Are We Being Gaslighted in Regards to Canon?

[Christopher]

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.

Maybe you just meant that as a segue, but Glen Larson had no involvement in season 2 of Buck Rogers. There was essentially a complete turnover in the creative staff between seasons, with only one producer from season 1 working on the first couple of season 2 episodes and then moving on. That's why the show changed so profoundly.

For that matter, Larson wasn't that involved in season 1 beyond co-writing the pilot movie. He was an executive producer, but Bruce Lansbury was the season 1 showrunner, and the series that was developed under Lansbury and story editor Alan Brennert had some notable differences from Larson & Leslie Stevens's pilot movie (in that the impoverished, isolated post-apocalyptic Earth that had only one remaining pocket of civilization surrounded by mutant-infested wastelands was retconned into a relatively thriving, populous planet standing at the head of an interstellar federation).

Even Twiki was very different in season 2, and that was one of the few changes that was for the better. Season 1 Twiki was annoying and useless, because all he ever did was make snarky wisecracks or toss out anachronistic slang, prefaced by the endless "Bidi-bidi-bidis" that threw off the comic timing so they weren't even funny. In season 2, he actually gained more of a personality and sometimes contributed meaningfully to the stories and conversations.

And the technology was pretty inconsistent. They only referenced star gates a couple of times, and otherwise had the Searcher using "plasma drive" or even "warp drive."

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.

Storytelling logic outweighs everything else, though. The only "right" answer would be the one that serves the needs of the particular story you have to tell. That's why you can't predict these things as if a fictional universe were as consistent as the real one. You might calculate that it would take a starship 3 months to cover a stated distance at the stated warp factor, but if the story needs them to cover that distance in 3 hours, then it will take 3 hours. You might calculate that a photon torpedo of a certain yield is powerful enough to vaporize an entire starship in one hit, but if the story just needs it to blow a hole in one cabin, then it will blow a hole in one cabin. You might estimate that Starfleet has the ability to send a task force of 50 starships to support the heroes' ship, but if the plot needs the heroes' ship to be the only one available, then it will be the only one available. Stories are not about cold calculations. Reality bends to the needs of the drama. Sure, a careful writer will find some way to rationalize the inconsistency, if there's room in the narrative to include that rationalization without distracting from what's important. But the narrative comes first.

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.

As I said, that is true, but when you start talking about it in absolutist terms like "right" and "wrong," then you're taking it too seriously. You can't realistically expect such absolute certainty. Realistically, there's always a chance that your conclusions could be in error, that your best available model still has a chance of being wrong and that you need to be open to that possibility. So a label like "the right answer" can blind you, can lead you to reject new data that conflicts with your preconceptions.

 

[Jedman67]

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.

The correct answer is 42. It is always 42.

 

[Damian]

Maybe you just meant that as a segue, but Glen Larson had no involvement in season 2 of Buck Rogers. There was essentially a complete turnover in the creative staff between seasons, with only one producer from season 1 working on the first couple of season 2 episodes and then moving on. That's why the show changed so profoundly.

Yeah, you mentioning Larson just reminded me of Buck Rogers and the almost total lack of continuity in season 2 from season 1.

some notable differences from Larson & Leslie Stevens's pilot movie

Yeah, that's true enough. Occasionally they'd mention the 'wastelands' around the major cities, and of course the nuclear holocaust, but that was about it. It's hard to reconcile the pilot movie with the rest of season 1 (thought it's easier to do then trying to reconcile season 1 and 2).

Even Twiki was very different in season 2, and that was one of the few changes that was for the better. Season 1 Twiki was annoying and useless, because all he ever did was make snarky wisecracks or toss out anachronistic slang, prefaced by the endless "Bidi-bidi-bidis" that threw off the comic timing so they weren't even funny. In season 2, he actually gained more of a personality and sometimes contributed meaningfully to the stories and conversations.

I guess I can see some of that. It's just of the 3 characters retained from season 1, Buck, Wilma and Twiki--Twiki was the most similar to his portrayal in season 1.

Season 2 just felt off. It's a shame because it had good potential--and there were a few decent episodes. And I liked the character of Hawk and wish he was featured a bit more. The only episode that seemed to remind me a bit of season 1 was the final episode "The Dorian Secret" I think it was.

More Hawk, more of the old Buck Rogers (part of the charm of season 1 is while they did some serious stories they didn't take themselves too seriously, the campiness was part of what made it a fun show to watch), more of the old, stronger Wilma---and I'd even have kept Dr Huer and/or Theopolis (maybe instead of Chrichton, whom I didn't care for) on, at least in some role. The Searcher angle, on an exploratory mission, I think had potential. Throw all that together and maybe season 2 would have been a better season.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, that's true enough. Occasionally they'd mention the 'wastelands' around the major cities, and of course the nuclear holocaust, but that was about it. It's hard to reconcile the pilot movie with the rest of season 1

Not that I can blame them for making the changes. The pilot's version of Earth was way too dystopian and depressing. I prefer the more optimistic, Star Trek-like version of the future they ended up portraying. (Which I think was mostly the work of Alan Brennert, who really seemed to want to be writing ST, and who had Christopher Pike paged by an airport PA announcement in one episode (ditto DC Comics' Adam Strange in another). Brennert eventually did get to write for Trek, as a consulting producer on season 4 of Enterprise under his pen name Michael Bryant.

(thought it's easier to do then trying to reconcile season 1 and 2).

I don't know about that. The portrayal of Earth and its role in the galaxy is generally roughly similar between seasons, although the season-2 Earth characters are less confused by Buck's 20th centuryisms, less reluctant to eat real food and take care of living plants, and less dominated by artificial intelligences, and season 2 can't make up its mind about what the interstellar community is called.

It's just of the 3 characters retained from season 1, Buck, Wilma and Twiki--Twiki was the most similar to his portrayal in season 1.

As I said, I think Twiki became a completely different character, in large part simply because he had a character rather than just being a series of heckles from the peanut gallery. But also because he was more helpful and earnest rather than just a sarcastic wiseass. There was an episode where Buck encountered a fake duplicate ship where the crew acted the opposite of their normal selves, and Twiki was surly and resentful toward humans, which I felt was actually closer to his season 1 personality.

Season 2 just felt off. It's a shame because it had good potential--and there were a few decent episodes. And I liked the character of Hawk and wish he was featured a bit more. The only episode that seemed to remind me a bit of season 1 was the final episode "The Dorian Secret" I think it was.

I think both the premiere "Time of the Hawk" and "The Dorian Secret" are vastly superior to anything else in either season, and almost at Star Trek levels of quality and substance (even though I gather that "Time of the Hawk" is basically a rehash of a storyline from season 2 showrunner John Mantley's previous series Gunsmoke, and does feel very much like a Western). The season's quality basically follows a steep inverted bell curve -- the first and last episodes are superb, the couple of episodes after the first and before the last are decent but highly flawed, and the five in the middle are pretty awful, especially right around the midpoint.

And yeah, Hawk was a potentially great character who was totally squandered.

The Searcher angle, on an exploratory mission, I think had potential.

Except they never used it. Only three episodes involved any kind of exploration, and never directed toward their nominal mission statement of seeking the lost human colonies that left Earth after the Holocaust (an idea that did grow out of season 1's backstory, though it's reminiscent of Battlestar Galactica as well). And there was one episode, "The Crystals," where they did find a lost human colony, but it was only from a couple of decades back rather than centuries, and they just stumbled across it on a refueling mission. It's weird, because Mantley said in interviews that the new format was meant to get away from the political/military intrigue focus of season 1 and do more exploration stories, but there were more season 2 episodes about political/military tensions with rival alien powers than ones about exploration.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

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 think you are giving GR far too much credit. Certainly he wanted to be able to say it was the same universe, but he wanted to make radical changes nonetheless. Larry Nemecek exposed a letter, written by Roddenberry to Fontana, in which he complained about the conceptualization of the Klingons, a race he did not design. In the letter, Roddenberry proposed replacing the Klingons with a greater adversary, perhaps one that had more crustacean like features. Eventually, the Klingons were made to be that descendant of crustaceans, but still the impetus for the redesign was how to replace them.

 

[Christopher]

I think you are giving GR far too much credit. Certainly he wanted to be able to say it was the same universe, but he wanted to make radical changes nonetheless.

Which, as I said, was typical of TV and movie series storytelling at the time, since audiences didn't have home video and wikis to give them intimate encyclopedic knowledge of minor details, and so story continuity was more about the broad strokes. The priority was to make each individual episode or film the best standalone work it could be, and so maintaining consistency between different stories was a secondary consideration.

So it's not about "giving credit." Roddenberry wasn't doing anything wrong by approaching continuity in exactly the same way any of his contemporaries would have done. Indeed, Star Trek was praised in its day for having more continuity than most other TV series.

Larry Nemecek exposed a letter, written by Roddenberry to Fontana, in which he complained about the conceptualization of the Klingons, a race he did not design. In the letter, Roddenberry proposed replacing the Klingons with a greater adversary, perhaps one that had more crustacean like features. Eventually, the Klingons were made to be that descendant of crustaceans, but still the impetus for the redesign was how to replace them.

First I've heard of that. It's interesting -- Roddenberry originally wanted the aliens in "The Cage" to be crab-creatures too, although not humanoids with crustacean features but full-on non-humanoid creature effects.

 

[Damian]

I prefer the more optimistic, Star Trek-like version of the future they ended up portraying.

Yeah, me too. I love dystopian movies (The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Rollerball, Logan's Run.....etc) but Buck Rogers was definitely better when Earth was in a better place then the pilot.

the first and last episodes are superb, the couple of episodes after the first and before the last are decent but highly flawed, and the five in the middle are pretty awful, especially right around the midpoint.

Except "The Satyr" ---I don't know why I liked that episode. I know I shouldn't but I can't help it. Sometimes something is so bad it's good

"Testimony of a Traitor" was good--though it's one of those episodes that tested my continuity fetish. I kept thinking they should have mentioned Dr Huer and Theopolis in some fashion. They divorced themselves so completely form season 1 that they didn't even throw a token "Dr Huer wants you to know he sends his support" line. I wonder if anyone at the time it came out wondered the same thing. Just a little nitpick but it bugged me a bit.

In the letter, Roddenberry proposed replacing the Klingons with a greater adversary, perhaps one that had more crustacean like features. Eventually, the Klingons were made to be that descendant of crustaceans, but still the impetus for the redesign was how to replace them.

Roddenberry originally wanted the aliens in "The Cage" to be crab-creatures too, although not humanoids with crustacean features but full-on non-humanoid creature effects.

I believe it was in "The Making of Star Trek" where it was noted they wanted more exotic aliens--but budgeting and make up limited them as to what they could actually accomplish. I know it's one thing David Gerrold noted in his "The World of Star Trek" book as well-why aliens look humanoid, and he gave high praise to "The Devil in the Dark" for portraying a totally alien life form for a change. So Roddenberry's desire for more exotic aliens was not really a change in philosophy. He always wanted to test the limits but the medium and budgeting forced some limitations as to how much he could accomplish.

 

[fireproof78]

He always wanted to test the limits but the medium and budgeting forced some limitations as to how much he could accomplish.

Which is why things changed is because they had more of a budget and GR stated "that's the way it has always been." It's no different for any other incarnation.

 

[Nyotarules]

So Roddenberry's desire for more exotic aliens was not really a change in philosophy. He always wanted to test the limits but the medium and budgeting forced some limitations as to how much he could accomplish.

So did early TNG have a limited budget, most of the aliens looked human

 

[Damian]

So did early TNG have a limited budget, most of the aliens looked human

Well, like with the original series I think it was a combination of budgeting and make up. Nowadays you can make pretty exotic aliens with CGI technology, and not spend exorbitant amounts of money to do it. Discovery did some of that in season 1. Even Enterprise created some more exotic aliens with things like the Xindi Aquatics and the lifeform from the 2nd season that looked like cotton candy threads, among several other non-humanoid aliens they encountered. But it wasn't as easy to accomplish prior to perfection in CGI technology, esp. on a TV series budget. And we know many of the Star Trek movies were given minimal budgets.

I would say as the years passed and special effects improved, you started seeing more exotic looking aliens on Star Trek. It was a gradual progression I think.

 

[starbuck]

I feel all the shows try to tie into tos for the benefit of fans, sure when tos writers did not think we need to match this and that up to cannon , but fans like to think cannon is theholy bible to how star trek should be

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, me too. I love dystopian movies (The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Rollerball, Logan's Run.....etc) but Buck Rogers was definitely better when Earth was in a better place then the pilot.

Although the original Philip Nowlan novellas were dystopian/post-apocalyptic, and also horrifically racist -- America had long since been conquered by the evil, subhuman Han (Chinese) race, and Anthony Rogers taught the "White Race" (actually called that) how to fight back against their oppressors, eventually leading them to exterminate the entire Han race from the face of the Earth through nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare. I figure it must've been too racist even for 1920s audiences, for there was an unconvincing epilogue tacked on saying that the Han had turned out to be half-alien all along and all the real human races were all living in harmony now.

But then, Buck Rogers is better known from the comic strip, which abandoned the race-war plot after a year in a more peaceful way and moved on to a space-travel focus and battles against fanciful aliens. So it wasn't dystopian for long. The Buster Crabbe serial was to an extent, though, for it came out at a time when society and entertainment were preoccupied with the dangers of organized crime, so its future Earth was ruled by Killer Kane's "super-racketeers" because 20th-century society had failed to conquer the problem of crime, with only the "Hidden City" holding out as the lone enclave of law and order.

Except "The Satyr" ---I don't know why I liked that episode. I know I shouldn't but I can't help it. Sometimes something is so bad it's good

Wow. For me that's pretty much the worst episode of all. Here's my blog review.

"Testimony of a Traitor" was good--though it's one of those episodes that tested my continuity fetish. I kept thinking they should have mentioned Dr Huer and Theopolis in some fashion. They divorced themselves so completely form season 1 that they didn't even throw a token "Dr Huer wants you to know he sends his support" line. I wonder if anyone at the time it came out wondered the same thing. Just a little nitpick but it bugged me a bit.

They also changed the timing of the 20th-century nuclear Holocaust. My review.

So did early TNG have a limited budget, most of the aliens looked human

No, TNG actually had a pretty high budget and cutting-edge production values for its day. But by that time, Roddenberry had become too attached to his image in fandom as a visionary humanist philosopher, and so he wanted all of Trek's aliens to have recognizably human attributes, so we rarely got nonhumanoid creatures like the Anticans and Selay, the Antiedians, and the Sheliak.

 

[Damian]

Wow. For me that's pretty much the worst episode of all. Here's my blog review.

Yeah, I remembered you mentioned that once before, which is why I brought it up . I agree it's bad on many levels, but it's sort of like "Spock's Brain" in that I know I shouldn't like it, but I do. I have to admit I never game much thought to the parallels with an abusive husband idea...it makes sense thinking back to it....but it's "bad" enough of on episode I didn't look much beyond the surface of the story and just basically took it at face value. I guess in some ways you could say I was entertained by just how bad it was. Re: Buck still retaining some of his sanity during his transition I just chalked that up to that it took some time for him to lose his faculties. But yeah, most of it was bad.

They also changed the timing of the 20th-century nuclear Holocaust. My review.

Glad to see I'm not the only one that was bothered a bit by the total lack of mention of Huer and Theopolis. Even if they didn't want to show the characters you'd think they throw in a token line of some sort that they were ready to help, or just thinking of Buck. Or hell, a line at the end of just Buck saying he was going to stop by to say hi to Huer and Theo.

It really seemed like they wanted to pretend season 1 never happened.

 

[Damian]

I will say your episode reviews for Buck Rogers are pretty amusing. I was reading the one about Twiki is Missing and Ardala returns. I can't fault some of your criticisms.

I guess you can say I watch Buck Rogers differently than Star Trek. I don't take it as seriously. It had some good stories, but I try not to dig to far beneath the surface with Buck because a lot of the stories fall apart then. It's one of those series I find I enjoy it more if I just take what they are giving me most of the time, at least as far as the science behind it goes.

 

[Shawnster]

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

They would have simply written a different joke.

 

[Christopher]

I guess you can say I watch Buck Rogers differently than Star Trek. I don't take it as seriously. It had some good stories, but I try not to dig to far beneath the surface with Buck because a lot of the stories fall apart then. It's one of those series I find I enjoy it more if I just take what they are giving me most of the time, at least as far as the science behind it goes.

Sure, season 1 is entertaining fluff. It had things I liked, particularly the surprisingly progressive and egalitarian portrayal of women (compared to contemporary shows, at least), and it's often fun to watch, but it was disappointingly unambitious and superficial in its storytelling. I would've liked to see the more hard-SF David Gerrold-developed version that NBC rejected in favor of the show we got.

 

[Dukhat]

They would have simply written a different joke.

But whether it would have been as funny is debatable.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well, like with the original series I think it was a combination of budgeting and make up. Nowadays you can make pretty exotic aliens with CGI technology, and not spend exorbitant amounts of money to do it. Discovery did some of that in season 1. Even Enterprise created some more exotic aliens with things like the Xindi Aquatics and the lifeform from the 2nd season that looked like cotton candy threads, among several other non-humanoid aliens they encountered. But it wasn't as easy to accomplish prior to perfection in CGI technology, esp. on a TV series budget. And we know many of the Star Trek movies were given minimal budgets.

I would say as the years passed and special effects improved, you started seeing more exotic looking aliens on Star Trek. It was a gradual progression I think.

It also depends on what kind of story you're telling that week. Sure, realistically, actual aliens are unlikely to look like actors in makeup, but Trek isn't always about telling hard-SF stories about the challenges of communicating with exotic alien lifeforms. If the point of the story is how alien the alien is (as in "Devil in the Dark"), yes, it's worth the effort to make the alien as exotic as possible.

But if you're doing a morality play about racism or overpopulation or censorship, or a character drama about survivor's guilt or lost loves or growing old, then making the aliens too weird is just going to get in the way of the story--and the acting.

Look at DS9's "Duet." Sure, it doesn't really make sense that Bajorans or Cardassians would look so humanoid, but would that very powerful episode have actually been improved by making a Kira a twelve-limbed crustacean and the alleged war criminal a sentient blob of protoplasm?

I think not.

 

[Christopher]

But if you're doing a morality play about racism or overpopulation or censorship, or a character drama about survivor's guilt or lost loves or growing old, then making the aliens too weird is just going to get in the way of the story--and the acting.

Look at DS9's "Duet." Sure, it doesn't really make sense that Bajorans or Cardassians would look so humanoid, but would that very powerful episode have actually been improved by making a Kira a twelve-limbed crustacean and the alleged war criminal a sentient blob of protoplasm?

I think not.

I don't know... Maybe it's just me, but I find that sometimes making characters nonhumanoid makes them more sympathetic and easier to relate to in some ways. Sometimes the characters that move me the most in a story are robots or AIs or animatronic creatures or the like. I think maybe it's the same reason that Aesop's fables and so many animated cartoons and comic strips are built around anthropomorphic animals -- because it frees the characters from any of our preconceptions and stereotypes about humans and thus makes it paradoxically easier for us to project ourselves onto them and identify with their feelings and motivations. Or maybe it's the same psychological dynamic that makes us love our pets so unconditionally, or the reason that humans and dolphins have always been so friendly to each other even though both species are prone to violence toward their own kind. Nonhumans don't come with the same baggage we attach to fellow humans, so that can leave more room for affinity. (Which makes me optimistic about our chances of getting along with real aliens if and when we ever meet them.)

I mean, whose favorite Farscape character isn't Pilot? Everyone loves Pilot. And many would agree that the most sympathetic Guardians of the Galaxy are Rocket and Groot.

 

[Greg Cox]

Not saying we can't identify with non-humanoid characters.

Just saying that you don't need super-exotic aliens to do a story like "Duet," which isn't really about how alien the characters are. So why put time and energy into making the characters CGI praying mantises if your story that week is about political intrigue or estranged fathers and sons or whatever?

At best, it's a misdirected uses of resources. At worst, it distracts from what the story is really about.

P.S. Pilot was great, but was he really more popular than, say, Crichton, or Aeryn, or Scorpius, or Chiana . . . ?