Captain April canon - canon Universum generell

[Gorkon]

Originalnachricht erstellt von kirkjt
Ich bin dafür, ein 3 Stufensystem einzuführen:

semi-canon - Technical Manuals, Klingonen Dictionary und Ferengi-Mythen und offizielle Bücher sowie die Animated Series

Da muss ich wiedersprechen, auch wenns nur ein Vorschlag war Technische Handbücher und TAS sind Canon. Dort haben Personen bei Paramount dran gearbeitet, bzw. ist TAS auf www.startrek.com als Serie aufgelistet.

Wo du aber deinen Vorschalg hier unterbreitet hast, hab ich auch mal ne Frage an alle hier im Forum, und zwar, ob folgende Bücher als Canon anzusehen sind :

"Mr. Scotts Guide to the Enterprise" von Shane Johnson | ISBN-Nr: 0-671-70498-2
"Die Welten der Föderaion" auch von Shane Johnson | ISBN-Nr: 3-89365-494-1

Denn die Angaben in beiden Büchern scheinen sehr der wirklichen ST-Welt zu entprechen, nur mit dem Autor hab ich so meine Probleme

P.S.: So eine Quelle mit allen vorhandenen Canon-Facts aus der deutschen Sync wäre echt interresant, ich schließe mich mal der Frage an bzw. suche danach.

mfg Gorkon

[Narbo]

Originalnachricht erstellt von Gorkon
"Mr. Scotts Guide to the Enterprise" von Shane Johnson | ISBN-Nr: 0-671-70498-2
"Die Welten der Föderation" auch von Shane Johnson | ISBN-Nr: 3-89365-494-1

Lau der hier verbreitetetn Definition wären sie nicht canon, da sie nicht von Paramount lizensiert wurden! Wie gesagt: Selbst Bücher die ein kompletter Abschrieb einer Folge und somit 100% der Serienrealität gleichen, fallen durch dieses Netz.

[Gorkon]

Danke Narbo für die Info. Ich merke aber gerade das ich der größte Honk bin dens gibt Hab gerade bei beiden Büchern folgenden Text gefunden:

"This is a work of fiction. All Names, Characters....." bzw.
"Die Inhalte dieses Buches sind frei erfunden"

Tja, das nächste mal lese ich besser erst, bevor ich ne Frage stelle

mfg Gorkon

[Himmelsläufer]

Das wurden aber einige andere Bücher auch. Vor allem die, die den Folgen nachempfunden sind.

Gibt's eigentlich eine Übersicht darüber, welche Bücher bzw. Romane von Paramount nun "einbezogen" bzw. "bestätigt" (oder was auch immer ...) wurden? Da ich einen Haufen der - deutschen - Romane gelesen habe, würde mich das doch brennend interessieren!!!

Außerdem wird dadurch auch klarer, ob z.B. das Buch "Die letzte Grenze" von Diane Carey, in der ja auch Captain April als erster Captain der Enterprise genannt wird, "dazugehört" oder nicht ... um mal auf das Ausgangsthema von vor 4 1/2 Jahren oder so zurückzukommen.

So eine Quelle mit allen vorhandenen Canon-Facts aus der deutschen Sync wäre echt interresant, ich schließe mich mal der Frage an bzw. suche danach.

Da scheint sich ja noch nichts getan zu haben. Oder hat jemand so eine "Quelle" gefunden???

[peterpan]

Da scheint sich ja noch nichts getan zu haben. Oder hat jemand so eine "Quelle" gefunden???

Offensichtlich hat sich da bislang echt noch nichts getan. Ich habe da auch schon auf verschiedenen Websites gesucht - bislang erfolglos. Aber vielleicht kann uns ja hier jemand weiterhelfen ...

[Ford Prefect]

Gibt's eigentlich eine Übersicht darüber, welche Bücher bzw. Romane von Paramount nun "einbezogen" bzw. "bestätigt" (oder was auch immer ...) wurden? Da ich einen Haufen der - deutschen - Romane gelesen habe, würde mich das doch brennend interessieren!!!

Ganz einfache Antwort. Keines der Star Trek Büch ist canon. Auch nicht das hier schon genannte Mosaik. Nur weil Voyagerproduzentin /-autorin Jeri Taylor das Buch geschrieben hat, gehört es nicht gleich zum Star Trek canon.
Es ist also nicht wie im Star Wars EU, dass bestimmte Bücher in das offizielle Universum aufgenommen wurden.


Ebensowenig ist übrigens die Zeichentrickserie canon, auch wenn Elemente von ihr später in den Live-Action Serien auftauchten, vor allem aus der Episode Yesteryear. Dennoch sieht Paramount die Sache nicht als canon an.

[Himmelsläufer]

Ebensowenig ist übrigens die Zeichentrickserie canon, auch wenn Elemente von ihr später in den Live-Action Serien auftauchten, vor allem aus der Episode Yesteryear. Dennoch sieht Paramount die Sache nicht als canon an.

DAS hatte ich so auch noch im Ohr! Danke für die Bestätigung. Damit ist die Folge mit April (ich weiß den Namen leider nicht mehr ... hab' sie nie gesehen ... nur im Goldmann-Roman gelesen) ja auch kein "fester Bestandteil".

Insgesamt besten Dank für die ganze klärende Info. Ich les' die Bücher aber trotzdem weiterhin ... in Deutschland gibt's ja eh' nur noch alle 2 Jahre eins oder so ...

[Whyme]

Hmmm...

in einem anderen Forum habe ich gerade gelesen, dass nur TOS und der erste Film canon seien. Ist da was dran?

MfG
Whyme

[Serenity]

Ich wünschte mir Fans würden ihre schwachsinnige Bessenheit mit dem C-Wort aufgeben. Dieser Unsinn hat höchst groteske Züge angenommen und am liebsten würde ich jedem der damit argumentiert eins über den Kopf schlagen.
Ich kann darüber nur noch den Kopf schütteln. Auf TrekBBS reagiert man in letzter Zeit sehr abweisend und aggressiv auf Canon Fanatiker. Das ist mal eine sehr schöne Entwicklung

Canon ist für Fans vollkommen bedeutungslos. Es ist nur für die Autoren der Serien wichtig, damit sie wissen was sie beachten müssen. Und alle Serien und Filme (ohne TAS, obwohl es da inzwischen genug Anspielungen in den Episoden gibt) sind Canon. Punkt. Ende.

Viele Vollidioten sagen "Das ist nicht in meinem persönlichen Canon" (wie in Whymes Beispiel), aber das ist ein Widerspruch in sich. Canon ist etwas offizielles und kann nicht persönlich definiert werden. Was sie meinen ist "persönliche Kontinuität".

Und was die Bücher betrifft. Die Star Wars Bücher sind auch nicht wirklich Canon. Bei SW gibt es verschiedene Abstufungen und etwas ist solange Canon bis es widersprochen wird, was in den Filmen schon oft genug geschehen ist.
Das gleiche trifft praktisch auf die Star Trek Bücher zu, auch wenn man nicht mit dem C-Wort um sich wirft. Alle sind offiziell, d.h. von Paramount abgesegnet, aber sie werden nicht für zukünftige Filme und Serien berücksichtigt.
Sie sind aber trotzdem Teil meiner persönlichen Kontinuität (personal continuity)

Und die Bedeutung von "Mosaic" oder "Pathways" hat hier auch niemand wirklich verstanden. Jeri Taylor hat einmal Informationen aus der Series Bible verarbeitet und ihre eigenen Ideen über die Charaktere sowohl in die Bücher als auch die Episoden einfließen lassen. Deshalb waren sie anfangs konsistent. Als Jeri Taylor die Serie verließ, haben die Autoren ihre eigenen Ideen verwendet, die zum Teil anders als die Bücher waren

[Miles]

Wo steht das denn ?
Nein, alle ST Serien und Filme (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, ST1-10) sind Canon, warum sollten es nur TOS und der erste Film sein ?

edit:
hmm, da hab ich zu lange gelesen

[Whyme]

Viele Vollidioten sagen "Das ist nicht in meinem persönlichen Canon" (wie in Whymes Beispiel), aber das ist ein Widerspruch in sich. Canon ist etwas offizielles und kann nicht persönlich definiert werden. Was sie meinen ist "persönliche Kontinuität".

Auch wenn ich Dir darin zustimme, dass der Typ, der das, was ich geschrieben habe, behauptet, ein Vollidiot ist, redet er nicht davon, was er persönlich für canon hält sondern davon, dass nur TOS und TMP das offizielle, allgemein gültige canon sind.

Whyme

[Sunblade]

Da diese Frage wohl nur von Paramount geklärt werden kann, poste ich hier nun ein paar Auszüge aus der FAQ von startrek.com

07.10.2003
How do the Star Trek novels and comic books fit into the Star Trek universe? What is considered Star Trek "canon"?

As a rule of thumb, the events that take place within the live action episodes and movies are canon, or official Star Trek facts. Story lines, characters, events, stardates, etc. that take place within the fictional novels, the Animated Adventures, and the various comic lines are not canon.

There are only a couple of exceptions to this rule: the Jeri Taylor penned novels "Mosaic" and "Pathways." Many of the events in these two novels feature background details of the main Star Trek: Voyager characters. (Note: There are a few details from an episode of the Animated Adventures that have entered into the Star Trek canon. The episode "Yesteryear," written by D.C. Fontana, features some biographical background on Spock.)

06.05.2006
Canon Fodder: The Star Trek Animated Series

And finally...

After a long, long wait, fans of the Star Trek animated series will be happy to learn that all 22 episodes of the 1973-74 production will eventually be released on DVD by Paramount Home Entertainment. (Although date and contents are still to be confirmed. Watch this space!)

This is great news, of course, to completionists and Star Trek fans in general. Many of us have our own fond memories or perceptions of this show, and it's no wonder that the animated installment has been hotly contested for years as to its status within the Trek oeuvre. Are the people, places and things contained therein part of what we call "Star Trek"? It's a big question, perhaps not answerable here, but it's not without historical precedent: Just what is this "canon" that they speak of?

From the time that mankind could print religious texts, the question was asked: What is "canon," or texts accepted as genuine when it comes to documenting official history? The bible, with one standard set by the King James Version, originally contained the books that were deemed non-canon, or "apocryphal" ("The Book of Judith," anyone?). But this section, the "Apocrypha," was placed in between the Old and New Testaments to set the books apart from what were considered divine texts. Although the Apocrypha was removed from the King James Bible, you can still find some editions that include it. But for the Bible in general, total agreement on all the books and all the translations simply does not exist.

In Star Trek, canon is also an issue. When the question of what is or isn't canon first raised its head is unclear, but it is probably in connection with the content of the original novels as opposed to the TV shows, and later the movies. At the time, there was only one television show, and a series of various novelizations, original novels and comic books. The question was a natural one: What exactly is considered part of Star Trek lore, and what isn't? (And if it isn't, why not?) Perhaps the simple answer is that the books are numerous and detailed; to hold all those facts and stardates and who did what to whom when is just too much to ask any single fan to retain.

To make things easy, Gene Roddenberry stated that if it appears on screen it's canon. But in time, even Gene's theory would come under fire by his own standards. There were certain movies and shows that he felt didn't meet Trek standards. Roddenberry certainly had his own issues with the animation of the Saturday morning spin-off show and didn't consider it canon — even though the show avoided being the "Archies in Space" as he had feared.

For fans, the animated show (known simply by its on-screen name as Star Trek, but referred to now by names such as "The Animated Adventures of Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek," or even abbreviated as ST: TAS or TAA) hailed the beginning of a resurgence of Trek. Supporters argue that its legacy is manifest: It featured some of the top writers of the day in Larry Niven, David Gerrold, Samuel A. Peeples, D.C. Fontana, Stephen Kandel and even Walter Koenig; it featured new characters, places and aliens; it had recurring guest stars such as Roger C. Carmel and Mark Lenard and follow-up stories to the "Tribbles" and "Harry Mudd" sagas; it came with a bona fide Star Trek stamp of approval with Gene's name attached, as well as D.C. Fontana's; and, bottom line, it was a Saturday morning show that didn't insult one's intelligence. One reviewer at the time even suggested that the animated series was too good for Saturday mornings ("a Mercedes in a soapbox derby") and should be moved to prime time! (Los Angeles Times, 1973)

Detractors have a different take on the series. They argue that the show's animation was rudimentary at best, with repeated sets and one standard overhead shot of the Bridge used endlessly. Also, a main character was scrubbed (Chekov) for budget reasons and replaced by a couple of aliens that could be voiced by Majel Barrett and James Doohan, who did the lion's share of the voices anyway. And, just as a matter of taste, some see the animated series as silly and inconsequential.

On the other hand, principal characters in the show were voiced, sans Koenig, by the original actors. Sure, you had new characters with wings and tails and three legs, and you had other imagery inconsistent with the style of the Original Series, but that was simply a part of the broader visual scope available through animation. In fact, one of the things that sold Gene on the concept of an animated series was the fact that budgets were not an issue. Also, the animated show introduced concepts that would be seized upon in future Star Trek incarnations such as the holodeck ("The Practical Joker"). And fans seem to hold as "factual" that Robert April ("The Counter-Clock Incident") was the first captain of the Enterprise NCC-1701, preceding Christopher Pike.

So the question remains, is Star Trek: The Animated Series (or Animated Adventures) canon, or not? We would like to think so, if only so we can make more work for ourselves and all future historians! At some point, we would like to start adding more information to our site gleaned from this show and have it form part of the overall collective consciousness of Star Trek. Or, do we simply leave the whole issue ambiguous and let the fans decide in their own mind what they consider canon? Put to a recent vote on the site, fans favored the canonization of the animated series by a margin of more than 2-1. Let the white smoke billow!

12.16.2004
Production Report: Klingon Discrepancy Addressed in "Affliction"

It's probably the single most popular topic of conversation among Star Trek fans: Why do Klingons look different during Captain Kirk's day than all the times after and before? What happened to their forehead ridges during that period? (We all know the real reason — the original show didn't have the budget for prosthetic makeup ... and starting with the movies they did. But that explanation is no fun!) In fact, at conventions fans consistently ask if that discrepancy would ever be explained on the show, thus becoming "canon." Well, Trekkies and Trekkers, it's finally happening. The 15th episode of Season 4 of Star Trek: Enterprise will begin to address that issue, and it's called "Affliction."

"Affliction" is the first of a two-parter, written by Mike Sussman (we've got a bio for him now!) from a story by Manny Coto. The second part is called "Divergence," written by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens, and those episodes will air in February. (During sweeps ... clever, huh?)

The Klingon forehead issue is a complicated one, because it has to take into account a number of factors if one is to stay true to the Star Trek universe as previously established (related feature). The simplest theories (e.g. "southern" vs. "northern" breeds) have to be thrown out because Star Trek: Deep Space Nine reprised three Klingon characters from the Original Series — Kor, Koloth and Kang — and gave them forehead ridges in "Blood Oath." Then there was "Trials and Tribble-ations," where the crew went back in time to Station K-7, looked around and said, "Those are Klingons??" They turned to bumpy-headed Worf for an explanation, and he would only say it's a long story and "We do not discuss it with outsiders."

Well, rest assured the writers have taken all that into account and have come up with a scenario consistent with all those elements. We won't give it away here, of course, but we will say that it ties very neatly into other aspects of Trek history.

To briefly synopsize the story, Enterprise heads back to Earth for the official launch of the Columbia NX-02, commanded by Erika Hernandez. After visiting his favorite Chinese restaurant in San Francisco, Phlox is abducted by aliens (Rigelians, actually). He finds himself in the presence of Klingons who tell him the Empire is facing its gravest threat in centuries. Along the way, as Archer and company investigate and pursue, it's revealed that one of our main characters has a secret past which comes into play.

There's some exciting casting in this show, including some familiar Klingon faces. Remember the Klingon Ambassador who railed against Kirk in "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" and "Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country"? That was John Schuck, and he's back in the bumpy cranium but as a more cerebral Klingon, a scientist named "Antaak." Schuck was also a Cardassian in DS9's "The Maquis, Part II," and a member of the "Chorus" in Star Trek: Voyager's "Muse."

Worf's son Alexander was played by four different people (counting the future one in "Firstborn"). The final actor in that role for the DS9 episodes "Sons and Daughters" and "You Are Cordially Invited..." was Marc Worden. Here, Worden plays a "Klingon Prisoner" who, shall we say, undergoes some nasty business related to those head ridges.

Ada Maris, introduced in "Home" as Archer's old flame, returns as the Columbia's captain. Another face back in uniform is that of avid Trek fan Seth MacFarlane, creator of the animated comedy Family Guy (which currently is being made into a movie). The 31-year-old MacFarlane had a brief cameo last season as an Engineer in "The Forgotten" (related story). He's still an Engineer but now he's got a Columbia patch on his uniform, and he's got a name: "Ensign Rivers." He's also got more scenes this time.

Two more alumni in the guest cast are Eric Pierpoint as "Harris" (a mysterious person involved in a certain character's past), and Brad Greenquist as one of the Rigelians who kidnap Phlox. Pierpoint has appeared once in each of the latter-day Trek series — in TNG's "Liaisons," DS9's "For the Uniform," Voyager's "Barge of the Dead," and Enterprise's "Rogue Planet." Greenquist was in "Dawn," and also Voyager's "Warlord" and DS9's "Who Mourns for Morn?"

Production on this installment took place from Friday, December 3, through Monday of this week. Certain standing sets were redressed a bit to serve as the equivalent sections of Columbia, namely Engineering, the Bridge, and the Captain's Mess. On the latter set there was a greenscreen in the window where a view of the drydock will be inserted later.

There were some exterior scenes for the sequence where Phlox is walking with Hoshi and they get jumped by the Rigelians, and subsequently the area becomes a crime scene. This was shot at Paramount, but rather than use the New York Streets backlot yet again (as in "Storm Front"), the company did these scenes between the studio's Administration Building (home of all the top executives) and another building which may be recognizable as the high school in Happy Days. There's an altercation, so Linda Park was stunt-doubled by Diana Inosanto (John Billingsley did his own, less intense moves), and the other two Rigelians besides Greenquist were played by stuntmen Brian Williams and Tom Dupont.

About a day and a half was spent in a Klingon Laboratory designed as a dark, dank chamber filled with rusty equipment (the script reads, "If Doctor Frankenstein lived in the 22nd century, he might work in a place like this"). There were some rattling animal cages on the set, but much of the atmosphere of these scenes will be created through post-production sound and visual effects. There will be Targs running around and snarling, digitally.

Will we actually see the Kirk-era Klingon visage in this episode? Why yes! In fact, we'll see four of them (referred to in the production notes either as "Klingons, Type Two" or "Semi-Klingons"), the principal one named "Marab." And yes, they have that swarthy complexion and that Fu Manchu facial hair. They do, however, have a very slight remnant of the forehead ridge. Their outfits are leathery brown like we've seen on Klingons before, but a lot less bulky.

The second and final part of this Klingon arc is currently in production, but the company goes on hiatus after this Friday, the 17th, for two weeks. They will resume January 3, with three days left on "Divergence." After that, there will only be six more episodes to shoot in the season, finishing up principal photography in March.

"Affliction" was directed by Michael Grossman, who joined Enterprise last season with "Hatchery." Earlier this season he helmed the first part of the Vulcan arc, "The Forge." This is the fifth writing credit of the season for Sussman, on top of "Home," "The Augments," "Kir'Shara" and "Babel One."