RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,887
Posts: 5,329,906
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 441
Newest member: Mgroup Video

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 31 2013, 06:01 PM   #16
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Green Shirt wrote: View Post
Tosk wrote: View Post
Sure, why not?


I'll go with "Yes, unless contradicted elsewhere."

Yeah, like Starship Class.
Upon re-reading The Making of Star Trek I noticed that D.C. Fontana suggested to come up with names for the 12 ships of the "Starship Class".
Bob Justman, in his subtle ways of a true gentleman, commented on the issue in a letter to Gene Roddenberry (Carbon Copy: D.C Fontana) and (added) "Enterprise Starship Class". The question is therefore whether "U.S.S. Enterprise - Starship Class" indicates in essence "Enterprise Starship Class" as the alternative would have been "U.S.S. Enterprise - Enterprise Starship Class". More in the current Trek Tech discussion regarding the Enterprise-A.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 08:20 PM   #17
USS Excelsior
Fleet Captain
 
USS Excelsior's Avatar
 
Location: Alpha Quadrant
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Miranda class is canon, despite never being mentioned. And Archer was the UFP President and attended the opening ceremony of the first 1701 Enterprise, according to barely legible text.
USS Excelsior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 09:08 PM   #18
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

The mistake is to use "canon" to mean "real and binding." The canon, however coherent or inclusive it may be, is still just a big elaborate story people told, so no part of it is any more "real" than a ghost story told around a campfire. It was invented, and so it can be reinvented, reinterpreted, retconned, or ignored.

Any idea from a series canon may be useful for later storytellers to draw on if they so desire -- or it may be useful for them to ignore or contradict if that suits their needs better. But worrying about whether it's "real" is kind of pointless. It's part of the story, but stories can be adjusted and revised in ways that reality can't.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 10:32 PM   #19
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Christopher wrote: View Post
The mistake is to use "canon" to mean "real and binding."
That's not a mistake, it's a technique to ensure that subsequent ideas respect the intentions of those that came before in order to create a coherent vision. It's a framework to create something where the result is more than just the sum of its parts. Disrespect "canon" and you just end up with parts and fragments but not a bigger picture.

Christopher wrote: View Post
The canon, however coherent or inclusive it may be, is still just a big elaborate story people told, so no part of it is any more "real" than a ghost story told around a campfire.
So what are many of us doing here? Should we get lost?

Christopher wrote: View Post
It was invented, and so it can be reinvented, reinterpreted, retconned, or ignored.
...which is the classic excuse for anyone who is too lazy and/or lacks passion to do some accurate research, first, and/or is too incompetent to do so.
Wait a minute, "canon" was "invented" for that?

Christopher wrote: View Post
Any idea from a series canon may be useful for later storytellers to draw on if they so desire -- or it may be useful for them to ignore or contradict if that suits their needs better. But worrying about whether it's "real" is kind of pointless. It's part of the story, but stories can be adjusted and revised in ways that reality can't.
And we have seen where this ends. Remember Dr. Carol Marcus from ST II, the ethical "I will not let harm come to a microbe?".
In order to have a more dramatic and life-threatening setting the producers of ST III decided to have her have used "protomatter" for the Genesis Device. Oh wait, they shifted the blame to her son David, but as the supervisor of the Genesis Project, this made the Carol Marcus character look incompetent and stupid.

"Improve" a story at the expense of absent actors and characters. (wanted to use another finger but that Smilie was the only one available...)

Hey, it's deja-vu. Didn't we have that debate already August last year? Looking forward to August 2014...

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 11:08 PM   #20
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
The mistake is to use "canon" to mean "real and binding."
That's not a mistake, it's a technique to ensure that subsequent ideas respect the intentions of those that came before in order to create a coherent vision. It's a framework to create something where the result is more than just the sum of its parts. Disrespect "canon" and you just end up with parts and fragments but not a bigger picture.

Christopher wrote: View Post
The canon, however coherent or inclusive it may be, is still just a big elaborate story people told, so no part of it is any more "real" than a ghost story told around a campfire.
So what are many of us doing here? Should we get lost?

Christopher wrote: View Post
It was invented, and so it can be reinvented, reinterpreted, retconned, or ignored.
...which is the classic excuse for anyone who is too lazy and/or lacks passion to do some accurate research, first, and/or is too incompetent to do so.
Wait a minute, "canon" was "invented" for that?

Christopher wrote: View Post
Any idea from a series canon may be useful for later storytellers to draw on if they so desire -- or it may be useful for them to ignore or contradict if that suits their needs better. But worrying about whether it's "real" is kind of pointless. It's part of the story, but stories can be adjusted and revised in ways that reality can't.
And we have seen where this ends. Remember Dr. Carol Marcus from ST II, the ethical "I will not let harm come to a microbe?".
In order to have a more dramatic and life-threatening setting the producers of ST III decided to have her have used "protomatter" for the Genesis Device. Oh wait, they shifted the blame to her son David, but as the supervisor of the Genesis Project, this made the Carol Marcus character look incompetent and stupid.

"Improve" a story at the expense of absent actors and characters. (wanted to use another finger but that Smilie was the only one available...)

Hey, it's deja-vu. Didn't we have that debate already August last year? Looking forward to August 2014...

Bob
The people who actually created Star Trek pretty much echo what Christopher said. They understood the medium they worked in and weren't above changing things, adding things and deleting things. In their minds none of it was written in stone. Hell most of them would probably laugh at the idea of "canon" and semi-religious "devotion" people have developed for it.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 11:20 PM   #21
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Didn't Berman and Braga pretty much do just that with Enterprise? Look how well that worked out.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 11:32 PM   #22
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

R. Star wrote: View Post
Didn't Berman and Braga pretty much do just that with Enterprise? Look how well that worked out.
Didn't Roddenberry and Coon do that with Star Trek? Look how well that worked out.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 11:56 PM   #23
Melakon
Vice Admiral
 
Melakon's Avatar
 
Location: Unmarked grave, Ekos
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

If barely legible writing on doors and things are canon, when they were never intended to be seen clearly, we have to accept signs that say "Close cover before striking", "Do not remove tag under penalty of law", and "No user serviceable parts inside".

Then there are the dedication plaques.

USS Brattain: "...a three hour tour, a three hour tour."
USS Excelsior, USS Hathaway, and USS Phoenix: "No matter where you go, there you are."
USS Odyssey: "Its origin and purpose, still a total mystery."
USS Sutherland: "There will be an answer, let it be..."

There's also supposed to be a statistic on one of Beverly's overhead medical scanners identified as "Med Ins Rem" for "medical insurance remaining".
__________________
Curly: Moe, Larry, the cheese! Moe, Larry, the cheese! (Horses Collars, 1935)
Melakon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31 2013, 11:59 PM   #24
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Lot of in jokes from the graphics department, you will never find a more wretched hive of nerds and geekery.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 12:12 AM   #25
Ensign_Redshirt
Commodore
 
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Why does it matter whether they're canon?
Ensign_Redshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 12:15 AM   #26
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Ensign_Redshirt wrote: View Post
Why does it matter whether they're canon?
Some folks need to know "what counts".
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 01:14 AM   #27
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
That's not a mistake, it's a technique to ensure that subsequent ideas respect the intentions of those that came before in order to create a coherent vision.
Except the intention of viewscreen graphics meant to be glimpsed in the background for a fraction of a second was not to be an integral part of a story, but just to be something that looked vaguely like it meant something. Film is about illusion. It's about creating an impression, and the details of what's used to create that impression may actually spoil the illusion if you look too closely.


It's a framework to create something where the result is more than just the sum of its parts. Disrespect "canon" and you just end up with parts and fragments but not a bigger picture.
There's nothing to respect or disrespect. It's simply a matter of definition. Canon is the overall body of a work of fiction. It's not about every last obsessive detail, because the details are subordinate to the overall illusion or impression being created.


So what are many of us doing here? Should we get lost?
What we're doing is enjoying a work of entertainment. Which is supposed to be fun and relaxing.


...which is the classic excuse for anyone who is too lazy and/or lacks passion to do some accurate research, first, and/or is too incompetent to do so.
Anyone who knows me or my Trek novels at all knows that I'm an obsessive researcher who often builds elements of my stories around extremely obscure details. Heck, I was the first novelist to mention Admiral Robert Comsol in a Star Trek novel, something you should appreciate. But I also understand the difference between fiction and reality, and I understand the degree to which the former is mutable and built around illusion. I can be obsessive about detail when it suits my purposes, but here's the thing: I can turn it off.



And we have seen where this ends. Remember Dr. Carol Marcus from ST II, the ethical "I will not let harm come to a microbe?".
In order to have a more dramatic and life-threatening setting the producers of ST III decided to have her have used "protomatter" for the Genesis Device. Oh wait, they shifted the blame to her son David, but as the supervisor of the Genesis Project, this made the Carol Marcus character look incompetent and stupid.

"Improve" a story at the expense of absent actors and characters. (wanted to use another finger but that Smilie was the only one available...)
Except it doesn't make sense to treat an incidental detail like a bit of joke text a set decorator put onto a screen as being equal in importance to actual scripted characterization or dialogue. The core of the work is the story and the characterization. That's important. That's the stuff you want to keep consistent. Set decoration only exists to support that, to be in the background and not get in the way of it. Sometimes the set decorators can put loving care and detail into it, and sometimes they'll just type up a bunch of lorem ipsum, and 99 percent of the audience will never know the difference, because it's just supposed to be background texture. If they do their job right, the audience won't even give it a thought. What matters is the impression, the illusion, the work as a whole.


Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
The people who actually created Star Trek pretty much echo what Christopher said. They understood the medium they worked in and weren't above changing things, adding things and deleting things. In their minds none of it was written in stone. Hell most of them would probably laugh at the idea of "canon" and semi-religious "devotion" people have developed for it.
Right. Roddenberry was the one who redesigned the Klingons for TMP and asked audiences to accept that they'd always looked that way but TOS just hadn't had the budget to show them correctly. (I think he once proposed that the "transmissions from the future" were distorted.) He's also the one who, in his TMP novelization, treated TOS as a fictional 23rd-century series based on Kirk's real adventures and apologized for its inaccuracies and exaggerations.

As I've pointed out before, what ends up onscreen isn't exactly what the creators wanted; it's just the best compromise they could manage with the time, budget, and resources available. Creators are almost never satisfied with the final version of their work, and almost always wish they could've done some things better or differently. So treating every last tiny detail as the creators' pure and holy intent is just ridiculous, and the creators themselves would be the first to laugh out loud at such an assumption.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 03:36 AM   #28
The Old Mixer
Vice Admiral
 
The Old Mixer's Avatar
 
Location: Connecticut
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Is it canon when the reflection of a cameraman is visible onscreen ("Unification II", IIRC)?

Then there's Tasha waving at the camera in her last shot of her last filmed episode.

And there's a Season 1 episode when Picard makes an odd mouth movement while walking into a turbolift...I think Patrick Stewart was puffing the door open, and didn't realize that it would be visible at that angle.
The Old Mixer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 03:45 AM   #29
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

Yes, that cameraman is now part of the canon and can be used in fanfics.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 1 2013, 03:45 AM   #30
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Barely-legible graphics canon?

I hate canon. I just want entertaining stories.
__________________
"When I first heard about it (the Enterprise underwater), my inner Trekkie was in a rage. When I saw it, my inner kid beat up my inner Trekkie and made him go sit in the corner." - Bill Jasper
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.