Lt.Kyle

[Sci]

Then they just need to stop claiming it to be "still the Prime Timeline/Universe" if its obviously not, as evidenced by recasts and changed backstories.

It is very obviously NOT set in the original 60s continuity, regardless of what any producers or any fan insistence claims. Not sure how it is a "fannish" notion when it is blatantly made clear by just about every choice the producers have made.

No. It's all the same fictional universe if the creators of that fiction say it is, because they own that fiction and you and I do not. Things can be set in the same universe and also have inconsistencies, because this is all make-believe and consistency is not required for them to be set in the same continuity.

The producers insistence that it is prime is the only thing that can make it prime. The idea that inconsistency, recasts or change negates it being "prime" is a fannish notion. The franchise's history is rife with all three and for some reason only recently have fans decided to declare things "not prime" for them.

Exactly. It's the application of conspiracy theorist thinking to make-believe. There is no "real" Star Trek Universe for productions to be consistent with, and people kind of ignore that.

 

[Yistaan]

It's all the same fictional universe if the creators of that fiction say it is, because they own that fiction and you and I do not. Things can be set in the same universe and also have inconsistencies, because this is all make-believe and consistency is not required for them to be set in the same continuity.

If fans are numerous enough and vocal enough, at some point the legal creator's voice is drowned out. Take Witcher for example. Andrzej Sapkowski swears up and down that the Witcher games are not canon (the way licensed Trek comics, games, and books aren't canon). Yet practically all the Witcher fans basically accept them as the continuation of his books due to their sheer consistency and continuity with the books.

George RR Martin may be the creator of Game of Thrones, but does anyone even care when his next book is coming out now that the tv show wrapped up the story?

Richard E Grant's Dr. Who webisodes was stated to be official canon. Until he wasn't due to sheer bad reception, even though the chaos of the Time War and other retcons written into Doctor Who could easily have kept him if BBC really wanted to.

 

[Sci]

If fans are numerous enough and vocal enough, at some point the legal creator's voice is drowned out.

Intellectual property doesn't care about popularity.

Take Witcher for example. Andrzej Sapkowski swears up and down that the Witcher games are not canon (the way licensed Trek comics, games, and books aren't canon). Yet practically all the Witcher fans basically accept them as the continuation of his books due to their sheer consistency and continuity with the books.

If they want to do that for their own headcanon, that's their business. But if Sapkowski writes a new Witcher book or short story, he's going to disregard the games if he feels like it and fans will have to accept that the games are actively contradicted by the actual Witcher canon.

George RR Martin may be the creator of Game of Thrones, but does anyone even care when his next book is coming out now that the tv show wrapped up the story?

Who cares? It's still his book series and he gets to do with it what he pleases. Fan reaction is actually not important to that.

Richard E Grant's Dr. Who webisodes was stated to be official canon. Until he wasn't due to sheer bad reception, even though the chaos of the Time War and other retcons written into Doctor Who could easily have kept him if BBC really wanted to.

I'm pretty sure the reason those episodes were "de-canonized" was more to do with Russell T. Davies deciding to overwrite them with his own vision of the show than with fan reaction.

 

[fireproof78]

If fans are numerous enough and vocal enough, at some point the legal creator's voice is drowned out. Take Witcher for example. Andrzej Sapkowski swears up and down that the Witcher games are not canon (the way licensed Trek comics, games, and books aren't canon). Yet practically all the Witcher fans basically accept them as the continuation of his books due to their sheer consistency and continuity with the books.

That's on the fans. It holds no weight.

 

[Yistaan]

Intellectual property doesn't care about popularity.



If they want to do that for their own headcanon, that's their business. But if Sapkowski writes a new Witcher book or short story, he's going to disregard the games if he feels like it and fans will have to accept that the games are actively contradicted by the actual Witcher canon.



Who cares? It's still his book series and he gets to do with it what he pleases. Fan reaction is actually not important to that.



I'm pretty sure the reason those episodes were "de-canonized" was more to do with Russell T. Davies deciding to overwrite them with his own vision of the show than with fan reaction.

You completely missed the point of my entire post. When was the last time someone bought an original mirage continuity ninja turtles comic? Yeah i don't know either. Eastman and laird shouting about it being their original intellectual property won't drive up sales.

Keep in mind IP owners themselves change their tune where the money goes. I bet Sapkowski's going to be a lot more friendly to Netflix/CDPR continuity wise if he ever writes another book considering he renegotiated his contract with CDPR and Netflix gave him tons of money to begin with.

And don't forget Star Wars. We all said that LFL maintained it was all one continuity--until it wasn't. And the warning signs were there with the Clone Wars CGI cartoon. Don't blame people for seeing those same warning signs in new Trek.

 

[Sci]

You completely missed the point of my entire post.

No, I understood it just fine. Your point was just wrong.

And don't forget Star Wars.

The same Star Wars whose owners threw out the fanbase-popular Expanded Universe continuity because it was, again, their intellectual property and what they say goes?

 

[Jayson1]

The producers insistence that it is prime is the only thing that can make it prime. The idea that inconsistency, recasts or change negates it being "prime" is a fannish notion. The franchise's history is rife with all three and for some reason only recently have fans decided to declare things "not prime" for them.

This is why I think canon changes are easier to accept in terms of how much ease it takes to explain them through head canon. The harder you have to work to explain it the more people have issue with it. Well in terms of seeing something as canon anyways.

It is why I think April being changed has been easier to buy into than Kyle. We saw white Kyle in TOS where as April we only saw in the old cartoon that was never really seen as canon to begin with. I do think even big changes would be easier to accept if Trek had a history of doing meta things from time to time or breaking the fourth wall but Trek tends to take it self very serious. Maybe to serious at times.

That's why Sisko can't just be talking to the audience in Pale Moonlight. They need to frame it as a log in order to explain that he is not officially talking to the tv audience. It actually kind of shocked me how in season 4 of DS9 you had the characters talking to the audience during the flashback stuff in "Rules of Engagement." I wonder how they got Berman to sign off on that.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I'm thinking about the shriveled biddy old old lady, Doctor Sarah April, who might be happy to trade in her dusty old run down athritic fart of a husband for this big black bull.

Of Course Sarah was played by Nichelle Nichols, so she was already black deep down on the inside 5 decades before her cuddle bunny Robby was.

 

[fireproof78]

Don't blame people for seeing those same warning signs in new Trek.

Seeing that since TMP. DOESN'T make my opinion more accurate.

 

[Sci]

I'm thinking about the shriveled biddy old old lady, Doctor Sarah April, who might be happy to trade in her dusty old run down athritic fart of a husband for this big black bull.

I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but that is a seriously fucked up, racist way to describe a man. Please don't talk that way.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, but that is a seriously fucked up, racist way to describe a man. Please don't talk that way.

A Bull is the opposite of a cuck.

it's a sex thing about institutionalized cheating.

A cuck is "forced" to watch his wife have sex with a bull.

Weird sex games by weird people.

Nothing racist.

 

[Jayson1]

Guy was so inconsistent he even wore command gold in "The Immunity Syndrome(TOS)."

Got promoted but found out Starfleet made a mistake. The promotion was for his brother, the other Kyle but someone made a mistake at headquarters and sent him the message of his promotion.

The worst part was the turd he left in Kirk's quarters after receiving the good news for all his red shirt friends Kirk got killed and was assuming he would be headed off to his new ship soon. Then he had to pretend that he doesn't know how that turd got their when the correction was made. He loves serving on the Enterprise under Kirk.

 

[Mudd]

A Bull is the opposite of a cuck.

it's a sex thing about institutionalized cheating.

A cuck is "forced" to watch his wife have sex with a bull.

Weird sex games by weird people.

Nothing racist.

You're not in the United States. Here, I think, there's a strong racial association.

But then, we're well-known for our cultural twistedness on these things. One huge porn site used to publish stats on geographical associations with their site searches - the huge majority of searches for "interracial" porn always originated in the U.S.

 

[Guy Gardener]

You're not in the United States. Here, I think, there's a strong racial association.

But then, we're well-known for our cultural twisted essence on these things. One huge porn site used to publish stats on geographical associations with their site searches - the huge majority of searches for "interracial" porn always originated in the U.S.

I could be wrong, but I think what Sci found objectionable is that it seemed like I was randomly forcing the characteristics of an animal over the top of a black man, which is a racist thing that happens and isn't nice.

If anything, I was being ageist.

Sarah April was in love with her husband, and then her husband is a completely different person who is half the age, but still her husband and still exactly the same person, which I assumed would make her happy and frisky.

Of course this has already been explored in TNG Too Short a Season, and TNG Rascals. It's kinda unbelievable that Kieko, as an adult trapped in the body of an 8 year old, still expected her 40 something year old husband to have sex with her, but it was a simpler time.

Further more since April is both men, married to the same woman, he is both the cuck and the B#ll simultaneously.

Sarah would also be piqued that her husband is now three dimensional, since she is a cartoon from the animated series and operates on a different physical plane answering to strange 2 dimensional universal constants.

Further, further more I was thinking if ageism isn't a thing, in the 23rd century, then why can't someone young and vibrant like Adrian Holmes be married to an 89 year old woman like Nichelle Nichols, so she could return to this role that almost no one in the world remembers that she already did?

 

[Mudd]

I could be wrong, but I think what Sci found objectionable is that it seemed like I was randomly forcing the characteristics of an animal over the top of a black man, which is a racist thing that happens and isn't nice.

Yep.

 

[The Wormhole]

Richard E Grant's Dr. Who webisodes was stated to be official canon. Until he wasn't due to sheer bad reception, even though the chaos of the Time War and other retcons written into Doctor Who could easily have kept him if BBC really wanted to.

Not, not true at all. As Sci indicates above, the real reason Richard E Grant's Doctor was removed from canon had to do with the show returning and therefore overwriting things. But even if that weren't the case, the Grant Doctor would have to be removed from canon anyway once the show returned because of the nature of BBC's charter, which basically forbids tie-in material for any of its shows being canon. The only thing in a BBC show that can be canon is something from the show itself. While the charter does allow a shared universe among other BBC shows, which is how Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures and Class were able to co-exist, if it's not from a BBC show, it can't be part of a BBC show's canon. Which means the Doctor Who novels, audio dramas and webisodes can never be canon. This is also the reason why the Dalek movies in the 1960s starring Peter Cushing were a completely different continuity from the show.

That said, I know there are people these days who treat Scream of the Shalka as an early War Doctor adventure.

 

[ToddCam]

Not, not true at all. As Sci indicates above, the real reason Richard E Grant's Doctor was removed from canon had to do with the show returning and therefore overwriting things. But even if that weren't the case, the Grant Doctor would have to be removed from canon anyway once the show returned because of the nature of BBC's charter, which basically forbids tie-in material for any of its shows being canon. The only thing in a BBC show that can be canon is something from the show itself. While the charter does allow a shared universe among other BBC shows, which is how Torchwood, Sarah Jane Adventures and Class were able to co-exist, if it's not from a BBC show, it can't be part of a BBC show's canon. Which means the Doctor Who novels, audio dramas and webisodes can never be canon. This is also the reason why the Dalek movies in the 1960s starring Peter Cushing were a completely different continuity from the show.

That said, I know there are people these days who treat Scream of the Shalka as an early War Doctor adventure.

I had only ever heard that there was no such thing as 'canon' in Doctor Who. Seems kind of strange for the BBC to care about what is 'canon'.

 

[The Wormhole]

Seems kind of strange for the BBC to care about what is 'canon'.

Since the citizens of Britain have to pay for BBC (under the License Fees that the people of Britain pay along with their taxes) the BBC Charter mandates that the only thing people need to be familiar with to follow one of their shows is the show itself, or at least another BBC show. Expecting people to have to follow tie-in materials is considered making people pay additional fees on top of the License Fee which is against the BBC Charter. It isn't so much the BBC "caring about canon." Rather, they legally can't make anything other than the show canon.

 

[dupersuper]

You're confusing Lt. Kyle with Lt.Leslie (or maybe Lt. Galloway).

Definitely not with Spock though: he died twice.

George RR Martin may be the creator of Game of Thrones, but does anyone even care when his next book is coming out now that the tv show wrapped up the story?

Those of us who want to get that taste out of their mouths...

 

[ToddCam]

Since the citizens of Britain have to pay for BBC (under the License Fees that the people of Britain pay along with their taxes) the BBC Charter mandates that the only thing people need to be familiar with to follow one of their shows is the show itself, or at least another BBC show. Expecting people to have to follow tie-in materials is considered making people pay additional fees on top of the License Fee which is against the BBC Charter. It isn't so much the BBC "caring about canon." Rather, they legally can't make anything other than the show canon.

Why would they expect you to have to follow anything? It seems inordinately silly. Even if everything else is canon, what does that matter? In The Night of the Doctor, the 8th Doctor mentions several of his Big Finish audio companions. There is nothing compelling anyone to buy a single episode of those stories. For that matter, having Sarah Jane show up in 2006, an unequivocally canonical character, would be very hard to get the full picture of without buying expensive DVDs back then. Is there even a way to watch all 6000+ episodes of EastEnders? I dunno. This interpretation feels Farfetch'd to me.