Star Trek Novels . . . Here We Go Again?
From Trekmovie.com:
TrekMovie.com: Did you guys realize that when you set the construction of the USS Enterprise on Earth that it would spark controversy?
Roberto Orci: Of course.
TrekMovie.com: So what is your guys logic for setting it on land?
Roberto Orci: Besides the thematic stuff we discussed, which is to connect it to today and make it clear. Firstly, there is the notion that there is precedent in the novels, etc that components of the ship can be built on Earth and assembled here or there.
Roberto Orci:I think I said on your site that in those times when canon is fuzzy, then we are ‘The Supreme Court’ right now and the court has to rule one way or the other.
TrekMovie.com: So who sits on the court?
Roberto Orci: It is the five of us: me, Alex [Kurtzman], JJ [Abrams], Bryan [Burk], and Damon [Lindelof]
So a member of the Supreme Court of Canon is talking about precedent in the novels?
Not to mix my metaphors, but frak. Frakola, even. It's a potential frakaroo, I daresay.
This bears watching, as further comments of this nature could result in a sea change on Trek canon, to some degree. The whole split-ownership issue muddies that up, of course, but still.
At most, this could entail that . . . somehow . . . we would be forced to accept as factual in the Trek universe all the myriad and divergent novels. At least, continuation of this thread of commentary on their parts could mean that tech material could have some validity, which would be entirely screwy.
Alternately, of course, he simply means that surface-built components have been seen in the books, so get over it and quit freaking out. Hence why this bears watching, and no page edits are currently planned.
posted by Author @ 07:16
3 Comments:
I think it's either the latter concept you presented, or a "We saw the idea in a book, liked it, and ran with it," situation. I doubt anyone official is saying the books are canon in any way (though that certainly won't stop some people, on either side of the canon debates, from insisting they are), they're either just saying "It's not a new idea, stop bunching your panties", or "We just decided to use this one idea 'cause we liked it and it worked for us."
I must admit, I really wish that the Star Trek franchise had produced some canonical non-TV/films materials. As a long time Star Wars fan, I've always loved the various add-on books, guides and expansion materials like the Visual Guides and so forth to add in the more obscure background details and give some extra depth to the universe, and it's a shame there's nothing canonical like that out there to complement Star Trek - goodness knows it's large and complex enough to warrant it.
I'm watching the Deep Space Nine series consecutively for the first time at the moment (before now I'd only been able to snatch the occasional random episode, but they're showing all the episodes back to back, one every weekday on Virgin 1 in the UK at the moment, so I've finally got my chance! Halfway through Season 4 now...) but I found myself wishing that there was some guide or something to go with it, to help give some more life to the station (imagine an Incredible Cross Sections book on Deep Space Nine!) and explain some more background (while I've seen all the Star Trek films and have watched seasons 2 and 3 of Enterprise, I've still never seen many of the other series episodes, so sometimes some of the background details can be confusing).
Ah well, who knows - perhaps if this new Star Trek film does well, the additional potential consumer interest might warrant a change in policy and some new canonical subsidiary materials? After all, the original trilogy ICSs came out a long time after the films...
Not meaning to be late to the party in commenting, but:
I do see that some people like taking from novels or animated shows, not unlike an example or two of ideas from Star Wars EU put into the Star Wars movies.
But someone with a watchful eye (I don't know who) proved with a good eye that surface-built starships and/or components are canon, and a visual I had seen cropped had proved it. It was something I missed and thought was unique to the upcoming Star Trek movie (space-to-planetary surface-capable ships being repairable anywhere aside), but take a look at the Galaxy Class article at Memory Alpha:
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Galaxy_class#Design_and_development
So, as far as that specific bit of starships built on the surface, it's established canon at least for the mid-24th century (if not in general). It's probably not useful for the canon debate, but since Roberto Orci was right about it sparking controversy (it did strike a bit of a nerve), I found it to be quite interesting.
Sincerely,
Another Anonymous
Post a Comment
<< Home