[Redshirt Bob]

Even though I'm very disappointed in the direction the film has taken, I'm still going to see it opening day. It's still Star Trek, and it's probably going to be good. I just wish JJ and co. would drop the pretense that this movie is part of established canon. Just say it's "Star Trek Begins" and we'll all be happy.

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by kevin

Sadly, people boycott for less than that these days, and some people seemingly will now avoid the film. At the end of the day that's their right, but at this point, until perhaps more new info is released, those who wish to boycott will not be persuaded otherwise.

The 'new info' that would bring me back, at this point, would be a formal apology and a redesign of the affected (afflicted?) footage.

Neither of those things will happen.

[MonsieurHood]

Originally Posted by Redshirt Bob

Even though I'm very disappointed in the direction the film has taken, I'm still going to see it opening day. It's still Star Trek, and it's probably going to be good. I just wish JJ and co. would drop the pretense that this movie is part of established canon. Just say it's "Star Trek Begins" and we'll all be happy.

Oh, but it isn't. "Batman Begins" took Batman back to his origins, back to his roots as a detective and crime fighter. That film distilled Batman back down to his basic elements. "ST XI" removes the roots of Star Trek, and sews salt into the furrows remaining, in an attempt to make all that which came before, forever barren, so only the new land may prosper.

[MonsieurHood]

Originally Posted by The Saint

The 'new info' that would bring me back, at this point, would be a formal apology and a redesign of the affected (afflicted?) footage.

Neither of those things will happen.

I understand completely. I am with you. Perhaps others will follow, perhaps not. But i'm going to fly my freak flag nonetheless. Good luck brother!

[The Saint]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

Oh, but it isn't. "Batman Begins" took Batman back to his origins, back to his roots as a detective and crime fighter. That film distilled Batman back down to his basic elements. "ST XI" removes the roots of Star Trek, and sews salt into the furrows remaining, in an attempt to make all that which came before, forever barren, so only the new land may prosper.

Exactly. Back to the roots, backed off from the glitter and gleam, same with Casino Royale.

[Redshirt Bob]

Who said what about fins?



Sure looks like fins to me!

PS If this stretches anyone's screen, let me know so I can resize it.

[Big D]

Originally Posted by MonsieurHood

Star Trek Is different from Batman, it isn't literary based, it's media based.

Books are a medium. TV is a medium. It's all "media based", just with regard to different media.

A new continuity has been created, and everything we know about what occured during the original five year mission, and what happened in the lives of the TOS characters has been wiped from existance

No, it hasn't. It's still all there; Paramount's not gonna organise book-burnings and hit squads to go around erasing all traces of earlier Trek - the past is safe and secure.

Back to the roots, backed off from the glitter and gleam, same with Casino Royale.

Casino Royale turned up the glitter and gleam in other respects: the 'gritty realism', Bond's military martial arts and espionage, etc. Stuff that was missing from the older films, which had an altogether different kind of glitz and glamour.

[omegaman]

If the big E has always had the option to separate the saucer section from the rest of the craft in times of crisis.

One would think that this type of operation could also be used as a means of upgrading the ships engines at any stage, sort a plug and play system.

Theoretically you could simply uncouple the primary hull (saucer section) and whack on a new secondary hull, nacelles (or a complete replacement).
It would be relatively easy then to refit the bridge with any new systems leaving the rest of the saucer alone and be on your way in a few days.

Has anyone any knowledge of this type of scenario been mentioned in any of the series or books?

[stuart hammal]

I have to admit I wasn't sure when I first saw the new Enterprise design. However, I think it will grow on me once I've seen her in action. I agree with what has been said elsewhere that you can't condemn the design or the whole film based solely on one still image showing her from just the one angle.
I'm wiling to give TPTB the benefit of the doubt and wait to see her in motion on the big screen.
For what it's worth, I've always thought the Enterprise-E looked better in action than in a still photograph, but that's just me.

One final point off-topic, regarding canon - can I just say that everything introduced into Star Trek effects canon in some way. For example no one mentioned the Klingons for the first twenty-odd episodes of the Original Series and yet when the do appear, suddenly they're a long-time adversary of the Federation, with hostilities going back decades. You'd have thought someone in say, "Arena" would've suggested them as possible suspects for the attack on Cestus III before it turned out to be the Gorn.

Anyway....I'll still be going to see the film with an open mind as I hope many others on here will too!

[mjcrawford]

In the words of William Shatner…

“its just a TV show”

I know that Trek has a deep connection for many of us (myself included) but please… if you want to talk about cannon, look at the dozens of contradictory statements just in TOS about history. Besides Abrams and his gang have made it clear…

First… all the trek history that you so deeply cared about HAPPENED

Second… post TNG a nasty Romulan and a friendly Vulcan go back in time thus HISTORY CHANGES

Third… the bulk of this story takes place in the CHANGED history.

All this means, that the Trek you know and love happened, and set up the circumstances in which this new Trek happens who knows, in time we may be referring to the Abrams vision as ST:TAT for ‘the altered timeline’ or something.