posted
I thought I'd follow my rule about starting new threads, and at the same time give a serious thread a shot, so canon discussion -- continue here.
Mark says that the TNGTM and the other books have been used more than TOS in the new shows. That's true. However, the official canon policy (live-action material is canon) 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.
Whereas the writers routinely say, "The manuals aren't canon, don't bother me with them," 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 for Enterprise, I don't need to bother with the details".
It's also pointless to try to define what the writers can or cannot 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 policy simply makes the canon sources more reliable than any others, except in the case of obvious impossibilities caused by bloopers (camera reflections, visible set pieces). Without such a policy, the only criterion for determining the precedence of sources would've been things like comparison with real world naval practices, laws of physics, and other sources, which is how scientists determine the precedence of real-world sources. Under this criterion, Franz Joseph's Technical Manual, or in some cases the TNGTM would've probably qualified as the real Star Trek!
However, because we have the above policy, the filmed shows/movies take precedence, and are then followed by official sources that most closely match the filmed shows and movies. For the TNG era, it's usually the TNGTM/DS9TM. For the TOS era, it's usually "The Making of Star Trek". And for the TMP era, it's usually the Star Fleet Technical Manual (although its status is somewhat questionable due to copyright problems) or "Mr Scott's Guide to the Enterprise".
It really is fortunate that TNGTM and DS9TM aren't by default more valid than other official books, for it allows us to sometimes hold these other official books in higher regard than the TNGTM/DS9TM. 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, and if we use them, the result is a simpler, better ordered, more realistic universe.
As far as the unofficial books go, the problem is that they are have to compete with every Internet poster because of their status. If an unofficial book says that the Reliant is Avenger-class, how is that more reliable than me saying it's Lexington-class? That's why including the specifics from such sources, unless they happen to withstand reasoned competition as opposed to a creative one, is usually a problem. Besides, they are illegal, infringe on copyright and can only be saved through the Fair Use section of the copyright law, which allows them to refer to official materials in an analytical, scholarly context -- the one most of the Internet discussions follow.
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 20:00: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I would suggest a corollary to that canon policy:
For any specific detail from the shows, one should take into account that we are still watching television shows. Thus, background details -- though faithfully created by the wonderful people in the Art Department -- should not be treated as 100% canon all the time.
For example: Dedication plaques from "Enterprise," "The Next Generation," and "Voyager" all list the names of Paramount production staff. Obviously, Starfleet has not been commanded by Chief of Staff Admiral Gene Roddenberry from 2151 all the way through 2375.
Another example: Ships in the extreme-background in scenes like the Wolf 359 graveyard. I love analyzing the screenshots like a lot of others here, but remember that ships like the Excelsior study models were simply put in so there would be more ships appearing on the screen. It's possible to come up with explanations for this ships, and I'm not suggesting that we don't try. However, I also don't think that we need to bend over backwards to ensure that every single ship ever shown has a full background and history of development.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Thanks. In the above canon policy I already mentioned bloopers and impossibilities. The more meaningful but still problematic background details you mention can be taken care of by a strict interpretation of the official canon policy -- by making that which can be *seen* onscreen, that which is contained in the actual footage as opposed to unrelated model photos or publicity photos, canon. After all, the shows and the movies are canon, and not a random publicity shot!
So:
1) If the background details are invisible even on a DVD capture, then their existence on film cannot be proven, making them rather a part of production materials that include series bibles and technical manuals. This takes care of the plaques most of the time.
2) If they are partially visible, then the part that is visible is canon, while the rest is not. This takes care of the Centaur and the Wolf 359 ships.
3) If they are fully visible yet completely inexplicable, then they are bloopers. The big BoPs almost certainly fall into this category -- either their appearance or size must be discounted, unless one is to postulate that ships really change sizes.
Note that model and publicity shots still are *extremely important* to any analysis of the actual canon, moreso than any other official sources, with the exception of their obviously nonsensical parts (i.e. the people list in dedication plaques as opposed to other parts of them such as registry numbers or stardates).
Boris
[ September 12, 2002, 19:58: Message edited by: Boris ]
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
I submit that we take a lesson from the church and apply the term "apocryhpha" to sources originating from the writers/producers of the shows that aren't canon. This would distinguish it from both canon and so-called "official" sources, which technically could include novels and the like since they are officially licensed. Apocrypha's chief claim to relevence in discussion is that it shows the creators' intent/beliefs on a subject. To cite a common argument, apocrypha can mean the difference between having to choose between equally canon Yamato/Prometheus registries and simply acknowledging that one of each was a mistake.
The Trek apocrypha would be all the usual production-staff books and magazine articles (TMs, Encyclopedia, etc.), but could also include Ron D. Moore's AOL chats and other non-"official" material that still demonstrates the creators' intent. In this way, it is superior to the old "official" category, which generally applied only to licensed and published material. Personally, and I know I am in a very small minority here, I would extend this apocrphya to include things like Fontana's Vulcan's Glory novel and Foster/Roddenberry's TMP novelization. Maybe even Mandel's upcoming Star Charts, since he works for the show nowadays...
posted
The terminology suggestion is right on the spot. I suggest we adopt it.
Now, as far as the Yamato/Prometheus example is concerned -- I propose that we be extremely careful here, as apocrypha would still override canon only when an impossibility can be proven in the latter. That is, the impossibility that a ship can have two registry numbers at the same time -- and only after the NX-74913 registry has been proven to exist onscreen -- or two registry numbers at two different time periods (Yamato).
In the case of proven bloopers, yes, apocrypha are an obvious choice for correction, but only because they're so tied into the canon. I would specifically mention the VFX people's *intended* ship size alterations as a correction to observed size changes, as opposed to ignoring size changes in favor of model appearance.
As far as the other materials you mention are concerned -- for simplicity, I would include them in the category of apocrypha, meaning that they obviously override a novel written by an outsider. It is pointless to distinguish between past and present TV shows, or past and present involvement. However, the actual relevance of an apocryphal source to the show would still be determined by the involvment of its authors with the particular show in question -- is "Vulcan's Glory" a more valid source on TNG than an arbitrary, though well researched and official TNG novel?
So, we have defined what apocrypha are, but their relevance to a particular show would still have to be independently assessed. While most of the time, they would be more relevant than any arbitrary official source, there may be a few exceptions.
posted
This may sound a bit unserious, or worse, unsympathetic, but I ask in all seriousness and curiosity: How much of this is necessary?
I mean, when it comes down to it, surely we all know that "real" Star Trek is what we see on the television and in the cinema, that some things are written or otherwise produced by Important People, but aren't seen, and that some things aren't seen and aren't produced by IPs.
Sure, there are some fuzzy areas there, but they will always remain, because Star Trek is a TV show. (Ok, Multimedia Empire.)
At the risk of sounding pretentious, I think the problem with this attempt to produce One True Standard upon which all can agree is that Star Trek does not exist outside of the people who watch it. Oh, sure, the stories exist. The sets exist. But the universe as a whole exists only inside our heads. (And, say, Gene Roddenberry's head, or Rick Berman's head, or Ira Behr's head.) But they can only communicate that through this imperfect medium, where we have to reconstruct it all on our end.
Now, I enjoy a good canon wrangle as much as anyone. I've even got my own silly little project which revolves around such questions. But it seems to me we may be grinding this question down beyond all recognition.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Canon is Tv, Movies Canon 2 is Models and such Simi-Canon 1 is Tech books and Images and such simi canon 2 maybe the Chats and Fact Files simi canon 3 is novels because of paramont connection to them. simi canon 4 FASA books (note that some designs have appered in episodes thats why i call this simicanon 4) Fan books UN-Canon
And to the Proxima i consider it to be the 70000 number not the 50000 because of the Commisioned Date. Only ship i have a proble with this launch date is the Phenox with is was to late for the ship number
-------------------- Christopher [email protected] SR20Egg
Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
This is stupid. Even analyzing onscreen canon, there are too many differnces. Sure the VFX guys intended one thing, the art department intended another and the writers intend another thing. The writers dont give a shit about tech, they just want the story to work. The art department love to make the details right, they often would forget the writers intention to maintain stylistic integrity, the VFX guys need to save money and make things look cool.
The viewer is the one who judges the final project. If Star Trek was a creative vision that was approved on all levels by a creative authority (like Lucas and SW) then it would be coherent. But its not, its a jumble of a couple producers, a large and usually surly and/or unconcerned writing staff, a really geeky art department and inattentive personnel in all corners. The producers could care less about things that are going onscreen, so they have little control of stylistic continuity except to sign off on things that 'needs to look cooler' or 'needs to look bigger'
Some of the staff cares about making sense, some just cares about playing the viewers perceptions. The final product doesnt take a life of its own until someone tries to make sense of it, since the creators couldnt be bothered to make it gel.
BTW, this thread seems to be referencing my one-size BoP explanation, and seems quite bullshit, and, in the same tired circular argument, quite uninteresting also. I know what the VFX people and the art department intended. People intended for there to be a Yamato 1305-E. People intended for the 15 launcher Akira. People intended for Spock's brainless body to be pushed around by remote control.
These premises only make sense when someone with common sense watches them, and tries to reconcile it with their idea of reality. Me, I try to wonder 'how could that make sense' and answer it and use that answer as the explanation for why that happened. sometimes it works.
For example: A TOS episode establishes that '2+2' has an answer. A TNG episode establishes that '2+2' is equal to a number greater than 1. A DS9 epsiode establishes that '2+2' is the square root of the number of ships in Battle Group 9 A Voyager episode has Janeway theorizing that 2+2 is less than 6.
Now, I could count up my fingers a little and say 'hm.. 2+2=.. 4!' but would that be canon? no. its would be an extrapolation of what could be the final answer in the Trek universe, but it would not be established canon. we only can theorize whether thats what they intended 2+2 to be. but it makes sense, so we can run with it. all thats canon is that it's more than 1 and less than 6.
now if the writers intended 2+2 to be 3 and then the art department made up signs that said '2+2=3.9' and then the VFX crew used 5 as their 2+2 answer, all in the same episode, who would we believe, if none of those assumptions made it explicitly onscreen? One was behind the scenes trivia, one was unseen, and one was subjective because it would take serious mathematical analysis to tell if that was the number they use for the ships VFX.
would we take the writer's 3, that art dept's 3.9 or the VFX's 5, even though none were canon?
Of course not, because 2+2 is 4! they are all fucking retards for getting it wrong and contradicting themselves, and I certainly dont think I'm a retard whos going to settle for taking anything except 4 as the answer for 2+2.
So basically, fuck everyone whos wrong when I'm right. good night.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:So basically, fuck everyone whos wrong when I'm right. good night.
So much for the little training cruise...
No, wait. That's not right.
So much for a serious and logical discussion...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe this would take it too far, but we could try to take a system approach. I could conceive some sort of flow chart to illustrate the way (my way) from the initial evidence to what we/I will accept as canon, independent of the specific question.
Something like this (spontaneous and incomplete) one:
1 Screen evidence (everything said and shown) | | 2 Reality check (y/n, filter out physically impossible facts), otherwise go to 4 | | 3 Common sense check (y/n, are we able to explain or disregard certain unrealistic evidence), otherwise go to 4 | | etc.
At some point, there would be an additional source from TMs or model photos and would have to be weighted appropriately.
Of course, this would only reflect our personal way to deal with canon, not the way it was meant to be from the part of the writers or the creators of props and VFX (if they bothered about it at all).
-------------------- Bernd Schneider
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Sol System: Every writer has her own vision of Star Trek, and needs to ignore some of the established canon in order to add a personal twist on it.
However, this is not a fan-fiction forum. We already have one -- Designs Artwork and Creativity. Here, we're analyzing things, and even something as loose as literary analysis requires evidence. You cannot argue that "This is my personal vision of Hamlet" without saying why, without justifying your view by referencing the Hamlet play. And the Hamlet play is clearly going to rank higher than "Gertrude and Claudius" by John Updike.
Now, I am not saying that certain sources are always better than others, because of already mentioned bloopers and impossibilities. I am only insisting that things be explained and supported by evidence, as opposed to "This is my vision of Star Trek." What's the point of doing something if you only do it halfway -- sometimes analyzing, sometimes creating? I would argue that this kind of approach belongs to the Creativity forum.
Akira62497: I feel that's getting too specific. We can always discuss the importance of specific sources for specific cases later.
Capped in Mic: That was a great summary of the whole idea of laws of physics and reality taking precedence over official sources. After all, those are humans out there, they think as we do, they obey the same laws of physics and mathematics, so how much sense does it make to ignore established laws of reality in favor of official sources? Yes, 2+2=4 even if it's never been said onscreen, because if some laws of mathematics and physics are canon, the rest cannot be non-canon, even if an official source says otherwise. At the very least, it is much more likely that the official source is plain wrong.
Bernd: The chart is a good suggestion. However, I disagree with this being our personal way to deal with canon. The analyses should be impersonal and strive for a measure of objectivity. Again, the fact that a writer prefers his stories to have 40% of DS9, 5% of Voyager and 55% of TOS doesn't mean that he is ignoring the official Paramount policy, and that we are being subjective for following it. The writer is still following this policy, and just because their rationalizations aren't always explicit onscreen (as with the Ferengi/Archer contact) doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer to have it rationalized appropriately.
That's what we should be doing, and you're right, the conclusions won't always reflect any one intention -- ideally, they ought to explain the show and official sources in a concise way that makes sense with respect to laws of physics and real world practices. Remember, it is the latter that distinguished the Star Fleet Technical Manual from other simple fan works.
Topic Closed
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic