RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 143,843
Posts: 5,636,539
Members: 25,487
Currently online: 438
Newest member: meeeeeeeeee69

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Dogs of War
By: Michelle on Mar 28

Takei Calls For Boycott
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

April-May 2015 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Mar 27

Quinto TV Alert
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Shatner Remembers Nimoy
By: T'Bonz on Mar 26

Star Trek Delta Coin Pouches
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Takei Museum Fundraiser In Progress
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Star Trek 3 Villain?
By: T'Bonz on Mar 25

Montgomery Comic Book Signing
By: T'Bonz on Mar 24

Mulgrew To Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Mar 24


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 > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 14 2014, 08:07 PM   #181
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: Spock of Ages
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Since Scotty says "journals" not "manuals" I would assume he is looking at new information about the phasers.

KIRK: All right, Scotty. Dismissed. Scotty, you're restricted to quarters until further notice.
SCOTT: (big grin) Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. That'll give me a chance to catch up on my technical journals.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2014, 08:13 PM   #182
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

My brother had a '68 Mustang convertible; it was about my favorite car ever.
__________________
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. ” - William O. Douglas
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 14 2014, 08:13 PM   #183
Ithekro
Fleet Captain
 
Ithekro's Avatar
 
Location: Republic of California
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

This would assume that the phasers would be for an upgrade to the Constitution-class. Such a thing would be useful to an engineer on a Constitution-class starship, since he could later use that knowledge to tinker with his own ship's phasers when the captain wants more power.

That or is was a specification for what would be the ship's refit in a half dozen years.
Ithekro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 12:20 AM   #184
Mytran
Commodore
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

sojourner wrote: View Post
Mytran wrote: View Post
It's also clear from the above posts page that there's no clear consensus about what "canon" actually is. For a community of Trek fans I must say that's a little surprising!
Actually, if you remove one certain fan's interpretation of "canon" in this thread, there actually is a pretty good consensus.
Actually, it was the one certain fan's interpretation of "canon" that was found to be anywhere from two-thirds to one third acceptable, depending on who was posting at the time.
But you're right to correct me in that there is a little consensus - everyone considers the onscreen stuff to be OK. Phew!

Ithekro wrote: View Post
Back in the 1940s to 1960s, when a ship was rebuilt like USS Boston here, its class was also renamed.
...
So the definitions "Constitution-class". "Enterprise-class" and perhaps "Starship-class" could all be correct, at one point or another in the ship's history. But the evidence suggests that the ship class was originally the Constitution-class, based on how naming conventions work in history.
I'm not quoting the whole passage due to the size, but I did want to add my appreciation for you bringing this sort of real world comparison with which to mirror the lifespan and developments of the E. It adds yet another level of depth to the old girl (as if more were needed!)
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 01:24 AM   #185
Unicron
Continuity Spackle
 
Unicron's Avatar
 
Location: Quietly chuckling
Send a message via ICQ to Unicron
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
Odd, my version looks like this:

__________________

"If you think you're brave enough to walk the path of honor, then follow me into the dragon's den."


Knight Exemplar
Unicron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 04:09 AM   #186
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Mytran wrote: View Post
Actually, it was the one certain fan's interpretation of "canon" that was found to be anywhere from two-thirds to one third acceptable, depending on who was posting at the time.
But that doesn't matter, because we as fans (either individually or in a group) do not set the Trek canon and never have. As I stated before, the ones who set the canon are the ones who currently are in charge of Trek, and the ones currently in charge have decreed that only what's shown on screen is canon. Period, end of debate. No amount of "first come, first served" nonsense or slavish devotion to what "the original creators intended" and which is printed in some old books has any bearing on this, despite what some people would like to believe.

If CBS said tomorrow that Star Trek: Enterprise was no longer a part of canon Trek, guess what? It's not. And if they suddenly decreed that IDW's comics are canon, then guess what? They are. And if five years from now CBS decided to sell the rights to Trek to Netflix, Netflix can now say what they consider to be canon. It's not up to us.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 08:06 AM   #187
Mytran
Commodore
 
Mytran's Avatar
 
Location: North Wales
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

If that doesn't matter, then what has been going on for the last 13 pages? Or indeed, why does the TrekBBS exist. Clearly opinions matter, and different fans will have different interpretations of the canon material. But you'll get no argument from me on the basics:

Dennis wrote: View Post
all the inconsistent statements in the shows remain canonical whether they can be reconciled or not.
does not allow for statements like
sojourner wrote: View Post
"first takes precedence"...is actually the reverse of how it works in canon.
where everything onscreen exists whether we like it or not!
The fun (or at least it should be fun) is working out how to reconcile the irreconcilable. It doesn't change the source material, but can lead to a wider understanding of it, to discover and appreciate different points of view. All it takes is a level of self awareness to realise that "my way is not the only way".
Mytran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 12:31 PM   #188
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Mytran wrote: View Post
All it takes is a level of self-awareness to realise that "my way is not the only way".
Spoken like a true moderator.

(should there ever be a vacancy and Mytran's name would show up on a vote list, I know whom I would give my vote).

I think it's fair to say that we've gotten to the point and to bottom of the issue - which is about the proper methodology to determine canon. Since I’m not aware of a doctrine set in the rules of the Trek BBS, we are obviously debating the advantages and disadvantages of two competing methods. Certainly we can agree to disagree, but to mock one on behalf of the other and being vocal about it, still doesn’t mean it’s written in stone or has an objective and neutral authority – it then remains an issue of personal preference and/or belief.

I apologize for my allusions to the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition, because I assume the vocal fans here are enlighted beings but this still doesn’t authorize them to play and re-enact Comité de salut public.

I’ll reply to the criticism of the methodology approach I presented yesterday:

1. Accepting the onscreen information (in pictures and dialogue) and the conclusions we can draw from these.

Dennis wrote: View Post
Half right. Onscreen information is canonical. Conclusions drawn by fans never are.
Apparently, Dennis never heard of ratiocination. Of course we can draw unbiased conclusions from the onscreen information available to us (which is one of the things I personally find most interesting in terms of treknological research and which is obviously the thing that gets me into trouble).

“I've been reading up on starships, but they have one luxury not mentioned in the manuals.”
Khan could have also said “I’ve read more than one starship manual”.
It follows that one of these obviously contains a Constitution Starship Class LR (long-range?) phaser schematic.


But which of these is the starship manual for the Enterprise? This remains inconclusive and that’s a fact. So we are looking at a couple of interpretations:
  • He did study a phaser schematic of the Enterprise (in the Enterprise’s and not the other starship’s manual)
  • He did study the phaser schematic of a previous starship class, to better understand the evolution (and working principle of this weapon)
  • He did study the phaser schematic of a different starship class to prepare himself what firepower he might be up against after his seizure of the Enterprise.
Unless you decide to make this a question of preference and personal belief, in this particular case we can turn to the original sources and will read in The Making of Star Trek, published after the phaser schematic’s appearance (changed premise by the original creators?) “Enterprise [Starship] Class” mentioned twice in the book.
Add to this that the Enterprise’s creator Matt Jefferies stated in an interview several decades later that the Enterprise was the first bird and the first in the construction series.

And the conclusion can we draw from that…

2. If in doubt regarding the proper conclusion, look up publically accessible materials from the original creators to determine their intentions in the particular context unless revised by their own premise change.

…is that it is irrelevant?

Dukhat wrote: View Post
"Publicly accessible materials from the original creators" is meaningless in this regard, unless that info made it onto the screen. If it didn't then no one has the right to use it to justify what's canon and what's not. They're free to use it to bolster their own pet theories about things, but that's it.
So the minutiae from the creators that made it onto the screen is “canon” but the reasons and intentions behind it (i.e. the context) is considered non-existent, redundant and not worthy of examination?

Sorry, this is irrational, illogical and just plain absurd.

If we don’t have the necessary background information the theory that explains the apparent discrepancies best, is probably the one closest to the fictional "truth" (which doesn’t stop us from arguing which theory does it best).

But if we do have background information to settle a debate, I’m unable to understand how anyone could seriously suggest that we should ignore it.

“Ignorance is bliss” or what? If that's what's on your mind go ahead and take a couple more of those blue pills and believe whatever you want.

3. Premise change by third / later parties should be solid and leave no room for doubt and/or should constitute an improvement the original creators could have approved.

I’m clearly an advocate of a “first come, first served” canon finding philosophy. If in doubt, the original creators knew what they were doing, and if a premise is later changed by somebody other than the original creators, then it’s the revision that begs for explanation and not the original work that retroactively is in desperate need for an explanation or rationalization (especially since the original TOS creators are no longer among us to provide insight).

Possibility is high that later creators didn’t care about accurate research, are biased regarding concepts of the original creators or, bluntly, just don’t give a shit (“It’s just a TV show”). If the premise change is not “solid”, probability is high that the original body of work remains unaltered (e.g. post-TWOK “Constitution Class” references in TNG and DS9).

Put simply, the canon finding philosophy some of you guys are vocally advocating puts retroactive continuity above the original work, it’s a “revise, reboot and overwrite” philosophy in the best tradition of the dystopian world of 1984 which IMHO is absolutely incompatible with the ethical standards Star Trek promoted and is renowned for.

If the hobby of canon finding methodology comes at the expense of real people, then it would be about time to stop it.
The mockery directed at the original creators in this thread that hadn’t settled on the minutiae yet at the early beginnings (e.g. “James R. Kirk”) is disturbing. Sure, the later spin-offs had a foundation on which to be built and expectably didn’t have that many continuity issues, but they wouldn’t even fracking exist so you could talk about it, hadn’t it been for the original TOS creators. You don’t poop where you eat.

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Actually, he gets it wrong at #2. Here's the real definitions of canon (at least as it pertains to Star Trek):

1. What is seen on screen, even if it's not internally consistent;
2. in lieu of the above, whatever the current holders of the franchise says it is;
Okay, I think I got it. Since Paramount Pictures holds the rights for the Star Trek movies we should prepare ourselves that the nuTrek movies are declared canon and the TOS and TNG films become apocrypha as the ultimate consequence (yes, I know that some look forward to that for certain films).

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 July 15 2014, 12:50 PM   #189
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

The Powers That Be have never treated Star Trek as a strict canon of right and wrong. To them it's always been a vast mythology (or as TVtropes calls it, Broad Strokes), to draw on what they like and forget what they don't. See: the complete revision of the Klingons in TMP.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 01:30 PM   #190
Commishsleer
Fleet Captain
 
Commishsleer's Avatar
 
Location: CommishSleer
View Commishsleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

I wish someone at Paramount or CBS even knew/cared about what 'Star Trek canon' means.
CBS and Paramount only care about making money so I doubt they're going to decanonise any money-making episodes or movies.

Anyway wasn't GR the only person in power to ever talk about canon?
Commishsleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 01:38 PM   #191
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

It would be ridiculous for the studio to "decanonize" anything. It's a concept with no useful meaning, anyway, other than to observe that something either has or has not been established onscreen by the folks who own the property.
__________________
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. ” - William O. Douglas
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 01:40 PM   #192
Foxhot
Fleet Captain
 
Foxhot's Avatar
 
Location: Foxhot
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

I still wish Paramount would spend a bit of money to take out this atrocious bit from THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY:

''Uhuru................NICHELLE NICHOLS''
__________________
''You sold them floor wax. NOW...get out of here, you fool. ''
Foxhot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 02:18 PM   #193
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Certainly we can agree to disagree, but to mock one on behalf of the other and being vocal about it, still doesn’t mean it’s written in stone or has an objective and neutral authority – it then remains an issue of personal preference and/or belief.
No one's mocking anyone else. At least I'm not. I'm stating what the people in charge of Trek consider to be canon. What you think about it is your own outlook.

So the minutiae from the creators that made it onto the screen is “canon” but the reasons and intentions behind it (i.e. the context) is considered non-existent, redundant and not worthy of examination?
Who ever said that it wasn't worthy of examination? Of course it is. It's just not to be used to justify an argument about canon if it's not on screen.

Nobody ever said on screen that the NCC numbers are based in any sort of logic whatsoever. Jefferies' "12th ship of the 17th block" has NEVER been confirmed in canon. Therefore if one fan chooses to ignore it, he has every right to feel that way and another fan doesn't have the right to tell him he's wrong. But that second fan can feel all he wants that Jefferies' scheme is correct if he wants to. It's just that it's not canon and can't be used to prove that it is.

Sorry, this is irrational, illogical and just plain absurd.
Not at all. It's quite understandable.

If we don’t have the necessary background information the theory that explains the apparent discrepancies best, is probably the one closest to the fictional "truth" (which doesn’t stop us from arguing which theory does it best).

But if we do have background information to settle a debate, I’m unable to understand how anyone could seriously suggest that we should ignore it.
Because as I said, background information is irrelevant when discussing canon. I'm not saying that you shouldn't discuss it at all; just that you can't use it to justify something that wasn't proven on screen (I feel like a broken record at this point, Bob. If you're not getting this by now, then I'm getting tired of bringing it up).

“Ignorance is bliss” or what? If that's what's on your mind go ahead and take a couple more of those blue pills and believe whatever you want.
How's about you quit with the personal attacks just because I'm saying something you don't want to hear? I don't recall personally attacking you because of your beliefs.

I’m clearly an advocate of a “first come, first served” canon finding philosophy. If in doubt, the original creators knew what they were doing, and if a premise is later changed by somebody other than the original creators, then it’s the revision that begs for explanation and not the original work that retroactively is in desperate need for an explanation or rationalization (especially since the original TOS creators are no longer among us to provide insight).
So at this point in the discussion it's quite clear to me that you've made up your mind that you're right and that you know better than the people who actually are in charge of the show, so I suppose there's nothing more to talk about here either.

Possibility is high that later creators didn’t care about accurate research, are biased regarding concepts of the original creators or, bluntly, just don’t give a shit (“It’s just a TV show”).
Tell that to Mike Okuda, Rick Sternbach, Doug Drexler, and all the other people who came after TOS, who clearly didn't give a shit about Trek

Okay, I think I got it. Since Paramount Pictures holds the rights for the Star Trek movies we should prepare ourselves that the nuTrek movies are declared canon and the TOS and TNG films become apocrypha as the ultimate consequence (yes, I know that some look forward to that for certain films).
Perhaps you didn't actually see the nuTrek films (which are canon because, er, they appeared on screen). They clearly establish that the original timeline still exists and that nuTrek is a new, parallel timeline. The writers of the films did this because they wanted to respect what came before, which is exactly what you keep arguing about. So I'm not sure what your point is by bringing this up.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; July 15 2014 at 02:39 PM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 03:21 PM   #194
Dennis
The Man
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Location: America
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

Dukhat wrote: View Post
Perhaps you didn't actually see the nuTrek films (which are canon because, er, they appeared on screen). They clearly establish that the original timeline still exists and that nuTrek is a new, parallel timeline. The writers of the films did this because they wanted to respect what came before, which is exactly what you keep arguing about. So I'm not sure what your point is by bringing this up.
Exactly so. Both oldTrek and nuTrek productions are part of the canon and would be even if they directly contradicted one another. Paramount has never publicly declared anything of consequence to be canon or non-canon; even the long argument over TAS was an unofficial one having largely to do with GR's personal desire to distance himself from it.
__________________
The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. ” - William O. Douglas
Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 15 2014, 05:15 PM   #195
CorporalCaptain
Admiral
 
CorporalCaptain's Avatar
 
Location: North America
Re: Connie - TOS canon nomenclature

People confuse canon and continuity all the time around here.
__________________
“A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. LLAP” — Leonard Nimoy (1931-2015)
CorporalCaptain 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 06:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.