Discovery Showrunners fired; Kurtzman takes over

[CorporalClegg]

This is a perfect example of why canon is bullshit.

The important part of that exchange is "It takes awhile to ferment," as it plays directly into the films the main theme. The dates themselves are completely irrelevant, noted by the fact that the actual date is never stated on screen. (Meaning Meyer never thought it important enough to include because Bones's quip holds-up on its own.)

 

[fireproof78]

No, "nobody knew" is a perfectly reasonable statement. There literally was no official Star Trek timeline in 1982, nor for years afterward. The movie was not set in any specific year. So there's no way anyone could have known, because the information did not exist.

Yes, indeed. It's funny, because I feel the same way about canon in general

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Meaning Meyer never thought it important enough to include because Bones's quip holds-up on its own.

Well, the actual date was never important anyway to any essential aspect of the story. The card "In the 23rd century..." means just basically "In the future...."

I completely agree that line "it takes this stuff a while to ferment" exists to echo the overall theme of aging, e.g. growing older vs growing wiser. Good call.

 

[CorporalClegg]

I completely agree that line "it takes this stuff a while to ferment" exists to echo the overall theme of aging, e.g. growing older vs growing wiser. Good call.

I think it goes even beyond that. There are two common definitions attributed to the word. One perfectly describes Kirk's state at the beginning of the film, the other Khan's.

More than that, the Genesis process is, in its own grandiose way, the exact antithesis of fermentation.

Plus, I think it works as a nice metaphor for what happens when locking oneself in a nuclear reactor.

It's a pretty sly bit of writing IMO.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

More than that, the Genesis process is, in its own grandiose way, the exact antithesis of fermentation.

Plus, I think it works as a nice metaphor for what happens when locking oneself in a nuclear reactor.

Nice observations there.

There are two common definitions attributed to the word. One perfectly describes Kirk's state at the beginning of the film, the other Khan's.

Could you clarify what you mean here? Is it wine vs pickles, respectively? Or what?

 

[CorporalClegg]

Could you clarify what you mean here? Is it wine vs pickles, respectively? Or what?

Well there is the one definition about breaking down complex molecules into simpler ones and the release of their energy, which, as you say, is symbolic of Kirk's aging.

But there's the other [verb] definition: "To seethe with agitation or excitement," which is basically what Khan was doing all those years on Ceti5.

 

[Mr Awe]

It pains me that we still have people pining for a post Voyager series. You all have to recognize that the timeframe of the series is set in has nothing particularly to do with storytelling choices

Sorry, but you're wrong there. I was hoping for a post Voyager series precisely because of storytelling choices that could be made. Setting a series post Voyager, a good amount of time later, gives storytellers greater freedom. You can introduce new elements, specifies, situations, technology, whatever, without worrying about canon violations. No complaints about you can't do this or that, etc. Yet, it can still tie into the history of the Prime universe as the showrunners wanted to. It's the best of both worlds.

Of course, setting the series post-Voyager doesn't necessarily mean it would be a good series. Execution is crucial. But, it does allow for more storytelling freedom.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Well there is the one definition about breaking down complex molecules into simpler ones and the release of their energy, which, as you say, is symbolic of Kirk's aging.

But there's the other [verb] definition: "To seethe with agitation or excitement," which is basically what Khan was doing all those years on Ceti5.

Gotya. Thanks. You're nailing it.

I forgot that ferment has the other meaning, because I always use foment in that case instead.

 

[Jinn]

I participated quite a bit in that thread.

Oh, yeah, I remember that. It's been some time since I read that thread (and I could've sworn i participated more; I guess that was another canon thread ). I can't believe it ran for over 150 pages!

It's important to note that actual wording questioned whether DSC was in the prime timeline, not whether it was in the canon. The two terms are not identical (the Abrams movies pretty much define the distinction, being part of the latter but not the former).

Well, yeah, granted they are not absolutely identical but the only alternate possibilities to "it's canon but not in the prime timeline" would be "it's canon but in the Kelvin timeline" or "it's canon but in some random universe we never ever saw". (Well and "it's canon but in the mirror universe", but I think we can rule that one out from the get go ) Now, I have no proof for this, but I don't think a whole lot of people would place DSC in the Kelvin timeline (at least not after watching it, there were of course discussions about it previously but those seemed to have gone the way of the dodo) This leaves "random alternate universe" as the only alternative, but, to me, "it's in an alternate universe" feels like it's pretty much the same as "it's not canon". To use a non-Trek example, you could say that canonically speaking the Marvel hero Captain Marvel (who famously died of cancer in 1982 [well, famously for Captain marvel standards]) has never died of cancer and is doing vell, er, This is true to the alternate Marvel Unvierse Earth-906, as seen in What IF? #14 from 1990. So, my stance is that when you have a mutliverse of oppurtunities to explore pretty much everything is canon, so when something is oficially canon I'm assuming it's canon to prime (or in rare cases Kelvin, if so specified). I am however interested in setting up a poll about this particular question. I don't think we currently have a canon thread, so why not?!

 

[lawman]

granted they are not absolutely identical but the only alternate possibilities to "it's canon but not in the prime timeline" would be "it's canon but in the Kelvin timeline" or "it's canon but in some random universe we never ever saw".

Yeah, I think a lot of people were (are?) leaning toward Door #3 there.

but, to me, "it's in an alternate universe" feels like it's pretty much the same as "it's not canon".

But that doesn't mean "not canon," so long as it's actual official on-screen Trek material; that only means "different continuity."

... when something is oficially canon I'm assuming it's canon to prime.

Canon and (prime) continuity certainly overlap a lot, but they've never really been coextensive. The assumption is understandable, though; canon is just an unfortunately easily misunderstood (and often misused) term. Personally I care quite a lot about Trek's continuity, but really not much at all about what's canon.

BTW, props on your in-depth Marvel Universe knowledge!...

 

[fireproof78]

Sorry, but you're wrong there. I was hoping for a post Voyager series precisely because of storytelling choices that could be made. Setting a series post Voyager, a good amount of time later, gives storytellers greater freedom. You can introduce new elements, specifies, situations, technology, whatever, without worrying about canon violations. No complaints about you can't do this or that, etc. Yet, it can still tie into the history of the Prime universe as the showrunners wanted to. It's the best of both worlds.

Of course, setting the series post-Voyager doesn't necessarily mean it would be a good series. Execution is crucial. But, it does allow for more storytelling freedom.

Does it? Will the books be abandoned then?

 

[Jinn]

Yeah, I think a lot of people were (are?) leaning toward Door #3 there.

Well, we shall see.

But that doesn't mean "not canon," so long as it's actual official on-screen Trek material; that only means "different continuity."

That's true, I guess, but in a fictional universe that includes a multiverse that also makes the term "canon" totally null and void.

BTW, props on your in-depth Marvel Universe knowledge!...

Thanks! I pride myself on having read every apperance of Mar-Vell before his death! Gee, what am I doing with my life...

In other news they finall added issues 26-35 of Peter David's sixty issue run of Captain Marvel to Marvel Unlimited. After already adding the rest! Finally I can read those too

 

[Mr Awe]

Does it? Will the books be abandoned then?

I have no idea but they're not canon anyway.

 

[fireproof78]

I have no idea but they're not canon anyway.

That means nothing to audience expectations.

 

[Jinn]

Will the books be abandoned then?

I sure don't hope so.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's not insignificant. Dates are what allow history to exist at a conceptual level, to be organized in some comprehensible fashion. And Trek's cumulative history is what allows it to have any approximation of a workable continuity. If you start retconning things arbitrarily, and especially if you reduce dates to abstractions as simplified as "past, present, or future," you'll reduce Trek to something as incoherent as... well, for example, the Marvel Comics timeline, as @Jinn already commented.

As for your second reason, it isn't one at all, since (as we've just been discussing!) Trek's history is blatantly, obviously not the history of the world we live in. There are myriad examples of how and why this is so. I honestly can't imagine why anyone would put on blinders at this late date and try to pretend otherwise.

It's totally insignificant. It's just a marker that says this happens in "our" future and Kirk's past. The actual date is irrelevant. It just needs to be at a point between now and the future, nothing more. It's not real history. It's fiction and therefore mutable. Treating the dates mentioned in Space Seed,TWOK or any other episode are some sort of hard historical fact is absurd. Even real history isn't treated that way. Historians are always looking for and finding new information that expand how they and we look at historical events

Continuity isn't a collection of dates. It's much more than that. The how and why of the events are much more important than the when. As long as "The Eugenics Wars" takes place prior to TOS there is no incoherence.

The writers treat it as our future. It usually written with that in mind as I've said before. Every visit to "today" looks like the present not like the 60's, 80's, 90's and 00's mentioned in past episode. If DISCO does a trip to the 'teen's it gonna look like our present not the teen's seen in past episodes.

If the only way to keep Trek viable as a "franchise" is to throw away actual Star Trek history... then fuck the "franchise," I'll take the history.

Seriously, otherwise you're tossing out the baby with the bathwater.

Nope you're tossing out some loose hair that fell off the baby, not the entire baby.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's not even that. Canon is the bathwater, not the baby. It's pretty fucking ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

 

[fireproof78]

It's totally insignificant. It's a marker that says this happens in "our" future and Kirk's past. The actual date is irrelevant as long as it's in between now and the future. It's not real history. It's fiction and therefore mutable. Treating the dates mentioned in Space Seed,TWOK or any other episode are some sort of hard historical fact is absurd. Even real history isn't treated that way. Historians are always looking for and finding new information that expand how they and we look at historical events

Continuity isn't a collection of dates. It's much more than that. The how and why of the events are much more important than the when. As long as "The Eugenics Wars" takes place prior to TOS there is no incoherence.

The writers treat it as our future. It usually written with that in mind as I've said before. Every visit to "today" looks like the present not like the 60's, 80's, 90's and 00's mentioned in past episode. If DISCO does a trip to the 'teen's it gonna look like our present not the teen's seen in past episodes.

Nope you're tossing out some loose hair that fell off the baby, not the entire baby.

Exactly.

 

[Donker]

So, if that thread is to be believed there's a sizeable portion of people here who don't just go for the "on-screen is canon" thing.

This is because the concept of canon is actually a philosophical one about why and where canon matters. Too many people think that "if it's onscreen it's canon" or "if rights holders say it's canon then it's canon" but these views are extremely shallow understanding of how fans interact with canon and why canon even matters in the first place.

My view has always been, what is canon is whatever FANS consider being canon in whatever discussion they're having, this means both that anything can be canon and nothing is canon because, why does it matter as long as it's relevant to the discussion you have having?

A lot of Trek communities I'm in do not consider Discovery canon, and fine, when I'm discussing Star Trek in those communities, we ignore Discovery, many (most) fans don't consider the warp 10 lizard thing canon, fine, in those communities when I'm having discussion with them, it's not canon. What does canon matter beyond how you and your community are currently interacting with the franchise? In reality, ALL CANON IS HEADCANON Star Trek does not exist in real life, it isn't historical fact, it's all just the different headcanons of fans, writers and creators on a franchise we all love and take our own meanings from and let's be real, Canon does not matter to CBS at all beyond marketing, canon arguments pretty much are the realm of fandom.

There is also the problem that if everything onscreen is canon and the right holders control canon, then what is "real" with retcons or contradictory canon? Oh right, suddenly "canon" falls to bits. Once you step back and understand that canon is all headcanon and canon basically only matters to the discussion and community you are in, it's suddenly become a much less contentious issue. If I'm talking to people who consider Discovery canon, then I'll consider it canon for that discussion even though my own personal preference is that Discovery is not canon (for largely non-canon reasons).

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Head-canon ≠ canon.