Since my 2018 thread ("Discovery Alternate Universe Confirmed") is locatable via search but "does not exist" when clicked, and to avoid derailings of other threads, I'll try posting this once more.
Kurtzman and the gang, along with fans thereof, have often suggested that the new crop of shows that began with and are connected to Star Trek: Discovery are "Prime", "canon", "prime canon", et cetera. This is taken to suggest that the new operators of the Star Trek brand are creating works that continue the Star Trek Original Universe as seen in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, and related films.
Unfortunately, this is not accurate.
Obviously, Discovery and its stable-mates are influenced by the JJ Abrams Trek films, an alternate Trek universe. That's no big deal, in and of itself, and to be expected since Kurtzman came from there. Indeed, as originally envisioned by Fuller, Discovery was a "reimagine" that didn't need to be part of any universe in particular, but somewhere between marketing and the weird CBS/Paramount Trek ownership issues of the time it ended up being claimed as Prime, and here our troubles began.
The problem is that "Prime" is *not* the same thing as the Star Trek Original Universe. The "Prime" canon, per Kurtzman's consistent statements over the years, is that Prime Star Trek includes the continuity of the novels, comics, and so on, *and that set of facts is what they try to adhere to*. The Star Trek Original Universe canon specifically rejected those works as being part of continuity (even with the occasional pilfer that graduated the pilfered info to canon status). Ergo, the new Star Trek brand shows are not and logically cannot be part of the Original Universe.
Put another way, the Star Trek Original Universe was Tuvok. The Trek non-canon was Neelix. The JJ-verse production folks, including Kurtzman, treated Trek as Tuvix, a merging of the two, and created their own explicit offshoot from that. The CBS Canon -- or, since that's out-of-date with the re-merger, the Discoverse? -- only takes us back to Tuvix.
However, Tuvix is not Tuvok. This is blatantly obvious from the altered histories, visual discontinuties, basic fact differences, and so on, as many have argued elsewhere ad nauseum.
When Kurtzman et al. suggest they've kept true to canon as best they could, they are not wrong. It's just that their canon differs from that of the Original Universe, and their shows inhabit a Prime universe which differs also.
This does *not* mean Discovery et al. are "not canon", "non-canon", et cetera. CBS/Paramount can claim whatever they like as canon and in-continuity. It is simply different, and that's okay. With that in mind, everyone can enjoy the shows on their own merits, avoiding the stress of trying to reimagine prior material to fit the new material or vice-versa. There's no need to seek consistency between the two, but if you're into the universe-mixing then have fun and enjoy yourself.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Canon and continuity are two different things. Canon is what the people in charge of Star Trek declare to be official, which is only what is shown on screen the last time I checked. Which includes DSC.
Continuity is how everything in those canon works are related. And in 50+ years of televised Trek, there are things that are going to be inconsistent. It's not going to match up 100%. That doesn't mean that there are two separate 'continuities' or 'universes.' Like it or not, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LDS, PRO and SNW all take place in the same universe. The main difference now is that the producers of DSC decided that they were going to reboot the visuals instead of making things look like they did in the '60's. So the Matt Jeffries TOS Enterprise design we've seen for 50+ years has now changed into that thing John Eaves designed, but it's supposed to be the same ship. And to hit us over the head with their decision, they showed that design in PIC to reinforce that this is what things actually look like, and our eyes have been fooling us all this time. Although it seems like successive shows like LDS and PRO are returning to TOS roots by showing the original Enterprise and characters like Spock, Uhura, et. al played by their original actors rather than the new actors in the newer shows. Confusing, yes.
Of course, a side-effect of rebooting the visuals is that the older shows that take place a century later (TNG et. al) now look less advanced than what we're seeing in DSC. But I suppose that can't be helped. Everything gets dated over time.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Canon and continuity are two different things. Canon is what the people in charge of Star Trek declare to be official, which is only what is shown on screen the last time I checked. Which includes DSC.
That's not what Kurtzman says. There are quotes in the link of the first post. He's quite explicit that the old rule is no more.
quote: Like it or not, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, DSC, PIC, LDS, PRO and SNW all take place in the same universe.
They literally can't. I'm not talking about detail differences. I'm talking about basic rules and logic.
Yes, CBS/Paramount can *declare* a universe. We could also buy up franchises and declare Stargate and Star Trek are in the same universe. People can argue all day about the continuity headaches of that, but the simple fact is that, *regardless of continuity issues*, a new show set in the Stargate Trek universe simply isn't part of the original Stargate universe *or* the original Trek universe, logically, per the Tuvix argument.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: That's not what Kurtzman says. There are quotes in the link of the first post. He's quite explicit that the old rule is no more.
Kurtzman isn't in charge of what's canon or not. CBS is. Kurtzman can be quoted (or misquoted) all you want. It doesn't mean crap.
quote:They literally can't. I'm not talking about detail differences. I'm talking about basic rules and logic.
Yes, CBS/Paramount can *declare* a universe. We could also buy up franchises and declare Stargate and Star Trek are in the same universe. People can argue all day about the continuity headaches of that, but the simple fact is that, *regardless of continuity issues*, a new show set in the Stargate Trek universe simply isn't part of the original Stargate universe *or* the original Trek universe, logically, per the Tuvix argument.
Now you're just talking silly. This is all fiction. And the people currently in charge of said fiction determine what universe it all takes place in. I just told you that it's not going to be entirely consistent, because that's the nature of a fictional TV show that's been on for 50 years.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
We (the fans) do not decide what is canon and what is not. CBS/Paramount/whoever do. They say that 3rd Generation Star Trek (Discovery, Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy, Strange New Worlds, etc.) exist in the same universe as those shows that came before. Therefore, they do.
Are there continuity hiccups? Absolutely. I might even go so far as to say there are plenty. But as Dukhat pointed out, that's to be expected for a franchise that's over 50 years old. Especially so since 3rd Generation is being made overall by different folks.
But... this whole argument that this is a different timeline? I just don't get it, especially the way that such arguments are worded. Almost as if its "gotcha" news reporting. "Hey guys! I've figured out that STD isn't Prime! They've been lying to us all along!"
Remember the good old days when we blamed continuity snarls on the writers out-of-universe rather than conjuring entirely new universes out of thin air?
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: The problem is that "Prime" is *not* the same thing as the Star Trek Original Universe. The "Prime" canon, per Kurtzman's consistent statements over the years, is that Prime Star Trek includes the continuity of the novels, comics, and so on, *and that set of facts is what they try to adhere to*. The Star Trek Original Universe canon specifically rejected those works as being part of continuity (even with the occasional pilfer that graduated the pilfered info to canon status). Ergo, the new Star Trek brand shows are not and logically cannot be part of the Original Universe.
There's one glaringly obvious problem with this statement in that not only are the novels etc inconsistent with what was show on TV in classic Trek, the vast majority are actually directly contradicted by the new Trek...the most glaring problems being things like Data having been resurrected in an android body (specifically B4's body) in the novelverse, but we've been told directly in Picard that this wasn't the case. The portrayal of the mirror universe in Discovery also directly contradicts the novelverse, where the third generation clone of Hoshi Sato is the empress...not Georgiou. I could go on pointing out the incompatabilities, but it's fairly obvious that they're not viewing Prime canon as including anything outside of what was shown on screen. At best you've got a multiverse, where the novelverse is being treated as a seperate timeline in and of itself.
I'm not saying new Trek is perfect, because it's not. As others have said, though, new Trek is in the classic timeline whether we like it or not. It's sad that we, as a community, don't do what we used too once upon a time and try to find a way to explain away inconsistencies, rather than completely throw what we don't like away.
Besides, technically the prime timeline started deviating back in 1967...'The Squire of Gothos', after all, was set 900 years in our future according to Trelane himself. Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The recent Coda trilogy of novels is specifically written to end the novel continuity that has been the norm almost since TNG, as much of the post-NEM continuity we now know about and can consider canon is at odds with the novels. Going forward any books will be based on events in PIC (and LDS?).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Not to mention that the Trek novel writers, many of whom post on the TrekBBS, were never under any illusion that their books were canon, or that the show had to follow them in any way or be consistent with them. Quite the opposite, in fact. The show dictated what was in the novels, not vice versa. That’s why they now have to end the current novelverse and start new, because there were too many inconsistencies with newTrek that they couldn’t just explain away.
[ January 22, 2022, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Trying to reconcile current Trek & everything before is a near impossibility, though. Even Abrams with his stupid "let's blow up Romulus" idea caused issues because there's enough discrepancies to say Nimoy!Spock didn't actually come from the OG universe, but from the future of whatever one that was. Since the Discoverse clearly follows that one, it's obvious they've become the new canon. Despite all the homages & pick-me style wanting to make it work, it can't. They want to overwrite/retcon with their new stuff, fine...but that doesn't make it universally accepted.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
I'm currently listening to the audiobook versions of the new Discovery novels, and some of those aren't even consistent with what's on screen (Saru is from a planet called Kelpia and his species live underground instead of Kaminar & living on the surface, Burnham & Spock reconcilled following a mind meld while she was still aboard the Shenzhou instead of during Season 2, etc.), so the arguement can't even be made that the canon includes the new novels.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Kurtzman isn't in charge of what's canon or not. CBS is. Kurtzman can be quoted (or misquoted) all you want. It doesn't mean crap.
That's . . . a unique point of view, to put it politely.
I'm not talking about the cutesy little insinuation you make about me supposedly misquoting. There are multiple quotes of him saying the same thing by different quoters over years at the link I gave, sometimes even with the words on video.
https://youtu.be/n6Ymoemfwsw . . . start about 5:00. It's a media event, hence the table-change calls at the end.
You may not like what I have to say regarding the meaning of what Kurtzman himself says, here, but that's no excuse for what you tried to pull, there.
Moving on . . .
The notion that Kurtzman is irrelevant is peculiar, at best. Sure, corporate ownership means the official canon policy is corporate's to dictate, but, absent a statement by some corporate suit of proper rank, folks traditionally have gone with what is communicated in interviews, media, or in relevant publications by production staff. (Much of my prior CanonWars work was getting people to recognize that rank matters when statements or facts appear contradictory, but I guess I also need to point out that the suits are authorizing these folks to speak on it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be sitting down with media.)
That said, the reality is that even if you inquired of ViacomCBS chairwoman Shari Redstone or went above her to National Amusements owner Shari Redstone (RHIP) on the topic of some brand's canon, the likelihood is that she'd defer to the relevant content development office . . . the showrunner, for a show, or the developer of the transmedia content. Even in the new era of weaponized canon policies designed to support transmedia marketing, there's a top creative dog.
Kurtzman is it, currently, and thus now effectively in the position previously held by Roddenberry and Berman. We certainly would've accepted their dictates absent Paramount brass statements, wouldn't we?
If there is currently a "Star Trek Office", Kurtzman would have the big corner room. While he's technically the leader of a production company with a contract, and there is a corporate liaison or overseer, that individual, to my knowledge, isn't publicly chatty on the topic, nor are they likely to contradict Kurtzman unless he had some sort of verbal aneurysm, if even then.
quote: I just told you that it's not going to be entirely consistent, because that's the nature of a fictional TV show that's been on for 50 years.
And I just told you that this has nothing to do with continuity or storyline consistency. That debate is long-won; no one realistically tries to claim the new stuff, a "reimagine" per the original creator, is entirely consistent -- even Kurtzman. Beyond folks just giving up on continuity, as you do, one also might get silly arguments about cardboard sets and old Trek being racist and sexist and other nonsense as a way to justify the changes, but in the end the *perceived* trump card is the claim that ViacomCBS considers it to be the same universe, as per statements by Kurtzman et al.
What I have shown is that it isn't a trump card at all, because they don't mean what folks think they mean, and never did.
If you draw a box around part of a brand's total branded content and say it is the canon, then the box is your canon policy and it delineates the canon universe and, if applicable, its continuity. If you pull a Ron Moore and reimagine Battlestar Galactica then you make a new, separate box and new universe, with the ole box merely a vague cloud. But if you cut out a bunch of, or tremendously add to, the contents of the original box, you have not merely changed the shape of the universe. You have made a different one, and it is that new box you are expanding with new content. It gets weirder if your new content is a "reimagine" of the old . . . ideally you'd just go with a separate box, but if you're wanting to market it as a continuation then maybe a squiggly/hazy arrow inside the old box will suffice, though I am unaccustomed to dealing with such comic-book levels of policy behavior.
To our subject specifically, the "Prime" universe they are expanding is not the universe of the Star Trek Original Universe, but a mixture of it and other works previously excluded (which is part of why they find it so impossible to be consistent). It's a new box. Yes, they include the STOU material amongst what they consider prior canon, but by making it only part of a vastly larger whole they created a new, modified Trek universe to spring from, along with their reimagining. That's what they are telling you when they say it is the same universe as the prior shows, but simply is not a direct continuation of the Original Universe.
This is not a tough concept, but I see that some of the resistance involves confusion about it. I was working on doing some decent-quality visual aids but don't have adequate time right this second, not having been prepared to spend the time to respond to the original attack in another thread, so maybe I'll try to whip up some quickie versions later.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: Remember the good old days when we blamed continuity snarls on the writers out-of-universe rather than conjuring entirely new universes out of thin air?
That's because there was, if you will, a continuity of canon policy, and no attempt to reimagine the universe. Neither of those are true for the new material.
The "conjuring" happened before I approached the question. I'm simply relaying facts and explaining their clear meaning.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: The problem is that "Prime" is *not* the same thing as the Star Trek Original Universe. The "Prime" canon, per Kurtzman's consistent statements over the years, is that Prime Star Trek includes the continuity of the novels, comics, and so on, *and that set of facts is what they try to adhere to*. The Star Trek Original Universe canon specifically rejected those works as being part of continuity (even with the occasional pilfer that graduated the pilfered info to canon status). Ergo, the new Star Trek brand shows are not and logically cannot be part of the Original Universe.
There's one glaringly obvious problem with this statement in that not only are the novels etc inconsistent with what was show on TV in classic Trek, the vast majority are actually directly contradicted by the new Trek
Kurtzman did say it was impossible to be consistent, though they have pulled details from novels for use in the new material. But, again, this is not a consistency-based argument. Those can be fun, but ultimately futile under the conditions of a "reimagine" also declared to be "Prime".
This is strictly a matter of declared policy, which those aforementioned detail-pullings would seem to confirm.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Not to mention that the Trek novel writers, many of whom post on the TrekBBS, were never under any illusion that their books were canon, or that the show had to follow them in any way or be consistent with them. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Exactly why Kurtzman noted the impossibility of maintaining consistency with their Prime canon.
quote: That’s why they now have to end the current novelverse and start new, because there were too many inconsistencies with newTrek that they couldn’t just explain away.
I don't know if they're being required to, but just as a matter of tie-in marketing logic it hardly makes sense to write the umpteenth book of a series of Calhoun and Shelby on an Ambassador (or whatever continuing storyline they'd been selling lately) if you're trying to sell to fans of the new material. I mean, that's a case of whiplash waiting to happen.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Trying to reconcile current Trek & everything before is a near impossibility, though. Even Abrams with his stupid "let's blow up Romulus" idea caused issues because there's enough discrepancies to say Nimoy!Spock didn't actually come from the OG universe, but from the future of whatever one that was.
Truth. That so many want to shoehorn Romulus exploding and even the Kelvin itself into the Original Universe just makes me sad.
quote: Since the Discoverse clearly follows that one, it's obvious they've become the new canon. Despite all the homages & pick-me style wanting to make it work, it can't. They want to overwrite/retcon with their new stuff, fine...but that doesn't make it universally accepted.
Bingo. Kurtzman brought over the "Prime" canon concepts from the Paramount/JJ side of former-Viacom to CBS Studios, replacing the old RoddenBerman canon, and Fuller wanted to "reimagine" Trek. Between the two, it was always going to be a nightmare, and all they've accomplished is fracturing the fanbase. But, in the modern marketing mindset, even negative buzz is still buzz, and valuable when buzz is literally used as a metric.
On the good side, it isn't like they had to merge canon policies when they re-merged into ViacomCBS.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: I'm currently listening to the audiobook versions of the new Discovery novels, and some of those aren't even consistent {…} so the arguement can't even be made that the canon includes the new novels.
That's not how canon policy works. Just because the creators suck at continuity doesn't necessarily mean the declared canon policy is invalid.
quote: For instance, Arthur C. Clarke discussed the concept of canon in the 2001 universe in the valediction of the fourth novel 3001: The Final Odyssey. He says:
Obviously there is no way in which a series of four science fiction novels, written over a period of more than thirty years of the most breathtaking developments in technology (especially in space exploration) and politics could be mutually consistent. As I wrote in the introduction to 2061, "Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe." If you want a good analogy from another medium, listen to what Rachmaninoff and Andrew Lloyd Webber did to the same handful of notes by Paganini.
So this Final Odyssey has discarded many of the elements of its precursors, but developed others -- and I hope more important ones -- in much greater detail. And if any readers of the earlier books feel disoriented by such transmutations, I hope I can dissuade them from sending me angry letters of denunciation by adapting one of the more endearing remarks of a certain U.S. President: "It's fiction, stupid!" Here, then, we have an instance of a series of books whose internal continuity is largely disavowed, primarily on the basis of some 30 years of production (during which time, most notably in the political sphere, the Soviet Union was dismantled, affecting much of the plot of 2010). That said, it is possible for a fan to do the mental continuity fixes necessary to maintain a single cohesive 2001 universe. In broad strokes, then, it is possible to maintain that the 2001 universe is just one universe, and not four as Clarke suggests. However, because Clarke has suggested four separate universes, any analysis of the 2001 canon would have to take that into account.
In other words, Clarke chose to abandon rigid internal continuity in favor of a mix of continuity and currency, and was kind enough to do so openly, declaring a quartet of loosely connected universes.
However, had he instead claimed it was all one universe, perhaps with "reimagines" between books, he'd be leaving the continuity problems for those with enough care to try to work them out. That's fun for a universe with decent continuity . . . a waste of time for one without.
Either way, continuity failures don't rewrite declared policy, at least when there is a well-communicated policy to point to.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
A little edit after the fact:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Either way, continuity failures don't rewrite declared policy, at least when there is a well-communicated policy to point to.
It dawns on me that Z's argument is basically the flipside of an old argument I've had many times before, where folks try to argue that inclusion of some data point from the non-canon actually canonizes the whole work or class of works from which the data point came.
If some particular *inclusion* doesn't rewrite policy, then neither does some particular *exclusion*.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: That's not how canon policy works. Just because the creators suck at continuity doesn't necessarily mean the declared canon policy is invalid.
The problem is that your view of what TPTB are viewing as canon is wrong, and completely skewed. This is what Akiva Goldman had to say about how he and Kurtzman view canon from a 2017 interview:
"We are considering the novels not to be canon, but we are aware of them. We are going to cross paths with components that Trek fans are familiar with. We are aware of the books if it’s useful, and if it doesn’t interfere with canon, we may pick from it. One interesting side note is we are publishing a series of books that actually are directly linked to this series."
This is completely at odds with your assertion that canon is now an all-encompasing beast that includes the novels, comics, and god-knows what else. Like it or not, canon consists of the eight (nine if you count Short Treks) live action TV shows, the three animated TV shows, and the thirteen movies. Nothing more, nothing less.
quote:Kurtzman is it, currently, and thus now effectively in the position previously held by Roddenberry and Berman. We certainly would've accepted their dictates absent Paramount brass statements, wouldn't we?
I hope you see the irony in you saying this, given Kurtzman has said so many times that New Trek is in the classic timeline. Ironically as well, Roddenberry tried to tell us that Star Trek V was apocryphal...nobody listened, so we wouldn't necessarily accept dictates that change established policy about what is and isn't canon.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: The problem is that your view of what TPTB are viewing as canon is wrong, and completely skewed. This is what Akiva Goldman had to say about how he and Kurtzman view canon from a 2017 interview:
Kudos for upping your game. I knew of that quote in 2018. It doesn't prove what you want, I'm afraid, any more than Goldsman confirming Spock would not appear in his statements to media early on made it so.
Goldsman is on board with "Prime". Prior to the part you quoted, he said "This is the Prime universe {…} not the JJ-verse or the Kurtzman-verse." Indeed, while some thought Picard was referencing the Romulus stuff but that it maybe happened a tad differently in some CBS version, Goldsman is clear he views the 2009 JJ version of the 24th Century as Prime canon.
Regarding the books and such, I have no idea how he had missed the memo at that point in 2017, before the show even premiered. However, even if you view it as contradictory, which you clearly do, Kurtzman outranks Goldsman and has repeatedly said the same thing about considering books and such canon over and over, quite clearly, across the years, and even on video, bracketing Goldsman's claim.
We even have Kurtzman talking about the 2018 quote in 2019, as if to make sure folks got it:
"I did actually note at one point when I was asked about the graphic novels and comics that after 50-plus years it’s literally impossible to stay entirely consistent with canon {…}"
quote: I hope you see the irony in you saying this, given Kurtzman has said so many times that New Trek is in the classic timeline.
There's no irony. I'm the only one listening to him. You're trying so hard to reject what he's saying you just tried to overrule him using Goldsman.
quote: Ironically as well, Roddenberry tried to tell us that Star Trek V was apocryphal...nobody listened, so we wouldn't necessarily accept dictates that change established policy about what is and isn't canon.
Roddenberry privately considered a lot of pieces of a lot of episodes and films apocryphal, though as far as I know he never "tried to tell us" publicly. What we know comes from Arnold et al. He had the proverbial bully pulpit available, so had he wanted them excised in toto it would've been trivially easy to say so. Thus, that counterargument doesn't really fly.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Incidentally, while I would've hoped Goldsman had gotten the memo by now, he was apparently still confused in 2020, per some Trekmovie quotes.
Given how often he's also in front of mics, it would behoove them to get that settled. As it stands, however, Kurtzman is the one in the big chair.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: There's no irony. I'm the only one listening to him. You're trying so hard to reject what he's saying you just tried to overrule him using Goldsman.
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.
It's beggars belief that you've got there in black & white from one of the executive producers that the novels are non-canon, and your answer...well, they're wrong. Isn't is just as likely that you've just put two and two together and made five, like so many others here have pointed out?
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."
And to extended your quote from Kurtzman to give more context to what he's saying:
"I did actually note at one point when I was asked about the graphic novels and comics that after 50-plus years it’s literally impossible to stay entirely consistent with canon because there have been very dry years in Star Trek and very full years and so many different writers have attempted to fill in the gaps in the dry years of what happened to beloved characters in the absence of a show driving those answers, they end up inventing things and we end up being faced with whether to call that canon. But it’s always a conversation."
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"...
My reading of everything is that they're trying not to over-rule the novels where possible, largely because they obviously still want to make money out of them. It is, after all, a business. That doesn't mean they're canon any more than they used to be. It just means that they're doing what they always did...picking & choosing what parts of the extended universe to acknowledge (such as when Uhura got a first name, etc).
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: 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.
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: 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."
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: 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"...
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.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
I’m done with this asinine discussion. I’ve seen absolutely nothing that backs up anything you’re saying. But feel free to believe whatever you want if it lets you sleep better at night.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I’m done with this asinine discussion. I’ve seen absolutely nothing that backs up anything you’re saying. But feel free to believe whatever you want if it lets you sleep better at night.
Well, gee, that's projectionist.
I've demonstrated that the JJ-verse folks were into the novels-as-canon idea, and we have direct references that Kurtzman brought that idea over to CBS and maintained it. Now that it's ViacomCBS, it's safe to assume Kurtzman will be a (likely the) very big voice of Star Trek, going forward.
In other words, the old policy is dead. The new policy has reigned since 2009ish on both sides of the former-Viacom aisle and will continue to do so in the merged ViacomCBS empire. New shows (and other materials they deem canon, like certain tie-in comics and such they've already done that to) that seek to expand a universe that they believe includes TOS, TNG, et al. will do so as part of the Prime universe as delineated by the Prime canon policy, into which you may see novel info continue to be pulled, but it isn't like you have to go read them.
It's safe to say, at this point, that no one is ever going to hit a big reset button and make stuff that doesn't acknowledge the Prime universe.
So I guess the question is, what's your problem with it? You, apparently a fan of the new stuff, get a cardboard-free "reimagine" of TOS, TNG, et al., with the formal imprimatur of canonicity of the owners backing it. They'll officially try to maintain continuity but they agree with you that it's basically impossible now so they're just going to tell cool stories, as they see them, with what continuity they can include.
Isn't that what you want? And, if so, why does it make you so angry to get it?
[ January 24, 2022, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: Guardian 2000 ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
We need a goddamned like button around here.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
I've demonstrated that the JJ-verse folks were into the novels-as-canon idea, and we have direct references that Kurtzman brought that idea over to CBS and maintained it. Now that it's ViacomCBS, it's safe to assume Kurtzman will be a (likely the) very big voice of Star Trek, going forward.
Give me one example on screen that proves that any of that has actually happened. Show me where a novel or a comic has taken precedence over on-screen material. Show me a CBS press release which states that they've now declared novels to be canon.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
Exactly. CBS doesn't care about how the show looks. They don't give a crap that the Enterprise, the Klingons, their ships, the uniforms, the technology, etc. looks completely different. They don't care that their new shows aren't consistent with the old shows. They own Star Trek, so they can say that it's all the same when it clearly isn't. But saying it takes place in the same universe can't be argued, because it's their fictional universe to make that claim. If I personally don't like the changes (which I don't), that's my problem and mine alone.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: 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.
But Kurtzman has said often enough that this is the same universe as classic Trek. You can dispute that as much as you like...but by your own arguement Kurtzman is some great god on high, and his diktats must be obeyed. It's hypocrisy to tell the rest of us that we're ignoring his supposed diktats over canon policy (which frankly looks to me as nothing more than a misrepresentation of what he actually said), while at the same time ignoring his statements that this is the same universe. Like it or not, TPTB are viewing this as the same timeline as we've always seen. We may not like it and there's certainly faults to be found, but that's nothing new. Sorry, I'm just tired of some of those who dislike new Trek coming out with the "waaaaa it's not the same universe" arguement. Those who disliked it said exactly the same thing about Enterprise 20 years ago. It was nonsense then, and it's just as much nonsense now.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
"So what are you in hell for?"
"Mass murder. You?"
"I thought all the Star Trek shows were in the same continuity."
"You MONSTER!"
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: But Kurtzman has said often enough that this is the same universe as classic Trek. You can dispute that as much as you like...but by your own arguement Kurtzman is some great god on high, and his diktats must be obeyed. It's hypocrisy to tell the rest of us that we're ignoring his supposed diktats over canon policy (which frankly looks to me as nothing more than a misrepresentation of what he actually said), while at the same time ignoring his statements that this is the same universe. Like it or not, TPTB are viewing this as the same timeline as we've always seen. We may not like it and there's certainly faults to be found, but that's nothing new. Sorry, I'm just tired of some of those who dislike new Trek coming out with the "waaaaa it's not the same universe" arguement. Those who disliked it said exactly the same thing about Enterprise 20 years ago. It was nonsense then, and it's just as much nonsense now.
Agreed.
I am in NO WAY stating that 3rd Gen Trek is the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Mmm... Slice bread...) It has its faults. Boy, does it have its faults. But I don't see where we suddenly started insisting that bad Trek needs to be in a separate timeline.
I ESPECIALLY don't get it when people insist on that for things that 1st and 2nd Gen Treks ALSO did.
Disco wasn't the first Trek to shoehorn a previously unknown sibling into Spock's past. Star Trek V did it first. Never seen anyone claim that movie is in a separate timeline because of that. (EDIT: Yes, I know Roddenberry himself thought it apocrypha. But since he had no more authority to declare that than Kurtzman, it IS canon.)
Disco wasn't the first time the Klingons got a makeup change. The Motion Picture did it first. Were folks going around claiming the movie was in a different timeline? Nope. And while we have the benefit of hindsight NOW, let's not forget the franchise literally took DECADES to explain that.
Take off your rose-colored glasses, folks.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before.
Yes indeed . . . they claim all as part of Prime, specifically. Even the effort to use Goldsman requires that acknowledgement.
quote: Not really much point in arguing about it.
I consider my point unobtrusive, but it is apparently deeply offensive to a few here.
As I was pointing out upthread, though, what's the problem?
Suppose CBS came out at the beginning and said "this is a reimagining of Trek in a new universe based on and inclusive of the old one whose story, along with other stories, it continues" (a decent summary of the many quotes some don't like), instead of these things being said bit by bit over time. Can anyone explain to me the downside?
It seems to me that there isn't one. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, had they simply declared a fresh universe at the beginning they’d have saved themselves and the fractured fanbase a lot of headaches.
But again, what's the problem with the way it is that some of us have known via various pathways since 2018? Everyone can enjoy what they like and no one steps on anyone's toes about minutiae. It isn't like they're paying for the DS9 remaster either way, so what's the big deal?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
I've demonstrated that the JJ-verse folks were into the novels-as-canon idea, and we have direct references that Kurtzman brought that idea over to CBS and maintained it. Now that it's ViacomCBS, it's safe to assume Kurtzman will be a (likely the) very big voice of Star Trek, going forward.
Give me one example on screen that proves that any of that has actually happened. Show me where a novel or a comic has taken precedence over on-screen material. Show me a CBS press release which states that they've now declared novels to be canon.
Show me some fascinatingly moved goalposts.
Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
quote: CBS doesn't care about how the show looks. They don't give a crap that the Enterprise, the Klingons, their ships, the uniforms, the technology, etc. looks completely different. They don't care that their new shows aren't consistent with the old shows. They own Star Trek, so they can say that it's all the same when it clearly isn't. But saying it takes place in the same universe can't be argued, because it's their fictional universe to make that claim. If I personally don't like the changes (which I don't), that's my problem and mine alone.
You say these things, yet resist angrily. That's very odd.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: But Kurtzman has said often enough that this is the same universe as classic Trek.
So you have those quotes, then?
quote: his supposed diktats over canon policy (which frankly looks to me as nothing more than a misrepresentation of what he actually said)
(shrug) Sorry you feel that way. He was very clear. I can try to explain it to you again differently, but I rather suspect at this point that even if I got him to call you the outcome would be the same.
quote: Sorry, I'm just tired of some of those who dislike new Trek coming out with the "waaaaa it's not the same universe" arguement. Those who disliked it said exactly the same thing about Enterprise 20 years ago. It was nonsense then, and it's just as much nonsense now.
I never heard of that with Enterprise, that I recall, though TNG skepticism has been inflated beyond anything it resembled in '87 as an attack on naysayers.
That said, several times in this thread folks have tried to dispute my point by associating it with other people on the internet . . . I have the sense some of that is stuff like the "alternate license" crap or even the Youtube metal helmet goofball. That's a trash argument.
I would note that I'm not doing the reverse. Would you like to be associated with the doxxing psychopaths of #WeAreStarfleet Disco Twitter? Perhaps you'd like to be associated with the wacky Disco fan who threatened swordplay against Shatner? Perhaps you'd like to be associated with those who would literally start insulting online chums because the Enterprise and Spacedock aren't the same in Discovery, yet they would insist it's basically identical? Maybe you'd just like to accuse me of all sorts of -isms and flame me, to the point that people on the Star Trek Reddit feed talk about how they feel like they have to be very careful criticizing Discovery lest its crazy fans attack viciously?
Let's stick to the facts and the topic of the debate, and those actually party to it. (I'm also working hard to keep it from even delving in to the Disco-discontinuities, despite that coming up a lot, organically.)
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
In a debate it's the person who has made the claim that is being disputed that has the burden of proof, not vice versa. That said when evidence that contradicts your assertion has been posted, you've dismissed it out of hand saying outright that the person "didn't get the memo". Frankly it feels like a waste of time posting more, as it genuinely feels like even if Kurtzman himself were to login & say the novels aren't canon or that the new series are in the old timeline you'd say he's wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: I am in NO WAY stating that 3rd Gen Trek is the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Mmm... Slice bread...) It has its faults. Boy, does it have its faults. But I don't see where we suddenly started insisting that bad Trek needs to be in a separate timeline.
I ESPECIALLY don't get it when people insist on that for things that 1st and 2nd Gen Treks ALSO did.
Couldn't agree more. I think I can safely speak for all of us when I say that new Trek isn't what any of us would have asked for. It is what it is, though. Yes it has serious problems...yes the discrepancies are annoying, especially as they're completely avoidable if the writers do their jobs properly...and yes, given the choice I'd rather they had made different decisions. But what I or anyone else wants doesn't change the fact that these new series are intended to be a direct sequel/prequel to what we saw in the first five (technically six) TV shows and 10 movies set in the same timeline/universe.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: In a debate it's the person who has made the claim that is being disputed that has the burden of proof, not vice versa.
Agreed, but, once proof has been offered, it takes more than "oh everyone knows that's not how it is" to rebut.
How are those "classic timeline" quotes from "multiple occassions" coming along, by the way?
quote: That said when evidence that contradicts your assertion has been posted, you've dismissed it out of hand saying outright that the person "didn't get the memo".
I don't give credit for half-truths like that one, sorry. How many times have I mentioned rank matters in this thread, and did I not also say regarding Goldsman that even if you assert that he's contradicting Kurtzman, Kurtzman outranks him?
RHIP, which is why we don't ask janitors for canon policy statements.
I freely acknowledge that Goldsman disputes the canonicity of any books or comics within Prime canon, putting him at odds with Kurtzman and Lindelof who helped create it, Orci who canonized comics, along with IIRC Heather Kadin who was sitting by Kurtzman in 2019, and that Goldsman argues that the new shows are Prime.
quote: Frankly it feels like a waste of time posting more, as it genuinely feels like even if Kurtzman himself were to login & say the novels aren't canon or that the new series are in the old timeline you'd say he's wrong.
If that were so, I wouldn't keep asking for your quotes, now would I? Maybe if I were as closed-minded as you suggest, I would've declared your Goldsman quote a misrepresentation or misquotation rather than accepting it for what it said and dealing with it head-on, and I certainly wouldn't have volunteered the fact you were unaware of that there were more such quotes from him.
I am an honest researcher. Sorry, but I reach my conclusions based on evidence and reason and that is also what it takes to change my opinion. However, if faced with those, I am happy to do so.
Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ...and I certainly wouldn't have volunteered the fact you were unaware of that there were more such quotes from him.
Bit of a leap in logic to assume I'm unaware of such quotes. I just question your interpretation of them, as I've said in black & white. That isn't honest research, and is why I choose to discontinue this debate...it's obvious neither of us are going to change our minds.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
You're the one making the argument that novels and comics are now canon, so the burden of proof is on you to show me that this is actually happening.
quote:You say these things, yet resist angrily. That's very odd.
Anger? LOL.
Resistance? LOL.
Odd? Maybe.
Yet to see any proof of said accusation? Priceless.
You are clearly deluded, and I made the mistake of continuing with this silly discussion when I said I would not. So feel free to continue to make dumb snide remarks at my expense in an effort to side-step the issues you yourself brought up.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ...and I certainly wouldn't have volunteered the fact you were unaware of that there were more such quotes from him.
Bit of a leap in logic to assume I'm unaware of such quotes. I just question your interpretation of them, as I've said in black & white. That isn't honest research, and is why I choose to discontinue this debate...it's obvious neither of us are going to change our minds.
Wow.
I'd be more than willing to accept your claimed awareness of the Goldsman quotes I linked to and the 2020 Trekmovie one I brought up (that was pertinent for his unchanged tune) and stand corrected, but instead of merely pointing out your never-before-mentioned awareness you instead claim that I am dishonest for saying you weren't aware.
Let me try to put this in civil terms:
Unawareness was a logical assumption, since you were already trying to use Goldsman against Kurtzman and the 2020 quote was more direct, but, even if we stipulate that you knew, that still doesn't imply or suggest that *I* could have known you did, what with its absence from your keyboard.
Thus, that wildly unfounded and irrational accusation of dishonesty tells me all I need to know about this discussion and your role, and so I fully support you bowing out.
Take care, and enjoy your shows.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
You're the one making the argument that novels and comics are now canon, so the burden of proof is on you to show me that this is actually happening.
So, handwritten in blood, then. Can she write small? She's not a large individual . . . I don't want her to pass out halfway down the page.
I'm guessing that although you asked for office stuff onscreen, in the first question you are seeking incidents of book stuff hitting the screen. Would that include David Mack's Control that Beyer claimed as inspiration, perhaps a.k.a. "software agents" from a 2006 novel and Malcolm Reed's thoughts? Or Mack's chimerium cloaks? Or Picard as a "night shift science officer" from the Goodman autobiography? There are lists made by people who are interested in the books and Discovery. However, I don't actually need to provide that to you, because it isn't relevant.
Kurtzman said what he repeatedly said. It's even on video. Even Goldsman acknowledges they can mine from the novels now, even as he (and seemingly he alone) calls them non-canon.
When it comes to Kurtzman's words, which we can call Part I of my overall argument, it is well-proven. The burden is now on you to actually provide counterevidence, not moved goalposts. I mean, the fact no one hired a skywriting plane and scrawled it over your house doesn't make it untrue.
If you want to disprove Kurtzman's words and their clear meaning, find a contrary quote by him, or demonstrate a misunderstanding of his repeated view. Note that I didn't move any goalposts on you, there.
quote: You are clearly deluded,
That may be an exact quote from my previous detractors who swore the Star Wars EU was canon. They fought tooth and nail to ignore the words of George Lucas when he clearly wasn't following the Lucas Licensing canon policy twenty years ago. They'd reimagine what he said, strip the context, try to pull in lower-ranking folk to claim I was wrong, insult and harass, move goalposts, make up nonsense examples "proving {me} wrong", ad nauseum, ad absurdum . . . it was crazy.
Needless to say, folks telling me I'm delusional, dishonest, and blah-blah-blah . . . it's old hat, and never once did it disprove a single word I said. There may even be a few holdouts among them, even as the rest of the world figured out I was right. Why, I had to laugh a few years back when the guy they tried to direct against me back in the day just tossed out an explanation of the way things had been then that was virtually identical to mine of the time, right down to "separate" and "universe", which he'd protested before.
Back to "resist angrily", though ... I understood the origin of their resistance. They needed the EU to be true to maintain their fantasies. I don't get the origin of yours. You're all "this sucks, but I must have it as inarguable canon at all costs!"
That perplexes me. Doesn't it perplex you, introspectively?
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Addendum: In the Star Trek: Picard podcast made by Deadline (for the episode "Stardust City Rag"), Akiva Goldsman says that they consider The Animated Series canon, saying they view it as the fourth season of TOS. Obviously, the coverage of the more recent animated series makes corroboration a pain in the neck, but this hardly seems inconsistent with the other things we know from Kurtzman.
As a bit of history, TAS was never considered canon during the Roddenberry-Berman era. It was only after Enterprise's end and, if I'm not mistaken, Berman's departure that editor Tim Gaskill of Paramount Digital Entertainment, operators of StarTrek.com, started changing the site to say TAS was canon on his own, as if he ran the franchise.
(To be fair, he was sorta not wrong, being one of the only employees tasked with Trek work, but this is kinda on par with, say, a newsroom getting laid off so a copy boy decides he's now invested with the authority of editor-in-chief.)
While this is arguably not as big a change as the books and comics, it does still represent a clear distinction between the policies delineating the Original Universe and Prime Universe that I'd not specifically noted previously.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)