-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Peregrinus, I did, I was just informing you of the error.....
I was thinking that it may have occured several thousand feet over the Pacific in the mid 40's....
But I could be wrong....
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Did Rodenberry himself ever address it publically? If not, has anyone thought to contact Majel or Rod to get their take? I mean, I'm no big defender of Roddenberry, but it seems only fair to get both sides if you're trying to do a factual article on the subject.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i remember the concept of 'canon' being explained to me in 1989 by Richard Arnold himself (he was the archivist/licensing guy back then.. most likely the 'errand boy' Gerrold refers to)..
i was 9 yrs old and there was a panel at a convention Arnold was speaking at, he was entertaining discussion about Nichelle Nichol's comments during her audience session.. the topic of Uhura's real first name was in issue, and Arnold summed it up by saying that, even though Uhura has been given a first name in novels and comics, none of those mean anything, and that if Kirk turned to Uhura in the next movie and said 'Barbara' then that would be her name and the novels will just have been wrong. Many fans took offense to Uhura having a dumb name such as 'Barbara' in his analogy, some booed him. He apologized for using a goofy example and assured us that Uhura was not named Barbara.
At that moment i realized that a) Star Trek sucked without the novels, and Arnold's explanation (and the concept of canon in general) stinks like steamy shit b) Nyota is a better name than Barbara c) angry sci-fi fans are frightening
He went on to explain that TV and movie writers are very busy people that can't be bothered to know everything about Star Trek and how audiences would be confused and dismayed by characters in filmed Trek referencing any situations or characters from Trek that wasn't filmed, because that ould be Disastrous and the audience Wouldn't Understand.
hrmph
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
So why can't the hire a continuity editor who can and would keep track of all that stuff and tweak scripts as appropriate?
No, no -- don't answer. I know. They could give a shit about the integrity of the fictional universe they're being allowed to play in. And it would cost more money than what they do now, which seems to work just fine.
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I feel 'canon' came about with the first encyclopaedia - as the Okudas set out some rules reguarding what the producers considered canon etc. Quadrants, Ranks, episodes etc.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
It is sad that all licensing must go through Paramount, and they do even care to get the universe staight. Plus, does it never occur to them that those that like the series & movies, might also like the books???
Of course, that would slow down book production, which would cost money....
I loved this part of the article...
TAS: Did you have to make changes because of the Saturday morning time slot?
Gerrold: Not really. The only thing we didn't do was give Kirk a love affair in every episode. That gave us an extra twenty minutes per episode for more story and more action.
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: So why can't the hire a continuity editor who can and would keep track of all that stuff and tweak scripts as appropriate?
No, no -- don't answer. I know. They could give a shit about the integrity of the fictional universe they're being allowed to play in. And it would cost more money than what they do now, which seems to work just fine.
--Jonah
And that, of course, we-the fans- fould villify said editor for every percieved flaw and probably burn him in effigy more often than not.
While several of us might deam of such a job, it'd be a huge pain to make every script go through this editorial position because the editor's personal view of what Trek is and should be would often get in the way. I can just see Comic Book Guy telling them not to use the CGI model of the USS Farragut without removing all those extra windows first. We'd agree, but everyone involved in making the model would kill him. He'd have to be everywhere at once in every art department and script session to make it work.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MrNeutron: David Gerrold mentions the canon issue in this interview about TAS.
LOL comment from that interview:
"When in doubt, Gene always had Kirk get into a fight with God."
And another: heheheh
TAS: Did you have to make changes because of the Saturday morning time slot?
Gerrold: Not really. The only thing we didn't do was give Kirk a love affair in every episode. That gave us an extra twenty minutes per episode for more story and more action.
And another (is he talking about Richard Arnold?)
Gerrold: Arguments about "canon" are silly. I always felt that Star Trek Animated was part of Star Trek because Gene Roddenberry accepted the paycheck for it and put his name on the credits. And DC Fontana -- and all the other writers involved -- busted their butts to make it the best Star Trek they could.
But this whole business of "canon" really originated with Gene's errand boy. Gene liked giving people titles instead of raises, so the errand boy got named "archivist" and apparently it went to his head. Gene handed him the responsibility of answering all fan questions, silly or otherwise, and he apparently let that go to his head.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
No more so than Rush.... But hanging up only makes it hard to post a reply...
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Plus, does it never occur to them that those that like the series & movies, might also like the books???
Yes, but it also probably occured to them that only 0.00001% of all the people who watch the show have read even two of the novels.
If they did make the books canon, it would involve a lot more than just getting in a continuity guide to tweak the scripts. The novels themselves would have to be massively rewriten, or large parts simply ignored. People would complain that Vendetta should have been mentioned in "I, Borg", Strangers in the Sky completely ruins lots of "First Contact" and Enterprise, and so forth.
And do we really want a lot of the late 90s books to be canon? Oh look, the TNG crew arrive at a planet and everything is nice. Oh look, Picard beams down OH NO THEY ARE CAPTURED!!!!WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO OUR HEROES???!!
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I always thought that phaser canons were invented for USS Reliant in TS:TWOK
(sorry, but I've been wanting to say that for months).
None of the stuff I produced is 'canon' - nor is it likely that any future projects will be. All I try to do is make my itsms as close to pre-existing 'canon' tech as possible - so I won't conflict with same. I also try to 'look ahead' and make my stuff as flexible as posible, so that future 'canon' shows won't conflict - but short of a time machine, that's a losing battle.
When TNG first came out, some friends and I wrote Paramount and mentioned that a 'Star Trek Expert' could be consulted on a weekly basis to go over scripts and models, to keep continuity correct. There are people who make Comic Book Guy look relaxed on the subject. I suggested the FIAWOL Butch Day for the job - I know from personal experience that he and Gene R go way back - and what he doesn't now about the Trek mythos isn't worth worrying about. However, they chose not to go that route.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
