IDW Comics Interviews

Original Trek and TAS writer Dorothy ("D.C.") Fontana and CCCP's Paula Block have been asked some additional questions on canon, as reported by TrekMovie.com.

PAULA BLOCK: “Canon” in the sense that I use it is a very important tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that. Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens. Licensed products like books and comics aren’t part of that continuity, so they aren’t canon. And that’s that. Part of my job in licensing is to keep track of TV and Movie continuity, so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products. It gets a little tricky because it’s constantly evolving, and over the years, Star Trek’s various producers and scriptwriters haven’t always kept track of/remembered/cared about what’s come before.

IDW: In today’s world, especially in a property like Star Trek, that has seen stories told in movies, TV episodes, novels, comic books, video games, e-books and even Internet-based fan media, too, the question of what constitutes “canon” is very much an ongoing debate. The episode you wrote for Star Trek: the Animated Series, “Yesteryear,” is the only one that contains material that is considered canon. What makes it canonical while the others aren’t?

DOROTHY FONTANA: I suppose "canon" means what Gene Roddenberry decided it was. Remember, we were making it up as we went along on the original series (and on the animated one, too). We had a research company to keep us on the straight and narrow as to science, projected science based on known science, science fiction references (we didn’t want to step on anyone’s exclusive ideas in movies, other TV shows, or printed work). They also helped prevent contradictions and common reference errors. So the so-called canon evolved in its own way and its own time. For whatever reason, Gene Roddenberry apparently didn’t take the animated series seriously (no pun intended), although we worked very hard to do original STAR TREK stories and concepts at all times in the animated series. What freed us there was the fact that we could do environments and aliens without the constraints of sets, makeup and costumes that would have been difficult to do in live action. The research company also worked on this series, again to keep us within rules we had set up in the original series and to keep references in terms of science/science fiction etc. accurate.

IDW: And a follow-up to that question, what does “canon” mean to you? Do fans put too great an emphasis on what is canon instead of just what makes a good story?

DOROTHY FONTANA: I like a good story— but there are certain basic ground rules established which I don’t think can be easily tossed aside. I really hated it when one of the features (STAR TREK V) came up with a half brother for Spock when I had always insisted he had no other siblings. But I guess it isn’t "canon" if I wrote it. Go figure.