Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Original Universe versus Prime et al.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Zipacna: [qb]Mate, you're the one insisting that new Trek isn't in the classic timeline in direct contradiction of what Kurtzman has said on multiple occassions. No offence, but that's a strangely unique way of listening to him. [/qb] [/QUOTE]I don't see a contradiction with Kurtzman. Unlike you, I acknowledge how he defines the Prime canon they are expanding in a specific way, inclusive of a lot of other material. He's been very consistent on that. What I am contradicting is folks' head-canon and what people read in to Kurtzman's words. If you have "multiple occassions" of him saying "classic timeline", preferably distinct from Prime, then feel free to post them, but I doubt they help you, given his clear context. In other words, I don't dispute that ViacomCBS has a canon policy in which they include the Original Universe, along with lots of other stuff, in a "Prime" canon universe. I don't dispute that the current creatives are expanding that Prime canon universe. I simply dispute that this universe is the same as what existed as the canon universe in 2005. It's a simple distinction to which I have yet to see any adequate response. [QUOTE] [qb] Robert Orci also had the following to say about the novels when interviewed about them contemporary to that you're quoting from Kurtzman: "TrekMovie.com: Of course the books are not officially part of Star Trek canon, but as fans of the books are you guys going to grab any elements and give them little mentions in the film…essentially canonizing them? Roberto Orci: We are actually still pouring through and we are going to do stuff like that for sure. Because it would be an homage to my and Damon [Lindelof]’s view of Star Trek." [/QUOTE][/qb] And what view of Star Trek might that be? Well, we know that even in 2006 Orci considered the novels part of the mythology while acknowledging that some don't. As for Lindelof, while he suggested Orci's explorations of the novels took him "outside canon" in 2008, by 2013 he was noting: "The production designers are, of course, inspired by, and in some cases directly cribbing from, established Trek canon. This covers everything, the original series, the novels, the animated series, Voyager and Deep Space Nine, the whole bit is up for grabs." While we should probably consider the lack of mention of TNG and Enterprise as an oversight, it hardly makes sense to dismiss the novel reference by this "Supreme Court" member. It seems to me that Orci was definitely the guy spreading the gospel of the novels, including to his partner Kurtzman, and apparently successfully with Lindelof. Goldsman, being a bit of a latecomer, just never got the memo. [QUOTE] [qb] Notice the last part of the quote...where Kurtzman directly says that they debate whether the novels are canon because of inconsistencies. Doesn't sound much like they're all canon if it's "always a conversation"... [/qb] [/QUOTE]He's pretty obviously referring to inconsistencies, which was the clear context. As we went over already, the presence of content inconsistency does not invalidate canon policy, and nowhere in Kurtzman's words is there any indication of a different policy as a result of said inconsistencies. It just means they're deciding which inconsistent version is canon. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3