Starfleet Jedi

It's only retconning if something previously established is being overwritten by something else. In this case, the issues brought up were never really discussed or gone into any detail, so there is little to no retconning, merely retroactive canon to fill in the considerable blanks.
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:It's only retconning if something previously established is being overwritten by something else. In this case, the issues brought up were never really discussed or gone into any detail, so there is little to no retconning, merely retroactive canon to fill in the considerable blanks.
-Mike

Roddenberry and the other creators had different ideas at the time, and left the blanks deliberately to avoid implausible exposition, and avoid centering on the tech. That doesn't give Berman etc. a carte blanche to hack away and call it "canon."

KirkSkywalker wrote: Roddenberry and the other creators had different ideas at the time, and left the blanks deliberately to avoid implausible exposition, and avoid centering on the tech. That doesn't give Berman etc. a carte blanche to hack away and call it "canon."

Actually, since Paramount put them in charge, and Paramount owns ST's rights, it does give them every right in the world to do whatever they pleased and declare it "canon"...

Praeothmin wrote:

KirkSkywalker wrote: Roddenberry and the other creators had different ideas at the time, and left the blanks deliberately to avoid implausible exposition, and avoid centering on the tech. That doesn't give Berman etc. a carte blanche to hack away and call it "canon."

Actually, since Paramount put them in charge, and Paramount owns ST's rights, it does give them every right in the world to do whatever they pleased and declare it "canon"...

Not a chance. Once it was published and viewed by the public, they sold the story to the public under a contractual understanding "implied-in-fact;" and it violates basic contract-law to unilaterally alter a contract once it's been accepted, so they can't retroactively alter the original story after that.

Paramount own the rights to ST.
They stated that all the shows and movies were canon, and certain events from certain novels.
If something coming out later, say ST enterprise, contradicts something established previously, say TOS, it's as valid and canon as the older material.
The fact you don't like this doesn't make it less valid...

Praeothmin on this matter is correct. Roddenberry did indeed set the principles by which Paramount (now also CBS) handles what is and is not canon for Star Trek, and who is in charge The fact is that the only reason the writers never filled in the blanks of the timeframe 100 years prior to TOS is because no one had a story that needed to do so, and the same was true for much of the TNG-era material.

Star Trek: Enterprise on the other hand is set in that timeframe, and filled in quite a bit about the pre-Federation days. Are there inconsistancies? Yes. But every Trek series and movie has them as well. But it is not the big bugaboo that certain people have made it out to be. The big complaint from them that ST:ENT mostly contradicted their favorite fanon.
-Mike

Praeothmin wrote:Paramount own the rights to ST.
They stated that all the shows and movies were canon, and certain events from certain novels.
If something coming out later, say ST enterprise, contradicts something established previously, say TOS, it's as valid and canon as the older material.
The fact you don't like this doesn't make it less valid...

But contract-law DOES.

Mike DiCenso wrote:Praeothmin on this matter is correct. Roddenberry did indeed set the principles by which Paramount (now also CBS) handles what is and is not canon for Star Trek, and who is in charge The fact is that the only reason the writers never filled in the blanks of the timeframe 100 years prior to TOS is because no one had a story that needed to do so, and the same was true for much of the TNG-era material.

Star Trek: Enterprise on the other hand is set in that timeframe, and filled in quite a bit about the pre-Federation days. Are there inconsistancies? Yes. But every Trek series and movie has them as well. But it is not the big bugaboo that certain people have made it out to be. The big complaint from them that ST:ENT mostly contradicted their favorite fanon.
-Mike

We're talking about official material here. Again, there were pretenses which were in place upon original publication; and once they were presented to and accepted by the public, that completes a binding sale of those pretenses. Therefore, simple title to the trademarks and other associated intellectual property, does not give Paramount, Desilu or anyone else has the legal right to unilaterally alter these pretenses at whim after-the-fact.

They can contradict themselves all they want, but Parol Evidence takes full precedence over it, whether expressed or implied.

KirkSkywalker wrote:They can contradict themselves all they want, but Parol Evidence takes full precedence over it, whether expressed or implied.

Except they are not selling us anything, nor did we sign a single contract with them about anything in ST.
They presented us with a work of art, said "This is what we consider Canon, and we may chage that in the future", and they have every right to it, and their word is law.
Now, if they had signed a contract with you, saying:
"We agree that only TOS is Canon and that KirkSkywalker can change anything he wants outside of TOS as he wills it", and then told you later on that you couldn't, then you'd be right to say they have no right to do so, but not as things currently are...

Praeothmin wrote:

KirkSkywalker wrote:They can contradict themselves all they want, but Parol Evidence takes full precedence over it, whether expressed or implied.

Except they are not selling us anything, nor did we sign a single contract with them about anything in ST..

Implied-in-fact, see Stepp v Freeman.

Which supports your assertion... how?
-Mike

Mike DiCenso wrote:Which supports your assertion... how?
-Mike

PERFECTLY.

Stepp v Freeman does not, in any way support your position, as Mike implies.
In that case, there was indeed a consentual contract at the end of which an expected pay could be hoped for.

What's your expected pay in this case?
Did Paramount say that if B & B did not follow established Canon, all viewers would get 10$?
Did Paramount promise viewers money if they continued to watch ST?
Nope, no implicit contract was ever devised between viewers and Paramount.
Paramount bought ST, said "We will continue to produce and show this series, and we will decide whenever we want to cancel it!
You don't like this? Tough shit!"
And they did just that, cancelling ENT after only 4 years when all the recent shows had 7 years, even the craptastic Voyager, and then even after all the fans wrote in saying Paramount was full of assholes to allow that.
And you know what the legal recourse was for those unsatisfied viewers?
Zilch, none, nada, because Paramount owns the legal rights to ST and can do whatever the hell they want with it...

Praeothmin wrote:Stepp v Freeman does not, in any way support your position, as Mike implies.

Yes it does, 100%.

In that case, there was indeed a consentual contract at the end of which an expected pay could be hoped for.
What's your expected pay in this case?

Sure, they were just GIVING it away.
Take a law class, I'm not here to teach.

KirkSkywalker wrote:Yes it does, 100%.

Which you will of course explain how it does.
Or, here's my counter:
No, it does not at all... :)

Sure, they were just GIVING it away.
Take a law class, I'm not here to teach.

In other words, I make cookies I give to the neighborhood for free, but because I made the cookies with Macademia nuts for five years, still paying for them from my own pocket, and not forcing anyone to pay for it, I could not chage the recipe when I wanted, how I wanted?
Funny, but I doubt very much it works that way.
And no my friend, since you claimed the Stepp v Freeman supports your position, there's a little thing called "Burden of proof" that says YOU have to back it up...
Or conceed... ;)