"Officially" means they negotiated a license to publish the stories and is an exact and accurate term for the legal status of the work. You need to stop using the word canon. It is a religious word that makes it sound like you are a cultist worshiping the screen as your holy scriptures.

"Canon" is ill-defined and what is canon or not seems to be largely at the beholders whims. Roddenberry vacillated as to what was canon and not depending on how much he was paid. Until he died Roddenberry disavowed the animated series except for one episode he considered canon. Franz Joseph's Tech manual and blueprints were briefly blessed as canon until they sold well enough that Roddenberry wanted a bigger cut.

There is no Canon. Star Trek is not a church.

... Because Vulcans are not an ancient people with a long history? No zat is not it... Vulcans are not communists... thei do believe in private ownership, only unlike humans zey realize after a point more wealth and property is pointless and detrimental to society zerefore illogical...

I agree that Serak should not have been Burham's parent. Any other Vulcan or andorian or Tellarite or Rigellian would have been better... But I think we ahould have more bultiracial mixed familyes in Star Trek. More Andorians with human names like Jennifer... More Tellarites raised by Orions or whatever. We are a multicultural society and Star Trek should reflect that people are more alike zan different.

Yanno zat zis is exactly what Lower Decks is doing, only instead of going back in time where they can't change anything majur they go back to the places afterwards and tell new stories and move za story forwsad instead of rehashig the same vharacters and stories that have already been told well. Retelling the old storeis with newer actors and adding minor inconsequential details does not make for an interesting show. When we know what happens already you have little room for tension much less bold dramatic action.

So you it you missed the cues that Robinson was deliberately laying down? Just because you cling to the plausible deniablity doesnot invalidate that the intent and subtext is there deliberately and was not invented by the fans. The writers wrote and actors portrayed it as a romantic relationship within limmits of the director's fear of your inability to accept that the relationship was their right under your eyes...

I agree and disagree. The apirit of Star Trek was lost in slavish pursuit of a para-religious "Canon" of text and facts and details. The core presimise of believablitity, optimism, hope for the future and above all joy of living another day and friends and laughter was lost to special effects, recycling of familiar ideas when sometimes it was better to reach out, and sometimes reaching for something new when something familiar could be used instead. Yes both faults happened... Why didn't we ever see Andorians and Tellarites in TNG when they were always amoung the founders of the Federation? Why did we have to connect so many major characters to other characters... Why does Worf have to be in every show that happens after TNG?

We should adhere to the original premises and feelings of what made Star Trek great. Not get lost in the minor details of what date this happened. But it is a reason to ask 'Is it really best to make this the same Borg/Gorn/Vulcan or should it be a new thing?'

Unholy "Blasphemy" against the untouchable perfect holy "Canon"... Wow. Did you miss an important message in Star Trek. You may as well be a follower of Landru. Or Perhaps Sybok. What does "God" need with a book of Canon but to enslave the mind to minute details and to close it off from thinking for yourself about what details are important to the stories you most enjoy and which are not.

Ironically, this kind of religious closemindedness is exactly why Roddenberry would not let Star Trek Characters subscribe to religions. Enlightened humanist liberalism does not work when you dogmatically tie yourself to the canon which is a term originally referring to the official word of God given to man in holy books.

I too have struggled with this... It took me decades to accept TNG's premise was possible or reasonable after everything I knew in the Original Star Trek and the Animated Series... Now I accept that for most fans TNG IS the canon and they likely have never even seen the original. Discovery was almost unrecognizable as Star Trek... But it is Star Trek.

There is no one "canon" that is consistent ant free of contradictions. Star Trek is a world of Stories. Stories have starts, middles and ends... some details work in some stories, but not in others. I think one of Roddenberry's biggest mistakes was to discard the Klingons and Romulans as the major political rivals on the Galactic stage. The first 5 seasons they struggled to find opponents that they could use to tell more than one story with. Ferengi--Not believable and yet to close to real life capitalism... Blue Gills. haahaa. Borg almost worked, but the only story they could tell there was "Our technobabble is better than their even though they are literal all-tech"...

Star Trek is not just a universe, it is a multiverse. If you have to treat each Show as it's own continuity for the stories to jive... Then that is what you have to do. Do not listen to Landr