(Also available from Starland mirror site)
First, some comments from previous columns . . .
[From Someone Identified Only As Damon Jon Dixon]: Star Trek: A Fifth Series: My new idea? A Homicide-ish style drama starring detectives from Temporal Investigations.
Jeff Flowers of Southfield, MI: Finally, I was having trouble sending e mail and I hope I not to late to chime in on this subject. What I feel TPTB should do is wrap up both DS9 &Voyager (face it - we watch it because we like Trek but it really isn't a good show when you look at it objectively and DS9 is sadly near its end) at the same time with a major story line crossover with a NextGen movie. Think about it, the Federation could be facing destruction from the Dominion on a large scale basis, and we see the events from each series point of view. Voyager could magically get jumped to the Gamma Quadrant so they have to fight to get to the wormhole. When they get through (valiantly), they arrive just in enough time to prevent DS9 from destruction. The movie will show Picard and crew wrapping everything up. The end result, the Federation in shambles, thousands of worlds destroyed or near death (including Earth & Vulcan) and StarFleet decimated. The heroes from the three current series would be left to develop a new Federation. Any subsequent movies could draw from the talent pool of actors from the currents shows,(face it - the NextGen crew aren't all going to want to get together like TOS crew did and make 6 movies) and chronicle their struggle. Now, the new series should start 50 to 100 years in the future. It could show the internal struggle between a Starfleet that wants to continue its exploration against a military element that wants to be concerned with maintaining their borders. I think a series like that has great potential. You can have the appeal of Trek(exploration) balanced against those who like rock em, sock em action. This has lots of appeal to me!! I ' d love to see it.
Robert Donahou: I would also like to suggest an idea for a new series. Iwould like to follow a group cadets during there stay at starfleet command school that is in the current time frame.
Jennifer Pope, Longview, WA: I'm a recent Bond fan; I was introduced by my best friend last month. Mark down the both of us for a Bond guide!
Phil: Thirty-three . . .
John Latchem: [Concerning David Niven vs. Peter Sellers in Casino Royale,] Actually it was both. This 1967 film was an absurd parody of the whole Bond mythos. Everyone in it was named James Bond, even the women!
Tom Elmore, Columbia SC: By the way, I heard that sean Connery has expressed an intrest in doing another James Bond film!
[From Someone Identified Only As Damon Jon Dixon]: Bond guide: Intitially I was opposed to the idea, but then I saw Moonraker. No further explanation needed.
Phil: Thirty-four . . .
Anon: Also, regarding the next guide...I wouldn't buy a bond guide but my brother and my dad might. And how about a Simpsons guide (or does it hjave to be science fiction? And could you nitpick a cartoon that has no time line (i.e. the people don't age. They do refer to past ep[isodes and stuff but Bart and Lisa seem to be in the same class and year of school all the time, Maggie talked once and never again etc.) What do you think?
Phil: I think a Simpsons Guide would be fun! And, that makes thirty-six.
Rodney Hrvatin of South Australia: Here's my entry for the Bond Guide debate: Let's settle this once and for all. Someone set up a website at Geocities or someplace like that and have a petition going. Then go around to all the Bond sites and get everyone to sign it who goes there. THEN when that is done and we have 20,000 or so signatures (or e-mail addresses) we send it to Phil who, by the way, sounds to me like he would rather have root canal surgery without the benefit of painkillers than write a Bond guide. Have a vodka martini Phil!
Phil: I'm not opposed to a Bond Guide. It's just that pesky matter of selling it to Dell!
Ed Watson of Downingtown, PA: Oh, and as long as people are chiming in on your possible projects; I couldn't care less about James Bond, but I find your concept for "The Son, the Wind, and the Reign" to be fascinating. I can't wait to buy a copy.
Phil: Thanks for the interest! Unfortunately, you're going to have to wait a bit for a copy. Heard back from Bethany House Publishers last week. Let's see . . . how did they put it? "There is no question that it is a worth publishing project . . . yada, yada, yada."
Robert Donahou: I would buy a Bond guide and a Star Wars Guide but I wouldn't buy it until all three prequels come out.
Phil: If I wait until the prequels come out to do a Nitpicker's Guide to Star Wars, it would have to be released in 2002! One way or another, I'd be surprised if I'm still writing Nitpicker's Guides by then! (This gig is just--and has always been--a stepping stone. If I can't get broken into fiction in the near future, I do have other employable skills in the very lucrative business of computer programming and I do have a family to support! ;-)
Jonathan Klein: I was just reading comments on battles at warp and had a thought. Why wouldn't phasers work at warp? One episode of NextGen had them seperate the saucer while at high warp, and it took some time to drift to impulse speed. It seems to me that phasers would be fine, as long as the target was within the warp field. While in the field, the beams would be traveling faster than light. After passing the edge of the warp field, then they would slow to light speed. And wouldn't aft phasers work great? So what if they only move at the speed of light? Firing aft it wouldn't make a problem.
Phil: Ya know . . . come to think of it, wasn't the ship that the Prometheus destroyed inside the warp field of the other three? It's hard for me to tell because I watch fuzzy TV when it comes to Voyager!
Richard Steenbergen: [Concerning the parody of Eric Clapton's "Cocaine",] Would you be so kind as to ask Brian what radio station that is?
Joe Griffin: Not to show my age, but back in the mid-80s when all we Trek fans had to talk about was TOS (which we called "the TV show") and three movies, I read something in either the Compendium of the Tech Manual, or possibly even David Gerrold's Tribble book, which said that stardates exist to eliminate the confusion that would result from differing perceptions of time resulting from travel at- or near-light speed. (See Einstein's GTOR for more details, or check out Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" example about the twin brothers in Italy and their warp-speed Vespa.) This bit of physics is glossed over in most sci-fi, but a ship travelling near the speed of light would experience time more slowly, and its clocks would measure time more slowly as well. So a method was devised to keep track of some kind of galactic time unit which could be seperate from the more subjective "ship time" and would also be politically decentralized (The way Roddenberry's universe is constructed would seem to preclude simply making Earth the equivalent of our Greenwich, England--the centralized arbiter of the correct time.) This time system could be measured by keeping track of the rate of expansion of the universe: from any point in the galaxy one can determine how far apart things are vs. how far apart they were previously; assuming universal expansion to be constant, this can accurately tell the crew how long it's been since the last recorded Stardate. Meanwhile, the ship maintains its own internal calendar and sense of time, for the comfort of its crew and passengers. This would only create problems around the time you have to send Admiral Poppyseed at Starbase 6 a Christmas card, which of course he'd get three months early, or send an anniversary card to your wife, which she'd get five years after leaving you for always forgetting anniversaries.
However, the other result of this phenomenon is that a crew would leave Earth (for example), fly around for a month of ship-time, and return to Earth decades later Earth-time. Since this doesn't happen in Star Trek (or Star Wars of B5 or just about any other sci-fi show), as it would make the shows impossible, the above explanation would seem to only apply to a situation involving Real-World Physics, where 186,000 mps isn't just a good idea, it's the law.
John Latchem: The episode of "The Simpsons" in which the Soylent Green reference is "Itchy and Scratchy: The Movie." After being criticized by Marge for not disciplining Bart, Homer forbides him to see a movie based on his favorite cartoon. Bart eventually accepts this. Cut to the Future, and we see Bart has become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and is walking with Homer, and they pass the theater which is playing the movie so they see it for the first time.
It's interesting that the references to the Simpson's future in different movies are consistent. In the episode "Lisa's Wedding" we see the future and learn that Bart is working for a demolition company to pay his way through law school!
Joe Griffin: Unless I'm very much mistaken, this was a scene from an episode of NewsRadio wherein the station was transported into the future. This was one of several such references to popular sci-fi moments.
Incidentally, Phil, I know you don't watch Millenium, but Frank Black's voice-recognition password is "Soylent Green is people." It was set up by Hackerman (played by the guy who played the turbogeek in the X-Files episode "Jose Chung's From Outer Space"), who seems to have a preoccupation with sci-fi and horror movies. (He gave Frank a copy of "Silent Night, Deadly Night" for Christmas.) Frank's new Millenium Group partner has the password "Open the pod bay doors, HAL."
Phil: Joe's comments triggered a flag in my mind and I did a little browsing on the web. Sure enough . . . Soylent Green was a movie made in 1973 about overpopulation and starred Charlton Heston. I think it featured a process to grind people up for food--which makes the Simpsons comment all the more funny (if you have an appreciation for black humor.)
Tom Elmore, Columbia SC: We recieved the Magnificeint Ferengi after Waltz here in Columbia as well. I wonder if perhaps Paramont and not the local stations made the error?
Phil: Well . . . if Paramount made the error, wouldn't it have appeared everywhere in the wrong order. It was okay here in Springfield!
Chris George: Anyway, after last week's Ask the Chief, I began to get a really good idea of something really nasty going on, involving UPN, and WB. In the Milwaukee, WI area, we have the 4 main stations, as well as two smaller stations, WVTV-18 and WCGV-24 owned by the same company, whom I believe to be Sinclair Broadcasting Corp. At the beginning of last season, WVTV became a WB affiliate, and WCGV continued to be a UPN affiliate. As of Jan. 15, however, Sinclair decided to let their contract with UPN lapse, so as of that date, Milwaukee, too, lost Voyager. (The real kicker is now they just show a ton of 3rd and 4th run films...none really great, either.)
So, Sinclair viewers in Cincinatti, you aren't alone... Sinclair apparently needs to be informed that some of their largest viewership came from Voyager. I suggest writing them and letting them know.
John Latchem: It's times like these I'm glad I live in Los Angeles. We have enough channels to cover ALL the networks and show all the syndicated shows as well with very few conflicts. Sometimes the local UPN affiliate (before they were UPN) would show Basketball games that preempted TNG reruns but they knew the ratings TNG got and made sure not to cut into new episodes with news or sports. Usually they didn't even interrupt the reruns! Now they don't show any basketball games. We have 7 VHF stations, 6 taken up by networks, the seventh has the rights to all the local pro sports teams except one, and Dodgers games are shown on the WB affiliate, so there is no conflict with Voyager. Sometimes I get the feeling the only way I won't be able to see new episodes of Star Trek is if the President is Assassinated. I am kind of peeved that DS9 reruns were yanked off the air after about a month.
Walter Czarniecki: Western PA nitpickers rejoice! Voyager is back! Over the last weekend, UPN sealed a deal with WNPA Channel 19 out of Jeannette, PA to become this area's UPN affiliate. They got the deal done in time to air "Message in a Bottle," but the bad news is that for right now, it's very hard to pick up and the station is not yet on the cable lineups in the Pittsburgh area. That should be fixed soon (my cable company should have it before the next new episode airs in Feb.), but until then, a good old antenna and a lot of luck will get you Voyager. On Wednesday, I felt like I was listening to a radio broadcast of Voyager because the picture was so bad. I just had to let you know that Pittsburgh is back in the nitpicking business.
Phil: I can empathize!
Joshua Truax: The Voyager series can't be too bad off ratings-wise, because everything I've read about it in non-Trek-specific publications has said that the addition of Seven of Nine has probably saved the series. (By the way, an article about the current TV season in the Wisconsin State Journal suggests that DS9 has reclaimed the position of the best sci-fi show on TV from B5, thanks to the Feds' war with the Dominion...)
David Garraway of Hattiesburg, MS: Concerning the viewing area for UPN, and in particular, Voyager and DS9; this marks the third year that the show is unavailible in South Mississippi. I have absolutely no idea what is going on in either series. Both shows are broadcast in both New Orleans and Jackson; but both stations are 50-70 miles out of range, and our cable provider does not pick them up. Oh well...
BTW, I went to see "Titanic" tonight for the second time, and they showed a preview for the new "X-Files" movie. Release date is something like June 18, 1998. At any rate, it looks very good. I'll have to go see that one.
Tom Elmore, Columbia SC: According to an article published in the San Francisco Examiner, the WB networked snatched several UPN stations in "major markets" with an estamated viewing audience of 4 million viewers. According to the article, WB is in great shape to be the "5th" network, while UPN is in serious trouble. Last summer I believe I told you that UPN was rumored to be in big trouble, and this news seems to comfirm it.We lost our UPn affiliate here in Columbia (with a viewing auidence of 300,000) last summer. So I really have to wonder about the future of Voyager and UPN.
John Myers: As to Trek on TV I am not even 100% sure where the BBC has got to. I have been buying the videos ever since way back when Auntie Beeb took TNG off the air for a long time (well longish) and CIC moved well ahead. When DS9 came along I had got into the habit, same with Voyager. Even if it is a episode I like on the TV I'm more likely to watch something else and then use the video as it's so much more convenient.
I could be wrong but I think that there was a definite dip in TNGs viewing figures after the gap, so maybe I am not alone.
Gareth Wilson, Christchurch, New Zealand: One of the problems the Trek shows face in New Zealand is that videotapes of the episodes are available months ahead of the TV screenings. When the actual episode is shown on TV, full of adverts and rather crudely promoted, many of the "Trekkers" have aready seen it on video, and the ratings will be somewhat disappointing.
Mickey Kochersperger: I'm in the St. Louis market and Voyager was on channel 30 here. now I can't find it. could you check and see where it is now. I'm not sure if it changed times or if they droped it. help.
Dave Mattingly of Scranton, PA: Our local, ahem, "cable" company does not pick up any UPN networks, but we are treated to two WBs, one of which is almost always blacked out, but I digress.
Our local CBS affiliate decided to pick up Voyager after the pilot. It placed Voyager on Saturdays at 7:00. That lasted until the middle of the second season. It was replaced by Entertainment Tonight, and moved to 11:30 Saturday. That lasted up until the beginning of the current season, when it was moved to Monday morning at 12:00 midnight. Since I don't have a working VCR to use, needless to say I haven't been keeping up with the storyline.
On aa side note, even FOX has fiddled with the placement of DS9. Currently it's on Fridays at 11:00. Haven't been able to watch that too much either. Oh well.
Allan Lam: I have some news to share about Mr. Frakes and his directing. After Star Trek IX, he is scheduled to direct.......Arnold Schwarzenegger in Total Recall 2 (I received this from a reliable source at Paramount).
Phil: Good for Frakes! Nice to see him branching out. He seems to be a really nice guy.
Richard Steenbergen: [Concerning the plot points mentioned last week,] Ugh if they make another movie involving Data behaving oddly I'm going to SCREAM!
David Williams: About the warp scale question: Someone wrote that each starship class had a different scale and you wrote a note saying that you thought that the warp scale is constant.
You are right as evidenced by the scale in the Encyclopedia and TNG Tech manual. Also Voyager's Intrepid-Class is currently the fastest ship on two nacelles with a sustainable top speed of warp 9.975 (as mentioned by Lt. Stadi in 'Caretaker'). Presumably these are Starfleet's new Environmentally-friendly warp nacelles.
Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: First a couple of comments on Data's power source. In the 1/23 column, Clay mentions that Data said he ingents a "'something' kind of liquid that lubricates his biofunctions" and Brian Straight suggests that Data takes in food and converts to energy like we do. First, the "something" Clay mentions is a "suspension." If memory serves, both Clay and Brian are refering to a scene in (I think) the episode Deja Q in Ten forward where Data explains that while he can injest food, he does not need to, but he does injest a suspension of lubricants from time to time.
David Williams: About the plasma coolant tanks and the E-E: If I am not misten, on the E-D there was one plasma coolant tank and the E-E has 4 tanks, situated around the core, so conceivably Data could smash one without causing a warp core breach because of the back-up fashion of the other three.
Walter Czarniecki: In response to Scott Newton's question about Jeri Taylor, The word apparently is that she is retiring after season 4 to spend more time at home with her husband. Brannon Braga will likely be her replacement as executive producer.
Matt Nelson: Actually, the extra twelve minutes is the long discussion near the middle of the movie with Kirk, Spock, and McCoy alone in a very sterile-looking sickbay.
John Bibb: Dan Wiese asked which parts of ST:TMP were the "12 extra minutes". I believe that at least part of it is the bit with the Deltan Touch, where Ilia (before she gets kidnapped) heals Chekov's burnt hand. I once saw a Star Trek Film Marathon, and I noticed that portion missing from the film.
Are parts that were cut from the film but later re-added in some form considered canon? I know that in ST6:TUC, there is added footage, and I believe in one network Television showing of ST2:TWOK they had the dialogue concerning Savak's romulan half and Peter Preston's relation to Scotty. As for this last one, I think that it's not canon, because that footage isn't on video, but what about the stuff that is?
Phil: I'm not sure that Saavik's parentage was ever established in any version but Scotty's relationship to Peter Preston was. I'm not sure what to think about the extra footage that ABC aired. As for the rest of it, I consider it canonical!
JC Fernandez: I have both the video tape of Star Trek I (with the extra footage) and the widescreen laserdisc (without the extra footage). If I remember correctly, much of the new footage is dialogue and not lengthy F/X sequences. For instance, Uhura's line about Kirk: "Our chances of getting out of this alive may have just doubled" is not in the original version. Also, if memory serves, the shot of Kirk leaving the Enterprise in a space suit (and you can see the set scaffolding) is not in it either. So does that still qualify as a nit?
Tom Elmore, Columbia SC: The "extra footage" in ST:TMP is on ship and mostly on the bridge. Among the scenes are Kirk dressing in a spacesuit and going after Spock, Spock crying, Sulu, figgiting with Illya and an ensign questioning Kirk's fittness for command after his first apperance on the bridge.
Fred Longacre: I believe the extra footage is used in the late middle part of the movie, showing Spock's relationship with V'ger-without the twelve minutes, it's hard to see why Spock is so concerned about V'ger-even with his line about V'ger being like a brother to him.
Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: Dan Wiese asks about the extra footage in the video tape of ST: TMP. Well, Chief, I'm afraid you're wrong on this one. While TMP is primarily "lots of very sl-o-o-o-ow ship shots", the added scenes help to better understand the plot. Nimoy mentions these extra scenes in his book I Am Spock and Shatner mentions them in Star Trek Movie Memories. I don't know every single extra minute, but here are the ones that I know from memory: added dialog and footage where Scotty explains that Ensign Preston is his nephew (which explains his reaction to Preston's death), an added scene where Kirk visits Spock in sick bay after his attempted mind meld with V'Ger, extra footage from space of Kirk leaving the airlock to go after Spock (this also contains an error as set rigging can clearly be seen in the airlock thereby exposing the unfinished nature of this extra footage), and in the end when Spock sheds a tear and says, "I weep for V'Ger as a brother."
John Burke of Hyannis, MA: Towards the end of last week's Ask the Chief, you asked about the Star Wars books, comics,and radio plays and whether they're all part of the same universe and canonical. Well, I don't work for Lucasfilm, but here's my take on it:
All the books and the newer Dark Horse comic series take place in the same universe. It's sort of serialized, and right now it takes place in a time frame that ranges from during the movies to about fifteen years after ROTJ. All the books do affect one another, and are in the same universe with the permission of whoever it is in LucasFilm that handles those things. So in that sense, they are "real."
As for canonical, well, that's tougher. My Star Wars reference guide says that the movies and radio plays (anything that was actually produced) are canonical, but the books are only sort of semi-official. I don't know whether that's the gospel according to George Lucas or just the author's guess, but that's how it's arranged. Also, I do know that much of the information (technical stuff, aliens, etc.) used in the books comes from the extensive line of roleplaying games by West End Games. (They sort of deliniated the rules for the Star Wars universe that the movies didn't have time to cover.)
Speaking for myself, I would LOVE to see a Star Wars guide. It's by far my favorite idea for a new guide, if it can be arranged (But then, I would probably buy a Star Wars toaster, a Star Wars socket wrench, Star Wars cheese, etc...if it takes place in a galaxy far, far away, I'll buy it...)
Matt Nelson: Lucas does not consider the novels/comics/etc. canonical, but there are a lot of canonical sourcebooks. However, rumor **RUMOR ALERT** has it that he may follow the prequel novels' storyline in spirit of not in letter for the new movies.
Corey Hines, Hamilton, ON: If I recall correctly there was also the Star Wars Christmas Special featuring Chewbacca's family and NBC showed two specials featuring the Ewoks(I know, groan). I've never seen the Christmas special but I pretty sure the Ewok shows are canonical.
John Bibb: As for your question about Star Wars canon material, I believe that all movies, new novels (I don't know about the novels prior to the Zahn Trilogy), and comics are canon. I think the radio adaptations might be canon as well, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know about the Droids and Ewoks animated series, or the various TV specials, such as Battle for Endor and the Star Wars Holiday Special?
Craig Cicero: From what I've read, almost EVERYTHING is at least partially canonical, in (I think) the order of: movies (pure canon), the radio drama (pure canon except for movie discrepancies), novels (pretty darn canonical), and comics (whatever doesn't conflict with the above is canonical).
I'm not sure about the role-playing game (many aspects have been used to flesh out the novels and games), Droids and Ewoks cartoons, the Ewoks movies, or the computer games.
Scott Padulsky: Well, you have the three movies (of course) you have several novels (alot of novels) each of which has been reviewed by George Lucas' staff for approval. You have one novel in particular, Shadows of the Empire, that, I believe, has been offcially stamped "canon." It chronicles the events between ESB and RotJ.
As to the other novels, while they may not have been officially been stamped "canon" (with the one possible exception of "Shadows") there is circumstantial evidence that they are meant to be canon. What evidence? The Star Wars Special Editions. In several places, location formally only mentioned in print were added to the movies. For example, the Imperial Capital planet of Coruscant was first mentioned in the novels and was subsequently shown in the end of RotJ Special Editon. Also, on a much smaller scale (but, I think, a bigger piece of evidence in favor of canon) a crashed ship that was the setting of several short stories set in Mos Eisley was actually added to the background of Mos Eisely in SW:SE.
Next you have comics. I think it is safe to say that anything done by Dark Horse Comics is at least in the same category as the novels. Some earlier comics by Marvel and a Comic Strip Series have already been contradicted by new works so it is safe to say they are not. (The comic strip series was subsequently re-printed by Dark Horse but is still proabably not canon).
Oh by the way, a novel called Splinter of the Minds Eye was released after SW but before ESB. It has been HEAVILY contridicted by ESB so you can toss that one out!
Hey i think a Star Wars Guide is a great idea! Even if it is done in conjunction with a whole bunch of other sci-fi movies. Plus, if you start on it now, by the time it is finished and released it will be just in time to take advantage of all the hype piled on the prequels! Hype=$$$$!
Gina Torgersen of LaCrosse FL: I have a Star Wars reference book--I think it's called the SW Encyclopedia, it's the second edition and it is getting really out of date--which has a system where the entries of information from the movies have a normal Rebel Alliance symbol and the ones from the books, comics, animated TV series, etc. have a different Alliance symbol to indicate that they do not necessarily agree with George Lucas's version of the SW universe. So, only the movies are really canonical, but everything else kind of forms a semi-canonical version of the SW universe. If you did a guide you'd probably have to include at least the novels because otherwise they're wouldn't be enough material.
Philip McGachey, Scotland: About the Star Wars universe - as far as I know, Lucas considers all novels etc to be canon.
Terry Mitchell Hulett: Just wanted to say in response to your question that Star Wars novels/comics are considered cannonical, except for the old Marvel comic series. The old comics were handled basically independantly, with just a few guidelines. When they started up the new comics/books they deliberately chose to go opposite of Star Trek - Lucas wanted a consistant universe. The authors assist each other and sometimes have scences with another author's newly introduced charactors. But the early Marvel comics cannot be made consistant and are orphaned. (I read this somewhere, forgot where exactly).
Anyway, the implication is that you are contemplating a Star Wars guide but need more targets than just a few movies. I think this is a GREAT idea! I love it!
[From Someone Identified Only As Damon Jon Dixon]: Heres a list of canonical things when it comes to Star Wars. a: The movies b: the novels published by Bantaam, and any Official Guides. c: Dark Empire (published by Dark Horse. None of the other comics are however). d: Shadows Of The Empire (the book, not the video game). e: the opening for ESB Radio Drama (the Derra IV attack. After that, not so much). I hope that cleared it up.
Ethan Price: I was just browsing your site, and I was overjoyed to find a question I could actually answer- I'm no good at actual nitpicking :-) In answer to your question, the only Star Wars material that is officially canonical are the 3 movies, the novelizations of the movies, and the NPR radio plays- each of which Lucas had script control over, even if he didn't write them. Other material (other novels, video games, CD-ROMs, etc. has to con- form to the canon set down in "approved" sources, but it isn't considered canon itself. Even if Lucas decides to use some material from those sources, the rest is still not considered canon. So, for example, we know that the Emperor's name is Palpatine- even though that wasn't in the movies- because it's given in the official novelizations. On the other hand, the inclusion of the ship from "Shadows of the Empire" in the Special Edition of Episode I (it's over Mos Eisley, just after the cantina scene) doesn't imply make the rest of that material canonical.
Jody Timmins of New Haven, CT: From the introductions to various Star Wars novels (and there are TONS, I mean TONS!--my brother and I have just about given up trying to keep up even with the main Luke-Leia-Hans series, let alone the various short story compilations: Tales of Mos Eisley, X-Wing Stories, both of which are multiple-volume), I gather that Lucas authorized each and every story and keeps a bible for consistency between trilogies (there are a LOT of those trilogies). From what I remember, the authors refer to each other's plot developments, too. In other words, the books at least are very probably canon, and you could confirm it by looking at a forward or introduction, or contacting the publisher.
Darren Bennett, Brisbane Australia: It's my understanding that EVERYTHING in the Star Wars universe should be considered cannonical, because it is all cleared with Lucasfilm. This allows Lucasfilm to keep tight control over the whole saga. Authors are comissioned to write books on particular subjects, and are able to refer to characters that only turn up in later books written by different authors. So it's ALL gotta be nitpickable. And I'd buy it (one down, ...).
So different from Star Trek, wher the book, movie, and TV sides all seem to barely tolerate each other.
Murray Leeder: There's an interesting discussion at http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~saxton/starwars/continuity.html . You might want to read it over.
Michael Apple: You asked in Ask The Chief what was considered canon in the Star Wars Universe. According to George Lucas, all the movies, books, comic books, novels, games, guides, and TV episodes (like from Ewoks or Droids) are canon. This is actually a treasure trove of nitpicking, since there seem to be dozens of explanations for how a hyperdrive actually works. :)
I do kind of question the possibility of getting a Nitpicker's Guide to Star Wars out there before the new movie comes out. Maybe it would be best to hold off for a year. Then again, maybe coming out with one now would work by feeding off the Star Wars interest build-up.
Anyway, I would suggest that you get the Guide to the Star Wars Universe. I got that for my girlfriend for Christmas and it is one of the most comprehensive guides to the Star Wars Universe. It could also help since it lists most of the Star Wars sources (including the 1979 Star Wars Christmas Special. That's about Chewbacca trying to make it home for Christmas, and I think it can be downloaded off the web.)
Jim Elek of Sterling Heights, MI: Finally, you ask a serious question about the Star Wars Universe and I have a serious answer. There are many approaches to this topic. An old version of the FAQ for the newsgroup rec.arts.sf.starwars also offers that "there is no defined canon." Another version of the FAQ states that Star Wars "is a legend, not a historical account of an actual story." Therefore inconsistencies and inaccuracies should simply be ignored. This is one school of thought. One that isn't conducive to nitpicking, eh?
Another school of thought is presented in the Guide to the Star Wars Universe. The author does not use the term "canon", but he does make a distinction between what information comes from Lucasfilm produced material and licensed material produced by other companies. Specifically he mentions that the movies, the scripts, the novelizations, and the radio dramas are "official." Unfortunately I do not own this book, otherwise I would present his exact wording. (If I see my friend who does own it, I'll send you an addendum.) There isn't a whole lot of territory for nitpicking here either. At least nothing that has not been covered elsewhere already.
The bottom line is that there is no "canon" in the Star Wars Universe. Unlike Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek, George Lucas has complete creative control over his creation and he likes it that way. He can incoporate or ignore anything and everything (including his own movies) as he sees fit into his future films. To the best of my knowledge, Lucas has never said anything about "canon" or what is "official" continuity. Personally, I doubt Lucas is concerned with "canon" and the baggage that goes with it. He is interested in presenting on film a good story in the most unique and entertaining way possible.
I suppose that the person to ask at Lucasfilm would be Steve Sansweet. I forget his official title, but he's a Lucasfilm PR guy and Lucas's anwer man. If he says it, then it's official.
On a personal note, I have read all of the Star Wars Bantam-Spectra novels and for a time kept up with the comics. I think that everyone involved has done a great job in maintaining continuity. Yes, there are several inconsistencies. However, when one considers the logistics of having several writers concurrently writing novels and stories that involve a central set of characters, but take place in different times, one cannot help but be amazed at how much consistency there actually is.
Dave Mattingly: I am sure that the canonical list includes the movies(well, duh), the Zahn Trilogy, Shadows of the Empire and the NPR Radio Plays. Not sure about the comics, though.
David Rodrigues: I recently had an idea for your next book. You sound really busy these days with your novels and all so I thought rather than writing a new book from scratch you should make a compilation book of all the things you have been sent or ideas youve had since the original books. This book could contain all past newsletters and columns from the webpage, letters sent to you, new nits etc. I belive it would benefit those without a computer and those without the time to regularly check the webpage. It could be on all Treks and the X-files. It could tie up any loose ends you may have had with the other books with the exception of DS9 which will most likely need its own book and Voyager if you ever cover will need its own also. Thanks for listening to my rambling,
Phil: I will take it under advisement!
Mark Allen: I have noticed a number of people ask for books on a variety of topics. Short of having you cloned to write them all , I was wondering why not get these people to contribute stuff, (after reading a few of your books they should have a rough idea of your style), and you just edit their final results.
Think of it as franchising out the writing of the book. As long as everyone who sends in something gets a credit in the end I'm sure most people wouldn't mind who the money goes to, as long as the book gets published.
Then again some people aren't as generous as I am.
Phil: I have discussed this possibility with my agent and there certainly are nitpickers out there who could do an able job (probably better than me) of writing Nitpickers Guides! At this point, though, this is a one-horse show because I'm pretty compulsive about stuff that has my name on it. As to the future? Who knows?
Okay, now back to Star Wars, the website that Murray mentioned contains a telling quote from STAR WARS Insider #23 . . .
Question: What's "gospel" and what isn't?
Answer: "Gospel," or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology.
As I see it, this is the crux of the matter. There is no question what the Lucas people consider canonical. They are--however--dancing on the line with respect to everything else. As I understand it, Lucas and his people knew that fans were clammoring to know more about the charaters and their fates. The novels et al were a way to build fan interest in the absence of the production of the prequels. And, obviously, it worked! So, it appears that the Lucas people are hesitant to say that the novels et al are absolutely not canonical because they know the fans have a lot invested in the novels and--wisely--they understand that they shouldn't aggravate their supporters (unlike some other sci-fi franchises that I might mention). This need to give the novels a wink and a nod shows up everywhere--not just in official statements. The official guides include information from novels. (Because if they didn't, there wouldn't be enough information for a book!) Extra information from the novels was included in the Special Editions. There are actions figures from Shadows of the Empire!
At this point, I'm inclined to take the tact that the Official Guides have taken. Recognize that the films, the radio plays, the scripts, and the novelizations of the movies are absolute but allow the novels et al to be quasi-canonical and deal with them as well. (Although, I do recognize that "quasi-canonical" is a bit of an oxymoron. Kind of like "quasi-pregnant.")
And, as several nitpickers have already guessed, if I would do a Guide on Star Wars, it would be slated for the Fall of 1999 to catch the wave that Lucas and his people will create for the release of the first prequel.
My question to you all is this: Does this make sense to you? If the creators have danced on the issue of canonicity and allowed the listing of novels et all in their official guide, can we dance the same line? I am continuing my research on this matter and I will let you know what I conclude. I have some books on order. Since I've never officially nitpicked a novel before are I need to give it a try and I have some other people to talk to but we'll see! One of my hesitations in this matter is that once the novels et al are included, there seems to be a ton of material to go through
Rene: This is just a rumor, based on the fact that there is an episode coming up that deals with Dax's next host, a man. But many sources say this storyline has nothing to do with the fact that Terry Farrell may not return next season...in other words, even if Terry leaves at the end of this season, this new Dax host will not be taking over.
Walter Czarniecki: In response to Chris Mark's statment about a new Dax, unless TPTB are keeping something surprising under wraps, Terry Farrell will be back for a possible season seven. There's been no official word on either her return or if there will be a season seven, but both are looking more likely with each passing day. (By the way, it's now been said by Rick Berman that the new IMAX film will feature Colm Meaney! That's interesting, since everyone was making a big stink over his rumored departure from DS9.)
Chris Marks: As to my comments on a new Dax, I got my information from the teletext advertising of a premium rate call line, which said "Dax new host to stop wedding", and some of the comments made in the previous nitpickers guide (16/1?). Of course, if Terry Farrell's signed up for season 7 since, then that makes everything a complete load of whatever. I'm just going on what I've seen.
Speaking of people leaving, I heard a rumour that Roxanna Dawson AND Garrett Wang are following Jennifer Lien off Voyager. Any truth?
Phil: Wouldn't tell ya, I usually let rumors fly until the facts land!
Gina Torgersen of LaCrosse FL: And Voyager is definitely an Intrepid-class ship
Phil: Thanks to Joshua Truax for sending this information along as well.
Christopher Pope: To quote from Larry Nemecek's TNG Companion, in its entry for "The Host": "[Marvin Rush] recalls that much of his effort went into helping Franc Luz and Jonathan Frakes establish a continuity for Odan--and into disguising McFadden's seven-month pregnancy. James Cleveland McFadden-Talbot, her first son, would be born over the hiatus on June 10 in Los Angeles." Elsewhere (p. 144), Nemecek notes that she learned of her pregnancy "only days" after shooting her own stunts for "Remember Me."
Aaron Nadler, New Cumberland, PA: In this week's "Ask The Chief" column, you mentioned at the end that you couldn't recall any episode where Gates McFadden was pregnant. In the "ST:TNG companion," by Larry Nemecek, the behind-the-scenes info states that the staff had a hard time hiding McFadden's 7-month pregnancy! Also, in his review of "Remember Me," Gates McFadden learned of her pregnancy right after this episode had finished filming. That means that Gates McFadden was pregnant during the following episodes: "Legacy", "Reunion", "Future Imperfect", "Final Mission" , "The Loss", "Data's Day", "The Wounded", "Devil's Due", "Clues", "First Contact", "Galaxy's Child", "Night Terrors","Identity Crisis", "Nth Degree", "Qpid", "The Drumhead", "Half a Life", "The Host", and presumably "The Mind's Eye", "In Theory", and "Redemption". That's a possible 21 TNG episodes with a pregnant McFadden!
Phil: Thanks to David Williams, Richie Vest, Paul Lalli, Rene Charbonneau Corey Hines, Murray Leeder, Urac Sigma, John Latchem, Walter Czarniecki, Joshua Truax, Philip McGachey, Scott Wasilewski, John Myers, Jody Timmins, Vicki Strzembosz, Scott McClenney, Todd Felton, Chris Marks, Shane Cathcart and Troy J. Martin for sending this information along as well!
I'm trying to remember if I ever knew this in the first place! At the time of the first NextGen guide I was so focused on "just the show" that I really couldn't care less about any of the reality surrounding it. I honestly don't think I ever knew McFadden was pregnant! Of course, once the NextGen came out I gradually became acquainted with fandom and started keeping my ears open for a bit more information. ;-)
Shane Cathcart: Also, you said Gillian Anderson is most noticable in "The Host" (Twilight Zone theme again), but what about "Acension", when she is lying on the table??? huh? huh?
Phil: Ah . . . but that wasn't real. It was all in [add echo] the mind of Mulder-der-der-der-der-der.
On to the questions . . .
Laurel Iverson, New London, MN: Has there ever been talk of you doing a Nitpickers TV special? It would be neat to have you talk about screw-ups, maybe interview some of the actors. I particularly think it would be cool to have you show scenes where you point out the boom in the background, the stagelight reflected in the window, an actor's odd facial expression, etc. Of course, I would imagine that such a thing would need Paramount's permission for the Trek stuff, and that doesn't sound likely. It's a nice thought though.
Phil: I would imagine getting the clips would be almost impossible. But, you never know!
Mike Cheyne: During the summer repeat season, will you bring back the summer movie nitpicking? I would really like to see your comments on "Tomorrow Never Dies".
Phil: I plan to!
Jonathan Klein of Bowling Green, OH: So Roxanne Dawson is pregnant? I wonder if they will try and cover it up the whole time, or if Tom (or maybe Tuvok... yeah there you go. Ponn Farr!) will become the proud parent of a new baby to carry on Voyager's mission after the rest of the crew croaks?
Phil: Given that Roxanne Dawson has already has her baby, I would imagine that the creators have decided to shoot around the pregnancy!
Don Ferguson of Queens, NY: Why are most races named after their homeworlds (ie. Romulans/romulas, bajorans/Bajor,cardasians/Cardasia,Telaxians/Telax Vulcans/well...Vulcan.) Yet Us Humans have a very strange origin...at least to another race, We are called Humans..yet our homeworld is "Earth"...earth orbits around the star "Sol" Our solar system is called the "Teren" system. Why all these different names? Cardasians come from Cardasia, Cardasia orbits around the star Cardasia, thus the planets Cardasia Prime, Cardasia II, III, ect.. and the star Cardasia I presume is in the Cardasian system...
I dont know what all this means... it just bugged me was all.. :)
Phil: I would imagine the creators do it just to make it easier for us to remember!
Steven Weiss: Could you please give me some info on any upcoming nitpickers Books. Is there an update to DS9 coming out, or a Voyager book soon?
Phil: We'll have to wait until DS9 completes its cycle before any kind of update can be done for that one. We're watching Voyger's ratings. I have plenty of material but it's not exactly a hot property! As mentioned above, I'm thinking about a Star Wars Guide.
Craig Mason: We saw Titanic today and thought it was an incredible fim. However we noticed a rather large nit in it.
In piloting ships and planes, port is left and starboard is right [when facing the front of the ship]. When the iceberg was first spotted the order was given as a turn to starboard. The helmsman spun the wheel left, to port. When the next order was given as a turn to port, the helmsman spun the wheel right, starboard. I can not understand how this error could have been made, when making the film. It was such a basic command.
James Cameron is such a perfectionist. How could this escape his scrutiny?
Perhaps the controls for the Titanic work in reverse of other ships?
Or did the bridge crew really screw up and Cameron documented this on film? This I'm having a hard time with since it was not explained in the film. Nor have I heard of this happenening before.
Even more confusing to me was the reverse engine order given in conjunction with the turns. Granted reversing engines would make them back awy from the threat. It makes sense, but not with the turns as ordered.
First order was a turn to starboard. Had they turned to starboard, and not port, they would have passed the berg on it's right. Assuming we passed it on the right, we next order was to reverse engines and turn to port. Fine. If the ship had actually reversed direction while turning to port (with the berg on the left) the front of the ship would back away from the berg.
The ship actually made an initial turn to port, passing the berg on the left. Then we reverse engines. The order then was to turn to port. The ship's helmsman turned the wheel to straboard. In theory they would back the front of the ship away from the berg according to their actions, but not by the orders given.
As shown in the film, though, Titanic had too much forward momentum to back away regardless of the turns. She hit anyways.
Since the ship actually turned to port in the film, to the left, the berg struck the right side of the ship. The second turn ordered was to port, yet they turned to starboard. So, if the first turn was incorrect, to port, so was the second subsequent turn to port resulting in actual starboard turn which turned them back into the berg.
So which orders were correct? And is this a nit or purely intentional?
Phil: Um . . . well, since I haven't seen the film yet--I know, I know . . . it's just that I've been busy--and I'm not really an authority on the historical events of the Titanic, I leave this to you fellow nitpickers!
Leeann Walker of San Diego, CA: Has Scully actually ever slept with someone on the show? I mean, really SLEPT, not like the little thing with Brother Andrew in "Genderbender," but REALLY. I was just wondering, since I'm a new viewer and all.
Phil: There was Ed Jurse in "Never Again" but we're not sure exactly what happened there. There was kissing and a fade to black and the next morning he was on the couch and she was on his bed, wearing her pants, wearing his shirt but--apparently--nothing else. Hmmm.
Ed Watson: OK, I have a completely silly question to ask you. As someone who has only read your books, and not met you in person, there is one thing that I can't pick up from the printed word. How do you pronounce your name? Emphasis on the first syllable? the second? "Far-und", as in near and far? or is it pronounced like "fair-and"? Just a curiosity I've had for a while. I told you it was silly.
Phil: I pretty much responding to everything! But the way I pronounce it is: Empahsis on the first syllable and more like "fair and cloudy" without the cloudy!
Charles Cabe: In TV Guide, The actor who plays Cancer Man (CSM) said the charater was called Johnson in one episode. It has been driving me nuts trying to figure out which episode it was. I think it was "Musings of a Cigarette Smoking Man", but I'm not sure. Please, help me!:)
Phil:: Hmmmm. I must have missed that. Anybody? Robert Donahou: I have just a couple of Questions 1. Why is there not a more advanced ship in the UFP fleet against the Dominion? They could at least have more Defiant class vessals or even one of the Soveriegn class vessels (if there is one)they are taking the time to develop a new vessal (Promethius)why not use the advanced ones they have? 2. Does the Defiant have an A in its regestry number because I believe that there was mention of a constitution class vessal named Defiant?
Phil: Only the eggheads at Starfleet command know why there aren't more Defiant-class ships! As to its registry, I believe that the letter designations are reserved for noble ships like the Enterprise. All the rest get new registry numbers even if the names have been used before. (Unless of course, it's the first appearance of the Yamato which had an "E"--I think--in its registry until the creators changed it!)
Wells P. Martin: Have you ( you probably have, spoil-sport ) noticed the very jaunty "dig these ears" way the Vulcan flips back the hood of his garb in First Contact ?
Phil: Haven't and didn't! I'll watch for it next time I see the movie.
Shane Cathcart: I'm not sure if people in the USA can help me with this one, but I'm appealing to anyone who has been to a convention where Tim Russ was a guest.
In Sydney last March, he was at a convention where he did a rendition of the Gilligan's Island theme song, but the lyrics were a send-up of sorts for Voyager. I would really really love anybody who wrote the lyrics down and if anybody can post them.
Phil: Haven't heard it! Sounds like fun. Anybody know?
Edward J: I'm probably in the wrong place to ask this, but I've been looking for years for the fan written stories: "A Visit to a Weird Planet" and "A Visit to a Weird Planet Revisited"...one is where Kirk ends up filming Star Trek and one is where Shatner ends up on the Enterprise.
Phil: I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but I have no idea. Anybody?
Corey Hines, Hamilton, ON: This is a nit that must be submitted. I saw a major nit on ER last nit. One of the premises of the episode was that it was snowing heavily and patients weren't coming in because of 3 feet's worth of snow. Near the end of the episode, from a train platform we see the street and not one flake of snow was on it. It wasn't even wwet. Now this is the major point I need to make. ER is the highest rated drama on television today and spend millions of dollars an episode and I wouldn't think they would let something this blantant.
Phil: Well, they probably thought no one would notice! ;-)
Have a great weekend, everybody!
If you would like to submit a question or comment, send it to: chief@nitcentral.com with "Ask the Chief" or "Question" in the Subject line. (Remember the legalese: Everything you submit becomes mine and you grant me the right to use your name in any future publication by me.)
Copyright 1998 by Phil Farrand. All rights reserved.