Two things that are not entirely clear when I think about ships to include in my shiplist (and more important, Mim's shiplist, since he asked for some non-canon 'stuffing'):
1.) The game 'DS9:The Fallen' introduced the starship Ulysses, an old Miranda, formerly commanded by Admiral Ross and crashed some 15 years ago on a planet. This game-appearance doesn't make anything canon, but the cover-art of the box may do: The art shows a crashed Miranda, and accidentially I found exactly this cover art while surfing the net. It was done by someone who works for Foundation. So since many accept the information the Spotter gives as somehow 'official', and this could easily be the actual filming model, and we also accept ships like the Trinculo which never appeared on-screen as canon stuff, what about this ship? http://www.west.net/~brandonm/relsmp.jpg
2.) Okuda and Sternbach are credited for writing the crew biographies for the 'game' 'Starship Creator'. The game gives some new information on characters [/i]and[i] some ships, too. Mostly these are former position listings or the ships are mentioned in the text, but we also accept Okudagrams and the Encyclopedia as official, and these thexts are somehow as official, in my opinion.
Basically, we have some sort of problem here; we accept everything that's written in Tech-Manuals and that's said on-screen and that appeared on-screen, but we forget that some of these games can be as official; they are checked by Paramount, don't violate continuity or something and sometimes even people we respect as 'lords of canon' helped developing them. So what's our status? Can we find some sort of consensus here? (I know this would be the first time, but I'm really interested in hearing some opinions on the two points mentioned above.)
[Oh, and for your information, I had some severe computer problems over the last 48 hours, had to kill my HD and completely reinstall everything, but I'm back and on-line again. What I want to say is: the Norway will arive soon, and some other stuff I'm currently working on. ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
We'd have another fun point since the Ulysses is a Nebula commanded by CPT Intebi.
Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :
Heh... I have the game "Star Trek: Borg - the Interactive Game" (starring John DeLancie!), and the credits contain the names of Mike Okuda, Ron Moore, etc. But to canonize games with input from our canon-gods goes a little far, I'd say.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
That Ulysses pic - way out of scale - those 'plants' are half the size of the ship! It looks like a model-kit in a pond! Timmy didn't bring his toys in before it got dark! Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: We'd have another fun point since the Ulysses is a Nebula commanded by CPT Intebi.
Well, this is it's predecessor. According to the game, it crashed in the 2350's.
And, while I agree that "canonizing" games might be a bit extreme, the Ulysses may be a special case. There are multiple circumstances surrounding it that make it very intetresting, which Captain Kyle does not make extremely clear. I will elaborate.
-In "The Fallen" (DS9 game) we get the Ulysses as a ship that was once Admiral Ross' command that crashed on planet SR 3 during the 50's, and sank in a sea. As Amasov said, this in itself makes no impact on canon at all. But it gets more interesting...
-The art on the game's cover was done by Brandon MacDougall at Foundation Imaging, using the same CGI model used in the show. This makes it interesting because we (or at least some of us) like to believe in the existence of ships like the Valkyrie and Trinculo because they were official labelings of the official studio models, even though it seems unlikely that they were ever in the show. But wait, there's more...
-In "Starship Creator," Okuda/Sternbach make a reference in Joe Carey's (of the Voyager) biography to him having served aboard a Ulysses that crashed on a waterworld. It would seem to be a tie-in to the ship from "The Fallen."
So, while neither reference may be extremely significant in and of itself, when you put them all together it makes for a situation that kind of makes you think. Do these factors combined make it a special case? (i.e., labeling of official CGI model + reference by Okuda/Sternbach text = canon? Semi-canon?)
It's a little bizzare, but I wouldn't just outright dismiss it...
-MMoM Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: That Ulysses pic - way out of scale - those 'plants' are half the size of the ship! It looks like a model-kit in a pond! Timmy didn't bring his toys in before it got dark!
Ah, but you forget that they are alien plants, my friend... Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
Or, the ship is alien to the plants....
How big are the trees in a jungle/(sub)tropical rain forest anyway????
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
According to Ron D. Moore, John Ordover, and the startrek.com website, the canon is:
The shows and the movies except for TAS. That's it.
We've seen this in practice. Although some have argued that certain movies or parts of TOS aren't canon, that was just Roddenberry's view (call it Roddenberry canon if you will). However, Roddenberry is no longer controlling the Star Trek universe, and Braga and others have never said that TOS or the other shows/movies aren't canon, or that TOS has been reimagined for Enterprise. They've tried (with moderate success) to rationalize the apparent inconsistencies between the various shows.
However, they haven't bothered rationalizing any of the books. That's because none of the books, including the Encyclopedia, the TMs, Starship Spotter, etc -- none of this is canon.
However, as Ryan McReynolds has pointed out so many times, the general misunderstanding is that the writers are prohibited from using these works, except for maybe the Encyclopedia and the manuals. As far as I could tell, this is not 100% true. Some books have fallen out of favor (Franz Joseph's manual), as has TAS, but a lot of others are included or even written by these same writers that decide on how the show should look. Does it make sense to reject Jeri Taylor's novels, or Legends of the Ferengi, Andrew Robinson's Garak novel or the Klingon CD-ROM which first featured the Klingon anthem? The writers have no problem including parts of these books onscreen, and we shouldn't either. However, the difference is that parts of these books can be rejected if they truly conflict with the canon.
The real problem is whether or not other books such as miscellaneous novels, or games, should be included. Well, going by what John Ordover says, the only reason these books aren't taken into account onscreen is that the writers don't have the time to follow this continuity. After all, this is not Star Wars, where Lucas has endless time to control official materials, or B5, where Straczynski doesn't have endless time and compensates by allowing only a few official (and even canon!) materials to go out. Since Star Trek is a huge franchise, the writers neither have time to control the books nor the desire to limit the franchise to a managable level.
Still, there are good reasons to include other official sources:
1) If Star Trek writers are merely limited by their inability to follow the continuity, why not help? Perhaps Pocket Books could compile an Encyclopedia that includes the novels likewise, which could serve as a reference for the show's writers. Furthermore, we know that the writers frequent online forums, so including these works in our discussions could make them aware of good points within these novels that could then end up in the show. The only trouble is, Mike Okuda couldn't tell me if there are any legal considerations that prevent the writers from using the novels. He suspects there are no general rules, though.
2) Mojo and Alex Rosenzweig have informed us about the reality of writing non-fiction books -- you gotta stay consistent with the DS9TM and other important books, yet we don't really bother with them. Let's say someone else gets to write a book in the future -- wouldn't it be better for that person to have a huge reference of well-discussed theories that rationalize mistakes in the books?
On the other hand, unlicensed sources are out (Alex told me they were merely allowed to use some equipment designations from Ships of Star Fleet, no actual names!), as is anything not published by Pocket Books. I've yet to figure out where the Star Fleet Technical Manual is standing at the moment, along with other licensed sources such as games, etc, but I suspect these should be more open to inclusion than unlicensed sources. But Pocket Books stuff -- definitely.
In the end, you get a more consistent Star Trek universe that the fans will like and purchase, as opposed to the current situation where a lot of the materials are not even considered by fans because they're not consistent with the show.
Still gotta talk to Ordover, but expect a reply soon. (Oh...I know who ELSE could help....)
Boris
[ May 01, 2002, 20:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Vice-Admiral Michael T. Colorge (Member # 144) on :
It's funny but in ST: Armada 2, there's a Nebula Class starship that is in a Federation campagne that is taken over by the Borg called Ulysses.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Basically, you have three categories:
1.) "Canon". Stuff onscreen, aside from TAS. This is the stuff the writers are required to accept as "true".
2.) The stuff that's not quite canon. Some people call it "semi-canon". It pretty much consists of Paramount's Trek "reference" books: the Encyclopedias, the tech manuals, &c. It isn't canon, because the writers aren't required to adhere to it. Therefore, it could get contradicted at any time. However, the writers do use these books as references, so they are likely to be adhered to. Therefore, it's pretty safe to accept them as though they were canon, up until the point when they are contradicted.
3.) Everything else. This covers everything from Paramount-produced novels and games, to the most gods-awful fan-fiction you can find on Usenet. The writer's are under no obligation to even think about this stuff, and they likely don't even know that the vast majority of it exists. Sometimes, a writer will like something in this category (i.e. TAS or Jeri Taylor's VOY novels) and incorporate it into the show. But, except for those rare occasions, this stuff has absolutely no bearing on the show whatsoever.
The games this thread is about fall into the third category.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
So what's the reg on that Miranda? NCC-10767? Does it say what it is in the game?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
TSN: Something is either canon or non-canon. If it's canon, then it can't be rejected and must be rationalized. The word "semi-canon" is a bit of a misnomer, because it assumes some things in there are canon from the start, which they aren't until a writer actually makes them canon by putting them on a show.
The distinction made between 2) and 3) is purely arbitrary. A more appropriate way to categorize these would be to include books written by people who work(ed) on the show in 2), and everything else in 3). However, both categories share the same non-canon status; hence, I'd argue that the only difference is that if the Encyclopedia says a registry of a ship is NCC-33233, while a novel says it's NCC-3421-E, the former should be preferred (though I'd still try to explain the latter somehow). After all, if a historical source is more likely to be true, it's preferred to another one. That doesn't mean the former is *necessarily* true (i.e. canon).
Also, the fact that the main producers don't control all the novels doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't in the spirit of the show. A writer can't write just about anything -- John Ordover ensures that these books are consistent with the show, and he's even had a writing credit on DS9. Besides, the "spirit" of Star Trek is loosely defined: a Braga show has nothing to do with a Behr show. That automatically boosts the significance of the "Ordover show".
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 07:33: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Well, from the observer's point of view, canon is whatever you can choose to believe about Trek that hasnt been disproved. That means that until the show goes ahead and states 'There was never a Miranda-class USS Ulysses', it doesnt hurt anything for us to treat it like it was canon. The only non-canon points that can't be believed are ones that are directly contradicted by filmed Trek from TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR and the movies (ENT too, supposedly).
So basically, we may never have a chance to perceive a cononical view of SF in the 2350s, so it doesnt hurt to regard a backstory from a game as fact, simply because theres little or no chance of it being contradicted. Ditto with those crew histories... we're never going to see Carey again, so why bother saying that history isn't correct?
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
CaptainMike: I just want to keep the terminology straight: canon is the shows and the movies except for TAS.
What you're rather referring to is what is "real" in the Star Trek universe, and I agree that until something is disproved as being "real" by the canon, it's real if it's official. However, it's really difficult to disprove anything, and explanations can always be found that include both canon and official material, thus forming a nice, self-consistent universe.
Also, canon is not what you choose to believe -- canon is the shows and the movies. If everybody believed different parts of the canon, then we'd have a chaos here (I'm not saying we don't sometimes). If one wants to go as far as saying that something can't possibly be correct on the show, then one ought to have a better reason than "I just don't feel it's right".
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 07:44: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Thanks for clearing it up, Mim, I was a bit... confusing last night. OK, I don't say I'm not cunfusing all the time, but last night cretain circumstances made me sound a bit weird.
The thing about canon and non-canon can be debated to death without any result. What I wanted to point out is the fact that programs like the Starship Creator give the information as if they were canon. There'S nothing that could violate real canon stuff, just small additions to give some characters a background. Take some ships from the encyclopedia as an example: Even if it might be just a 'suggestion' that the starship Yellowstone from DS9 was a Sequoia-class ship with the registry NCC-xxxxx, and I doubt anyone bothers using this stuff for future episodes, Okuda wrote it as if it was a canon fact. Several times, he doesn't make a difference what's official and what's just his imagination. Basically, he could have written that the ship was commanded by Captain so-and-so, participated in the battle to retake DS9 and was assigned to scan this-or-that nebula thereafter. Same type of info - non-canon, but we as a community wouldn't bother treating it like canon information. And I think it's a similar case here; they just give some more background information (while they are coincidentially the same guys who appeared in the above example, namely Okuda and Sternbach), and as soon as something contradicts stuff that has been made canon, it can be changed. I'd say that's the point. Why don't we go as far as to accept it, at last until it's not longer acceptable.
And this Ulysses crashed in '53, to be precise, which leaves enough room for another ship to be built and put into service. And I can assure you, the levels featuring the ship and your mission to get the orb back (which is another tie-in to a DS9 novel series) are in my opinion the best and not at all out of scale. If I find my savegames, I'll make some screenshots.
(The ship from A2 was the USS Caddebostan, BTW. )
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
But here's the thing for me, why would you create a whole mass of ships and their classes if they're not going to be seen? I would in his place but them under the classes already shown. Because in a extremely small sense (about one to billion odds) that these unheard of ships could limit any future ideas. On the other hand, it is just me, and it personally makes no sense.
I adhere to my own cannon rules. Every Trekkie/Trekker has their own right to ahhere to their forms of cannon. To force a concept of cannon on another, is like me trying force you to be not gay or to be gay. My cannon rules might contradict what you feel is cannon. But most Trekkies/Trekkers will adhere to the basic princible of what you see in the movies and on TV is cannon, everything else is not said by Roddenbery.
Personally my cannon is what is seen on TV, then to fill in the blanks left in the TV shows and movies, I use semi-cannon and extremely good non-cannon (SotF, ST TM, and so on). Now this might be Satan worshiping, but thats just me.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
dude.. canon
a cannon is a large metal object that fires projectiles. Assuming that you didnt mean 'cannon' when you typed 'cannon', i agree with you
Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :
Can anyone here be kind enough to explain why the Ulysses crashed on this planet and how it fits with DS9?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Would people please look up the definition of "canon", already?! You do not decide for yourself what is and is not canon. Canon is something that's decided by the people in charge. If random people's personal opinions are referred to as canon, what's the point of even having the word "canon"? Referring to your own personal, non-officially-sanctioned beliefs as "canon" is exactly the same thing as referring to your own opinions as "fact".
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Exactly. Everyone may have personal opinions, but excluding anything canon amounts to a subjective discussion, while published unlicensed sources legally are not Star Trek.
[ May 02, 2002, 10:13: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
Matrix, it's not that we'd never see the ship; the Ulysses in this example played a major role in the game while other ships, like the ships from the Creator, are either used because we already saw them and they want to use familiar names but still bring in some new stuff. It's not that these would be ship we never saw and we'll never see, they are all somehow important - some more, some less - for a story.
And the ship Ulysses was Admiral - Captain - Ross' ship that was destroyed by a cardassian ambush after they found one of the orbs of the Pah-wraiths on SR-3. The cardassians were not able to get the orb, and the ship was abandoned before it crashed. I think that'S the basic outline of its story. I didn't play the game for some time now so I can't remember the exact details, but Sisko was later sent out with Worf to recover the orb (as part of the game's primary story-line), but they were overwhelmed by Jem'Hadar forces after they found it.
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I'd just like to say... I'm am 100% thankful that the novels are never considered canon. Most of them a utter crap--- even the ones that are published by Pocket Books. I have not read many, only a few, but I do follow the reviews of a great many of the books--- and I read through the entire James Dixon Chronology [which does contain every bit of Trek-lore... let's see if I can find that URL http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Crater/2077/scifi.htm (the act of moi putting this URL here is not an act of endorsement... thank you)].
As near as I can tell, a good portion of written Trek is wishful thanking. You've got more sex than Vulcan [the planet] has every seventh year, Kirk coming back to life, Bones being able to fight the Borg in 2360's [chronological correct, biologically impossible], the Romulans and the Borg joining forces [was that ever stupid], and [one of my favorite laughs] the TOS big three [Kirk, Spock, Bones] being switched with their actor counter parts [Shatner, Nimoy, DeForest]. I've mentioned some things already but I still have a lot of trouble with many of Shatner's trek books. I've also found the books by Peter David [while a very good Sci-Fi writer] not good trek. I tried to read the Day of Honor books but they didn't catch my attention and I dropped the books within a few chapters.
All in all, my ultimate opinion is that Trek belongs on TV and rarely can it be made good in print. Which is an extremely good reason why I prefer to have novels on the level below the semi-canon material.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Well, another reason why the novels can't be consiered canon is that many of them not only contradict what is shown on screen, but they also contradict other novels. Michael Jan Freidman isn't going to do research into what Peter David or some other author has previously written, so that his novel matches the same stories of the others. For example, I believe that there are three different novels dealing with the Mirror Universe, which were written by three different authors and portray the MU in three different ways. The novels are just that particular author's take on a Star Trek related subject, that's all. The only difference between them and fanboy fan-fiction is that they have Pocket Books as their publisher. And although I agree that many of the books written today are of the same calibre as the romance novel genre, some of the best novels were the ones that came out in the intervening time between TOS & the movies, "The Final Reflection," for example. Because the writing wasn't dictated as much by what was on screen (because there was very little at the time), the writers were able to pump out some truly imaginative stories.
As far as the Encyclopedia is concerned, I'm of the majority that feels that the book can be counted as official until something on the screen contradicts it. The first edition listed the Crazy Horse as a Cheyenne class ship, but when it was shown later, TPTB just reused old Excelsior stock footage. The next edition fixed this, but left the high 5XXXX registry (better suited for a Cheyenne) the same. But until/unless there's more info to the contrary, that's what we have to go with. Period.
[ May 02, 2002, 13:50: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Which is exactly why the novels are merely official, and not canon. If we apply a system by which certain official works rank higher than the others, then by the time we get down to the level of the inconsistent novels, there's not much that can disturb the spirit of the show.
Hence the procedure would be something like this:
Step 1) Analyse the canon to the last possible detail, form the general framework of your theory.
Step 2) Fill in the gaps with the TMs and the Encyclopedia, including a number of production notes and online comments.
Step 3) Fill in the remaining gaps with other reference books amd novels.
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 15:52: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
That's how I do it as well. Some people just like to stick with the definition of canon that Roddenbery has said, which is fine. But to tell me that everything else is not my own opinion to use them to fill in the gaps for my own personal history of Star Trek is just plain Bull****.
As for my spelling for canon, using cannon, yes I know how to spell canon. It was just that I really fats typing and had no chance to correct any spelling.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Listen, the schtick bout only the live-action shows and movies being canon is simply not true. It's just a cop-out answer TPTB give people in order to cause them the least confusion. In actuality, there's a lot more than just what was stated explicitly onscreen that fits into the canon. The class, reg, and tech info in the Okuda and Sternbach books *is* considered canon. So are some details (though it remains unspecified as to exactly which ones) from Jeri Taylor's novels are as well. And there's no fucking way you can ignore that TAS did happen, and the stuff in there is just as canon as any other show. How does a show being animated make any difference as to whether it's canon or not? That wouldn't even make any sense. Canon is what can be reliably counted upon as being "real" in the ST universe. Sternbach's Intrepid-class info and similar such articles in Star Trek: The Magazine are canon, too, as are many statements given by various inside sources.
Why? Because you can feel fairly safe that it will hold true.
Sure, this stuff may end up being contradicted eventually, but so does lots of stuff from onscreen. Revisionism is part of the game. It's a necessary evil. But obscure factoids from the actual shows/films themselves have just as much chance as being contradicted as these "semi-canon" sources.
-MMoM Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
You're confusing "canon" with "real". I agree with you that these materials form an important part of the universe, and that they shouldn't be excluded.
However, canon materials are clearly different from official materials. The producers have always tried to rationalize the perceived inconsistencies between TOS and Enterprise -- they never said, "well, parts of TOS aren't canon any more." On the other hand, every time someone mentioned inconsistencies with the official books, they automatically said that these books aren't canon and need not be rationalized. By your argument, they could've easily labeled parts of TOS non-canon, and spent time explaining away the TMs.
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 18:20: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I give up. Some people are just too dense to understand that words have definitions and can't just mean whatever you want them to mean. The spirit of the Jabberwocky will haunt us forever...
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
Amen to that.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
Let me edit this for clarity: "Well, from the observer's point of view, Star Trek's 'reality' is whatever you can choose to believe about Trek that hasnt been disproved. That means that until the show goes ahead and states 'There was never a Miranda-class USS Ulysses', it doesnt hurt anything for us to treat it like it was canon. The only non-canon points that can't be believed as part of Star Trek 'reality' are ones that are directly contradicted by filmed Trek from TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR and the movies (ENT too, supposedly).
So basically, we may never have a chance to perceive a canonical view of SF in the 2350s, so it doesnt hurt to regard a backstory from a game as fact, simply because theres little or no chance of it being contradicted. Ditto with those crew histories... we're never going to see Carey again, so why bother saying that history isn't correct?"
ok i removed two inappropriate uses of the word 'canon' but my point remains.. if non-canon sources fill in blanks that aren't contradicted by canon Trek, and probably never will be, i dont feel it hurts to acknowledge them. Especially since much of the Star Trek licensed 'non-canon' adventures are far superior to Trek thats been filmed in the past four years or so. Thats my opinion, not the fact, but what is factual is that the filmed Trek has left behind eras like the 2350s and characters like Carey, so i think that officially licensed Paramount material like the games should be given credence until directly contradicted. If for some reason the next movie features a flashback to Carey's early career (it could happen!) and disproves the game, then we can say 'Damn! the game was wrong!' but until then, its a moot point..
Oh, and this is just too much fun, i have to go ahead and be a smartass.. let's go to the blooper reel:
quote:I adhere to my own cannon rules.
Like dont point it at the wrong guys, clean it between firings, cover your ears?
quote:Every Trekkie/Trekker has their own right to adhere to their forms of cannon.
Just dont use that superglue that stings my eyes
quote:To force a concept of cannon on another, is like me trying force you to be not gay or to be gay.
I believe Napoleon was forcing cannons on others.. not sure about making them be gay also.. well, he was French...
quote:My cannon rules might contradict what you feel is cannon.
Hey as long as it blows away many advancing soldiers, we can all get behind the cannon issue
quote:But most Trekkies/Trekkers will adhere to the basic princible of what you see in the movies and on TV is cannon, everything else is not said by Roddenbery.
Actually, for TV they might not show you cannon. Sometimes they use small plastic mock-ups of cannons because real cannons are expensive and heavy
quote:Personally my cannon is what is seen on TV, then to fill in the blanks left in the TV shows and movies, I use semi-cannon and extremely good non-cannon
like catapults and the such..
quote:Now this might be Satan worshiping, but thats just me.
My spine is pierced and I'm totally into Satan!
I need to sleep.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
Well done. This thread finally made me write a rant that's been brewing for a long time. I've had the loosecanon.net domain for a while and I've always meant to use it like this, so here goes:
I do not understand why people must enforce Roddenbery's view of what's non-canon and what's canon upon others? Yes, he is the creator, yes whatever he says most of the time goes. So in other words, Star Trek V and TAS never existed? I believe that he wanted others to be de-canonized?
You have your own feelings about what you would consider canon, and so do everyone else. Just because your canon ethics conflict others, does not mean the others are wrong you are right.
Most will use non-canon and a bit of imagination to fill in the blanks that was left by canon sources. Isn't that what's websites like UP3 or DITL, and so on are all about? Filling in the blanks? You don't like to use those sites, ok, but do not enforce that belief that since you don't use, that everyone else should not use it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Good article. However, there are several things I'd like to comment on:
1) Continuity, or a simple continuity at least, need not be sacrificed for good individual stories. How many B5 stories are obviously continuous? For instance, Lennier says in "Parliament of Dreams" that there are two castes of Minbari, but then we learn that there is a worker caste likewise. Discrepancy? No -- we really don't see much of the worker caste in the show, while the canon novel "To Dream in the City of Sorrows" explains that the worker caste is badly treated, that they weren't allowed into the rangers, etc. Given that nobody ever mentioned "two castes of Minbari" again, JMS probably changed his mind about this at some point, yet he still remained consistent with the former line.
Then in Star Wars, we learn that Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker. There is very little evidence that Lucas intended this from the beginning; in any case, he explained Kenobi's lie, and such surprising twists make for good drama and reveal different points of view and different sides to the characters.
Hence, you can have a good story and good continuity, by simply explaining at some point later in the series why Archer didn't learn the name of the Ferengi or why Klingon ships were called warbirds.
Furthermore, the writer of any given episode need not consider 500 episodes. All you need to stay consistent with, if you're writing, say, a Klingon episode is to check the Encyclopedia for what we know about the Klingons, or ask Ron Moore. Then go surf online to find whatever you can about phaser power limitations. And then surf online to see what you've missed, and remember to include an explanation in the show later on.
2) Although the writers may still have some shows they prefer, they nevertheless have to at least take into account the other Star Trek shows to some extent. That's the difference between one's creative canon and a legal canon sanctioned by Paramount. Hence, the definition given by Moore and Ordover isn't simply a generalization, but rather a set of constraints. You can't simply ignore Voyager or TOS, yet you absolutely can ignore any novel or the TMs.
Posted by Identity Crisis (Member # 67) on :
The B5 example is a case that proves my point. Continuity as applied by some rabid fanboys would have forbidden JMS to have added the Worker Caste after having stated the number of castes to be two.
Changing one, or two, or a dozen item(s) does not invalidate all continuity (something that the Enterprise-bashers would do well to remember).
And I never said that you can't have both continuity and good stories. Just that good stories are more important than contiuity, by oh, a factor of 1000 or so.
And the Enterprise writers don't need to ever explain why "Archer didn't learn the name of the Ferengi or why Klingon ships were called warbirds". Would it help the story to explain those things? Or would it just shut up a few fanboys? It's a big universe, strange and wonderful things happen. Most of them happen off screen and never get mentioned. So what?
That's why I love the "we don't talk about it" line w.r.t. Klingon foreheads. It sticks two fingers up at the fanboys and refuses to nail things down. Of course, the DS9 writers had the best approach to continuity, want a war with huge fleets? Sure go ahead and have one and screw the continuity that says that 39 ships is a lot for Starfleet.
If I write a Klingon story which version of the Klingons should I write for? The TOS ones, sneaky back stabbing bastards in a regimented society or the ENT/TNG/DS9/VOY ones, honourable warriors in an anarchic society? If I'm writing a TOS book? If I'm writing a book set in the 2210s? I have to ignore some of the episodes in order to write Klingons in a non-schizoid fashion.
And for your point two. Those are restraints placed on people writing for the TV show or licensed books. They don't apply to us fans. We have more creative freedom than the 'real' writers, we should rejoice in that freedom, not run away from it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
It's not necessary to explain things by referring explicitly to lines containing an "error". Lennier's line was never verbally explained, but clues were given in the show that make the answer obvious. I'm saying that the Enterprise writers should intentionally include clues that explain things that could be perceived as mistakes, and that they should take constant complaints by hard-core fans as a sign that maybe some things need to be made *a little* more obvious on the show. Perfection is in trifles.
For instance, the next time you write in a Klingon ship, simply call it a warbird. Even simpler, make a reference to the five Klingon warbirds you encountered last week (there are many ways to accomplish the task, and one of them might even help the current story). That way, the viewers will no longer perceive the reference as a mistake. When writing Klingons, insert miscellaneous references to cultural changes, power struggles, also when appropriate to the story.
As for the second, well, it depends on how you view this exercise. Some view it as a creative one, taking what you know and reshaping the universe according to the spirit of Star Trek and your knowledge of how things are done in the real world. I see it as as a scientific exercise and search for objectivity -- this requires knowing which sources are more authentic than others, as well as asking "why" all the time, instead of "Well, this seems to work, I'll leave it as it is."
Boris
[ May 03, 2002, 09:52: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
If you really want an example of B5 discontinuity, explain how Kosh had a "hand" in the pilot...
Posted by J (Member # 608) on :
I can't explain Kosh's hand... I'd like to be able to explain the pilot's doctor seeing Kosh---
Are you talking about his encounter suit having a hand? ---- When Sheridan had to jump out of the tram and Kosh saved him, Kosh certainly had hands then...
However, Lennier is from the Religious Caste, and from the beginning his character was obviously meant to show the "common religious caste Mimbari" to offset Dalenn's progressive nature. So Lennier's very nature means that he would have the same prejudice that the rest of the religious and warrior castes have against the worker caste. --- There is no inconsistancy in my mind about Lennier saying there are two castes, when their are actually three. Lennier is not perfect, he is falliable.
IF we could only accept that our characters in Star Trek could be falliable... "Threshold" would never have been a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by Boris (Member # 713) on :
Aha, a B5 discussion!
In "The War Prayer", Sinclair and Garibaldi are talking, and Sinclair is wondering how the poison get through Kosh's encounter suit. This means that the exterior surface of the hand must have been part of the encounter suit, while the interior was obviously a simple tentacle.
And of course, both Lyta and Ben learned what Kosh looked like, which is why they were both transferred. Ben is bound by his oath of confidentiality, while Lyta's scan was against the rules from the start, and she wasn't going to reveal more than she had to.
[ May 03, 2002, 14:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
But when Kosh saved Sheridan, he had hands because Sheridan saw him as a sort of angel. All the aliens saw him as various gods and such from their cultures, too. AFAIK, the form we saw him in when the part of him that was in Sheridan fought the replacement ambassador is what he really looked like.
Posted by Cpt. Kyle Amasov (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: But when Kosh saved Sheridan, he had hands because Sheridan saw him as a sort of angel. All the aliens saw him as various gods and such from their cultures, too.
I wonder what Londo saw...
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
quote:IF we could only accept that our characters in Star Trek could be falliable... "Threshold" would never have been a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The problem with Threshold wasnt thematic dealing with the characters, it was the fact that it was a bland episode with no real point or story except trying to make an interesting story based on a misread passage from a Technical Manual, and failing Lots of goofy effects added for interest that just ended up disgusting fans with lizard sex and unbeleiveable science. Threshold would have been good if it was made as a Captain Proton episode for all the thought they put into the science involved.. why would humans evolve to breathe dissolved acid.. evolution requires environmental impetus or its meaningless.. the old replacing all the DNA in your body instantaneously trick when it really should take ten years, and spread like a cancer.. I'm sure we've been through all this before..
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)