At the pump, you have a choice between 87, 89, and 93. It's 93.
Last edited:
I preferred the Prime timeline.
- Thread starter Trekkie27
- Start date
At the pump, you have a choice between 87, 89, and 93. It's 93.
(Hypothetical scene in the series):
Seven/Annika: What the hell are you doing out here, Picard. And when did you become so cynical?
Picard: People change, Annika. You as well as anyone should know that.
Annika: Yes I do. However, while living on Earth and among humans over the past 18 years has taught me to embrace my humanity, it seems those same 18 years has made you want to close yourself off from humanity.
Picard: People change, Annika. You as well as anyone should know that.
Annika: Yes I do. However, while living on Earth and among humans over the past 18 years has taught me to embrace my humanity, it seems those same 18 years has made you want to close yourself off from humanity.
There. Problem solved.
Granted, real writers could certainly come up with some better dialogue than that, but the point is that explaining why Seven is now more comfortable being and acting like a regular human is not a difficult thing, especially since it is something that we actually EXPECT would have happened in the past 18 years.
Since it is very plausible -- and in fact expected -- that she would have changed, audience awareness of that change is something that could be demonstrated to us with a few lines of dialogue.
And no...I don't expect the trailer for a Picard series to go into detail demonstrating why Seven seems more human. Save that for the actual series.
Last edited:
..?...
....
??...?
... !?!?!!?!??
Yes, the people making the thing can determine what is part of the thing.
You keep talking about this as if the tv shows and movies are some sort of sentient being that can be "forced to respect" other forms of media. The creators, the people who make the show right then, can decide whether they want to use elements introduced in other media in the franchise, thus elevating it into the canon of the tv show/movies. Nobody must do anything, but they can. And what's this nonsense about shirts and coasters? Since when does this count as fiction?
I don't know what Jeri Taylor did to you personally, but I went to check up on Pathways, and lo and behold, apart from some things that were later superseded by stuff in later seasons, the writers considered it canon at the time and worked quite a few parts of it into actual episodes of the show, making at least parts of the book actual show canon. So while not all of it made it into the show, Jeri Taylor does get to boast that a lot of her book is canon.
What the hell is "good canon"? And where did I claim that SiP is this "good" canon? I used it as an example for the fluidity of canon in long running works told in installments.
Wow, you are seriously overthinking something that is not at all complicated. The movie, if it comes out, is a single, self-contained retelling of a comic book run that is completed. Questions of canon don't even arise because single movies don't really need canon, and again it's a retelling, not a continuation of the comic. They give you all the relevant information you need right there.
Again, two self-contained works. There's no reason to worry about "canon" between them. At all. But if they somehow made five SiP movies, which would likely switch things around, or cut or merge different characters then yeah, of course they would have different canons. A canon is just the sum of events that "have actually happened" in the story proper and its backstory.
Well, you'll have to ask someone who is more informed on Star Wars.
....
??...?
... !?!?!!?!??
Yes, the people making the thing can determine what is part of the thing.
You keep talking about this as if the tv shows and movies are some sort of sentient being that can be "forced to respect" other forms of media. The creators, the people who make the show right then, can decide whether they want to use elements introduced in other media in the franchise, thus elevating it into the canon of the tv show/movies. Nobody must do anything, but they can. And what's this nonsense about shirts and coasters? Since when does this count as fiction?
I don't know what Jeri Taylor did to you personally, but I went to check up on Pathways, and lo and behold, apart from some things that were later superseded by stuff in later seasons, the writers considered it canon at the time and worked quite a few parts of it into actual episodes of the show, making at least parts of the book actual show canon. So while not all of it made it into the show, Jeri Taylor does get to boast that a lot of her book is canon.
What the hell is "good canon"? And where did I claim that SiP is this "good" canon? I used it as an example for the fluidity of canon in long running works told in installments.
Wow, you are seriously overthinking something that is not at all complicated. The movie, if it comes out, is a single, self-contained retelling of a comic book run that is completed. Questions of canon don't even arise because single movies don't really need canon, and again it's a retelling, not a continuation of the comic. They give you all the relevant information you need right there.
Again, two self-contained works. There's no reason to worry about "canon" between them. At all. But if they somehow made five SiP movies, which would likely switch things around, or cut or merge different characters then yeah, of course they would have different canons. A canon is just the sum of events that "have actually happened" in the story proper and its backstory.
Well, you'll have to ask someone who is more informed on Star Wars.
Canon became contradictory in the first season of TOS.
Canon became contradictory in the first season of TOS.
Fuck. Remember when Data very clearly had strong, human emotions in Seasons 1 & 2 of Next Gen? Pepperidge Farm remembers.
James R. Kirk, anyone?Canon became contradictory in the first season of TOS.
That's OK, it was properly corrected to James Caligula Kirk by the 80s.
Canon became contradictory in the first season of TOS.
Canon means that something happened.
It doesn't have to make sense.
Continuity means that all the canon has to make sense.
Even though it probably can't.
This is the second best description of Star Trek ever.
My four-question system:
1. Is this inherently stupid? If "no", then it counts. If "yes", then continue...
2. Does this go against every other version of Star Trek? If "no", then it counts. If "yes", then continue...
3. Can this be explained away? If "yes", then it counts. If "no", then continue...
4. Is this change the result of an intentional updating? If "yes", then it counts. If "no", then continue...
If the answers are "yes", "yes", "no", and "no" respectively, then I think it shouldn't count.
Some Examples of this system put to the test:
1. Uhura's total memory loss in "The Changeling". --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count.
2. Women can't be Captains in the TOS Era. --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count.
3. Warp 10 and higher evolution turns you into a salamander. --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count. The Enterprise passes Warp 10 according to Geordi in "Where No One Has Gone Before" and Human evolution is projected by Q to lead into Godhood in "Hide & Q". On top of Gary Mitchell's evolution into something more God-like in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
4. Harry Kim needs permission to date aliens. --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count.
5. Discovery's Spore Drive. --> Yes, Yes, Yes, No --> The Spore Drive is wonky but can be explained away in the context of sci-fi and lacks the proper combination of answers to rule it out. To go further moves into spoiler territory.
6. The Morgana Quadrant in TNG. --> No, Yes, Yes, No --> Still counts even though we have to get creative to explain it.
7. The look of the Enterprise in TOS. --> No, No, Yes, No --> Still counts even though it's contradictory to DSC.
8. The look of the Enterprise in DSC. --> No, Yes, No, Yes --> Still counts even though it's contradictory to other series.
9. UESPA --> No, Yes, Yes, No --> Still counts even though it might seem contradictory.
10. The Klingon bridge change between TSFS and TVH. --> No, No, No, No --> Still counts even though it's contradictory.
1. Is this inherently stupid? If "no", then it counts. If "yes", then continue...
2. Does this go against every other version of Star Trek? If "no", then it counts. If "yes", then continue...
3. Can this be explained away? If "yes", then it counts. If "no", then continue...
4. Is this change the result of an intentional updating? If "yes", then it counts. If "no", then continue...
If the answers are "yes", "yes", "no", and "no" respectively, then I think it shouldn't count.
Some Examples of this system put to the test:
1. Uhura's total memory loss in "The Changeling". --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count.
2. Women can't be Captains in the TOS Era. --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count.
3. Warp 10 and higher evolution turns you into a salamander. --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count. The Enterprise passes Warp 10 according to Geordi in "Where No One Has Gone Before" and Human evolution is projected by Q to lead into Godhood in "Hide & Q". On top of Gary Mitchell's evolution into something more God-like in "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
4. Harry Kim needs permission to date aliens. --> Yes, Yes, No, No --> Shouldn't count.
5. Discovery's Spore Drive. --> Yes, Yes, Yes, No --> The Spore Drive is wonky but can be explained away in the context of sci-fi and lacks the proper combination of answers to rule it out. To go further moves into spoiler territory.
6. The Morgana Quadrant in TNG. --> No, Yes, Yes, No --> Still counts even though we have to get creative to explain it.
7. The look of the Enterprise in TOS. --> No, No, Yes, No --> Still counts even though it's contradictory to DSC.
8. The look of the Enterprise in DSC. --> No, Yes, No, Yes --> Still counts even though it's contradictory to other series.
9. UESPA --> No, Yes, Yes, No --> Still counts even though it might seem contradictory.
10. The Klingon bridge change between TSFS and TVH. --> No, No, No, No --> Still counts even though it's contradictory.
Last edited:
We say that The animated show from the 70s isn't canon, becuase it's animated.
Short Treks are producing some animated episodes later this year.
If the new animated Short Treks are canon, then surely that means that TAS is canon, if it's only shortfall is being animated?
Short Treks are producing some animated episodes later this year.
If the new animated Short Treks are canon, then surely that means that TAS is canon, if it's only shortfall is being animated?
CBS started saying that TAS was canon back in 2008 when They released the DVD set.
Nothing has changed since then.
And the only reason they even considered it non-canon in the first place was due to Roddenberry pitching a fit and declaring it as such when D.C. Fontana's animated series won an Emmy when his original series never did. Roddenberry was many things, and unfortunately being petty as fuck was one of them. See also: Him leaking Spock's death to the media and fans in an effort to derail Nicholas Meyer's Wrath of Khan. And then later openly declaring Meyer's Undiscovered Country non-canon.
Gene himself was the original "That's not real Star Trek!" troll.
Last edited:
According to what everyone tells me, it is a one statement system: what CBS says it is, it is and there can be no deviation.
According to what everyone tells me, it is a one statement system: what CBS says it is, it is and there can be no deviation.
The Hell with 'em.
According to what everyone tells me, it is a one statement system: what CBS says it is, it is and there can be no deviation.
Actually, that’s not exactly true. It’s what the people currently in charge of Star Trek says it is. And while CBS is currently in charge, that may not always be the case in the future. Ten years from now CBS could sell me the rights to Star Trek, and then I would be the one who decided what was canon or not. Just pray that that day never comes, ENT and Star Trek: The Final Frontier.
Wish people would stop worrying about canon. Gene isn't going to punish you eternally when you die for believing or not believing in TAS or deciding that something you didn't like about Trek didn't happen in terms of your personal experience. We can talk about the series as a whole here, as 50+ year entirety, but in the end it is all personal experience and enjoyment.
Nope, wrong. It's Goddenberry's way or the highway.
Similar threads
