My exposure to JJM is his work on Lost Tribe of the Sith, the Knights of the Old Republic comics, and Knight Errant, where he smoothed over Star Wars canon violations on a regular basis (back when it was all one canon). Things like the Battle of Serroco, first mentioned in the game Knights of the Old Republic 2, as well as the Mandalorian Wars and Revan and Malak's origins were deftly woven into his story. He didn't have to, but he did. So that's why I feel it's possible he may do the same with Trek.
Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Even though Desperate Hours has been ignored, they are still doing that. Last week's episode had a reference to an event from the Tilly book, but I'm not sure where that actually originated, and John Jackson Miller (@JJMiller), has already said he was given information about Season 2 while he was working on The Enterprise War. @Kirsten Beyer is also credited as a co-writer on all of the comics so far, so I would assume that they have all been consistent with what the show has planned at least up to that point.
That's a good idea in theory, but I given the vastly different production times for books, comics, and TV episodes I don't really know how practical something like that would be.In a sense that would mean the authors and comic book writers would be part of a larger show running team to varying degrees so everyone kept things straight. I mean, the show already has to keep itself consistent to a degree, so this would have just been a progression of what was already being done anyway. It might be something like having someone on the team that's an advisor of sorts that keeps track of what the tie-ins are doing so the showrunners have a source to go to for info when they needed (not to mention there are tons of resources already, including even the writers themselves--I mean, if Alex Kurtzman called David Mack with a question about his book I'm sure he'd be happy to oblige)
It's possible, but that doesn't mean it's practical.
So far there have been two Discovery miniseries, The Light of Khaless, and Succession. The Light of Khaless focuses on the backstories of T'Kuvma, Voq, and L'Rell, and I believe it also has a framing story which takes place during the series. Succession focuses on what happens after Season One's Mirror Universe arc, and also has flashbacks dealing with the MU character's backstories. There is also a standalone Annual 2018, which focuses on Stamets and Culber's backstory, and a one-off Captain Saru comic, which takes place during the brief time that Saru was in command of Discovery between Lorca and Pike.But why not just with Discovery? So far there are only 4 novels (I'm not sure how many Discovery comic books there are, I'm not a comic reader--Hell, I didn't even know Superman was a, er, never mind).
One thing that is important to remember when it comes to Desperate Hours and Season 2, is that they were done under different showrunners who had different plans. The only reason they did Desperate Hours was because Bryan Fuller was still in charge at the time it was being written, and he was planning having the Enterprise on the show. By the time Season Two started he had left and new showrunners had taken over, and they obviously felt differently.
Didn't know you were a B5 fan. I know I read a couple of those old novels, but I didn't find them very memorable (one had something to do with a telepath conspiracy and the other had the first officer framed for murder or something).
Okay.
So, basically "the stories happened if you want, but ignore the mistakes"? Honestly, if I was a huge B5 fan, I'd be really happy about that.
Yeah? Aren't the movies and the TV shows different departments and creative teams, though?
Fair enough, but, still, when your movie is basically a very loose remake of a bunch of old tie-ins (AC Crispin's old Han Solo Trilogy, to be exact), that's a very interesting observation in regards to the relationship between the main work and the tie-ins.
We do know that. At least I do. I just find it fun with certain ones like this were stuff fits together really well, keeping a better illusion that this's "real." Don't need everything to be like that, but that's just me.
I think I enjoy Star Trek and Star Wars more when they swing to more consistency, which I probably why I'm bothered by the DSC redesigns more then I should be and am hoping that that upcoming Star Trek cartoon is non-canon (besides the obvious reasons regarding canon questions, I think a non-canon show where they can go as far as they want without raising the question of how it coexists with the other shows would allow for a more interesting show). In the case of the less consistent, Pinky and the Brain and Looney Tunes are great because everything resets or is different each time (excluding that the characters's personalities are consistent from story to story). So, I wouldn't say that either is inherently good or bad (both have great strengths), but I think I'd prefer something pick one and exploit all the advantages you can get out of that form. Some things, like the Fox X-Men film series, can waffle between the two and get away with it because they can make really good movies, but I don't really enjoy that kind of chaos very much.
Interesting to know. Sounds a bit like JRR Tolkien. Have to admit that I do find sci-fi stories with outdated science (some of Asimov's stuff, Jules Verne, etc.) does have a charm to it that the really up-to-date doesn't for some reason. Or maybe I'm just imagining it?
Fair enough. Guess I like the possibilities that a cross-media "all is canon" project offers and aren't very sensitive to the problems of doing that. Still think it sucks that the DSC novel was overwritten, though; it being my gateway to the DSC stuff kinda gives it a good deal of sentimental-ness, I guess.
Wait, Miller is writing another Trek novel? [goes to google it]. A DSC novel about the Enterprise and what it was doing during season 1?! YES! Don't care about canon on that, I can't wait for it!
I think what JMS meant by "some canon value" was that certain elements of the stories might be "true" in-universe even if the stories as a whole were not. Or that the events depicted may have happened, but not in the way shown.
So are the Star Trek TV shows and movies. But they're equally canonical because they're from the studio that owns the property rather than subcontracted out to a different company. It's exactly the same with Star Wars -- the TV shows and movies are equally canonical. The only difference is that in SW, the movies came first. (Although by this point, the vast majority of the franchise's running time consists of TV shows. I'm convinced there's a whole generation of kids growing up thinking of Star Wars as an animated TV franchise with occasional movies.)
Different versions of the same fictional franchise have always borrowed ideas from each other. Superman comics got Jimmy Olsen, Perry White, and kryptonite from radio, Superman's flight from the theatrical cartoons, and the Daily Planet from the newspaper comic strip. But the "relationship" there is not about continuity or canon, it's about exploring ideas. A basic part of creativity is developing variations on a theme -- taking one form of an idea and changing it into something different.
Which is fine for vintage stuff, but my original universe is still a going concern, with new stories still coming out. Besides, I always wanted to expand that first story into a novel, and when I decided to give myself permission to rewrite the story, it enabled me to turn it into something much better, because my writing style has improved a lot since then. (I did include the original story in my recent collection, to preserve a record of that version alongside the novel version replacing it, but even that version has been revised twice from the original edition.)
It is? I thought it totally changed Han's whole backstory, and didn't take anything at all from the books.
The Star Wars movies were also made by two or three different creative teams.Christopher said:
It is marked with a spoiler warning, and always has been - which means anyone reading this thread should be aware that spoilers are displayed.
When the new Star Wars canon was announced, they said they were getting rid of the 'tiered canon' system from the EU, and everything would be equal in canon unless stated otherwise.
So the comics and novels are just as canon as the novels and TV shows, until they're contradicted.
So the comics and novels are just as canon as the novels and TV shows, until they're contradicted.
Last edited:
That's what they initially said about the EU. Then the prequels and The Clone Wars came along and contradicted them with abandon, so they walked it back to the "tiered canon" idea, which was tantamount to admitting that they were never canon at all (and indeed George Lucas never felt that they were despite the public claims).
Granted, it's different in this case because it actually is the studio saying the tie-ins are canonical and making an effort to keep them that way. But as you (presumably meant to) say, the films and TV shows will probably be free to contradict novels and comics that get in the way of their story plans.
There are some hiccups, but the Star Wars EU lasting from 1978 to 2014 is probably one of the greatest, if not the greatest, multimedia story in the history of fiction.
Just because someone might really want to shine a flashlight on the patchwork stitches and shout "It's all fiction!" doesn't change that fact, much like someone revealing all of a magician's magic tricks doesn't change the fact that their illusions were among the most impressive ever seen.
Of course not -- that's exactly the point. Too many fans today are obsessed with whether two stories are in continuity with each other, when all that matters is whether they're enjoyable. It's not about having consistent dates and factoids for a Wiki article, it's about enjoying a story revolving around characters and ideas and emotions. So whether something is "canon" or not should only be a matter of classification, not worth or legitimacy.
That may all be true
But I still don't like the spore drive
(sorry, couldn't resist)
But I still don't like the spore drive
(sorry, couldn't resist)
I don't like the spore drive. I don't like the Genesis Device. I don't like thalaron radiation or portable mini-transporters. I don't like Flint's random power to miniaturize starships. I don't like Section 31. Star Trek has always been and always will be a mix of good and bad ideas, although there's bound to be disagreement on which are which.
You realize Genesis is classified. You don't want to let Section 31 know you know about that.
Ok, but in all seriousness you're right. Star Trek is littered with forgotten technologies and plot devices. And in most cases I let it go because it is fiction, they're basically one and done and it advances a large plot. I can be pretty forgiving. I don't expect Star Trek to be like 2001 (a great film by the way). They do just enough right that I can let the 'wrong' things pass usually. Spore drive just really bugs me, it's almost next level for me in the sense that it's such an integral part of the show, and I just can't understand if it can damage the very fabric of the universe what insanity makes them continue to use it. All those other technologies didn't carry universal cataclysm on their backs (though still incredibly dangerous--they didn't threaten the very universe). And that goes back to something Christopher said a few pages back that basically something of that level is almost ridiculous.
So while I can let things like Genesis, thalaron or shrinking starships go, the spore drive is something beyond all that IMO.
Section 31, well, that's more organizational so it's a bit different. I'll admit the first time they showed up on DS9 I was intrigued. But like the Borg I think they are starting to get a bit overused. Everything unseemly that happens isn't necessarily due to something Section 31 did.
So while I can let things like Genesis, thalaron or shrinking starships go, the spore drive is something beyond all that IMO.
Section 31, well, that's more organizational so it's a bit different. I'll admit the first time they showed up on DS9 I was intrigued. But like the Borg I think they are starting to get a bit overused. Everything unseemly that happens isn't necessarily due to something Section 31 did.
Not in the 24th century it isn't. Janeway makes reference to it in The Omega Directive, I believe.
I think Genesis stopped being a secret the moment it turned a nebula into a planet. ST III made it clear that the public knew about the Genesis Planet -- Morrow said it was "a galactic controversy," and of course there's "Genesis allowed is not! Is planet forbidden!" If some random Yoda-talking pilot-for-hire in a bar knew about Genesis, then I think the secret was out, even if the details were still classified.
I've always thought Starfleet was more concerned with covering up Khan's involvement than anything else--it's hard to hide a planet, even a forbidden one (just ask Doctor Morbius), but they still had an interest in hiding the fact that a notorious figure from the Eugenics Wars had been alive and simply left on a planet by a Starfleet captain, setting the whole thing in motion fifteen years later in a way that could've been prevented.
That's how you get a Klingon ambassador asserting that Kirk "test-detonated" the Genesis Device without anyone on the Federation Council questioning that account of what happened.
That's how you get a Klingon ambassador asserting that Kirk "test-detonated" the Genesis Device without anyone on the Federation Council questioning that account of what happened.
It never made sense that Khan's revival was kept secret. Over 70 living people from the late 20th century, an era for which historical records were spotty? That would be an incredible gold mine for historians.