Speaking of TAS..
What's CBS's take this year? It changes every couple years
I preferred the Prime timeline.
- Thread starter Trekkie27
- Start date
What's CBS's take this year? It changes every couple years
The current owner?
Majority stockholder of CBS Sumner Redstone?
So anything he believes/says about Star Trek is true and canon?
they became a small scale indoor football team for two seasons in Knoxville, TN instead managed by the son of a Harlem GlobetrotterMichael Bay already beat them to the punch.
Transformers, Ninja Turtles... how Thundercats managed to escape, I don't know.
no. I didn't make it up.
I don't believe casual watchers of Star Trek even cares because it's so menial now.
Ho-oh!
They own it so now it's in. Making money has that effect.Speaking of TAS..
What's CBS's take this year? It changes every couple years
Casual watchers never cared, even at the heights of TNG's popularity.
Honestly, STP/PIC doesn't even need to show us great detail about why 7 of 9 seems more at ease with her human side.
Considering her growth by the end of VOY, it seems likely that she would in fact be "more human" since the 18 years that we last saw her. That would be expected, even without them describing the details of how she become more human. if they feel the need to address it, It could be done in a couple of lines of dialogue.
In fact I would have been more shocked if, in that PIC trailer scene, Seven acted like the VOY Seven. That would have made me complain "What? Almost 20 years pass and she's exactly the same?!"
Prime or not Prime, you're going to find the new shows problematic if you don't like the Abrams films. The guy who is running the whole thing was co-writer on Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek Into Darkness.
And that complaint makes more sense than the expectation for them to be static.
I'm no fan of 7 or her being in the trailer, but you expect the trailer to address this?
Excuse me, she had one line and a reaction shot! How much more time do those writers need?
No. Whether something in canonical or not isn't determined on whether it was on the same form of media, it is determined on whether the creators (current ones, if it's a long-running franchise) consider it part of the story told or not. See no further than TAS, which wasn't considered part of canon - until it was.
Or look at Star Wars:
"Gospel,' or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelizations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history—with many off-shoots, variations and tangents—like any other well-developed mythology."
And that held true ... until Disney decided it isn't anymore.
Since then, the only previously published material still considered canon are the six original trilogy/prequel trilogyfilms, the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film, and Part I of the short story Blade Squadron. Most material published after April 25—such as the Star Wars Rebels TV series along with all Marvel Star Wars comic books and novels beginning with A New Dawn—is also considered part of the new canon, on account of the creation of the Lucasfilm Story Group, which currently oversees continuity as a whole. Characters under the Legends banner are still available for use as needed, even if events concerning them are no longer canon.
(Both quotes are from here: https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Canon)
Canon isn't something rigid, it can and will be changed and can span any work the creators decide. That's why there's things like retcons, where new works supersede previously established canon.
So yeah, the people who make Star Trek consider Discovery canon, and it has nothing to do with the avenue they are releasing it from.
Thing to remember is canon and continuity are mutable. The folks making the latest installment can pull out any box and pull out of any box and then add stuff to the box. The stuff they put back in the box can look different from when it was pulled out. And fans need to remember, to paraphrase Spock, "they are not the hell your boxes."
Well, you can't spell canon without CAN(ada).
George deciding Star Wars trading cards is canon, and then the next owner disagreeing with him, that since they already own the Muppets then guest spots on the Muppet Show and Sesame Street by R2D2 are now canon is.... People suck. You can't trust a person to stay true to their word for a thousand years, and as far as George is concerned, you can't trust Star Wars to stay Stay Star wars for 30 years becuase of special fucking editions, and so forth.
20 years of canon novels, an expanded universe as real the first trilogy, junked by the second and third trilogies of movies. Canon shouldn't be temporary. All those Star Wars novels can't have ever been canon if they ain't canon anymore, no matter how many editors and George himself once said that they were in the past before they were overruled.
Why bother believing one asshole with temporary power when their truth is relative and finite?
Just to clarify, I'm not saying that Discovery isn't Canon, just that a premium streaming service should have the same powers to canonize as a TV Network, becuase we are living the future, and it's the same ####ing thing now.
Have you actually seen the trailer?It's a TNG bonanza.
A lot of 90s Trek callbacks and hooks, sure. But the amount of substance behind so many nods that even a bobblehead would plip off over the rigor of it all? Zilch. The teaser did its job to pique our interest. Look at all the responses to Seven coming across as a 21st century hipster barfly as opposed to a refugee from the Borg learning to be a 24th century human per Roddenberry's own beliefs that crafted TNG's beige plastic. But there's undoubtedly a lot more going on to explain a lot more. The teaser still said pretty much nothing** behind the images shown, apart from a sign reading "___ days without a
* now note who disagree with me on that, thus proving the point that a picture is worth a thousand words are rarely the identical thousand words
** nor should it, a teaser's job isn't to tell the whole story unless it's so bereft of plot that 2 minutes tells it all, in which case that's really being a tease!
** nor should it, a teaser's job isn't to tell the whole story unless it's so bereft of plot that 2 minutes tells it all, in which case that's really being a tease!
I'm still more interested in what the creators say it will bring to the table as they're teasing more than a bunch of 1440 image frames (if the 2 minute teasers recorded and released as 24FPS) ever could:
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/...rd-series-patrick-stewart-character-shake-up/
That alone pretty much seals the deal, this isn't going to be TNG. It is using TNG trademarks but it's going to be a different show. In the right hands, with these ingredients that many (including Bryan Fuller?) put in, there's a real shot at something good. And I wouldn't want a teaser to spoil the outcome, which I'm hoping is a really good premiere.
Keeping an open mind with the actual episodes to come, and given how bland TNG seasons 5-7 ended up being it'd be hard to make Picard's era worse - something the TNG films managed to do given their lightweight nature, but the new series clearly isn't going to have the same "beige hotel in space" feel that TNG had. Which in some ways might be a good thing...
...A very good thing if they won Stewart over, who was keen on never wanting to play the role again and saying he was done with Picard.
Especially with Roddenberry's idealism in the late 80s to make 24th century humans so bland. You bet I'm intrigued on how they make a balance between Roddenberry's ideals and telling new stories that will be compelling.
A lot of 90s Trek callbacks and hooks, sure. But the amount of substance behind so many nods that even a bobblehead would plip off over the rigor of it all? Zilch. The teaser did its job to pique our interest. Look at all the responses to Seven coming across as a 21st century hipster barfly as opposed to a refugee from the Borg learning to be a 24th century human per Roddenberry's own beliefs that crafted TNG's beige plastic. But there's undoubtedly a lot more going on to explain a lot more. The teaser still said pretty much nothing** behind the images shown, apart from a sign reading "___ days without adeathassimilation" and in a style Batman 66 would appreciate* so we're all thinking a set of a thousand words of which anywhere between two hundred and two actually match up by the time we see the actual show.
* now note who disagree with me on that, thus proving the point that a picture is worth a thousand words are rarely the identical thousand words
** nor should it, a teaser's job isn't to tell the whole story unless it's so bereft of plot that 2 minutes tells it all, in which case that's really being a tease!
I'm still more interested in what the creators say it will bring to the table as they're teasing more than a bunch of 1440 image frames (if the 2 minute teasers recorded and released as 24FPS) ever could:
https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/ustv/...rd-series-patrick-stewart-character-shake-up/
That alone pretty much seals the deal, this isn't going to be TNG. It is using TNG trademarks but it's going to be a different show. In the right hands, with these ingredients that many (including Bryan Fuller?) put in, there's a real shot at something good. And I wouldn't want a teaser to spoil the outcome, which I'm hoping is a really good premiere.
Keeping an open mind with the actual episodes to come, and given how bland TNG seasons 5-7 ended up being it'd be hard to make Picard's era worse - something the TNG films managed to do given their lightweight nature, but the new series clearly isn't going to have the same "beige hotel in space" feel that TNG had. Which in some ways might be a good thing...
...A very good thing if they won Stewart over, who was keen on never wanting to play the role again and saying he was done with Picard.
Especially with Roddenberry's idealism in the late 80s to make 24th century humans so bland. You bet I'm intrigued on how they make a balance between Roddenberry's ideals and telling new stories that will be compelling.
I think we're more on the same page than I previously believed. It was harder to tell when we were only talking about Discovery.
This attitude goes all the way back to 1979 and the introduction of Klingons with forehead ridges and an Enterprise that seemed far more advanced than the ship on the show did. Most people just went with the flow, just happy to have Star Trek back, and I believe that most people are just going with the flow of things now. But, there were those that objected that these changes meant there was no possible way that we could accept that the original series and the motion picture took place in the same universe. It was just impossible and Gene Roddenberry was insulting his fan base by believing they would accept such a travesty. All of this has happened before...
But that's what canon is. It is all the work that is relevant to the story being told.
Comics had crossover events between Superman/Gen13, or the Justice League/WildC.A.T.S and no one considered them canon. And then a few years later Image comics were swallowed by DC, and in the new canon you'll see Gen13's Fairchild show up in Superboy's comic, or delightful interactions between Midnighter and Nightwing in Grayson.
Even works by a single creator working on a long running series can change significantly during their run and backtrack/change stuff previously established in its run. My favorite example is Strangers in Paradise, which was completed with 90 issues released over 14 years. I happen to own the pocket book editions, and it's fascinating to see how things change during that run. My absolute favorite is the part where Moore, the author, soft-reboots the series by jumping into the future, and establishes the entire plot up till now to be a manuscript about her mothers life that the daughter of one of the main characters is trying to get published. It is rejected by an editor, leading the daughter to rewrite it, which is the rest of the series, but with slight differences being basically stuff edited out or added in her manuscript.
Here's the thing: In a living franchise/story, meaning one that is still actively being told, changes are inevitable. It's not immutable holy writ, and that is not a bad thing.
And it can lead to things that don't work out being changed into things that do work. Or are you railing against the organisation Kirk and crew are part of being retconned into the Federation, too, because the writer coming up with it contradicted what came before?
Aye, that's all true. The hope is in that the new and/or retconned material actually work strong enough to get viewers to roll with it. TNG wasn't 100% strict with continuity with TOS, but close enough and managed to sell its own. TNG movies and DS9 onward certainly took more creative liberties and retcons, which would also explain some of the burnout at the time.
It's all also not unlike for "Doctor Who", which never had any continuity or canon as such, at least for most incarnations - and the 1980s was the decade that impressively attempted to piece together a continuity but by then there was simply no way. And depending on whom you ask, show 'em pictures of all the incarnations and they'll point at the ones that they feel didn't work and as with all things picture-oriented, those same thousand words end up being different. Just for more reasons.
Same goes for all 7 zillion Trek incarnations coming down the pike. Just keep true to the show's vision and mission statements that make it distinct from any other show, and voila. Turn Picard into a florist with a side job of paid assassin and I'm not sure a lot of people would appreciate the change, especially if they retconned it by finding one aspect in one episode and balloon it out of proportion. Not that it wouldn't be fun in seeing the attempt. I suppose.
I figure it’s fairly simple. “I am the biggest Star Trek fan! I am the truest fan! I love Star Trek so much that— oh, I don’t like this bit of Star Trek. And yet, I am the biggest fan. That must mean —this isn’t really Star Trek! I, the gatekeeper of all true Trek, banish this from the True Trek!”
You can change just a few words and get the version for people who love all Star Trek but don’t bother with the books and comics and get dismissive about how they’re just a waste of time because they aren’t canon.
Similar threads
