• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers New Picard TV Series and Litverse Continuity (may contain TV show spoilers)

And how Han lost his reward had at least three versions, by my tally.

The Legends term was chosen because, like historical legends, the idea going forward is that all, part, or none of those previous stories may be correct. Characters and concepts are being drawn from them all the time; it's just not necessarily the case that they're bringing every element of their past with them.

The Thrawn case one of the more obvious, but there are many lesser examples -- including Jabba's arranger Mosep Binneed, who I did stories with both before and during the Disney Era, and who is Star Wars' poster child for shared-universe self-repair. People of a certain age may recognize this fellow on the left:

latest


He first appeared in the second Star Wars comic ever, identified as Jabba and speaking the character's cutting-room floor lines that would later appear in the Special Edition; Howard Chaykin just picked a random cantina alien for his visage. Once Return of the Jedi revealed Jabba's look, the many comics appearances of "Monkey Jabba" were generally considered apocryphal until the role-playing game established him as Binneed, who occasionally travels under Jabba's name. When I needed a mob accountant for the 2017 Canto Bight hardcover, the Story Group had no objection at all to my bringing him back; I wrote him exactly the same way as I had before and assumed his extensive Expanded Universe biography was generally unchanged -- he just didn't get into detail about it, because there wasn't a need to.

As I've said elsewhere here, that approach allows vast swaths of existing material to coexist in some form with the new stories; you're just not likely to see things nailed down before they need to be for story purposes. "When you define, you confine," my first Star Wars editor said, long before Disney was in the picture, and it's good advice.

We are all learning this process together -- best practices for licensed materials look a lot different in 2020 than they did in 2000 and 1980. Today's content-hungry world makes it much more likely that corporations will return for new visits to their existing franchise universes; as such, major changes like births, marriages, and deaths for screen characters are far less advisable than they once were for the smaller-audience media. But the repair techniques still work, and those who want everything to fit may find there's far more that can be reconciled than can't.
 
They don’t need a story group of any kind because this isn’t how Star Trek works. There is no illusion that Star Trek has any “canon” aside from what’s on screen.
I would completely lose interest in Trek tie-ins if this were to happen. I enjoy different interpretations of the universe.
I think it's really cool that fans are fine with alternative timelines. But I also think Star Trek will head down the direction of using mixed media to tell more "hard canon" stories, more specifically for something like Star Trek: Prodigy. I find it hard to believe Nickelodeon wouldn't have somebody in the writer's room working on story extensions across all types of media, and that results in "hard canon" storytelling away from just the screen. That said, Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is the only current Nickelodeon show I know that is treating its tie-ins as hard canon. Has David Mack commented at all on what exactly they're doing in the writer's room?
 
I confess: I have no idea what "Alpha Canon" means and I'm not sure I want to know. :)

Repeat after me: NO tie-in novels are every truly "canon" in that they can and will be overwritten by the actual shows and movies if needs be. And "canon until they're not" = not canon.

And I say that as someone who has been writing and editing tie-ins for more than a quarter of a century now.
 
I confess: I have no idea what "Alpha Canon" means and I'm not sure I want to know. :)

Repeat after me: NO tie-in novels are every truly "canon" in that they can and will be overwritten by the actual shows and movies if needs be. And "canon until they're not" = not canon.

And I say that as someone who has been writing and editing tie-ins for more than a quarter of a century now.
Having agreed to that, Antares Maelstrom would still make a damned fine multi-parter.
 
I think it's really cool that fans are fine with alternative timelines. But I also think Star Trek will head down the direction of using mixed media to tell more "hard canon" stories, more specifically for something like Star Trek: Prodigy. I find it hard to believe Nickelodeon wouldn't have somebody in the writer's room working on story extensions across all types of media, and that results in "hard canon" storytelling away from just the screen. That said, Rise of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is the only current Nickelodeon show I know that is treating its tie-ins as hard canon. Has David Mack commented at all on what exactly they're doing in the writer's room?
Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard already have someone in the writers room working on "story extensions across all types of media" - that would be Kirsten Beyer, who's helping set the direction of the tie-ins to both shows - and they still aren't canon. Again, being consistent and being canonical are two separate decisions.
 
Not sure I understand the question, but I wrote Enterprise War as if the ship was transitioning from the "Cage" version to the Discovery version, with Galadjian's nebular-travel refit sweeping the nacelles back immediately before the book's mission started.
 
I'd add that the shows themselves are "canon until they're not." I expect everyone working on the Dallas "Dream Season" was sure they were writing canon!

Ugh, don't even get me started on that one. I'm also a big Dallas fan and that still riles me up. HOW CAN YOU DISMISS AN ENTIRE SEASON AS A DREAM :scream::scream::scream::scream:---ok, got that off my chest (as an aside---I did eventually get over the dream season and followed Dallas until the end, including the two reunion movies and the 2012 TV series--which disregarded the two movies--though at least in that case it wasn't a dream--yeah :crazy: I know).

Star Trek: Discovery and Star Trek: Picard already have someone in the writers room working on "story extensions across all types of media" - that would be Kirsten Beyer, who's helping set the direction of the tie-ins to both shows - and they still aren't canon. Again, being consistent and being canonical are two separate decisions.

That could maybe muddy the waters a bit for those not as familiar with canon and non-canon. The current showrunners do seem to be open to the idea that the tie ins to their own shows (Discovery, Picard) might have SOME value to the overall story, or continuity. Now many people make the mistake of equating canon with continuity and they are NOT the same thing. Canon shows have themselves contradicted prior shows, sometimes just by accident. But that's a continuity issue. The canon is the thing, the continuity is the story.

And just because the current showrunners may see some value in the tie-ins to their shows doesn't mean they won't contradict them. We see with "Desperate Hours" that was contradicted by season 2 of Discovery (though I applaud JJ Miller for doing what he can to bring it back into the fold with "The Enterprise War").

Canon is only what is on screen. That has always been the case and always will be the case. It's a bit too late in the game for CBS to change that. As a continuity junkie I would have liked if there was a tighter continuity in Star Trek (not to every last detail--mistakes happen and as years go buy things change that have to be reflected to some extent). But that would really have had to have been a conscious decision from the beginning. You can't put all the various pieces together now. There's just too many disparities among all the shows, novels, comics and games to try to force them into a single continuity--and honestly we each have our opinions which is better. I like the current novel continuity--others prefer the comics. If it was done from the start that'd be a different story. But you can't do it now. It's easier to treat the novels as a parallel universe--one I hope they can find a way to continue, however unlikely that probably is.
 
Not the overall show, but Matt Jefferies's 1701 design springs to mind.

A question for the writers, has there been any requests or "pressure" by CBS or Secret Hideout to incorporate the redesign within the books?
Unlikely, and it's not like it's relevant, since I'm fairly certain I can count on the finger of one hand the number of times ships have been described in enough level of detail for that to matter.
 
In my one case, I did often need to consider "what's on this version" during writing. I kept to the Cage crew count, but acknowledged the move from lasers to phasers and a couple of other changes. I also studiously avoided giving deck numbers, just in case something had changed.
 
A question for the writers, has there been any requests or "pressure" by CBS or Secret Hideout to incorporate the redesign within the books?
Considering there's been at least two books published with the original design on the cover since the redesign was introduced, I'd have to say no.
 
They don’t need a story group of any kind because this isn’t how Star Trek works. There is no illusion that Star Trek has any “canon” aside from what’s on screen.

There is a sort of story group, but it doesn't follow the Lucasfilm model, and while it's mostly geared toward the Secret Hideout shows there's also plenty of discussion about tie-in projects for the older series/films. Even then, the main thrust isn't so much "Keep everything in sync" as it is identifying spaces were other platforms away from the shows themselves can semi sorta safely operate, and identifying opportunities best suited to a particular platform...novels, comics, games, interactive attractions and other experiences, etc. This is in addition to consulting with the different licensing partners with any such proposals they send to CBS for consideration.
 
Last edited:
Not sure I understand the question, but I wrote Enterprise War as if the ship was transitioning from the "Cage" version to the Discovery version, with Galadjian's nebular-travel refit sweeping the nacelles back immediately before the book's mission started.
And then "Q&A" and "Empraim and Dot" came along showing the Discoprise before "The Cage" and during TOS proper.:ouch:

I dont mean this disrespectfully, but I kinda get a kick out of tie-ins trying to explain away something just for it to be immediately (or not-so-immediately) rendered moot. The Final Reflection trying to explain smooth-headed Klingons, Ex Machina trying to reconcile ENT's mind meld taboo before the arc had concluded, Kobayashi Maru trying to explain the seeming ENT-TOS technological downgrade etc.
 
That's an easy one. There was obviously a redesign between "Q&A" and "The Cage," too!

The viewer accepts that the various Spock actors are the same character — just as comics readers accept that the wildly different depictions of Batman over the years are the same person — so why can't we all just do that with the ships and technology? The answer is that we can... mostly. The main practical matter for me is I do need to know what's on board the ship and what it can do at the moment I'm writing it.

(And, two, figuring these things out is fun... mostly!)
 
In my one case, I did often need to consider "what's on this version" during writing. I kept to the Cage crew count, but acknowledged the move from lasers to phasers and a couple of other changes. I also studiously avoided giving deck numbers, just in case something had changed.

But I imagine that was simply you being a conscientious writer, not as a result of some directive laid down from on high.

And Keith is absolutely right. Nine times out of ten, it doesn't matter when it comes to writing prose. If I write that "Kirk wore his dress uniform" or that "The Enterprise could be seen on the viewscreen," I don't have to describe them in detail. The readers are free to insert whatever version they please.
 
I dont mean this disrespectfully, but I kinda get a kick out of tie-ins trying to explain away something just for it to be immediately (or not-so-immediately) rendered moot. The Final Reflection trying to explain smooth-headed Klingons, Ex Machina trying to reconcile ENT's mind meld taboo before the arc had concluded, Kobayashi Maru trying to explain the seeming ENT-TOS technological downgrade etc.

I kind of like when books explain away some inconsistencies. I mean, as long as they don't get carried away, but most of the time I don't find that being an issue.

I know in the past Christopher and Greg Cox have pointed out, they don't do it because they have to, or even because it necessarily bothers them. But almost like a puzzle, here's two things that don't fit, is there a story here that can fit them together. I always point out "To Reign In Hell" (I hope I got the right title this time), the 3rd Khan book tying together "Space Seed" and TWOK. First it was an excellent novel in its own right, then he also explained away inconsistencies between the two at the same time, and in a way that makes sense for the most part (the only part that was maybe hard to explain was how the Reliant lost an entire planet--but then there's only so much you can do sometimes, that's sort of the fault of the writers of TWOK and Greg just did the best he could there). Christopher always does a good job as well with his explanations and I wouldn't be surprised if his upcoming novel 'fixes' anything that might now be inconsistent with "EX Machina"

And of course books being tie-ins always run the risk of being 'overwritten' by canon. I mean, you can't really base a story or plot device on that. Entire books can be overwritten, like "The Final Reflection" or Hell, 20 years of novels in the current relaunches are basically being overwritten by the week.

But explaining inconsistencies is one of many things I like about novels--though it still has to be a good story. Reconciling stories is just one of many.
 
Not sure I understand the question, but I wrote Enterprise War as if the ship was transitioning from the "Cage" version to the Discovery version, with Galadjian's nebular-travel refit sweeping the nacelles back immediately before the book's mission started.
Really curious to know how do you explain in your mind the size difference between TOS and Discovery’s 1701s?

Also, when you wrote your book, how did you go about rationalising the events in David Mack’s Desperate Hours? Or does that book simply not happen in your book’s continuity, which I’m guessing is “canon” to the events up to the end of Season 2?

Final question, not specific to you but more on how the tie-in writing process works, when something leaks months in advance or becomes clear, and you actively know you’re writing something that could very soon be rendered very non-canon, can you change your work based on leaks? Or are they strict about stuff like that?

Desperate Hours springs to mind here, though I’m guessing the aesthetic and idea of introducing Pike and a revamped Enterprise came after the book for finalised. Or they just didn’t say anything.
 
I kind of like when books explain away some inconsistencies. I mean, as long as they don't get carried away, but most of the time I don't find that being an issue.
I like it too. But I think some things just can’t be explained. To me, the new 1701 is just that. It’s nearly double the size of the TOS one.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top