Printable View
A lot's been mentioned lately about how Paramount won't allow cross-pollination between licensed products. Now I'm left wondering...WHY? Anybody know reasons, what caused that, or, indeed, what IS considered canon by Paramount, in full? (Shows and movies are obvious, but what about where they contradict each other?)
I was going to post the same question, but Penta beat me to it.
How is it to Paramount's advantage to forbid licensees to reference each other? Makes no sense to me.
OTOH, it is possible to go too far the other way. In the Star Wars "Expanded Universe", TPTB require things to reference each other. I guess it makes it a little easier to maintain continuity, but there are also quite a few SW books out there that have characters show up from a different author's book, for no apparent reason except to meet the cross-reference requirement. I just find that annoying.
------------------
:) <<<<
LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.
It's entirely about sanity, about keeping their workload down.
And, to be fair, there's a lot more hours of Star Trek to watch than Star Wars ... Star Wars is (so far) just four feature films and some oddball stuff like the Ewok Movie, so there's plenty of room in the brain to consider the non-film stuff, especially if it's being organized well (which WEG handled very well for years; Lucasfilm regularly consulted them on some continuuity issues).
Star Trek is ... God, I don't know how many hours of TV. I don't even want to think about it.
Anyway, it's to make things easier on the writers and on the approvals people. And in some cases its to keep from muddying the legal waters, I imagine.
I think they're too strict about it, myself, but then I literally care nothing for the concept of "canon" -- I could care less if the transporters work one way in episode X and another in episode Y, as long as the story is good. But I'm in no way the Trek majority, and they know it http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
But you are in the majority.Quote:
Originally posted by Sjohn:
I could care less if the transporters work one way in episode X and another in episode Y, as long as the story is good. But I'm in no way the Trek majority, and they know it http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Most of the people who watch Trek are not hard-core fans. They are casual viewers and cinema-goers who like an entertaining, not-too-challenging story with ahappy ending. They do not watch every episode and so are not particularly interested in continuity, or internal consistency, or treknology.
These are the people who Paramount aims Trek at. The fans are too few in number to make Trek viable (although they do help).
This is probably why Voyager got more viewers than DS9.
As a fan, it saddens me. But the reality is that Star Trek is a product that makes money. And it makes the most money by appealing to as many people as possible.
------------------
Greg
"Calm may work for Locutus of Borg here, but I'm freaked and intend to stay that way."
But...how does that relate to licensees not being able to draw from each other? (Indeed...who in the general public outside of seriously hardcore gamers has ever known that a trek RPG even EXISTED?)
I'm thinking it's a copyright issue. Let's say I'm writing a Star Trek novel, starring my namesake, Captain Alex Blake. He has the "Alien Upbringing" advantage, and was raised by Andorians. I really dig S John's Andorian book, and have incorporated it into my character history. However, if I incorporate it into my Novel, then technically, I could be in violation of Intellectual Property Laws, since he's the one that wrote that part. He wrote it, he deserves credit, and most importantly payment, since he's my co-author. If he doesn't get payment, and feels it worth his while, he can sue the crap out of me.
Now, over the long, long history of Trek, who came up with what idea? Who can figure it out? Certainly not me, and probably not Majel or Rick. Nobody wants to be sued over who really came up with changing J T Kirk's middle initial to T from the original R (a la the tombstone in "Where no man has gone before").
It's much easier to isolate the novels from the books from the games. That way, the only Canon is what is shown on the show, and the writers are covered under their agreements "All stories are the property of Paramount".
Of cource, I could be way off. my experience is with the music industry, not TV. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif
Star Trek canon=whatever the writers want
The aforementioned initial change (I thought I was the only one who knew about that)
In the original series, Cohrane was from Alpha Centeria. Now he's from Earth.
In Relics, Scotty thought Kirk had come to find him. He saw Kirk die in Star Trek Generations.
I could go on, but I'm not a canon beater. But it is fun trivia.
But you are in the majority.
I'm a lifelong hardcore Trek junkie who's written licensed material to pay my rent, entire novels as a fan (cowritten with my equally-hardcore English teacher in school), traveled across a state to participate in a fencing demo with George Takei (who I've shared a green room enough times with that he knows me by sight), and I have two Andorian dolls and a tribble beside me, right now. You think I represent Joe Average Viewer?
Last time I checked, Joe Average Viewer can watch Voyager without retching or falling into a deep, technobabble-induced coma http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif I stick to my main man Captain Kirk http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Most of the people who watch Trek are not hard-core fans.
True. But I am a hard core fan. I could care less about canon because I'm a hardcore fan.
If you think a concern for continuuity and "hardcore" equate to one another, you have a pretty frightening view of Trek fandom. Some of us care more about Trek's themes, vision, and ethos than trivial details about set designs, prop consistency, and hull numbers. Those things don't make Spock's relationship with Sarek dramatic. Those things don't make McCoy's decision to stop Kirk from saving Edith Keeler gut-wrenching. Those things don't, as far as I'm concerned, matter at all.
And to some, they matter more than anything. Some folks would rather the characters step out of the screen entirely so they can freeze-frame and hunt for easter eggs on the okudagrams.
But to suggest that "hardcore" equates to "gives a damn about whether or not stardates mean anything" is so creepy it's downright chilling. It's like that kid on Trekkies with the uniform fetish (brrr).
On the fandom continuity, I think I fall somewhere between SJohn (as he describes himself) and the "hardcore" fan he details.
On the one hand, it'd be mighty difficult for me to deny how much the technical data and other such info interests me. If I did, no doubt one of you would come to my house and beat me senseless with a copy of Spacedock. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
OTOH, I think that character personalities and relationships, good storytelling and writing, and so on are much more likely to give you an enjoyable Trek series or episode than technical details. The reason I generally do not enjoy Voyager is that I don't find any of the characters interesting or compelling, and that the writers have almost completely failed to take advantage of the at least slightly compelling situation that drives the show to tell intriguing, exciting stories. I think DS9 is, objectively, far and away the best of the four series, because it has the best overall characters, storytelling, and writing.
I think that consistency in technical and other "hardcore" details improves the storytelling on Trek and makes the series as a whole more enjoyable. But I also understand that it's possible for lots of people to watch the show without paying any attention to such matters. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Steve Long
Here is how I have been to "cope" with those little problems. I consider the series Some body's interpretation of the real event in the fictional 23rd or 24th century. Hence if it is a "Hollywood Production" you would expect those little nagging problems and nitpicks. I mean if Hollywood can't get Science and History right, today after 100 years of film then why should another 200 to 300 years make a difference!
However it seems the producers anymore go out of their way to slap Fandom around. There is the oft repeated story of Berman wanting Cochrene to have a Romantic relationship with Picard in 1st Contact only to have some one inform him that Cochrene was a man and Berman going into a tiride about TOS.
Then there was the major shifting of the timeline forward after TNG's 1st season remember Data saying to Riker in Farpoint that he was a member of the Academy class of 78. Next we knew it was 2364 and Data was either 14 years before he graduated or 84 years older than we thought. This one didn't even rate a footnot in the Okuda Chronology!
my theory on canon problems. (Other than the real one, the Writers just don't care)
We're watching the "Captain's Logs" (And we all know how accurate those can be) from the stand point of some future Federation pencil pusher who's never left his cushy office, who has to read and record them in the permanent record. We are not actually watching the episodes as they happen, just the "historical record".
That explains the Klingon problem (ridges or smooth--Kirk didn't describe them, so the records and logging guy didn't show them)
The trill problem likewise (Bev wasn't looking at Odan's face... Hey, it sure beats Ridged, Spotted, Ruffled, and Giant Crested Trill as an explanation http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif)
Different reviewers reviewed different logs, thereby giving rise to "Canon Problems".
I just make up whatever I like and go on.
As a series, I prefered DS9 because of the interpersonal interaction. That's why I liked TOS too. Growth and development of the characters.
TNG didn't have a lot of continuing interaction, the whole series was episodic, with no continuity.
Voyager is the same way, plus they didn't hook me with the characters.
[This message has been edited by Captain Blake (edited 02-27-2001).]
I have to agree with S. John that the broader themes and values are really what makes Star Trek worth anything. The problem, of course, is that those values pretty much died with Gene Roddenberry.
Oh, I give DC Fontana and others more credit than Roddenberry in many ways ... But I certainly agree that the spirit of Trek, while not nearly dead (it lived in LUGtrek, to a large degree; it lives in some of the novels; it certainly lives on in various forms in fandom) is certainly banned from the Paramount production lots.
I think TNG carried a weak version of it. DS9 had the courage to create a viable replacement for it. Voyager ... Voyager is the REAL mirror universe. The exact, repulsive opposite of Star Trek in every way that matters to me. That is cloaks itself in some of the trappings of the show makes it even more hideous, like a demonic spirit inhabiting the corpse of a friend.
And for the record, I do care, VERY VERY much, about continuuity. When the films tried to establish that Sulu - the best damned pilot in Starfleet - had doubts about his abilities to fly a shuttle without computer aid (when we've seen him comfortable with a Huey in a previous film) I was offended. Ditto for "comedy" of Scotty bumping his head on a low pipe (nothing says chuckles like an old man bleeding from the head).
Character continuuity is continuuity, too, and just as some species of hardcore fen feel betrayed when the prop handlers hand out the wrong plastic toy, this species of hardcore fan feels betrayed when a whole team of writers, directors, actors and producers can't conspire to maintain the dignity of of characters like Hikaru Sulu or Mongtomery Scott.
I just don't care about the plastic toys, is all http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Quite right, S. John about where the spirit of Star Trek continues to live. And also about Voyager. I wonder if one could create a TOS episode based on it? Let's see, a beloved Captain is killed by a strange energy being, and then inhabited by the evil spirit "Janeway", or maybe the demon "Chakotay", who pretends to be an Indian spirit, but of no known tribe......
Nah, nobody would believe an episode like that.
------------------
Slan agat!
Actually, didn't they establish that Chakotay was Navajo during the 1st or 2nd season?
If not, keep in mind the problem of population evaporation (which gives the Trek writers an easy out, I admit). A lot of the tribes anybody would recognize have died out even IRL, so less-well-known tribes may have survived. To point at another RPG for a minute, Shadowrun's Native American Nations set does a really good job explaining this.
SJohn: McCoy's decision to stop Kirk from saving Edith Keeler? Now that's what I call a continuity lapse! http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
:) <<<<
LUGTrek isn't really dead. Not as long as we remember it.
SJohn: McCoy's decision to stop Kirk from saving Edith Keeler? Now that's what I call a continuity lapse!
D'oh!
[quote]Originally posted by Sjohn:
But you are in the majority.
I'm a lifelong hardcore Trek junkie [quote]
Okay, I that the majoriy of viewers aren't bothered about continuity.
I have to agree with you there.Quote:
Most of the people who watch Trek are not hard-core fans.
True. But I am a hard core fan. I could care less about canon because I'm a hardcore fan.
If you think a concern for continuuity and "hardcore" equate to one another, you have a pretty frightening view of Trek fandom. Some of us care more about Trek's themes, vision, and ethos than trivial details about set designs, prop consistency, and hull numbers.
Okay, maybe my definition of "hardcore" and yours obviously don't coincide.Quote:
But to suggest that "hardcore" equates to "gives a damn about whether or not stardates mean anything" is so creepy it's downright chilling. It's like that kid on Trekkies with the uniform fetish (brrr).
And my original post did imply that there were only hardcore fans (my definition-who are bothered about continuity etc) and casual viewers.
So I apologise if I upset you by grouping you in with the casual trek viewers. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Greg (who considers himself a softcore fan, with hardcore tendancies http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif ).
I have to agree with S. John that the broader themes and values are really what makes Star Trek worth anything. The problem, of course, is that those values pretty much died with Gene Roddenberry.
Voyager is a product, pure and simple, and this shows in the characters, situations, story lines, and, yes the technical details.
This does not mean that TOS, or TNG, or DS9 did not have lapses of story, character, or believablity. Some of the TOS errors and cliches are infamous, after all. But the sincerity of the series makes up for these lapses, turns them into something endearing.
My solution to inconsistancies and lapses is simple. I just ignore what I don't like. There are many episodes of each series which never happened in my Trek universe, and whole elements of the Trek cosmos have been rearranged to make them fit better with real astronomy, real history, real biology, and so on.
The sad fact is that the inconsistancies in TOS and the movies alone are not possible to be reconciled into any kind of coherant universe, much less when one adds TNG, DS9, and (Gods forbid!) Voyager. I say sad fact, and yet Star Trek is still worthwhile because of a hopeful vision of the future, an idealism which has been out of fashion since the 60s.
To get anything out of it, I have to be aware of the broader vision, ignore the stupid parts, and pick and choose what I like from its universe to inspire my own imagination.
LUG Trek, by the way, went farther than any other source I have seen in creating a consistant, believable Star Trek cosmology, and stayed truer to the original vision than have Braga, Berman, and company. Not bad for an RPG....
------------------
Slan agat!
Quote:
Originally posted by Sjohn:
When the films tried to establish that Sulu - the best damned pilot in Starfleet - had doubts about his abilities to fly a shuttle without computer aid (when we've seen him comfortable with a Huey in a previous film) I was offended.
http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Sometimes I think EVERYONE but me missed the point of that scene. Wrong-handled acting aside, Kirk WANTED Sulu to do a "bouncer"! In the confusion of the aftermath, Kirk hoped to catch Sybok and his people off guard.
Things went FUBAR when the Klingons attacked, throwing Sulu's timing off. Instead of a planned crash, they got a real one. It says something for Sulu's skill as a pilot that they didn't simply ram the rear of the Enterprise directly!
------------------
Deo Vindice!
Y'know, argueing cannon, continuity, or "real" science in Star Trek is just a case of too many worms for one can to hold. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif
Hugh
------------------
"Sell your soul to the Philadelphia Science Fiction Society... ASK ME HOW!"
Sometimes I think EVERYONE but me missed the point of that scene.
If I had a nickel for every Star Trek fan who has similar feelings about some aspect of Trek, I could buy the franchise.
Hey, SJohn, that's not too bad of an idea. Interested in Rick Berman's job? http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif
Not when I think of some of the other things I could do with all those nickels http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/smile.gif