View Single Post
  #29  
Old 12-03-2008, 10:43 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoore View Post
Pssst . . . did you catch the lines from Scrubs and Friends? And the pic? Dude, I worked hard on that post.
I thought that sounded familar...I was sure that wasn't a picture from the movie...

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
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 )
Yes that's true that it can be interpretive what is canon but there is a core canon to all bibles. Modern acceptance of some books does occur but there is a past consistencey that is taken account for.


Quote:
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.
It's not about the nitpick but a sign is a sign is a sign and this sign is written on a Dyson Sphere. That sign says.."Images in movie are more exaggerated than ever"

My campaign here is to get people to drop this canon issue. This movie just isn't shackeled by that prerequisite. It's just not. The difference between them is obvious and real.

Quote:
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?
But that's not important.
The story and characters are more important than character relationships which are always in flux and there is no particular moment we can address or point that would actually prove a contradiction.

Quote:
Will Kirk listen to Spock or are disagree they for the most time? And then most important:
Again: Relationship are fluid. It doesn't matter. One year Spock and Kirk could be enemies the next year friends.

Quote:
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.
As much as I would love Paramount watching the p's and Q's on Star Trek. Is not realistic. What they need is to sink just a bit of money into a data base.I have one for the bible. I can easily cross refrence any word verys thousands of scriptures, authors and historians and archaeologist.
Touch of the button kind of stuff. They need that.
__________________

Reply With Quote