The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > The last ride of the Canonistas. (An ode to lost canon)
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-23-2008, 07:01 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

We won't know the effect on canon until the movie is released, so why do we assume that all canon is lost? If it is, no biggie. If it isn't, no biggie.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-23-2008, 09:27 AM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

"Fire the cannon!" JJ Abrams cried,
And everywhere obsesed Trek fans vied
To prove that THEIR way
Must be the final say;
I'm just happy that Mr. Abrams tried.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-23-2008, 09:27 AM
brobertsumc brobertsumc is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 132
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Trek was never intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It was never supposed to be cool. Hell, it almost didn't get made in the first place because it aimed higher than 'cool.' Because NBC's studio execs didn't think it'd appeal to the average couch-denting pair-o-cheeks.

Every attempt to turn it into dumbed-down whizbang fluff has had increasingly disastrous results.

And if it's not dead yet, it's sure as hell walking the mile between here and May.
Saint,

When you speak of canon, are you referring to these sorts of things:

1. That the Enterprise engines take 30 minutes to start from a cold stop unless you're willing to take the risk of imploding them, with the side effect of running backward in time (violated in Star Trek III -- Scotty pretty much just flips a switch and off we go).

2. That Spock is a "Vulcanian." (violated in every episode since the first 2 or 3).

3. That the Enterprise is 40+ years old at the time of its destruction (completely forgotten at the time of ST III).

4. That James Kirk's middle initial is "T" (except in WNMHGB).

5. That you can slingshot around a sun, go back in time and avert a disaster (too bad no one thought of doing this to prevent Khan from stealing the freakin' Reliant).

6. That the TOS Enterprise reached Warp 13 (Voyager: Warp 10 = infinite velocity. How does one go faster than that?).

7. That is possible for highly trained starfleet personnel with high end computer technology and hyper-accurate maps of the galaxy to confuse one planet for another.

I would understand all of the voraciousness over canon if canon were actually the consistent, well thought out body of continuity that some make it out to be. It simply isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-23-2008, 09:58 AM
cmerk cmerk is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 9
Default

Man you all pi$$ me off with this OMFG mentality about how canon is being tossed out. Some many of you here are out raged over this new ship design and for what reason? Why, because it’s not the Enterprise? !!!!!NEWS FLASH!!!!! Every character has been recast that also includes the Enterprise. The original NCC 1701 became as much about STAR TREK as any character because of how the cast interacted with their ship. They made you believe in her they brought her to life and that helped make her what she was.

Now we have new actors taking on iconic roles to help jump-start an iconic universe that has for the most part been left to rot. This new cast needs what the original cast had. A set/ship in which the can bring to life and give her a role all to her own. Asking them to do that with a ship/set design which was created 40 years ago is like asking The shat man to step in and play a 20 something version of him self in which he is to start from the beginning it just wouldn’t work. It’s not the design that will determine if she is the enterprise it's the roll in which she will play and the spirit that her crew/characters giver her.

If you can’t except that fact that the ship has been completely redesigned inside and out then you can’t accept the fact that the characters have been recast and there for should just drop of the face of this website.

You can’t expect this cast to have the same chemistry with the original big E that our beloved original cast had, they need something that will be fitting for them today something they can call their own so they can bring to life the spirit and complexity that was the NCC 1701 U.S.S ENTERPRISE and the universe of STAR TREK.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:21 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

You think things are bad now? They'll only get worse as we get closer to May and then it'll really get bad afterwards...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-23-2008, 10:43 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
You think things are bad now? They'll only get worse as we get closer to May and then it'll really get bad afterwards...
For some, yes. Not for all. This film won't do ANYTHING for all fans.

That much should be crystal clear by now, as no film or filmmaker could.
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:08 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 MissionTrek08 View Post
For some, yes. Not for all. This film won't do ANYTHING for all fans.

That much should be crystal clear by now, as no film or filmmaker could.
I was referring specifically to this particular site and to all Trek websites in general.

It will get uglier yet.

The people who will really make or break this film--the majority of folks who are going to see it--don't really consider themselves Trek fans at all, IMO, and couldn't care less if the Enterprise sports one nacelle or three or if the movie is set in the 23rd-Century or the 47th-Century...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:09 AM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

So, you're saying for everyone on this site, things must get much worse?
__________________

MISSION:TREK's in-depth review of STAR TREK


Proud member of the Friends of Zardoz Association. Avatar courtesy of Eliza's House of Avatars with three convenient locations near you. Free balloons for the kids!
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:15 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commodore View Post
I was referring specifically to this particular site and to all Trek websites in general.

It will get uglier yet.

The people who will really make or break this film--the majority of folks who are going to see it--don't really consider themselves Trek fans at all, IMO, and couldn't care less if the Enterprise sports one nacelle or three or if the movie is set in the 23rd-Century or the 47th-Century...
Lovely, another true fan, fake fan discussion. Caught in a temporal loop we seem to be
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-23-2008, 11:21 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
I was referring specifically to this particular site and to all Trek websites in general.

It will get uglier yet.

The people who will really make or break this film--the majority of folks who are going to see it--don't really consider themselves Trek fans at all, IMO, and couldn't care less if the Enterprise sports one nacelle or three or if the movie is set in the 23rd-Century or the 47th-Century...
I take offense to this idea really. The idea that those of us who want to see this movie and have optimistic views on it are simply not real Trek fans, is preposterous and anyone who thinks that of us is an idiot, oh yeah: IMO (see I said IMO so you don't get offended, yeah, see I know that copout trick). I grew up with Star Trek. Not during, no. But I've watched all my dad's Star Trek collection on VHS. It was Star Trek (well that and "Alien") that introduced me to the wonderful world of scifi.

I consider myself a true Trek fan, sir. So really let's keep such comments out of the discussion. Thank you.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
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 01:50 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.