posted
But we have nothing to do but accept them, because no one else can come up with a better book or something. Unless, that is, someone has found something...
quote:But we have nothing to do but accept them, because no one else can come up with a better book or something.
This a weak argument for supporting the canonicity of the supplementary materials. The equivalent is saying that we have nothing better to accept than the Bible because no one else can come up with a better scripture or something. This would no doubt be offensive to all other religions. But on a more practical nature, you would be postulating that we should accept the Bible solely for its being there and you're perception that nothing better has been created.
Let me say this again: we do not have to accept anything EXCEPT what is seen and heard on-screen from the live-action television series and the movies. You accept other stuff to your heart's content, but if the writers decide that there are eight personnel transporters on Galaxy class starship instead of the six proposed by the TNG Tech Manual, then eight personnel transporters become the correct answer.
posted
We don't have to accept them blindly without reservation. We can accept them as what probably happened, but not what necessarily happened.
Quickly, regarding the fact that, ignoring displays, the name Daedalus has never been linked with the design, and the name Ambassador has never been linked with that design, there is one slight difference.
We have actually seen the Ambassador on screen. We know, for sure, that that design exists. All we have for the Daedalus is pics from the Encylopedia/Chronology, and Sisko's model. And considering what Cochrane's ship looks like in the original Chronology, and considering the past record of ship models in people's rooms in modern Trek (the Obvservation Lounge Ent-B and C, Riker's Nebula-Melbourne, Sisko's strange Melbourne model...), it does mean that we don't actually know if the design we associate with the Daedalus actually exists (outside the Olympic-class).
Yes, it probably does. But it doesn't have to.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
posted
The Phoenix from the first chronology doesn't look THAT much different from the final design, just a little. The models are the same except for the fact that the first one wasn't taking into account that the cockpit was based on a Titan V missile. So it was a custom-built cockpit on the old model.
The Melbourne model isn't any more different from the final Nebula model than the Phoenix-Nebula (with the round sensor dish) is from the final model. Plus, the Melbourne wasn't just seen as a model, but also in "The Best of Both Worlds" (TNG) and "Emissary" (DS9) as wreckage in the Battle of Wolf 359.
The stuff done by Okuda and Sternbach is officially considered canon. You're right though about if it's contradicted onscreen. However, some stuff like the transporter thing you can explain by saying: "Generally, Galaxy-class ships have six, but the Enterprise has eight." because you know that the Enterprise and other individual ships are often specially modified by the crew during missions. The Enterprises have always been just alittle different from other ships of their classes.
About the Animated series, while PAramount studio policy does not at this point in time regard it as canon, it has historically been considered as such, and much of the information presented in it is valid. Hopefully, someday it will again come to be regarded as canonical.
If you read my post on like the first or second page of this, you'll see why we know the Daedalus looks like it does. And BTW, what do you mean 'excluding displays'? You can't exclude displays because there's a lot of info comes from displays. Most of the ship info in the Encyclopedia comes from displays.
[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:The stuff done by Okuda and Sternbach is officially considered canon.
No, the stuff done by Okuda and Sternback is NOT officially considered canon. You know, I wrote a long explanation of this on page 2. So I am NOT going to sit here and repost it again. And you are STILL not providing your support for your position.
quote:You're right though about if it's contradicted onscreen. However, some stuff like the transporter thing you can explain by saying: "Generally, Galaxy-class ships have six, but the Enterprise has eight." because you know that the Enterprise and other individual ships are often specially modified by the crew during missions. The Enterprises have always been just alittle different from other ships of their classes.
But the almighty TNG Technical Manual written by the Gods Okuda and Sternbach say that there are only SIX personnel transporters! The show is incorrect! Berman and Braga are the devil incarnate who are going to blah blah blah insert a bunch of wild accusations here.
quote:About the Animated series, while PAramount studio policy does not at this point in time regard it as canon, it has historically been considered as such, and much of the information presented in it is valid. Hopefully, someday it will again come to be regarded as canonical.
The Franz Joseph Starfleet Technical Manual was once considered canon by Gene Roddenberry. He then declared The Animated Series non-canon. Many still hope that someday it will again come to be regarded as canonical again.
quote:Ah, but in The Continuing Mission book, which is the subject of much debate, has Okudagrams from "Yesterday's Enterprise" saying that the Enterprise-C is Ambassador Class
Can someone please scan this? Are there any other okudagrams in this book?
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
posted
Gene roddenberry is NOT by any stretch of the imagination the final word on what is canon and what is not. He was the one who provided all that crap in the Making of Star Trek, which was what caused a lot of the errors in Franz Joseph's book. However, pretty much All of Fj's material has been contradicted heavily, many times over on screen. The only things left from that book which are canon are the Hermes, Saladin, and Ptolemy classes, and of course the Constitution. But nearly every single one of his registry numbers is incorrect, and so on and so forth...
That's why FJ's Technical manual is non-canon. Not because GR said so. I don't give a flip about whether he declared TAS non-canon or not. GR is dead, and it's up to the present-day powers that be what is canon and what is not.
The Encyclopedias and Technical Manuals, and to some extent the Chronologies are designed as guides for script writers. Paramount considers that it needs to be consistent within these publications, and that's what canon is: It's what paramount considers itself as having to be consistent within. Sternbach and Okuda's work ARE included in this.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
Spike: I have the book. If I get some free time, I'll scan the page.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
But you can't say for example the Encyclopedia is 100% canon, because so many things in the book are non-canon.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:That's why FJ's Technical manual is non-canon. Not because GR said so. I don't give a flip about whether he declared TAS non-canon or not. GR is dead, and it's up to the present-day powers that be what is canon and what is not.
Think very carefully about this paragraph.
quote:The Encyclopedias and Technical Manuals, and to some extent the Chronologies are designed as guides for script writers. Paramount considers that it needs to be consistent within these publications, and that's what canon is: It's what paramount considers itself as having to be consistent within. Sternbach and Okuda's work ARE included in this.
Nope, wrong again. Canon is the material that Paramount Pictures and the leading producer of Star Trek (namely Rick Berman) consider to be part of the Star Trek universe. It has nothing to do with internal consistency, that's continuity. And Star Trek has many continuity errors within itself, but the conflicting parts are still considered canon because they are included in the material that Paramount and Berman deem canon.
You're now making the assumption that the supplementary material (Chronology, TNG Technical Manual, Encyclopedia, etc) are reference guides for the writers. Okay, I'll buy that but it still doesn't make them canon. As a reference guide, the writers are under no obligation to adhere to the information included within the covers of those works. When it comes to the episodes and movies, they are obligated to adhere to the information included in them. In short, the guides are simply that: guides. It proposes a way that can be (and has often been) changed when it suites the needs of the show.
posted
Just because Gene Roddenberry said something isn't correct doesn't make it so. By the time the second movie came around, he really had zero control over what other people did with ST. If you listen to GR, then STV and STVI aren't canon, either.
I'm not going to argue anymore about the Encyc, et al. I'm not conceding the point, but I'm not going to argue about it anymore. I will ALWAYS consider them canon, and I am still very much of the belief that that is the official view as well. I'm sorry.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
posted
I doubt whether Paramount spends a lot of time worrying about canon materials being self-consistent (continuity). They only accept what they NEED as canon. And since they own the franchise (except for any fanboys who actually own stock), they are the final arbitrators. Why? Because they will use what they need to. And that WILL define canon.
Hell, the Christian Bible isn't entirely self-consistent, and millions of adherents accept it as canon.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
posted
Well, well, well. A little off topic for a thread about the Daedalus calss. Anyway, I did not mean the Encyclopedia thing to sound like I was disrespecting the Bible. Let's say, like the Bible, there may--may--be some errors and mistakes, but since it's good reference material, we can believe it. I believe most of the things in it are canon, but not everything.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
