Topic: New ship found in the F/Files this week. "Sphinx" workpod
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
true but the series bibles are filled with flawed ideas that are eventually dropped, and usually are either shown only in the pilot and then fade slowly as the show's writers gain strength with the characters.
By season 2, they bear little resemblance to the show thats being created.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mark: You're right, the official canon definition doesn't specify what the writers *really* love and use in their shows, and nobody from Paramount claims it does. It merely specifies what they cannot simply ignore, and we've seen the writers adhere to it.
I did say that these books hold an extraordinary status, but they're not canonical. Whereas the writers routinely say, "The manuals aren't canon, don't bother me with it," they tend to at least attempt a rationalization with other materials that are considered canonical. Otherwise, Braga could've simply said "TOS and TNG aren't canon; although they are an important inspiration, I don't need to bother with the details" Would've saved him a lot of time.
It's also pointless to try to define what the writers can use, because they can use Plato's Republic as far as anyone is concerned. The reason such definitions are in place is to protect Paramount property, the integrity of established Star Trek, not to prevent it from expanding. For our analytical purposes, the definition simply makes the canon sources automatically more reliable than any others (otherwise, how would we know that Todd Guenther's books aren't the real Star Trek -- from what I hear, they're more consistent with naval practices and reality in general, which, as is the case in the real world, is the only other standard that sources can be subjected to -- how closely do they hold up to laws of physics/established practices?).
It's also fortunate that TNGTM and DS9TM aren't by default more valid than other official books, for it allows us to sometimes hold certain other official books in higher regard than the TNGTM/DS9TM. For example, TOS has adhered more to "The Making of Star Trek" than TNG or these books. The movies have adhered more to the Star Fleet Technical Manual than these books or TNG, and are fairly consistent with Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise (ok, the former has some copyright problems, but the latter is still Copyright Paramount Pictures). And yet, I somehow miss these materials in our discussions, although they clearly rank higher than the TNGTM in an analysis of the TOS and movie eras.
Because some people falsely see the TNGTM/DS9TM/Encyclopedia as canon/semicanon, the TNGTM and other books are being nonsensically applied to all the eras. Does this make any sense? Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Star Fleet Technical Manual to easily explain Grissom's NCC-638 (science ship -> lower number, like the Columbia and the Revere?) After all, the writers of that time used these books as their guides.
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 16:11: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
