I would like to know what other people think regarding to the canonicity of TOS original and the Remastered effects. Which do you think takes precedence or are both valid views of the original series just with one with more clarity. Has the original been thrown on the proverbial scrapheap much like George Lucas' original effects with Star Wars or does it really depend on the viewer. We haven't had an answer from Paramount but what should it be?
TOS original or Remastered, which is canon?
- Thread starter Drewmax
- Start date
- Status
I'm so sick of this "canon" nonsense. It's a fucking tv show, not a religion. One version is an original work of art; the other is someone else's, someone entirely unrelated, graffiti on that work of art.
We had an answer for years, all live action Trek is canon and that means both the original and remastered versions are canon.
Canon is never as absolute, definitive, or rigid as many fans seem to think. It's not some formal policy handed down from on high; it's just the current creators' assumptions as to what parts of the franchise's past they choose to consider "real." So the definition of canon changes all the time, and tends to reflect whatever the most recent interpretation is. For instance, on Dallas it was canonical that Bobby Ewing was dead until the producers decided to say it was all a dream, and then that entire season became non-canonical. In Trek, first it was canonical that the Borg had no interest in individual life forms as a rule, only in technology, but later it became canonical that all Borg drones were assimilated humanoids. First it was canonical that Data used contractions routinely, then it became canonical that he never did. And so on.
So generally newer canonical assumptions supersede older ones, which would suggest that the new FX should be considered to take priority. Of course, ultimately it's irrelevant unless some future Trek producer specifically decides to revisit, say, Flint's mansion or the Tantalus Colony and has to decide which design to use. But that's unlikely, and they'd be just as inclined to create some new design of their own.
I mean, which of the many inconsistent depictions of the planet Vulcan or the skyline of San Francisco is canonical? Which of Saavik's or Zefram Cochrane's or Tora Ziyal's faces is canonical? They all are. A canon is a series of fictional works that pretend to represent a consistent reality, but since they're fictional, that reality is subject to reinterpretation in the individual stories. Canon is not defined by the specific details, but by the overall whole. Creators of new stories keep them consistent with the general shape of the universe as defined in the past but are free to reinterpret details to suit their individual needs or creative choices.
So it's really not a meaningful question. Star Trek, the overall television series, is canon. Differences in how its visual details are rendered onscreen have no effect on that. I mean, think how many contradictions there were within the original unaltered episodes. In "The Enemy Within," neither Kirk had a uniform insignia at beam-up, but then they both did before they had a chance to change. Was that a canonical detail, or was it just an inconsistency in the production of a work of dramatic fiction? Or what about the shots of the Enterprise where they used stock footage from the second pilot and the nacelles suddenly gained spires and lost their rear domes? What's canon is the overall narrative, and the details are always subject to interpretation or change.
But as for which designs the individual fan would choose to consider "real," to me it makes sense to go with the new versions in Remastered. After all, most of the shots that were replaced were stock footage that was only a crude approximation of what they were going for anyway. I mean, why believe that Flint's mansion "really" looked like the Rigel VII fortress, right down to the same coastline and the same planets in the sky? Why believe that the Tantalus penal colony looked just like the Delta Vega lithium cracking station with a few modifications? Why believe the Aurora looked like a Tholian ship with Starfleet nacelles stuck on by Klingon battlecruiser wings? I don't think it makes sense to take any of those visuals literally. They were just the best approximations of the intended reality that the production crew could manage with limited resources. The TOS-R versions are probably a better reflection of the intent of the original stories.
So generally newer canonical assumptions supersede older ones, which would suggest that the new FX should be considered to take priority. Of course, ultimately it's irrelevant unless some future Trek producer specifically decides to revisit, say, Flint's mansion or the Tantalus Colony and has to decide which design to use. But that's unlikely, and they'd be just as inclined to create some new design of their own.
I mean, which of the many inconsistent depictions of the planet Vulcan or the skyline of San Francisco is canonical? Which of Saavik's or Zefram Cochrane's or Tora Ziyal's faces is canonical? They all are. A canon is a series of fictional works that pretend to represent a consistent reality, but since they're fictional, that reality is subject to reinterpretation in the individual stories. Canon is not defined by the specific details, but by the overall whole. Creators of new stories keep them consistent with the general shape of the universe as defined in the past but are free to reinterpret details to suit their individual needs or creative choices.
So it's really not a meaningful question. Star Trek, the overall television series, is canon. Differences in how its visual details are rendered onscreen have no effect on that. I mean, think how many contradictions there were within the original unaltered episodes. In "The Enemy Within," neither Kirk had a uniform insignia at beam-up, but then they both did before they had a chance to change. Was that a canonical detail, or was it just an inconsistency in the production of a work of dramatic fiction? Or what about the shots of the Enterprise where they used stock footage from the second pilot and the nacelles suddenly gained spires and lost their rear domes? What's canon is the overall narrative, and the details are always subject to interpretation or change.
But as for which designs the individual fan would choose to consider "real," to me it makes sense to go with the new versions in Remastered. After all, most of the shots that were replaced were stock footage that was only a crude approximation of what they were going for anyway. I mean, why believe that Flint's mansion "really" looked like the Rigel VII fortress, right down to the same coastline and the same planets in the sky? Why believe that the Tantalus penal colony looked just like the Delta Vega lithium cracking station with a few modifications? Why believe the Aurora looked like a Tholian ship with Starfleet nacelles stuck on by Klingon battlecruiser wings? I don't think it makes sense to take any of those visuals literally. They were just the best approximations of the intended reality that the production crew could manage with limited resources. The TOS-R versions are probably a better reflection of the intent of the original stories.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Actually, it's how it was executed.
^Yep. Execution often falls short of conception. I'm sure if you'd given Gene Roddenberry the chance to go back and redo TOS's effects, he would've jumped at the chance to make changes and would've been emphatic that it was the new versions that were canonical. After all, this was the guy who changed the Klingon makeup in TMP and told fans to assume they'd always looked like that. Given the chance, he would've gone back and reshot TOS with ridged Klingons throughout. He was a television producer making do with what limited resources he had, and like all television producers, he often had to settle for less than he wanted because the money or the time or the technology just wasn't there. So given the means and the opportunity, he would've changed it in a heartbeat and said the changed version was the genuine one.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Updating the visual effects has no bearing on 'canonicity' or 'continuity'. Also, GIVEN that the Blu-Ray discs contain BOTH versions, it's not like access to the original footage is gone for those who prefer it.
This is essentially true. The story and events that unfold remain the same. I was simply stating my opinion on which version is the authentic one. TOS as it was original created is the original and authentic version and source materiel. Whatever is done after that is reinterpretation.
Of course not. There's absolutely no story reason why Flint's mansion has to look like the Rigel VII fortress or why the freighter Woden has to look like the Botany Bay. Or why half the planets in the galaxy have the exact same continents and the other half have no continents at all. And nobody ever said Planet Mudd didn't have rings, so why can't it? So the continuity hasn't been altered in any way.
And he stayed dead in "Knot's Landing", which lasted longer than the parent series!
ST-One
Vice Admiral
That does, of course, not mean that the creative minds of TOS could not and have not conceived concepts for the show that were more elaborate than what they, in the end, were able to execute.
And, it does not mean that, given the chance and possibility, they wouldn't have gone back to change or augment any aspect of the show which, in their view, fell short of their ideas.
The Motion Picture is the prime example for this, as they updated the look of Star Trek to the, back then, current aesthetic expectations of the audience.
Indeed. To think otherwise is to misunderstand something fundamental about the television business. You're always having to cut corners, to settle for less than you originally wanted. The standard procedure in TV and movies is to write a script that has everything you want it to have, without regard for budget, and then to pare it back and make compromises as needed to get it within a filmable budget. We can't afford three security guards with dialogue, can we make do with just one guard and give all the guards' lines to Chekov? We can't afford a huge valley filled with giant talking statues, can we make do with a stone donut with flashing lights inside? We can't afford to build or shoot a new spaceship, so can we just say the ship's invisible? You always, always get results that are less than what you conceived. Because you always put in as much cool stuff as you can in the hopes that, no matter how much gets cut back or compromised, at least something really cool will survive to the finished product.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
Now, this would have been great.
But then, I always love this scene in Clash of the Titans:
I really dont care whats canon or not. I will always llike the original effects better. They are what I grew up with. I have seen the new effects.(not all the episodes) Some are alright others take alot of artistic license. I guess the novelty of it is fine for awhile.
I definitely approve of the cases where they replaced recycled stock footage with new designs. The TOS-R version of Flint's mansion not only makes far more sense than the recycled Rigel fortress, but is possibly the most gorgeous matte painting I've ever seen.
NOVELTY??? LOL, for the first time in a LONG time I am watching these eps OVER & OVER!!! I've seen Doomsday Machine maybe 15 times since I purchased the new set!!!
Novelty my Andorian BUTT!!!
EVERY time I see ANY shot of Enterprise I gasp!!! TOS-R with new FX is WHY I got my Art Asylum/Diamond E & spent two weeks re-painting it!! It's WHY my Son & I are reading John Byrne Trek comics!! It's WHY we built the Polar Lights model together!!!
Show me my FAVOURITE spaceship of ALL-TIME in crystal clarity while watching my beloved Trek stories that I've grown up with, and tell me it's somehow "novelty???"
Sorry, but that's laughable.
^^^See? There's proof.
- Status
Similar threads
