The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Loose "canon", tie it down!
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-03-2008, 04:41 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
Are we in bible times....canonites? Really? Are we actually calling them that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by radoskal View Post
I believe that is the general consensus.. though I don't like the term myself.
Honestly, I never cared for the word "canon" used to describe a fictional universe. As a Christian, I prefer the word "consistency" or "Continuity". Canon has traditionally been used to describe events set forth in the Bible. Star Trek is not a religion. It is a TV show that has an imense following and 40 years of televised history. So "canon" is not an appropriate term in this case. I am an advocate of consistency. And so far, what I have seen and read concerning this latest iteration of Trek shows that JJ may be disregarding established Star Trek continuity in favor of a BSG-style re-inmagining of the franchise. I don't like that idea, but there's nothing I can do about it. Just my two cents.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-03-2008, 04:54 AM
williamLX's Avatar
williamLX williamLX is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 312
Default

I agree I don't like talk of canon, but there again certain individuals who attack the new film because it breaks 'canon' do behave and speak rather like people who are very zealously religious.

I do not mind that JJ has broken this 'canon' to some extent, but I admit that for example in deciding to use TOS style uniforms I would have preferred him to use TOS style uniforms not modified versions. In other words I appreciate that the bridge set from the 1960s was never going to work on a 2009 film, but the same can not be said about uniforms. I do worry slightly that Star Trek could end up like the truely terrible remake of Planet of the Apes.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-03-2008, 05:27 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Honestly, I never cared for the word "canon" used to describe a fictional universe. As a Christian, I prefer the word "consistency" or "Continuity". Canon has traditionally been used to describe events set forth in the Bible. Star Trek is not a religion. It is a TV show that has an imense following and 40 years of televised history. So "canon" is not an appropriate term in this case. I am an advocate of consistency. And so far, what I have seen and read concerning this latest iteration of Trek shows that JJ may be disregarding established Star Trek continuity in favor of a BSG-style re-inmagining of the franchise. I don't like that idea, but there's nothing I can do about it. Just my two cents.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by williamLX View Post
I agree I don't like talk of canon, but there again certain individuals who attack the new film because it breaks 'canon' do behave and speak rather like people who are very zealously religious.

I do not mind that JJ has broken this 'canon' to some extent, but I admit that for example in deciding to use TOS style uniforms I would have preferred him to use TOS style uniforms not modified versions. In other words I appreciate that the bridge set from the 1960s was never going to work on a 2009 film, but the same can not be said about uniforms. I do worry slightly that Star Trek could end up like the truely terrible remake of Planet of the Apes.
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.
__________________


Last edited by Saquist : 12-03-2008 at 05:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-03-2008, 06:26 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
I like heather graham and the friends guys in the movie
Yeah, Heather and the Joey guy were inspiring.

Heather: (singing) Oh chicken salad, you're chicken and you're good . . .
Joey: How you doin'? (noticing sandwich) Hey, that's a good lookin' sandwich. You gonna eat that?

__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-03-2008, 08:59 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

That's why actors hate long roles because they get type cast.
There acting was excellent. That's all that matters to me.
The story was riveting...I really don't spend my time ripping celebrities like TMZ for the roles they play... (not including PEE-WEE Herman) because it's just a job (or Tom Cruise in Legend) and often they go on to be bigger and better than those roles if stage and film will give them a chance.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:05 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
That's why actors hate long roles because they get type cast.
There acting was excellent. That's all that matters to me.
The story was riveting...I really don't spend my time ripping celebrities like TMZ for the roles they play... (not including PEE-WEE Herman) because it's just a job (or Tom Cruise in Legend) and often they go on to be bigger and better than those roles if stage and film will give them a chance.
Pssst . . . did you catch the lines from Scrubs and Friends? And the pic? Dude, I worked hard on that post.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-03-2008, 09:29 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saquist View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-03-2008, 10:38 AM
Bright Eyes's Avatar
Bright Eyes Bright Eyes is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 262
Default

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.
Ehm, no, it's not, actually. Biblical canon is quite above board and is not the result of manipulation by evil doers out to deceive the gullible, despite what Dan Brown maintains. I can say this because it's a subject I had to give a series of talks about a few years ago, and I researched the history quite well and familiarized myself with the gospel of Thomas and other pseudographica. But, like you, I also don't want to deflect this thread into this area and I would like to let the matter rest, but I couldn't let the comment pass without replying to it.
__________________
_________________________________
If you are too open minded your brains will fall out.





Reply With Quote
  #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
  #30  
Old 12-03-2008, 11:14 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bright Eyes View Post
Ehm, no, it's not, actually. Biblical canon is quite above board and is not the result of manipulation by evil doers out to deceive the gullible, despite what Dan Brown maintains. I can say this because it's a subject I had to give a series of talks about a few years ago, and I researched the history quite well and familiarized myself with the gospel of Thomas and other pseudographica. But, like you, I also don't want to deflect this thread into this area and I would like to let the matter rest, but I couldn't let the comment pass without replying to it.
I did not want to suggest any conspiracy, just make the point that some writtings like the Gospel of John are cannonical although many people believe that 'I am the light of the world' and similar stuff are rather the words of the first followers than actual words of Jesus himself.
As you know apocryphical gospels, I take you word that they are not cannonical for a good reason, but clearly cannonical books like the Gospel of John are problematic or can be considered less important or accurate by readers, while churches stick with it.

Most things are a matter of perspective, and so is the canon of Trek, or rather the offical canon vs. what everyone considers quintessential Trek. For me this transcends matters like ship design or whether Kirk serves with Pike or not. Why did TVH work, without the Enterprise and pretty much without the 23rd century? The answer to that is one element of what is essential to Trek for me, but everyone has different opinions.
But as long as we don't realize that, we will continue to act like little children who start crying because they don't get the lolly they want.

Last edited by horatio : 12-03-2008 at 11:20 AM.
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 03:38 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.