Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Two things that are not entirely clear when I think about ships to include in my shiplist (and more important, Mim's shiplist, since he asked for some non-canon 'stuffing'):
1.) The game 'DS9:The Fallen' introduced the starship Ulysses, an old Miranda, formerly commanded by Admiral Ross and crashed some 15 years ago on a planet. This game-appearance doesn't make anything canon, but the cover-art of the box may do: The art shows a crashed Miranda, and accidentially I found exactly this cover art while surfing the net. It was done by someone who works for Foundation. So since many accept the information the Spotter gives as somehow 'official', and this could easily be the actual filming model, and we also accept ships like the Trinculo which never appeared on-screen as canon stuff, what about this ship? http://www.west.net/~brandonm/relsmp.jpg
2.) Okuda and Sternbach are credited for writing the crew biographies for the 'game' 'Starship Creator'. The game gives some new information on characters [/i]and[i] some ships, too. Mostly these are former position listings or the ships are mentioned in the text, but we also accept Okudagrams and the Encyclopedia as official, and these thexts are somehow as official, in my opinion.
Basically, we have some sort of problem here; we accept everything that's written in Tech-Manuals and that's said on-screen and that appeared on-screen, but we forget that some of these games can be as official; they are checked by Paramount, don't violate continuity or something and sometimes even people we respect as 'lords of canon' helped developing them. So what's our status? Can we find some sort of consensus here? (I know this would be the first time, but I'm really interested in hearing some opinions on the two points mentioned above.)
[Oh, and for your information, I had some severe computer problems over the last 48 hours, had to kill my HD and completely reinstall everything, but I'm back and on-line again. What I want to say is: the Norway will arive soon, and some other stuff I'm currently working on. ]
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
We'd have another fun point since the Ulysses is a Nebula commanded by CPT Intebi.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
Alpha Centauri
Usually seen somewhere in the Southern skies
Member # 338
posted
Heh... I have the game "Star Trek: Borg - the Interactive Game" (starring John DeLancie!), and the credits contain the names of Mike Okuda, Ron Moore, etc. But to canonize games with input from our canon-gods goes a little far, I'd say.
-------------------- Signature.
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
That Ulysses pic - way out of scale - those 'plants' are half the size of the ship! It looks like a model-kit in a pond! Timmy didn't bring his toys in before it got dark!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:Originally posted by Shik: We'd have another fun point since the Ulysses is a Nebula commanded by CPT Intebi.
Well, this is it's predecessor. According to the game, it crashed in the 2350's.
And, while I agree that "canonizing" games might be a bit extreme, the Ulysses may be a special case. There are multiple circumstances surrounding it that make it very intetresting, which Captain Kyle does not make extremely clear. I will elaborate.
-In "The Fallen" (DS9 game) we get the Ulysses as a ship that was once Admiral Ross' command that crashed on planet SR 3 during the 50's, and sank in a sea. As Amasov said, this in itself makes no impact on canon at all. But it gets more interesting...
-The art on the game's cover was done by Brandon MacDougall at Foundation Imaging, using the same CGI model used in the show. This makes it interesting because we (or at least some of us) like to believe in the existence of ships like the Valkyrie and Trinculo because they were official labelings of the official studio models, even though it seems unlikely that they were ever in the show. But wait, there's more...
-In "Starship Creator," Okuda/Sternbach make a reference in Joe Carey's (of the Voyager) biography to him having served aboard a Ulysses that crashed on a waterworld. It would seem to be a tie-in to the ship from "The Fallen."
So, while neither reference may be extremely significant in and of itself, when you put them all together it makes for a situation that kind of makes you think. Do these factors combined make it a special case? (i.e., labeling of official CGI model + reference by Okuda/Sternbach text = canon? Semi-canon?)
It's a little bizzare, but I wouldn't just outright dismiss it...
-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 AndrewR: That Ulysses pic - way out of scale - those 'plants' are half the size of the ship! It looks like a model-kit in a pond! Timmy didn't bring his toys in before it got dark!
Ah, but you forget that they are alien plants, my friend...
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
How big are the trees in a jungle/(sub)tropical rain forest anyway????
-------------------- "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
According to Ron D. Moore, John Ordover, and the startrek.com website, the canon is:
The shows and the movies except for TAS. That's it.
We've seen this in practice. Although some have argued that certain movies or parts of TOS aren't canon, that was just Roddenberry's view (call it Roddenberry canon if you will). However, Roddenberry is no longer controlling the Star Trek universe, and Braga and others have never said that TOS or the other shows/movies aren't canon, or that TOS has been reimagined for Enterprise. They've tried (with moderate success) to rationalize the apparent inconsistencies between the various shows.
However, they haven't bothered rationalizing any of the books. That's because none of the books, including the Encyclopedia, the TMs, Starship Spotter, etc -- none of this is canon.
However, as Ryan McReynolds has pointed out so many times, the general misunderstanding is that the writers are prohibited from using these works, except for maybe the Encyclopedia and the manuals. As far as I could tell, this is not 100% true. Some books have fallen out of favor (Franz Joseph's manual), as has TAS, but a lot of others are included or even written by these same writers that decide on how the show should look. Does it make sense to reject Jeri Taylor's novels, or Legends of the Ferengi, Andrew Robinson's Garak novel or the Klingon CD-ROM which first featured the Klingon anthem? The writers have no problem including parts of these books onscreen, and we shouldn't either. However, the difference is that parts of these books can be rejected if they truly conflict with the canon.
The real problem is whether or not other books such as miscellaneous novels, or games, should be included. Well, going by what John Ordover says, the only reason these books aren't taken into account onscreen is that the writers don't have the time to follow this continuity. After all, this is not Star Wars, where Lucas has endless time to control official materials, or B5, where Straczynski doesn't have endless time and compensates by allowing only a few official (and even canon!) materials to go out. Since Star Trek is a huge franchise, the writers neither have time to control the books nor the desire to limit the franchise to a managable level.
Still, there are good reasons to include other official sources:
1) If Star Trek writers are merely limited by their inability to follow the continuity, why not help? Perhaps Pocket Books could compile an Encyclopedia that includes the novels likewise, which could serve as a reference for the show's writers. Furthermore, we know that the writers frequent online forums, so including these works in our discussions could make them aware of good points within these novels that could then end up in the show. The only trouble is, Mike Okuda couldn't tell me if there are any legal considerations that prevent the writers from using the novels. He suspects there are no general rules, though.
2) Mojo and Alex Rosenzweig have informed us about the reality of writing non-fiction books -- you gotta stay consistent with the DS9TM and other important books, yet we don't really bother with them. Let's say someone else gets to write a book in the future -- wouldn't it be better for that person to have a huge reference of well-discussed theories that rationalize mistakes in the books?
On the other hand, unlicensed sources are out (Alex told me they were merely allowed to use some equipment designations from Ships of Star Fleet, no actual names!), as is anything not published by Pocket Books. I've yet to figure out where the Star Fleet Technical Manual is standing at the moment, along with other licensed sources such as games, etc, but I suspect these should be more open to inclusion than unlicensed sources. But Pocket Books stuff -- definitely.
In the end, you get a more consistent Star Trek universe that the fans will like and purchase, as opposed to the current situation where a lot of the materials are not even considered by fans because they're not consistent with the show.
Still gotta talk to Ordover, but expect a reply soon. (Oh...I know who ELSE could help....)
Boris
[ May 01, 2002, 20:19: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It's funny but in ST: Armada 2, there's a Nebula Class starship that is in a Federation campagne that is taken over by the Borg called Ulysses.
-------------------- "It speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow, it's not all going to be over with a big splash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans." -Gene Roddenberry about Star Trek
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
1.) "Canon". Stuff onscreen, aside from TAS. This is the stuff the writers are required to accept as "true".
2.) The stuff that's not quite canon. Some people call it "semi-canon". It pretty much consists of Paramount's Trek "reference" books: the Encyclopedias, the tech manuals, &c. It isn't canon, because the writers aren't required to adhere to it. Therefore, it could get contradicted at any time. However, the writers do use these books as references, so they are likely to be adhered to. Therefore, it's pretty safe to accept them as though they were canon, up until the point when they are contradicted.
3.) Everything else. This covers everything from Paramount-produced novels and games, to the most gods-awful fan-fiction you can find on Usenet. The writer's are under no obligation to even think about this stuff, and they likely don't even know that the vast majority of it exists. Sometimes, a writer will like something in this category (i.e. TAS or Jeri Taylor's VOY novels) and incorporate it into the show. But, except for those rare occasions, this stuff has absolutely no bearing on the show whatsoever.
The games this thread is about fall into the third category.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So what's the reg on that Miranda? NCC-10767? Does it say what it is in the game?
-------------------- "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you, I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
TSN: Something is either canon or non-canon. If it's canon, then it can't be rejected and must be rationalized. The word "semi-canon" is a bit of a misnomer, because it assumes some things in there are canon from the start, which they aren't until a writer actually makes them canon by putting them on a show.
The distinction made between 2) and 3) is purely arbitrary. A more appropriate way to categorize these would be to include books written by people who work(ed) on the show in 2), and everything else in 3). However, both categories share the same non-canon status; hence, I'd argue that the only difference is that if the Encyclopedia says a registry of a ship is NCC-33233, while a novel says it's NCC-3421-E, the former should be preferred (though I'd still try to explain the latter somehow). After all, if a historical source is more likely to be true, it's preferred to another one. That doesn't mean the former is *necessarily* true (i.e. canon).
Also, the fact that the main producers don't control all the novels doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't in the spirit of the show. A writer can't write just about anything -- John Ordover ensures that these books are consistent with the show, and he's even had a writing credit on DS9. Besides, the "spirit" of Star Trek is loosely defined: a Braga show has nothing to do with a Behr show. That automatically boosts the significance of the "Ordover show".
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 07:33: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
Well, from the observer's point of view, canon is whatever you can choose to believe about Trek that hasnt been disproved. That means that until the show goes ahead and states 'There was never a Miranda-class USS Ulysses', it doesnt hurt anything for us to treat it like it was canon. The only non-canon points that can't be believed are ones that are directly contradicted by filmed Trek from TOS, TNG, DS9, VGR and the movies (ENT too, supposedly).
So basically, we may never have a chance to perceive a cononical view of SF in the 2350s, so it doesnt hurt to regard a backstory from a game as fact, simply because theres little or no chance of it being contradicted. Ditto with those crew histories... we're never going to see Carey again, so why bother saying that history isn't correct?
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
CaptainMike: I just want to keep the terminology straight: canon is the shows and the movies except for TAS.
What you're rather referring to is what is "real" in the Star Trek universe, and I agree that until something is disproved as being "real" by the canon, it's real if it's official. However, it's really difficult to disprove anything, and explanations can always be found that include both canon and official material, thus forming a nice, self-consistent universe.
Also, canon is not what you choose to believe -- canon is the shows and the movies. If everybody believed different parts of the canon, then we'd have a chaos here (I'm not saying we don't sometimes). If one wants to go as far as saying that something can't possibly be correct on the show, then one ought to have a better reason than "I just don't feel it's right".
Boris
[ May 02, 2002, 07:44: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Amasov Prime
lensfare-induced epileptic shock
Member # 742
posted
Thanks for clearing it up, Mim, I was a bit... confusing last night. OK, I don't say I'm not cunfusing all the time, but last night cretain circumstances made me sound a bit weird.
The thing about canon and non-canon can be debated to death without any result. What I wanted to point out is the fact that programs like the Starship Creator give the information as if they were canon. There'S nothing that could violate real canon stuff, just small additions to give some characters a background. Take some ships from the encyclopedia as an example: Even if it might be just a 'suggestion' that the starship Yellowstone from DS9 was a Sequoia-class ship with the registry NCC-xxxxx, and I doubt anyone bothers using this stuff for future episodes, Okuda wrote it as if it was a canon fact. Several times, he doesn't make a difference what's official and what's just his imagination. Basically, he could have written that the ship was commanded by Captain so-and-so, participated in the battle to retake DS9 and was assigned to scan this-or-that nebula thereafter. Same type of info - non-canon, but we as a community wouldn't bother treating it like canon information. And I think it's a similar case here; they just give some more background information (while they are coincidentially the same guys who appeared in the above example, namely Okuda and Sternbach), and as soon as something contradicts stuff that has been made canon, it can be changed. I'd say that's the point. Why don't we go as far as to accept it, at last until it's not longer acceptable.
And this Ulysses crashed in '53, to be precise, which leaves enough room for another ship to be built and put into service. And I can assure you, the levels featuring the ship and your mission to get the orb back (which is another tie-in to a DS9 novel series) are in my opinion the best and not at all out of scale. If I find my savegames, I'll make some screenshots.
(The ship from A2 was the USS Caddebostan, BTW. )
-------------------- "This is great. Usually it's just cardboard walls in a garage."
Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
