Canon: How many times is enough?
- Thread starter Tallguy
- Start date
I tend to think that we are. You just don't like the answers I'm giving. Which is fair enough.
What I want out of Star Trek? Good stories about brash characters, with cool special effects and a touch of optimism. I don't care if the Eugenics Wars started in 1992, 2092 or the 33rd century. Nor do I care if Vulcan has a moon or not. That is mindless minutiae.
That might be minutiae, but what of the sets we saw over and over and over again for years. Are those minutiae too? If a good story is to be told that involves a location that was a known set that was repeatedly used for the same thing (such as the bridge of the old TOS USS Enterprise) wouldn't it logical to have that set appear the same as it did for the dozens of episodes it appeared in? Or at least mostly the same? What about the ship itself. It was the main setting for years and used in all the other series. If used again, shouldn't it remain the same? It doesn't seem like minutiae at all.
You are talking about tiny points of data. I am talking about things that were large and on screen a lot.
You are talking about tiny points of data. I am talking about things that were large and on screen a lot.
'Gene's vision' seem to depend on whatever 'medication' he was on that day
All of em!
Yes they are. Sets are window dressing. Costumes too.
I've watched Trek since it began, and I think despite some relatively unimportant issues that can/should be retconned and just admitted as mistakes and growing pains (typically distances traveled at various speeds and times), it's done a fairly good job.
However, while you can always point to examples of some "individuals" treating a canon fact as more important than the story, I'm not sure I've seen many examples of stories that had to break canon by necessity to tell a good story. When someone seriously breaks canon it usually just seems like ignorance or laziness or indifference or a lack of respect for the work of others who played by the rules, and/or an arrogance any idea they had was too good and so modifying it to fit canon is too much to ask of a "real" artist or writer.
Which story, for example, absolutely required Vulcan to have a moon where respecting canon would have totally made that story impossible? What lofty moral or social lesson does the Vulcanian moon provide? If you can't tell me, this is hardly a good example. If you think you can, I bet more than a few here can devise a way to modify that story so as to preserve the good elements of the story and still respect canon.
I would tend to discount any who just wanted to include elements more akin to magic or the supernatural or quite far removed from established "Trek science" just to make their story work - particularly lingering things where there would be no reason why the fallout or logical ramifications wouldn't be applicable to every other story from then on. I think the problem there is most of those guys are just playing in the wrong sandbox, and not because Trek canon is an unnecessary impediment.
However, while you can always point to examples of some "individuals" treating a canon fact as more important than the story, I'm not sure I've seen many examples of stories that had to break canon by necessity to tell a good story. When someone seriously breaks canon it usually just seems like ignorance or laziness or indifference or a lack of respect for the work of others who played by the rules, and/or an arrogance any idea they had was too good and so modifying it to fit canon is too much to ask of a "real" artist or writer.
Which story, for example, absolutely required Vulcan to have a moon where respecting canon would have totally made that story impossible? What lofty moral or social lesson does the Vulcanian moon provide? If you can't tell me, this is hardly a good example. If you think you can, I bet more than a few here can devise a way to modify that story so as to preserve the good elements of the story and still respect canon.
I would tend to discount any who just wanted to include elements more akin to magic or the supernatural or quite far removed from established "Trek science" just to make their story work - particularly lingering things where there would be no reason why the fallout or logical ramifications wouldn't be applicable to every other story from then on. I think the problem there is most of those guys are just playing in the wrong sandbox, and not because Trek canon is an unnecessary impediment.
Vulcan, orbiting Eridani A, is one of a cluster of odd and barely M-class masses that can be inhabited...apparently.
Spocks statement was never meant to stand up to...anything, just make his world alien to ours. Motion Picture wanted EPIC and therefore gave it about 50 moons to look cool, the Directors Edition clouded the sky so we didn't see them. Also changing Vulcan from having a dark amber sky, to no visible atmosphere (sort of) even in the day time, which changed to red in TOS-R, then biege smog in TMP
E, then blood red/orange in ENT, then just a freaking sky in 2009.
From having no "moon" to several planets and moons nightmarishly close, to a sky where you couldn't notice, to having no visible orbiting partners from 2001-2009, then a sister planet nearby.
Canon everyone.
Just easier to blow the damn thing up and start ag...oh.
Spocks statement was never meant to stand up to...anything, just make his world alien to ours. Motion Picture wanted EPIC and therefore gave it about 50 moons to look cool, the Directors Edition clouded the sky so we didn't see them. Also changing Vulcan from having a dark amber sky, to no visible atmosphere (sort of) even in the day time, which changed to red in TOS-R, then biege smog in TMP
E, then blood red/orange in ENT, then just a freaking sky in 2009.From having no "moon" to several planets and moons nightmarishly close, to a sky where you couldn't notice, to having no visible orbiting partners from 2001-2009, then a sister planet nearby.
Canon everyone.
Just easier to blow the damn thing up and start ag...oh.
Practically all the X-Men movies have pretended to some degree The Last Stand never happened. The only exception is when they want to make fun of it in, like the "third one's always the worse" line.
Although, yeah, with Logan they intentionally decided from the start their only concern was to tell a good story and continuity be damned, and the movie is all the better for it.
But "relatively unimportant" issues vary by fan.
As far as speed goes, when they made the NX-01 faster than Voyager, Berman had only been working on Trek for more than a decade. The Voyager pilot goes out of its way to tell us how super-fast their ship is, "Sustainable cruise velocity of warp factor nine point nine seven five.", then completely forget about it when doing a prequel.
Seriously, who gives a fuck that the NX "Warp 5" is faster than Voyagers "Warp 9.999975"? Or that unimportant planets are now light years closer than they were in TNG?
Meh, I'll take Qo'nos being a few days from Earth over a few minutes from Earth it was in STID.
Obviously, I do. If I'm told something is supposed to hold together, then I'll expect it to hold together. A ship in 2151 being about ten times faster than a ship in 2371 is a pretty big flub.
Voyager was 100 times slower than the Enterprise D, the NX-01 being faster is nothing, Cochrane was rocking a faster engine when Vulcans were just the creepy stalkers in our solar system.
No, no. I think they're on to something.I think you're straining your analogy to the breaking point
Only 30?
The Vulcan Academy Murders, of course.
Similar threads
- Poll
