quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: Manticore gets the "actually read the post" prize!
Whereas Futurama Guy gets not only the "silly fool who hasn't read the post" booby prize, but the "pointlessly quoting the post directly above in it's entirety when you are just replying to the last line of said post" prize of extreme stupidity.
Yes, thank you PsyLiam, and no shit newbie-whatever-your-name-is.
However, I was pointing out that it was the very statement in your contradiction --
"Therefore, it is (duh) non canon."
and
"It makes the bits mentioned canon."
-- which obviously it cannot be both, and simply that the latter is all it really should take to make TAS canon. Now granted it is really late and I seem to be a one man army, none the less I would like to think the following has some merit:
If TAS was intended to be not canon, then it should treated as such and be left exactly at that: ignored and forgotten.
However, when some of TAS, no matter the amount, becomes written into a subsequent show/series, therefore acknowledging it -- those TAS elements are now considered canon, no? If those elements are suddenly recognized and considered "fair play" or valid, then might not it all as well be considered valid? I can think of a number of instances where this logic plays into my everyday field of work/study, however, not in the context of this argument. Regardless if TAS is taboo canon or non-canon, it has been acknowledged, it is therefore fact and should be accepted as such, or not at all, but not both.
Afterall, its creation was approved in the first place by Gene, no? Somehow I don't think there was any part to its approval that included, "we'll do it, but it doesn't count".
TAS only became noncanon when it was nixed out by Genes amended little "Rule of Spite", where since enough undermining has occurred to somewhat rescind that "rule" over the authenticity of the series.
It was initially designed to follow what was already begun in TOS, and should have been left at that, corny or not, because it has since been subsequently validated in other stories making it too easy not to ignore.
Only if Gene wasn't such an ornary bastard....
-------------------- Hey, it only took 13 years for me to figure out my password...
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
If those elements are suddenly recognized and considered "fair play" or valid, then might not it all as well be considered valid?
No. That'd be like saying that just because we're rather sure from external sources that a controversial rabbi named Yeshua lived in Palestine in the early first century, we thus have confirmed the validity of every single detail of the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels. It doesn't work that way.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: Actually, brain transplants have already been performed with Rhesus Monkeys as far back as the 70's and the monkey's brain survived in a new body for 8 days and was responsive to stimuli. It followed the scientists around the room with it's eyes for instance.
Head transplants onto other bodies have been done with numerous animals and many of those survived with two fully active brains / heads. They've also transplanted a head onto another headless monkey and had it survive.
They filmed the operation as well; we got to watch the video in RE once. Quite funny actually.
-------------------- "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
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I'm well aware of the non-canon status of TAS at Paramount. I was offering my opinion. Or are those not allowed either?
You can't offer an opinion over what is "canon" or not, in the same way that I cannot offer an opinion over what elements water is made up of. Canon is strictly defined. It is not open to opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Futurama Guy: Yes, thank you PsyLiam, and no shit newbie-whatever-your-name-is.
However, I was pointing out that it was the very statement in your contradiction --
"Therefore, it is (duh) non canon."
and
"It makes the bits mentioned canon."
-- which obviously it cannot be both, and simply that the latter is all it really should take to make TAS canon.
It isn't a contradiction. You are arguing is akin to saying that because some bits in the Titanic movie were true, everything shown during the course of the film actually happened.
Omega already argued why you are wrong, but to expand upon that: There have been references in Trek to Star Wars (Alderaan on status charts), Bukaroo Banzai (Excelsior's motto), and Back To The Future ("Flux Capacitor" mentioned, gravestone showing McFly). By your logic, all those things are now canon in the Star Wars universe.
To repeat: The bits from TAS that have been mentioned are now canon, but not in a "they happened the way they did in TAS" sort of way. They are only canon in the details that have been directly said out loud on filmed Trek. All the other bits are not canon unless and until they are mentioned.
Also, -100 points for pointless bashing of new posters.
-------------------- 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
To put it in a specific example, there really is something called "ShirKahr" in the Trek universe, but that doesn't mean that Spock went back and changed his childhood through the Guardian of Forever.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: If those elements are suddenly recognized and considered "fair play" or valid, then might not it all as well be considered valid?
No. That'd be like saying that just because we're rather sure from external sources that a controversial rabbi named Yeshua lived in Palestine in the early first century, we thus have confirmed the validity of every single detail of the life of Christ as recorded in the gospels. It doesn't work that way.
Man. Leave it to you to make this a Jesus thing.
Am I the only Flarite that now considers the whole "canon" debate a Mobius Strip?
If we can just send a message to ourselves in the next loop, we could break free and some long-lost Flarite would pop up after being trapped in a circular conversation for years....
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Leave it to you to make this a Jesus thing.
Hey, we are discussing canon after all.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by PsyLiam: There have been references in Trek to [snip] Back To The Future ("Flux Capacitor" mentioned, gravestone showing McFly).
Okay, I know of the Star Wars and Buckaroo Banzai references, but I'm unfamiliar with these. Someone care to enlighten me?
posted
Me and the Nephilim take a dim view on such matters.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Bond, James Bond: I'm well aware of the non-canon status of TAS at Paramount. I was offering my opinion. Or are those not allowed either?
You can't offer an opinion over what is "canon" or not, in the same way that I cannot offer an opinion over what elements water is made up of. Canon is strictly defined. It is not open to opinion.
Paramount can never alter the conditions of what is and is not canon? I seem to remember a couple of Jeri Taylor novels ("Pathways" and "Mosaic") that were considered canon (at least until they were partially contradicted by later Voyager episodes).
My point was that Paramount can set guidleines as to what information from TAS is canon or not, and not leave it up to individual writers to include what aspects of it they would like to see. It doesn't always have to appear onscreen in a live action series or movie to be considered canon nor does everything seen onscreen become canon automatically because it can be declared non-canon by the Executive Producer.
Paramount and the Executive Producer are the final authorities on what is canon or not. I was suggesting they should alter the rules to allow aspects of TAS that they deem acceptable.
-------------------- "You must talk to him; tell him that he is a good cat, and a pretty cat, and..." -- Data "I will feed him" -- Worf (Phantasms)
Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Right, he's not saying how things are, but rather how they ought to be.
And he makes a good point as to the fact that Paramount's definition of the Canon has changed over time, and even now cannot be said to be totally static. And while they're not entirely likely to take suggestions from fans on what they should in/exclude, it certainly doesn't hurt to voice an opinion.
The official website had a poll out a short while back asking whether fans would like to see the animated seasons on DVD. If the response were predominantly positive, and they were released on DVD, I wouldn't be surprised to see this "noncanonical" bullshit suddenly flutter right out the window...
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: I wouldn't be surprised to see this "noncanonical" bullshit suddenly flutter right out the window...
-MMoM
...along with any storytelling credibility Trek might still have.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Uh...like I've said, it's no better or worse than a great portion of TOS. If you don't like TOS, you probably don't care for it. But otherwise, you shouldn't find it any less "credible."
Jason, have you actually watched most of it, or is "The Infinite Vulcan" all you've seen? What about "Beyond The Farthest Star," "Yesteryear," "The Survivor," "The Ambergris Element," "The Time Trap," "The Jihad," "Bem," "Albatross"...?
Any one of those are easily better than "The Alternative Factor," "Return of the Archons," and "That Which Survives" (TOS) put together.
Besides, quality does not determine canonicity. Even "Threshold" (VGR), some piece-of-shit TNG episodes which I can't even recall the names of, and Nemesis are canonical. Why should the cartoon be treated differently?
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It also had the first holodeck (and the first holodeck malfunction ), the first use of the more reliable dual turbolifts on the bridge instead of the one of TOS, personal forcefields, an actual non-humanoid alien on the bridge crew, improved equipment at some bridge stations, and an aquashuttle.
It would add to the technical sophistication of the TOS era. Not a huge leap, but enough to not make it look SO primitive in comparison to Enterprise.
Plus it fills in a lot of historical information about Spock, Captain Robert April, etc.
-------------------- "You must talk to him; tell him that he is a good cat, and a pretty cat, and..." -- Data "I will feed him" -- Worf (Phantasms)
Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, personally, I'd like to dismiss the personal forcefields as a Starfleet field-test of new technology, instead of something that was in widespread use.
And I agree. TAS is no more consistent than TOS, or more ridiculous than episodes like "One Little Ship" or "Threshold". Although to be fair, "The Magicks of Megas-Tu" and "The Infinite Vulcan" were a bit dodgy. But continuity was really only disturbed by introduction of Niven's universe, and the frequent "first X" claims (Bonaventure, April's mission).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
