The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Canon Debate - Does it exist & is Canon important to you?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 01-11-2009, 02:06 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
I think the problem I have with that view is that it's extremely oversimplistic. A toaster is the same basic shape as a delivery truck, when you get all lackadaisical about it. Don't expect to see me trying to load my furniture into the toaster when moving day rolls around.
No-one is anymore.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 01-11-2009, 02:07 AM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDH-313 View Post
The reference to Kirk not knowing how to drive a car is, I believe, from "A Piece of the Action." I agree with you on this point because the car in question in that episode was an alien reproduction of a vehicle from the 1920s. Probably had the clutch on the wrong side, gears arranged differently, who knows; it wasn't even a real Earth car. I, too, think his inability to properly operate this particular car in no way means he was unable to drive any car.
You know...that's a REALLY GOOD POINT!
I can drive, but I don't know how to drive a car with a manual tranny.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 01-11-2009, 02:23 AM
Observer's Avatar
Observer Observer is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
I think the problem I have with that view is that it's extremely oversimplistic. A toaster is the same basic shape as a delivery truck, when you get all lackadaisical about it. Don't expect to see me trying to load my furniture into the toaster when moving day rolls around.
Somehow, I don't think anyone is ever going to mistake a toaster for a Mack truck. Something to do with wheels and size, I suspect.

As for being lackadaisical, that implies a lack of caring, which is certainly not the case. Perhaps I'm just a little more flexible in my views than some others.

The point I was trying to convey is that I tend to take a "Big Picture" view of continuity where Trek is concerned. I'm not going to get worked up about a tricorder having blue buttons instead of red, the warp nacelles being slightly tapered or Kirk either knowing or not knowing how to drive. The crew names are correct, the Ship looks about right, the technology is at the same level, and the history is mostly right. That's good enough for me.
__________________
Q - "I'm mortal! What must I do to convince you?"

Worf - "Die."

Last edited by Observer : 01-11-2009 at 02:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 01-11-2009, 05:34 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 mjcrawford View Post
I get a bit tired of the nit-picky cannonites out there trying to get all worked up over something silly like Kirk driving a stick shift. Or that the bridge of the E is different looking. Yet these same people have no problem with ignoring the fact that in the movies from trek 2 to 6 the bridge was different in each film.

Once again, for the three millionth time, the bridge of the Enterprise in Star Trek TMP through ST-VI:TUC were different because those movies followed a FORWARD PROGRESSION OF TIME AND TECHNLOGY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This movie takes place BEFORE TOS but apparently after Pike. So, from the episode "The Menagerie" we know what Pike's Enterprise and its bridge looked like. And from all 79 episodes of TOS, we know what Kirk's Enterprise and its bridge looked like. Therefore, it would be logical to expect that the Enterprise and its bridge in this new movie should at least bear some resemblance to what we know and have seen on screen. As for Kirk driving a car? Insignificant next to the radical changes to the bridge and the Big E.

Or that Troy said in trek 9 that she had never kissed Riker with a beard even though she had about 6 times in TNG.

Again, compared to biger issues, this is also insignificant.

To me the real spirit of trek was lost in the TNG cannon obsessed techno-babble world and I look forward to a renewing of the HUMAN adventure in Trek in which not everyone agrees all the time and to fix a problem you need to do more than run a level 3 diagnostic.

I do not give a rat’s A** about cannon, I care about the spirit of TOS coming back in a big way.
If they were not going to respect the history and continuity of TOS, why even revisit that era and those characters?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Somehow, I don't think anyone is ever going to mistake a toaster for a Mack truck. Something to do with wheels and size, I suspect.

As for being lackadaisical, that implies a lack of caring, which is certainly not the case. Perhaps I'm just a little more flexible in my views than some others.

The point I was trying to convey is that I tend to take a "Big Picture" view of continuity where Trek is concerned. I'm not going to get worked up about a tricorder having blue buttons instead of red, the warp nacelles being slightly tapered or Kirk either knowing or not knowing how to drive. The crew names are correct, the Ship looks about right, the technology is at the same level, and the history is mostly right. That's good enough for me.
Warp nacelles being slightly tapered? The original Jeffries design had slightly tapered nacelles. The Abramsprise has severely, grossly, freakishly tapered nacelles. They're huge at the front and pointy at the rear. And the ship does not look "about right". It looks totally wrong. The saucer is enormous, the secondary hull is tiny and looks like a squeezed tube of toothpaste, the dorsal connector is upside down and too far back on the secondary hull, and there are the afore mentioned freaky looking nacelles. The Abramsprise is a big, honkin', steaming pile of FUGLY!!!! And from what I've seen in the trailer and pictures, the technology looks quite a bit more advanced than anything we saw in TOS, movies, or even TNG. So the technology is definitely not on the same level as TOS, which it is supposed to represent. And, again, from what has been revealed thus far, the history is not mostly right either. Kirk, Pike, and the entire TOS crew on the bridge of the Enterprise at the same time????? Chekov an officer while Kirk, who is about 12 years his senior, is still a cadet????? Enterprise being built on earth?????? Starfleet encountering Romulans before "Balance of Terror"??? I could go on and on. But I digress..... It is pointless to argue about it now. The movie is done and there is nothing I can do about it. So I guess I'll just have to go see it and judge for myself if JJ actually "respected" canon or not. I am leaning toward "NOT". Apparently, only the names are the same. That's definitely not good enough for me.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 01-11-2009, 06:05 AM
Observer's Avatar
Observer Observer is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 289
Default

Zim,

This is not an attemot to stop you putting your point of view across, but once again, you are trying to ram your own opinions down everyone's throats, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You must realise that there are always differing viewpoints, and people may not always agree with you. In fact, If you can't submit an argument without resorting to shouting at those who disagree with you then I think we'd all just as soon you didn't post anything at all. We all know you don't like the new Enterprise, but petulantly throwing a tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you is not the way to put your point across.

By the way, what exactly is an Abramsprise?
__________________
Q - "I'm mortal! What must I do to convince you?"

Worf - "Die."
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 01-11-2009, 06:53 AM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Zim,

This is not an attemot to stop you putting your point of view across, but once again, you are trying to ram your own opinions down everyone's throats, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You must realise that there are always differing viewpoints, and people may not always agree with you. In fact, If you can't submit an argument without resorting to shouting at those who disagree with you then I think we'd all just as soon you didn't post anything at all. We all know you don't like the new Enterprise, but petulantly throwing a tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you is not the way to put your point across.

By the way, what exactly is an Abramsprise?
Hear, Hear!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 01-11-2009, 06:58 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 Observer View Post

By the way, what exactly is an Abramsprise?
An "Abramsprise" is a caracature of the original Enterprise with overly exaggerated and ludricously hideous features designed by Ryan Church and is being used in the upcoming film "Star Trek" by J.J. Abrams. Hence the name "Abrams-Prise". I am simply unable to call that abomination the "Enterprise" because I know what Kirk's and Pike's Enterprises looked like. I saw Pike's Enterprise in "The Cage" and "The Menagerie" and I saw Kirk's Enterprise in every episode of TOS. And the Abramsprise ain't it.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:04 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=Observer;138904]Zim,

This is not an attemot to stop you putting your point of view across, but once again, you are trying to ram your own opinions down everyone's throats, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You must realise that there are always differing viewpoints, and people may not always agree with you. In fact, If you can't submit an argument without resorting to shouting at those who disagree with you then I think we'd all just as soon you didn't post anything at all. We all know you don't like the new Enterprise, but petulantly throwing a tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you is not the way to put your point across.

quote]

I do appologize for yelling? But it gripes me when somebody mentions the different bridges in the movies and compares that to the new bridge in the new movie. I never saw an Apple store bridge in any episode of TOS. This movie is supposed to represent past. Before the events of TOS. But apparently during Pike's tour of duty on the Enterprise. Again, we already know what the Enterprise looked like then. Why change it so radically. Why not stay a little closer to the original? And I'm not shoving my opinions down anyone's throat any more than anyone else is trying to shove theirs down mine. I'm told to shut up and to get over it and that the old Enterprise is dead and that I should get a life. So get over it if it irks me. I can express my opinion just as much as anyone else. And I don't curse or call anyone names, as I have been cursed at and called names here in the past. So I will continue to express my opinion. If you don't like it. Don't read it.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:31 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Observer View Post
Zim,

This is not an attemot to stop you putting your point of view across, but once again, you are trying to ram your own opinions down everyone's throats, and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. You must realise that there are always differing viewpoints, and people may not always agree with you. In fact, If you can't submit an argument without resorting to shouting at those who disagree with you then I think we'd all just as soon you didn't post anything at all. We all know you don't like the new Enterprise, but petulantly throwing a tantrum at anyone who disagrees with you is not the way to put your point across.
I do appologize for yelling? But it gripes me when somebody mentions the different bridges in the movies and compares that to the new bridge in the new movie. I never saw an Apple store bridge in any episode of TOS. This movie is supposed to represent past. Before the events of TOS. But apparently during Pike's tour of duty on the Enterprise. Again, we already know what the Enterprise looked like then. Why change it so radically. Why not stay a little closer to the original? And I'm not shoving my opinions down anyone's throat any more than anyone else is trying to shove theirs down mine. I'm told to shut up and to get over it and that the old Enterprise is dead and that I should get a life. So get over it if it irks me. I can express my opinion just as much as anyone else. And I don't curse or call anyone names, as I have been cursed at and called names here in the past. So I will continue to express my opinion. If you don't like it. Don't read it.
The yellow text is, IMO, a bit on the obnoxious side and hard to ignore.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:44 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Works for me.
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 03:14 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.