quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: I'm currently listening to the audiobook versions of the new Discovery novels, and some of those aren't even consistent {…} so the arguement can't even be made that the canon includes the new novels.
That's not how canon policy works. Just because the creators suck at continuity doesn't necessarily mean the declared canon policy is invalid.
quote: For instance, Arthur C. Clarke discussed the concept of canon in the 2001 universe in the valediction of the fourth novel 3001: The Final Odyssey. He says:
Obviously there is no way in which a series of four science fiction novels, written over a period of more than thirty years of the most breathtaking developments in technology (especially in space exploration) and politics could be mutually consistent. As I wrote in the introduction to 2061, "Just as 2010: Odyssey Two was not a direct sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey, so this book is not a linear sequel to 2010. They must all be considered as variations on the same theme, involving many of the same characters and situations, but not necessarily happening in the same universe." If you want a good analogy from another medium, listen to what Rachmaninoff and Andrew Lloyd Webber did to the same handful of notes by Paganini.
So this Final Odyssey has discarded many of the elements of its precursors, but developed others -- and I hope more important ones -- in much greater detail. And if any readers of the earlier books feel disoriented by such transmutations, I hope I can dissuade them from sending me angry letters of denunciation by adapting one of the more endearing remarks of a certain U.S. President: "It's fiction, stupid!" Here, then, we have an instance of a series of books whose internal continuity is largely disavowed, primarily on the basis of some 30 years of production (during which time, most notably in the political sphere, the Soviet Union was dismantled, affecting much of the plot of 2010). That said, it is possible for a fan to do the mental continuity fixes necessary to maintain a single cohesive 2001 universe. In broad strokes, then, it is possible to maintain that the 2001 universe is just one universe, and not four as Clarke suggests. However, because Clarke has suggested four separate universes, any analysis of the 2001 canon would have to take that into account.
In other words, Clarke chose to abandon rigid internal continuity in favor of a mix of continuity and currency, and was kind enough to do so openly, declaring a quartet of loosely connected universes.
However, had he instead claimed it was all one universe, perhaps with "reimagines" between books, he'd be leaving the continuity problems for those with enough care to try to work them out. That's fun for a universe with decent continuity . . . a waste of time for one without.
Either way, continuity failures don't rewrite declared policy, at least when there is a well-communicated policy to point to.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Either way, continuity failures don't rewrite declared policy, at least when there is a well-communicated policy to point to.
It dawns on me that Z's argument is basically the flipside of an old argument I've had many times before, where folks try to argue that inclusion of some data point from the non-canon actually canonizes the whole work or class of works from which the data point came.
If some particular *inclusion* doesn't rewrite policy, then neither does some particular *exclusion*.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: That's not how canon policy works. Just because the creators suck at continuity doesn't necessarily mean the declared canon policy is invalid.
The problem is that your view of what TPTB are viewing as canon is wrong, and completely skewed. This is what Akiva Goldman had to say about how he and Kurtzman view canon from a 2017 interview:
"We are considering the novels not to be canon, but we are aware of them. We are going to cross paths with components that Trek fans are familiar with. We are aware of the books if it’s useful, and if it doesn’t interfere with canon, we may pick from it. One interesting side note is we are publishing a series of books that actually are directly linked to this series."
This is completely at odds with your assertion that canon is now an all-encompasing beast that includes the novels, comics, and god-knows what else. Like it or not, canon consists of the eight (nine if you count Short Treks) live action TV shows, the three animated TV shows, and the thirteen movies. Nothing more, nothing less.
quote: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?
I hope you see the irony in you saying this, given Kurtzman has said so many times that New Trek is in the classic timeline. Ironically as well, Roddenberry tried to tell us that Star Trek V was apocryphal...nobody listened, so we wouldn't necessarily accept dictates that change established policy about what is and isn't canon.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: The problem is that your view of what TPTB are viewing as canon is wrong, and completely skewed. This is what Akiva Goldman had to say about how he and Kurtzman view canon from a 2017 interview:
Kudos for upping your game. I knew of that quote in 2018. It doesn't prove what you want, I'm afraid, any more than Goldsman confirming Spock would not appear in his statements to media early on made it so.
Goldsman is on board with "Prime". Prior to the part you quoted, he said "This is the Prime universe {…} not the JJ-verse or the Kurtzman-verse." Indeed, while some thought Picard was referencing the Romulus stuff but that it maybe happened a tad differently in some CBS version, Goldsman is clear he views the 2009 JJ version of the 24th Century as Prime canon.
Regarding the books and such, I have no idea how he had missed the memo at that point in 2017, before the show even premiered. However, even if you view it as contradictory, which you clearly do, Kurtzman outranks Goldsman and has repeatedly said the same thing about considering books and such canon over and over, quite clearly, across the years, and even on video, bracketing Goldsman's claim.
We even have Kurtzman talking about the 2018 quote in 2019, as if to make sure folks got it:
"I did actually note at one point when I was asked about the graphic novels and comics that after 50-plus years it’s literally impossible to stay entirely consistent with canon {…}"
quote: I hope you see the irony in you saying this, given Kurtzman has said so many times that New Trek is in the classic timeline.
There's no irony. I'm the only one listening to him. You're trying so hard to reject what he's saying you just tried to overrule him using Goldsman.
quote: Ironically as well, Roddenberry tried to tell us that Star Trek V was apocryphal...nobody listened, so we wouldn't necessarily accept dictates that change established policy about what is and isn't canon.
Roddenberry privately considered a lot of pieces of a lot of episodes and films apocryphal, though as far as I know he never "tried to tell us" publicly. What we know comes from Arnold et al. He had the proverbial bully pulpit available, so had he wanted them excised in toto it would've been trivially easy to say so. Thus, that counterargument doesn't really fly.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: There's no irony. I'm the only one listening to him. You're trying so hard to reject what he's saying you just tried to overrule him using Goldsman.
Mate, you're the one insisting that new Trek isn't in the classic timeline in direct contradiction of what Kurtzman has said on multiple occassions. No offence, but that's a strangely unique way of listening to him.
It's beggars belief that you've got there in black & white from one of the executive producers that the novels are non-canon, and your answer...well, they're wrong. Isn't is just as likely that you've just put two and two together and made five, like so many others here have pointed out?
Robert Orci also had the following to say about the novels when interviewed about them contemporary to that you're quoting from Kurtzman:
"TrekMovie.com: Of course the books are not officially part of Star Trek canon, but as fans of the books are you guys going to grab any elements and give them little mentions in the film…essentially canonizing them?
Roberto Orci: We are actually still pouring through and we are going to do stuff like that for sure. Because it would be an homage to my and Damon [Lindelof]’s view of Star Trek."
And to extended your quote from Kurtzman to give more context to what he's saying:
"I did actually note at one point when I was asked about the graphic novels and comics that after 50-plus years it’s literally impossible to stay entirely consistent with canon because there have been very dry years in Star Trek and very full years and so many different writers have attempted to fill in the gaps in the dry years of what happened to beloved characters in the absence of a show driving those answers, they end up inventing things and we end up being faced with whether to call that canon. But it’s always a conversation."
Notice the last part of the quote...where Kurtzman directly says that they debate whether the novels are canon because of inconsistencies. Doesn't sound much like they're all canon if it's "always a conversation"...
My reading of everything is that they're trying not to over-rule the novels where possible, largely because they obviously still want to make money out of them. It is, after all, a business. That doesn't mean they're canon any more than they used to be. It just means that they're doing what they always did...picking & choosing what parts of the extended universe to acknowledge (such as when Uhura got a first name, etc).
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: Mate, you're the one insisting that new Trek isn't in the classic timeline in direct contradiction of what Kurtzman has said on multiple occassions. No offence, but that's a strangely unique way of listening to him.
I don't see a contradiction with Kurtzman. Unlike you, I acknowledge how he defines the Prime canon they are expanding in a specific way, inclusive of a lot of other material. He's been very consistent on that.
What I am contradicting is folks' head-canon and what people read in to Kurtzman's words. If you have "multiple occassions" of him saying "classic timeline", preferably distinct from Prime, then feel free to post them, but I doubt they help you, given his clear context.
In other words, I don't dispute that ViacomCBS has a canon policy in which they include the Original Universe, along with lots of other stuff, in a "Prime" canon universe. I don't dispute that the current creatives are expanding that Prime canon universe.
I simply dispute that this universe is the same as what existed as the canon universe in 2005. It's a simple distinction to which I have yet to see any adequate response.
quote: Robert Orci also had the following to say about the novels when interviewed about them contemporary to that you're quoting from Kurtzman:
"TrekMovie.com: Of course the books are not officially part of Star Trek canon, but as fans of the books are you guys going to grab any elements and give them little mentions in the film…essentially canonizing them?
Roberto Orci: We are actually still pouring through and we are going to do stuff like that for sure. Because it would be an homage to my and Damon [Lindelof]’s view of Star Trek."
And what view of Star Trek might that be? Well, we know that even in 2006 Orci considered the novels part of the mythology while acknowledging that some don't. As for Lindelof, while he suggested Orci's explorations of the novels took him "outside canon" in 2008, by 2013 he was noting:
"The production designers are, of course, inspired by, and in some cases directly cribbing from, established Trek canon. This covers everything, the original series, the novels, the animated series, Voyager and Deep Space Nine, the whole bit is up for grabs."
While we should probably consider the lack of mention of TNG and Enterprise as an oversight, it hardly makes sense to dismiss the novel reference by this "Supreme Court" member.
It seems to me that Orci was definitely the guy spreading the gospel of the novels, including to his partner Kurtzman, and apparently successfully with Lindelof. Goldsman, being a bit of a latecomer, just never got the memo.
quote: Notice the last part of the quote...where Kurtzman directly says that they debate whether the novels are canon because of inconsistencies. Doesn't sound much like they're all canon if it's "always a conversation"...
He's pretty obviously referring to inconsistencies, which was the clear context. As we went over already, the presence of content inconsistency does not invalidate canon policy, and nowhere in Kurtzman's words is there any indication of a different policy as a result of said inconsistencies. It just means they're deciding which inconsistent version is canon.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I’m done with this asinine discussion. I’ve seen absolutely nothing that backs up anything you’re saying. But feel free to believe whatever you want if it lets you sleep better at night.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I’m done with this asinine discussion. I’ve seen absolutely nothing that backs up anything you’re saying. But feel free to believe whatever you want if it lets you sleep better at night.
Well, gee, that's projectionist.
I've demonstrated that the JJ-verse folks were into the novels-as-canon idea, and we have direct references that Kurtzman brought that idea over to CBS and maintained it. Now that it's ViacomCBS, it's safe to assume Kurtzman will be a (likely the) very big voice of Star Trek, going forward.
In other words, the old policy is dead. The new policy has reigned since 2009ish on both sides of the former-Viacom aisle and will continue to do so in the merged ViacomCBS empire. New shows (and other materials they deem canon, like certain tie-in comics and such they've already done that to) that seek to expand a universe that they believe includes TOS, TNG, et al. will do so as part of the Prime universe as delineated by the Prime canon policy, into which you may see novel info continue to be pulled, but it isn't like you have to go read them.
It's safe to say, at this point, that no one is ever going to hit a big reset button and make stuff that doesn't acknowledge the Prime universe.
So I guess the question is, what's your problem with it? You, apparently a fan of the new stuff, get a cardboard-free "reimagine" of TOS, TNG, et al., with the formal imprimatur of canonicity of the owners backing it. They'll officially try to maintain continuity but they agree with you that it's basically impossible now so they're just going to tell cool stories, as they see them, with what continuity they can include.
Isn't that what you want? And, if so, why does it make you so angry to get it?
posted
The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
We need a goddamned like button around here.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
I've demonstrated that the JJ-verse folks were into the novels-as-canon idea, and we have direct references that Kurtzman brought that idea over to CBS and maintained it. Now that it's ViacomCBS, it's safe to assume Kurtzman will be a (likely the) very big voice of Star Trek, going forward.
Give me one example on screen that proves that any of that has actually happened. Show me where a novel or a comic has taken precedence over on-screen material. Show me a CBS press release which states that they've now declared novels to be canon.
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
Exactly. CBS doesn't care about how the show looks. They don't give a crap that the Enterprise, the Klingons, their ships, the uniforms, the technology, etc. looks completely different. They don't care that their new shows aren't consistent with the old shows. They own Star Trek, so they can say that it's all the same when it clearly isn't. But saying it takes place in the same universe can't be argued, because it's their fictional universe to make that claim. If I personally don't like the changes (which I don't), that's my problem and mine alone.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: In other words, I don't dispute that ViacomCBS has a canon policy in which they include the Original Universe, along with lots of other stuff, in a "Prime" canon universe. I don't dispute that the current creatives are expanding that Prime canon universe.
I simply dispute that this universe is the same as what existed as the canon universe in 2005. It's a simple distinction to which I have yet to see any adequate response.
But Kurtzman has said often enough that this is the same universe as classic Trek. You can dispute that as much as you like...but by your own arguement Kurtzman is some great god on high, and his diktats must be obeyed. It's hypocrisy to tell the rest of us that we're ignoring his supposed diktats over canon policy (which frankly looks to me as nothing more than a misrepresentation of what he actually said), while at the same time ignoring his statements that this is the same universe. Like it or not, TPTB are viewing this as the same timeline as we've always seen. We may not like it and there's certainly faults to be found, but that's nothing new. Sorry, I'm just tired of some of those who dislike new Trek coming out with the "waaaaa it's not the same universe" arguement. Those who disliked it said exactly the same thing about Enterprise 20 years ago. It was nonsense then, and it's just as much nonsense now.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before. They then apparently put little to no effort into making the current shows consistent with the old shows. How an individual viewer chooses to reconcile that in their own mind—separate universes, cognitive dissonance, etc.—is entirely between them and whatever god/gods/wormhole aliens they may or may not believe in. Not really much point in arguing about it.
"So what are you in hell for?"
"Mass murder. You?"
"I thought all the Star Trek shows were in the same continuity."
"You MONSTER!"
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: But Kurtzman has said often enough that this is the same universe as classic Trek. You can dispute that as much as you like...but by your own arguement Kurtzman is some great god on high, and his diktats must be obeyed. It's hypocrisy to tell the rest of us that we're ignoring his supposed diktats over canon policy (which frankly looks to me as nothing more than a misrepresentation of what he actually said), while at the same time ignoring his statements that this is the same universe. Like it or not, TPTB are viewing this as the same timeline as we've always seen. We may not like it and there's certainly faults to be found, but that's nothing new. Sorry, I'm just tired of some of those who dislike new Trek coming out with the "waaaaa it's not the same universe" arguement. Those who disliked it said exactly the same thing about Enterprise 20 years ago. It was nonsense then, and it's just as much nonsense now.
Agreed.
I am in NO WAY stating that 3rd Gen Trek is the greatest thing since sliced bread. (Mmm... Slice bread...) It has its faults. Boy, does it have its faults. But I don't see where we suddenly started insisting that bad Trek needs to be in a separate timeline.
I ESPECIALLY don't get it when people insist on that for things that 1st and 2nd Gen Treks ALSO did.
Disco wasn't the first Trek to shoehorn a previously unknown sibling into Spock's past. Star Trek V did it first. Never seen anyone claim that movie is in a separate timeline because of that. (EDIT: Yes, I know Roddenberry himself thought it apocrypha. But since he had no more authority to declare that than Kurtzman, it IS canon.)
Disco wasn't the first time the Klingons got a makeup change. The Motion Picture did it first. Were folks going around claiming the movie was in a different timeline? Nope. And while we have the benefit of hindsight NOW, let's not forget the franchise literally took DECADES to explain that.
Take off your rose-colored glasses, folks.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: The people in charge of the Star Trek shows currently being produced claim that those shows take place in the same universe as the shows that came before.
Yes indeed . . . they claim all as part of Prime, specifically. Even the effort to use Goldsman requires that acknowledgement.
quote: Not really much point in arguing about it.
I consider my point unobtrusive, but it is apparently deeply offensive to a few here.
As I was pointing out upthread, though, what's the problem?
Suppose CBS came out at the beginning and said "this is a reimagining of Trek in a new universe based on and inclusive of the old one whose story, along with other stories, it continues" (a decent summary of the many quotes some don't like), instead of these things being said bit by bit over time. Can anyone explain to me the downside?
It seems to me that there isn't one. Indeed, as far as I am concerned, had they simply declared a fresh universe at the beginning they’d have saved themselves and the fractured fanbase a lot of headaches.
But again, what's the problem with the way it is that some of us have known via various pathways since 2018? Everyone can enjoy what they like and no one steps on anyone's toes about minutiae. It isn't like they're paying for the DS9 remaster either way, so what's the big deal?
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
