As long as they want as long as they can continue to make money. What else?
Frustrations with Trek lit...
- Thread starter Overgeeked
- Start date
But will they ever reach the point where they need to reboot the tie-ins to continue?
I wouldn't rule it out, but of course there's no way to answer that question definitively.
Woah! I haven't seen that one yet, in which issue does that happen?
I think the only way that would happen at this point is if something is introduced in Discovery or a future show or movie that completely contradicts the books.
"Completely" being the key word, since the Novelverse has worked around or glossed over contradictions before (e.g. the planetary conditions of Andor/ia or the anatomy of the Tholians). Or just left some contradictions unaddressed, like the dual Defiants in SCE: Interphase and ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly."
I think there was a time when the Star Wars Expanded Universe was contradicted by things like the prequel movies or The Clone Wars' treatment of Mandalorians, and later books just quietly retconned out the parts that conflicted with new screen canon while keeping the rest. I suspect something similar might happen here.
Season three finale....we find the origin of the Borg. There goes Destiny. Season 2 we find the NX02 Columbia....a museum piece pressed into service......that's the first wobble. Season 4 in order to get the best of both worlds, the Discovery gets time riffed into the late 24th century, a la Bozeman (that's if it doesn't happen by the end of season one...if that is the shenzhou in wireframe she's a mighty modern looking spaceframe) which...would make for a pretty interesting series Premise really, and satisfy the TOS era fans for a bit and The the post NEM fans. Patrick Stewart to guest star and possibly swear, since that's working for him right now. Then they use advanced Disney level cgi to finally make Bring Back Kirk, at the end of season nine. Because seven years is passe. They want to X files it. XD
Two defiants you say? I think one of you guys needs to reconcile that with a story featuring two more defiants, pre-boom and post-boom, with two siskos and all the creole food they can eat. In space.
My explanation for the two Defiants was that the Defiant in Interphase is the "real" Defiant and the one from the Enterprise two-parter is actually from a different universe that is identical to the prime universe justexcept for the Defiant's reapperance.
Yeah, I figure it's a "Parallels" sort of situation, where the interphase rift is like the quantum fissure allowing access to multiple near-identical timelines. The proof is in the fact that the IaMD Defiant uniforms had an insignia shaped like the Starfleet chevron seen on the "racing stripes" of Starfleet vessels, whereas the "Tholian Web" Defiant uniforms had the same insignia as the Enterprise (and the non-Enterprise officers seen on Starbase 11 in "Court Martial" and "The Menagerie").
Pretty close. Usually for the most part, other tie-ins would address the problem by bridging the gap in some way to reconcile the two versions. They rarely declared one version non-canon (although some of the old Clone Wars comics where handled that way). I think that's part of the reason the pre-Disney continuity got so convoluted.
Doesn't that kind of defeat the intent of the episode? Is the patch discrepancy (regardless of which one you believe to be the "correct" one) really worth twisting the filmmaker's intent (for lack of a better way to phrase the question)?
Not to get into an argument about whether the TOS or ENT Defiant had the "correct" patch (since always thought it as a retcon of a old costuming error and you don't), did we actually see the old patch in the TOS show?
Going off my memory, I thought that the patches were always hidden in the episode. I could be misremembering, but I have this idea lodged in my head that I noticed that they were always covered and assumed they did that so they wouldn't have to spend money to create a patch they wouldn't need again.
Star Trek has been created by hundreds of different people with conflicting intents. Trying to apply some rigid auteur theory is foolhardy. Hell, part of the fun of being Trek fans (or writers) is getting to use our imaginations to fill in the gaps and resolve the inconsistencies. And since any inconsistency is a clash of two different creator intents, any resolution of an inconsistency is bound to contradict at least one. And you know what? That's allowed. Intent is not dogma. Fiction is meant to inspire creative thought in the readers, not forbid it.
Barely. It's only really visible in HD -- which is presumably why the makers of IaMD didn't catch it or decided to ignore it -- but it's there, and I find it a convenient detail from which to derive an explanation for the discrepancy.
Somewhere on this BBS, there's a reprint of a Bob Justman memo revealing that Roddenberry always intended the Enterprise insignia to be the insignia for all heavy cruisers, which was why the non-Enterprise officers in "Court Martial" had it too. This has been covered in many threads over the past few years -- try the search function.
On the Defiant bit, I vaguely remember a Trek author mentioning once, before SCE was ended, that there was going to be an SCE story that addressed the Defiant thing directly (not necessarily as the main plot or anything, just that it was going to come up). Was that my imagination?
Just wondering out of curiosity really.
Just wondering out of curiosity really.
The only thing I remember is that one of the Enterprise MU stories, from the anthologies, had a line referring to a quantum whatsit on the Defiant that one of the authors mentioned here was thread that could be pulled later on to explain the two Defiants.
A.) I meant in the context of the episode itself, I guess. I mean, we could postulate anything about anything, but there is a point where a theory goes beyond how the show is intended to be perceive.
B.) That same reasoning could argue that the ENT patch retcons and overwrites the TOS episode's intent (esp. since it sounds like TOS's original intent was that the Defiant didn't have the ENT patch).
C.) I was only asking how far a theory can go before it's very clearly meant to be an alternate way of seeing the show. (Case in point, I've heard the fan theory that ENT takes place in a parallel reality or as part of an altered timeline from the rest of the prime universe, despite the fact that the people who made the show intended it to be a prequel that lead into TOS and beyond.)
Course, I'd be calling the kettle black, otherwise. I guess I think assuming that ENT got the patch right seems to be a better fit, is all.
That would explain why I missed it. (Out of curiosity, is there any reason to prefer an explanation of a parallel universe to the patch problem rather than assume that ENT retconned the design?)
Yeah, I think I've seen those before; I think I might've even discussed this with you. I guess all I can say is that A.) Memos are not canon and B.) Canonically, the multiple patches system was used far more times than the single patch and consistently used afterwards, making a retcon seem like the stronger theory, IMHO.
However, as you pointed out before, since part and parcel of viewing something like this are the explanations we invent, there will always be multiple theories, esp. since there has been no further evidence onscreen one way or the other.
Honestly, I think the multiple-patch thing is a vestigial remnant clinging to the continuity that's best just ignored from now on. It's a minor bit of art direction that ceased to be relevant years ago. It's trivia, a footnote.
Kinda like Superman not being able to fly but only being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Yeah, sure, that was the original intent, but that was left by the wayside generations ago so we don't need to worry about anymore.
Kinda like Superman not being able to fly but only being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Yeah, sure, that was the original intent, but that was left by the wayside generations ago so we don't need to worry about anymore.
Forgive me I haven't been paying attention to this ongoing debate but are y'all seriously talking about uniform or ship insignia?
I'm a fan but I'm not that fanatical.Yup, we are. We're fans. We obsess with the little things.
Similar threads
