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.
Show me some fascinatingly moved goalposts.
Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
quote: 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.
You say these things, yet resist angrily. That's very odd.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: But Kurtzman has said often enough that this is the same universe as classic Trek.
So you have those quotes, then?
quote: his supposed diktats over canon policy (which frankly looks to me as nothing more than a misrepresentation of what he actually said)
(shrug) Sorry you feel that way. He was very clear. I can try to explain it to you again differently, but I rather suspect at this point that even if I got him to call you the outcome would be the same.
quote: 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.
I never heard of that with Enterprise, that I recall, though TNG skepticism has been inflated beyond anything it resembled in '87 as an attack on naysayers.
That said, several times in this thread folks have tried to dispute my point by associating it with other people on the internet . . . I have the sense some of that is stuff like the "alternate license" crap or even the Youtube metal helmet goofball. That's a trash argument.
I would note that I'm not doing the reverse. Would you like to be associated with the doxxing psychopaths of #WeAreStarfleet Disco Twitter? Perhaps you'd like to be associated with the wacky Disco fan who threatened swordplay against Shatner? Perhaps you'd like to be associated with those who would literally start insulting online chums because the Enterprise and Spacedock aren't the same in Discovery, yet they would insist it's basically identical? Maybe you'd just like to accuse me of all sorts of -isms and flame me, to the point that people on the Star Trek Reddit feed talk about how they feel like they have to be very careful criticizing Discovery lest its crazy fans attack viciously?
Let's stick to the facts and the topic of the debate, and those actually party to it. (I'm also working hard to keep it from even delving in to the Disco-discontinuities, despite that coming up a lot, organically.)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
In a debate it's the person who has made the claim that is being disputed that has the burden of proof, not vice versa. That said when evidence that contradicts your assertion has been posted, you've dismissed it out of hand saying outright that the person "didn't get the memo". Frankly it feels like a waste of time posting more, as it genuinely feels like even if Kurtzman himself were to login & say the novels aren't canon or that the new series are in the old timeline you'd say he's wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Krenim: 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.
Couldn't agree more. I think I can safely speak for all of us when I say that new Trek isn't what any of us would have asked for. It is what it is, though. Yes it has serious problems...yes the discrepancies are annoying, especially as they're completely avoidable if the writers do their jobs properly...and yes, given the choice I'd rather they had made different decisions. But what I or anyone else wants doesn't change the fact that these new series are intended to be a direct sequel/prequel to what we saw in the first five (technically six) TV shows and 10 movies set in the same timeline/universe.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Zipacna: In a debate it's the person who has made the claim that is being disputed that has the burden of proof, not vice versa.
Agreed, but, once proof has been offered, it takes more than "oh everyone knows that's not how it is" to rebut.
How are those "classic timeline" quotes from "multiple occassions" coming along, by the way?
quote: That said when evidence that contradicts your assertion has been posted, you've dismissed it out of hand saying outright that the person "didn't get the memo".
I don't give credit for half-truths like that one, sorry. How many times have I mentioned rank matters in this thread, and did I not also say regarding Goldsman that even if you assert that he's contradicting Kurtzman, Kurtzman outranks him?
RHIP, which is why we don't ask janitors for canon policy statements.
I freely acknowledge that Goldsman disputes the canonicity of any books or comics within Prime canon, putting him at odds with Kurtzman and Lindelof who helped create it, Orci who canonized comics, along with IIRC Heather Kadin who was sitting by Kurtzman in 2019, and that Goldsman argues that the new shows are Prime.
quote: Frankly it feels like a waste of time posting more, as it genuinely feels like even if Kurtzman himself were to login & say the novels aren't canon or that the new series are in the old timeline you'd say he's wrong.
If that were so, I wouldn't keep asking for your quotes, now would I? Maybe if I were as closed-minded as you suggest, I would've declared your Goldsman quote a misrepresentation or misquotation rather than accepting it for what it said and dealing with it head-on, and I certainly wouldn't have volunteered the fact you were unaware of that there were more such quotes from him.
I am an honest researcher. Sorry, but I reach my conclusions based on evidence and reason and that is also what it takes to change my opinion. However, if faced with those, I am happy to do so.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ...and I certainly wouldn't have volunteered the fact you were unaware of that there were more such quotes from him.
Bit of a leap in logic to assume I'm unaware of such quotes. I just question your interpretation of them, as I've said in black & white. That isn't honest research, and is why I choose to discontinue this debate...it's obvious neither of us are going to change our minds.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
You're the one making the argument that novels and comics are now canon, so the burden of proof is on you to show me that this is actually happening.
quote:You say these things, yet resist angrily. That's very odd.
Anger? LOL.
Resistance? LOL.
Odd? Maybe.
Yet to see any proof of said accusation? Priceless.
You are clearly deluded, and I made the mistake of continuing with this silly discussion when I said I would not. So feel free to continue to make dumb snide remarks at my expense in an effort to side-step the issues you yourself brought up.
-------------------- "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 Guardian 2000: ...and I certainly wouldn't have volunteered the fact you were unaware of that there were more such quotes from him.
Bit of a leap in logic to assume I'm unaware of such quotes. I just question your interpretation of them, as I've said in black & white. That isn't honest research, and is why I choose to discontinue this debate...it's obvious neither of us are going to change our minds.
Wow.
I'd be more than willing to accept your claimed awareness of the Goldsman quotes I linked to and the 2020 Trekmovie one I brought up (that was pertinent for his unchanged tune) and stand corrected, but instead of merely pointing out your never-before-mentioned awareness you instead claim that I am dishonest for saying you weren't aware.
Let me try to put this in civil terms:
Unawareness was a logical assumption, since you were already trying to use Goldsman against Kurtzman and the 2020 quote was more direct, but, even if we stipulate that you knew, that still doesn't imply or suggest that *I* could have known you did, what with its absence from your keyboard.
Thus, that wildly unfounded and irrational accusation of dishonesty tells me all I need to know about this discussion and your role, and so I fully support you bowing out.
Take care, and enjoy your shows.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Why would internal production company stuff need to be portrayed onscreen? Why would novels or comics have to override show or film details for their stated canonicity to be confirmed? Why would I need a special press release on corporate letterhead (will Shari's signature in regular autopen suffice or does it need to be handwritten in blood?), but you don't?
You're the one making the argument that novels and comics are now canon, so the burden of proof is on you to show me that this is actually happening.
So, handwritten in blood, then. Can she write small? She's not a large individual . . . I don't want her to pass out halfway down the page.
I'm guessing that although you asked for office stuff onscreen, in the first question you are seeking incidents of book stuff hitting the screen. Would that include David Mack's Control that Beyer claimed as inspiration, perhaps a.k.a. "software agents" from a 2006 novel and Malcolm Reed's thoughts? Or Mack's chimerium cloaks? Or Picard as a "night shift science officer" from the Goodman autobiography? There are lists made by people who are interested in the books and Discovery. However, I don't actually need to provide that to you, because it isn't relevant.
Kurtzman said what he repeatedly said. It's even on video. Even Goldsman acknowledges they can mine from the novels now, even as he (and seemingly he alone) calls them non-canon.
When it comes to Kurtzman's words, which we can call Part I of my overall argument, it is well-proven. The burden is now on you to actually provide counterevidence, not moved goalposts. I mean, the fact no one hired a skywriting plane and scrawled it over your house doesn't make it untrue.
If you want to disprove Kurtzman's words and their clear meaning, find a contrary quote by him, or demonstrate a misunderstanding of his repeated view. Note that I didn't move any goalposts on you, there.
quote: You are clearly deluded,
That may be an exact quote from my previous detractors who swore the Star Wars EU was canon. They fought tooth and nail to ignore the words of George Lucas when he clearly wasn't following the Lucas Licensing canon policy twenty years ago. They'd reimagine what he said, strip the context, try to pull in lower-ranking folk to claim I was wrong, insult and harass, move goalposts, make up nonsense examples "proving {me} wrong", ad nauseum, ad absurdum . . . it was crazy.
Needless to say, folks telling me I'm delusional, dishonest, and blah-blah-blah . . . it's old hat, and never once did it disprove a single word I said. There may even be a few holdouts among them, even as the rest of the world figured out I was right. Why, I had to laugh a few years back when the guy they tried to direct against me back in the day just tossed out an explanation of the way things had been then that was virtually identical to mine of the time, right down to "separate" and "universe", which he'd protested before.
Back to "resist angrily", though ... I understood the origin of their resistance. They needed the EU to be true to maintain their fantasies. I don't get the origin of yours. You're all "this sucks, but I must have it as inarguable canon at all costs!"
That perplexes me. Doesn't it perplex you, introspectively?
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Addendum: In the Star Trek: Picard podcast made by Deadline (for the episode "Stardust City Rag"), Akiva Goldsman says that they consider The Animated Series canon, saying they view it as the fourth season of TOS. Obviously, the coverage of the more recent animated series makes corroboration a pain in the neck, but this hardly seems inconsistent with the other things we know from Kurtzman.
As a bit of history, TAS was never considered canon during the Roddenberry-Berman era. It was only after Enterprise's end and, if I'm not mistaken, Berman's departure that editor Tim Gaskill of Paramount Digital Entertainment, operators of StarTrek.com, started changing the site to say TAS was canon on his own, as if he ran the franchise.
(To be fair, he was sorta not wrong, being one of the only employees tasked with Trek work, but this is kinda on par with, say, a newsroom getting laid off so a copy boy decides he's now invested with the authority of editor-in-chief.)
While this is arguably not as big a change as the books and comics, it does still represent a clear distinction between the policies delineating the Original Universe and Prime Universe that I'd not specifically noted previously.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
