The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Canon maybe not always the best thing?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 12-11-2008, 09:27 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
I am always amazed about Eliza's TOS knowledge.
Thank you...apparently, 40 years of obsession has paid off....

Quote:
If I may throw in my two cents as TOS newbie, that is the large difference between TOS and later Trek series, which featured more or less tight story arcs and reoccuring characters (DS9 style or the once per season feature of Q or Lwaxana). I once heard or read that D.C. Fontana was asked about contributing anyhow to a serious paper about Vulcans and how surprised she was because they just made all that stuff up on the road.
Exactly! Before Trek, no one ever thought that fans would obsess so...the whole concept of "fan fic" didn't really exist....

Quote:
This episodic nature of TOS had the advantage of telling a fresh new story every week. Amok Time for example worked greatly partly because it shows the friendship of Spock and Kirk as well as Spock and Bones very clearly (as casual viewer, one could get the impression that Spock and McCoy don't get along very well) and partly because of the pon farr. When pon farr reoccured later in VOY and ENT, it was merely a variation of a theme, the episodes were well done but not outstanding because they lacked new and fresh elements. That is the burden of continuity and to stay with that example, if one wants to write a good script about Vulcan sexuality, one better invents some new and fresh stuff and bends anything that was established previously if necessary.
Excellent...yes, strict adherence to canon can, in fact, be dull as dull can be...a far better approach is to write a great story and then try to tie it back to canon.


Quote:
Some things are not change for change's sake but for story's sake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaman View Post
That's it exactly.

It's a space symphony that will never be quite finished.
Agreed...plus, love the space symphony analogy....nice!

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Except it's not necessary to bend anything that was established previously.
As has been pointed out...."established" is a bit vague, so getting up in arms about a movie violating what has been established is a bit odd....it's like if I said " I love apples and oranges and just all sorts of fruits" and a movie was made saying I loved pineapples... It would be sort of silly to suggest it was a violation of canon for me to like pineapples.
__________________


Thanks to Ron Salon for the signature banner!
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-12-2008, 02:17 AM
JSnyder4's Avatar
JSnyder4 JSnyder4 is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 942
Default

*The idea that those of you who don't like what you see are apparently the freethinkers of the Trek forums is asinine. The opinions are pretty much split down the middle here. There are no "prevailing viewpoints".

Can we move with that knowledge now?*

The idea that everything must conform to a static environment is the elitist view. You are trying to contain everything into a little bubble.

So... they are doing a movie that can reinvigorate the property, let canon fans keep all their precious books, comics, fan drawings and everything else (including all incarnations of their favorite Trek series) while enabling the Trek property to evolve into the 21st century by using the core concepts and best known and loved characters as touchstone.

The plain truth is that you wanted a movie that is essentially a "period piece" of Trek fictional lore and you aren't getting it the way you want.
That
is what aggravates you. It really is that simple.
Everything else you "discuss" is whitewashing this fact.

Instead you are being given a Trek that can have Kirk (or anyone else) die, among other possibilities. Something with a wide open future.
The human adventure continues... you may not like the way it is being done but it is being done. Books, comics and everything else (sans movies) will still be produced based on what you have known. They'll also be produced on what is the "now". One is not canceling the other.

Can we move on with that knowledge now?
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-12-2008, 05:24 AM
I-Am-Zim I-Am-Zim is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: North Carolina, USA, Earth
Posts: 3,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTrekkie View Post
Read this: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob-...-real-science/

All the things that changed (design, Enterprise built on earth etc.) happen because Nero changed the timeline and Star Trek XI will play in an alternative reality!!
Okay. There you go. Alternate reality. That makes a whole lot more sense. Why didn't they just say that from the beginning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain View Post
Well I guess we can shut down the forum now there is nothing left to argue about. Because this movie takes place in a parallel universe there are no canon errors. Looks like we can all have a big group hug and try to get along. We are all right in one universe or another. It's been fun.
Yep. Looks that way. No more need to argue the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-12-2008, 05:25 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSnyder4 View Post
*The idea that those of you who don't like what you see are apparently the freethinkers of the Trek forums is asinine. The opinions are pretty much split down the middle here. There are no "prevailing viewpoints".

Can we move with that knowledge now?*

The idea that everything must conform to a static environment is the elitist view. You are trying to contain everything into a little bubble.

So... they are doing a movie that can reinvigorate the property, let canon fans keep all their precious books, comics, fan drawings and everything else (including all incarnations of their favorite Trek series) while enabling the Trek property to evolve into the 21st century by using the core concepts and best known and loved characters as touchstone.

The plain truth is that you wanted a movie that is essentially a "period piece" of Trek fictional lore and you aren't getting it the way you want.
That
is what aggravates you. It really is that simple.
Everything else you "discuss" is whitewashing this fact.

Instead you are being given a Trek that can have Kirk (or anyone else) die, among other possibilities. Something with a wide open future.
The human adventure continues... you may not like the way it is being done but it is being done. Books, comics and everything else (sans movies) will still be produced based on what you have known. They'll also be produced on what is the "now". One is not canceling the other.

Can we move on with that knowledge now?
Gee... Why so bitter? I hope I enjoy this movie EVEN WITH those things I currently consider flaws and yes after wards I'll enjoy some of the original Trek And ONLY Time will tell if in my estimation. (Which is definitely as important as yours by the way) Abrams captured the spirit of Star Trek or not.

The questions are these: Will it be a good movie? And then... "Will it be a good STAR TREK movie. The two are not necessarily the same.

In other words... "Is it the REAL MCCOY" or an inferior fighter of the same name. Those of us who saw an innocent little show's attempt to be consistent... that tried to be consistent AND to tell good stories DO tend to think the look is important. BECAUSE it is PART OF THE WHOLE.

Winners sweat the details.
__________________
Ever notice that many of the same people who want variety in life frown very hard on vanilla... But without Vanilla, Baskin Robbins just wouldn't BE 31 flavors.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-13-2008, 07:17 AM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Exactly. A good movie and a good Star Trek movie aren't necessarly mutually excusive. I can deal with a good movie even if it's not a good trek movie.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-13-2008, 03:46 PM
Elizadolots's Avatar
Elizadolots Elizadolots is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Okay. There you go. Alternate reality. That makes a whole lot more sense. Why didn't they just say that from the beginning?



Yep. Looks that way. No more need to argue the issue.
Actually, the leaked story lines from the very start indicated that there would be at least an attempt to alter the timeline so I don't know why they should be faulted.

Frankly, as I was really hoping they weren't going to do the Terminator story, I'm not as excited to find that Nero goes back in time in an effort to prevent Kirk from ever being born....
__________________


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 02:02 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.