When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[Nightdiamond]

*sigh* No, for the five millionth time, that is not the intent. The Kelvin timeline branched off from the Prime timeline; it did not erase it. It's nonsensical to think that the creators of the movies wanted to eliminate the Prime timeline from existence. CBS would never have let them do that, and the very fact that Discovery exists in what's unambiguously a separate timeline from Kelvin (because there was a Klingon war in 2256-7 when STID says there have only been a few minor skirmishes as of 2259, and the Enterprise is already in service in 2256-7 while the Kelvin version isn't launched until '58) proves that Prime still exists.

And yes, decades of time-travel fiction has brainwashed us to believe that altering history "erases" the original timeline, but that's physically impossible and logically contradictory. The writers of ST '09 chose to employ a more scientifically credible model in which the new timeline coexists alongside the old one, both because it's more scientifically up-to-date and because it lets both timelines coexist and continue to have stories told in them.

For that matter, there's already canonical precedent in "Yesteryear" -- when Spock goes back in time to restore his own timeline, he says he hopes Commander Thelin lives long and prospers in his own timeline -- which he would not say if he expected Thelin's timeline to be erased when he restores his own. It's implicit that the two different timelines coexist rather than overwriting each other. As reinforced by "Yesteryear"'s opening log entry describing the Guardian of Forever as "the focus of all the timelines of our galaxy."




As I've been saying, this is not true; there were always fans who objected to the perceived continuity errors in sequels like the movies and TNG, who refused to accept the redesign of the Klingons or the other reinterpretations of the universe. The change to prequels just shifted the topic of the objections. It didn't change human nature, the inability of some people to accept anything that challenges their preconceptions and assumptions.

Not to mention that some fans will attack any difference whether it involves continuity or not. When Voyager came along, there were vicious misogynistic attacks on Janeway. I'm sure there were racist reactions to Sisko when DS9 came along, but I think that was before I got involved in online bulletin boards.

In that case why did the Enterprise have to go back to 2063 to stop the Borg assimilating the Earth? Why did the Enterprise C have to be sent back to 2344 to stop the war with the Klingons breaking out?

That was exactly the same example I was going to use.

As far as Trek's history with this, the whole idea that an altered past has no effect on the present seems really arbitrary and sudden.

It doesn't matter by what method the time travel occurred, the fear and the results are almost always the same.

We see this happened again and again in the movies, on the show, in every series. Someone is always worried that the slightest interference will damage their entire reality when they return to the future .

The Borg went back into the past and assimilated Earth. Suddenly, the crew notices that humanity has disappeared and Earth has changed and history has been altered.

Only after fixing things does everything return to normal.

Sisko, Dax and Bashir were thrown back into the 21st century.
Gabriel Bell is killed before he can do whatever he did that ultimately brought about the Federation. When that happened, Starfleet suddenly disappeared. Everywhere, everything.
After Sisko managed to fix things and impersonate Gabriel Bell, everything returned to normal and historical records show a picture of Sisko instead of the real Gabriel Bell.

Nero came from the same timeline as Picard and Sisko and Spock. He went a one hundred something years into the past and destroyed Vulcan.

As a result if nothing was restored or prevented, TNG DS9 and Voyager should have reported that Vulcan was destroyed in the history books. Tuvok should have mentioned it.
I use to think there were two different different timelines two until I actually thought about it.

None of these things created an alternate timeline, it actually affected the Prime universe unless they did something to fix the situation.

It's the same universe!

.

 

[fireproof78]

I think @Christopher

[QUOTE="Damian, post: 12918569, member: 75004"]I can watch "These are the Voyagers' without throwing something at my TV because of "The Good that Men Do" (I still don't care for TATV, but I can at least view it in a different light).[/QUOTE]
I might have to read it now.
[QUOTE="Greg Cox, post: 12918576, member: 2996"]One of my general rules of thumb when writing TOS is that if we can do it today, in 2019, they can do it in the 23rd century. So, yeah, they can have multiple windows open on the view screen, send each other text messages, conduct DNA tests, have women captains and security officers, etc. Otherwise you're writing a period piece, not SF.[/QUOTE]
I think that, based upon reactions to ENT, Kelvin Trek and DSC, that there is a genuine wish for a period piece.

[QUOTE="Nightdiamond, post: 12918695, member: 14971"]None of these things created an alternate timeline, it actually affected the Prime universe unless they did something to fix the situation.[/QUOTE]
Save for all the examples of when the timeline diverged. Which is established in episodes like "Parallels," "Mirror, Mirror," "The Alternative Factor" as well as what @Christopher noted regarding Commander Thelin in TAS' involving the Guardian of Forever.

Time travel is not consistent in terms of application.

 

[Greg Cox]

As a writer, would you incorporate elements into a TOS novel seen in DSC like the R2D2 repair robots, the depiction of the Klingons, Section 31 etc. or would it seem incongruous?

Absolutely. I can and will do so. The way I see it, if it's on DISCO (or ENTERPRISE), which take place before TOS, then it's fair game for a TOS book.

Just gives me more toys to play with.

 

[Christopher]

As far as Trek's history with this, the whole idea that an altered past has no effect on the present seems really arbitrary and sudden.

It's anything but arbitrary. "Arbitrary" means done for no reason. As I've already pointed out, there are two very good metatextual reasons why they did this. One, it's better science. The hoary old "erased timeline" trope is scientifically idiotic and impossible, and the writers of the 2009 movie did their homework well enough to know the more up-to-date theories on temporal physics and what both classical and quantum equations predict would happen if time travel were possible (i.e. that the only two physically and logically meaningful outcomes are a single fixed timeline or coexisting parallel timelines). It's natural for science fiction to update its science to reflect new understandings (which is why we no longer see stories about the jungles of Venus and the canals of Mars), and while modern Trek's scientific literacy is often virtually nonexistent, this is one case where they actually did the research and improved on the original, so yay for them.

Second, more importantly, a licensed movie made by Paramount and Bad Robot would simply not have permission to erase the timeline owned by CBS. It's not theirs to do that with, which is part of the reason they made it an alternate timeline in the first place. Real-world ownership outweighs any in-story considerations.

Plus, of course, they didn't want to erase the existing Trek reality. At least 3/5 of the core creative team were Trek fans themselves and they wanted to honor the franchise, not unmake it. So of course they chose to go with an interpretation that preserved the existing continuity for future use while allowing them to do what they wanted in a separate branch.

It doesn't matter by what method the time travel occurred, the fear and the results are almost always the same.

Not "always." They're utterly cavalier about it in The Voyage Home.

Anyway, if you want my handwavey explanation for why some changes in Trek overwrite the timeline and others don't, consult my novel Star Trek: Department of Temporal Investigations -- Watching the Clock. I did the work there, so I don't want to rehash the whole thing here.

 

[Damian]

As I said, TOS's technology was never meant to look like it came from the 1960s. It was just an approximation, a suggestion of the future within the confines of the tech and budget they had. They would've gladly made it look more futuristic if they could have. So if we go back and do that now, it's being true to the spirit of what they intended. It's honoring the substance rather than just the surface.

Yeah, I get that. In fact, I love the remastered episodes of the original series. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but I loved the updated effects to today's standards and the fact that they tried to keep in mind the original directors intentions (though I kind of wished they had used the streaking star warp effect from the TNG-Enterprise--that was my favorite ). And unlike Star Wars, CBS doesn't try to hide the original effects so you have options if you're more of a purist.

Something like the Kelvin bridge

I've always thought the Kelvin bridge was one thing in Star Trek (2009) that really felt like it fit between Enterprise and the original series (except for the stupid window---I know I keep harping on that but I can't help it, it's dumb).

Was Leonardo not creative because he used a live model for the Mona Lisa? Was Shakespeare not creative because he based his plays on earlier plays, myths, and historical events? Was Haydn or Liszt not creative because he based his compositions on the melodies of traditional folk songs?

I don't really think that's the same thing. Remaking movies for the umpteenth time really doesn't equate to Da Vinci or Haydn. I know it will reflect poorly on me a bit but even on something like Friday the 13th--Paramount is considering another origin Friday the 13th movie, which was already remade once. Before Carpenter came back to produce the last Halloween film Dimension films was thinking about making another origin Halloween film, which would have been the 2nd reboot. Or even these reboots and restarts of Spiderman and Superman.

I'm the same way with music too. Endless remakes of old songs (sometimes badly). Write you're own music. But that's a bad example for me because I hate most of today's music anyway. Overproduced, simplistic nonsense. I mean, does anyone actually play instruments anymore? Half the music is computerized anymore. ---ok, I'm ranting again.

I might have to read it now.

Yeah, it was a lead up to the Romulan War novels. It was a fascinating read because it's one of the very few novels that sort of retconned something on screen, something novels are usually not allowed to do. BUT, it's sort of done in an ingenious way that technically isn't a retcon. That's probably one reason CBS (or was it still Paramount then?) let it pass. That and the show was over and wasn't coming back probably. And maybe since it was a poorly received episode they saw it as a chance to maybe right the ship a bit. It does make some sense out of TATV.

My only disappointment with the Romulan War novels is Pocketbooks cut them short. I think it was supposed to be 4 novels?, one for each year of the war roughly. But then they abruptly cut it to two so Michael Martin had to basically 3 years into one book. It ended up being a sort of overview of the war which was a shame. I wonder if Martin was upset or put off by that. I'm sure he had some sort of outline planned out and had to do some significant revisions to what he wanted to cover. It's interesting that he didn't write too many more Star Trek books after that (don't know if this had something to do with it or not but interesting nonetheless).

It's one reason I continue to advocate--for anyone that wants to listen--for a "Tales of the Romulan War" anthology--something where writers can fill in the missing pieces, using Martin's novels as a baseline. I'm sure there's a lot of stories that could be told about that pivotal piece of Star Trek history.

 

[Christopher]

I don't really think that's the same thing. Remaking movies for the umpteenth time really doesn't equate to Da Vinci or Haydn.

Virtually every one of Shakespeare's plays was a remake, though. All the great plays of Ancient Greek and Roman literature were retellings of myths. For most of human history and prehistory, before the printing press and widespread literacy, retelling old stories was the only thing that kept them alive. The idea of making up new stories that aren't based on established myth or history is a pretty recent innovation within the past few centuries; the whole reason novels were initially called that was because telling new (novel) stories was an exception at the time. And many great novels have been kept alive in the public's eye by being repeatedly remade as movies.

My only disappointment with the Romulan War novels is Pocketbooks cut them short. I think it was supposed to be 4 novels?, one for each year of the war roughly. But then they abruptly cut it to two so Michael Martin had to basically 3 years into one book. It ended up being a sort of overview of the war which was a shame.

No, it was going to be a trilogy, and it became a duology.

I wonder if Martin was upset or put off by that. I'm sure he had some sort of outline planned out and had to do some significant revisions to what he wanted to cover. It's interesting that he didn't write too many more Star Trek books after that (don't know if this had something to do with it or not but interesting nonetheless).

We know going in that we're hired contractors subject to the wishes of our employers. Sometimes that means we have to change our plans in response to their decisions. If we want full freedom to do things our own way, that's what original fiction is for.

 

[Nyotarules]

I just see it as common sense to follow canon. Without it you are just left with anarchy.

Not even the original producers re Gene Roddenberry followed 'sacred' Star Trek canon. It's all the minds of fanatical, fans (hence the word) that wants to limit Star Trek to a version that lives in their heads.

 

[fireproof78]

Not even the original producers re Gene Roddenberry followed 'sacred' Star Trek canon. It's all the minds of fanatical, fans (hence the word) that wants to limit Star Trek to a version that lives in their heads.

Exactly. Production teams are not fanatical in their devotion to this. It's unreasonable to expect that, when they have a job to do.

 

[Damian]

Virtually every one of Shakespeare's plays was a remake, though. All the great plays of Ancient Greek and Roman literature were retellings of myths. For most of human history and prehistory, before the printing press and widespread literacy, retelling old stories was the only thing that kept them alive. The idea of making up new stories that aren't based on established myth or history is a pretty recent innovation within the past few centuries;

Ok, maybe. I guess it's just when they're remaking movies like "Friday the 13" I'm letting that skew things a bit. And, in sort of contradicting myself I kind of liked the remake of Friday the 13th a few years back--I just don't feel a need to see it 'remade' again, and the way they ended the last remake it seemed like they were setting it up for a sequel.

I know, people's opinion of me has probably dropped a few notches . Friday the 13th isn't exactly literary genius.

But in order to salvage my reputation just a bit I do like innovative storytelling. It's one big reason I love Hitchcock, Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson movies (and M Night Shyamalan when he's in his element).

And some of my favorite Star Trek episodes were one's where they tried something different.

No, it was going to be a trilogy, and it became a duology.

You know, I think you might have told me that once before. Someday I'll remember that.

We know going in that we're hired contractors subject to the wishes of our employers. Sometimes that means we have to change our plans in response to their decisions. If we want full freedom to do things our own way, that's what original fiction is for.

Yeah. True enough I guess. I imagine he was probably just thrilled he got to write the story of The Romulan War in a novel format. I'd say that's quite an honor.

But I mean, you guys are still human beings. Even knowing all that, if I had plans laid out for a trilogy, and suddenly my boss says it's down to two I might be a bit frustrated I had to cut things down. But I don't honestly know so maybe not.

I've always wondered why they Pocketbooks did that. Were the sales down on the first book? Or some other reason. Or was it just arbitrary? Did the Romulan War books sell well? I know I bought them the minute they came out. I was ecstatic. Finally the untold story. I couldn't wait.

 

[BillJ]

I just see it as common sense to follow canon. Without it you are just left with anarchy.

Sometimes a little bit of anarchy can be a good thing. Too much is usually a bad thing.

 

[Greg Cox]

I know, people's opinion of me has probably dropped a few notches . Friday the 13th isn't exactly literary genius.

But in order to salvage my reputation just a bit I do like innovative storytelling. It's one big reason I love Hitchcock, Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson movies (and M Night Shyamalan when he's in his element).

I watched HORROR HOTEL, COUNTESS DRACULA, and THE VAMPIRE LOVERS this weekend. I cannot judge.

Although I can't resist pointing out that even Hitchcock remade one of his own movies: THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH.

 

[Damian]

I watched HORROR HOTEL, COUNTESS DRACULA, and THE VAMPIRE LOVERS this weekend. I cannot judge.

Although I can't resist pointing out that even Hitchcock remade one of his own movies: THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH.

Yes, and definitely a case where the remake was superior. I guess it's just the sheer number of reboots these days. I remember when people used to complain about sequels. Ahhh, the old days.

But we're all entitled to our guilty pleasures.

Sometimes I'm in the mood for "Strangers on a Train". Sometimes I'm in the mood for Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. It's good to have variety

 

[Damian]

And I even liked Exorcist II: The Heretic.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

Sometimes a little bit of anarchy can be a good thing. Too much is usually a bad thing.

Somes of anarchy?

 

[Vger23]

Sometimes I'm in the mood for "Strangers on a Train". Sometimes I'm in the mood for Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan. It's good to have variety

Sometimes we're in the mood for "Muppets Take Manhatten"

 

[Christopher]

Not even the original producers re Gene Roddenberry followed 'sacred' Star Trek canon.

The canon followed them. "Canon" is just a shorthand for the stories they chose to tell. And any creative process is a process of change, revision, and refinement, so it's not about rigid, immutable ideas carved in stone. (Well, unless it's the actual creative process of carving in stone. But even there, I imagine there are initial drafts in clay or whatever, and false starts and corrected mistakes and so forth.)

Ok, maybe. I guess it's just when they're remaking movies like "Friday the 13" I'm letting that skew things a bit. And, in sort of contradicting myself I kind of liked the remake of Friday the 13th a few years back--I just don't feel a need to see it 'remade' again, and the way they ended the last remake it seemed like they were setting it up for a sequel.

Are those really remakes, though, or just sequels? Anyway, lots of things are just ongoing series, things that continue perennially and never end. And sometimes an ongoing series will retell its beginning. The '40s Superman radio series redid the origin story three or four times in a decade, since it was made for kids and so you'd eventually have new listeners who hadn't been there the first time. The problem with old fans complaining about constant remakes or reboots is that those things are not made for the old fans; they're made to create new fans.

 

[Greg Cox]

Exactly. Sometimes you want to watch "The Third Man" again, sometimes you want "Blood from the Mummy's Tomb."

And it's not like Hollywood hasn't been putting out prequels and sequels since the silent era. I always roll my eyes when people talk as though this is some pernicious new trend. How many THIN MAN and PINK PANTHER movies were there again?

The first movie prequel I know of is THE GOLEM: HOW HE CAME INTO THE WORLD (1920), while movie sequels date back at least as far DON Q, SON OF ZORRO in 1925. I wonder if, back in the day, Zorro fans worried about whether DON Q was "canon" or not?

(I'll spare you my usual lecture about how the original ZORRO novels by Johnston McCulley aren't even consistent with each other.)

 

[Christopher]

And it's not like Hollywood hasn't been putting out prequels and sequels since the silent era. I always roll my eyes when people talk as though this is some pernicious new trend. How many THIN MAN and PINK PANTHER movies were there again?

Sequels and prequels have been around long before film, too. Sophocles's Oedipus Rex and Oedipus at Colonnus were both prequels to Antigone. While we're at it, The Odyssey was a sequel to The Iliad, and The Aeneid was Virgil's fanfic spinoff from The Iliad.

 

[Greg Cox]

Sometimes a little bit of anarchy can be a good thing. Too much is usually a bad thing.

I hear a "Red Hour" is usually just enough.

 

[Damian]

Are those really remakes, though, or just sequels?

Everything from Part II to Freddy Vs Jason (which would be the 11th Friday the 13th film) were sequels---though Jason X, which came out before Freddy Vs Jason technically took place after Freddy Vs Jason. Then the next film was a remake, simply called Friday the 13th. Paramount is considering an origin story, but it's been added and taken off the shelf a couple of times. And I'm not exactly clear who owns it right now. New Line Cinema bought it from Paramount after Part VIII, but they joined forces for the remake (apparently Paramount still owned the rights to the first 4 films and New Line couldn't do a genuine remake without them--but with the popularity of remakes at the time Paramount happily jumped on board). Warner Bros was in the mix for a time too. But I'm not sure who owns all the rights now, Paramount again I guess. It seems New Line is out of the picture, maybe.

I guess that was way more than you ever wanted to know, but there it is. I always say I'm a wealth of useless knowledge.

And it's not like Hollywood hasn't been putting out prequels and sequels since the silent era. I always roll my eyes when people talk as though this is some pernicious new trend.

Yeah, true. I guess it's just that it seemed starting in the 80's sequels became a lot more frequent, and usually to lesser regarded films. And then in the 2000s it remakes were endlessly being done. Then it was reboots. Now it's sequels to the reboots. I remember thinking when Rob Zombie's Halloween II came out I thought "My God, not only do we have reboots, but WE HAVE FREAKIN REBOOTS OF THE SEQUELS NOW" I think it's just the frequency seems to have increased.