The new Concordance (again) and ST: Of Gods and Men

[Allyn Gibson]

You do realize that those extra pages don't just come off the top of someone's head, right?

Yes, Robert, I do realize that. However, you said, and I quote, "The amount of work to deal with this one movie would pretty much generate enough references to create a whole new Concordance all by itself," which is clearly hyperbole on your part. You're already talking about adding references to twelve new episodes. The new movie would, in terms of hours of product, make it the equivalent of 14.

It's clear that you (plural) don't want the new film sullying the Concordance. I, personally, think that's a mistake; the biggest thing to happen to the original Star Trek in twenty years, and it won't be documented? The decision to exclude the film limits your potential audience.

 

[RookieBatman]

But hasn't it already been stated that not including the movie was Bjo's decision? Why the continued accusation that it was the product of CRA's personal bias?

 

[Allyn Gibson]

But hasn't it already been stated that not including the movie was Bjo's decision? Why the continued accusation that it was the product of CRA's personal bias?

Hence my use of "you (plural)" to reference Bjo and Robert.

Robert clearly doesn't want it. I'm unclear as to why Bjo doesn't.

I think it's the wrong decision, as it's limiting the audience to what John Ordover once referred to as "the rapidly aging TOS fans" and ignoring the new fans that the film has brought to the original series. But, it's their book, so it's their call. I fail to understand why they would willingly leave money on the table. *shrug*

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Maybe Bjo's senile?

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

LADIEEEEEEEEEEES AND GENTLEMEN! WE HAVE A RULING!

SUBJECT: The New Movie and the Concordance

CRA: How do you want to tackle this thing? Putting aside the open warfare that seems to break out whenever the thing gets brought up, I'm thinking just about the logistics of fitting in all those new entries. To put it simply, nothing matches up, not even the location of Delta Vega, which means separate entries, ala the Mirror Universe stuff, multiplied by the sheer number of items that crop up in the film that'll have to be cited if only to distinguish them from the primary timeline versions.

I'm thinking a separate section, with a short lexicon and breakdown of the key differences between the two timelines.

Or, we could just punt and ignore the whole thing. I know more than a few folks that'd love that option.

I await your ruling.

BJO: I never even thought of adding in the new movie. I think it's a great idea for the Trek researchers, but far too unwieldy to complete within my lifetime. Let's let someone else do it.

I think the answer might be a new introduction or something like that, which acknowledges the movie, but points out the difficulties of adding a time-shift situation like this. How about that?

CRA: Works for me. We've got enough new entries as it is.

Is this a verbatim, direct quote from Bjo or is this quoting via email correspondence or a discussion loosely quoted for dramatic affect?

 

[Herbert1]

In all honesty, I don't feel compelled to replace my copy of the November 1995 Citadel Press edition with the new one after reading this thread.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Kinda interesting how Bjo seems to want the Concordance to stand as her legacy but she wants to complete it in a half-assed sort of way.

 

[F. King Daniel]

As a nostalgia item for 40-somethings the Concordance might work. As a reference for the Star Trek universe? With the amazing technology we have nowadays, if I want to know something about Star Trek (or, pretty much anything on Earth) it is actually easier and more convienient for me to take my phone out of my pocket and look it up on Memory Alpha or Google than it is to walk upstairs (I'd have to be at home!) and find my Star Trek Ency. I can also download megabytes of fan art from the fan art forum should I wish.
Now what does a new yet already obsolete (by that I refer to the omission of CRA's least favourite film) TOS reference book have over that?

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Good point!

 

[seigezunt]

TOS[/B] fans" and ignoring the new fans that the film has brought to the original series. But, it's their book, so it's their call. I fail to understand why they would willingly leave money on the table. *shrug*

As a nostalgia item for 40-somethings the Concordance might work.

Just putting out there again that it's not a generational thing, folks.

I'm a 40-something aging TOS fan, and this would NOT work as nostalgia for me. IMHO, as said elsewhere, it comes off sounding a little half-assed.

I would guess that most folk in this group have previous editions already. This fills no need, and snubs its nose at potential sales.

But then, that would be sales to those alleged yahoos who only like splosions.

 

[Therin of Andor]

As much as I love the "Star Trek Concordance" (both pro editions), I must admit that I haven't opened either edition for years now, not even to flip through as a coffee table book. Memory Alpha, in inverted commas, as an additional term in any Google search for "Star Trek" data, brings up the required information in seconds.

If it fails to even mention Leonard Nimoy's final canonical appearance in the "Star Trek" phenomenon then having this new edition becomes pointless.

 

[Christopher]

If it fails to even mention Leonard Nimoy's final canonical appearance in the "Star Trek" phenomenon then having this new edition becomes pointless.

Not to mention inconsistent. If you cover all screen appearances of the original cast in their TOS roles, then that should logically include the 2009 film in which Leonard Nimoy played the character of Spock for the last time. Regardless of one's feelings about the film, the simple fact of Nimoy's return to the role is surely worthy of acknowledgment.

 

[RookieBatman]

Regardless of one's feelings about the film, the simple fact of Nimoy's return to the role is surely worthy of acknowledgment.

But this is what I don't understand, parallel to AllynGibson's "you (plural)." It's been stated that it was Bjo's decision to leave the movie out. So "one's feelings" would translate to "Bjo's feelings" since she's the one whose feelings would affect the decision. And Bjo's feelings about the movie, according to her blog statement, were highly positive. Ergo, assuming that data to be true and accurate, I would infer that Bjo's feelings had nothing to do with Bjo's decision to leave the movie out of the book. Is there some flaw in my reasoning that I'm not seeing? Or can't we just posit that the decision was made for other reasons, and discuss the issue in that regard?

 

[Christopher]

I was addressing the feelings of the readers of my post -- trying to get some consensus on the fact that, at the very least, Nimoy's swan song as Spock deserves acknowledgment in a book dedicated to covering all the onscreen appearances of the original cast in their TOS roles. I wasn't attempting to speculate about the reasons for Bjo Trimble's alleged decision.

 

[RookieBatman]

I wasn't attempting to speculate about the reasons for Bjo Trimble's alleged decision.

Wouldn't "regardless of one's feelings for the film" indicate a speculation about their place in that decision? That's how I read it, anyway. Apologies if I'm drawing too long an assumption.

 

[Christopher]

No. As I said, I wasn't addressing the reasons for the decision, I was addressing the people reading my post, hoping to persuade them, whether they liked the film or not, that the key issue here was about acknowledging Leonard Nimoy's valedictory appearance as Spock. We should all be able to agree that that's an important thing worthy of recognition in its own right, regardless of the context in which it occurs. If all the participants in the discussion could reach a consensus on that point, at least, then we could move on to other questions.

 

[RookieBatman]

We should all be able to agree that that's an important thing worthy of recognition in its own right, regardless of the context in which it occurs.

That much I do agree with.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

From my vantage point, excluding the film makes little sense.

As Christopher rightly notes, it has Leonard Nimoy reprising his role as Spock, presumably for the last time. The previous edition of the Concordance has other post-TOS appearances by the characters -- "Encounter at Farpoint" and Generations among them. If the new film is excluded, then for consistency's sake the post-TOS entries must likewise be excluded. But I agree with Christopher; Nimoy's appearance is worthy to note.

Also, excluding the film can't be an issue of workload; as I've noted previously, the movie would be the equivalent of two episodes, and Robert's assertion that it would result in a book the size of the current Concordance is clearly hyperbole.

It also makes little financial sense, because the exclusion limits the potential audience for the book. A revised Concordance that documents the new film would be different than anything else on the market, and thus fill a niche. A revised Concordance that fixes typos from the last edition provides nothing that can't be found elsewhere, such as the official publications.

The editorial decision here to exclude the film I frankly find baffling.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Some folks need to be reminded of this last bit...

Bjo Trimble said:

I think the answer might be a new introduction or something like that, which acknowledges the movie, but points out the difficulties of adding a time-shift situation like this. How about that?

In other words, we're not completely ignoring the new movie. We're just not going to add to the workload by including it in the entries.

F'r instance, let's take Kirk. Not only would we have to create another, fairly lengthy, entry for him, we'd now have to include entries on his parents, the Kelvin, the pissed off uncle we heard on the Nokia in-dash car radio, the car, the new canyon in Iowa, the robot policeman, the bar where he gets his ass kicked, all the stooges at that Academy board of inquiry....and that's just the impact of dealing with one character. Multiply that by the rest of the cast, throw in the elements that are unique to the movie, and sorry, but we're talking a bit more than "another nine pages."

But, if someone wants to cook up a Concordance for the JJverse, by all means, knock yourself out.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

TOS[/B] fans" and ignoring the new fans that the film has brought to the original series. But, it's their book, so it's their call. I fail to understand why they would willingly leave money on the table. *shrug*

As a nostalgia item for 40-somethings the Concordance might work.

Just putting out there again that it's not a generational thing, folks.

I'm a 40-something aging TOS fan, and this would NOT work as nostalgia for me. IMHO, as said elsewhere, it comes off sounding a little half-assed.

I would guess that most folk in this group have previous editions already. This fills no need, and snubs its nose at potential sales.

That the target audience for this work is miniscule is pretty evident. Hope there's no expectation of a return on investment, here.