^Well, you can simplify that to "dual generator." Although I always figured it must be something more like a laser interferometer or beam-splitter apparatus of some sort.
TOS original or Remastered, which is canon?
- Thread starter Drewmax
- Start date
- Status
Have to go with classic FX because:
-it's the stuff that has been canon for over forty years, with tons of official, licensed, and fan-made stuff based off of it.
-someone must rail against the slide toward Orwellian revisionism that the new FX represents. (Okay, I really don't feel that strongly about it, but no one should pass on the opportunity to use the phrase slide toward Orwellian revisionism in RL?
)
-it's the stuff that has been canon for over forty years, with tons of official, licensed, and fan-made stuff based off of it.
-someone must rail against the slide toward Orwellian revisionism that the new FX represents. (Okay, I really don't feel that strongly about it, but no one should pass on the opportunity to use the phrase slide toward Orwellian revisionism in RL?
)
As stated above, no canon is ever entirely uniform. Canons rewrite their own history all the time. Kirstie Alley became Robin Curtis. Glenn Corbett became James Cromwell. Klingons and Romulans gained ridges. Andorians got mobile antennae. San Francisco has been rendered in many different ways. Tasha in "All Good Things" had a different hairstyle on the Farpoint mission than she had in "Encounter at Farpoint," and Deanna had a different hairstyle and accent.
So it's a myth that "canon" has to be defined in exclusionistic terms, either one version of a thing or another. Canons routinely contain mutually contradictory versions of the same object, place, person, or event. So there's no reason why the existence of the original versions of certain visual-effects shots should preclude the acceptance of alternative versions as part of the same canon.
-someone must rail against the slide toward Orwellian revisionism that the new FX represents. (Okay, I really don't feel that strongly about it, but no one should pass on the opportunity to use the phrase slide toward Orwellian revisionism in RL?
The original FX are still available on the Blu-Ray. And I don't accept the idea that there has to be some kind of conflict between the old and the new. The old ones are cool, but the new ones are cool too. They're just variations on a theme, which is a good thing in art.
^But say you're writing a TOS novel where the crew revisit some TOS world, and a situation comes up where you have to discribe said planet's appearance from orbit. Which version of the planet do you base your discription on? Some of the TOS-R worlds are totally different to how they looked in TOS.
^Well, how did Margaret Wander Bonanno describe Saavik's appearance in Unspoken Truth? She went with Robin Curtis rather than Kirstie Alley, because that was her preference. That's not a matter of canon, because the canon itself is multivalued. It's a matter of artistic choice. I mean, come on, this is art, not religious dogma. It's nonsense to treat this as though there's some absolute "right" or "wrong" way of interpreting a work of the imagination. Any artistic creation, particularly one as hugely collaborative as a large multimedia franchise, has abundant room for variant artistic interpretations. The Trek canon is loaded with inconsistencies, flaws, and contradictions, and the novelist picks and chooses and reinterprets according to one's own best artistic judgment. The priority is the internal cohesiveness and effectiveness of the work itself.
As for myself, I'd go with the TOS-R versions of the planets, because they're more realistic and less repetitive. Roddenberry himself always strove for realism, and just because the results often fell short doesn't mean they should be slavishly adhered to. Going with the more realistic version is truer to the intent. Also, as novelists we're free to draw on ideas from anywhere in the vast ST franchise, it doesn't matter where. If I were to write a story about Flint, I'd get much, much better material for the setting if I based the description on the wonderful new matte painting rather than the recycled Rigel fortress painting used in the original episode (which just makes no sense at all if taken literally). That's all that matters -- whether you can get a good idea out of something. This isn't holy writ or gospel. It's art and entertainment. It shouldn't be defined in terms of ruling things out and forbidding things. It should be more about embracing the possibilities, opening the mind rather than welding it shut.
As for myself, I'd go with the TOS-R versions of the planets, because they're more realistic and less repetitive. Roddenberry himself always strove for realism, and just because the results often fell short doesn't mean they should be slavishly adhered to. Going with the more realistic version is truer to the intent. Also, as novelists we're free to draw on ideas from anywhere in the vast ST franchise, it doesn't matter where. If I were to write a story about Flint, I'd get much, much better material for the setting if I based the description on the wonderful new matte painting rather than the recycled Rigel fortress painting used in the original episode (which just makes no sense at all if taken literally). That's all that matters -- whether you can get a good idea out of something. This isn't holy writ or gospel. It's art and entertainment. It shouldn't be defined in terms of ruling things out and forbidding things. It should be more about embracing the possibilities, opening the mind rather than welding it shut.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
I've always thought of canon more as the stories and the appearance of ships, planets, etc. Chekov is an only child was established in a story. That's part of canon. (at least TOS canon. If NuChekov was born four years earlier then there's no telling what else is different.)
To me. canon is the accumulation of the stories, not trying to explain why Kirk was missing his insignia.
To me. canon is the accumulation of the stories, not trying to explain why Kirk was missing his insignia.
Nah, thats continuity.
And to me, canon is nothing more than an excuse for fans to fight with each other.
To me, 'canon' is what would really happen in order from first to last if Star Trek were to 'happen' in real life. For example, JJ Abrams' Trek, though an excellent addition to Star Trek, is not what I consider 'canon'. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to hide in a bomb shelter while I wait for the storm of both haters and supporters of Abrams' movie to try and tear me apart.
No worries. We've got lots of room here.
Since Star Trek could not happen "in real life," this is moot.
Well, let's see, that would mean...
No humanoid aliens.
No Spock, since interspecies hybrids are impossible.
No telepathy.
Probably no warp drive, unless it were millennia in the future and a resource employed by a civilization capable of harnessing the energy output of entire stars.
No universal translators, and the characters using a language heavily altered from modern English.
And so on.
And any definition of canon beginning with "to me" is totally misunderstanding the point of the word. The term "canon" means that which is defined as official by a central authority. It's the exact opposite of individual opinion.
Exactly why I used the word 'if'. And, who knows? The universe goes on forever. To assume you know everything that will ever happen in an infinite universe that knows virtually no boundaries seems to me just a bit presumptive.
No, it's the other way around.
"Canon" is the officially recognized set of stories.
"Continuity" is the exercise of giving the illusion that it all makes sense.
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Why not? Our galaxy is enormous. Who knows whether there is a planet out there somewhere that is about the same size as Earth, and orbits its sun at about the same distance as Earth, thus producing a variety of lifeforms including humanoids. Anything is possible in an infinite universe.
Why not? Do you know for sure that interspecies hybrids are impossible? There is absolutely no possible way of proving that, since we've never met an alien. So, again, anything is possible.
Why not? Nobody has any idea what an intellegent alien race may be capable of. Since we've never met one. Besides, my wife reads my mind all the time. So I know telepathy ain't no myth
.Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing something similar to warp drive within my lifetime. Humans are pretty smart. And we'll figure out a way to do something even if it takes centuries. Warp drive will happen. Eventually. And who knows if more advanced alien civilizations haven't already developed it? In an infinite universe, anything is possible.
Again, how can you know that? If we do ever encounter intellegent, advanced aliens, we will have to translate their language. It follows that the sharing of technology (assuming they're not hostile) would lead to something like a universal translator. Anything is possible.
Precicesly. And pretty much everything seen on the TV and big screen is canon. Even when it contradicts itself and/or doesn't make much sense. Which is exactly why I consider the Abramsverse to be a completely separate universe from the original from the point Nero emerged from the wormhole. "Canon" says that Chekov was 22 in 2267 (The Deadly Years). In the Abramsverse, he would be 22 in 2263, four years earlier. There is a veritable ton of evidence to support this, but that one thing is enough to convince me.
But, that's not the topic of the thread. I don't see why both TOS and TOS-R can't be considered canon. There really isn't much difference except for detailing between the two. I haven't seen every single TOS-R episode, but I don't think they really changed anything of significance. They gave the planets and ships more detail, changed some of the backdrops to make them more realistic, etc. But as far as changing canon, I don't think they did. All the events of the episodes unfolded just as they did in TOS. The Enterprise looks exactly as it did in TOS, just more detailed. So, I can consider both canon since the differences are miniscule.
HERBERT!!
Who here would actually believe that Spock would get computer info about Talos IV from a dumpy little paper printer attached to the science console? Who actually thinks computer screens of 300 years in the future will have de-evolved to the point where they are only able to show blinking coloured squares? Who really thinks women won't be allowed to become spaceship captains in the 2260's?
What we see and hear in Star Trek isn't to be taken as a fundamentalist takes whatever bible he's reading. It's a television show, meant as entertainment and open to interpretation. Spock got information about a planet from the computer. Did he read it off a fancy STXI-style holographic screen, or did he get it from a little "The Cage"-style printer in typewriter font? It doesn't matter - the story is the same in both cases. Two spaceships shoot at each other - does it matter how much detail is on the hull, or the colour of the beams or bolts?
What we see and hear in Star Trek isn't to be taken as a fundamentalist takes whatever bible he's reading. It's a television show, meant as entertainment and open to interpretation. Spock got information about a planet from the computer. Did he read it off a fancy STXI-style holographic screen, or did he get it from a little "The Cage"-style printer in typewriter font? It doesn't matter - the story is the same in both cases. Two spaceships shoot at each other - does it matter how much detail is on the hull, or the colour of the beams or bolts?
No, it isn't. That's a sloppy misreading of how probability works, not to mention how the laws of physics work. No matter how big the universe is, it's all bound by the same laws, and therefore the only things that are possible are those that are allowed by the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, etc.
But since your whole post is predicated on that nonsensical "anything is possible" mantra repeated over and over as an article of faith, I'm not even going to bother trying to reason with you point-by-point. After all, we're not talking about real science here. We're talking about what's canonical within a work of make-believe, and this tangent is irrelevant to that.
- Status
Similar threads
