Assignment: Earth and its Status in Canon?

[Christopher]

But just because (for example) Batman can be reinvented for the umpteenth time, doesn't mean he should be.

As a creator myself, I find it chilling and threatening whenever people start talking about what creators "shouldn't" be allowed to do. And I'm grateful that people like you have no power to enforce that restrictive mentality on people like me -- at least not so long as this remains a free society, which admittedly is increasingly in doubt these days.

 

[gottacook]

I think you misunderstood me. I don't mean to restrict anyone from anything. Nor will I ever be in a position to purchase or veto anyone's creative work, either based or not based on a preexisting character. (By profession I'm an editor, but not an acquiring editor.) I'm just saying that not everything that can be undertaken should be undertaken. This is a threat?

 

[Christopher]

I'm just saying that not everything that can be undertaken should be undertaken. This is a threat?

It's the kind of rhetoric used to justify censorship, and censorship is a threat to writers.

Besides, I think it's a blinkered and reckless generalization. There is no such thing as an entire category of creative effort that cannot be done well. Anything can be done well or badly, and just because you can't see how it can work doesn't mean that a professional creator can't find a way. After all, good fiction surprises you and shows you things you never would've thought of on your own. Give it a chance to do that.

 

[BillJ]

For me, there's "Star Trek" then there's the "Star Trek Universe". The broad strokes of TOS are part of the "Star Trek Universe", "Star Trek" stands alone as its own entity unaffected by later changes to the universe.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Or better yet, just watch and enjoy the story without analyzing every frickin' detail.

...But that would remove 99% of the reasons I visit the TrekBBS.

 

[YLu]

But it doesn't have to be a binary choice between those two options. It's the arbitrary rejection of the idea of a continuity reboot that artificially limits the choice to those options, and that's unrealistic because it's letting personal bias blind one from considering the full range of options. This is just not how human creativity works. Exploring variations on a theme is the foundation of creativity, so your premise that it could ever be left permanently off the table is simply not realistic.

Since I feel this point has maybe gotten lost, I'll reiterate that I'm not stating what I think the franchise should be doing. I'm just stating my own preferences as a member of the audience. And I am no more trying to clamp down on reboots than someone saying "Here's why I don't like pizza" is trying to get rid of the city's pizza places. So, that out of the way...

I think it is a choice between the two, in some respects. A studio has finite resources, and writers and other creatives have finite time and energy. Any resources spent on a reboot are ones that could have gone into something more original. George Lucas did Star Wars because he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. In a world where he was able to get the rights, there would have been no Star Wars.

It's just a failure of imagination to believe that nobody for the entirety of future history will look at a hugely successful, influential franchise like Star Trek and not have an idea for how to reboot it for modern times. Someday this will happen. And that is not a bad thing.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm just saying it also wouldn't be a bad thing if (and yes, it's essentially an impossible "if") that doesn't happen.

 

[Christopher]

I think it is a choice between the two, in some respects. A studio has finite resources, and writers and other creatives have finite time and energy.

Warner Bros. is making a Joker film that's out of continuity with its other DC films, as well as several mutually incompatible television continuities -- the Arrowverse, the DC Universe streaming shows, and Gotham. (And both the Arrowverse and DC Universe continuities are from Berlanti Productions.) If WB can pull that off, why can't CBS? After all, CBS Studios makes plenty of other shows besides Star Trek as it is, which conclusively proves that it is capable of working in multiple different continuities at once. For that matter, Warner Bros. produces a whole bunch of things besides DC. Really, the only single-universe studio I can think of is Marvel Studios. The norm is for a studio to produce many shows and films set in many different realities.

Not to mention that it would take pretty much the same amount of resources to make two Trek series in different realities as it would to make two Trek series in the same reality. The only thing that would make the latter more affordable is that it could reuse sets and materiel between shows, but only if they were in the same century, which will not be the case for all of the new Trek shows currently in production or development.

George Lucas did Star Wars because he couldn't get the rights to Flash Gordon. In a world where he was able to get the rights, there would have been no Star Wars.

But 20th Century Fox would still have made a ton of other movies. You were talking about a studio, not a single filmmaker. (For that matter, the existence of Star Wars did not preclude the existence of Dino De Laurentiis's 1980 Flash Gordon movie.)

 

[YLu]

Warner Bros. is making a Joker film that's out of continuity with its other DC films, as well as several mutually incompatible television continuities -- the Arrowverse, the DC Universe streaming shows, and Gotham. (And both the Arrowverse and DC Universe continuities are from Berlanti Productions.)

And each of those productions takes up time, effort and money that could have gone to a different show or film that would have existed in its place.

You were talking about a studio, not a single filmmaker.

I was talking about both. Whether it's a studio or an individual, a reboot means they're doing one less show or film that's not a reboot, i.e. either an original IP or a continuation of an existing continuity. In a world where Lucas got to do Flash Gordon, it cost the world Star Wars.

 

[Christopher]

And each of those productions takes up time, effort and money that could have gone to a different show or film that would have existed in its place.

CBS Television Studios currently has roughly two dozen TV shows in production and more than a half-dozen in development. It has wiggle room.

Besides, as I said, you could still have the same number of Star Trek shows -- just don't require them all to be in the same reality. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if that was already the plan with the two animated Trek series in development, one an adult comedy and one a kids' show. Either or both of those might work better as a separate reality.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

For me (having been born in 1964), this episode is the most nostalgic of all episodes. TOS as a whole has nostalgia for me. But, this episode is nostalgia to the third power. Let's see, we have rockets, nukes, cold war arms-race, go-go style, star tattoo on the _____, groovy 60's slang talk, James-Bond-like Gary Seven and 60's sweetheart Terry Garr herself.

 

[mos6507]

It's the kind of rhetoric used to justify censorship, and censorship is a threat to writers.

Bad writing is the biggest threat to writers. The worst writing happens when writers think their sh*t don't stink (Lady in the Water is a good example). A little humility would help creators quite a bit, and the best way to develop that humility is to listen to critics instead of confusing constructive criticism with a call for censorship.

 

[Christopher]

Bad writing is the biggest threat to writers. The worst writing happens when writers think their sh*t don't stink (Lady in the Water is a good example). A little humility would help creators quite a bit, and the best way to develop that humility is to listen to critics instead of confusing constructive criticism with a call for censorship.

The problem is when people arrogantly confuse "what I personally prefer" for "what is objectively superior." Especially when they talk as though other people should be obligated to pander exclusively to their own tastes. That's not criticism, just narcissism.

 

[mos6507]

The problem is when people arrogantly confuse "what I personally prefer" for "what is objectively superior."

Nobody can truly quantify what is objectively superior. To attempt to do so is the height of snobbery. Everything is ultimately an opinion, even if it's opining what is "objectively" superior.

I think creators these days really need to develop thicker skins. You can't please all the people all the time. Don't try to tone-police and don't improperly cry foul over "censorship!" You can write anything you like and we have every right to say whether we think it sucks or not.

 

[BillJ]

I still can't believe that CBS All-Access hasn't attempted a follow-up to "Assignment: Earth". I wonder if similarities to Doctor Who make them nervous?

 

[Steven P Bastien]

I still can't believe that CBS All-Access hasn't attempted a follow-up to "Assignment: Earth". I wonder if similarities to Doctor Who make them nervous?

Are you aware of the idea being floated around in recent times? Either way, this sounds like a job for "STAR TREK" GLOBAL FRANCHISE GROUP.

 

[Christopher]

Nobody can truly quantify what is objectively superior. To attempt to do so is the height of snobbery.

Yes, that is my point. That saying that creators "should not" do something that the speaker doesn't personally like is obnoxious and egocentric. One's own personal tastes do not dictate what other people "should" do.

 

[T'Bonz]

^ Well that's no fun!

 

[Tarek71]

I've been slowly rewatching TOS and I have to say I don't understand how Assignment: Earth can be considered canon.

It's a backdoor pilot for an unrelated concept.

It treats time travel casually (Enterprise was given as assignment to study history!?).

It is never referenced again (outside of the same method of time travel being used in STIV).

Frankly it's the most logically incongruent episode in the entire franchise in terms of canon.

It is certainly canonical. As for what species is this that has technology during the time of the 1960s on Earth that appears to be more advanced than the 23rd Century Federation and is providing tech and training to human agents is where the mystery lies.

I would like to see this series today, set in 2019 and start answering those questions. But,it seems unlikely we will be getting to the bottom of these mysterious aliens any time soon.

 

[Qonundrum]

It's a backdoor pilot, yes.

One where, uniquely, Kirk almost causes a big problem rather than finding and fixing one!

"The Naked Time" had the ability stumbled upon...

...which is now casually used in the same way the Voyager crew used collected Borg Temporal Transmitter doodlies in "Timeless", or the number of women Richard Dawson kissed on "Family Feud". Never mind DSC's magical and super-dee-duper "time crystals" (You mean, quartz? Anyone over than 30 might even understand at least one of those references! )

I'm amazed no Trek episode explores an alien planet's history via the slingshot effect instead of finding 50 new ways to wear out the time travel trope, as it was used in STIV. After all, Kirk makes mention of it in Captain's Logs so it's not an esoteric secret.

But despite the song and dance, backdoor pilots are still canon due to a direct tie-in. It tries to be a little too ha-ha-bonk funny at times, but it is a lovely time capsule and Robert Lansing and Terry Garr were perfectly cast.

 

[Llmanagh]

Thanks for the good info on this.