Star Trek:TNG "Q Who" (S2E16)

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by doom1701, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. doom1701

    doom1701 Time for a new Title TCF Club

    27,114
    774
    May 15, 2001
    Grand...

    Advertisements

    There are no "Official" Star Trek books. The closest are the Chronology and Tech Manuals put out during the TNG-Voyager era, but even those are not officially considered canon.

    Personally, I think they should have just left the Klingon thing at Worf's explanation. It doesn't need an explanation, just like the meaningless panels of flashing lights on the TOS bridge needs no explanation. If it were done today, they would be able to do it differently. In the late 60's, they did what they could do then.
     
  2. Fish Man

    Fish Man Phish Food

    8,260
    0
    Mar 4, 2002
    0.7 miles...
    I totally agree. All of us fans know the real reason: Television budgets and theatrical makeup technology of the 60's. Duh.

    So, simply leaving it as a Star Trek "in joke" with Worf's comment being the most that was ever said about it was perfect, IMHO.

    As to the book the previous post was referring to, I used to have it (my copy was destroyed by the Katrina flood, in fact.)

    I don't remember the exact title, but it was something like, "The Complete Book of Federation Member Species" or something like that. It had a section on Federation Members, Federation Allies, Neutral Species, and Hostile Species. It was basically an outline of each species.

    It was published in the 3rd or 4th season of TNG, so it didn't even have Cardassians yet. Klingons were under "Allies".

    The book was and independent work and definitely not canon.
     
  3. cwerdna

    cwerdna Proud Tivolutionary

    15,884
    1,081
    Feb 22, 2001
    SF Bay Area, CA
    As for official, even books like http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Chronology-History-Future/dp/0671536109, http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Next-Generation-Technical/dp/0671704273/ref=pd_sim_b_2 and http://www.amazon.com/Star-Trek-Encyclopedia-Michael-Okuda/dp/0671536095/ref=pd_sim_b_1 both aren't "official" and aren't canon? Mike Okuda is known for his work (Okudagrams) on TNG, for instance.
     
  4. Fish Man

    Fish Man Phish Food

    8,260
    0
    Mar 4, 2002
    0.7 miles...
    Gene Roddenberry always stated that no books about Star Trek were canon even if he wrote them himself. Berman and Braga made similar statements.
     
  5. Bryanmc

    Bryanmc I'm normal.

    40,822
    335
    Sep 5, 2000
    Richardson,...

    Advertisements

    This thread is making me want to watch Enterprise. :eek:

    I gave up on it at the end of season 2, I think.
     
  6. LoadStar

    LoadStar LOAD"*",8,1

    40,787
    3,492
    Jul 24, 2001
    Milwaukee, WI
    I would say that the ST:TNG Tech Manual holds a status as quasi-canon, as it was heavily used as a reference material when writing scripts for the show, and written by the people who served as technical advisers for the show.

    Other than that, you're right, books are definitely non-canon.
     
  7. doom1701

    doom1701 Time for a new Title TCF Club

    27,114
    774
    May 15, 2001
    Grand...
    The problem with the books (and really, the problem with previous series and the entire concept of "canon") is that the newest iteration of the story is always the "Most Canon". So while the TNG Tech Manual is a great book and served as a reference for multiple series (and, BTW, I used to read it to my daughter when she was an infant), if a Voyager episode throws out something totally contradictory, the Voyager episode is canon.

    With that in mind, the TNG Tech Manual is probably the most potentially canon of the books. The Chronology is close, but since things screw up the timeline after books are authored, it can never really be canon.
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements