What is your canon? and a little game.
With all this heated rhetoric being blasted about the forum concerning canon and it's adherence to, or lack thereof in the new Trek film it has become quite clear that canon means wildly different things to many people.
At one extreme there are people content with any change that occurs to Star Trek, as long as the words Star Trek are put before it. At the other end there are those who would burn the film reels because the buttons on Kirk's command chair are on the left armrest instead of the right.
Then there are all the rest of us, occupying some nebulous final frontier in the middle. So my question is, what is canon for you?
I will go first,
For me everything is about the continuity and believability of the vast star trek story line that has been built over the last 40 years. I don't care about visual set elements, modernization of the bridge, a remodeling of the Big E, or what have you. All these things are acceptable, as long as both the general concepts and details of Trek's story lines and character backrounds are respected.
I will in fact accept any change that is either explained to me within the context of the Star Trek universe, or can be easily rationalized with a plausible in universe explanation.
In fact I find it exceedingly fun to rationalize and concoct in universe explanations for Trek canon foibles of the past.
Why did Khan recognize Chekov in Trek II when he wasn't in the cast until season two, at which point Khan was already on Ceti Alpha Five? Quite simple really, like Sulu, Chekov had been on the ship for a long time, but wasn't promoted to his bridge station until season two.
Or, Why is Zephram Cochrane from First Contact so different from the Cochrane seen in TOS?, Well, The companion is obviously an energy entity of great power, when she first encountered Cochrane he was old and in poor health, as in First Contact, because she felt a desire to protect and nurture this creature she used her formidable power to revitalize Cochrane into a younger more virile form.
This brings me to the second part of my post. I would like for Trek fans who enjoy ironing out Trek plot inconsistencies in the same way I do to have a little fun and try to rationalize the three "canon problems" seen in the trailer, either in a humorous or serious way..
For example...Kirk couldn't drive a car in "a piece of the action", because moments before a vast anvil was dropped on his head, posibly by Data who was once again flitting around time and playing with anvils, this caused Kirk temporary amnesia, and he forgot that he knew how to drive.
The three main inconsistencies I'd like to "work around" are
A. Kirk meeting and fighting the Romulans in his academy days when he hadn't even seen them until many years later in "Balance of Terror"
B. Kirk meeting Pike when he was promoted to fleet captain and Spock serving under Pike for 11 years before Kirk took over the Enterprise, when both Kirk and Spock were assigned to the Enterprise as cadets under Pike. (as per the new film)
C. Kirk forgetting how to drive a car in the years between his childhood in Iowa and the episode "a piece of the action"
Have fun everyone, and be creative, I look forward to your many canons and many "fixes"
Mom, how many times do I have to tell you, Track is what athletes run on. Trek is what the Enterprise goes on.
Last edited by radoskal : 11-27-2008 at 03:55 PM.