quote:Originally posted by Lee: Your premise remains nonsensical.
How is it nonsensical to listen to the head honcho of the franchise when he keeps telling us over and over that the novels are canon to him, over the course of ten years of different statements? C'mon, now.
quote:Your initial claim as quoted by Dukhat is still unproven.
"It's part of the new CBS Canon, along with STD, and that new canon is distinct from the old. The inclusion of all past novels as canon, even if (as Kurtzman admitted) they are unable to maintain continuity with everything that came before, means the very content of the CBS universe during the previously observed Roddenberry-Berman era stories is wildly different than it was during the Roddenberry-Berman era of Trek."
That's nicely proven, thanks.
1. In-universe, STP shares its universe with STD, as various little bits of world-building inclusions have made (and will continue to make) evident, from Xaheans to Kasseelian opera to vehicle designs and a bunch of other little things.
2. Out of universe, the writers and producers say as much.
3. Finally, they are concurrent CBS productions by the same folks, so it doesn't make sense to assume they're in different universes from each other.
quote:You haven’t demonstrated any wholesale adoption of novel material or how it is undermining canon
Why would I need to? You yourself have argued that inclusion of novel details doesn't confer canonicity. Why the flip-flop?
quote:And by counterpoint, if book facts were being cleaved to dogmatically, then the former Stargazer doctor played by David Paymer would have been written as one of the characters from TNG novel “Reunion.” But they didn’t.
For one thing, why pick the murdery guy as opposed to the Ailat lady . . . an Edosian like Arex from TAS (unless he's Triexian as per the newer novels) . . . from the Picard "Autobiography"? In other words, the STP folks had multiple choices. The one you're talking about is, notably, the only version who was his CMO for 22 years straight. Ailat's tenure isn't given, meaning multiple CMOs could've held the post, including Paymer's character (if he was even CMO as opposed to just a doc aboard ... Paymer is 15 years younger than Stewart, so even Trek-Hollywood aging would make Benayoun unlikely to have been around when Picard took over initially).
Second, just from a writing perspective, after the "Reunion" Stargazer CMO Greyhorse tried killing everyone from the Stargazer on the E-D one by one, then the whole remaining lot while Picard watched, I doubt Picard would've picked him as his personal doctor and had him over for tea and a warm conversation.
In other words, your argument is nullified by novel-verse self-contradiction (which, I'd note, will be a much more frequent point than even for Star Wars EU, which is really frickin' saying something) and character logic.
quote:I don’t see why headcanoning it that it’s an alternate timeline is meant to help.
Listening to what Kurtzman says isn't "headcanoning", and my position is "meant to help" me stay closer to the facts, whatever they may be.
I mean, if you want to complain about the ever-so-tiny bit of logical math involved in recognizing that 1 + 1 /= 1, then aim for that conversation. It would certainly come across less knee-jerky.
quote:And what happens when they DO make some Trek you like (and which you don’t feel you have to headcanon as being alternate) and then it references events of either of these two shows? You’re just going to go even further down the rabbit hole.
It isn't about "like". It's about what is and what is not. There's lots of Trek I liked even after recognizing it as non-canon, and there's Trek I don't care for that is nevertheless elevated by someone's fiat.
My Star Wars lists in that regard are worse. There's stuff I liked and even stuff I very much wanted to use that I had to set aside because it just wasn't canon.
So, please don't try to take the easy path of assuming bias and intellectual dishonesty, and instead focus on a good reason to dispute what I am saying, if you have one . . . or agree to disagree, if you like. As I told Dukhat, if STP and STD work as STOU in your head, more power to you. I'd be exhausted trying to reconcile it all.
Well, I don’t know about Lee, but I’m done with this head-slamming-against-wall conversation.
-------------------- "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
"And what happens when they DO make some Trek you like (and which you don’t feel you have to headcanon as being alternate) and then it references events of either of these two shows? You’re just going to go even further down the rabbit hole."
Honestly, at this point, I don't foresee the people currently running Trek making any that I like. They're already 0 for 2. But the good thing about alternate timelines is that they usually share a lot of the same events, just with different details. So, if there ever is a new Trek show that feels like it's capable of inhabiting the same universe as the old ones, but it makes a reference to DIS or PIC, it's easy to say "Oh, I guess something like that happened in the prime universe, too, just less sucky."
That's not support for G2k's arguments, though. I haven't been able to follow half of what's going on in this thread the past few days.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged