Is Data's head still under San Francisco?

[Set Harth]

I don't get why you are so passionate about being right...It seems as if you have accepted your own theory on this issue as being the truth and you cannot possibly come to a compromise on the ideas that myself and other posters have suggested.

I've had just about enough of this plotline. I'm not the one being unreasonable here.

I've already conceded that if Spock and Nero don't actually come from the Prime, then the head may not be there. I've similarly conceded that if writer intent regarding time travel in STXI means that previous examples of single-timeline in canon ( such as Time's Arrow ) either did not happen or are retconned to have happened differently from what we saw, then the head may not be there. However, even under the assumptions that Time's Arrow happened as depicted, and Spock and Nero came from Prime 2387, and STXI's time travel was branching, that is still not enough for some people. At that point the "we can never know" position becomes silly and unreasonable. It says that if an object is placed in a box then we cannot know whether or not the object was in the box at that time. All opinions are not equally valid. Sometimes a position is simply wrong. Suppose one person says 2 + 2 = 4 and another person says 2 + 2 = 37. Who is right? Should they "compromise"? What is the "compromise" position?

The characters in the last movie seemed to believe they shared a common past and that the timeline was branched, but they were speculating and couldn't really know. It may also have been the writers' intent, but that does not matter unless it was made canon by being displayed onscreen in some way more definitive than character speculation.

Which never happens, because it involves breaking the fourth wall and having the creators speak directly to the audience, so it is an entirely unreasonable expectation to place upon any film. That's where the intent of the writer and the studio comes in. Who established this rule "not on screen = not canon", anyway? Prequel haters? Why does the position of Star Trek Online mean nothing? By this logic how are we certain that the previous Star Trek films and episodes didn't all take place in separate continuities?

It is entirely in the hands of whomever writes a scene that is then filmed into canon that firmly establishes the situation - and they could decide to go with ANY of the possibilities discussed in this thread, however disappointing that might be to those of us that have a different preference to what they choose.

I've already addressed this. I still don't think wishful thinking about future writers retconning away current writer intent is a very meaningful position when it comes to the situation as it stands in the present, and it seems doubtful to assume that future writers will necessarily "firmly establish" anything about the film. If the content of STXI did not itself suffice, why would content of a future film be any more definitive? Anything "established" by that hypothetical film would ultimately be due to characters, whose perception of the situation could be wrong, just as the opinions of STXI characters have been treated as wrong.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Which never happens, because it involves breaking the fourth wall and having the creators speak directly to the audience, so it is an entirely unreasonable expectation to place upon any film. That's where the intent of the writer and the studio comes in. Who established this rule "not on screen = not canon", anyway?

No, it doesn't - it simply involves having events depicted or stated as known facts, rather than simply speculated on, that establish the matter. If Data's head were to show up, or they were to discuss a history of Khan, the Eugenics Wars, or WWIII that is totally inconsistent with what we're familiar with, that would do it. And as to the canon rule question? CBS/PARAMOUNT. They own the property, so it follows their rules.

I've already addressed this. I still don't think wishful thinking about future writers retconning away current writer intent is a very meaningful position

It isn't wishful thinking on my part - I prefer that Data's head be there. I just acknowledge that that may not reflect how things ultimately shake out.

And Captain M is correct. You are needlessly belligerent, and maybe in some venues, that might sway people, but I don't think this is one of them. This isn't a matter of any real importance, one way or another, it's just a fun discussion. Please calm down.

 

[Pauln6]

If they specified the nature of the time travel in their story, then saying "the language used isn't definitive" is nothing more than discarding writer/director intent in favor of the personal preference of a minority of the audience. The language can never be definitive enough to satisfy those determined to change the plot into something more to their liking. And again, the so-called "scientific definition" of branching is irrelevant. In-universe plot points are not subject to approval by the purveyors of speculative popular physics.

Once again, the nature of the time travel has been made clear, as you admitted. The fact that words can have different meanings is totally irrelevant. When I say "branching" I use it as a shorthand for the situation detailed by Orci, not as an open door for whatever a revisionist might wish "branching" to mean.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me on something, even if you then go on to contradict that assertion, I'll take the point The language can indeed never be definative. I can't share your certainty because I saw nothing in the movie that defined the precise mechanics of the time travel nor have I read a description by the writers that I personally could view as definitive. I have simply been deferring to your claim that such a desciption had been given as being supportive of your own view on the assumption that you had read an interview in which they were clearer. I think that the descriptions that I've read still leave us with the question of what branching actually means.

Plus, the entire discipline of English literature involves interpreting the words the original writers used to personalise what the work means to the reader. Art is similarly subjective. It isn't a question of being right or wrong, much as we tease and express our views on these forums. I have yet to be convinced that Data's head will be there for the reasons I have given but I can acknowledge the applicability of the contra argument even if I prefer my own.

 

[Set Harth]

If Data's head were to show up, or they were to discuss a history of Khan, the Eugenics Wars, or WWIII that is totally inconsistent with what we're familiar with, that would do it.

Since real life failed to conform to the Khan backstory in Space Seed, I would tend to see a change in the Eugenics Wars as a retcon of the Prime rather than as a concession that Spock and Nero do not actually come from the Prime. In other words, I would see those things as distinct. I don't think we can take every "update" of the series as proof that the setting has necessarily been changed to a different universe.

And as to the canon rule question? CBS/PARAMOUNT. They own the property, so it follows their rules.

But do "their rules" mean that things like books and comics are not canon, or do they actually go so far as to say that their own intent regarding the film is not canon? I suspect the former rather than the latter.

 

[USS Triumphant]

I don't think we can take every "update" of the series as proof that the setting has necessarily been changed to a different universe.

A tweak is one thing - but radical inconsistency would be another, and that is more along the lines of what I am talking about.

... or do they actually go so far as to say that their own intent regarding the film is not canon? I suspect the former rather than the latter.

Their intent is to make money and maintain control of their I.P. - the decision-makers aren't really fans - and their stated policy is that only what is shown on screen is canon. Trek episodes and movies have been written by many different writers with many different ideas about the Trek universe (multiverse), not all of which agree with each other, so they don't get to count their ideas as canon unless they get them on the screen. Period. The only possible semi-exception to that is Gene Roddenberry himself - and even in his case, frequently his opinion has been disregarded.

 

[Set Harth]

and their stated policy is that only what is shown on screen is canon.

Where was this stated? ( I'm referring to the "shown on screen" interpretation specifically, as opposed to the mere exclusion of non-film and non-TV sources. )

they don't get to count their ideas as canon unless they get them on the screen. Period.

How does one realistically do that in this context beyond the level of what was done in STXI, other than by using a text screen at the beginning which says something like "for all the doubters out there, the mind meld really shows the Prime"? Since irrefutable proof that other Star Trek films all took place in the same continuity was never shown on screen, do we say that the idea cannot be counted as canon?

Period.

I wasn't just talking about the writers. I don't think it's so crystal clear that CBS/PARAMOUNT endorse a policy which says that their own CBS/PARAMOUNT intention regarding the plot of a given franchise film is not canon. How can the property "follow their rules" yet simultaneously have nothing to do with their intent?

The only possible semi-exception to that is Gene Roddenberry himself - and even in his case, frequently his opinion has been disregarded.

Disregarded in what sense? Provably overwritten and made invalid by something shown on screen in the films and episodes? And if Roddenberry semi-gets this courtesy, why was it not inherited by the current producers of the franchise?

 

[USS Triumphant]

Where was this stated? ( I'm referring to the "shown on screen" interpretation specifically, as opposed to the mere exclusion of non-film and non-TV sources. )

If one takes the whole of Trek material, and then excludes what is non-film and non-TV, one is left by default with that which IS film and TV. Or, in other words, on screen.

How does one realistically do that in this context beyond the level of what was done in STXI, other than by using a text screen at the beginning which says something like "for all the doubters out there, the mind meld really shows the Prime"? Since irrefutable proof that other Star Trek films all took place in the same continuity was never shown on screen, do we say that the idea cannot be counted as canon?

Actually, there is an argument to be made (that has been made on this very board, numerous times by many people) that the Kirk & crew motion pictures DO represent a separate timeline/universe from TOS - and while I think that is silly, if TPTB decided to make a Temporal Cold War movie that demonstrates it to be the case, I wouldn't be able to say there is no basis for it. And there is also reason, presented on screen, to believe that perhaps Nero and Spock were not from the "Prime", either - not that such theories are my preference.

I wasn't just talking about the writers. I don't think it's so crystal clear that CBS/PARAMOUNT endorse a policy which says that their own CBS/PARAMOUNT intention regarding the plot of a given franchise film is not canon. How can the property "follow their rules" yet simultaneously have nothing to do with their intent?

You're making a false assumption. CBS/PARAMOUNT has NO intention toward plot beyond trying to insure that nothing is done to ruin the value of their property - and they aren't that good at even that. They are not Trekkies. Les Moonves, doubly not so.

Disregarded in what sense? Provably overwritten and made invalid by something shown on screen in the films and episodes? And if Roddenberry semi-gets this courtesy, why was it not inherited by the current producers of the franchise?

Because they didn't CREATE it? And like it said, even his intentions have been set aside on plenty of occasions. And yes, demonstrably overriden on screen.

 

[Set Harth]

If one takes the whole of Trek material, and then excludes what is non-film and non-TV, one is left by default with that which IS film and TV. Or, in other words, on screen.

No, as the distinction made by my previous post indicates, there is more to it than that. Excluding non-film and non-TV sources does not necessarily mean that the intent of the creators and the studio regarding a given film is thrown out along with elements from non-film and non-TV sources. I'll take your answer to mean the "shown on screen" belief was actually not stated anywhere official but is merely an interpretation, as I had suspected.

And there is also reason, presented on screen, to believe that perhaps Nero and Spock were not from the "Prime", either - not that such theories are my preference.

What reason is that?

You're making a false assumption. CBS/PARAMOUNT has NO intention toward plot beyond trying to insure that nothing is done to ruin the value of their property

That is itself most likely a false assumption. I fail to see how you can be certain that they have no intention regarding the setting of the plot, and they could easily see linkage to the Prime as part of maintaining the value of the property.