The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The last ride of the Canonistas. (An ode to lost canon)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 11-24-2008, 07:47 AM
brobertsumc brobertsumc is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So I can only assume that you didn't read even the first explanation. One ship has to warm up 30 minutes. After the entire drive system is replaced, you think it still must be started up the same way or it means a previous, entirely different drive system didn't need to? Just one example, but the impression I'm getting now is that you're desperately clinging to this rationalization for Abrams' ditching of a lot of canon detail by claiming inconsistencies that either didn't exist at all or were fine print.
Did they replace the laws of physics too? When Kirk asked Scotty if there was any other way to start the engines sooner, he said "I canna change the laws of physicis." The basic physics of the engines are the same.

A better explanation might be that the engines were never truly shut down, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to leave a badly damaged ship with badly damaged engines in any sort of powered up state while sitting in starbase when it's not supposed to be going anywhere anytime soon.

At any rate, the examples I listed were the tip of the iceberg (here's another, why didn't the universal translator allow Kirk and co. to communicate with the probe in ST IV??? Because there would have been no plot if it had). Trying to make any two-hour ST movie with a well-developed plot line fit with canon is like trying to play fizzbin on Tuesday when it's dark. It' can't be done. At least not without post-hoc rationalization (and no, you can't even explain every difference in the movie either, or there would be no time for anything else).

As for Chekov's appearing on the Enterprise, has anyone else noticed that Capt. Pike (Bruce Greenwood) appears much older than he did in the Cage/Menagerie? I propose that the destruction of the Kelvin led to the construction of the Enterprise being delayed a considerable amount of time (hence the more advanced ship). Pike was much older when he took command of the Enterprise (at about the same time that he would have been leaving command in the pre-Nero timeline). I think that the whole point of this movie is that the timeline is severly jumbled, but eventually the pieces start coming back into place (albeit not perfectly, events are delayed and don't happen in exactly the same way, but they do happen). Even New Voyages has experimented with such an idea, and they are rigidly devoted to canon to the greatest extent possible.

Last edited by brobertsumc : 11-24-2008 at 07:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 11-24-2008, 08:04 AM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So I can only assume that you didn't read even the first explanation. One ship has to warm up 30 minutes. After the entire drive system is replaced, you think it still must be started up the same way or it means a previous, entirely different drive system didn't need to?
I don't think you're missing my point; but I do believe you are ignoring it. Yes, it's entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that a newer version of the drive would not take as long to "warm up". It is entirely possible that the Admiral may have forgotten or been misinformed as to the age of the Enterprise, and that another officer in an episode of TNG was simply incorrect when he referred to the Constitution-class Enterprise as "the first one". These excuses work because they are plausible.

But again, that is not my point. When the writers decided that the movie Enterprise was able to warp immediately from a cold-start, they weren't thinking that it was an instance of new technology - if they were, they would've provided exposition explaining that the new engines had this advantage over the "old" ones (in the same vein as the explanation that "the new phasers route power through the engines). They'd probably simply forgotten that in TOS, one episode mentioned that it took a significant amount of time to get the engines prepped for warp. The new ship was made to warp immediately, and the rationalization was only necessary AFTER somebody at some point watched the movie soon after or before watching the TOS episode, and noticed that there was a discrepancy. Thus, the "well, it's a newer engine, which doesn't need to take as long" reasoning was put in place AFTER THE FACT to address the newfound discrepancy.

Likewise, at the time of the officer's mistaken reckoning of the Enterprise's age, the writers (as you said) "did not do their homework". They did not intentionally make the admiral mistaken - he was supposed to be accurate. AFTERWARDS, the mistake was discovered, and rather than simply accept that the producers goofed, fans - like you just did - created an in-universe reason for the mistake: he was simply wrong, or misinformed. Sure, it's a plausible explanation...but it was not an intentionally-written fact, it's a post-hoc contrivance.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 11-24-2008, 10:42 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brobertsumc View Post
Good post. What's even more self-evident is that, if anything, fixing canon is EASIER with respect to this movie, compared to all of the post-hoc rationalizations that people have had to shoehorn onto canon in the other examples.

The destruction of the USS Kelvin (which wasn't supposed to happen) screwed up the sequence of events. Spock Prime does his best to restore things to their previous course (plus I predict that there is going to be a nice subtext that Kirk's destiny is to command the Enterprise, and therefore Nero's attempt to screw with the timeline somehow always result in James T. Kirk in the captain's chair of NCC-1701), but perfect continuity of every minor detail cannot be recovered. See how easy that was everyone?
Very interesting way to look at it, Brobert. And it would suggest that while variations may occur, like ST IV it's impossible to drastically alter the timeline. As you say, Kirk ends up in the captain's chair regardless of the interference -- how he gets there may vary in the details, but the 'destiny' part of the path barrels forward undiverted.

While not exactly the 'closed loop' example of time travel in IV, it's consistent with the general philosophy.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 11-24-2008, 07:47 PM
brobertsumc brobertsumc is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 132
Default

Thanks.

If I were a betting man, I would say that the hardcore canonistas should probably look to the pre-movie comics for most of the developments that will reconcile this movie to canon/fanon (or should I say, explain the reason why some of the canon/fanon no longer applies in the context of the movie). The comics present an opportunity to satisfy those who are more insistent on canon without bogging down the movie and turning off the larger audience that JJ seeks to bring to the movie.

When you think about it, it's a very clever way to try to satisfy canon-hawks while still putting a greater number of butts in seats.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:07 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.