Which version of TOS is canon??

[MAGolding]

I don't see that as changing the story, just presenting it incompletely.

And thus you can assume that that everything which happens in the complete full length episodes also happens in the edited and shortened episodes for syndication.

But I suppose there are fans who would say that something which is not seen and heard in the shortened edits never really happened in those edits. And I am not certain if there is a way to totally disprove such an attitude.

I personally tend to imagine that anything which happens in any edit of any production happens in all edits of that production.

 

[Christopher]

But I suppose there are fans who would say that something which is not seen and heard in the shortened edits never really happened in those edits. And I am not certain if there is a way to totally disprove such an attitude.

That's illogical. If the actual producers of the show were to put out a new edit, that would count as an alternate version. But if a TV syndicator hacks the episode apart to fit in more commercials, that is entirely different. It is not an alteration to the original work, it is a choice by an exhibitor of the work to present it incompletely. If someone tears pages out of a book, that doesn't mean the book has been rewritten.

Now, if a TV syndicator adds scenes, like in the ABC extended cut of ST:TMP, then you could ask the question of whether the added scenes are a "real" part of the story or not, because then there's a genuine change to the version of the story that existed before. But if it only removes scenes, that doesn't create any inconsistencies with the complete version, so there's no sense in thinking of it as a different telling of the story, merely an incomplete one.

Growing up, I saw movies edited and censored for TV all the time, but I never thought of them as equal in "reality" to the original edits. I always saw them as incomplete, watered-down approximations of the real thing.

 

[Kor]

...
Growing up, I saw movies edited and censored for TV all the time, but I never thought of them as equal in "reality" to the original edits. I always saw them as incomplete, watered-down approximations of the real thing.

I vaguely remember this movie playing on TV, which featured Mick Jagger ( or maybe it was somebody who I thought looked like him) in some kind of antihero role. In one scene he's arguing with this bigshot who demands, "Do you know who you're talking to?" And Jagger responds with "Yeah, an airhead!" But it was quite obvious from the movement of his mouth that he originally said something else entirely.

Kor

 

[Christopher]

I think another way of looking at it that's relevant to the original question is that differently edited versions of a story, whether different in length, with visual alterations (like new effects or alternate non-nude takes of nude scenes), with censored dialogue, or whatever, are not different "realities," but presentations of a single "reality" with greater or lesser degrees of accuracy. A story is an account of an event, and differences between the accounts of an event do not make the event itself different.

Generally, I think of things like edited-for-TV cuts of movies or episodes as less accurate accounts than the original uncut version. It gets more complicated with something like an extended cut; there it's more of a judgment call. (There are parts of the extended TV cut of TMP that I consider to be "real," but I prefer to disregard the restored spacewalk scenes with the wrong spacesuits and the visible rafters.) Sometimes you can't definitively choose one account over the other, but then, the same goes for real-world history. There will always be conflicting versions of an event, and there's no way to know the absolute truth; the best you can do is be aware of the different versions and weigh them against each other using your best judgment.

 

[PhotoBoy]

I vaguely remember this movie playing on TV, which featured Mick Jagger ( or maybe it was somebody who I thought looked like him) in some kind of antihero role. In one scene he's arguing with this bigshot who demands, "Do you know who you're talking to?" And Jagger responds with "Yeah, an airhead!" But it was quite obvious from the movement of his mouth that he originally said something else entirely.

Kor

I’d bet that’s the movie Freejack (which I always rather liked) and that scene between Jagger and Jonathan Banks was definitely re-dubbed! Reminds me of the TV version of Robocop where Ronny Cox is talking about how he once called The Old Man “airhead” instead of something worse.

 

[trynda1701]

What the #$#$@ is canon for X-Men though?

Well, we know that Deadpool #2 in "Deadpool" isn't sure himself, but did anyone ask 'Deadpool' in "X- Men: Origins: Wolverine"?

As far as I known, the only exception to the story being identical in various versions is that the syndicated versions of TOS often have several minutes cut to make room for more commercials, thus elimiating various lines and scenes and changing the story a little.

I think I've said this before, I didn't know about cuts to TOS episodes from the original BBC screenings, but by the '80s, that jarring musical cue in "Amok Time" as McCoy tells Kirk he has to get to Vulcan or (spoiler ahead!) Spock will die, told me something was off. The full version has a fade to black cut, but the cut version spliced it as a continuous scene, hence the bad music cue!

After seeing full episodes from the 90s onwards, I think of seeing scenes in episodes like "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", with Lokai talking to Sulu in the lounge, as Spock overheard it through those new 'dramatic as needed' partly open automatic doors(!) and it was a new scene to me!

I say, enjoy the episodes or not, and rationalise which 'timeline' each could be in. It's all personal choice and enjoyment.

And finally, my partner loves to phone me during lockdown, and she asks me about another plothole in an JJVerse movie, and sometimes, it's one I hadn't thought of! Dun dun dun duuuh!

 

[Forbin]

For decades of syndication, even tho I'd seen it first run, I couldn't figure out for the life of me what Kirk meant when he told Karidian "We just narrowly averted an explosion that could have taken out several decks of this ship!" It wasn't until I got the uncut Betamax tapes that I finally saw, for the first time since first run, the overloading phaser scene, which I'd forgotten. WPIX in NY had trimmed out that entire scene to fit more commercials, leaving that line dangling in the next scene.

 

[Noname Given]

I'm so glad I live in 1965. When Trek comes out, there will be only one continuity until 1979. And the fandom will be glorious!

1973 (There were plenty decrying the animated series back in the day). Plus the third season of TOS was considered "Not Trek" by many due to the Freiberger principle.

 

[Neopeius]

1973 (There were plenty decrying the animated series back in the day). Plus the third season of TOS was considered "Not Trek" by many due to the Freiberger principle.

Using my crystal ball, I am reasonably certain I will be able to canonize 3rd season and TAS. But I guess we'll burn that bridge when we come to it...

 

[STEPhon IT]

Which version of the TOS is considered canon? The original or remastered TOS seasons?

Canon to what??? TOS started everything.

 

[Donald G]

Canon to what??? TOS started everything.

No version of TOS is canon . . . and no film, either.

Only Admiral Kirk's preface to and the novelization of THE MOTION PICTURE are canon.

William Conrad is, of course, Cannon.

And a certain Cimmerian barbarian from the Hyborean Age is Conan.

(I am, of course, just playing with fannish facetiousness with this.)

 

[MAGolding]

...
And a certain Cimmerian barbarian from the Hyborean Age is Conan.

(I am, of course, just playing with fannish facetiousness with this.)

Robert E. Howard did not invent the name of Conan, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could have told you. To say nothing of Conan I, Duke of Brittany (reigned 990-992), Conan II (1040-1066), Conan III (1112-1148), and Conan IV (1156-1166).

 

[Donald G]

Robert E. Howard did not invent the name of Conan, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle could have told you. To say nothing of Conan I, Duke of Brittany (reigned 990-992), Conan II (1040-1066), Conan III (1112-1148), and Conan IV (1156-1166).

I have never claimed nor implied that Robert E. Howard invented the name of Conan.

I have long been aware of the existence of and works of Arthur Conan Doyle, and that the name Conan long predates him.

I have also been aware of one Mark Andrew Golding since the spring of 1978. I apologize that I cannot pinpoint to four decimal places the date on which I bought my copy of the first collection of THE BEST OF TREK, but your name and essays did lodge themselves in my memory.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No version of TOS is canon . . . and no film, either.

Only Admiral Kirk's preface to and the novelization of THE MOTION PICTURE are canon.

William Conrad is, of course, Cannon.

And a certain Cimmerian barbarian from the Hyborean Age is Conan.

(I am, of course, just playing with fannish facetiousness with this.)

But are cannons in Conan canon if they come from Canaan?

 

[1001001]

But are cannons in Conan canon if they come from Canaan?

 

[Noname Given]

But are cannons in Conan canon if they come from Canaan?

Put down the crack pipe and back away slowly.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I say it's up to you the viewer or purchaser of the media available! If you only like TOS and TAS that's okay, if you like them and TNG good too. If you add DS9 and VOY, splendid! If you only like TNG and DS9 then that's good for you!
But just do what's good for you I think is the best idea!

Not only that, but I now visualize eveerything in TOS looking like the Discoprise. That's also an option.

srsly, if you don't like the Enterprise bridge from DSC, that's fine, but I totally love it, and IMHO it's interesting to think of TOS bridge scenes taking place exactly as we remember them, but on that bridge.

I mean, you gotta admit, watching a TOS episode and now knowing there's a corridor and a whole bunch of extra consoles behind the ones we saw...even the most rabid DSC-hater would get a twinge.

 

[johnnybear]

I didn't know of the extra consoles to be honest as I'm not a fan of that look but if you are then that's great! It would be interesting to see TOS transformed into Disco just the once at any rate I agree!
JB

 

[MAGolding]

But are cannons in Conan canon if they come from Canaan?

A tongue twister.

I once once started a parody of the song "My Darling Clementine" but only got as far as the opening:

"in a canon in a cabin in a cavern in a canyon, estivating for a mine..."

 

[Shawnster]

I mean, you gotta admit, watching a TOS episode and now knowing there's a corridor and a whole bunch of extra consoles behind the ones we saw...even the most rabid DSC-hater would get a twinge.

Though it does make for continuity errors for all those times people were stuck on the bridge, like in Naked Time when the turbo lift was jammed.