Making of Star Trek.. canon?

[Neopeius]

Is the famous book fanwank or the will of Roddenberry? Is the info in there taken from the show's bible, and, if so, is it canonical?

Yes, I know that strictly speaking, it has to be on the screen to be canon. But was the book sanctioned and meant to accurately represent the show and its background?

 

[gottacook]

I've owned The Making of Star Trek since 1968. Certainly everything in it is official: pre-production interoffice memos, ship sketches, list of possible Vulcan(ian) names, etc. Who ever said it was fan-based?

 

[Nerys Myk]

It don't mean a thing if it ain't on the screen.

Its a interesting book on how Star Trek came to be and I've owned and worn out many copies since the 1970s, but canon? Nah. It would be like making all plot outlines and rough drafts part on the canon. A lot can change going from the page to the screen.

 

[Christopher]

Is the famous book fanwank or the will of Roddenberry? Is the info in there taken from the show's bible, and, if so, is it canonical?

Yes, I know that strictly speaking, it has to be on the screen to be canon. But was the book sanctioned and meant to accurately represent the show and its background?

It accurately represents the thoughts and intentions of the show's producers at the time, at least as filtered through Whitfield's interpretations. Whitfield had full access to the production and got his information from a variety of production sources including the series bible, the original format proposal, countless production memos, interviews with Roddenberry and the staff, etc.

However, that's a totally different question from what is canon. Canon is the set of backstory assumptions observed by whoever's currently producing the show, and different producers make different assumptions. The material in TMoST is analogous to the material in a series bible -- it reflects the original intentions of the creators, but that doesn't preclude a later episode or film from contradicting those intentions for the sake of the story.

So even though TMoST represents the most official and authentic account of the way ST's producers perceived its characters and universe as of 1968, some of its assertions have been contradicted by later productions. For instance, it claimed Scotty was an only child, but TWOK gave him a nephew (though that relationship was cut from the theatrical version of the film so its canonicity is unclear).

 

[Mistral]

I've owned The Making of Star Trek since 1968. Certainly everything in it is official: pre-production interoffice memos, ship sketches, list of possible Vulcan(ian) names, etc. Who ever said it was fan-based?

You mean, names like Speek?

 

[Nerys Myk]

A lot of those memos contained jokes and gags that were surely not meant to be canon any more that a rubber duck on the 1701-D.

 

[Unicron]

Is the famous book fanwank or the will of Roddenberry? Is the info in there taken from the show's bible, and, if so, is it canonical?

Yes, I know that strictly speaking, it has to be on the screen to be canon. But was the book sanctioned and meant to accurately represent the show and its background?

It accurately represents the thoughts and intentions of the show's producers at the time, at least as filtered through Whitfield's interpretations. Whitfield had full access to the production and got his information from a variety of production sources including the series bible, the original format proposal, countless production memos, interviews with Roddenberry and the staff, etc.

However, that's a totally different question from what is canon. Canon is the set of backstory assumptions observed by whoever's currently producing the show, and different producers make different assumptions. The material in TMoST is analogous to the material in a series bible -- it reflects the original intentions of the creators, but that doesn't preclude a later episode or film from contradicting those intentions for the sake of the story.

So even though TMoST represents the most official and authentic account of the way ST's producers perceived its characters and universe as of 1968, some of its assertions have been contradicted by later productions. For instance, it claimed Scotty was an only child, but TWOK gave him a nephew (though that relationship was cut from the theatrical version of the film so its canonicity is unclear).

I agree. Given that some versions of TWOK restored the relationship between Scotty and Peter, would that be considered canonical? Just as the theatrical version of TUC cut out the Colonel West scenes, but these were restored on the home versions.

 

[Christopher]

A lot of those memos contained jokes and gags that were surely not meant to be canon any more that a rubber duck on the 1701-D.

It's a cinch that nobody involved with producing Star Trek back then ever thought or spoke the word "canon" at all, unless they were having a discussion about Bible study or the music of Pachelbel. That's a term that didn't become significant in Trekdom until Roddenberry's infamous TNG-era memo in which he tried to lay down the law about what did and didn't count as "true" Trek in his vision. It was only after that memo that fans began to develop this unhealthy obsession with arguing over what was "real" and "unreal" in this totally imaginary universe.

 

[Captain Robert April]

I still want to see that memo. My suspicion is that a lot has been read into it that wasn't there.

As for being contradicted by later productions, hell, it's been contradicted by TOS on several points.

 

[Nerys Myk]

A lot of those memos contained jokes and gags that were surely not meant to be canon any more that a rubber duck on the 1701-D.

It's a cinch that nobody involved with producing Star Trek back then ever thought or spoke the word "canon" at all, unless they were having a discussion about Bible study or the music of Pachelbel. That's a term that didn't become significant in Trekdom until Roddenberry's infamous TNG-era memo in which he tried to lay down the law about what did and didn't count as "true" Trek in his vision. It was only after that memo that fans began to develop this unhealthy obsession with arguing over what was "real" and "unreal" in this totally imaginary universe.

True enough. Sadly its taken over a large segment of the fanbase. Writing, acting, direction and production are all subservient to the mighty canon.

 

[Captain Robert April]

Any ongoing work of fiction needs to be cognizant of its own established backstory, or the whole thing becomes pointless very quickly.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Any ongoing work of fiction needs to be cognizant of its own established backstory, or the whole thing becomes pointless very quickly.

Tell that to the guys making Comics. Or the Batman movie franchise. Or the Bond one. All have done "do overs", recasts, retcons and reboots. Sometimes a good barnacle scraping and a fresh coat of paint can do wonders. "Curb Appeal" as they say on the real estate shows.

 

[Neopeius]

Any ongoing work of fiction needs to be cognizant of its own established backstory, or the whole thing becomes pointless very quickly.

Reverend.

 

[Neopeius]

Any ongoing work of fiction needs to be cognizant of its own established backstory, or the whole thing becomes pointless very quickly.

Tell that to the guys making Comics. Or the Batman movie franchise. Or the Bond one. All have done "do overs", recasts, retcons and reboots. Sometimes a good barnacle scraping and a fresh coat of paint can do wonders. "Curb Appeal" as they say on the real estate shows.

There's a difference between reimagining a concept and sloppy writing.

Everyone has their own consistency tolerance line. Few people would accept the new James Bond movie if Daniel Craig started shooting people with a tape gun.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Any ongoing work of fiction needs to be cognizant of its own established backstory, or the whole thing becomes pointless very quickly.

Tell that to the guys making Comics. Or the Batman movie franchise. Or the Bond one. All have done "do overs", recasts, retcons and reboots. Sometimes a good barnacle scraping and a fresh coat of paint can do wonders. "Curb Appeal" as they say on the real estate shows.

There's a difference between reimagining a concept and sloppy writing.

Everyone has their own consistency tolerance line. Few people would accept the new James Bond movie if Daniel Craig started shooting people with a tape gun.

I want good writing and I want the characters to be identifiable as those characters. I want Superman to be from Krypton, raised by the Kents, working with Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White at the Daily Planet and fighting for Truth, Justice and the American Way. Anything with in that framework can be a good Superman movie. Same for any other franchise. Some of the details can change as long as the core of the concept and characters remain consistant. Clart Kents address or the look of Krypton isn't all that important.

 

[Christopher]

True enough. Sadly its taken over a large segment of the fanbase. Writing, acting, direction and production are all subservient to the mighty canon.

Only in the minds of the fans who don't understand how the process works. The actual filmmakers give very little thought to the concept of "canon," because "canon" is a term that only has meaning in contrast to apocryphal material such as tie-ins or fanfiction. It's a given that whatever the producers put on film is part of the "real" continuity of the universe, so it's not a question they have to think about, any more than a fish has to think about water. They're just concerned with telling good stories and maintaining a reasonably convincing sense of continuity.

Any ongoing work of fiction needs to be cognizant of its own established backstory, or the whole thing becomes pointless very quickly.

Cognizant, yes, but not fanatically slavish. This is the mistake that canon-obsessive fans tend to make -- forgetting that it is fiction, not history, and that there's room for flexibility. Continuity is worth having, but you won't find a single long-running franchise that doesn't tweak its continuity over time, that doesn't reinterpret or disregard old ideas. After all, sometimes old ideas don't work as well as they could have, or they turn out to impose too many limits on the stories you want to tell now. So as with anything else, there needs to be room for the judicious application of creative license. It shouldn't be careless, of course, but being so slavish to past ideas that you impede new storytelling or fail to correct past mistakes is just as bad as being sloppy with continuity. As with most things in life, the healthiest path is the middle ground, not one of the extremes.

 

[Captain Robert April]

The point being that JJ and Co. aren't being cogizant, they're being downright rebellious.

I just wish they'd come clean and admit it's a reboot. Because that is the part of this whole fiasco that is pissing me off the most, that they have, essentially, lied to us through this whole process, about how it's not a reboot, how there's a canon explanation for everything. Well, I say, cue Penn Jilette: BULLSHIT! If there's a canon explanation for the crap they're shoveling, then it's not only a reboot, which would result in a property called Star Trek separate and apart from the stuff we all know, it's a reboot that attempts to wipe out the previous version!

Well, that way lies disaster. And I, for one, am not going to idly sit by and watch them try and drive the whole franchise right off the same cliff little Jimmy Kirk sends that Corvette.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I still want to see that memo. My suspicion is that a lot has been read into it that wasn't there.

Part of it is quoted in DC Comics' Star Trek Series II, issue #1.

 

[Finnegan]

A lot of those memos contained jokes and gags that were surely not meant to be canon any more that a rubber duck on the 1701-D.

It's a cinch that nobody involved with producing Star Trek back then ever thought or spoke the word "canon" at all, unless they were having a discussion about Bible study or the music of Pachelbel. That's a term that didn't become significant in Trekdom until Roddenberry's infamous TNG-era memo in which he tried to lay down the law about what did and didn't count as "true" Trek in his vision. It was only after that memo that fans began to develop this unhealthy obsession with arguing over what was "real" and "unreal" in this totally imaginary universe.

True enough. Sadly its taken over a large segment of the fanbase. Writing, acting, direction and production are all subservient to the mighty canon.

And with negative results in story quality and in stale-feeling spin-offs
and movie sequels........

 

[Therin of Andor]

it's a reboot that attempts to wipe out the previous version!

Ummm, how?

Maybe JJ will do only one movie anyway? Maybe the next movie or TV show will overwrite that. Maybe JJ will overwrite himself?

Did Batman fans have the same problem with Billy Dee Williams turning into Tommy Lee Jones in the Batman franchise? I don't recall anyone at Warners making a statement that "Batman Forever" was a reboot of the 1989 "Batman". Sure, "Batman" was a reboot of the 60s TV show, but the first four Warners movies were supposed to be part of the same arc.

If the audience loves the new ST film, there'll be more. If the audience hates it, there won't be. No one is tossing Star Trek off a cliff.

Why must JJ make a new statement about how his movie fits with existing canon? There are plenty of licensed ST novels and comics that fit with all of ST, and plenty that fit only in certain ways, and some great novels and comics that have had their stories supposedly overrwritten. But you know what, those stories haven't been recalled. Some have even been reprinted, despite their content no longer fitting. Some have even had sequels written, even though not everything still fits.

I guess you will have to make the grand sacrifice. Stand up, and forfeit seeing the movie, so there'll be enough people involved in the boycott. Me? I'm going to the movie, no matter what - and when the end credits roll I'll know if I'll continue to support whatever comes next. And how many times I'll see the first one.