Originally Posted by Saquist
Indeed. The bible canon is made of 66 books written by 40 different individuals. The concept is to remove any book that does not agree or follow the pattern of monotheism set by Abraham.
Star Trek does not do anything of the sort. There are numerous articles of information that are constantly in contradiction with each other and according to Paramount all that is need is for it to be on screen to be considered "canon", but it's not, nor is it consistent. It's a contradiction of epic proportion vs the word canon. What they really mean is that it's all the History of Trek and it doesn't matter when it does contradict because it wasn't meant to all be seamless. As I said on another thread, Precision and Tolerance is always a function of design.
Broken? I don't think he has. By labeling it a "reimagining" he's made sure he has a bit of artistic license and that was why he said it so we wouldn't be shocked by his creation. I may not completely like the look but I likely will like the movie.
The remakes that have happened in the past I felt were pretty good.
"Planet of the Apes" that's a movie I'll watch again.
"Lost in Space" was actualy smart...creative and colorful. I like heather graham and the friends guys in the movie...it was great and hot.
Ehm, biblical canon is more about what a certain church approves or not. There are quite some apocryphical gospels and they are probably closer to Jesus's story than the Gospel of John. Not that I wanna start a discussion about that, I only wanna emphasize that some powers that be label scertain stuff canonical and other apocryphical. You also get something similar with literature like Shakespeare concerning plays where the authorship is ambiguous.
But back to the topic, we talk indeed most of the times about continuity and not canon, as canon is just what is on the screen (a little bit easier in Trek than with the Bible or the Bard
I wonder though why everyone puts JJA et al into the "they give a damn about Trek" category as a) Lindelof and Orci are fans and b) they all probably talked more about changes they made than Nick Meyer and his staff. So please, let's not exaggerate things. I also wonder why everyone nitpicks about stuff like the look of a ship or whether Kirk can drive a car or not or even whether someone's eye colours match the oens of the original actors.
What about talking about the real things and not the tiny details that might happen in this movie, story and characters. Like eg will Pike be Kirk's mentor like the trailer suggested? Will Kirk listen to Spock or are disagree they for the most time? And then most important: does this work, is this a good story and not, was there any single line in 550h of previous Trek that contradicts anything that is said or done in this movie. That would imply that Paramount should hire a staff of people who carefully observe any new Trek production and compare it with the other 500h, costs are now easy to calculate. The more Trek there is, the more these folks would have to do any finally, there would be no more Trek. I hope this ltitle exaggeration demonstrates what is important about a movie and what not.