Are We Being Gaslighted in Regards to Canon?

[uniderth]

Honestly, I think they should have just made Dorn look like the 1960s Klingons. But I had that idea only in hindsight. I wonder if it was even considered.

It probably would have been more likely not to include him rather than have him in smooth face. Making Dorn look like the '60s Klingons would have made zero sense to many people watching. "Why does Worf suddenly look like a human?" And there would be no opportunity to explain to the audience why he looked different, becasue then the characters would be acknowledging the in universe difference anyway. The most sensible option was what they did. Acknowledge the difference, but don't go into specifics.

 

[BillJ]

I struggle to see how that is any different than GR's assertion regarding TOS vs. TMP.

It was Roddenberry's universe, he created it. So, when it comes to Star Trek, I see him as having more leeway to change things than people who never had anything to do with it.

YMMV.

 

[fireproof78]

It was Roddenberry's universe, he created it. So, when it comes to Star Trek, I see him as having more leeway to change things than people who never had anything to do with it.

YMMV.

Personally, I would think that anyone in charge of the franchise would have that leeway...

 

[Christopher]

But if I were to ask “About how many ships does Starfleet have fighting the Dominion in 2374?”, I couldn’t just create the correct answer (I’m not a DS9 writer), look it up in tie-ins (unless they’re production sources like Okuda/Sternbach’s, DS9 writers would ignore them), so the closest approach would be to do as a continuity-minded DS9 writer might, which is to search the scripts or ask around for references to recent ship counts. Could a conclusion on that basis still be wrong? Sure, but the whole point is to have fun arriving at an answer that could potentially be confirmed, and eliminating certain sources reduces the risk of being wrong.

But there is no "right" or "wrong," because it's not history, it's just a story somebody made up. The most you can hope for is a plausible conjecture, one that's consistent with what the story has established.

I mean, even in real science and history, there's no such thing as absolute certainty. There's just the best fit to the current evidence, which may need to be modified in light of further evidence. That's even more the case in fiction, where even existing "evidence" can be retconned away if the story demands it.

I don't think the distinction between canon and continuity is as big of a deal as some make it out to be. Canon and Continuity are fundamentally linked. Canon is the body of work, continuity is the natural result of applying thought to canon.

Well, yeah, in the sense that continuity is one of the storytelling tools used in creating the body of stories that we call a canon. But it's not the singular purpose of the exercise; it's one tool in the kit, and some canons apply it more heavily and rigorously than others. Even the TV shows in the '60s and '70s that were basically continuing-cast anthologies and made no attempt to remain consistent from one episode to the next still pretended to depict a single overall reality; it was just defined impressionistically in broad strokes rather than in granular detail.

The idea that canon is whatever is seen on screen makes sense for the era when it was more difficult to propagate messages to the viewers and fanbase. The lowest common denominator is whatever is seen on screen.

Like I keep saying, that phrase never, ever meant that being onscreen made something canon. It was just a shorthand for saying that Star Trek is a TV/movie series and everything outside the episodes and movies is not part of the story. It's the equivalent of saying that the relevant part of a play is what the audience sees and hears onstage rather than what's going on backstage. If you're seated off to the side and can see stagehands running around beyond the edge of the scenery flat, then that's not part of the play. If the loud jerk sitting next to you in the theater starts making his own guesses about what will happen next, that's not part of the play. The play is what's onstage. But -- things can happen onstage that are not part of the play, like a flubbed line or a prop malfunction. Being onstage doesn't necessarily make something part of the play; it's just that stuff offstage is not part of the play. (Unless it's one of those experimental stagings where the actors come out into the audience or whatever. Analogies are imperfect things.)

 

[Shawnster]

It probably would have been more likely not to include him rather than have him in smooth face. Making Dorn look like the '60s Klingons would have made zero sense to many people watching. "Why does Worf suddenly look like a human?" And there would be no opportunity to explain to the audience why he looked different, becasue then the characters would be acknowledging the in universe difference anyway. The most sensible option was what they did. Acknowledge the difference, but don't go into specifics.

Nah, I gotta disagree with you. Trials-and-Tribbilations was full of smooth-headed Klingons. They had an entire scene with a gag to explain it. Right down to the line from Worf "we don't talk about it" or something like that.

So a similar scene would have played out. Either a throwaway line from Bashir "Worf, you don't look like yourself. Did you get a haircut?" or some other joke; or they walk into the bar and Worf says something about all the Klingons or something.

The only difficulty was nobody recognized Worf as a Klingon. It would have been odd for a Klingon to be in the company of humans from Starfleet during that time.

 

[Christopher]

The only difficulty was nobody recognized Worf as a Klingon. It would have been odd for a Klingon to be in the company of humans from Starfleet during that time.

That's why he was wearing a hat -- so people wouldn't know he was Klingon.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

What species was Tuvix, for example?

We'll never know because before he could say what it was Janeway murdered Tuvix over an argument they were having about whether or not Starfleet was a military, and then she collected the one million credit bounty on his head because the Federation definitely uses money and has a death penalty. Discuss.

Thread saved.

 

[1001001]

We'll never know because before he could say what it was Janeway murdered Tuvix over an argument they were having about whether or not Starfleet was a military, and then she collected the one million credit bounty on his head because the Federation definitely uses money and has a death penalty. Discuss.

Thread saved.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Do we? In relation to Discovery, we're simply holding the production crew to what they've stated over and over, this is all supposed to fit together.

I don't know if "canon" says there was actually a war pre TOS between the Klingons and the Federation, but if not, Discovery did tip its hand. This was a big one, not just a skirmish, with Starfleet being nearly decimated and nearly millions killed.

That may or may not have an affect on some viewers. Some don't care, some will think it gets in the way of enjoying the story because of credibility or conflict with the in-universe history. (Another thing suddenly inserted) I understand both views.

Sometimes I like explain-aways or outright ignoring things in favor of a good story that's too good to be resisted. Canon can be suspended for a moment if it's really juicy and doesn't destroy suspension of disbelief.

DS9 brought up the issue, and then jokingly dismissed it, not because of fan reaction, but simply because there was no way to avoid it if you were going to have Worf and some old-school TOS Klingons in the same scene.

Honestly, I was satisfied with just winking at the issue and moving on. Not sure ENTERPRISE needed to give us a "canon" explanation later.

Same here. Obviously the original Klingon makeup had to go, the newer one suits them just fine, it's worth looking over.

I would have loved a good explanation/explain-away for the difference in appearance, if it's a good one, but I found Enterprise's explanation too convoluted. Obviously pretending there is no difference is insulting our intelligence, but at least acknowledging it left the whole thing open for a good explanation later on.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know if "canon" says there was actually a war pre TOS between the Klingons and the Federation, but if not, Discovery did tip its hand. This was a big one, not just a skirmish, with Starfleet being nearly decimated and nearly millions killed.

On the one hand, "The Infinite Vulcan" and The Wrath of Khan both said that the Federation had been at peace for a century, so DSC overwrites that pretty massively. On the other hand, a Klingon war a decade before TOS meshes well with elements of TOS. It explains why the crew has such intense, reflexive hatred for Klingons, which seems too personal to be a mere historical enmity or ideological disagreement. And it fits with the mention of a past colony attack in "Day of the Dove." Chekov only imagined he had a brother who was killed there, but nobody else questioned the reality of the attack itself, implying that it was real. It makes sense if it happened during the war.

And maybe the Federation's need for resources to rebuild postwar explains why they were willing to bend the Prime Directive enough to trade with Capella IV for their ores, or to admit Ardana to the Federation without bothering to check whether they enslaved their miners.

 

[Dukhat]

I struggle to see how that is any different than GR's assertion regarding TOS vs. TMP.

Simple: At the time of TMP's production, Roddenberry wanted to completely ignore what was seen in TOS (a feeling he later carried over to early TNG). He didn't want to 'tribute' it, he didn't want to make references to it, he didn't want to find ways to 'fit it all together,' and he didn't give a shit about 'canon.' He wanted to pretend that it didn't exist.

The difference is that the producers of DSC (at least for the first season) seemed also to want to pretend that TOS didn't exist. But unlike Roddenberry, they stated the complete opposite of that intent, and constantly referred to the show as being set literally ten years before TOS, and that it will 'all fit together, we promise!', 'canon will be satisfied!', blah blah blah.

Honestly, I think they should have just made Dorn look like the 1960s Klingons. But I had that idea only in hindsight. I wonder if it was even considered.

They wouldn't have been able to do the "we don't talk about it' joke if they'd done that.

 

[fireproof78]

The difference is that the producers of DSC (at least for the first season) seemed also to want to pretend that TOS didn't exist. But unlike Roddenberry, they stated the complete opposite of that intent, and constantly referred to the show as being set literally ten years before TOS, and that it will 'all fit together, we promise!', 'canon will be satisfied!', blah blah blah.

Yeah, I don't see that...

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, I don't see that...

Well, I can't help what you see or don't see, sorry

Edit: that sounded more rude than I intended. Perhaps I should say that people are just going to have their own opinions about how DSC's production went.

 

[Christopher]

Simple: At the time of TMP's production, Roddenberry wanted to completely ignore what was seen in TOS (a feeling he later carried over to early TNG). He didn't want to 'tribute' it, he didn't want to make references to it, he didn't want to find ways to 'fit it all together,' and he didn't give a shit about 'canon.' He wanted to pretend that it didn't exist.

Whaaaaa? No, that's an absurd overstatement. He just wanted to refine it -- to make something that was closer to what he'd imagined the first time but was only imperfectly able to approximate with 1960s television resources. He wanted to keep what worked and upgrade what could use improvement. It's completely wrong to equate that to "ignoring" it or pretending it didn't exist.

Creativity is a process of successive approximations. You make a rough version of a thing, then you refine it, then you refine it again, then you refine it again. Eventually you run out of time to improve it and have to let it out into the wild, but almost always, you'll feel there's still room for improvement, especially if you were subject to limitations of budget or time or censorship and had to compromise what you wanted. So if you're given the chance, you'll make those improvements. It doesn't mean you're ignoring or rejecting the work; it's just the next step in the very same process of adjustment and improvement that created the work in the first place. It's an attempt to get closer to the ideal that you were striving toward all along.

The difference is that the producers of DSC (at least for the first season) seemed also to want to pretend that TOS didn't exist. But unlike Roddenberry, they stated the complete opposite of that intent, and constantly referred to the show as being set literally ten years before TOS, and that it will 'all fit together, we promise!', 'canon will be satisfied!', blah blah blah.

Huh? It sounds like you're making the mistake of equating the superficial production design and technical details with the entire universe. DSC was always meant to take place in the same universe as TOS as far as the important elements of story, character, and continuity were concerned. It just updated elements of lesser importance like the portrayal of the technology and the visual design. That's not "ignoring" what came before any more than Robin Curtis's Saavik "ignored" the existence of Kirstie Alley's. It's just modifying it.

 

[fireproof78]

Well, I can't help what you see or don't see, sorry

Edit: that sounded more rude than I intended. Perhaps I should say that people are just going to have their own opinions about how DSC's production went.

I'll defer to Christopher on this one. I just don't see how DSC's production team went in with the attitude of ignoring everything.

And no rudeness was taken.

 

[Damian]

Simple: At the time of TMP's production, Roddenberry wanted to completely ignore what was seen in TOS (a feeling he later carried over to early TNG). He didn't want to 'tribute' it, he didn't want to make references to it, he didn't want to find ways to 'fit it all together,' and he didn't give a shit about 'canon.' He wanted to pretend that it didn't exist.

Whaaaaa? No, that's an absurd overstatement. He just wanted to refine it -- to make something that was closer to what he'd imagined the first time but was only imperfectly able to approximate with 1960s television resources. He wanted to keep what worked and upgrade what could use improvement. It's completely wrong to equate that to "ignoring" it or pretending it didn't exist.

Yeah, I have to agree with Christopher on that one. I thought they went out of there way to explain TMP was built on the original series. Even inserting reasons why the production design looked different and changes in the crew. I mean, we can argue over how realistic it is that the Enterprise was completely refitted in 2 1/2 years and all. But the fact that they tried to insert an explanation as to the change in appearance and changes in crew structure showed he didn't just want to ignore the original series. That he intended it to essentially be a sequel to the TV series in the same reality and universe.

I mean, the only thing that he maybe changed without an in universe explanation was the Klingon appearance. And they were a very small part of the movie anyway when you think about it.

 

[Christopher]

But the fact that they tried to insert an explanation as to the change in appearance and changes in crew structure showed he didn't just want to ignore the original series. That he intended it to essentially be a sequel to the TV series in the same reality and universe.

Yes. Let's not forget that the attitude toward continuity in TV and film series was far more lax back then. Plenty of shows had very loose continuity within themselves. For example, when Harve Bennett produced the weekly series version of The Six Million Dollar Man, he retconned plot and character details from the first pilot movie and pretty much ignored the two Glen Larson-produced pilot movies, and sometimes episodes introduced new or contradictory backstory compared to what had been done several seasons earlier. This was typical of TV at the time. So when Bennett made The Wrath of Khan, he was just as willing to rewrite TOS continuity, to retcon Chekov into "Space Seed," to change the age and appearance of Khan's followers, to decorate their living space with movie-era Starfleet tech and costume pieces rather than TV-era ones, etc. If anything, TMP's continuity variances were less blatant than that, but they were within the same tolerances of what was expected for TV or film series of the day -- namely that continuity was a matter of broad strokes and general impressions, rather than the kind of meticulous detail that fandom has become more attuned to over the past few decades of companion books and episode guides and home video and wikis and so forth.

 

[Damian]

And speaking of Larson who can forget season 2 of Buck Rogers. They not only changed the focus of the show but many of the characterizations (and most of the characters even) were different. I think maybe Twiki was about the only thing that reminded me of the first season (well at least after Mel Blanc came back), other than maybe some of the technology like star gates.

 

[Jedman67]

We'll never know because before he could say what it was Janeway murdered Tuvix over an argument they were having about whether or not Starfleet was a military, and then she collected the one million credit bounty on his head because the Federation definitely uses money and has a death penalty. Discuss.

Thread saved.

You monster.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

But there is no "right" or "wrong," because it's not history, it's just a story somebody made up. The most you can hope for is a plausible conjecture, one that's consistent with what the story has established.

I mean, even in real science and history, there's no such thing as absolute certainty. There's just the best fit to the current evidence, which may need to be modified in light of further evidence. That's even more the case in fiction, where even existing "evidence" can be retconned away if the story demands it.

There is a right answer because if Sisko were to ask this question, he would in fact get a correct ship count (perhaps with qualifications based on repair status and defensive vs support role). The answer may never be created for the show, but the established logic of the universe demands that one exists.

Yes, a plausible conjecture is what a fan could hope for by looking at previous references to ship counts, but my point is that the need to maximize predictive power is the reason canon (and especially local production continuity) cannot be relevant mostly to tie-in writers, but also to fans asking questions that haven’t been given answers on the show.