And no one has tried to claim that Simon Pegg's thoughts are canon. It has been pinted out that as the writer of Beyond, his thoughts on the topic immeasuably outweigh what some canon accolyte can nebbishly point to, under the delusion that their opinion (because it's based on canon) outweighs his.
Not sure I understand the point you're trying to make here? Simon Pegg's opinion is more important/accurate than the next person because he wrote a script and someone else didn't?
[/quote]
Trying to twist the semantics again to try get that deflection The point I'm trying to make, is that Simon Pegg's opinion needs to be taken into account and considered, when discussing the Kelvin Timeline because he wrote Beyond. Not that it is canon, but that it is an equally valid source of information on the topic. So when some fan just points at canon, and expects that to be the end of the discussion 'because it's canon', that is COS thinking, and needs to be considered as such, rather than pandered to, when the additional information, is coming from a creator.
As I said, it's the arrogance to presume to argue with God, just because the bible says one thing, and God is then saying something extra
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The common thread among these is anything on-screen is canon. I'm sorry the definition is not etched in stone someplace for you as it seems that's what you would prefer.
And I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that retracting a statement is itself a statement. There IS NO CURRENT POLICY. There is no other factual statement to be made about Star Trek canon. More troubling is the widespread inability to acknowledge that time and again CBS has by their actions shown that they can and will overturn anything in the interests of the most current project.
Canon for the professional are the guidelines for creating new product. It's quite fluid in Star Trek. Canon for the fan is a fictional construct about a fictional construct. A parlor game of trying to reconcile contradictory information from a multitude of writers who were never that interested in a single all encompassing continuity to begin with. You want to pull out a 2007 or 2009 posting? Great. Let me show you the 2017 rules: ((sound of crickets)). There you go.
I was not trying to twist semantics. I asked a simple question in order to better understand what you are trying to say.
Yes you were. You were rephrasing what was said, altering the semantics. Again, that you deny this, shows you as being intellectually dishonest, either intentionally, or unintentionally.
How exactly should Pegg's opinion be taken into account?
Pegg said that Nero's incursion did not just affect the events from that point onward, but that they affected all events prior as well.
Artan's argument, is that that's not the way Star Trek has ever portrayed divergent timelines 'so it can't be right', and 'because it's not been on screen, it isn't canon'. I'm saying, that Pegg's thoughts constitute information additional to canon.
In my above example, artan is the extremist scholar arguing that God's thoughts on X Topic don't count, 'because it wasn't in the bible. I'm saying I'm not going to argue God's thoughts on His creation(s) because He knows better than I do. (although I would ask what God needs with a starship )
In an Islamic context, it is considering Hadith as being as worthy of study and acknowledgement, as the Qur'an
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Oi, @silverlobes , you need to work on your examples, dude. LOL. You're always picking the most controversial subjects to cite as examples.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Which has apparently been rescinded since the current website lists TAS as canon. Last I checked there isn't any currently published definition.
The common thread among these is anything on-screen is canon. I'm sorry the definition is not etched in stone someplace for you as it seems that's what you would prefer.
My point is that you, among others, is treating it as though it IS. The key point of discussion being whether creator commentary(in this case Simon Pegg) counts as part of canon. It is called "word of god" for a reason.
Personally, I would treat anything he says as official unless something later retcons it.
Heh, if you want your statements about what is or isn't canon to be unchallenged, then get a job at CBS and publish a canon policy. Until then your statements are LESS important than what random extras say.
Seriously... "Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens." Even the statement you quoted from Paula Block said that was a summary used for a specific reason. In that case, "so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products."
As for what I personally think a good canon policy should be... It'd probably be longer than the unabridged version of the Prime Directive. Yes, it's canon that the Prime Directive is actually a BOOK, and not a simple one-sentence order.
Oi, @silverlobes , you need to work on your examples, dude. LOL. You're always picking the most controversial subjects to cite as examples.
Given the context and the subject under discussion, they're the most directly comparable One would not (if one is smart) argue with God's thoughts about why He made the duckbilled platypus (clearly for the lulz) just because it isn't specifically explained or mentioned in Ezekiel 25:17
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that retracting a statement is itself a statement. There IS NO CURRENT POLICY. There is no other factual statement to be made about Star Trek canon. More troubling is the widespread inability to acknowledge that time and again CBS has by their actions shown that they can and will overturn anything in the interests of the most current project.
Canon for the professional are the guidelines for creating new product. It's quite fluid in Star Trek. Canon for the fan is a fictional construct about a fictional construct. A parlor game of trying to reconcile contradictory information from a multitude of writers who were never that interested in a single all encompassing continuity to begin with. You want to pull out a 2007 or 2009 posting? Great. Let me show you the 2017 rules: ((sound of crickets)). There you go.
If your assertion is that there is absolutely no established canon, I would disagree. That would mean the various fan fics on the web that tell the story of Kirk's toupee being an evolved Tribble are canon.
Meh, sounds like a weird alternate universe. Which is what Marvel comics has relegated most licensed material to. And, realistically, it's the most sensible approach. Seriously, Avengers Alliance(so much awesome) it was an officially licensed work, and given an official alternate reality number(12131). This is what I find hard to get, why make it a yes/no question, when it's more practical to sort it based on what it's canon to?
I believe most rational people would agree that anything that appeared on TV or film is canon (as is generally accepted for various other IPs) in lieu of any "official" rules written on stone tablets somewhere as that's the medium where Star Trek resides.
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead, only realize the truth... THERE IS NO SPOON. Then you will see that it not the spoon that bends, it is yourself."
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Pegg's comments also apply only to the Kelvin Timeline, not the Prime. He's saying that future movies may have moments that diverge from "Trek History", because that's not a thing that actually happened, and if such diversions do come up in future movies the official explanation will be "temporal ripples". None of that has the first thing to do with ST:D, which is (if I recall correctly) how it all came up here. ST:D is Prime, as has been repeatedly stated by the showrunners.
Pegg said that Nero's incursion did not just affect the events from that point onward, but that they affected all events prior as well.
Artan's argument, is that that's not the way Star Trek has ever portrayed divergent timelines 'so it can't be right', and 'because it's not been on screen, it isn't canon'. I'm saying, that Pegg's thoughts constitute information additional to canon.
That makes more sense, thank you. I would say his thoughts are helpful to understanding the nuances of the screenplay he wrote, but would argue they aren't part canon because IMO if it has not been portrayed on screen, it isn't canon. Feel free to disagree if you like.
No worries, I'm glad I was able to explain what I was meaning Nothing to disagree with, as I don't consider Pegg's thoughts as (internal)canon, but I do consider them an essentially-official expert explanation.
My point is that you, among others, is treating it as though it IS. The key point of discussion being whether creator commentary(in this case Simon Pegg) counts as part of canon. It is called "word of god" for a reason.
Personally, I would treat anything he says as official unless something later retcons it.
Heh, if you want your statements about what is or isn't canon to be unchallenged, then get a job at CBS and publish a canon policy. Until then your statements are LESS important than what random extras say.
Seriously... "Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens." Even the statement you quoted from Paula Block said that was a summary used for a specific reason. In that case, "so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products."
As for what I personally think a good canon policy should be... It'd probably be longer than the unabridged version of the Prime Directive. Yes, it's canon that the Prime Directive is actually a BOOK, and not a simple one-sentence order.
Going by your definition then, anything and everything, from slash fics, fan fics, comic book crossovers and novels to individual "I just made this up" head canon is "official".
There has to be some commonly accepted point to start from, officially sanctioned or not.
No, fan fics are not official, because they aren't commissioned, such as by Pocket Books, but comics, novels, etc, they are certainly an 'official' product, but still not canon.
Specific opinions given, like Pegg's thoughts on the Kelvin Timeline, I would consider 'as good as' official: It's the kind of comment which CBS/Paramount etc, are as likely to refer to and support such a view in future interview, rather than refute. Again, not canon, but something which needs to be listened to when discussing the subject, rather than someone simply saying 'ItsNotCanonSoImNotListening'
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Pegg's comments also apply only to the Kelvin Timeline, not the Prime. He's saying that future movies may have moments that diverge from "Trek History", because that's not a thing that actually happened, and if such diversions do come up in future movies the official explanation will be "temporal ripples". None of that has the first thing to do with ST:D, which is (if I recall correctly) how it all came up here. ST:D is Prime, as has been repeatedly stated by the showrunners.
Has it been officially stated since Bryan Fuller left the production? Or are people still just repeating that official statement in absence of any up to date information?
Them saying it's Prime, and it actually being Prime are two different things (discounting the idea of a reboot of the Prime Timeline, or some other Nero-esque event altering the Prime Timeline on an equally fundamental level )
What we have so far, in terms of what CBS have said, and what the trailer has shown, is what the lovely smokebailey so aptly described as an elephant painted with black and white stripes, which someone is trying to pass off as a zebra Star Trek Discovery identifies as Prime Timeline, when it's actually aping the style of the Kelvin Timeline
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
rattler2Member, Star Trek Online ModeratorPosts: 58,710Community Moderator
Was the TMP uniform practical? Was the season 1 TNG practical?
Honestly in my opinion the most practical uniforms were the Enterprise and what I call the First Contact uniforms. Later TNG and DS9/Voyager uniforms were more practical than the TMP and TNG s1 uniforms. And honestly the TOS uniforms were just shirts.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Ok.... then if that's true then why can't the same be true of other things?
The same is true for other things as well. However, that doesn't mean "everything is canon" either. With STO, if I write Foundry mission that says it was 32nd century telepathic Tribbles that started the Iconian ware, it doesn't make it "canon" to STO. At least to me, what the Devs put out as their official product is STO canon.
Regardless of medium, you still have to have some starting point to determine what is and isn't true.
I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite colored text = mod mode
Anyways.... I think the real question here still hasn't been asked or answered: Would the TOS production crew have used those uniforms if they'd had the option?
I'm willing to say yes. The TOS uniforms were basically rule of cool tempered with what was affordable in their budget
Comments
[/quote]
Trying to twist the semantics again to try get that deflection
As I said, it's the arrogance to presume to argue with God, just because the bible says one thing, and God is then saying something extra
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And I'm sorry you can't seem to grasp that retracting a statement is itself a statement. There IS NO CURRENT POLICY. There is no other factual statement to be made about Star Trek canon. More troubling is the widespread inability to acknowledge that time and again CBS has by their actions shown that they can and will overturn anything in the interests of the most current project.
Canon for the professional are the guidelines for creating new product. It's quite fluid in Star Trek. Canon for the fan is a fictional construct about a fictional construct. A parlor game of trying to reconcile contradictory information from a multitude of writers who were never that interested in a single all encompassing continuity to begin with. You want to pull out a 2007 or 2009 posting? Great. Let me show you the 2017 rules: ((sound of crickets)). There you go.
Pegg said that Nero's incursion did not just affect the events from that point onward, but that they affected all events prior as well.
Artan's argument, is that that's not the way Star Trek has ever portrayed divergent timelines 'so it can't be right', and 'because it's not been on screen, it isn't canon'. I'm saying, that Pegg's thoughts constitute information additional to canon.
In my above example, artan is the extremist scholar arguing that God's thoughts on X Topic don't count, 'because it wasn't in the bible. I'm saying I'm not going to argue God's thoughts on His creation(s) because He knows better than I do. (although I would ask what God needs with a starship
In an Islamic context, it is considering Hadith as being as worthy of study and acknowledgement, as the Qur'an
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
Personally, I would treat anything he says as official unless something later retcons it.
Heh, if you want your statements about what is or isn't canon to be unchallenged, then get a job at CBS and publish a canon policy. Until then your statements are LESS important than what random extras say.
Seriously... "Canon is Star Trek continuity as presented on TV and Movie screens." Even the statement you quoted from Paula Block said that was a summary used for a specific reason. In that case, "so I can help direct licensees in their creation of licensed products."
As for what I personally think a good canon policy should be... It'd probably be longer than the unabridged version of the Prime Directive. Yes, it's canon that the Prime Directive is actually a BOOK, and not a simple one-sentence order.
My character Tsin'xing
Given the context and the subject under discussion, they're the most directly comparable
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yes, but, the real question is if it ends there.
My character Tsin'xing
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
No, fan fics are not official, because they aren't commissioned, such as by Pocket Books, but comics, novels, etc, they are certainly an 'official' product, but still not canon.
Specific opinions given, like Pegg's thoughts on the Kelvin Timeline, I would consider 'as good as' official: It's the kind of comment which CBS/Paramount etc, are as likely to refer to and support such a view in future interview, rather than refute. Again, not canon, but something which needs to be listened to when discussing the subject, rather than someone simply saying 'ItsNotCanonSoImNotListening'
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Them saying it's Prime, and it actually being Prime are two different things (discounting the idea of a reboot of the Prime Timeline, or some other Nero-esque event altering the Prime Timeline on an equally fundamental level
What we have so far, in terms of what CBS have said, and what the trailer has shown, is what the lovely smokebailey so aptly described as an elephant painted with black and white stripes, which someone is trying to pass off as a zebra
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Honestly in my opinion the most practical uniforms were the Enterprise and what I call the First Contact uniforms. Later TNG and DS9/Voyager uniforms were more practical than the TMP and TNG s1 uniforms. And honestly the TOS uniforms were just shirts.
Wrath of Khan uniforms were pretty nice too.
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
My character Tsin'xing
normal text = me speaking as fellow formite
colored text = mod mode
I'm willing to say yes. The TOS uniforms were basically rule of cool tempered with what was affordable in their budget
My character Tsin'xing