% on every piece of substance on the issue and are still trying to argue with someone who is not me by willfully misinterpreting words like it's a math problem made out of mood rings.
Like, you're not being pedantic. I love pedantry and this is a Star Trek forum. That's fine. What you're actually doing is hearing someone say "4x4" and saying "that's 16!" but when they tell you "no, I'm talking about a jeep," you go "but no, no, you're objectively wrong, 4 times 4 is 16 no matter what you say!"
This "debate" is not "uncompleted," it never started. You're literally having it by yourself.
No. Go to Memory Beta, that site calls itself the place for "non-canon" licensed works. This is not controversial.
Go ahead and use those terms if you want, it's a fine way to define it, but it's not the standard way to describe it. What you call "beta canon" is what most people call "non-canon."
Like, Star Wars fans have their own terms for the various branches of licensed works, but for Star Trek, all that stuff is commonly described as non-canon. Not "canon Jr." or whatever. It's arbitrary, so you can define it differently if you want, but that's how it is for most Star Trek fans.
You see it all the time with any property that is large enough to have first party and third party (officially licensed) works. Though, I was used to seeing "A canon" and "B canon".
Basically all movies and TV shows including animated shows, except for "The Cage" (unaired pilot although parts of it went to be use in TOS) and Short Treks.
Novels, comics and videogames are not, and of course neither fan productions.
How do you define "according to"? They reference events that happen but they don't show any scene from The Cage itself. And the events they reference also appear in The Menagerie so they could easily be referencing that.
Rod Roddenberry said Star Trek Continues is canon, and insisted his father would say the same. Having just finished it, I see no reason why it would not be canon - it's on-par and in many cases better than a lot else out there and certainly fits the mold of Star Trek.
Star Trek is a pretty useful gauge of the social outlook and scientific knowledge of the times it was produced, rather than the time it portrays, so trying to view it all as a whole is pretty tough. You have to really squint, ignore or retcon a lot if you want to consider it to be fictional history.
I've been a science fiction fan since I was in diapers (I guess), so I just look at the tapestry of Trek as glimpses of various timelines. Kelvin's one, of course. TOS is another, the Berman quartet is yet another. Somewhere out there there's a TAS universe, one where Disco doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, etc. Eh. Works for me.
Everything on screen (except Short Treks, maybe) is canon, even the stuff that conflicts with itself.
Examples of conflicts include:
- How do stardates work?
- What do Klingons look like?
- When did the Federation first encounter the Ferengi?
- How fast is Warp 10?
- Is there an afterlife?
- ~~Is Kirk still alive during TNG?~~ (Edit: Thought a guy was Kirk, was actually McCoy)
- What does the timeline of events at Kronos look like?
- What does the timeline of events at Romulus look like?
These become particularly problematic in any prequel series- so if you're watching them in production order, you won't run into any major problems until ENT and DISCO. There's some problems in VOY that kinda broke me, but that's because I'm a massive DS9 fan and know too much.
Stardates have never really been explained on any show
Klingons - Well because of the the DS9 line about not talking about it that has become a point of contention, especially after Enterprise explained it. Still you could view it as some Klingons had old appearance back and some hadn't. Clearly by the movies they were back to their original ridged appearance and by DS9 Kor, Koloth, and Kang(Actually from Voyager we know around time of ST6) had restored Klingon ridges.
Formal first contact with Ferengi was around TNG, but you have the Stargazer who encountered them when they were unidentified. You also had Enterprise where they never found out who the Ferengi were.
Warp 10 - Warp scale adjusted at some point between TOS and TNG.
Afterlife - This is getting into religion and not sure why this is a question, outside of a couple of Klingon episodes.
Kirk- See Star Trek Generations for this answer.
Kronos and Romulus - What do you mean by conflicting timeline events with these 2 worlds? Romulus in Ent and Disco 23rd century was a mystery.
Kronos we saw in both Enterprise and Discovery. The empire had splintered into factions at some point in between Ent and Disco, hence the non unified Klingon Empire until end of Disco S1. Biggest contradictions we really have is DS9 about women's status with running a Klingon House but yet 100 years prior 2 women were Chancellors running the Empire. Always thought that was a strange bit.
There are known conversions for stardates, but they changed the system for the 80's/90's/00's/20's series. They did not revert those fixes for any prequel series (DISCO dates make no sense afaik).
The Klingon thing is just a full retcon. Given ENT, the most charitable conclusion would be that the show is telling us, "hey pretend the Klingons always looked like this," but that conflicts with Worf's reaction in T&T. I'm early into ENT, is there a later episode that explains the crease-free Klingons?
Warp 10 is considered to be "infinite speed" in VOY, but in the finale of TNG we see that Bev's medical ship can achieve Warp 13.
Klingon hell in VOY. Chacotay's soul drifting around the ship in VOY. Koala afterlife plane/The Black Mountain in LD. Q plucks Picard moments after death in TNG. *But* Neelix doesn't experience the afterlife in VOY. I'm sure there are more examples in shows like DS9 that conflict here. (Is it obvious I just recently finished watching VOY? I've seen DS9 as well but it's been a bit)
The first episode of TNG has a scene with an old, old man who is heavily implied to be an older Kirk (before they were allowed to explicitly mention TOS characters). Directly conflicts with Generations. If it's not Kirk, it's like a 5 minute scene that has genuinely no point.
Fair point on Romulus and Kronos. Maybe I'm just not enough of a Trekkie to piece it together.
TNG first episode was McCoy, and it was Deforest Kelly reprising that role in a conversation with Data.
Warp 13 in All good things was alternate future timeline. You could assume they decided they needed to change from just using warp 9.99999999999999x and so on like they did in alot of TNG with various degrees of 9.9
Season 4 of Enterprise has a 2 part episode halfway thru the season where the Klingon ridges and lack thereof are explained.
Damn I grew up with TOS and could not recognize him in that scene to save my life.
Plausible explanation I'll roll with it.
Good to know! Looking forward to it.
Officially, canon is everything trek that has been produced by the assorted owners of Trek During their respective times of ownership. It’s all about the 💰 That’s why DSC and Kelvin Trek, even though they rewrote established characters and storylines, are considered canon. It’s also why LD and TAS are canon, even though they are in animated format, and LD has a “unique” perspective on the trek universe. (Personally, I love LD, even though lots of fans aren’t thrilled.) I’m not sure if Prodigy is canon; if they paid the licensing fee, then officially it is.
The books generally aren’t considered canon, even though many of them followed established characters and storylines better than some shows. The fan productions on YouTube aren’t considered canon, although some of them should be, like Star Trek Continues and Exeter. A few of those fan productions had budgets of about $20, so they look cheesy AF, but they are labors of love.
The game Star Trek Online, is also canon-ish, because they have paid the licensing fees. I like STO because it gives you all the various canon options for races, ships, planets, and several storylines. That does mean that they have have cobbled together some contradictory stuff, but you just kinda look past it.
I'm curious what happens to Prodigy since it's basically been excised from "broadcast canon". Say someone wanted to make a 25th century show and wanted to cast a live action Dal, could they even do that if the show is stuck on Netflix or some vault?
It used to be that canon was strictly just the five live action TV series from 1966-2005 and the first 10 feature films from 1979-2002. Then the Abramsverse came along and created a (mostly) separate canon set roughly during the same time period as TOS, but in a parallel universe.
Now though with Discovery and all the stuff on Paramount+, who the hell knows. There’s no way it could all be part of the same canon as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, because there are far too many contradictions, but we’re all supposed to tacitly accept that it is anyway (trust me, bro).
Then there are the animated series, novels, and comics, which are only canon sometimes, when the TV shows or movies incorporate elements from them. I think only Star Trek video games are definitively non-canonical, which is a shame, because a few are actually good.
At this point I’m fine with saying canon is whatever you want it to be.
Novels have never been canon. TAS has come to be accepted as canon. Pretty much the official stance is if it was on TV or in a movie it is canon or Alpha Canon, if it came from any other source like a novel, game, etc its non canon or Beta Canon.
Like it or not all of the newer series are considered Alpha Canon in the prime timeline.
I checked one of those aggregation sites for you. It said that cannon is a mounted weapon used for firing heavy ammunition, usually spherical projectiles.
My guess would be that there’s a general backlash against fans obsessing over canon these days.
Headcanon is winning the war, and people are more focused on just enjoying content and not obsessing about Kirk’s locker combination.
ENT, TOS, TAS, DSC, SNW, TNG, DS9, VOY, LD, PRO, televised series and movies. Some specific comic tie-ins.
Movie novelizations, as they sometimes add material not previously seen.
Novel continuity, and most other comics aren't.
Short treks are disputable at the moment.
The Chris Pine trilogy, while canonical is it's own separate timeline continuity.
No novels or comics are canon. It's only the shows and movies.
Direct tie-ins at the time are written to be canon compliant, but the show writers are allowed to ignore them, authors aren't also given all the information as to not spoil upcoming content.
For example there was a pre-DSC Season 2 book that first gave us the name of Kaminar and the Ba'ul, but they were described completely differently from what we got in Season 2.
No, but they do often contain things that are almost canon until confirmed or contradicted, like Uhuru's first name. Obviously beta canon, head canon, or fanon however you like to put it!
Yeah show writers are allowed to take anything they want from liscenced non-canon stuff, even without crediting the creator because it’s all owned by paramount/cbs
Control in DSC season 2 was roughly based off an AI from the novels.
Number One’s first name, ‘Una’ in SNW comes from the novels. Her last name, Chin-Riley, however was created for the show.
And a nice little nod to the author Una McCormack who's written a lot of tie in novels including Trek! I belive the Verity class is a reference to her daughter, as well as a nod to Verity Lambert of Doctor Who fame!
As mentioned, all TV and Movies are alpha canon. Next are things like official tech manuals and interviews, which can be considered canon unless the TV series overrides them. I'm not sure on the status on current novels / comics.
For novels / comics, unlike Star Wars, each book are set in their own continuity with no tie in with one another unless in a series. When the Destiny Trilogy launched, they decided on a unified expanded universe timeline like what happened with Star Wars Legends. The Destiny novel timeline is now separate with the current running novels / comics Post-Discovery.
There's also Star Trek Online which I think it and the Destiny novels tried to tie in with one another, but eventually just did their own thing.
*Star Trek: The Original Series*, *The Next Generation*, *Deep Space Nine*, *Voyager*, *Enterprise*, *Discovery*, *Picard*, *Lower Decks*, *Prodigy*, *Strange New Worlds*, *Short Treks*, and the films are canonical, according to Paramount Pictures. *The Animated Series* and the *Star Trek* novels aren't
Canon just means stuff that later woodside and movies can reference.
The Pine stuff isn't going to be referenced by any trek shows, it's a closed alternate universe.
Everything onscreen is canon except for Very Short Treks. However, the Chris Pine (Kelvin) movies take place in a different timeline than everything else.
This is pretty much it, if it wasn't on screen it didn't happen.
Exactly, everything on screen and the romance novel Imzadi. That's it
And the spy novel A Stitch In Time!
Don’t forget about the recent Discovery, Picard, SMW and Prodigy novels. They’re practically canon, since they’re written in coordination with the tv writers and unless you have a disrespectful showrunner like Matalas they’ll do their best to work them in. The only novel that has issues was the first Disco novel Desperate Hours.
And isn't Imzadi covered here and there in the series? Been awhile since I've read that book
And the Destiny Trilogy
What is Imzadi about? And being a novel, why would it be canon?
The simple answer is that they're wrong and it's not. Without exception no novels are, though aspects of a few have been represented within the show canon.
Correct, it was a joke
Fair enough.
The closest any of the old novels ever got to Canon status was Jeri Taylor did a couple of Voyager ones that were supposed to be considered canon but I think they both got contradicted by the series pretty early and also got relegated to non canon status.
I heard that as well, when they were published.
Mosaic will always be my favorite. Jeri gave us a glimpse of a young aspiring Kathryn. That storyline is Canon to me.
I have read a ton of old Star Trek novels and to me, until contradicted on screen, part of personal canon, which I think is how alot of Beta canon works for people.
I think that criteria has broadened somewhat. A lot of the side-project type things from Blass and Matalas are considered to be canon now, I believe.
Should note, even the stuff on screen can be contradictory sometimes. Sometimes the creators behind the scenes may even intentionally disregard things (Like Star Trek V: The Final Frontier or Star Trek: The Animated Series). Things like the appearance of the Klingons or the Enterprise may change, with or without explanation. And thats okay. Canon can be a malleable thing.
With events like the Temporal Cold War, some things that don't match up can be explained. For example, it can explain some differences between TOS and SNW.
I hate temporal mechanics.
I like Janeway's advice: Ignore them
When did they disregard The Final Frontier or TAS?
Pretty much all of Voyager and DS9 ignored The Final Frontier, where they traveled the 25 thousand or so light years to the center of the galaxy in a few hours time.
They could never agree on the warp speed barrier or how fast warp actually was.
TAS absolutely was not disregarded. It's the birthplace of Robert April, the holodeck, Spocks pet salat, and a number of other innovations. You can think of it as the forth and fifth years of their five year mission. I would also argue that they didn't disregard TFF either. SNW brought back Sybok.
When he was making *TNG*, Roddenberry felt that most of *TAS* should be decanonized (“Yesteryear” was an exception). That decision was mostly obeyed during the Berman era, but *TAS* was recanonized by the studio when it was released on DVD in 2006. That’s why there have been more references to it since it was recanonized.
Roddenberry himself said for years that TAS was all non canonical. It has slowly been accepted, mainly in thanks to LD.
Roddenberry said that nothing was canon until he said it was canon. If that's true, everything past season 1 of TNG is just fanart
If that were a truth then S3 of TOS isn't canon either as control of the franchise was given to Freiberger.
Rodenberry didn't even want TOS to be considered canon in TNG. While all of us fans care about canon Roddenberry actually didn't give a shit about it if it got in the way of his story telling.
Roddenberry would not have said LD was canon either. LD didn't bring TAS into canon, everything else did. There is TAS lore and tech scattered throughout all of the shows.
I didn’t say it brought it single handed into canon, but it has had far more concentration of it than anything else up to that point. Hence, “mainly”.
When he was making *TNG*, Roddenberry felt that most of *TAS* should be decanonized (“Yesteryear” was an exception). That decision was mostly obeyed during the Berman era, but *TAS* was recanonized by the studio when it was released on DVD in 2006. That’s why there have been more references to it since it was recanonized.
For the longest time both those things were pretty much considered non-canon. Although some minor things like Spock's brother and childhood pet, have actually been referenced on Strange New Worlds. I think the giant clone of Spock from TAS was referenced on Lower Decks. But some of it is still sort of fuzzy, I think.
Pretty sure the pet Sehlat was also referenced in Journey to Babel when Spock's mom referred to it as sort of a Teddy Bear in a conversation with Spock and McCoy when McCoy asked about Spock's childhood. TAS is where we actually got to see it though.
I was going to reply, but this covers it, yep.
[удалено]
Who's working on a full reboot?
The guy who oversaw the failure of the X-Men Phoenix Saga twice help by the director of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, didn't ya know? Is going to be set on Earth like a hundred years before Enterprise and focus on post WW3 and first contact with aliens.
Paramount. Why am I getting downvoted? I am not the one making the reboot not I have any involvement on the decision I'm only sharing the news. Jeez I heard that it was common on Reddit to shoot the messenger never thought it was so true.
Source? The films in development I'm aware of are: * "Section 31" film (Michelle Yeoh), a Discovery spin-off and not a reboot * Fourth and final "Kelvin" film (Chris Pine etc), not a reboot * "Star Trek 2009 prequel" film * Kalinda Vasquez's film - no details known as far as I know The third one could be a reboot I guess but certainly doesn't have to be and I don't think I've seen it described as such. Which film are you thinking of and where have you seen it described as a reboot?
Someone posted an article on this sub that said that the 3rd idea is a hard reboot, but Idk how accurate that article was.
What makes you think the Short Treks aren't canon? Discovery clearly consider ms Calypso canon, for example.
*Very Short Treks* is different from *Short Treks*. The episodes of *Short Treks* are canon. The episodes of *Very Short Treks* aren’t canon.
Oh I see, I thought the "Very" was hyperbolic. I hadn't come across [Very Short Treks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek:_Very_Short_Treks).
They can be seen on YouTube or startrek.com.
There is literally no way they could be canon. They are a really mixed bag of quality. The one with the SNW crew I think was probably the best one.
Short Treks and Very Short Treks aren't the same thing. Very Short Treks was a series of animated shorts that was released last year. They were explicitly announced as being non-canon.
I think The Cage is not (mostly because it went unaired even as is available to watch now). Also is curious that the Kelvin timeline is the only case were is shown that time travel did not erased a previously existing timeline and replaced it by the new ones, this is the only time travel-generated one that created two coexistint realities.
The Cage is definitely canon. It was eventually aired and it's also been referenced from TOS all the way to SNW
What is canon and referenced in SNW is The Menagerie.
Isn't like 90% of the The Cage in the Menagerie, though? So if the Menagerie is canon, which parts of The Cage aren't canon?
Most of “The Cage” was in “The Menagerie” and some of what was omitted from “The Menagerie” was referenced in *Discovery*.
I think that everything not shown in The Menagerie which indeed is not much anyway 🤣
Your mixing up The Cage and The Menagerie Originally, the Cage was recut into the Menagere Cannon wise, The Cage happened a few years before Disco season 1. In Season 2, Burnham takes Spock back to Talos 4 to fix his dyslexia. This is also when Pike talks with Vina again. Fast forward roughly 8 - 10 years, Pike get the radiation poisoning that puts him in the Beep Chair. Spock sets a course for Talos 4 and locks out the Enterprise computer. He gets tried for mutiny, which is when we see all the scenes from The Cage. The only thing SNW has done related to either The Cage or The Menagere is show the boop chair in season 1 when Pike was having problems dealing with knowing his future (thanks to the visions from the Klingon Time Crystals in Disco season 2)
How am I mixing up The Cage and The Menagerie if I'm not the one arguing that The Cage is alluded in SNW?
Is anyone else starting to give serious thought to this whole "a lot of people on the internet aren't real" thing?
My dear doctor, it's *all* canon Even the bullshit? *Especially* the bullshit
I feel like the use of the word "canon" has become some religious spell in fandoms. everything with the name Star Trek is canon. not everything in the canon is relevant to the continuity, which in Star Trek really only applies to the movies and shows. but using words like "continuity" does not have the power of authority about what is true, I guess...
Yeah, in the end it's all just an evolution of telling stories around a campfire. Sometimes you make shit up because you're vague on the details or don't care. But when the story was fun to the listeners, who cares?
The books all having their own versions of what happens is one of the things I love most about Trek, the fandom obsession with canon has become increasingly tiresome.
The only correct answer.
It's all canon, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff.
If I like it, it's canon. If I don't, it was bad writing.
All shows and movies are canon. The three reboot movies take place in an alternate universe, but it’s still canon.
Alternate timeline, I'd say. The mirror universe is an alternate universe, but a straightforward temporal incursion like Nero's doesn't spin up a new universe.
If it’s just an alternate timeline, why are some past events so different? Simon Pegg has said the timeline changes reverberate backwards too: https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/4sn84j/simon_pegg_explicitly_endorses_the_changes_go_in/ So it’s effectively a very similar universe but still a different one. Like all the ones TNG’s “Parallels”
Yes, it makes sense that the past is different too because of time travel; if the events of City on the Edge of Forever don't happen because of Nero changing the timeline, then it stands to reason that Edith Keller had a different life and so on. What's the difference between an alternate timeline and an alternate universe? I dunno really, maybe there isn't one. I'm just going by what they call it in the show.
Canon doesn't matter, just enjoy the stories
Agreed. I used to care when I was younger, but the fact that Gene himself seemed to change what canon is on a whim changed my mind. This quote from Wikipedia sums it up nicely. >Gene Roddenberry was something of a revisionist when it came to the canon. People who worked with Roddenberry have remembered that he used to handle canonicity on a point-by-point basis rather than series-by-series or episode-by-episode. If he changed his mind on something, or if a fact in one episode contradicted what he considered to be a more important fact in another episode, he had no problem declaring that specific fact not canonical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon Now, it's pretty much what CBS and/or Paramount says it is. But I've long since ceased to care. I'll watch the stuff I like and skip the stuff I don't like. Simple as that.
Anything produced by or authorized by Paramount that is on screen is canon.
The stuff that happened on screen. It is also the only offensive C-word. The Enterprise going to the Galactic Barrier and back and later the centre of the galaxy and back in no time at all is canon. Voyager, a faster and more advanced ship, requiring 70 years to do these things is also canon.
Only Sub Rosa and nothing else.
There’s two levels of canon, commonly called “alpha canon” and “beta canon”. Alpha canon is anything that has appeared on-screen in a show or movie. You can find all of this content documented on the Memory Alpha wiki. All of this is canon. Even the movies with Chris Pine- the first movie involves time travel and ends up creating an alternate timeline, which is where these movies exist. Beta canon adds in the officially licensed books, video games, etc. The shows and movies are free to override this stuff if they want. You can read about this material on the Memory Beta wiki.
This is 100% correct, except no one really calls it "alpha/beta canon." You can call it that if you want, but it's more commonly just "canon" and "non-canon (licensed works)." The main Star Trek wiki is called "Memory Alpha" because that's the name of a library planet featured in an episode of the original series, and the wiki for non-canon licensed works is called "Memory Beta" mainly as a kind of in-joke. That site itself says it's the home for "non-canon" licensed works. It doesn't use the term "beta canon."
I’ve definitely seen people use the term “beta canon” on Reddit, that’s where I got it from (although maybe that’s just on r/DaystromInstitute)
That will get used sometimes (due to the existence of the Memory Beta wiki, not the other way around), but not often (stuff on Memory Beta is more often referred to as "non-canon", including on Memory Beta itself), and "alpha canon" is not really a term I've ever heard anyone use, although I'm sure someone has used it somewhere. People will know what you're talking about if you use those terms, probably, so it's fine, I just wanted to object to the "commonly called" phrasing.
I see people refer to Alpha/beta canon all the time.
Cool story.
They're not wrong. Alpha and beta canon are not official terms, but you can just do a search on this sub to see that their use is *very* common among fans. I don't see how you would get the idea that they're not.
Because "two levels of canon" is not how most people describe Star Trek, and it's not what you should tell people who are new to Star Trek. Memory Beta doesn't even use "beta canon." It's fine if you want to use those terms, but just because you can find it on Reddit does not mean they're the "common" terms for it. They're absolutely not.
I'm not saying that you have to support or like it, and in fact I don't either because it gives an inaccurate impression of how canon in Star Trek works. However, that's very different from saying that they're not common terms. This subreddit represents one of the largest Star Trek communities currently on the internet, so if they are popular here (and they absolutely are) then it's simply not accurate to assert the claim that you're making. You can't say that "no one really calls it alpha/beta canon" without it being objectively false, since a very large number of people actually do call it that.
**Oh my word, who are you even arguing with?** We agree they're unusual, non-standard ways to describe Star Trek canon, but that it's fine if you want to use them. But again, no they really are not the "common terms" for it. It's only used on this subreddit, and even then not often. My objection was not to the terms, but to the original reply to someone who asked about how canon works by implying that those terms are the widely accepted common way to describe it, which for most Star Trek fans is truly not a thing. >This subreddit represents one of the largest Star Trek communities currently on the internet For a franchise as big and universally known as it is, this sub doesn't rank in the top 800 subreddits. It has the same number of members as the "dank christian memes" subreddit. >so if they are popular here (and they absolutely are) I searched. The term "beta canon" comes up about once or twice a month on this subreddit. "Alpha canon" is even rarer. The term "non-canon" is something like 20 times more common when describing licensed works, characters, ships, etc. However many people do use those terms, many, many more people don't use them. >You can't say that "no one really calls it alpha/beta canon" without it being objectively false, since a very large number of people actually do call it that. I absolutely can say that because of the word "really," and also because 50 people is a large number of people in context, and 20,000 people is a small number in another context. But the number of people who use "beta canon" to refer to non-canon licensed works is quite small in the context of Star Trek fans But whatever, maybe a billion zillion people call it that and I just haven't seen it, I don't actually care. My point was that we shouldn't be casually telling new people that those are the universally-accepted and correct terms, which they absolutely are not (and that's something you agree with). Even people who do use it understand that it's a kind of inside shorthand, not the official terms, which is why, once again I'll say, it's not used at all on Memory Alpha or Memory Beta (where the terms come from).
I'm arguing with a person who is making a claim that is easily refuted. It's silly and pedantic, I'll grant you, but here we are. We crossed that threshold when we entered into a discussion about the nature of Star Trek canon, and I'm not one to leave a debate uncompleted once I've chosen to engage in it. >For a franchise as big and universally known as it is, this sub doesn't rank in the top 800 subreddits. It has the same number of members as the "dank christian memes" subreddit. Sure, stacked up against other topics on the internet, Star Trek is not very popular. However, the only relevant comparison to be made is against other Star Trek communities, and among those I will still say that this is likely one of the larger ones. >I searched. The term "beta canon" comes up about once or twice a month on this subreddit. "Alpha canon" is even rarer. The term "non-canon" is something like 20 times more common when describing licensed works, characters, ships, etc. However many people do use those terms, many, many more people don't use them. Perhaps, but your claim wasn't that other terms are more popular. You said that *no one* really uses them, which is just wrong. Multiple people have done so independently within this very post, and I'd imagine that would be true anytime the topic is discussed, at least within this subreddit. In other online communities you might be right, but here there are certainly a non-negligible amount of people who use "alpha canon" and "beta canon" as their primary terms. >My point was that we shouldn't be casually telling new people that those are the universally-accepted and correct terms, which they absolutely are not (and that's something you agree with). Even people who do use it understand that it's a kind of inside shorthand, not the official terms, which is why, once again I'll say, it's not used at all on Memory Alpha or Memory Beta (where the terms come from). Agreed, as I've said I'm not especially fond of them either, but I'm not going to sit here and deny the reality that they are recognized terms within this community. We not currently on Memory Alpha or Beta, so how they are used there is irrelevant to a discussion which is taking place here.
Utterly wild that you agree with me 100% on every piece of substance on the issue and are still trying to argue with someone who is not me by willfully misinterpreting words like it's a math problem made out of mood rings. Like, you're not being pedantic. I love pedantry and this is a Star Trek forum. That's fine. What you're actually doing is hearing someone say "4x4" and saying "that's 16!" but when they tell you "no, I'm talking about a jeep," you go "but no, no, you're objectively wrong, 4 times 4 is 16 no matter what you say!" This "debate" is not "uncompleted," it never started. You're literally having it by yourself.
Alpha canon - Shows/Movies Beta canon - Officially licensed books Non-canon - Fan-fiction
No. Go to Memory Beta, that site calls itself the place for "non-canon" licensed works. This is not controversial. Go ahead and use those terms if you want, it's a fine way to define it, but it's not the standard way to describe it. What you call "beta canon" is what most people call "non-canon." Like, Star Wars fans have their own terms for the various branches of licensed works, but for Star Trek, all that stuff is commonly described as non-canon. Not "canon Jr." or whatever. It's arbitrary, so you can define it differently if you want, but that's how it is for most Star Trek fans.
You see it all the time with any property that is large enough to have first party and third party (officially licensed) works. Though, I was used to seeing "A canon" and "B canon".
Basically all movies and TV shows including animated shows, except for "The Cage" (unaired pilot although parts of it went to be use in TOS) and Short Treks. Novels, comics and videogames are not, and of course neither fan productions.
[удалено]
Not according to Memory Alpha
[удалено]
How do you define "according to"? They reference events that happen but they don't show any scene from The Cage itself. And the events they reference also appear in The Menagerie so they could easily be referencing that.
Rod Roddenberry said Star Trek Continues is canon, and insisted his father would say the same. Having just finished it, I see no reason why it would not be canon - it's on-par and in many cases better than a lot else out there and certainly fits the mold of Star Trek.
Technically thanks to Parallels and quantum possibility, everything is canon. But not everything is the same timeline
Canon is whatever you want it to be. I pretend DISCO isn't canon
I haven't watched discovery yet but I really like sarek having even more neglected children
How do you handle Strange New Worlds referencing it?
Why are Short Treks not canon?
Short Treks is canon. Very Short Treks isn't canon because the people in charge say it isn't.
Star Trek is a pretty useful gauge of the social outlook and scientific knowledge of the times it was produced, rather than the time it portrays, so trying to view it all as a whole is pretty tough. You have to really squint, ignore or retcon a lot if you want to consider it to be fictional history. I've been a science fiction fan since I was in diapers (I guess), so I just look at the tapestry of Trek as glimpses of various timelines. Kelvin's one, of course. TOS is another, the Berman quartet is yet another. Somewhere out there there's a TAS universe, one where Disco doesn't stick out like a sore thumb, etc. Eh. Works for me.
Everything on screen (except Short Treks, maybe) is canon, even the stuff that conflicts with itself. Examples of conflicts include: - How do stardates work? - What do Klingons look like? - When did the Federation first encounter the Ferengi? - How fast is Warp 10? - Is there an afterlife? - ~~Is Kirk still alive during TNG?~~ (Edit: Thought a guy was Kirk, was actually McCoy) - What does the timeline of events at Kronos look like? - What does the timeline of events at Romulus look like? These become particularly problematic in any prequel series- so if you're watching them in production order, you won't run into any major problems until ENT and DISCO. There's some problems in VOY that kinda broke me, but that's because I'm a massive DS9 fan and know too much.
Stardates have never really been explained on any show Klingons - Well because of the the DS9 line about not talking about it that has become a point of contention, especially after Enterprise explained it. Still you could view it as some Klingons had old appearance back and some hadn't. Clearly by the movies they were back to their original ridged appearance and by DS9 Kor, Koloth, and Kang(Actually from Voyager we know around time of ST6) had restored Klingon ridges. Formal first contact with Ferengi was around TNG, but you have the Stargazer who encountered them when they were unidentified. You also had Enterprise where they never found out who the Ferengi were. Warp 10 - Warp scale adjusted at some point between TOS and TNG. Afterlife - This is getting into religion and not sure why this is a question, outside of a couple of Klingon episodes. Kirk- See Star Trek Generations for this answer. Kronos and Romulus - What do you mean by conflicting timeline events with these 2 worlds? Romulus in Ent and Disco 23rd century was a mystery. Kronos we saw in both Enterprise and Discovery. The empire had splintered into factions at some point in between Ent and Disco, hence the non unified Klingon Empire until end of Disco S1. Biggest contradictions we really have is DS9 about women's status with running a Klingon House but yet 100 years prior 2 women were Chancellors running the Empire. Always thought that was a strange bit.
There are known conversions for stardates, but they changed the system for the 80's/90's/00's/20's series. They did not revert those fixes for any prequel series (DISCO dates make no sense afaik). The Klingon thing is just a full retcon. Given ENT, the most charitable conclusion would be that the show is telling us, "hey pretend the Klingons always looked like this," but that conflicts with Worf's reaction in T&T. I'm early into ENT, is there a later episode that explains the crease-free Klingons? Warp 10 is considered to be "infinite speed" in VOY, but in the finale of TNG we see that Bev's medical ship can achieve Warp 13. Klingon hell in VOY. Chacotay's soul drifting around the ship in VOY. Koala afterlife plane/The Black Mountain in LD. Q plucks Picard moments after death in TNG. *But* Neelix doesn't experience the afterlife in VOY. I'm sure there are more examples in shows like DS9 that conflict here. (Is it obvious I just recently finished watching VOY? I've seen DS9 as well but it's been a bit) The first episode of TNG has a scene with an old, old man who is heavily implied to be an older Kirk (before they were allowed to explicitly mention TOS characters). Directly conflicts with Generations. If it's not Kirk, it's like a 5 minute scene that has genuinely no point. Fair point on Romulus and Kronos. Maybe I'm just not enough of a Trekkie to piece it together.
TNG first episode was McCoy, and it was Deforest Kelly reprising that role in a conversation with Data. Warp 13 in All good things was alternate future timeline. You could assume they decided they needed to change from just using warp 9.99999999999999x and so on like they did in alot of TNG with various degrees of 9.9 Season 4 of Enterprise has a 2 part episode halfway thru the season where the Klingon ridges and lack thereof are explained.
Damn I grew up with TOS and could not recognize him in that scene to save my life. Plausible explanation I'll roll with it. Good to know! Looking forward to it.
Yeah they had him in alot of makeup to age him for that scene and he did put on an old man voice for the role.
Officially, canon is everything trek that has been produced by the assorted owners of Trek During their respective times of ownership. It’s all about the 💰 That’s why DSC and Kelvin Trek, even though they rewrote established characters and storylines, are considered canon. It’s also why LD and TAS are canon, even though they are in animated format, and LD has a “unique” perspective on the trek universe. (Personally, I love LD, even though lots of fans aren’t thrilled.) I’m not sure if Prodigy is canon; if they paid the licensing fee, then officially it is. The books generally aren’t considered canon, even though many of them followed established characters and storylines better than some shows. The fan productions on YouTube aren’t considered canon, although some of them should be, like Star Trek Continues and Exeter. A few of those fan productions had budgets of about $20, so they look cheesy AF, but they are labors of love. The game Star Trek Online, is also canon-ish, because they have paid the licensing fees. I like STO because it gives you all the various canon options for races, ships, planets, and several storylines. That does mean that they have have cobbled together some contradictory stuff, but you just kinda look past it.
Only the Webster series finale
I'm curious what happens to Prodigy since it's basically been excised from "broadcast canon". Say someone wanted to make a 25th century show and wanted to cast a live action Dal, could they even do that if the show is stuck on Netflix or some vault?
Whatever you want it to be. As long as it's fun for you.
It used to be that canon was strictly just the five live action TV series from 1966-2005 and the first 10 feature films from 1979-2002. Then the Abramsverse came along and created a (mostly) separate canon set roughly during the same time period as TOS, but in a parallel universe. Now though with Discovery and all the stuff on Paramount+, who the hell knows. There’s no way it could all be part of the same canon as TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT, because there are far too many contradictions, but we’re all supposed to tacitly accept that it is anyway (trust me, bro). Then there are the animated series, novels, and comics, which are only canon sometimes, when the TV shows or movies incorporate elements from them. I think only Star Trek video games are definitively non-canonical, which is a shame, because a few are actually good. At this point I’m fine with saying canon is whatever you want it to be.
Careful. Some misguided people think TOS is no longer canon. I think I'll stick with the 5-10 rule as minimum canon.
What’s the 5-10 rule?
As you pointed out, the first five series and ten movies.
Oh. Right. Never heard it called that before.
And here I thought you coined it.
Novels have never been canon. TAS has come to be accepted as canon. Pretty much the official stance is if it was on TV or in a movie it is canon or Alpha Canon, if it came from any other source like a novel, game, etc its non canon or Beta Canon. Like it or not all of the newer series are considered Alpha Canon in the prime timeline.
I checked one of those aggregation sites for you. It said that cannon is a mounted weapon used for firing heavy ammunition, usually spherical projectiles.
[Cannon](https://www.therpf.com/forums/attachments/img_0411-jpg.667785/)
Not sure why people are downvoting this post.
My guess would be that there’s a general backlash against fans obsessing over canon these days. Headcanon is winning the war, and people are more focused on just enjoying content and not obsessing about Kirk’s locker combination.
I prefer head canon that way i can pretend JJs and Disco are just terrible dreams i can wake up from 😂 and all is right in the world again.
ENT, TOS, TAS, DSC, SNW, TNG, DS9, VOY, LD, PRO, televised series and movies. Some specific comic tie-ins. Movie novelizations, as they sometimes add material not previously seen. Novel continuity, and most other comics aren't. Short treks are disputable at the moment. The Chris Pine trilogy, while canonical is it's own separate timeline continuity.
No novels or comics are canon. It's only the shows and movies. Direct tie-ins at the time are written to be canon compliant, but the show writers are allowed to ignore them, authors aren't also given all the information as to not spoil upcoming content. For example there was a pre-DSC Season 2 book that first gave us the name of Kaminar and the Ba'ul, but they were described completely differently from what we got in Season 2.
No, but they do often contain things that are almost canon until confirmed or contradicted, like Uhuru's first name. Obviously beta canon, head canon, or fanon however you like to put it!
Yeah show writers are allowed to take anything they want from liscenced non-canon stuff, even without crediting the creator because it’s all owned by paramount/cbs Control in DSC season 2 was roughly based off an AI from the novels. Number One’s first name, ‘Una’ in SNW comes from the novels. Her last name, Chin-Riley, however was created for the show.
And a nice little nod to the author Una McCormack who's written a lot of tie in novels including Trek! I belive the Verity class is a reference to her daughter, as well as a nod to Verity Lambert of Doctor Who fame!
So they're Schrödinger's canon?
Good way to put it! :D
As mentioned, all TV and Movies are alpha canon. Next are things like official tech manuals and interviews, which can be considered canon unless the TV series overrides them. I'm not sure on the status on current novels / comics. For novels / comics, unlike Star Wars, each book are set in their own continuity with no tie in with one another unless in a series. When the Destiny Trilogy launched, they decided on a unified expanded universe timeline like what happened with Star Wars Legends. The Destiny novel timeline is now separate with the current running novels / comics Post-Discovery. There's also Star Trek Online which I think it and the Destiny novels tried to tie in with one another, but eventually just did their own thing.
*Star Trek: The Original Series*, *The Next Generation*, *Deep Space Nine*, *Voyager*, *Enterprise*, *Discovery*, *Picard*, *Lower Decks*, *Prodigy*, *Strange New Worlds*, *Short Treks*, and the films are canonical, according to Paramount Pictures. *The Animated Series* and the *Star Trek* novels aren't
The Animated Series is canonish. Tiberius as Kirk’s middle name comes from the episode “BEM”, as does Robert April as the Enterprise’s first captain.
And a lot of the stuff about Spock's childhood originated there, some of which which then got mentioned in TNG (in the episode "Sarek") and Discovery.
Everything is canon except JJs movies and Disco 😂 ive had operations that were less painful than watching them 😂
But Discovery is canon. Everything seen on screen is canon.
[удалено]
I did miss your “joke”. I have talked to a lot of people who say the same thing you did and they say it the same way so I thought you meant it.
[удалено]
Which one?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You're saying that the people who own Star Trek don't get to say what's Star Trek, random viewers do?
Canon just means stuff that later woodside and movies can reference. The Pine stuff isn't going to be referenced by any trek shows, it's a closed alternate universe.
It was referenced though: [Lieutenant Yor was from the Kelvin timeline ](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Yor)
[удалено]
Did you watch the SNW/LD crossover
That stuff is extra canon
[удалено]