"Best of Megatron" compilation

[Shockwave]

This basically creates personal canon by virtue of the fact that one fan's interpretation of events as canon may differ from another with both being right because both are what's recognized by the license holder as canon.

My problem here is that my opinion or your opinion don't constitute canon. Dom's right that we need some sort of shorthand, but the current "personal canon" shorthand is very inaccurate, which is why I dislike it so much.

Ordinarily I would agree on this point, but the G1 cartoon creates the following problem: I regard "canon" as the Constructicons were built in the caves. You regard it that they were on Cybertron. We're both right, both are canon, both are right there in the context of the cartoon for all to see. So basically my "personal canon" is actual canon and so is yours. I think as long as we both acknowledge that both are correct, we are therefore acknowledging the fact that Hasbro is regarding both as canon and shouldn't really be an issue.

O6, as for the album, your author intent is that it has a story. The story is there even if you father refuses to acknowledge it. That makes him officially wrong and you correct as the author of that work. The same would go for fans who don't get it.

Shockwave
-Beat Dom to the punch.

[Sparky Prime]

That always irritates me. By definition"Canon" (which technically is a term with religious connotations) is established by a governing authority. In the case of a body of fiction, that authority would have to be the owner of the property. In the case of Star Trek, Paramount owns the property, and thus they have the final say on what counts and what does not.

There are several ways to definite "canon", not all of which means that that it is established by a governing authority. In today's more general terms, canon has come to mean "the body of literature and art which is considered to define [a] civilization by widespread consensus". Towards the more specific, in body of fiction it generally refers to the "interpretation of characters and events", in other words, the events that are recognized to "count" as separated by the events that do not. Granted this is normally established by an official authority.

There is no such thing as "personal canon". The term "canon" is being misused when paired with "personal". The correct way to express it would personal preference.

See, I can't agree with that. By definition, this isn't inherently wrong. It simply refers to a fan's personal interpretations in place of a "governing authority" as you put it.

The subject matter, (the thing be measured), may change. But, the units and scale of measurement are going to be pretty consistent. People grow and shrink as they age. But, the units of measurement, (inches, feet, centimeters, meters), are more or less the same.

Establishing a consistent degree of canon with something like TF is hard because rules for measuring it tend to be applied inconsistently.

This is why I think "kanon" was an awkward thing to develop "canon" from. The units and scale of measurement really don't apply in terms of canon especially when applied to a body of fiction. As such it's not the measuring that's an issue, rather, I'd say it's what is to be measured or not is where the consistency issues arise.

Such as with the G1 cartoon.... Since it has conflicts within itself, it's that material that makes it difficult to establish the canon/measurement, not the rules of the measurement itself.

Paramount owns "Star Trek", which gives Paramount a pretty much unambiguous right to say what is official and/or canonical.

Indeed, but they didn't create Star Trek itself. Personally, I see Roddenberry as somewhat of an authority over Paramount for that reason, but obviously it falls on Paramount since Roddenberry's passing. Still, I see there being some room for argument either way on some issues.

And neither does Gene Roddenberry. He would have struck not only the Animated series, but also large portions of Star Trek 5 and 6, as well as numerous episodes of the original series.

As far as I'm aware, it was never confirmed Roddenberry made statements he would have struck portions of Star Trek 5 or 6, or any episodes. The Animated series I know he had an opinion on though. But besides that, Paramount made a comment that even Roddenberry was known to change his mind on the Star Trek canon.

This is a case of writers adopting story elements from the animated series into the live action Treks. It doesn't necessarily mean that the episodes that the events came from are officially recognized.

Except Paramount did make the statement they do officially recognize that episode as canon as a result of later episodes making use of materials established in that episode.

It was also mentioned by Amanda in "Journey to Babel", which pre-dated the animated series.

That's true, but I should have been more clear on my point. Amanda never said anything about Spock attacking the bullies in that episode, rather she was commenting that she knew he was hiding his human feelings after being bullied. "Yesteryear" and the film however showed Spock having an emotional response by attacking them after they made a comment about his father marrying his human mother.

[Dominic]

I do the same thing myself, trying to work out inconsistencies. It doesn't make that explanation official though. Some fans think their solutions are official, which is astonishing to me.

I agree that it is absurd for fans to think their own ideas are official, let along canonical. In some situations, multiple, and mutually exclusive ideas, can be equally official. And, in the absense of editorial mandates, equally canonical.

My problem here is that my opinion or your opinion don't constitute canon. Dom's right that we need some sort of shorthand, but the current "personal canon" shorthand is very inaccurate, which is why I dislike it so much.

I am of two minds about this. On the one hand, words do need to have meanings. But, meanings do change over time. And, adhering to an outdated meaning does not help anyone. Sparky is on to something when he says that the meanings of words change over time.

I suppose if we wanted to be absurd about it, we could say that "personal canon" is linguistic exhibitionism. But, at a more reasonable level, the whole point of shorthand is that it is commonly and easily understood. Even a non-fan could grasp the concept of personal canon fairly easily. In that sense, the term is very useful.

Dom
-post #2 coming right up.

[Dominic]

O6, if you have the intent that intent can be ignored, that is fine. But, in other cases, misreadings, no matter how common, are simply wrong. "Watchmen" is a perfect example of this. Moore has said, (and has been often ignored), that Rorschach is *not* supposed to be a hero. In fact, he is very upset by the common reading to the contrary.

Anyone who says Rorschach is a hero is completely and unambiguously wrong. Moore said one thing, and they are twisting his intent. The misreading might be reasonable based on the information many readers have, (the word of other readers who misread "Watchmen), but it is still wrong by virtue of deviating from Moore's intent.

Indeed, but they didn't create Star Trek itself. Personally, I see Roddenberry as somewhat of an authority over Paramount for that reason, but obviously it falls on Paramount since Roddenberry's passing. Still, I see there being some room for argument either way on some issues.

But, Paramount, not Rodenberry, owns Trek. They have the authority to make changes and declarations, not him, regardless of Rodenberry being alive or not. We know that Liefeld did not create Shatterstar (in "X-Force"), with the intendtion that the character would be gay. But, guess what? Joe-Q says Shatterstar is gay. No amount of histrionics from Liefeld will change that.


Dom

[Sparky Prime]

But, Paramount, not Rodenberry, owns Trek. They have the authority to make changes and declarations, not him, regardless of Rodenberry being alive or not. We know that Liefeld did not create Shatterstar (in "X-Force"), with the intendtion that the character would be gay. But, guess what? Joe-Q says Shatterstar is gay. No amount of histrionics from Liefeld will change that.

You're kinda arguing a moot point with Roddenberry having died in 1991 Dom. And you're missing my point. Obviously with Paramount owning the franchise, they ultimately call the shots. But when he was alive, Roddenberry's opinions as the creator of the franchise carried weight, and still does with many fans.

I don't think your Shatterstar example really compares to what we're talking about here either. Shatterstar is but a single character within a much larger cast of characters in the Marvel universe. Liefeld isn't going to have that much pull just because he helped create *a* character within all of that. A more apt comparison for Roddenberry would be Stan Lee as the original creator of the X-Men in the first place. Even though Stan Lee isn't really involved that much with comics anymore, there is no denying his opinions still carries weight for all the work he did in creating so many popular titles for Marvel.

[Dominic]

Rodenberry only had the authority he did because Paramount gave it to him. They had the right to take it away at any time. By your logic, Budiansky and the guy who designed G1 Sunstreaker would have real creative control over TF.

Shaterstar works as an example because it is a case of a character being meaningfully changed from not only the author's intent, but the author's wishes. (Apparently Liefeld was *really* upset by the change.)

I do not think Lee is as influential as people. Many people claim to love and respect Lee's work. But, the numbers do not lie. (And, there are plenty of people who will tell you flat out that Lee is a bad writer.)

When is the last time Lee wrote a comic that lasted more than a year? Hell, the pulled him off of "Ravage 2099", despite all the hype about him finally writing a monthly book. Lee's name was not enough to sell a well illustrated book that was part of an editorial family that Marvel was pushing *hard*. The fact that Lee was in the same stable as legitimately *good* writers like David did not help much.

"Spiderman 2099" was good old fashioned superheroics with some open futurism mixed in.
"Punisher 2099" was a stylistic riff on acton heroes and comics.
"Doom 2099" was a nominal connection to the mainline books with serious futurism mixed in.
"Ravage 2099" was the worst cliches of the silver age mixed with the worst flavor of the month 90s sensibilities.


Dom
-avoids Lee like the plague.

[138 Scourge]

"Spiderman 2099" was good old fashioned superheroics with some open futurism mixed in.
"Punisher 2099" was a stylistic riff on acton heroes and comics.
"Doom 2099" was a nominal connection to the mainline books with serious futurism mixed in.
"Ravage 2099" was the worst cliches of the silver age mixed with the worst flavor of the month 90s sensibilities.

And "Ghost Rider 2099" was a fun intro-to-cyberpunk/futurism kind of romp. It took two ideas that seem ridiculous "Guy gets in mind trapped in a warbot body" and "Ghost Rider of the future is a ROBOT GHOST RIDER!" and made them work amazingly well. I wasn't even buying comics at the time and this one straight suckered me back in.

[Sparky Prime]

Rodenberry only had the authority he did because Paramount gave it to him. They had the right to take it away at any time. By your logic, Budiansky and the guy who designed G1 Sunstreaker would have real creative control over TF.

No, you're failing to recognize Roddenberry's role if that's the type of comparisons you're coming up with. Bob Budiansky *wasn't* the *creator* of Transformers. He was just a writer at Marvel Comics given the task of developing much of the Transformers background for Hasbro's approval. Gene Roddenberry on the other hand *was* Star Trek. He's the one that came up with the whole idea, pitched it to television studio's, and he was in control of the television series up until the WGA Strike of 1988 forced him to step back. He didn't have that authority just because Paramount gave it to him, he had that authority because Star Trek was his original idea.

Shaterstar works as an example because it is a case of a character being meaningfully changed from not only the author's intent, but the author's wishes. (Apparently Liefeld was *really* upset by the change.)

Except we're not talking about a character being changed against an author's intent/wishes. We're talking about the influence someone has for creating the franchise in the first place. Shatterstar doesn't work as a comparison to that at all.

I do not think Lee is as influential as people. Many people claim to love and respect Lee's work. But, the numbers do not lie. (And, there are plenty of people who will tell you flat out that Lee is a bad writer.)

What are you talking about "the numbers do not lie"? Anyone who has ever enjoyed Spider-Man, X-Men, Hulk, Iron-Man, Thor, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and Doctor Strange comic books... They only exist because Stan Lee created them in the first place. That's why he's so influential in the comic book world. It doesn't matter what you think of his writing abilities.

[Dominic]

Rodenberry may have created "Star Trek". But, any authority Paramount gave him was a courtesy. And, he would not be the first creator to lose control of something he made. Paramount had owndership.

Lee is over-credited. Much of Silver-Age Marvel was created by the artists working with Lee. Lee contributed very little to the creation and development of those early titles. And, again, when is the last time Lee wrote anything that lasted?

[Sparky Prime]

Rodenberry may have created "Star Trek". But, any authority Paramount gave him was a courtesy. And, he would not be the first creator to lose control of something he made. Paramount had owndership.

Of course Paramount as the owner of the franchise has the right to change who runs the show if they saw it as necessary, but that isn't the case or point here. It wasn't just a courtesy that Roddenberry had authority. Again, he was Star Trek with full control over the show. I recall even Berman commenting in an interview, Paramount pretty much left them alone when it came to running the shows.

Lee is over-credited. Much of Silver-Age Marvel was created by the artists working with Lee. Lee contributed very little to the creation and development of those early titles. And, again, when is the last time Lee wrote anything that lasted?

I'm sure the artists played a significant role in helping developing those characters, hence why they are credited as co-creators, but I doubt Lee "contributed very little" as you claim. In fact, with Spider-Man, it's known that originally Jack Kirby was working with Lee on developing the character. But Lee hated Kirby's take on him, as he was drawing Spider-Man as another square-jawed heroic figure with a web-gun. That's when Lee took the concept to Steve Ditko and they turned out the Spider-Man we know.

And what does it matter when the last time Stan Lee wrote something that lasted? The man is 87 years old. I think he pretty much retired from doing that kind of writing years ago.