Canon? STFU!
- Thread starter Eagle
- Start date
Why is the term 'canon' used so heavily in prop replica/modelling circles? It's a quasi-religious term isn't it? - so where's the connection?...
It's so bloody annoying to hear it used everywhere! :lol
Generally means used on-screen; actually a prop from the actual show/movie, correct in all significant details.
ItsThatGuy
Sr Member
Quick answer...usual it is a "religious" term. The defintion can also be: the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art:
Jayn
Sr Member
Meaning coming from an established body of works, ie: the entire Star Wars series, incl. movies books, comics etc..
The Sherlock Holmes fans often used the term for the collected works of Doyle..
can·on 1 (knn)
n.
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5.
a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" William Styron.
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
6. Canon The part of the Mass beginning after the Preface and Sanctus and ending just before the Lord's Prayer.
7. The calendar of saints accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
8. Music A composition or passage in which a melody is imitated by one or more voices at fixed intervals of pitch and time.
The Sherlock Holmes fans often used the term for the collected works of Doyle..
can·on 1 (knn)
n.
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5.
a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" William Styron.
b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic: the entire Shakespeare canon.
6. Canon The part of the Mass beginning after the Preface and Sanctus and ending just before the Lord's Prayer.
7. The calendar of saints accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.
8. Music A composition or passage in which a melody is imitated by one or more voices at fixed intervals of pitch and time.
Last edited:
spcglider@aol.com
Sr Member
It really is just a convenient and already established term to differentiate between "official" material and anything else.
Fan fiction (about any property) would be "non-canon" for example.
It probably was imported into the jargon by original Star Trek fans.
-Gordon
Fan fiction (about any property) would be "non-canon" for example.
It probably was imported into the jargon by original Star Trek fans.
-Gordon
HouseAtreides
Well-Known Member
I'm pretty sure it entered into Sci-Fi via Star Trek as spcglider said.
That is the first and for a long time, only place or context i ever heard it in.
That is the first and for a long time, only place or context i ever heard it in.
Neon Sentry
Sr Member
If you're gonna get into the religious nonsense, then "innocence" has it's roots there as well. That point means nothing.
Canon simply means adhering to the established facts of a universe.
For example, the episode of Voyager where Paris breaks the Warp 10 barrier (which, within Star Trek, is impossible with the TNG Warp speed measurements. Warp 10 is impossible... it is infinite speed and requires infinite energy, you occupy all points in the universe simultaneously) was not considered canon by many, and eventually the producers said that the episode was not in official canon because it was so bad.
That episode does not officially exist because it violated the laws of science (and more importantly, the established rules of the Trek universe) so egregiously...
As far as connection to props/models, the connection is superficial at most. "Screen-accurate" or "Studio-accurate" would be much better terms for that.
Also, wouldn't this be better placed in Off-Topic?
Canon simply means adhering to the established facts of a universe.
For example, the episode of Voyager where Paris breaks the Warp 10 barrier (which, within Star Trek, is impossible with the TNG Warp speed measurements. Warp 10 is impossible... it is infinite speed and requires infinite energy, you occupy all points in the universe simultaneously) was not considered canon by many, and eventually the producers said that the episode was not in official canon because it was so bad.
That episode does not officially exist because it violated the laws of science (and more importantly, the established rules of the Trek universe) so egregiously...
As far as connection to props/models, the connection is superficial at most. "Screen-accurate" or "Studio-accurate" would be much better terms for that.
Also, wouldn't this be better placed in Off-Topic?
Mr. No Stripes
Sr Member
Canon means "really good cameras" to me
vaderdarth
Master Member
Chill out man, a canon is like a gun, only louder!!!
SmilingOtter
Master Member
If you paint your A-Wing with rust colored trim, that's canon. (Blue trim could be considered canon if you take the pre-production art into account.)
If your A-Wing is painted day-glo yellow with pink polka-dots, it is no longer canon. You could certainly come up with a reasonable back story about why that particular pilot would paint his craft that color, but it's not canon.
If your A-Wing is painted day-glo yellow with pink polka-dots, it is no longer canon. You could certainly come up with a reasonable back story about why that particular pilot would paint his craft that color, but it's not canon.
darthgordon
Sr Member
That's a cannon :rolleyes
I'd never heard anyone officially say that it was not canon. Though I agree with you on all points. Let's just pretend it was a dream like that season long dream sequence thing from Dallas.
Eh... maybe, but the question really did ask about it in reference to prop/ model building.
Props and models could be considered canon, but the truth is, for the most part rarely are b/c details can change from episode to episode, movie to movie. These are often minute details that cannot really be seen on screen, but are obsessed over around here.
Take the lightsabers for instance. Everyone here knows that Anakin's saber in episode III is different than it is when it is given to Luke in episode IV. Is it supposed to be and can you really tell that by looking at the screen? Hardly.
The model of the Enterprise D actually changes during the show. The exterior was sometimes modified for plot reasons or to better match the interior sets. How many people would notice that? About 1 in every 500. Are you supposed to notice it? Nope.
If a stunt prop is interchanged with a hero prop during a scene or within a movie does that have anything to do with canon? No.
R2B9
Well-Known Member
I think "canon" was originally used ironically to denote material that exists outside of the established fictional universe (ie "those Star Trek novels are non-canon")... over the years people seem to have gotten more obsessive about the idea that "canon" must be preserved.
Actually it's kind of funny how often canon is broken when nobody's paying attention. Notice how many times Data uses contractions in Star Trek TNG, despite the fact that it's established early and often that he "can not". :lol
Actually it's kind of funny how often canon is broken when nobody's paying attention. Notice how many times Data uses contractions in Star Trek TNG, despite the fact that it's established early and often that he "can not". :lol
Last edited:
Neon Sentry
Sr Member
I don't think the first season should count when it comes to canon. They didn't even establish until episode 13 that Data couldn't use contractions and even then they still had him use one at the end of that (terrible) episode, and then another at the end of the season. IIRC he didn't use another until All Good Things, and even then it was on purpose.
darthgordon
Sr Member
I believe they actually said that Data spoke more formally than others not that he could not use contractions in "Datalore." It was never actually established until "The Offspring" where it's noticed that Lal uses them and Data explains that he cannot.
But hey, his cat changes breed and sex. Engineering on the original Enterprise seems to change locations. Spock's make-up changed, the Klingons make-up changed (beyond the ridges), the Borg look changed. Shots of the TOS Enterprise switched between different models in the same episode.
Khaless's wept, and his tears filled the ocean.
"Hardly conclusive Mister Scott, since Klingons have no tear ducts."
Canon is flexible... and after 40 years of Trek difficult to keep track off. No one can know or remember everything. Even if you have places that keep track of that stuff, you can't plan for every possible contradiction.
But hey, his cat changes breed and sex. Engineering on the original Enterprise seems to change locations. Spock's make-up changed, the Klingons make-up changed (beyond the ridges), the Borg look changed. Shots of the TOS Enterprise switched between different models in the same episode.
Khaless's wept, and his tears filled the ocean.
"Hardly conclusive Mister Scott, since Klingons have no tear ducts."
Canon is flexible... and after 40 years of Trek difficult to keep track off. No one can know or remember everything. Even if you have places that keep track of that stuff, you can't plan for every possible contradiction.
Actually, I heard it first in regards to Star Wars. The Expanded Universe stuff is all "non-canon".
To reiterate what others have said here, I have always taken the meaning in props/models contexts to be "original source material".
Though, you sometimes run into where the author/creator has written a novel, or acknowledges a derivative work as canon. This happens with some of the Babylon 5 novels.
The easy answer is, anything in the original movie or show is canon. Anything else is not.
To reiterate what others have said here, I have always taken the meaning in props/models contexts to be "original source material".
Though, you sometimes run into where the author/creator has written a novel, or acknowledges a derivative work as canon. This happens with some of the Babylon 5 novels.
The easy answer is, anything in the original movie or show is canon. Anything else is not.
Neon Sentry
Sr Member
Until you run into retcons. :wacko
spcglider@aol.com
Sr Member
I think what we're talking about here is the difference between story and visual effects. I think you're right in that the term "canon" really doesn't have bearing on say, the detail bits on the surface of the Millennium Falcon model(s), unless they have been used in some way story-wise... say the location of the "top hatch" as seen in Empire Strikes Back.
The term "screen accurate" can be debated into the dirt, but I think it is still the (or one of the) best terms to use in relation to props and models.
Canon is "the facts of a particular fictional universe". That's why the establish a "show bible" denoting all the things writers are not allowed to do in that universe. Like "no true aliens" in the Serenity universe. Canon, in a religious sense, is supposedly immutable. In the entertainment industry, its more a guideline as opposed to a real "rule"
-G
The term "screen accurate" can be debated into the dirt, but I think it is still the (or one of the) best terms to use in relation to props and models.
Canon is "the facts of a particular fictional universe". That's why the establish a "show bible" denoting all the things writers are not allowed to do in that universe. Like "no true aliens" in the Serenity universe. Canon, in a religious sense, is supposedly immutable. In the entertainment industry, its more a guideline as opposed to a real "rule"
-G
Similar threads
