• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Robert Meyer Burnett: "Terra Firma" will ruin Trek canon

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jayson1 said:
We didn't see the person in the TOS episode. I think the main concern is the more we learn about it then it will remove the mystery behind it.


Jason
Click to expand...
We didn't see Starfleet HQ in TOS either, and I don't remember outrage whe it was shown in S1 of TNG. I don't remember the Fandom Menace being what they are when we learned more about Andorians in ENT than was shown in TOS, because it removed a mystery. rather it was praised for expanding the lore. And IIRC, Harlan envisioned the Guardian as a person not as a giante toilet seat, so certainly this depiction would be more true to his original vision than what made it to the screens in the 60s
 
We didn't even see 23rd century Earth in TOS except for Captain Pike's fantasy sequence involving Mojave on Talos IV.
 
RMBurnett said:
I think much of the problem with Star Trek from 2009 onward stems from the fact it's designed to NOT be canonical with the previous iterations of TREK. The Kelvin timeline was established specifically to free the franchise from canonical storytelling. So...to answer your question, yes, I don't consider any of the current iterations of TREK to be canonical. The Rick Berman era of the franchise...18 years and 25 seasons of Trek, began with Berman working directly with Roddenberry, and even after Roddenberry's death in 1991 up through the end of ENTERPRISE, he was trying to maintain the ethos established way back in the original series. The current stewards of the franchise don't have that connection to the "soul" of the franchise, and aside from paying lip-service to canon, there's not much evidence the modern shows are at all canonical.
Click to expand...

First off, let me be clear that I have no idea who you are, but your opinions here at the TrekBBS are just as valid and welcome as any other member here. Second, I tend to agree with what you've stated above, other than a quibble with the word 'canon.' There's no doubt that Star Trek: Discovery, Star Trek: Picard, and Star Trek: Lower Decks are all canon to the Star Trek universe. Whether they take place within the same continuity, however, has always been debatable. It comes down to two schools of thought:

1. The only way these shows and movies can all possibly exist within the same universe is if every single aspect of them, from the biggest to the smallest aspect, are in 100% continuity 100% of the time. If they aren't, even by the smallest measure, then they're incompatible and therefore must take place in a different universe.

2. It is simply impossible to expect over 50 years of shows and movies to maintain such strict and total continuity; therefore mistakes will be made but that's just the nature of life, and all these shows and films reside in the same universe.

Let me give you an example of this. In M*A*S*H, Colonel Blake's wife's name was Mildred in the first season. By the third, her name had changed to Lorraine. Does this mean that the first season and the third season take place in two alternate universes? Of course not. It's just a changed premise. It happens all the time. Star Trek is no stranger to it. Just because you (like myself) do not like how drastically things have changed from what came before, or because of an arbitrary judgment that the current people in charge do not have the same appreciation or 'soul' if you will, to the franchise, that doesn't mean that it's not a valid interpretation of the material. It's just an interpretation that you don't care for. I've never liked Star Trek: Enterprise, but like it or not it's part of the same continuity as all the other shows.

I personally like Discovery, but I also think it fails miserably as a prequel to TOS. But that's just my opinion based on my own personal tastes, and I don't expect others to agree with me. But I'm not going to lose sleep thinking that Gene Roddenberry is rolling over in his grave because some new show isn't up to par with what you're judging his reaction to it would be after-the-fact. And I've given up on any expectation that TPTB will ever create a show that suits my personal tastes of what Star Trek 'should be.'
 
Last edited:
The funny thing about this possible blatant betrayal of someone’s trust... uh, I mean “spoiler” is I thought from the 29thC on they have time ships and telporters and pods, etc, etc. Why would they need the Gaurdian? And, frankly, why wouldn’t they have done this already if they had the capability?
 
RMBurnett said:
Greetings.
Tough crowd here. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you all may have. As always, I promise my responses will be courteous and respectful.
Click to expand...
I'm curious if whatever happens in Terra Firma will ruin (in your valid opinion) only the GoF, or something else in COTEOF. If it is only about the GoF, it was mysterious and beyond our understanding in TOS, to they can do things with it we didn't imagine back then. "I am both and neither", etc.

Sorry that you're under attack here, even from a moderator. Maybe she'll reconsider now that you're a member here, especially since this isn't TNZ ;)
 
RMBurnett said:
I think much of the problem with Star Trek from 2009 onward stems from the fact it's designed to NOT be canonical with the previous iterations of TREK. The Kelvin timeline was established specifically to free the franchise from canonical storytelling. So...to answer your question, yes, I don't consider any of the current iterations of TREK to be canonical. The Rick Berman era of the franchise...18 years and 25 seasons of Trek, began with Berman working directly with Roddenberry, and even after Roddenberry's death in 1991 up through the end of ENTERPRISE, he was trying to maintain the ethos established way back in the original series. The current stewards of the franchise don't have that connection to the "soul" of the franchise, and aside from paying lip-service to canon, there's not much evidence the modern shows are at all canonical.
Click to expand...

This is where I have an issue with the gatekeepers and those who feel they are somehow arbiters of ‘canon’. Man, that word and its usage bug me. Discovery and Picard are officially released as ‘Star Trek’, therefore, unless we’re told otherwise, they are canon whether you like it or not. We don’t get to decide what’s canon and what isn’t. It’s an objective thing, not a subjective one.

Now, we’re all entitled to our opinions as to the quality of that material and that’s where the subjective realm opens up. Personally I disagree that there’s no connection to the “soul” of the franchise. I feel in five episodes alone, DSC season three has captured the heart and soul of Star Trek beautifully, in a way that highlights and brings to the focus its core themes and idealism. Not everyone will agree, but I haven’t loved Trek this much since DS9 left the air.
 
RMBurnett said:
Greetings.
Tough crowd here. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you all may have. As always, I promise my responses will be courteous and respectful.
Click to expand...
I like my Treks to have internal continuity within themselves and others as well. Do you feel most of issues with Discovery stem from the fact that Producers insist it is in Prime Universe?
 
RMBurnett said:
The current stewards of the franchise don't have that connection to the "soul" of the franchise, and aside from paying lip-service to canon, there's not much evidence the modern shows are at all canonical.
Click to expand...
Oh, that's simply not true. There are a number of figures from past iterations of Star Trek, who came back to work on Discovery, from Fakes as a director to Nicholas Meyes as a consultant. Perhaps more problematic for your argument is that the series was created by Bryan Fuller, who worked with all of the luminaries of 1990s Trek: Behr, Moore, Taylor, Braga, etc., and even Rick Berman.
 
RMBurnett said:
there's not much evidence the modern shows are at all canonical.
Click to expand...
The shows are oozing with evidence.

There's probably more callforwards/backs in Discovery and Picard to the previous series, than any previous series have done.

Which is kinda a bad thing, it really needs to try to stand on it's own more.

Also you're using the word canonical wrong, anything produced by the license holder is canon, the phrase you want is "not in continuity", which would still be wrong, they've shown strong ties to previous continuity.

Ignoring the visuals, the story is strongly connected to what came before.
 
Last edited:
RMBurnett said:
I think much of the problem with Star Trek from 2009 onward stems from the fact it's designed to NOT be canonical with the previous iterations of TREK. The Kelvin timeline was established specifically to free the franchise from canonical storytelling. So...to answer your question, yes, I don't consider any of the current iterations of TREK to be canonical. The Rick Berman era of the franchise...18 years and 25 seasons of Trek, began with Berman working directly with Roddenberry, and even after Roddenberry's death in 1991 up through the end of ENTERPRISE, he was trying to maintain the ethos established way back in the original series. The current stewards of the franchise don't have that connection to the "soul" of the franchise, and aside from paying lip-service to canon, there's not much evidence the modern shows are at all canonical.
Click to expand...
Canon is ever changing and evolving. It's been that way since day two of Star Trek. Treating every data point like they're the Holy Rings of Betazed is absurd.
You don't get a vote on what's canon. (Neither do I.) Your vote is for whether you like it not, same as the rest of us.
What "ethos" and "soul" are you referring to?
Lip service is pretty much what every canon drop amounts to, again starting on Star Trek day two,
 
Last edited:
They're canon.

One fan's idea of "soul" is not necessarily another's.

And while DSC may have gone down an aesthetic route I generally disagree with there's little to nothing in the actual writing that would make me yearn to decanonize something or declare that it never was canon to begin with.

Next?
 
RMBurnett said:
Greetings.
Tough crowd here. I'm certainly happy to answer any questions you all may have. As always, I promise my responses will be courteous and respectful.
Click to expand...

Kelso said:
Assuming that you received genuine information about an upcoming episode, why did you feel the need to put that information out publicly prior to the airing of the episode?
Click to expand...

You know what, Rob? I'm a few Bloody Marys in this evening so I'm just going to be frank with you.

I've been a fan of Free Enterprise for many years. I've enjoyed the material you produced for the TNG home video releases. I'm a fan of Inglorious Treksperts, including your contributions. And I have watched your YouTube videos on more than one occasion... but I found your behavior during your association with Axanar to be reprehensible and upthread I called you an attention-seeking blowhard.

I am very disappointed that your desire to be a large fish in a small pond has me considering spoilers for an episode weeks before it airs.

Should you come by additional spoilers for as-yet-unaired episodes, I hope you will do the gentlemanly thing and keep that information private until such time that we can all voice our praise or disappointment.
 
RMBurnett said:
I think much of the problem with Star Trek from 2009 onward stems from the fact it's designed to NOT be canonical with the previous iterations of TREK. The Kelvin timeline was established specifically to free the franchise from canonical storytelling. So...to answer your question, yes, I don't consider any of the current iterations of TREK to be canonical. The Rick Berman era of the franchise...18 years and 25 seasons of Trek, began with Berman working directly with Roddenberry, and even after Roddenberry's death in 1991 up through the end of ENTERPRISE, he was trying to maintain the ethos established way back in the original series. The current stewards of the franchise don't have that connection to the "soul" of the franchise, and aside from paying lip-service to canon, there's not much evidence the modern shows are at all canonical.
Click to expand...
Oh please. Berman made Enterprise, which is completely incompatible with TOS. Berman never understood the Trek Roddenberry wanted. It was colorless, musicless, and took the “no conflict” edict way too far. In fact it disobeyed the no conflict rule’s original intention, introducing tons of melodrama into the franchise. One whole series was about war, which Gene detested and his writers worked hard to skirt and avoid. There was no “ethos” and everyone working on those shows were openly critical of Roddenberry.
There’s no reason the post-2009 shows should follow “canon” any closer than Berman’s did, which is almost not at all. In fact, their attempts to fit in with Trek as we’ve known it has been dragging them down. I wish they would stop bowing down to diminishing, unpleasable rabid fans and just reboot the thing already.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top