The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > General Star Trek Discussions > Canon-Important? Not Important? or ????
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-24-2008, 11:22 AM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Perhaps more than Canon... Trek information needs to be classed according to how important it is to the structure of Trek... I mean that Captain Kirk's quarters were on deck five is canon but if the new movie had them on deck four then I don't think we would see a riot. On the other hand while DC Fontana once said that Spock was an only child, it was never made canon but it WAS accepted as basic knowledge prior to ST V... This is the kind of detail that fans are going to demand a VERY GOOD explanation if you violate it. Shatner TRIED to get around it and came up with Sybok but many of us don't see the character, situation, or film compelling enough to have circumvented Fontana's statement.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-24-2008, 11:38 AM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

Also, keep in mind in the TOS the writers, producers, and Gene himself had no idea what would lay ahead for Star Trek. The show even aired out of production order, that is why the stardates do not match up right.

lol, Gene really could not even explain what a stardate was, it was the fans of the series that determined that for the creators.

But the word "canon" does get abused a lot by the fans.

People can not get upset when in the TNG series Data's emotion chip was itty bitty, and in Generations it was larger. People have to understand that a TV show has a different scale than a movie does. It is not like they changed what the chip was, he still had one.

As Liz said, their also just plan laziness from the writers. TNG and VOY had some lazy writers at times. Like when 7of9's parents were studying the Borg? How is that? They were in a Star fleet ship, with Star fleet tools to study with. Which means someone at Star fleet had to allow them to take the ship to go study the Borg. And when they did not return, why did no one go look for them, and then stumble upon the Borg? That was lazy.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-24-2008, 12:06 PM
Damage75's Avatar
Damage75 Damage75 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,593
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrQ1701 View Post
Either way I think they are small mistakes and should not be worthy of too much debate.
Yes, and I'll expand on this below.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zardoz View Post
This came from the fact he got left out by Paramount after TMP. he was the one who leaked Spock's death to the public during TWOK filming. Actually he never owned any rights to Trek. He had the oppertunity in the mid-70's to buy them for $100,000, but chose not to. It was "Sour grapes" on GR's part.

GR was just a figurehead, a promo tool for the trek films.

Paramount owns Trek. GR, not his family have no claim upon it. I guess Paramount and whomever it decides, gets to choose canon.
Thanks for the info!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
I think that by now, this assessment is likely most accurate:

1) Canon was never clearly defined from the start, since even GR changed his mind or contradicted himself. If "hard canon" was a fluid concept at best, even within the mind which had the vision of this fictional universe, then expecting canon to become more clearly defined as decades and story variations roll out is not entirely logical, as it were.

2) Pretty much every fan will have their own standards and preferences for what is canon and what isn't, and that subjectivity is also not going to be 'unified' into objectivity with a restart of the film franchise.
Quote:
In short, STAR TREK canon will only get deeper and more complex with new stories arriving. The day such complications and debates die will be the day TREK dies, and likely no one here wants that.
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir num nums View Post
Also, keep in mind in the TOS the writers, producers, and Gene himself had no idea what would lay ahead for Star Trek. The show even aired out of production order, that is why the stardates do not match up right.

lol, Gene really could not even explain what a stardate was, it was the fans of the series that determined that for the creators.

But the word "canon" does get abused a lot by the fans.
These are all good points. It seems that everyone so far appears to be on the side of leniency when it comes to "canon".

I also agree with Yagami...the location of Kirks quarters on the ship being different in the new movie does not concern me either.

I would say that such things as "Spock is a human/vulcan hybrid" is an untouchable. If someone changed him to a Klingon, or some other species, then I would be upset.

I guess there is a line somewhere between "untouchable" and "who cares" that everone seems to fight over.
__________________


You people have ruined "Star Trek The Next Generation" for me. You are absolutely the most insufferable group of jackasses I have ever had the misfortune of spending an extended period of time with. I hope you all f@*#! die. - Stewie after spending the day with the TNG cast.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-24-2008, 12:16 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

MissionTrek wrote:
Quote:
Given how canon-savvy Orci and Lindelof are, and given their comments on production, I assume that established canon will be largely observed in the new film, but not slavishly so.
Yagami wrote:
Quote:
Trek information needs to be classed according to how important it is to the structure of Trek... I mean that Captain Kirk's quarters were on deck five is canon but if the new movie had them on deck four then I don't think we would see a riot.
I agree, particularly with the "not slavishly so"...it's always good when one can work the word slavishly into a conversation...but, Yagami, while we might not see a riot if Kirk's cabin is on the "wrong" deck, don't you think there will be those who act offended? I say "act" because I can't for a nano-second think how they could truly be offended by it, but I really would expect to see a few gaskets blow over something like that. And, since that's so absolutely easy to do right, I'd hope they would do it right. That's the sort of thing there's no reason to change. Now, if "canon" is that Kirk and Spock have quarters next to each other but the story demands separation, then that's easily accounted for in dialogue ("Standard protocol is to separate the top officers' quarters. In case of a hull breech, the top officers are each in separate secured sections")

As long as it's necessary to the story, I'm pretty much willing to overlook anything but the most egregious error (No, Spock didn't visit Kirk on earth when they were both 10.....Spock's considerably older than Kirk. No, you can't claim Uhura has no knowledge of her African heritage, the woman speaks Swahili and her quarters are loaded with African art!).

Yagami also wrote:
Quote:
On the other hand while DC Fontana once said that Spock was an only child, it was never made canon but it WAS accepted as basic knowledge prior to ST V... This is the kind of detail that fans are going to demand a VERY GOOD explanation if you violate it. Shatner TRIED to get around it and came up with Sybok but many of us don't see the character, situation, or film compelling enough to have circumvented Fontana's statement.
LOL...let the canon wars begin! See, to me, it makes no sense that Spock wouldn't have half brothers and sisters. Him being the only child of Amanda is fine and dandy, but Sarek is 102.something when we meet him in Journey To Babel...he's obviously experienced a few Pon Farrs and there really ought to have been some children produced. That or all the fan fic writers who say Sarek is really gay and the marriage to Amanda is "symbolic" are on to something.

So, that's an area where I thought the writers had the right to play.

Sir num nums wrote:
Quote:
Also, keep in mind in the TOS the writers, producers, and Gene himself had no idea what would lay ahead for Star Trek. The show even aired out of production order, that is why the stardates do not match up right.
Ain't that the truth? On HP boards I've been known to say "Because the poor woman had no idea a bunch of middle aged women would be pouring over her words in minute detail looking for every contradiction, that's why!" Though, that only applies to the early books...once she got wind of the obsessiveness of the fans, it became incumbent on her to respect the universe she'd created. I think the same is true for Trek. Now they know so now they have little excuse for just up and ignoring stuff because it's easier on them.
__________________


Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-24-2008, 12:25 PM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

Supposedly the back story on Sybok was that Sybok's mother was Sarek's mind betrothed but their marriage ended when she became a priestess.

I'm just saying that I'm not opposed to Spock having a half brother or sister show up but the story needs to be really good... Not just having them show up because someone thought it would spice up a dull script.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:29 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

Yeah, I've read that and I've read some very moving fan fics dealing with that.

See? That's why taking something that has not been filmed as "canon" is not a good idea because it's just one more thing to reign in the writers. The freer a writer feels, the better he/she will write. Good writers can do wonderful things with those "untouched" elements of the Star Trek Universe but when too rabid fans froth at the mouth over things like what ship designs were used what year, it's a slam at those writers, it's locking them down when they should not be locked down.
__________________


Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:33 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

To me, Canon, is only what has been aired on TV series or the paramount pictures released movies
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:47 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

I agree...but don't we all know people who are right now advance shopping little flashlights so they can bring their blueprints of the early ships with them into the opening of the new movie? And don't we know that those people are going to go all stinky when the button on the command chair to give a shipwide allert is 2 inches to the left of where it was in TOS and the weird blue tooth earpiece Uhura (and sometimes Spock) wears to commune with the computers doesn't have the correct number of "rings"?
__________________


Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:48 PM
Yagami Crewman's Avatar
Yagami Crewman Yagami Crewman is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Goose Creek, South Carolina
Posts: 1,141
Default

I understand your point. The hands of a good writer should not be tied by canon.... And that is what I mean by saying that the story must be good enough to justify going against that guideline. I don't see these as hard and fast rules even if canon... I see them as marker buoys that say "You are this far out... you had better be able to handle these waters if you go past this marker..."

The very reason DC Fontana made that statement that Spock was an only child was to avoid a plethora of stories where as she put it "Half a Spockian horde of brothers, sisters, half brothers, and half sisters showed up." She also thought the 'only child' angle heightened the significance of the rift between Spock and his father. So from her point of view I see the equally valid point that weak writers would try to use the idea as a crutch for a story that didn't hold up well on its own.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-24-2008, 08:53 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

"Past this, there be monsters"...would be a good marker in the script bible, would it not?

While I appreciate Ms. Fontana deeply I do have to say that at the time she made those comments, people didn't generally do the math. Meaning, people didn't say "Hey, if he's that old, why hasn't he reproduced if they have a mating cycle of 7 years? He must be gay."
__________________


Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
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 02:46 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.