Topic: Late 24th century Starfleet ships! [Picard $$$]
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
So, uh, apparently Fuller intended to have the MU be a major component of his show, which....really does not soothe my cramping anus in the least.
posted
Sounds like he’s not really talking about the MU at all, but just one or more parallel universes. It’s basically more like “Parallels” but exploring the point(s?) at which these PUs diverged. Plus it’s canon that the (baseline branching skein of possible universes known as the?) MU had already diverged at some ineffable point prior to 2151, so it’d be moot. Really, if he was proposing to explore divergence points but specifically within the MU, the answer to why people made those exact decisions which led to those outcomes is “because they’re evil gold-sash-wearing goatee-sporting space lesbians who are a product of their environment.”
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: He said both.
Did he? Did he really?
As others have pointed out, there's nothing in Discovery or Picard that backs up this point, that Alex Kurtzman is somehow ushering into canon a half century of printed works. Nothing.
And to go back to my broader point - this discussion serves as a perfect example of why it's dangerous to allow reverence for canon to become such a prime motivator that it gets in the way of telling an engaging story. It becomes less about getting into / enjoying the story and whatever broader truths we might want to take away from it, and more about getting angry because that shuttle in episode 3F15 that Character A takes off in (after making a heartbreaking choice between two morally grey options that could be quite a thought provoking story) has two intake manifolds on the port nacelle when episode 2H20 clearly states that two intake manifolds on the one engine nacelle causes explosive subspace inversions and this STINKS THIS IS TOTAL BS
I've read my Star Trek tech manuals, timeline books and am as happy as the next person to go plot-holing. But I have to say that this elevation of canon just threatens to turn everything boring because it becomes an extended exercise in "What about this?" "No, you can't do that." "Well what about this?" "No, you can't do that either."
Sandboxes are only fun if we're allowed to play in them. If they're fenced off because someone's worried we won't play in them right, what's the point?
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Sounds like he’s not really talking about the MU at all, but just one or more parallel universes. It’s basically more like “Parallels” but exploring the point(s?) at which these PUs diverged.
The Myriad Universes books were fun explorations of those sorts of "what if" scenarios. Would have been nice to see something like that on screen. Hopefully if Trek's return to TV continues to grow, maybe a project like that might happen in the future. Would be expensive, though - they couldn't sink costs into a lot of standing sets if they were having to change the setting a lot of the time, not sure if that would impact on the likelihood of such a show ever happening.
-------------------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, bu that's what I thought about the possibility of anthology shows, and they've proven they can be adaptive in creating diverse sets and uniforms etc.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I’m not even sure what you’re talking about now. {...} Please give me some quotes from Beyer’s novels that have made it into the show.
I was providing a hypothetical inverse of your position to demonstrate that it was not valid.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: He said both.
Did he? Did he really?
Yes. Literally. Are we to pretend otherwise?
quote: As others have pointed out, there's nothing in Discovery or Picard that backs up this point, that Alex Kurtzman is somehow ushering into canon a half century of printed works. Nothing.
I don't know enough about the literature to contest this point, but there are many who disagree. There are references to Section 31's Control AI created by David Mack prior to Discovery, for example, and the general tone and feel of things.
But again, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
As noted previously, if we reverse the situation and have active incorporation without the decree, the canon policy is not changed thereby. Thus, even if the claim of zero incorporation were true, it is not relevant.
quote:And to go back to my broader point - this discussion serves as a perfect example of why it's dangerous to allow reverence for canon to become such a prime motivator that it gets in the way of telling an engaging story.
If a writer views canon as a straitjacket, they're approach is all wrong, prima facie. Decades of mostly-careful world-building ought not be discarded because something seems kewl to some hack.
For example, I care so little about the universe of Lord of the Rings that Borg nanoprobes overlook my concern in passing as your car might overlook a nematode on a blade of grass. My knowledge of the universe is similarly lean. But, hypothetically, let's say that there was a tie-in fiction series that paid well and for which it was thought someone similar might have talent, "similar interests" (as presumed via sci-fi), name recognition, or connections, so they're hired.
There's nothing to stop this person from trying to cram in some research and get just enough to have some "good story" that they try to work in to the universe. For instance, suppose I wanted to adapt First Contact, so I make a story on a sailing ship and have Orcs or something capable of something like assimilation or SG-1-Replicator-esque reproduction (using some magic whatzits long known to Orc-kind), so that within like a day you have a miniature, claustrophobic version of the huge battle from one of the movies.
Wowwee, what a story that could be! . . . except I just invalidated that movie battle by making the army capable of appearing from nowhere like a fleet of sequel-trilogy Star Destroyers, didn't I?
God, canon is such a straitjacket! . . . Or maybe I am a hack who should've spent a lot more time researching the universe, learning its subtleties, imagining what life must be like for the common person, pondering deeply what each fact entails about other facts in the vast connected history, and so on.
Otherwise, I'm just some asshole who decided to make the Federation leadership and citizenry evil instead of enlightened becausee it would be kewl, despite the fact that the place avoided that for hundreds of years of filmed canon. But hey, Articles of the Federation was kewl, amirite? Let's take that the next step further.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
I was providing a hypothetical inverse of your position to demonstrate that it was not valid.
Maybe I'm just stupid, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:I don't know enough about the literature to contest this point, but there are many who disagree. There are references to Section 31's Control AI created by David Mack prior to Discovery, for example, and the general tone and feel of things.
So here's where the confusion lies. Earlier you made it sound like Kurtzman had made all the novels canon, when in fact you're only referring to DSC and PIC novels, of which you haven't even read yourself and yet seem to feel you have the authority to argue that they contain things that have been incorporated into the show's canon. See next.
quote:But again, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
As noted previously, if we reverse the situation and have active incorporation without the decree, the canon policy is not changed thereby. Thus, even if the claim of zero incorporation were true, it is not relevant.
I don't think that's how it works. In your example of Control, I'm pretty sure the idea of it came from the scriptwriters, and then the novel authors incorporated it into their books, not vice-versa.
-------------------- "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
posted
So despite all the above, we're still where we were when I said "Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved."
If - IF - the Control concept came from a book, so what? Several established Trek facts originated elsewhere before being canonised later - the only example I can think of right now is Uhura's first name, and no that doesn't not count because it was only in the Abramsverse. Taking one such fact doesn't automatically canonise all equivalent facts. Therefore, nothing cited so far establishes it as fact "that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*."
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Maybe I'm just stupid, but I have no idea what you're talking about.
You said Beyer's novel-version Seven doesn't appear in STP, which supposedly disproves that novels are canon, and that Kurtzman's opinion isn't relevant.
My response was to flip your argument around. If Beyer's novel-version Seven *did* appear but Kurtzman's canon policy was the same as from the Paramount era (e.g. no books), then the novel-version Seven wouldn't be relevant . . . books still wouldn't be canon.
So, again, why would you argue that appearance or non-appearance is relevant to the question of canonicity?
quote: Earlier you made it sound like Kurtzman had made all the novels canon, when in fact you're only referring to DSC and PIC novels
Where did you get that? That's not my argument.
quote: of which you haven't even read yourself and yet seem to feel you have the authority to argue that they contain things that have been incorporated into the show's canon.
LOL. That is almost the exact opposite of what happened here.
quote:I don't think that's how it works.
Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
quote:In your example of Control, I'm pretty sure the idea of it came from the scriptwriters, and then the novel authors incorporated it into their books, not vice-versa.
Can you provide evidence of that claim? Near as I can tell, that just isn't so. Mack went into detail explaining how he created the idea on TrekMovie.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: So despite all the above, we're still where we were when I said "Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved."
Except that isn't true.
quote:Taking one such fact doesn't automatically canonise all equivalent facts.
Thanks! Been saying that for years. The problem is that I still believe it, but you don't.
If inclusion of a novel detail doesn't confer canonicity, then the absence of such a detail cannot disprove stated canonicity.
By analogy, if having turn signals doesn't make your vehicle a car, then removing the turn signals doesn't make it not-a-car.
Yes, a car requires turn signals in most legal systems, but the car doesn't suddenly become a motorcycle by being in violation.
So, back to the point, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
So, again, why would you argue that appearance or non-appearance is relevant to the question of canonicity?
I'm not sure what you think I said, but let me clarify: Nothing about the 7 of 9 character as shown in PIC is in any way consistent with her portrayal in the novels. Because you stated that all novels are now canon. See next.
quote:Where did you get that? That's not my argument.
Here's what you originally said:
"It's part of the new CBS Canon, along with STD, and that new canon is distinct from the old. The inclusion of all past novels as canon, even if (as Kurtzman admitted) they are unable to maintain continuity with everything that came before, means the very content of the CBS universe during the previously observed Roddenberry-Berman era stories is wildly different than it was during the Roddenberry-Berman era of Trek."
I bolded the part where you said "all past novels."
quote:LOL. That is almost the exact opposite of what happened here.
How is that the exact opposite? Did you read the novels, or didn't you? Did you fact-check this claim, or did you just slavishly agree with whoever came up with this idea because it fits your bias against Kurtzman?
quote:Feel free to demonstrate otherwise.
Other people here have already done that.
quote:Can you provide evidence of that claim? Near as I can tell, that just isn't so. Mack went into detail explaining how he created the idea on TrekMovie.
I can't. That's why I said "I'm pretty sure." Because usually the scriptwriters come up with an idea which is then co-opted in a novel. If Mack came up with the idea first, fine. But as others have said, just because something in a novel was used in the show (i.e. "Hikaru") doesn't mean that now everything in that novel where Sulu was given a first name is now canon.
-------------------- "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 Lee: So despite all the above, we're still where we were when I said "Canon is what has been onscreen, with a few offscreen facts generally accepted as canon until either proved or disproved."
Except that isn't true.
What?
quote:
quote:Taking one such fact doesn't automatically canonise all equivalent facts.
Thanks! Been saying that for years. The problem is that I still believe it, but you don't.
What what?!
quote:
If inclusion of a novel detail doesn't confer canonicity, then the absence of such a detail cannot disprove stated canonicity.
By analogy, if having turn signals doesn't make your vehicle a car, then removing the turn signals doesn't make it not-a-car.
Yes, a car requires turn signals in most legal systems, but the car doesn't suddenly become a motorcycle by being in violation.
So, back to the point, even if they're not extremely successful at active incorporation, that doesn't negate the fact that the non-canon informs their thinking *by design*, or that it is canon to them *by decree*.
Stop doing analogies! They’re making the inside of my skull itch.
Your premise remains nonsensical. Your initial claim as quoted by Dukhat is still unproven. You haven’t demonstrated any wholesale adoption of novel material or how it is undermining canon, nor how it is evidencing DSC/PIC being in another timeline. Seeking inspiration from book content is fine, we’ve already shown it can be done without polluting canon. And by counterpoint, if book facts were being cleaved to dogmatically, then the former Stargazer doctor played by David Paymer would have been written as one of the characters from TNG novel “Reunion.” But they didn’t.
If you don’t like DSC or PIC, then fine. You’re not alone in doing so. I don’t see why headcanoning it that it’s an alternate timeline is meant to help. And what happens when they DO make some Trek you like (and which you don’t feel you have to headcanon as being alternate) and then it references events of either of these two shows? You’re just going to go even further down the rabbit hole.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Because you stated that all novels are now canon. See next.
Correct. That's Kurtzman's position as elucidated in multiple interviews. I've never suggested that only the CBS-era novels are canon, as you claim.
quote:How is that the exact opposite?
In response to "I don't know enough about the literature to contest this point, but there are many who disagree" your retort was to claim I "seem to feel you have the authority to argue that they contain things that have been incorporated into the show's canon."
In effect, when y'all tried to use the claimed lack of Trek novel continuity as an argument against Kurtzman's stated canon policy (just as others have previously tried to use inclusions from explicitly non-canon works to invalidate clear statements of non-canonicity), the fact that I dared dip a toe in in response with my relatively timid "I dunno, but here's what others say" and that this was portrayed as me feeling I had the authority to argue my own claims of fact made me laugh.
Sorry if that bothers you. It's not my intent to offend. Just struck me funny, is all.
quote:Other people here have already done that.
No, no one has demonstrated that stated canon policies are invalidated by non-canon details getting graduating to canon via inclusion. Lee literally just argued the opposite . . . and, indeed, so do you:
quote: But as others have said, just because something in a novel was used in the show (i.e. "Hikaru") doesn't mean that now everything in that novel where Sulu was given a first name is now canon.
Again, flip it. If Hikaru doesn't canonize whichever novel that came from (at least it wasn't Walter that got picked), that's cool. But if something's explicitly canon and gets -- not contradicted, but merely *unused* -- it doesn't become non-canon because of that, does it? Hell, even if something *is* contradicted, how many posts on Flare are dedicated to pondering ways to rationalize apparent contradictions? Did anyone ever say "gee, let's just ditch that whole episode"? No? Why not? It's what you're doing now.
Basically, it seems to me that this claim of discontinuity overriding canon policy is just knee-jerk rejectionism, because the fundamental argument behind it makes no sense and is contrary to the way it's always been done.
But, to each their own. If you can rationalize the CBS Trek Universe with the Star Trek Original Universe . . . well, you'd be the first. Godspeed.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
