News Discovery and Trek Continuity

Um, that is literally not true, as the 2008 quote makes evident.

So you ignore the 2008 quote despite it serving to demonstrate the consistency of Kurtzman's view because it is old?

 

The rest of this thread reminded me of why I wanted to stop discussing canon, but I appreciate your response and the effort put into it, so instead of fading away I'll respectfully disagree again and, well, then fade away.

*fades away*

 

Again, this statement is inaccurate because Kurtzman's 2008 comments do not say what you are claiming they do.

I'm not ignoring anything because Kurtzman has not actually said - in either 2008 or 2018 - what you are claiming he has.

 

Infraction for flaming, comments to PM.

And this is precariously close to just flat out calling the OP a troll, which is against the rules. But since you're new and this is your first offense and you backed off a bit before actually saying it, I'll let it pass with a friendly this time.

 

I see two possibilities here.

1. I am not claiming what you think I am claiming.

2. There is something elusive about Kurtzman's 2008 statement that he treats the books as canon and his 2018 statement where he places them, along with prior shows, as part of the continuity they seek to maintain.

As I argued per the latter quote, placing the works in the continuity means that the new CBS productions treat the books and comics as canon. This reading was then verified by his direct statement to that effect from 2008 which, though technically not directly applicable to Discovery or CBS Trek projects, does demonstrate a continuity of his opinion with similar sentiment and phrasing.

Put another way, if my reading of the 2018 quote was off the rails, as you argue, I don't think it likely that I could've backtracked and found him in 2008 so easily.

You may wish to argue whether or not inclusion of a vast new set of disparate continuities as part of a mainline continuity to which new works must try to adhere constitutes a new universe, but I don't see any conceivable plausibility to the argument that he doesn't mean the clear meaning of the words he said.

 

They've never been canon.. Ever.

 

There's some serious Orwellian-ness here. "The novels aren't canon." "Yes they are!" "2+2 = 4." "No. 2+2 = 5!"

At best, if a staff writer writes a novelization or comic, you might have the writer's intent at the time. Whether or not that intent is ever explicitely shown on screen or contradicted later on is something else.

 

And as soon as she left, things crept into the shows that contradicted her books.

Not that there is any correlation between quality and being part of what passes for continuity in Trek these days.

 

Star Trek has been making soft canon sources into hard canon by mentioning them in on screen episodes and films since ST:TMP.

All he's saying is that they TRY not to 'violate' anything; but as always, if it comes down to it: On Screen (IE TV & Film) canon will still always trump soft (IE Novels/Comics) canon sources - and when two on screen sources conflict, it's viewer's choice.

 

I'm aware of who jeri taylor is. My point is if she can choose to use elements of her novels in a tv series, why can't other showrunners do it, regardless of whether they have written said novel or not? To this point, the episode 'Revulsion' which was not written by Taylor, used elements of her work when Janeway was describing her first meeting with Tuvok.

 

You will diminish and go into the west and remain, Marynator. *fades away in elvish*

 

I'm sure that's how it probably works on a practical level, though he didn't specify as much.

After all, for a long while each novel was a little universe unto itself, with direct reference to other novels forbidden. Short of a high-level insurgent campaign to remain non-contradictory among each other (which, besides being virtually impossible, didn't happen), there's no practical way to have those all gel. Even the newer works that do have continuity almost certainly contradict one another, and (needless to say) the older works.

(Just off the top of my head, "Requiem for Methuselah" suggests Flint is already aging and will grow old and die in a normal lifespan. "Cry of the Onlies" ran with that, with Flint in pain. The excellent "Immortal Coil", however, has Flint still running amok a century later.)

Such contradictions are the background for Kurtzman's statement that they can only try to maintain continuity with the books and comics. But again, the challenge of it aside, the fact of his treating them as canon is a huge shift in Star Trek's very identity.

 

Continuity is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow. Continuity is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD.

 

<T-800>
She'll be back.
</T-800>

Are we sure this thread is functioning properly? Its mods are GREEN.

 

They've been a different kind of canon. One that can be superseded by what's shown on screen,

 

Eh no? This isn’t Star Wars

 

It has never worked that way. The novels have always been viewed as non-canon as far as the actual Star Trek shows/movies go. Elements of books can be used in a show or movie if the show/movie writer so chooses, but that doesn't make that book canon, just the element they used.

Now with that said, what is canon or not is entirely up to whoever is in charge at the time. If CBS suddenly makes a statement that, say, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier is no longer canon even though it was on screen, and, say, the novel “A Stitch in Time” by Andrew Robinson is canon even though it wasn’t on screen, that’s their prerogative, because they are in charge of Star Trek now.

 

Looks like I was wrong.

 

Don’t feel bad. Most people here are wrong about things too.