Are the NuAbrams movies the only canon ?

[Terok Nor]

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Changing established continuity is quite insulting when it's done on a grand scale. If I've seen, for example, Captain Smith's identical twin brother in multiple episodes I'm going to take issue if Captain Smith states a few seasons later he's an only child. Writers should respect their audience's intelligence. Changing established story material because it's inconvenient to the current storyline being written is incredibly lazy and an insult to those who have stuck with the series long enough to remember.

I think that's taking it rather personally, and it's also something of a straw man example. In the past, that sort of thing was done from time to time -- see Chuck Cunningham in Happy Days -- but that was when nobody expected old TV episodes to ever be released on home video or catalogued on Wikipedia, and so continuity wasn't as great a concern. Today, creators are more aware of audiences' regard for continuity, and so changes to canon are likely to be subtle when they do happen.

But there are still cases where large-scale changes to canon are considered appropriate. Dallas retconned an entire season as a dream in order to bring a popular character back from the dead, although I gather that wasn't a universally appreciated decision. Neil Blomkamp's Alien 5, if it ever gets made, will reportedly ignore Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, just as Superman Returns ignored Superman III/IV. Sometimes the audience doesn't mind a change to the canon, or even welcomes it.

Bottom line, these aren't documentaries, they're stories. We're all just pretending any of it happened at all. And that means that if some part of it didn't really work that well, we can pretend it happened differently or didn't happen at all. Of course I'm not saying that it should be done willy-nilly; I'm just saying it's misunderstanding how fiction works to assume that "canon" means every last tiny detail is perpetually immutable.

I actually think your reasoning is a straw man argument to be honest. All of the examples you've given me of stuff that was exiled out of canon are movies that were not popular with the fans in the first place. As far as Dallas goes it was the definition of a jump the shark moment and the show never recovered from it. Bobby in the shower is still infamous to this day. Regarding Happy Days and other old shows you stated yourself that no one expected those shows to see the light of day again. It was a different era with different sensibilities.

It's 2015 now. We can access every episode and movie of Star Trek and pretty much everything else. Even if you don't remember every detail (and why should anyone be expected to anyway?) you're going to notice glaring continuity errors when they're staring you straight in the face. Not that every last little detail should be adhered to before a script goes before a camera but excising inconvenient continuity that gets in the way is a cheap and lazy method of writing in my opinion. If we're not supposed to buy into the "world" we're watching and only care about what happens from one episode to the next and continuity be damned then why should we become invested in Star Trek in the first place. Voyager's use of the reset button did that show no favours.

It's not that I take it personally. I just like to buy into the fiction I'm watching and if major details are changed it pulls me right out of it. I'm perfectly willing to allow for creative licence but sometimes it takes the biscuit. That's not to say I think Star Trek as a whole is guilty of this on a grand scale. I'm more disagreeing with your reasoning about why established "facts" can and should be changed if they get in the way.

 

[Dukhat]

Don't care about canon.

You don't have to. One of the biggest misunderstandings about canon is that it's some kind of rule that's binding on fans. It's actually just a descriptive label to differentiate the core material from its tie-ins, but fandom insists on ascribing all sorts of mythical importance to it and worrying more about it than they have any reason to.

Fans don't have to care about canon because they aren't employed by the film or TV studio and don't have to follow its instructions. The makers of the shows or films don't have to care about canon because what they create is automatically the canon by definition, even when it changes older canon. The only people who actually do have to care about canon are people like me -- professional tie-in authors working under license from the studio and contractually obligated to avoid contradicting the canon.

Of course it can be useful to think about canon as a category label, as a way of differentiating the core work from derivative works in a critical discussion. But that's just classification, like differentiating insects from arachnids or Old World monkeys from New World monkeys, say. It's not a matter of value judgment or "truth," since it's all just made-up stories anyway. And it's not something anyone needs to worry about, just something to consider if one is curious. So there's no need for it to be a matter of controversy or drama.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Changing established continuity is quite insulting when it's done on a grand scale. If I've seen, for example, Captain Smith's identical twin brother in multiple episodes I'm going to take issue if Captain Smith states a few seasons later he's an only child. Writers should respect their audience's intelligence. Changing established story material because it's inconvenient to the current storyline being written is incredibly lazy and an insult to those who have stuck with the series long enough to remember.

I agree there's no need for controversy or drama over any of this but Captain Smith is my favourite character

The exact thing happened in M*A*S*H. In the first few seasons Hawkeye had both a sister and a living mother. Later in the series this got changed to him being an only child with a mother who died when he was a kid. It had nothing to do with respecting the audience's intelligence; it had to do with molding this particular character to suit where they wanted to go with him. The aspect of Hawkeye's character with regards to the relationship he had with his dad became one of his defining characteristics, and the previous situation didn't work as well, so they either ignored it or forgot about it. Either way, they realized what they wanted to do with the character and the second version is how we all remember him.

So if Captain Smith's brother really wasn't all that important, and by having a brother, it distracted how the writers of the character of Smith wanted to take him, then the brother simply isn't important enough to keep around. I don't see this as disrespecting the audience, I see it as getting the audience to be closer to the character by changing some things to suit the story.

 

[Christopher]

I actually think your reasoning is a straw man argument to be honest. All of the examples you've given me of stuff that was exiled out of canon are movies that were not popular with the fans in the first place.

It's not a straw man, because I'm not pretending it should be applied universally. My entire point is that there is no universal rule, that canon and continuity work differently in different situations. Yes, on the whole, maintaining consistency is obviously a desirable goal. But there are many reasons why the occasional small inconsistency -- or even the occasional large one, in rare cases -- might serve a legitimate purpose.

Regarding Happy Days and other old shows you stated yourself that no one expected those shows to see the light of day again. It was a different era with different sensibilities.

That's exactly my point -- that things like that are unlikely to be attempted today, because it is a different era and creators are aware of that fact.

The exact thing happened in M*A*S*H. In the first few seasons Hawkeye had both a sister and a living mother. Later in the series this got changed to him being an only child with a mother who died when he was a kid. It had nothing to do with respecting the audience's intelligence; it had to do with molding this particular character to suit where they wanted to go with him. The aspect of Hawkeye's character with regards to the relationship he had with his dad became one of his defining characteristics, and the previous situation didn't work as well, so they either ignored it or forgot about it. Either way, they realized what they wanted to do with the character and the second version is how we all remember him.

Exactly. All creation is a process of discovery, trial, and error. Often the first thing you tried to do doesn't work all that well, and you find something better. Frankly, as a creator myself, I'm offended by the attitude that creators should be forbidden from ever changing their minds or correcting their mistakes -- that we should all be forced to adhere slavishly to our earliest, least polished ideas. That would be a terrible, terrible policy. Terok Nor alleges that creators are insulting the audience by not being obsessively rigid about every last trivial detail. I say it's insulting creators to say we shouldn't be allowed to try to refine and improve our work. We don't make changes because we're "lazy" or insensitive -- we make changes because we're trying to make our work better. The stories you see in books or movies are not first drafts. They're the end result of a lengthy process of revision and improvement that you don't get to see. But an ongoing series is essentially a draft in progress, and you get to watch the process of refinement as it happens. That's not being lazy -- just the opposite, it's being conscientious of the need to improve and correct mistakes.

 

[Terok Nor]

You don't have to. One of the biggest misunderstandings about canon is that it's some kind of rule that's binding on fans. It's actually just a descriptive label to differentiate the core material from its tie-ins, but fandom insists on ascribing all sorts of mythical importance to it and worrying more about it than they have any reason to.

Fans don't have to care about canon because they aren't employed by the film or TV studio and don't have to follow its instructions. The makers of the shows or films don't have to care about canon because what they create is automatically the canon by definition, even when it changes older canon. The only people who actually do have to care about canon are people like me -- professional tie-in authors working under license from the studio and contractually obligated to avoid contradicting the canon.

Of course it can be useful to think about canon as a category label, as a way of differentiating the core work from derivative works in a critical discussion. But that's just classification, like differentiating insects from arachnids or Old World monkeys from New World monkeys, say. It's not a matter of value judgment or "truth," since it's all just made-up stories anyway. And it's not something anyone needs to worry about, just something to consider if one is curious. So there's no need for it to be a matter of controversy or drama.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Changing established continuity is quite insulting when it's done on a grand scale. If I've seen, for example, Captain Smith's identical twin brother in multiple episodes I'm going to take issue if Captain Smith states a few seasons later he's an only child. Writers should respect their audience's intelligence. Changing established story material because it's inconvenient to the current storyline being written is incredibly lazy and an insult to those who have stuck with the series long enough to remember.

I agree there's no need for controversy or drama over any of this but Captain Smith is my favourite character

The exact thing happened in M*A*S*H. In the first few seasons Hawkeye had both a sister and a living mother. Later in the series this got changed to him being an only child with a mother who died when he was a kid. It had nothing to do with respecting the audience's intelligence; it had to do with molding this particular character to suit where they wanted to go with him. The aspect of Hawkeye's character with regards to the relationship he had with his dad became one of his defining characteristics, and the previous situation didn't work as well, so they either ignored it or forgot about it. Either way, they realized what they wanted to do with the character and the second version is how we all remember him.

So if Captain Smith's brother really wasn't all that important, and by having a brother, it distracted how the writers of the character of Smith wanted to take him, then the brother simply isn't important enough to keep around. I don't see this as disrespecting the audience, I see it as getting the audience to be closer to the character by changing some things to suit the story.

I'll have to agree to disagree on this point. I think other methods can be found to accomplish this goal without tossing out previously established material. Killing Smith's brother off accompishes the same thing. I've stated I'm not against bending continuity slightly to help a story along so what I'd do is simply have it stated Smith and his brother were not close and didn't spend much time together as children. If they were shown to be close in previous episodes then it can be explained away easily by saying they became close later in life. Smith is still left with a similar childhood backstory.

If established story material is disposable when it becomes inconvenient then why should we buy into anything that's ever been said or done? Someone can just come along and sweep it all aside when it gets in the way. You thought Deanna Troi was half Betazoid? Wrong. She's now a full Betazoid because having her read minds helps our new story work better than having her only sense emotions.

I think there's a certain trust that should exist between the writers and the audience. Maybe you disagree and I respect your opinion but this is how I feel about the issue of canon.

 

[BillJ]

If established story material is disposable when it becomes inconvenient then why should we buy into anything that's ever been said or done?

Because Star Trek is a story told by dozens of creators over the last fifty years. I don't expect consistency, I expect to be entertained.

I don't care if they ditch something from fifty, thirty, ten or even two years ago, if it makes the current story more entertaining.

 

[Terok Nor]

Terok Nor alleges that creators are insulting the audience by not being obsessively rigid about every last trivial detail.

Actually, I don't.

In fact that's the complete opposite of what I posted.

Even if you don't remember every detail (and why should anyone be expected to anyway?) you're going to notice glaring continuity errors when they're staring you straight in the face. Not that every last little detail should be adhered to before a script goes before a camera but excising inconvenient continuity that gets in the way is a cheap and lazy method of writing in my opinion.

It's not that I take it personally. I just like to buy into the fiction I'm watching and if major details are changed it pulls me right out of it. I'm perfectly willing to allow for creative licence but sometimes it takes the biscuit. That's not to say I think Star Trek as a whole is guilty of this on a grand scale. I'm more disagreeing with your reasoning about why established "facts" can and should be changed if they get in the way.

I'm not sure I should reply to the rest of your post until I'm sure you've understood mine. And to be blunt, I'm finding this discussion more than a bit hypocritical given your comments in this thread

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=11361149#post11361149

Surely the real world intention of any writer who writes any piece of fiction is for it to be "factual" to the universe they're writing for. If we take your conflicting defintions of what constitutes a fictional "fact" then Enterprise is only set in the same universe as the other Star Trek shows until someone comes along and retcons it differently. By the same token Worf is only a Klingon until someone needs him to become a Romulan for their story to work so take everything that happens with a pinch of salt because it's all subject to change at any time. Not a great way to instill trust in the audience or investment in the characters and their world.

 

[Terok Nor]

If established story material is disposable when it becomes inconvenient then why should we buy into anything that's ever been said or done?

Because Star Trek is a story told by dozens of creators over the last fifty years. I don't expect consistency, I expect to be entertained.

I don't care if they ditch something from fifty, thirty, ten or even two years ago, if it makes the current story more entertaining.

I'm not looking for perfection but I don't expect glaring retcons either. I also want to be entertained but I don't want to leave my brain at the door. That's why I couldn't invest in most of Voyager and all of Enterprise, not to mention the JJ Abrams movies.

Each to their own. We both want different things from Star Trek. One isn't more right than the other and neither of us are wrong for taking different things from it.

 

[Franklin]

To me, canon is basically continuity and logical (planned change). I see it as both timeline (event or calendar) canon and character canon. Between the two, as long as producers of a show try to stay true to the character canon as it builds, I don't mind playing with the timeline part.

To me, it's also forgivable to mess with factual continuity in order to evolve a character and create more depth and interest, as with Dukhat's example of Hawkeye in M*A*S*H. Indeed, that show is a perfect example of blowing up a timeline and throwing out continuity, and it worked because they kept the characters' arcs and situations interesting and realistic. (Try to create any kind of continuity -- timeline and event -- canon in M*A*S*H and your head will explode. It can't be done, and producers, frankly, more or less stopped trying. They had to.)

TOS canon was basically a contrivance after the fact, anyway. Given it was episodic TV, it's probably amazing there was enough consistency in the series to create a timeline canon in the first place.

 

[Christopher]

If established story material is disposable when it becomes inconvenient then why should we buy into anything that's ever been said or done? Someone can just come along and sweep it all aside when it gets in the way. You thought Deanna Troi was half Betazoid? Wrong. She's now a full Betazoid because having her read minds helps our new story work better than having her only sense emotions.

Again, it's not an all-or-nothing question. Yes, of course what you're saying is good practice as a rule. But as Captain Picard once said, "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute. Even life itself is an exercise in exceptions." I'm not saying the rule you're advocating never applies at all -- I'm just acknowledging that it isn't an inflexible absolute.

And ultimately, all of this is just a bunch of lies people made up for fun. You buy into it because you choose to suspend disbelief for the sake of enjoying the story. And yes, it is possible to push an audience's disbelief too far so that they're no longer willing to suspend it. A sufficiently major continuity error can do that. But there are times -- occasionally, not always -- when some degree of continuity tweaking can be necessary and acceptable to the audience.

I think there's a certain trust that should exist between the writers and the audience. Maybe you disagree and I respect your opinion but this is how I feel about the issue of canon.

Of course there is trust, but that includes the audience trusting the creators to have a valid reason for it when they do make a change, and the creators trusting the audience to have patience with their efforts to clean up their messes. It doesn't mean trust that every factoid remains accurate, because it's all made up to begin with, and we're all just agreeing to pretend it's real. Part of trust is being forgiving, and having faith that if someone makes a mistake -- or tries to undo an earlier mistake -- that doesn't mean they have bad intentions.

Change is part of the creative process. Playwrights often revise their plays and musicals in response to audience reaction. Prose authors who reprint old stories or novels tend to rewrite them to fix problems or mistakes -- again, often in reaction to complaints and questions from the readers. These things are not being done to offend or anger the audience -- they're generally being done in service to the audience, in an attempt to address their problems and make the work more satisfying to them. But the makers of an ongoing series don't generally have the option to go back and change the earlier installments, so they have to settle for incorporating the improvements into the later installments and trusting the audience to understand that they're refining it as they go.

I'm not sure I should reply to the rest of your post until I'm sure you've understood mine. And to be blunt, I'm finding this discussion more than a bit hypocritical given your comments in this thread

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?p=11361149#post11361149

Surely the real world intention of any writer who writes any piece of fiction is for it to be "factual" to the universe they're writing for. If we take your conflicting defintions of what constitutes a fictional "fact" then Enterprise is only set in the same universe as the other Star Trek shows until someone comes along and retcons it differently.

Okay, you're the one who's misreading my post. I stated quite clearly in the post you quoted that I was not referring to any in-story "fact," but rather to the real-world fact that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga intended the imaginary work called Enterprise to be a direct prequel to the imaginary works called Star Trek, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager, rather than intending it to branch off a new and separate continuity like the 2009 movie did.

 

[BillJ]

To me, canon is basically continuity and logical (planned change). I see it as both timeline (event or calendar) canon and character canon. Between the two, as long as producers of a show try to stay true to the character canon as it builds, I don't mind playing with the timeline part.

To me, it's also forgivable to mess with factual continuity in order to evolve a character and create more depth and interest, as with Dukhat's example of Hawkeye in M*A*S*H. Indeed, that show is a perfect example of blowing up a timeline and throwing out continuity, and it worked because they kept the characters' arcs and situations interesting and realistic. (Try to create any kind of continuity -- timeline and event -- canon in M*A*S*H and your head will explode. It can't be done, and producers, frankly, more or less stopped trying. They had to.)

TOS canon was basically a contrivance after the fact, anyway. Given it was episodic TV, it's probably amazing there was enough consistency in the series to create a timeline canon in the first place.

For me, and me alone, I'm interested in them getting the broad strokes right and don't really care about the minutiae of the universe.

 

[eyeresist]

Canon ≠ continuity.

 

[Sector 7]

To me, canon is basically continuity and logical (planned change). I see it as both timeline (event or calendar) canon and character canon. Between the two, as long as producers of a show try to stay true to the character canon as it builds, I don't mind playing with the timeline part.

To me, it's also forgivable to mess with factual continuity in order to evolve a character and create more depth and interest, as with Dukhat's example of Hawkeye in M*A*S*H. Indeed, that show is a perfect example of blowing up a timeline and throwing out continuity, and it worked because they kept the characters' arcs and situations interesting and realistic. (Try to create any kind of continuity -- timeline and event -- canon in M*A*S*H and your head will explode. It can't be done, and producers, frankly, more or less stopped trying. They had to.)

TOS canon was basically a contrivance after the fact, anyway. Given it was episodic TV, it's probably amazing there was enough consistency in the series to create a timeline canon in the first place.

For me, and me alone, I'm interested in them getting the broad strokes right and don't really care about the minutiae of the universe.

I say, Amen to That!!

 

[Therin of Andor]

see Chuck Cunningham in Happy Days -- but that was when nobody expected old TV episodes to ever be released on home video or catalogued on Wikipedia

Or indeed Mike Douglas (Tim Considine) on "My Three Sons"!

 

[Nerys Myk]

see Chuck Cunningham in Happy Days -- but that was when nobody expected old TV episodes to ever be released on home video or catalogued on Wikipedia

Or indeed Mike Douglas (Tim Considine) on "My Three Sons"!

Unlike Chuck, Mike was written out of the show by getting married on screen in the season 6 premiere. They even mentioned him a couple of times.

 

[Franklin]

Canon ≠ continuity.

Well, a canon means consistency, and consistency means continuity in a series. My point in separating event continuity from character continuity is I personally have less concern about the former being fudged than the latter.

see Chuck Cunningham in Happy Days -- but that was when nobody expected old TV episodes to ever be released on home video or catalogued on Wikipedia

Or indeed Mike Douglas (Tim Considine) on "My Three Sons"!

Unlike Chuck, Mike was written out of the show by getting married on screen in the season 6 premiere. They even mentioned him a couple of times.

There's supposedly an outtake from the final scene of the final episode of "Happy Days" where after toasting all the characters from the show present at his daughter's (Joanie) wedding and thanking them for being part of his happy days, Tom Bosley (Howard, the dad) pauses, breaks character and says, "Chuck! Where's Chuck?"

 

[Christopher]

Well, a canon means consistency, and consistency means continuity in a series.

On the whole, yes, but never to the granular level where every tiny detail is immutable. There are always inconsistencies and mistakes no matter how hard you try, so often the best you can do is gloss over certain details and pretend a greater consistency than there really is.

Which is where it's helpful to take a "Doylist" interpretation of continuity (I think that's the term) and treat the work as a fictionalized account of the "real" events and that inconsistencies are the result of errors on the part of the chronicler.

 

[ToddPence]

To me, it's also forgivable to mess with factual continuity in order to evolve a character and create more depth and interest, as with Dukhat's example of Hawkeye in M*A*S*H. Indeed, that show is a perfect example of blowing up a timeline and throwing out continuity, and it worked because they kept the characters' arcs and situations interesting and realistic. (Try to create any kind of continuity -- timeline and event -- canon in M*A*S*H and your head will explode. It can't be done, and producers, frankly, more or less stopped trying. They had to.)

The episode that really screws up the M*A*S*H chronology is "A War For All Seasons".

 

[eyeresist]

Well, a canon means consistency, and consistency means continuity in a series.

On the whole, yes, but never to the granular level where every tiny detail is immutable. There are always inconsistencies and mistakes no matter how hard you try, so often the best you can do is gloss over certain details and pretend a greater consistency than there really is.

That's the thing - there are inconsistencies in the canon, which is inevitable, as it's been created by humans, and the inconsistencies are part of the canon (and create nice story-telling opportunities for the tie-in writers).

 

[Franklin]

Well, a canon means consistency, and consistency means continuity in a series.

On the whole, yes, but never to the granular level where every tiny detail is immutable. There are always inconsistencies and mistakes no matter how hard you try, so often the best you can do is gloss over certain details and pretend a greater consistency than there really is.

That's the thing - there are inconsistencies in the canon, which is inevitable, as it's been created by humans, and the inconsistencies are part of the canon (and create nice story-telling opportunities for the tie-in writers).

OK, now I see what you meant. Canon doesn't have to equal consistency because contradictions and inconsistencies will happen in stories (just as it happens in the telling of real history). It's human. As it was, I didn't mean canon equaled consistency in the most minute things, just consistency in the broader things that define the in-story universe. Of course, even those can be up for grabs, sometimes.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

You say canon. You say cannon. Let's call the whole thing off.