I just hope it gets better in the second season...
Casting Pike's Number One
- Thread starter david kelly
- Start date
No he didn't. That quote is always taken out of context. He said later in that same interview that it isn't up to him to say what is or isn't canon. The interviewers were just fishing for an answer.
That is not even close to a fair comparison.
This doesn't track. If it isn't in the same continuity, then it can't piss on anything and it can't disgrace anything. It is simply another vision of Star Trek. Star Trek universe is big enough to accomodate well enough.
So he did say it...he just didn't mean it. That was actually more or less the very point I was getting at.
-MMoM
The big difference between the DSC writers declaring and considering the show's tie-in fiction Canon and instances like Orci's comments re: the Kelvin Timeline's tie-in comics and Jeri Taylor considering elements of her novels Mosaic and Pathways Canon is that it's a "two-way street" and there's a concerted effort being made by the makers of DSC's tie-in fiction to ensure that the DSC writers never end up in a situation where they can't remain narratively consistent and in sync with what said tie-in fiction is doing.
CBS said at Vegas (again) this week that the DSC novels are still not canon. The show will contradict the books if they feel their story is better told.
Everything else you said is correct, they’re trying to keep the tie-in material as accurate to the show as possible. But the show comes first, not the books or comics.
Link please.
^ That doesn't say that the DSC novels aren't Canon.
Last edited:
Yeah, that's an unambiguous statement that the Discovery books aren't necessarily canon.
Basically.
If they were canon, they wouldn't have said "as close to canon as possible" they would have just outright said "they are canon"
Repeat after me: No tie-in novels are ever truly canon, simply as matter of practicality. That's just the way things are, whether you're talking STAR TREK or MURDER SHE WROTE or THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY.
And that's probably for the best. If, God forbid, the movies or TV shows were actually obliged to treat the tie-in books and comics as Canon with a capital C, we'd never be allowed to do anything interesting in the books.
And that's probably for the best. If, God forbid, the movies or TV shows were actually obliged to treat the tie-in books and comics as Canon with a capital C, we'd never be allowed to do anything interesting in the books.
Star Wars has been doing fine TBH, yeah they can't write anything that directly effects the movies, but they've done some great side stories.
And we're still waiting...
B-4: For how long?
DATA: Indefinitely.
B-4: How long is that?
DATA: A long time, brother...
I understand what you're saying, and applaud such efforts at overall consistency. But I don't think it gets us to "the DSC books are canon." Especially not when they've included explicit caveats up front that ultimately amount to: "As of now, we want to remain consistent with them, so we are making all possible overtures toward that end...but if we ever find that we don't want to, all bets are off."
Of course, I do recognize that previous shows and films themselves can be similarly subject to being overwritten and/or contradicted for the sake of a good story, too, though. And some, like TAS and TFF, have been regarded by certain writers (or other production staff) as being in-continuity at certain times, but not so by others at other times. So it's all a bit of a nebulous concept to parse out, this "canon" business. Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that a distinction continues to be made between the primary and peripheral media in their overall philosophy and approach.
Nevertheless, to your original point, given the situation, it may well be that they will use Number One's name from Desperate Hours, as you posit. We'll see. (I hope not, but that's only a matter of my own personal preference. I certainly didn't mean to imply that your specific suggestion they might was an implausible one, merely that "Una" is an implausible name, IMO.) They did use David Mack's names for some secondary characters like Detmer, after all.
However, I wouldn't say they were taken from the book so much as he and the show's writers collaborated in coming up with ideas that each went on to use independently. Same with Burnham's account of her parents' death, presented in the book first, and only later being presented onscreen in "Will You Take My Hand" (DSC), yet devised before either were actually penned. Is this a fair understanding of the ongoing scenario, or do I have it all wrong? (Wouldn't be the first time, nor the last...)
-MMoM
I disagree, and think you're trying to make a distinction without a difference here.
I think @Greg Cox's view on the matter should be given a lot of weight (underlining mine).
What do you think, @DigificWriter?Repeat after me: No tie-in novels are ever truly canon, simply as matter of practicality. That's just the way things are, whether you're talking STAR TREK or MURDER SHE WROTE or THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY.
And that's probably for the best. If, God forbid, the movies or TV shows were actually obliged to treat the tie-in books and comics as Canon with a capital C, we'd never be allowed to do anything interesting in the books.
Surely you are not unfamiliar with the term "non-denial denial"? (Or is that another one you consider invalid despite popular usage, like "soft reboot"?
)-MMoM
If they were canon they would say they’re canon. They haven’t. End of story.
Sometimes I feel you start these arguments just for the hell of it and don’t actually care.
Similar threads
