GuyFleegman

I think it's broadcasting "join our webring and sign our guestbook!"

Don’t forget /c/Risa! We’re here too! And we have Jamaharon!

What about Paramount+ is worse than all the other streaming services? Aren't they all hoovering up data about our watch habits? Isn't that the point?

If you don't want to stream it and you don't want to buy it outright, I don't know why you're asking us to tell you what the only remaining option is, matey.

Ah. Tuvix was a person, EvilKirk was not?

To point one, yep, fair. I've unceremoniously dropped "The Enemy Within" into a context it was never intended to be examined from.

To point two, I agree that Janeway was both the source and the termination of Tuvix' personhood, but I don't see the relevancy. What bearing does Tuvix's personhood have on how we describe Janeway's actions, or the discussion about whether those actions were justified?

That is true and to @ValueSubtracted's point, speaks to the fundamental difference between the morality tale that each episode is setting up for our consideration. "The Enemy Within" aims to make the viewer uncomfortable by suggesting that Kirk's decisiveness is derived from his "evil" half and isn't offering any commentary on the personhood of the "evil" half. So much so that they short circuit that possibility by slapping an expiration date on EvilKirk.

Best I can give you is that it's still technically murder if you kill a condemned man.

Janeway’s decision was far from arbitrary. She did it to save the lives of Tuvok and Neelix, who were unable to advocate for themselves at the time.

I for one would like to see a deeper V

I liked Wesley in "A Quality of Mercy" but hot damn, he nailed it here. He is easy to recognize as Kirk and yet is borrowing very little from Shatner's performance. Wesley has managed to "echo" Kirk in a way that Peck and Gooding haven't quite dialed in yet for their characters.

It's funny—given that in both appearances he has depicted an "alternate" Kirk, he's had some built-in leeway to miss the mark and still be credible. He doesn't need it. This man can play Kirk.

It depends on whether or not you think the act of distributing is part of the commonly understood definition of canon.

The definition most reasonable Trek fans operate on is "the shows and movies made by the rights holders," although most aren't aware they've internalized that second part because nobody wants to admit they spend any amount of time caring about "the rights." (Ask them if they think Continues or New Voyages is canon and you'll cut to the heart of that matter real quick.) That latent "rights holders" qualification isn't there out of any particular deference to Paramount, it just gives us a convenient and durable boundary that a huge, varied, and global fanbase can largely agree on. Paramount decides what Star Trek to produce, but that decision results in canon Star Trek because it's a simple enough boundary for Trekkies to collectively accept without much friction.

Point being, Paramount is part of the definition but Paramount is not the source of authority for the definition. The fans are. This is an important distinction if you want to investigate whether or not this ugly Prodigy business has altered or clarified the definition of canon.

This act of cancelling and archiving is uncharted territory, yes. Assuming you agree with my earlier definition, it comes down to whether or not you think there are more qualifiers hiding after the word "made." Something like "made, released, and currently being distributed," which is an interesting set of qualifiers to add because it would decanonize pre-remaster TOS.

Personally, I think that's too much control over the definition to hand to Paramount. We care about "made" because it's the most minimal way to establish this "rights holders" boundary. I think we could have a reasonable debate over whether or not "released" is already part of the intuitively understood definition (i.e. "are deleted scenes canon?") but I would wager most Trekkies will agree that "currently being distributed" is not part of the intuitively understood definition.

So, yes. Prodigy is still canon.

Canon Trek is rife with contradictions. The rest of your comment is a healthy approach to thinking about canon, though.