News Captain Pike Has Been Cast

[ItIsGreen]

Who the hell is Una?

I'm guessing she's some version of Number One from one of the novels - whle I'm fine with the idea of writers of the shows using material from the novels if they are good ideas, they have no obligation to follow what's been set out in them. The novels are their own thing, and while remaining fairly respectful to the canon of the shows, often contradict each other and I have no desire to see anything from the novels treated as anything remotely close to canon.

The only things that are canon about Number One is that she's a Starfleet officer, second-in-command of the Enterprise as of 'The Cage', is of human appearance, fairly stoic in temperament and has dark hair. Anything else that has been speculated on in the novels is just that, speculation.

he stated that, unless a situation arises in which the onscreen narrative of Discovery requires deviation, it will be wholly consistent with the contents of the tie-in fiction created to promote the series... which is a situation that has never before been in play.

I think Dukhat summed it up perfectly:

Translation: "No the novels aren't canon because we're going to contradict them, but we're calling them canon for now so you'll buy them."

P.S. I think the Pike casting is spot on here.

 

[DigificWriter]

He's telling that person what they wanted to hear. Just like how they told everyone that DSC is a prequel to prime universe TOS because that's what they wanted to hear. Because telling people what they want to hear helps sell your product.

Bullshit.

 

[Tuskin38]

Just like how they told everyone that DSC is a prequel to prime universe TOS because that's what they wanted to hear

And because it is true.

 

[Dukhat]

Bullshit.

Nope.

And because it is true.

Nope.

 

[Tuskin38]

Nope.

We must have watched different shows then. Discovery is clearly prime timeline if you ignore the visuals.

 

[Dukhat]

We must have watched different shows then. Discovery is clearly prime timeline if you ignore the visuals.

What an inherently humorous statement. So if I ignore the look of a 2017 Corvette, it's really a 1969 Corvette?

 

[Tuskin38]

What an inherently humorous statement. So if I ignore the look of a 2017 Corvette, it's really a 1969 Corvette?

Those are not even remotely similar arguments.

If the 2017 Corvette innards/specs matched the 1969 Corvette then sure. It would be the same car with a different look.

The Story and Lore of Discovery matches with Prime Timeline.

 

[DigificWriter]

@Dukhat:
Ted Sullivan stating that Discovery's tie-in fiction is Canon does not have - and will never have - any effect whatsoever on the current or continued success of the series and will not have any effect whatsoever on the sales for said tie-in fiction... and the same thing applies to the series' current and future success in relation to its setting relative to the rest of televised Star Trek.

 

[Dukhat]

Those are not even remotely similar arguments.

Yes they are. You're telling me to ignore basically everything that my eyes are showing me and just take someone's word who is trying to sell me a subscription to CBSAA that it's the same universe? No.

If the 2017 Corvette innards/specs matched the 1969 Corvette then sure. It would be the same car with a different look.

Except they don't match. Which was my point.

 

[DigificWriter]

Yes they are. You're telling me to ignore basically everything that my eyes are showing me and just take someone's word who is trying to sell me a subscription to CBSAA that it's the same universe? No.

You're already "basically ignoring everything that your eyes are showing you" because it's not - and never will be - the visual aesthetic of things that determine Discovery's placement in the Prime Timeline.

 

[Dukhat]

You're already "ignoring everything that your eyes are telling you" because it's not - and never will be - the visual aesthetic of things that determine Discovery's placement in the Prime Timeline.

Then why call it the prime timeline then?

 

[Tuskin38]

You're already "basically ignoring everything that your eyes are showing you" because it's not - and never will be - the visual aesthetic of things that determine Discovery's placement in the Prime Timeline.

Then why call it the prime timeline then?

We already have a thread for this argument, maybe use that instead of starting it here.

 

[DigificWriter]

We already have a thread for this argument, maybe use that instead of starting it here.

It's not an argument; it's a stubborn refusal to accept reality.

You're right, though, that it doesn't belong in this thread.

 

[Mudd]

He's telling that person what they wanted to hear.

The only thing that people on this production other than the actors do consistently and well.

 

[DaveyNY]

Then why call it the prime timeline then?

As with everything in Life we have No control over...

Just Because.

 

[Greg Cox]

Who the hell is Una?

I'm guessing she's some version of Number One from one of the novels -.

Just to clarify, she's the version of Number One who appeared in the recent LEGACIES trilogy by me, Dave Mack, Dayton Ward & Kevin Dilmore, as well as my Pike-era novel, Child of Two Worlds. And, yes, she's not 100% consistent with the various different versions of Number One who have appeared in the novels and comics over the years, although we tried to make her more or less a composite of the previous versions.

Is she "canon"? Hell if I know.

Seriously, it would be cool if "Una" migrated from the books to the screen, the way "Nyota" and "Hikaru" did, but I have no expectations along those lines. That's up to the TV people, as always.

 

[Rahul]

Your personal indifference towards the contents of Discovery's tie-in novels means nothing.

The DSC tie-in novels aren't explicitly Canon, but they're also not explicitly Non-Canon, either.

That is a fact.

^ I can't find that panel, but I did find a Twitter statement from Ted Sullivan that was made within the last two days that actually invalidates everything that's been said here over the past few posts regarding the relationship between the show and its tie-in fiction:


A member of CBS' Consumer Products division, John Can Citters, also weighed in on the subject with the following:


So, as you can see, we' have in fact been given an explicit declaration of Canonical status - unless otherwise specified - for DSC's tie-in fiction, something that has never before happened with Trek.

Just an FYI: That literally means the novels are non-canon.
It's the very exact "type" of canonicity novels always had on Trek: They are "true", as long as nothing on screen contradicts them. The most recent novels are therefore usually always pretty in line with the movies. Hell, many one-off old novels are still "valid", as in nothing has contradicted them, and instead there are even on-screen references to some of them.

This is not a slide. It's just what it is, and IMO one of the things Trek got really right (compared to, say, Star Wars, which wants ALL it's material to be "canon", only to run in into a million different contradictions). For the Trek franchise, it's always the same rule: If you read that novel, and nothing contradicts it, you can hold it "true". Just be warned, that 1) if ever anything on screen appears that contradicts the novel, and that can happen decades later(!) - the on-screen version will trump it. And 2) not many people actually read tie-in novels, so when you're discussing "the adventures of Burnham" online, it's an adventure that most people simply won't be aware of them or treat the contents of them as something "official".

That's how it always has been on Trek, and what they basically confirmed. Star Trek novels aren't so much explicitly "non-canon" (only the real old ones that clash real hard with later material), as they all are "semi-canon": They happened for you, as long as you read them, and as long as they don't contradict any on-screen material. Just don't take anything in them as definite.

 

[Rahul]

Disagreed. Anson Mount is about the closest dead ringer for the Jeff Hunter Pike as we can get.

Bomer comes off too effeminate and youthful. He may have been a better fit for a Kirk type than the stern and tortured Pike.

Not going to comment anything meaningful here. Just looking at Pike, and thinking about I have to watch "the cage" sometime again. I think the much warmer, more open Kirk worked much better for TOS, especially as a contrast to the more quiet, introspective Spock. Together with the original No. 1, the "the cage"-crew came across as too "cold", if you know what I mean, so I understand and even applaud the casting change that happened.

But dayumn, just look at Jeffrey Hunter. What a specimen.

 

[ITDUDE]

Further proof that Discovery isn't Prime!

+1 to you!

 

[eschaton]

Not going to comment anything meaningful here. Just looking at Pike, and thinking about I have to watch "the cage" sometime again. I think the much warmer, more open Kirk worked much better for TOS, especially as a contrast to the more quiet, introspective Spock. Together with the original No. 1, the "the cage"-crew came across as too "cold", if you know what I mean, so I understand and even applaud the casting change that happened.

Yeah. I have a hard time seeing Pike doing any of the TOS comedic episodes. Or banging all the hot aliens Kirk did. It would have been a very, very different show with Pike at the helm.