new canon vs novelverse: worst case scenario

[Relayer1]

Honestly, I doubt it will ever even become an issue. The Abrams films are now safely off in their own timeline, and it's unlikely we'll see any new televised Star Trek until they're done.

And, frankly, if I were to bring Star Trek Prime Timeline back to TV -- and Leonard Nimoy said in a number of interviews promoting ST09 that he thinks the film was so big that Star Trek can never go back to TV anymore -- but, if I were to do it, I'd do another TNG-style time jump and advance us to somewhere in the mid-24th Century. Plenty of time for clever authors to reconcile the Destinyverse 2380s with whatever I introduce. Obviously that's just me, but I do think that the creative advantages of such a time jump -- that you'd be generally free to both play with the same basic toys (the Federation, the Klingons, the Romulans, etc.) but also free to establish entirely new relationships among them -- are pretty obvious. There's a reason Gene put TNG in the 2360s rather than the 2290s.

All true, but with Spock Prime actually IN the JJverse, does that mean that not much can be done with him ? There are unresolved questions such as what happens with his relationship with Saavik and do they have children ? What happens with the reunification movement ? These are things that could just conceivably be mentioned in any further appearances in the films.

 

[Therin of Andor]

All true, but with Spock Prime actually IN the JJverse, does that mean that not much can be done with him ? There are unresolved questions such as what happens with his relationship with Saavik and do they have children ? What happens with the reunification movement ? These are things that could just conceivably be mentioned in any further appearances in the films.

We're not talking novels here. Neither a new movie in the prime universe, nor a commercially-viable new "Star Trek" TV series, is not going to be concerned about including Spock - not just because "not much can be done with him", but because the original actor is over 80 years old, and has several times announced his retirement from acting. It won't ponder his marriage to Saavik, either, because that happened in a licensed tie-in novel read by less than 1% of the potential viewing audience.

A projected TV series - one that time-jumps a few decades beyond "Nemesis" and "Voyager" may need to only mention that Romulans once lost their home planet. Considering they were already exiled from Vulcan before losing Romulus as well, it probably makes then just angrier, but in lesser numbers. Or reunified. New political alignments will be shown.

A new ST series could get away with not mentioning Spock and Nero at all.

 

[Christopher]

A new ST series could get away with not mentioning Spock and Nero at all.

Heck, TNG went nearly three years before it first mentioned Spock, and only mentioned him in five episodes (four distinct stories) in all. DS9 mentioned him in two episodes, VGR in four. ENT, unsurprisingly, never mentioned him at all, although the possibility of a human/Vulcan hybrid was discussed a couple of times.

 

[nightwind1]

See, this is the kind of misapprehension that comes up when you mistake the word "canon" for the concept of "what is real/acceptable." That's just not what it means. Canon is not about telling the fans what to accept.

I have always used the term "personal canon" to refer to what I think is "real" in various genre universes. And I know many others who do as well. So please stop being so pedantic and trying to tell other people what they are trying to say.

Thank you.

 

[JD]

Just because other people do it doesn't make it right. The "everyone else is doing so it must be right" defense really doesn't work.

 

[Christopher]

If it were just a matter of vocabulary, I'd be more inclined to let it be. But the thing is, when people confuse canon with personal opinion, it leads to false beliefs like the idea that Paramount or CBS is trying to "tell people what to like," because they're treating two completely unrelated definitions of "canon" as though they were equivalent. And so they're just getting themselves upset over nothing, or feeling restricted when they don't have to be. I'm just trying to explain that they have no need to worry, because canon actually has nothing to do with them or their preferences and choices.

 

[Turtletrekker]

See, this is the kind of misapprehension that comes up when you mistake the word "canon" for the concept of "what is real/acceptable." That's just not what it means. Canon is not about telling the fans what to accept.

I have always used the term "personal canon" to refer to what I think is "real" in various genre universes. And I know many others who do as well. So please stop being so pedantic and trying to tell other people what they are trying to say.

Thank you.

Then allow me to be pedantic as well... your use of the word "canon" (as well as that usage by the "many other" people you know) in the context that you are using it is wrong. "Canon" is a word with with a definite definition and meaning. Your personal opinions do not now, nor will they ever, have anything to do with "canon". Ever. Period.

Thank you.

ETA: For the record, I once got into this exact same argument/discussion with KRAD, and I was as wrong then as you are now.

 

[BillJ]

ETA: For the record, I once got into this exact same argument/discussion with KRAD. I was as wrong then as you are now.

I just think its a silly thing to expend so much energy on. If people want to be wrong, let them be wrong...

 

[captcalhoun]

I'd do another TNG-style time jump and advance us to somewhere in the mid-24th Century.

you mean 25th surely, since the mid-24th would be going backwards....

 

[Sci]

I'd do another TNG-style time jump and advance us to somewhere in the mid-24th Century.

you mean 25th surely, since the mid-24th would be going backwards....

Whoops. Yep, 25th.

 

[Skywalker]

I'd do another TNG-style time jump and advance us to somewhere in the mid-24th Century.

you mean 25th surely, since the mid-24th would be going backwards....

Whoops. Yep, 25th.

I'd so the same thing, and set it in the 2460s. It worked for the 23rd and 24th centuries...

 

[Mike Farley]

If they advance to the 25th Century Buck Rogers could be the captain.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I haven't read any of the recent the Gorn-centric Trek lit yet, but the recent news that the Gorn will be the villains in the forthcoming nuTrek videogame, the events of which are said to be referenced in the next movie, may lead to some interesting conflicts vs. the Gorn of the novelverse.

 

[Cybersnark]

I haven't read any of the recent the Gorn-centric Trek lit yet, but the recent news that the Gorn will be the villains in the forthcoming nuTrek videogame, the events of which are said to be referenced in the next movie, may lead to some interesting conflicts vs. the Gorn of the novelverse.

Not necessarily; we actually know very little of the TOS-era Gorn in the Prime timeline, who knows what might be going on in the Abramsverse?

Plus, a lot can change between Kirk's era and the 2380s (note the Klingon on the bridge).

 

[Sci]

I haven't read any of the recent the Gorn-centric Trek lit yet, but the recent news that the Gorn will be the villains in the forthcoming nuTrek videogame, the events of which are said to be referenced in the next movie, may lead to some interesting conflicts vs. the Gorn of the novelverse.

One of the smarter things Martin did in Seize the Fire was establish the existence of different castes of Gorn society, with members of different castes having noticably different appearances. This should let us reconcile most potential conflicts.

 

[E-DUB]

Ah, another canon debate. Canon, to me, is what the late Phillip K. Dick once said about reality. It's something that doesn't go away just because you stop believing in it. Having ones work superceded by events is something novelists and other writers simply have to deal with and not just in the Treklit field. In my personal opinion (and that of others I've seen commenting here) one of the best Trek novels ever was "Federation", which was totally contradicted by the film "First Contact", one of the best films ever. Am I supposed to not enjoy one or the other because of those contradictions? Not at all.

As Whitman said: " Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes." As for the larger question here, I'm sure that some will attempt to reconcile contradictions, others will ignore them. But the final question will be, as it is always: "Have we got a good story here or not?" If the answer is yes, then that's enough.

 

[Relayer1]

Ah, another canon debate. Canon, to me, is what the late Phillip K. Dick once said about reality. It's something that doesn't go away just because you stop believing in it. Having ones work superceded by events is something novelists and other writers simply have to deal with and not just in the Treklit field. In my personal opinion (and that of others I've seen commenting here) one of the best Trek novels ever was "Federation", which was totally contradicted by the film "First Contact", one of the best films ever. Am I supposed to not enjoy one or the other because of those contradictions? Not at all.

I remember enjoying Federation very much, and when it was superceeded by First Contact I did wonder if the authors might rewrite/rerelease it to fit around the movie. I think there's a fair few contradictions though...

 

[BillJ]

I remember enjoying Federation very much, and when it was superceeded by First Contact I did wonder if the authors might rewrite/rerelease it to fit around the movie. I think there's a fair few contradictions though...

Federation blew it out of the water and I would've been disappointed if they had tried to rework it to fit First Contact.

 

[Christopher]

Having ones work superceded by events is something novelists and other writers simply have to deal with and not just in the Treklit field. In my personal opinion (and that of others I've seen commenting here) one of the best Trek novels ever was "Federation", which was totally contradicted by the film "First Contact", one of the best films ever. Am I supposed to not enjoy one or the other because of those contradictions? Not at all.

Quite right. Quality and continuity are two completely separate considerations. Since all Star Trek is fictional anyway, being out of continuity doesn't make a story less "true" -- none of it is true. It's just a bunch of elaborate lies for our entertainment. Some of those fictions are consistent with each other, some are not, but it's all just pretend, so what's the harm if some of the pretending goes in a different direction from the rest?