USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Jinn]

It only aired with bookends of Gene Roddenberry or Patrick Stewart talking about its status as a rejected pilot or "television document" until it was "remastered," at which point it also had all its special effects replaced with new versions,

Well, I'm not overly familiar with the various versions of "The Cage", but if they showed the version with remastered effects then that one's canon and the other isn't. I don't think it's particularly relevant wether it's bookended with someone saying that it was too bad to get picked up.

so how would it really affect anything if DSC were to replace them again?

Not at all, I would think.

If you're going to be that literal in interpreting "released, therefore canon" you might as well go all the way.

I'm going with "onscreen, therefore canon" (novels and stuff also gets released, just not onscreen), but even if we go by the offical Trek canon on it's offical website "The Cage" is canon. Im not saying that "The Cage" matters at all, but it is canon.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Well, I'm not overly familiar with the various versions of "The Cage", but if they showed the version with remastered effects then that one's canon and the other isn't. I don't think it's particularly relevant wether it's bookended with someone saying that it was too bad to get picked up.


Not at all, I would think.

Well, following your reasoning in the first emboldened statement, then the effect in the second would be that DSC's version would be canon and all the previous ones wouldn't be. (Note that I'm not suggesting it would be my reasoning or that of CBS, necessarily.)

As for the relevance of bookends on pre-remastered versions, I would say they indicate that it wasn't being shown from an in-universe perspective, but rather an out-of-universe one. Much like deleted scenes might be shown in a featurette, but that wouldn't make them canon.

I'm going with "onscreen, therefore canon" (novels and stuff also gets released, just not onscreen), but even if we go by the offical Trek canon on it's offical website "The Cage" is canon. Im not saying that "The Cage" matters at all, but it is canon.

Yes, "onscreen" is what I should have said. I had first put "aired" but then I thought about home video releases, etc.

In any case, as with all else, I'd say there's plenty of room for interpretation and re-interpretation here. Kudos for the "offical" reference!

-MMoM

 

[Jinn]

Well, following your reasoning in the first emboldened statement, then the effect in the second would be that DSC's version is canon and all the previous ones aren't. (Note that I'm not suggesting it would be my reasoning or that of CBS, necessarily.)

Well, they're both canon, but they're not all in perfect continuity with each other. It's basically the same with TNG's Trill episode and all DS9 Trill episodes, all are canon even though the make-up presents a continuity discrepancy.

As for the relevance of bookends on pre-remastered versions, I would say they indicate that it wasn't being shown from an in-universe perspective, but rather an out-of-universe one. Much like deleted scenes might be shown in a featurette, but that wouldn't make them canon.

Well, I'm going to see if I can find them on YouTube (Edit: Found them) and make up my mind on what they indicate. Honestly, I didn't even know something like that existed before today, I only knew that "The Cage" got broadcasted sometime in the 80s, so thanks for telling me this

In any case, as with with all else, I'd say there's plenty of room for interpretation and re-interpretation here.

Yeah, it's terrible!

Kudos for the "offical" reference!

Thanks! I still love that the offical Trek website has this terrible typo at probably the most important part of it. The only flipside is that I start writing "offical" instead of "official" when it's not a reference.

 

[Dukhat]

Well, I'm not overly familiar with the various versions of "The Cage", but if they showed the version with remastered effects then that one's canon and the other isn't.

No, they are both canon. They are both an official Star Trek production that was shown on screen.

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

No, they are both canon. They are both an official Star Trek production that was shown on screen.

You just reminded me that I meant to get back to this:

Canon and continuity aren't the same thing.

How does that square that with your making of the appeal to authority that follows below in that other thread where I raised this same subject? You never addressed the question there, unless I missed it. (That's another long and frustratingly chaotic thread I'll try to make an effort to get back to...someday.)

Found it...

PAULA BLOCK: “Canon” in the sense that I use it is a very important tool. It only gets muddled when people try to incorporate licensed products into “canon”—and I know a lot of the fans really like to do that. Sorry, guys—not trying to rain on your parade. There’s a lot of bickering about it among fans, but in its purest sense, it’s really pretty simple: Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens.

https://trekmovie.com/2007/07/22/dc-fontana-on-tas-canon-and-sybok/

(To be clear, though, I'm not opposed to making such a sensible distinction in my own interpretations, personally. It seems to me as well that there are indeed lots of things said and shown in onscreen canon which aren't necessarily portrayed as being in-continuity. But that particular statement seems to treat the terms as synonymous.)

-MMoM

 

[Dukhat]

How does that square that with your making of the appeal to authority that follows below in that other thread where I raised this same subject? You never addressed the question there, unless I missed it. (That's another long and frustratingly chaotic thread I'll try to make an effort to get back to...someday.)

Are you talking to me or BillJ?

 

[The Mighty Monkey of Mim]

Are you talking to me or BillJ?

I was making the query of @BillJ, seeking to better understand his position. I was just saying your comment reminded me of the fact that I meant to make it. However, if you have further thoughts on the matter, feel free...

-MMoM

 

[CorporalClegg]

This discussion is exactly why people need to start viewing canon as a whole forest and not a collection of different trees.

 

[Belz...]

Then why does Han say "Jabba, you're a wonderful human being"?

It's true from a certain point of view?

This discussion is exactly why people need to start viewing canon as a whole forest and not a collection of different trees.

Into the forest I go!

 

[Fandango831]

If I may be so bold as to give my thoughts. I've always looked at Star Trek as a very fluid universe, accepting of so many different roads even if they intersect from time to time. I mean that's why we can have so many stories of clones, alternate realities, multiverse theory, time-travel, etc all in the overarching realm of Star Trek. In terms of canon, it really is anything that is produced under license by whomever owns said license. Whether that be NBC, CBS, Paramount, or whoever picks it up decades and centuries from now. All of it is canon since it is all Star Trek (whether it's personally enjoyed or not). As for continuity that is really up to what productions want to carry over if they wish to at all from other productions, and what each person watching wishes to accept as an unbroken space of narrative. In the end every constructed highway of story is real and rooted. However everyone is free to choose which ones to take and which ones to not. Especially considering a lot of them cross from time to time. The universal web that is Star Trek.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

If I may be so bold as to give my thoughts. I've always looked at Star Trek as a very fluid universe, accepting of so many different roads even if they intersect from time to time. I mean that's why we can have so many stories of clones, alternate realities, multiverse theory, time-travel, etc all in the overarching realm of Star Trek. In terms of canon, it really is anything that is produced under license by whomever owns said license. Whether that be NBC, CBS, Paramount, or whoever picks it up decades and centuries from now. All of it is canon since it is all Star Trek (whether it's personally enjoyed or not). As for continuity that is really up to what productions want to carry over if they wish to at all from other productions, and what each person watching wishes to accept as an unbroken space of narrative. In the end every constructed highway of story is real and rooted. However everyone is free to choose which ones to take and which ones to not. Especially considering a lot of them cross from time to time. The universal web that is Star Trek.

Agreed on this everything is canon since it’s been on screen. Continuity is the issue. For me, it’s as I’ve mentioned previously - everything is valid within the continuity until it isn’t. And by that I mean that it’s valid until it’s explicitly addressed in the show. So the TOS Klingons were perfectly valid as being the same as the TNG Klingons until they addressed it. The Melbourne in BoBW is a different class of ship to the same Melbourne in Emissary. The former has been flagged up the latter hasn’t. The fluidic nature of Star Trek (as you describe) allows for the latter situation to occur since both versions of the Melbourne are valid as it’s not been explicitly addressed in the show as meddling from Q or whatever. Ok, DSC has introduced continuity issues on a larger scale, but until they address them explicitly by having the characters talk about them, I’ve learned (and grudgingly come to accept) that the look and ships etc of DSC are just as valid as TOS because nobody has mentioned them yet. I may call this “the Melbourne principle”...
(Credit to @The Mighty Monkey of Mim for pointing this out with the Melbourne as this largely informed my shift in attitude towards this! )

Now, if you were to ask whether or not I’m happy about this, that would be a different discussion

 

[Belz...]

If I may be so bold as to give my thoughts.

DENIED!!!

 

[fireproof78]

Now, if you were to ask whether or not I’m happy about this, that would be a different discussion

One does not have to be happy about something to appreciate the differences and how they fit in to continuity.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

One does not have to be happy about something to appreciate the differences and how they fit in to continuity.

Agreed. I hope the rest of my post above illustrated that

 

[cooleddie74]

One does not have to be happy about something to appreciate the differences and how they fit in to continuity.

While I have my criticisms of DSC and its execution as a series I have to say this statement is true. The Romulan cloaking devices in ENT, more than 100 years before "Balance of Terror(TOS)." Some clever rationalizing and in-universe retconning and it suddenly makes sense. A lot of people weren't happy about them, but they fit into the wider continuity.

 

[Tuskin38]

Were Romulan cloaks ever brought up again after Minefield?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ No.

And the novelverse's explanation - that the cloak in that episode was an untested prototype that eventually failed and destroyed its ship - makes total sense, IMHO. You'll notice that the ship keeps uncloaking and cloaking again at totally random moments. It seems obvious it's malfunctioning.

 

[BillJ]

Were Romulan cloaks ever brought up again after Minefield?

No. But they were replaced with the holographic projectors in the "Babel One"/"United"/"The Aenar" trilogy from season four. In the real world, the writers admitted they made a mistake using the cloaking device.

 

[Rahul]

No. But they were replaced with the holographic projectors in the "Babel One"/"United"/"The Aenar" trilogy from season four. In the real world, the writers admitted they made a mistake using the cloaking device.

Funnily enough, I have way less problems with stealth technology in ENT than on DIS.
ENT was a 100 friggin' years earlier than TOS. What they deem as successfull "stealth" technology would be super outdated 100 years later.

It be the difference between "stealth technology" in WWII (paint ships and planes to look indistinguishable from the background), and stealth technology from the Cold War (try to avoid RADAR detection).

Romulan stealth technology actually being holographic projectors that make their ships "invisible" to the eye and normal light is fully believable, and in line with Spock 100 years later still be amazed at a ship than can actually completely disappear from reality.

DIS on the other hand is so fucking close to TOS on a timescale - having disappearing ships there is absolutely impossible to fit with everyone being so freaked out by a similar technology in "Balance of Terror". Especially not if they almost lost an entire friggin' total space war for the human race solely because of it!

 

[BillJ]

DIS on the other hand is so fucking close to TOS on a timescale - having disappearing ships there is absolutely impossible to fit with everyone being so freaked out by a similar technology in "Balance of Terror". Especially not if they almost lost an entire friggin' total war solely because of it!

Yeah, it definitely stretches the credibility of the story they were telling.