Thread: The Wings
View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
01-05-2011, 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
When in the position of simply being a fan of Star Trek, viewing canon in the simplistic manner of "if it's on the screen, it's canon" is fine (though there are still many contradictions in what was seen on screen that cannot be simply explained away, especially if you go back to TOS).

However, when you want to go more in depth into the setting, especially if writing a story or creating a game based in that setting, it is necessary to consider far more than simply "what was on the screen," though that of course does take -precedence.-

It is also necessary to determine what is the true canon situation when two things on screen contradict each other. One of the first sources to go to in such a situation is the production information. The reasons why certain things were presented in certain ways.
To the point of contradiction between 2 canon facts: there is no way to determine wich one of them is "true" canon and wich one not, they are both and those are "canon failures". Actually there are A LOT of them. But thats where the fun begins, by, for eample, beeing creative and find logical explanations why they both could be true. But the "on screen canon" is the base of every discussion, its where you have to start.
I mean, as an oposite, look at the completly scrwed Star Wars canon. Nothing make sense, its pure chaos because Lucas sees every game and every Novel as "canon", of course including everything released before the preqeuls, and including any stiupid "technical data". Not even prequels and "original" movies work together, but including everything else, there is NO base for any disucussion.

Star Trek canon on the other hand has a nice sense of order, there are failures, especialls since Voyager and the "newer" movies (including the TNG Movies) but you can work with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
One great example of this is the Warp 10 barrier. In TOS, they frequently fly past Warp 10. In TNG and onward, Warp 10 is the maximum possible speed and equates to infinite velocity. We know -why- this is because we can look at the production information. Gene Roddenberry hated how high the numbers kept getting in TOS, so he created a new Warp Factor scale that stopped at 10, with 10 being equal to infinite velocity, and applied that at the start of TNG. Thus, sometime between the time period of TOS and the time period of TNG, the Warp Factor Scale used by the Federation was changed. This is canon. This is canon that is utilizing production information.
Thats actually a good example. Its not "Canon" that the scale was changed, it a theory just like the Romulan-Klingon alliance. Of course its the most logical explanation (although the fact that the Archer-Enterprise seemed to use the TNG-Era scale contradicts that), I clouldnt thing of a better one, but that doesnt make it canon.
But seeing that "soft canon" may be a not THAT bad term. I mean: Saying something is "non canon" doesnt really exclude. It doesnt say "Under no circumstances there have ever been a Klingon_Romulan alliance and there was no change in the warp scale because no body said that" is wrong of course. It is POSSIBLE that those are the explanations for the things we see. But that doesnt make it canon. Canon says "It is THAT WAY" everything "non canon" that doesnt cotradict canon says "It may be that way". But thr (purposely stupid) explanation "Q didnt like Starfleet ships beeing that fast and changed the laws of physics just for fun" is as valid as "the scale has changed". Just stupider.
So yes I admit, soft canon may be an "ok" term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
The reason some things from production are referred to as "soft canon" is because they are not "set in stone" (not that anything actually seen on screen necessarily is either, when it comes down to it) and may be changed/given a different/better explanation at a later date in an actual on-screen instance. An example here is the changes in Klingon foreheads between the 22nd century and 24th century. We could only look at production information to formulate any kind of reasoning for the change until the episodes in ENT that gave us a canon in-setting reason for the changes.
Yes thats basicly it. (although, I never needet an explanation for that. Within an 40 years old franchise i thing we should be able to simply accept some things...)

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKatrina View Post
If you can find me a simple rule for what is canon, please do tell. Till then you are sounding a bit condescending. I admit that the Akira being a carrier isn't canon, the makers of the ship wanted it to be. But the Romulan-Klingon Alliance is able to be understood through the words of the characters in the show. I am not sure how much more of a canon source you want.
Well i heared that "simple explanation" in doesents of writer comments, Magazines, interviews ect ect ect. I guess you'll find one yourself.
I personally dont like the fact that TAS was excludet since.... well there was a lot of crap in it.... like in tos, but it had many nice ideas too. I liked it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
I'd cite the off-screen fact that the model was simply broken and they could not have done it any other way - but for the sake of argument we can just settle to that it's at the Commander's discretion whether he wants to move the wings or not. Just like it is at the commander's discretion how much power he wants to put into the shields or if he wants to raise them at all. Maybe there was some sort of weird and childish game of "dare" going on in the KDF that had captains not lower their wings as they went into battle for added risk? Again, the weak spot is hard canon, as per DS9.
I personally always thought that the "wings up" is a position for attack from distance (more energy in shields, less in the engines), and down for "closer" combat (that would even make sense combined with the theory that the under side needs more protection then)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Other reasonable options (excuses) that I could come up with now are that the wing actuators on the ships in question were damage in-universe, or that they were a refit of the old Bird-of-Prey that "fixed" the weak spot whilst retaining the wing motors it already had. Not likely, but possible.
Possible, yes.... but I dont like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
You're aware that this would equalize the B'rel and K'vort in size, effectively negating the soft canon sources stating their sizes, then?
We both know that it is canon that they have the same size. But they are, in canon, both "bigger" birds, while the "type description" of the small variant not has been named yet. May be the d12, the duras sisters BoP seemed in Generations and DS9 quiet small.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Sadly, Star Trek has contradicted itself time and time again, as Katrina already pointed out, so canon in Trek sadly isn't quite as clear as one might believe. Which is exactly why we are left with so much discussion. There is no Holocron for Trek where the creators give us a definite answer, we just see lots of inconsistencies - and that's even before we take the soft canon books into consideration. :/
And so we fans are left with lots of debates and speculation.

And there are a lot of things in canon that I don't like but I simply have to accept. When I see so much obscurity and contradiction that I believe I can maneuver, however, then I will do so.
Well my opinion on the Star Wars canon I already statet above. The Star Trek creators do not have to explain as much aus the Star Wars creators. Sure a lot of it is unclear. But, to be honest.... thats what kind of makes it intresting for me.

For the "soft canon books"..... well I kind of hate a lot of them. Especially the "post nemesis" TNG books and the Desteny books, because it seems (in line with the new Movie) that for the writers Star Trek doesnt work without creating artificial tension with killing millions of people.
During the, in my opinion, best time of Star Trek there was ONE incident of that kind, Wolf 359, that was a big and often referd disaster. In newer trek (including DS9, before that a "big fleet" was about "30 ships" now suddenly "1500 ships" were usual) a Wolf 359 disaster almost happens every day. Thats simply cheap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Oh, I'm not alone in this. Check the ship database of Starfleet Command III if you don't believe me.
I dont understand...., Starfleet command HAS the K'Vort?????
However.... there are a lot of things making no sense, but again, the large BoP is simply there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
This is by far not the only canon I am discussing! It should seem logical, however, that I focus on areas I deem important due to personal interest. I enjoy the Klingons and I love the BoP - more specifically, I fell in love with how I've grown to see it, and this is a perspective that I will defend. I do believe that the same can be said about the K'vort-cruiser-fans, for this difference is the very reason why they've become what they are, is it not?
Well the BoP is the very one reason I became Star Trek fan in the first place. After seeing it in STIII the only reason I even STARTET watching TNG is because a friend told me that ship would appear there too.

But I dont see why the- proven- existence of the K'Vort should hurt your view. The smaller version, of course, exists too, i would never doupt that. I dont see any need for that disagreement in the first place.