The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > What is your canon? and a little game.
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 11-29-2008, 10:44 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Canon, schmanon. Who cares? JJ Abrahms certainly doesn't. Or else he would not have Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Sulu, Scotty, and Chekov serving on the Enterprise at the same time!?! And one of the craziest things about that situation is, even though Chekov is about 12 years younger than Kirk, he apparently outranks him on the bridge of the E (Chekov is wearing a gold command uniform while Kirk is still in the black cadet garb). That in itself is contradictory since Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise in TOS and Chekov is an Ensign in Season 2 when he is introduced.

Okay. To me, canon is TOS. Everything in TOS. Timeframes, character ages, anything that stayed consistent for more than one episode should be considered canon. I'm very irritated with this new movie and all it's canon violations. And I don't know if I will like it or not. But because it is Star Trek. I will watch it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-29-2008, 11:09 AM
miles3347 miles3347 is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 178
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Canon, schmanon. Who cares? JJ Abrahms certainly doesn't. Or else he would not have Kirk, Spock, Bones, Uhura, Sulu, Scotty, and Chekov serving on the Enterprise at the same time!?! And one of the craziest things about that situation is, even though Chekov is about 12 years younger than Kirk, he apparently outranks him on the bridge of the E (Chekov is wearing a gold command uniform while Kirk is still in the black cadet garb). That in itself is contradictory since Kirk is Captain of the Enterprise in TOS and Chekov is an Ensign in Season 2 when he is introduced.

Okay. To me, canon is TOS. Everything in TOS. Timeframes, character ages, anything that stayed consistent for more than one episode should be considered canon. I'm very irritated with this new movie and all it's canon violations. And I don't know if I will like it or not. But because it is Star Trek. I will watch it.
I am wondering if it might be his father Chekov senior they have not mentioned his family except to say that he was a only child.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:14 PM
kjh1701 kjh1701 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vuedoc View Post
I was introduced to ST at a very impressionable time in my life- I think I was 5 or 6. These childhood memories became very dear to me and became very solidified in my mind. I read all the tech manuals and novels and it became a very real universe to me. I wanted everything to make sense, just as I did in real life. The iconic forms of the landing party equipment became burned into my head and to this day, they remain my favorite toys. From middle school, I would argue with my friends over minutia of plot continuity and various inconsistencies. For me then, anything that deviates from all this is anti-canon. I am not saying that I want to live through the 1960s again but for a franchise to have lasted as long as it has and to have generated a 40 real time earth-year history over 5 TV series and 10 thus far movies, anyone attempting to interact with that history had better respect it. The nacelles and the saucer and the size of the viewscreen on the bridge and the thread count in the uniforms don't mean as much to me as the story, but by that I don't mean the quality of the script as much as the respect for the history that has been set up for us over the past 40 years. What canon means to me is : don't change things that have been set into place and have been so for 4 decades.

So with regard to the 3 inconsistencies mentioned above, I would not even know where to start, nor would I want to because I am having trouble accepting these new facets of the story, though I am far more pissed about point 'B' than 'C'.
Wow. You're the first person I've found on here who came so close to expressing my own opinions. And I couldn't have said it any better than you did. I'm 42 now and grew up the same way, only I got into Star Trek during the first syndicated reruns. But that was the early 70's and I was like 5 or 6. I grew up doing the same exact things you did - technical manuals and books until the first movie came out. Debating details with friends and so on for the last 35 years. So yeah, I'm a little set in what I believe - to me canon is what's been around for the last 40 years. Why does it have to be changed?

So for my answers to points A, B and C:

A. Somebody wrote a new Star Trek script who either didn't know the history of Star Trek or just didn't give a damn.

B. See answer A.

C. See answer A.

How to fix this? Get somebody to make a sequel movie that actaully knows the history of Star Trek and respects what has already been established over the last 40 years. Then write a story where old Spock uses the Guardian of Forever or some other form of time travel to go back and make things right, thus erasing all the changes made in the previous "reboot" movie.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:18 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Bob Orci, the co-writer/co-producer of this film, knows TREK well.

It's amusing how no one has read his and AK's script yet massively uninformed assumptions and conclusions are being made about it, and his supposed lack of knowledge about TREK history. The same for JJ's film of it.

Though I'm sure some guesses will be right, I'll be interested to see how many of these assumptions are proven totally off-base when their full context is revealed.
__________________

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
  #35  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:31 PM
kjh1701 kjh1701 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Bob Orci, the co-writer/co-producer of this film, knows TREK well.

It's amusing how no one has read his and AK's script yet massively uninformed assumptions and conclusions are being made about it, and his supposed lack of knowledge about TREK history. The same for JJ's film of it.

Though I'm sure some guesses will be right, I'll be interested to see how many of these assumptions are proven totally off-base when their full context is revealed.
Well then, like my comment said, if he really does know TREK well, then he and the rest of the "team" just didn't give a damn. To me that's worse than just not knowing the history.

But I do agree - it's still gonna be interesting to see the end result. But don't think that I'll stop complaining if it's worse than what I've already seen!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:38 PM
MissionTrek08's Avatar
MissionTrek08 MissionTrek08 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
Well then, like my comment said, if he really does know TREK well, then he and the rest of the "team" just didn't give a damn. To me that's worse than just not knowing the history.

But I do agree - it's still gonna be interesting to see the end result. But don't think that I'll stop complaining if it's worse than what I've already seen!
Dare you consider the possibility that it might end up better than what you've seen? It's certainly one possibility, if you're still open to considering all possibilities.

Again, conclusions are being made on incomplete information -- or would you not agree that the detailed conversations we'll be having about this film in May will differ significantly from the ill-informed talks we're having now?
__________________

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
  #37  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:41 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Would be nice, then, if they'd go the full monty and put their own name on the mailbox and get this thing off Roddenberry's lawn.
I'd really, really hate to have to go this far...but it seems, it has to be done.

Gene Roddenberry has been dead for 17 years. Almost half the life of the franchise. How much longer are you going to wait before you let him be buried? He's been decomposing for quite awhile - in more senses than one.

The fact is, you have no idea - absolutely none whatsoever - what Gene would say about this movie, as far as what is acceptable and what isn't, if he were alive in today's world. NOBODY does. You might think you do - but I'm sorry, that's "arrogant presumption", as Kirk once said; you simply do not know. Further, you CANNOT know. His own people didn't know what he would say from one day to the next about the acceptability of his own material.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:41 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Script doesn't mean a whole lot folks. The script doesn't detail what the ship should look like, it just says "Starship Enterprise". The script doesn't detail what the bridge should look like, other than maybe "a circular command center", it just says bridge.

So guess what, Orci and Kurtzman probably did write a script that did adhere to canon, with any changes "having an in-canon explanation".
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-29-2008, 12:49 PM
kjh1701 kjh1701 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissionTrek08 View Post
Dare you consider the possibility that it might end up better than what you've seen? It's certainly one possibility, if you're still open to considering all possibilities.

Again, conclusions are being made on incomplete information -- or would you not agree that the detailed conversations we'll be having about this film in May will differ significantly from the ill-informed talks we're having now?
God, I only hope that it turns out better than what I have seen so far! And yes, I'm still open to possibilities - that's why I still write on these threads and haven't given up yet.

All I'm basing my opinion on is what's been revealed to me so far. And from what I've seen, and in my humblest opinion:

1. The "new" design version of the "old" Enterprise sucks.

2. The "new" set design for the bridge, hallways, etc sucks.

3. The many, many changes to what has already been established in the Trek universe (Kirk driving, Kirk on board Pike's Enterprise, the whole crew coming together at the same time under Pike, Kirk going directly to the Enterprise, the drydock on Earth and not in orbit, and so on, and so on...) really irritate me.

If we can get past all the inconsistencies with some brilliant plot twist that has yet to be revealed, and if the movie turns out to be a good "Trek" movie and not just another ok sci-fi movie, I'll be the first person to post apologies and admit I was wrong.

I'm trying really hard to be optimistic - really hard...
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-29-2008, 03:52 PM
kDog's Avatar
kDog kDog is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 11
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by radoskal View Post
With all this heated rhetoric being blasted about the forum concerning canon and it's adherence to, or lack thereof in the new Trek film it has become quite clear that canon means wildly different things to many people.

At one extreme there are people content with any change that occurs to Star Trek, as long as the words Star Trek are put before it. At the other end there are those who would burn the film reels because the buttons on Kirk's command chair are on the left armrest instead of the right.

Then there are all the rest of us, occupying some nebulous final frontier in the middle. So my question is, what is canon for you?

I will go first,

For me everything is about the continuity and believability of the vast star trek story line that has been built over the last 40 years. I don't care about visual set elements, modernization of the bridge, a remodeling of the Big E, or what have you. All these things are acceptable, as long as both the general concepts and details of Trek's story lines and character backrounds are respected.

I will in fact accept any change that is either explained to me within the context of the Star Trek universe, or can be easily rationalized with a plausible in universe explanation.

In fact I find it exceedingly fun to rationalize and concoct in universe explanations for Trek canon foibles of the past.

Why did Khan recognize Chekov in Trek II when he wasn't in the cast until season two, at which point Khan was already on Ceti Alpha Five? Quite simple really, like Sulu, Chekov had been on the ship for a long time, but wasn't promoted to his bridge station until season two.


Or, Why is Zephram Cochrane from First Contact so different from the Cochrane seen in TOS?, Well, The companion is obviously an energy entity of great power, when she first encountered Cochrane he was old and in poor health, as in First Contact, because she felt a desire to protect and nurture this creature she used her formidable power to revitalize Cochrane into a younger more virile form.


This brings me to the second part of my post. I would like for Trek fans who enjoy ironing out Trek plot inconsistencies in the same way I do to have a little fun and try to rationalize the three "canon problems" seen in the trailer, either in a humorous or serious way..

For example...Kirk couldn't drive a car in "a piece of the action", because moments before a vast anvil was dropped on his head, posibly by Data who was once again flitting around time and playing with anvils, this caused Kirk temporary amnesia, and he forgot that he knew how to drive.


The three main inconsistencies I'd like to "work around" are

A. Kirk meeting and fighting the Romulans in his academy days when he hadn't even seen them until many years later in "Balance of Terror"

B. Kirk meeting Pike when he was promoted to fleet captain and Spock serving under Pike for 11 years before Kirk took over the Enterprise, when both Kirk and Spock were assigned to the Enterprise as cadets under Pike. (as per the new film)

C. Kirk forgetting how to drive a car in the years between his childhood in Iowa and the episode "a piece of the action"


Have fun everyone, and be creative, I look forward to your many canons and many "fixes"

I agree with you. I think that the canon is important, but since Star Trek is fiction it's not the end all thing that some people think it is.

For me personally, if the general storyline fits in with the rest of the Star trek universe then it's fine.

I really enjoyed Enterprise when it was on TV. Some hard core fans thought ENT was a disaster for the canon, but I don't see it that way. In fact, I've always thought ENT helped to make Star Trek more realistic because it tried to connect our world with the world of ST in a way that could really happen. I don't care if Archer was the first to meet these species and Kirk wasn't. Doesn't bother me. When you think about it, Kirk couldn't have been the TRUE first to discover several of the ST species because the Federation had already been around for years.

So does this movie mess with the canon? Yes. Do I think it will kill ST? No.

Okay... now for the fun questions...

A. Kirk meeting Romulans in this movie... maybe he doesn't know they are Romulans. In ENT the Borg never introduced themselves as the Borg, so no one knew the Borg had been in the Alpha Quadrant in the mid 2100s.

B. Can't really explain anything here. But again, this bit of canon lost is a small price to pay for getting a big budget ST movie that might bring the franchise back from the dead. Who cares about when Kirk met Pike if it means ST is back?

C. I drive a manual transmission in my car. I've been away at school for several months. When I cam back home, I was going to drive a different car that was an automatic. I got in, turned the car on... and for a brief second I forgot how to drive an automatic. I was so used to driving a stick that I very very briefly forgot how to drive an automatic. Same thing could have happened to Kirk.

Wow... long post. LOL.
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 12:40 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.