quote:I can't stand the work of Doug Drexler or John Eaves, because they don't have anyone over them to channel their work through a general "what has gone before" overview of what should or should not be in or on a starship.
I don't like Eaves's work either, but not because of that. I just don't like that he seems to have no variety in his designs. No matter what alien race it comes from or what time period it comes from, his designs all look the same. For example, he can't get himself unstuck from the "Dominionesque nacelle" treatment most of his designs suffer from, whether they be 22nd century or 24th.
-------------------- "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 Peregrinus: FASA is also the source of the refit design still being Constitution-class, which Mike also parroted.
All my FASA books list the Constitution refit as an Enterprise Class.
I have an old book published just after Trek III (the front cover is the famous shot of Kirk and co. on the hilltop watching the burning Enterprise descend to Genesis.) This book has an interview with Gene Roddenberry where he calls the ship from Star Trek III a Constitution Class ship. Before that I was on the FASA bandwagon, not knowing otherwise. Okuda and even the diagram from Trek VI later echoes GR Constitution class name calling.
posted
I hate the term "canon" and hope to never hear it or a discussion of it again. This thread shows yet again that certain people can't discuss this topic, even in response to a simple question, without making it personal or taking it personally.
I don't see why Paramount or we have to categorize material into "canon" and "noncanon" anyway. Just call stuff what it is -- onscreen evidence/references, books by production staff, behind the scenes information, licensed gaming products, novels, fan-produced works, etc. -- without using those damned categories. Any perceived advantages of the term "canon" are far outweighed by the trouble it causes.
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Well, for me, it's the very fact that there's an argument at all that confuses. It's like talking to someone who insists that the sky is actually green, and not blue.
The people who make Trek have every right to say what has and hasn't happened in their universe. The people who make it now have more of a right than the people who used to make it. All of them have agreed (for well over a decade now) that everything that we've seen on screen has happened. Things we have read about haven't. The only reason the chronology and tech manuals get this "semi-canon" label is because they are written by the actual tech advisors on the show, who are obviously going to go with their opinions of the various things going on in the Trek universe.
Now, this isn't making any sort of argument about what's better, what's worse, what can be discussed, and so forth. But saying stuff like this:
quote:There is Roddenberry canon, and Non-Roddenberry canon. And there is fan material that exponds on each. It all has its place if it is any good. That's the standard that we should debate. Whether it is on screen or made on some guy's computer is it any good?
...is just pointless. Arguing different definitions of canon is pointless. Arguing anything apart from "if it happened on TV, it was real" is pointless. Because, basically, you're wrong, by definition.
(and don't be smart and start saying stuff like "Oh, are you saying that the Enterprise-A had 78 decks labelled bottom to top then?", because then you're just being childish and stupid.)
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I agree with PsyLiam. I'm not sure why the whole "canon" issue is that hard.
Since Star Trek is a TV/Movie franchise, the actual episodes and movies get the highest canon status if you will.
Next, you have your reference materials, and of those, we're counting stuff written by the folks who actually work on the show or at the very least, who's work will most likely be incorporated if ever into the shows and movies. It's the old "we'll just assume this until proven otherwise by the actual episodes and movies."
And then you have everything else: your novels, comic books, games, AND I would say stuff that was in the "assumed until proven otherwise" category such as this Ships of the Fleet and the rest of the like. Since the actual shows or movies don't use these sources anymore, why make such a big fuss trying to get it "canon?" You can still enjoy the works as alternative ideas, some of which may seem better to you than what actually did happen, but what's done is done.
Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Ace: I agree with PsyLiam. I'm not sure why the whole "canon" issue is that hard.
Mainly it's the desire to nullify the bad on-screen moments (Spock's Brain, ST V, Threshold, etc.)and adopt the good off-screen ones (the stuff that fuills holes and contributes to the overall universe of Trek in a plausable way).
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:"Hey, aridas -- maybe you can answer this... On page 1019 of the above mentioned magazine, it says that no ships of the Federation class were built after Star Union (NCC-2112). Um... What about the Entente (NCC-2120), heard to be sending out a signal to the Epsilon IX station in TMP?"
We tried to limit the size of those FJ fleets. We thought the huge numbers of ships he had coming off the assembly lines diminished the "special-ness" of the Constitution class. Furthermore, even though FJ had met with Jefferies and Roddenberry while working on one of Roddenberry's pilots, and was thus able to get first hand info on how some of this stuff was imagined by the Trek staff, we still thought he got this detail wrong. It went against the very idea expressed in "Tomorrow is Yesterday" -- "only twelve like her". The Federation class was more than "like her". It was the capital ship to the Constitution's heavy cruiser. That just didn't sit too well with our view of the Trek universe.
That being said, we did account for the Entente, but it was in a later publication called the "Federation Starship Recognition Chart". There, NCC-2020 is noted as being part of the Balson class -- a group of command ships based on the Federation but with only two nacelles. That way we acknowledged the TMP reference without doing so completely (the reference in the movie was to "dreadnought Entente", wasn't it?). The story for the Balsons was that they were refits of un-needed Federation class dreadnoughts. If we had ever gone into more detail in another publication this would have been explained as being due to fleet downsizing in the TMP era, and the perception that the Federation class was not the best choice for the job they were assigned. Thus, the refits, and the building of other dreadnought designs (like the Ascension class).
On the broader subject of "canon" that you expound upon to great effect, I realize I have been remiss in acknowledging a use for canon among fans, and further admitting to using it this way myself in the past. First, some background.
When I distinguish between Roddenberry trek and Non-Roddenberry trek, there is some basis to the distinction beyond who held the producer's job. Beyond the fact that Roddenberry was also the creator, and thus had a different level of emotional investment in Star Trek, (largely because he knew full-well he would always be identified with it), there is the matter of style. Subjective to be sure, but telling. Particularly as concerns this canon business.
The original trek, TAS and TMP were written as plot-driven pieces. The characters were there to advance the plot, the plot was not there to develop the characters. We learned a fraction of what we would eventually discover about characters from later series. That created tension with the stars, particularly as Trek stirred back to life as a movie, then a series, then a movie again. It also created a lot of bruised feelings with many of the most notable SF writers of the 60s, who resented having their scripts rewritten. Roddenberry rewrote everybody. He has gotten the reputation as an egomaniac for doing so. But what is lost in all this is the question of why, beyond the ego that is.
He was very clear that nothing should slow down the progression of the story. He gave explicit rules about avoiding technical details, saying they were as out of place as a cowboy explaining how his horse worked or a cop explaining his .38 before he fired it. After years of collecting unproduced scripts and proposals from the likes of Frank Herbert, George Clayton Johnson, Fredrick Pohl, AE van Vogt, Philip Farmer and David Gerrold, I have found a remarkable tendency in some of them towards including "hard SF" elements. Just the kind of thing Roddenberry wanted avoided. No wonder he was rewriting these guys.
When I had the chance to talk to him in 1981, I asked him about this very thing, and he acknowledged the desire to keep plot first and foremost. But then he also noted his desire to create "timeless fiction". He didn't want the technology catching up too soon with what was presented.
The point of this is to distinguish this kind of Star Trek from non-Roddenberry Trek where, not having him lording over the writers and doing his constant rewrites, the emphasis changed. First, under Bennett, to character-driven stories. And then, under Berman, to stories that incorporated copious amounts of techno-speak in the place of dialog that advanced the story. I have heard on more than one occasion people speculate on why (in the case of Berman Trek) this is so. And one reason that is sometimes cited is the vocal desire expressed by Paramount to take back control of the very profitable ancillary products market from fandom.
You see, Roddenberry had convinced Paramount to go lightly on the fans during the lean years of the early 70s. It was his belief that this would eventually help revive Star Trek. And I think he was right. He had created both a media phenomenon and a fan phenomenon. By avoiding telling us anything about the rest of StarFleet or what politics were like back on Earth or just how the ship really worked, he created both fast-paced, plot-driven fiction AND a realm of mysteries that inquisitive minds wanted to explore. I also pointed this out to him and he said, with some lack of humility, that he'd planned it that way. Who knows just how true that was.
When things changed around the time Roddenberry ceased being involved in the day-to-day production of TNG, there was also a revolution in marketing afoot. Sure, he wrote the introduction to the TNG technical manual, and one may assume that he was just as much a part of bringing the defining of all the little details under the "official" roof. After all, by that time he was so deeply into drugs that he no longer knew what in the hell he was doing. But whether it was with or without his knowing approval, it happened, and what had been consciously left vague was now made explicitly clear. That, and what had been left to the fans to make up was now fed to them via officially licensed outlets.
Canon was not insignificant in judging materials in the pre-TNG days. But it was as part of a continuum that gave what was on air primacy, with production materials coming next, then official, licensed products including novels, etc on down the line and including near the end, fan-produced material. This was the prioritization that many fandom publishers worked with. But it wasn't binding in such a way that if a stinker episode came out it couldn't be discounted. And if a particularly good design by Matt Jefferies hadn't been used, or something of worth had been mentioned in a novel, or God forbid, if a fan came up with something neat, then it could likewise be included in that publisher's own Trek universe.
Where the idea came from that the limitations the creators of Trek impose upon themselves should somehow be considered restrictive to anyone else is beyond me. Maybe it is the introduction to the TNG tech manual, with its hyping of its "official" status and its dismissal of other publications as being "disinformation". Fans ate that shit up.
Shit right from the marketing people. Right from the people that wanted to pick up all the Trek side markets they could. Right from the technospeak-heavy new Trek, with all its details filled in.
For anyone that enjoys that kind of Trek, it should be fine to put the official stuff at the top of the heap of what is to be taken seriously. But that heap need not be followed religiously. If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should. Once that step is taken, include what you want in your view of what Trek should be. If you are discussing it with people online, cite your sources and direct people to images of what you're talking about so everyone can be on the same page. And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
In the world of Sherlock Holmes fiction there is Doyle canon and everything else. The stuff created by the guy that came up with the characters, and the stuff by everyone else. No matter how good you are, if you write a Holmes story that wins even the Nobel prize for literature, it isn't canon. That's because the special relationship of Doyle to his creations is regarded as worth distinguishing. If fans want to adopt a canon standard , that wouldn't be a bad one. Roddenberry canon, and everything else. Otherwise, leave canon to the people that know how to use it. Or in the case of Berman, who don't.
posted
I think that dividing things into a "Rodenberry canon" and "everything else" does a great diservice to people like DC Fontana, or Geen Coon. It's just not comparable to Doyle in that way. No matter how much he rewrote stuff, Trek was, and is, produced by a team, not an individual.
quote:Originally posted by aridas: Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide.
This is one of those rare moments when I'm tempted to use an emoticon. Probably this one: O_O
Don't worry though. I'd never do that.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Tell me, aridas, have you read Harlan Ellison's book containing the original drafts of "The City on the Edge of Forever" and the events surrounding its production? I won't go into all that in this threat, but suffice to say you've got some nice rose-colored glasses there.
Bringing in Roddenberry's so-called "devotion to the plot" and all that other nonsense is a complete non sequitur. You're confusing the issue, which I believe was this: "What is canon, and is it good or bad?". Rambling on about plot-driven storylines and avoiding "hard sci-fi" is bullshit.
I'd lay good odds that even Roddenberry would have lots of difficulty in keeping track of the various facts, data, and incarnations of Star Trek if he were alive today.
quote:Canon was not insignificant in judging materials in the pre-TNG days. But it was as part of a continuum that gave what was on air primacy, with production materials coming next, then official, licensed products including novels, etc on down the line and including near the end, fan-produced material.
Well gee, isn't that what we've been saying all along? The only difference would be how seriously you take the pure fan-created stuff. And that is something that can only be considered on an individual level and should never be worked into a major creation except in unusual circumstances. Especially when you're considering two fan-created works.
Would you have any idea how confused readers would get if, for example, Lt. Quinlan (of the Enterprise-G in the Star Trek: Renaissance series I'm part of) started spouting history tidbits from the Starfleet Museum, would the readers have any idea what she was talking about? Moreover, would they necessarily care?
The whole point is that, excellent though some of it may be, you're trying to make fan-created works a whole lot more important than they really are.
-------------------- “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
quote:Originally posted by aridas: For anyone that enjoys that kind of Trek, it should be fine to put the official stuff at the top of the heap of what is to be taken seriously. But that heap need not be followed religiously. If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should. Once that step is taken, include what you want in your view of what Trek should be. If you are discussing it with people online, cite your sources and direct people to images of what you're talking about so everyone can be on the same page. And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
You know, I really must applaud your rhetorical skill. Couching your preferences in the metaphor of liberation was an excellent maneuver, one I'm sure you worked long and hard to perfect.
It allows you to dress up the ugly reality of your disparagement of Trek and its makers, including your sweeping generalizations of the many series, your drug-addicted Roddenberry, and your shit-peddling market-monger Okuda. (Neither Star Trek nor the makers of it are perfect, but don't forget that you aren't either.)
In contrast to your view that abandoning the concept of canon makes you free, I would argue that in fact you are the one bound and chained, but by your own fandom-based preconceptions of what the new Treks should've been. When there was only fandom, that is what you based your preferred Trek on. And, as you acknowledge, you feel that such things as the Okuda tech manuals are "shit", no doubt because they did not 'live up to your standards of quality' (i.e. 'follow along with the stuff you had previously chosen to believe/manufacture regarding the Trek universe').
'Free your mind', Aridas. You might find that you could enjoy the Trek you've decided to loathe in advance of ever seeing it.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
This guy's almost as annoyimg a Mountain Man was. Quite an accomplishment, really.
How can you favor the varied quality (by "varied", I mean "mostly inane") of fanfic ideas on Trek but despise the (mostly) well thought out tech manuals?
Senseless.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by aridas: If you think an episode -- or even a whole series -- sucks, disregard it. It didn't happen. Paramount can't treat their productions with such disregard, but you can, and anyone else can. And probably should.
(...)
And if anyone brings out their canon sword, ignore them. Let those that are hidebound in their adherence to these artificial limits stay blissfully ignorant of the pleasures a free mind can provide. You're never gonna change that kind of mind anyway.
You know what I just realized? This argument is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "LALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!"
-------------------- “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
You have no reason at all to apologise. You asked a simple question. I'm not sure the answer was ever given, but here it is:
*clears throat*
It's not canon because it's a book. And none of the books are canon, with the slight exception of the tech books and chronologies done by Okuda and co (and they are only slightly canon because they are written by people who did and still do work on the show).
That's not to say that it isn't possibly what the ships of Starfleet did look like in those years. However, that's fairly redundent since, well, the Star Trek universe isn't real. It is created and modified to suit the whims of the writers. If, for some reason, they do an episode detailing the ships shown in 2290, they might match this book. They probably won't though. And the ships capabilities will be whatever they need to be to fulfil the story.
You said "So if it's not blessed by Paramount it can't possibly have ever happened." That's not what we are saying at all. The following is:
"If it's not blessed by Paramount, then it probably hasn't happened, and the current team has no compulsion to look at it."
Or...
"If it's been shown on TV, then it has happened." This is different from saying "If it hasn't been shown on TV, it's never happened". But remember, Star Trek is a TV show. And, essentially for the writers, if it hasn't been shown, then it hasn't happened.
Got that?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
"Getting that" isn't going to be one of the features of this discussion. I think the *technical* questions posed to aridas have been conclusively answered, so it's time for the good old padlock... As regards the non-technical issue of canonicity, the Flameboard eagerly awaits your further contribution on this fascinating subject.
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic