The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > CANON! This thread is canon and negates all other threads
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:16 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Oh God, not Richard Arnold. That's how the canon wars started to begin with...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:36 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
Oh God, not Richard Arnold. That's how the canon wars started to begin with...
No, it started with Roddenberry.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:58 AM
Captain Presley's Avatar
Captain Presley Captain Presley is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 33
Default

I was hoping that they would at least respect the backgrounds of TOS characters that have been established in TOS & Movies. But it looks like they are not. Of course they can use the altered timeline explanation, but I wish they wouldn't. Oh well I'll just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:02 AM
Star Trek's Avatar
Star Trek Star Trek is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South FL.
Posts: 709
Default

__________________
I'm ba-aack...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:18 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore
Oh God, not Richard Arnold. That's how the canon wars started to begin with...
No, it started with Roddenberry.
Arnold worked for Roddenberry, but Roddenberry wasn't even aware of half the things Arnold was doing in his name. Roddenberry did go after TAS (and I believe that had more to do with money/legal issues with the animation company than anything else, IMO), but Arnold went after everything else until Paramount fired him immediately following Roddenberry's death.

It was Arnold who really laid down the hammer of what was and wasn't canon and went so far as to tell the authors of the various novels and comics during his tenure what they could and could not write.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:26 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
Arnold worked for Roddenberry, but Roddenberry wasn't even aware of half the things Arnold was doing in his name. Roddenberry did go after TAS (and I believe that had more to do with money/legal issues with the animation company than anything else, IMO), but Arnold went after everything else until Paramount fired him immediately following Roddenberry's death.

It was Arnold who really laid down the hammer of what was and wasn't canon and went so far as to tell the authors of the various novels and comics during his tenure what they could and could not write.
I'm sorry but did you even read the quote by Paula Block in my original post? Roddenberry said he didn't much care for the films (which, I don't know) and if anything in TNG conflicted with TOS he basically said that the new stuff negates the old canon. He himself supported "revisionist thinking" when it came to Star Trek!
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:31 AM
Frenzy's Avatar
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 424
Default

Rule of thumb, if the movie sucks we go to old canon, if its good and it will continue in sequels we can keep both. Besides a lot of ENT stuff i dont like, i just ignore. Eg: Romulans in the Minefield episode. Why the frak was the cloaking field shown????!!!! It had absolutely no connection to the plot. They could have left the Bird of Prey staring at Enterprise but nooooooooooooo they show off their top secret cloaking device. Duh!!!!

I JJ feels the need to decanonize certain stuff of Kirk's history. I can allow it unless it is totally unnecessary and harms the charecter. eg: so what if he couldnt drive a car in 1 episode.

IMHO i think canon is an issue just for creating conflict among fans. Remember in TOS the E goes Warp 13.1, what do we do? Say it was an old measurement compared to TNG. Same way for almost everything, Insanely huge Klingon Birds of Prey in TNG? Say its a new class. Canon in the series was slaughtered for small plot details for 1 episode dont cry for canon changes in a movie!!!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:37 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
I'm sorry but did you even read the quote by Paula Block in my original post? Roddenberry said he didn't much care for the films (which, I don't know) and if anything in TNG conflicted with TOS he basically said that the new stuff negates the old canon. He himself supported "revisionist thinking" when it came to Star Trek!
And this changes, what? Was Roddenberry's word supposed to be law or something? Roddenberry said a lot of negative things about the movies once Paramount kicked him essentially to the curb following TMP and brought in new producers to take over. His role as "executive consultant" or whatever was nothing short of a royalty check.

People attach too much importance to what Roddenberry says.
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:43 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
And this changes, what? Was Roddenberry's word supposed to be law or something? Roddenberry said a lot of negative things about the movies once Paramount kicked him essentially to the curb following TMP and brought in new producers to take over. His role as "executive consultant" or whatever was nothing short of a royalty check.

People attach too much importance to what Roddenberry says.
Fine, you're just forwarding my point. Everything you just said simply supports the idea that Star Trek canon is relative. Be it Paramount, Roddenberry, Meyer, yes even Arnold, yes even Abrams, anyone working on Star Trek in all the 40 years, Star Trek canon has undergone revisionist thinking.

You know who it is that thinks canon is supposedly rigid? The fans. That's it. In terms of the people actually at the helm, canon is more of a referrence point.

That's

all....
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:55 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Fine, you're just forwarding my point. Everything you just said simply supports the idea that Star Trek canon is relative. Be it Paramount, Roddenberry, Meyer, yes even Arnold, yes even Abrams, anyone working on Star Trek in all the 40 years, Star Trek canon has undergone revisionist thinking.

You know who it is that thinks canon is supposedly rigid? The fans. That's it. In terms of the people actually at the helm, canon is more of a referrence point.

That's

all....
It's not even really an issue of canon, it's more of continuity. Canon can be anything at the discretion of the original property owner (including works that contradict with each other). I think fans are more upset about a change in continuity (either visually or historically within the Star Trek Universe). You may not agree with "canonites", but they are entitled to have their opinion just as "revisionites" are entitled to have theirs...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
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 11:00 AM.


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.