I don't worry in the least about canon. It just boils down to arguing over which set of make-believe is somehow more real. It's all make-believe. Keep the parts you enjoy, pitch the rest, and if there's a conflict, "just repeat to yourself it's just a show I should really just relax".
Is canon going to be more like in Star Wars in the Abramverse?
- Thread starter Yevetha
- Start date
Will people stop linking to TV Tropes....
There's only so many hours in the day, and that place is like crack to me! Addictive isn't the word, there's always ONE MORE term to look up
Anyway, at the end of the day Canon is a more personal argument that "what's your favourite epsiode/series/
And usually boils down to the same thing
"I like this book, I want to find ways to make it canon"
"Everyone in history hates this warp 10 episode, can we de canonise it somehow?"
There's only so many hours in the day, and that place is like crack to me! Addictive isn't the word, there's always ONE MORE term to look up
Anyway, at the end of the day Canon is a more personal argument that "what's your favourite epsiode/series/
And usually boils down to the same thing
"I like this book, I want to find ways to make it canon"
"Everyone in history hates this warp 10 episode, can we de canonise it somehow?"
You mean reducing TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and movies I - X to one of the infinite universes where "all possibilities that can happen, do happen, in alternate quantum realities" (along with the timelines where Worf married Troi, the one where everyone's evil and the one where bunnies rule the universe)? They put the whole timeline on a bus.Hmm. Maybe you didn't understand the plot as well as you think you did.
Nothing to do with timelines. They jumped realities, not timelines. Or maybe they created a new timeline, which is the same as creating a new reality. The usual reset-button scheme wasn't followed in XI, that's for sure.
Whether or not this is part of the multiverse idea is very much open to question. We know about three realities so far - Prime, Abrams, Mirror - maybe there are only those three, and everything else is all about futzing with (and improbably repairing) the timelines within one of those three.
Personally, I find the idea of the cosmos stopping at just three realities to be ludicrous. Why not four or five or five quadrillion? Why stop at any particular point on the road to infinity?
And if the number of realities is infinite, that explains how you can "repair a timeline," which sounds flat-out impossible to me. It's like unscrambling an egg. They aren't unscrambling the scrambled egg, they're finding a new egg and declaring it to be the same one as the one that got scrambled. Sure, there are some differences, but an egg is an egg, why be fussy?
But what's true for the natural world doesn't need to necessarily apply to fiction. Also, it is upsetting to think about all those eggs, cruelly abandoned after being scrambled. Three it is.
And as a final thought, the statement about the timeline "trying" to repair itself does make me think the idea here is that the timeline will end up looking like the Grapevine on Interstate 5 - it splits at a certain point, and then re-merges later on. So by the time TNG rolls around, the timeline could be totally repaired and ready for action.
Reading all this is giving me a headache. But then again, I got a headache watching Parallels and the multiple Worfs trying to get their multiple shuttles onboard the right Enterprise!
"alternate timeline" and "alternate reality" are the same thing. Here's the real-life technobabble about branching realities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretationYou mean reducing TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY and movies I - X to one of the infinite universes where "all possibilities that can happen, do happen, in alternate quantum realities" (along with the timelines where Worf married Troi, the one where everyone's evil and the one where bunnies rule the universe)? They put the whole timeline on a bus.Hmm. Maybe you didn't understand the plot as well as you think you did.
Nothing to do with timelines. They jumped realities, not timelines. Or maybe they created a new timeline, which is the same as creating a new reality. The usual reset-button scheme wasn't followed in XI, that's for sure.
Whether or not this is part of the multiverse idea is very much open to question. We know about three realities so far - Prime, Abrams, Mirror - maybe there are only those three, and everything else is all about futzing with (and improbably repairing) the timelines within one of those three.
Personally, I find the idea of the cosmos stopping at just three realities to be ludicrous. Why not four or five or five quadrillion? Why stop at any particular point on the road to infinity?
And if the number of realities is infinite, that explains how you can "repair a timeline," which sounds flat-out impossible to me. It's like unscrambling an egg. They aren't unscrambling the scrambled egg, they're finding a new egg and declaring it to be the same one as the one that got scrambled. Sure, there are some differences, but an egg is an egg, why be fussy?
But what's true for the natural world doesn't need to necessarily apply to fiction. Also, it is upsetting to think about all those eggs, cruelly abandoned after being scrambled. Three it is.
And as a final thought, the statement about the timeline "trying" to repair itself does make me think the idea here is that the timeline will end up looking like the Grapevine on Interstate 5 - it splits at a certain point, and then re-merges later on. So by the time TNG rolls around, the timeline could be totally repaired and ready for action.
And the movie mentions travel back through time several times, and hopping realities exactly zero times.
The only reason Richard Arnold (then-Paramount Archivist working out of Gene Roddenberry's "Star Trek Office" on the lot) started talking about "the canon" was in an attempt to deflect some of the wackier audience questions at conventions.
For example, fans would question the idea that Worf was the first Klingon in Starfleet, referencing Konom the Klingon turncoat from DC Comics' post-ST II comics. Or, they'd question why Starfleet's dreadnoughts weren't brought into battle against the Borg when they'd seen the huge ships on the cover of a few ST novels and in Franz Joseph's "Technicasl Manual". A particular sticking point was fans asking why the Romulans in ST V and TNG weren't being called "Rihannsu". And so on.
The whole "What is canon?" argument only affects the creators of licensed materials, not the fans. During Richard's tenure, the licensees were only supposed to use the live-action, as aired, ST as source material.
Felt like a Star Wars flick to me, already.
Make it matter how? Since the Prime universe isn't coming back on-screen, and the novels are the only continuation of those stories, what else is there? A sticker on the front saying "A nameless exectutive at CBS has declared this novel canon!"? That would make them better, how?
KingDaniel, I like your avatar, by the way. 
Re, the OP's question: No.
Re, the OP's question: No.
Yevetha
Commodore
Make the novels consistent each other and take it seriously.
They are and they do. It's been like that since 2000!
Thanks. It's from the deleted scene of "How Star Trek should have ended" on youtube.KingDaniel, I like your avatar, by the way.
Thanks. It's from the deleted scene of "How Star Trek should have ended" on youtube.KingDaniel, I like your avatar, by the way.
As it's incredibly kinda on-topic, as well as pretty dang funny, here is "Star Trek: How It Should Have Ended":
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc[/yt]
... and the deleted scene ...
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkCW4TkLBfo[/yt]
Awesome.
Yevetha
Commodore
Comics too.
Similar threads
