Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Sci-Fi
»
Designs, Artwork, & Creativity
»
History of Starfleet hull markings
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boris: [QB] Jonah: I mostly agree. The problem is not so much in what he did, because Roddenberry did want to make TNG into a new show (let's face it, the Star Trek shows are technically *different* shows *based* on Star Trek). The problem as I see it is that TNG writers' guides (which is what the Chronology and the TNGTM originally were) were being sold as *the* interpretation of Star Trek. They sell because of the fans who believe that the author's/any producer's interpretation is the best or the only valid one, but also because of the fans who believe that Trek history is constantly being revised and changed depending on who's in charge, meaning that the new producer overrides the old one. Any serious literary critic would ROTFLHAO at such a simplistic view of things, which appeals only to fans who choose to disagree only "within the family", i.e. never say anything that might offend the producers or their vision too much. But since when have literary critics and authors disagreed "within the family"? Okuda's books are simply his own interpretation which is a part of the overall TNG era point of view. There's also Voyager's point-of-view, DS9's point-of-view, and the movies' point-of-view -- simply because every show has a different showrunner. In Hollywood, the role of this particular executive producer is to set the tone for a series, and the fact that Berman is another exec shouldn't obscure the fact that the reason two producers exist is to make every series different-yet-same -- neither a reimagining, nor a consistent universe in the B5 or Star Wars style. In fact, the definition of canon should probably be relativized with respect to each show. The DS9 canon, in that order, seems to be DS9, TNG, TOS, movies.... Enterprise canon, on the other hand, might be Enterprise, Voyager, TNG, TOS...The Meyer-canon seems to be the Meyer movies, followed by TMP, TOS, and TNG. The TOS canon might be TOS, TAS, the Meyer movies, TMP, DS9, TNG. If books were written consistent with the way the shows are produced, there would be something for fans of every series. Nowadays, we merely have an overarching Okuda interpretation of Star Trek that works well within the TNG era, but that sometimes threatens to water down the works of other producers. So, Dixon has the right idea recognizing that Okuda's interpretation is simply Okuda's interpretation, but then again he's not trying to make Star Trek into a consistent universe -- to him, it's a mythology with inconsistent and overlapping points of view that one may attempt to rationalize, but to him that's not strictly necessary. In places that he does attempt a rationalization, he gives priority to sources that came first and sources closely based on these (=tech fandom), followed by everything else because he sees the new shows as a corruption/reimagining of the original myth he attempts to trace using whatever source he can find. It's quite interesting; however, as I've argued before, it's not what Star Trek has become, as defined by the official canon order and the sheer number of episodes that override the books from the POV of any showrunner and most viewers. Boris [/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