Because your fervent insistence to that effect is not an argument. Do you have an argument to make?
News Discovery and Trek Continuity
- Thread starter DSG2k
- Start date
- Status
Because your fervent insistence to that effect is not an argument. Do you have an argument to make?
You are drawing a conclusion based on hearsay, not incontrovertible evidence. Even allowing for your interpretation of Kurtzman's words (and that is what it is--interpretation), short of corroborating evidence that can only become available going forward, the most definitive statement you can make is "it is likely that Kurtzman has canonized...". People who are disagreeing with you are interpreting his words differently than you are--and are relying on past precedent in such matters. Taken together, his words and past precedence strongly imply that his meaning is something akin to:
We greatly respect all the hard work done by the people working on tie-in material (comics, books, etc.) and, wherever possible, we will do our best not to deliberately contradict what they have added to the broad world of Star Trek. However, this does not bind current on-screen productions (i.e., what has always been canonical until now) in any way should those producers feel strongly enough about a story point that contradiction of tie-in material is desirable, if not unavoidable.
Having made this point, I cannot, with absolute certainty, claim I am "correct". I am comfortable, though, in thinking I am probably correct. Where people have been especially resistant to your claims lies in the absolute manner in which you express them. As an historian, I am both trained and inclined to view such absolute certainty with scepticism. Of course, one need not be an historian to be a sceptic, but I thought I'd make clear my perspective on such matters.
Ultimately, based on available evidence, no interpretation of Kurtzman's meaning can be absolute. The debate lies in the likelihood of one interpretation over another. Thus far, your insistence on expressing your points in absolute terms weakens, rather than strengthens, your arguments.
We greatly respect all the hard work done by the people working on tie-in material (comics, books, etc.) and, wherever possible, we will do our best not to deliberately contradict what they have added to the broad world of Star Trek. However, this does not bind current on-screen productions (i.e., what has always been canonical until now) in any way should those producers feel strongly enough about a story point that contradiction of tie-in material is desirable, if not unavoidable.
Having made this point, I cannot, with absolute certainty, claim I am "correct". I am comfortable, though, in thinking I am probably correct. Where people have been especially resistant to your claims lies in the absolute manner in which you express them. As an historian, I am both trained and inclined to view such absolute certainty with scepticism. Of course, one need not be an historian to be a sceptic, but I thought I'd make clear my perspective on such matters.
Ultimately, based on available evidence, no interpretation of Kurtzman's meaning can be absolute. The debate lies in the likelihood of one interpretation over another. Thus far, your insistence on expressing your points in absolute terms weakens, rather than strengthens, your arguments.
That makes no sense.
This thread is kind of perplexing to me having not read the literature. Yet I've gone back to the opening post and Kurtzman references "novels" "graphic novels" "book series" as part of the creative volume that has kept Trek going. Clearly that matters to him and is something he has a consideration for regards his own creative contributions.
Right back to those early fans with their letter writing campaign to 'save' the show, Trek has been more than science fiction TV that filled a time-slot. The fans' influence, other writers' influence has even touched on story. Kurtzman is including them, (in my view).
Right back to those early fans with their letter writing campaign to 'save' the show, Trek has been more than science fiction TV that filled a time-slot. The fans' influence, other writers' influence has even touched on story. Kurtzman is including them, (in my view).
You forgot about Optmus Prime and the Transformers.
^^^
Yeah, about that - you realize the 'Fan Letter Writing Campaign' was actually organized by Gene Roddenberry himself (Bjo Trimble was actually employed and paid by GR at the time, and and he crafted and paid for distribution of the form letters and provided the NBC address.) Yes, fans sent in the letters but no, it wasn't 'fan organized'.
No to be honest, I didn't know that. So there were no fans
Re-read the post, the letters did come from fans.No to be honest, I didn't know that. So there were no fans
"Hearsay"? I thought we held journalists in higher regard. However, if you insist that multiple and interlocking misquotations occurred, state your evidence.
And that is an improper way to do things. Context matters, as you should well know.
Had Kurtzman regurgitated the old canon policy over the years and suddenly seemed to do an about-face, then precedent would indeed be a logical fallback position. However, what we see is Kurtzman having his own different opinion and, well, now he's in charge.
If anything, *Kurtzman* precedent supports my position, which is why the 2008 quote matters.
So, given his context plus the context of how he came to power after a Trek interregnum, it is more than a little absurd to stay rigidly locked to a 2004-era opinion on canon and try to force-fit new statements into that mold.
By analogy, you cannot reasonably try to re-imagine Trump's statements based on Obama precedent.
As I told Digi, though, finding contrary Kurtzman quotes or evidence that Trek doesn't function operationally like it used to ought to be the prime targets of folks who disagree with me.
That’s not what he says, though. By forcing his words into the mold of not-his-words from the past, you alter his meaning. It's a fundamentally preposterous way of going about things when we know it's not so.
Ah, yes, the "I can't argue your point so let's argue the tone" bit. That's always fun to see in politics and elsewhere.
In any case, given the existence of those who've been repeating that I am wrong, it is only natural to assert the reverse when no valid (or, in some cases, just "no") argument has been presented. I will happily surrender to an argument superior to my own in fact or reason, but trying to suggest I am wrong for how I reacted to people claiming I was wrong is more than a little extraordinary.
What Kurtzman says doesn't really matter that much - he says it for a particular public relations reason in a given interview. The folks producing Trek have said quite a few contradictory and silly things over the years. 
What shows up in the TV shows and movies will depend mainly on what the studio thinks suits a given product at a given time...and the producers will backfill a rationale for it then.
What shows up in the TV shows and movies will depend mainly on what the studio thinks suits a given product at a given time...and the producers will backfill a rationale for it then.
Are you sure? You’ve been given ample opportunities so far, and yet...
Just because he says he doesn't want to contradict the novels and comics, doesn't mean he considers them canon.
He's just playing nice for the authors and fans that spent a decade writing/reading the post-nemsis a pre-tos stuff.
Being a smart person knows he can't logically work them in without sacrificing the show writers creativity.
The same reason LucasFilm ignored the EU when they started Episode 7.
He's just playing nice for the authors and fans that spent a decade writing/reading the post-nemsis a pre-tos stuff.
Being a smart person knows he can't logically work them in without sacrificing the show writers creativity.
The same reason LucasFilm ignored the EU when they started Episode 7.
Please point to one I overlooked.
That'd be true enough except for the part where he says he does.
Oh, I agree. But if he wanted to mollify novel & comic fans by saying he'd incorporate the novels and comics without canonizing them, he could simply describe how they draw inspiration from them and read them all and so on.
To be sure, these interviews are not prepared statements, but it is clearly a question that has come up in the official capacities he's filled over the past ten years. I rather doubt his answer is unconsidered.
That was carrying on the Lucas tradition, not to mention the fact they theoretically trashed them in 2014.
But that's not what he said.
As you quoted Kurtzman upthread, what he said back in 2008 was [https://trekmovie.com/2008/09/19/orci-kurtzman-trek-very-true-to-canon-even-books/]:
"I think we consider the books canon to a large degree so it’s very important to us to stay consistent."
Boldfacing mine.
He said "canon to a large degree." Repeat: "to a large degree." Not wholly. "To a large degree" implies "not entirely."
So, Kurtzman was literally saying back in 2008 that he does not consider the books to be entirely canon. That's what you quoted.
Next.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
