No edit summary |
(Good idea, bad idea) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
:::Apologies for the strong emotion, but this is just a BAD idea, IMO...[[User:Capt Christopher Donovan|Capt Christopher Donovan]] 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
:::Apologies for the strong emotion, but this is just a BAD idea, IMO...[[User:Capt Christopher Donovan|Capt Christopher Donovan]] 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
| + | |||
| + | ::::Fascinating. Google turns up a number of results for [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22roddenberry+canon%22 Roddenberry canon]. I'd venture to say that, whatever the article's eventual content, it is a legitimate and entirely appropriate (contraversiality not withstanding) subject for consideration. -- [[User:StAkAr Karnak|StAkAr Karnak]] 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 22:22, 3 September 2006
How about having a "Roddenberry canon" article? I found the term at Wikipedia[1], though I haven't searched to see whether it is in widespread useage. I think it would be useful to see just what the Great Bird felt was officially part of his vision, and how big a slice of Trek that comprises. Maybe include some comments as to why he objected to TAS or other story elements. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why not simply add that information to the Gene Roddenberry article, if there's a reliable source for that sort of info? -- Cid Highwind 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- His main article is already lengthy without this tangent. Incidentally, here's a relevant link on his thoughts on canon. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Which Roddenberry will we use for this canon? TOS/TAS Gene, at the top of his game? Movie era Gene, bitter after his round and round political infights with the studio? TNG Gene, burned out, drugged up, and (by all accounts) heavily influenced by his lawyer (Mazlish) and Richard "Trek's own Anti-Christ" Arnold?
- His main article is already lengthy without this tangent. Incidentally, here's a relevant link on his thoughts on canon. -- StAkAr Karnak 20:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Apologies for the strong emotion, but this is just a BAD idea, IMO...Capt Christopher Donovan 21:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Fascinating. Google turns up a number of results for Roddenberry canon. I'd venture to say that, whatever the article's eventual content, it is a legitimate and entirely appropriate (contraversiality not withstanding) subject for consideration. -- StAkAr Karnak 22:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)