Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
General Trek
»
Original Universe versus Prime et al.
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dukhat: [qb] 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. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] 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. [/qb][/QUOTE]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. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3