The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Star Trek Canon Does Not Exsist
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-09-2008, 04:56 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
You're missing a third picture where it switched back.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-09-2008, 04:59 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T'Aerwynd View Post
As I said in another thread ... perhaps "canon" is that there is no canon.
Or it's more probable that there is, but that the fact that there is is inconvenient to the cause of throwing it out. Easier to just put your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALALALALALA!" when the subject comes up so you can try to convince those of us who care about it that we're not looking at a massive cop-out where continuity is concerned with ST:XI.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-09-2008, 04:59 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
What does that even remotely have to do with what you quoted? O.o



No, more like what I'm saying is exactly what I said. Put away the strawmen. If you can't counter my genuine position but instead have to rewrite it, the better part of valor on your part would be to not address it at all.
I've edited. On a side note, using "strawmen" ideas about someone's opinions is something you've done as well. Normally I don't pick and pull from other threads, but Leonard Nimoy saying that he like this movie could also be "no, more like what I'm saying is exactly what I said."
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:01 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
I've edited. On a side note, using "strawmen" ideas about someone's opinions is something you've done as well. Normally I don't pick and pull from other threads, but Leonard Nimoy saying that he like this movie could also be "no, more like what I'm saying is exactly what I said."
Really? I happen to recall a poster in that thread stating exactly the position I countered. I didn't reinterpret his statement by one word.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:01 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
You're missing a third picture where it switched back.
And it did. Oh, but it was Kirk's good side that showed it was back on his right side.

Lemme guess, you can apologetically explain that away as the evil Kirk mistaking which side it was on.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:01 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Show me the third photo, then. I'd love to see it.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:13 PM
Captain Tightpants's Avatar
Captain Tightpants Captain Tightpants is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glendale, CA.
Posts: 89
Default Sometimes the same is different. But mostly it's the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
As it relates to canon, there are instances where minor -- genuinely trivial -- details have changed. But they did not then change after that. In the case of Kirk's middle initial, you can explain that by saying "Typo." With regard to Spock being called a "Vulcanian", that can be explained by a species being called one thing informally and one formally, then an order coming down that the informal name was not to be used again. Two examples of details that changed exactly once. By the way, I'm speaking of TOS and the related films, not of TNG and subsequent spinoffs. If anyone would care to show even one instance of a recurring detail changing within TOS more than once, I'd love to see it.
So, your argument is that canon does exist because with regard to TOS and the related films any canonical inconsistencies can be given simple, story explanations? I guess the question for me is not whether canon exists, but whether I or anyone else should have to pay any attention to it? I'm not saying they should just toss canon out the window every time they make a movie, but hasn't Star Trek canon been respected long enough? 42 years? And with somewhat less-than-spectacular results, I might add. I'll probably get an earful from somebody for saying that, but, honestly, Star Trek has its flaws. It could be better. And to that end, getting some distance from canon might be a good thing. Even the Constitution of the United States has been rewritten. And I'd say overwhelmingly for the better.

Now, could they have addressed these -- we'll call them alleged flaws, since I haven't proven the allegation -- could they have addressed these alleged flaws while still strictly adhering to canon? Probably. But I'd kind of like to see what else they can come up with. Frankly, I'm troubled less by the idea of reinventing Star Trek than I am by the idea of more of the same. But neither choice is inherently good or bad. They're both double-edged swords. Both choices could result in equally bad or good films. It might actually be easier in some sense to throw canon out the window. And for the life of me I can't understand why so many of you seem to see this as reason not to take that approach. As if making a truly good, memorable film isn't hard enough already? We should set up obstacles for ourselves to make it even harder? Sheesh.
__________________
"The fact that he would have passed up a visit to the Louvre or the Prado in favour of ten minutes alone with a knicker catalogue—this, perhaps, was a personal quirk."—Martin Amis, London Fields

Last edited by Captain Tightpants : 12-09-2008 at 05:46 PM. Reason: OCD.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:15 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Show me the third photo, then. I'd love to see it.
You think I'm lying?



What adds more to it is the fact that this inconsistency occurs in the same scene at the end of the episode!

Evil Kirk was originally scratched on his left (our right) cheek. It stayed like this till the end of the episode, right up until Evil Kirk and Good Kirk start to confront each other on the bridge. Then the crappy stuff happens. Suddenly, Evil Kirk's scratches are moved to his right cheek, while Good Kirk's scratches remain the same. But it doesn't happen till somewhere in the middle of this confrontation right when things start getting really heated.

What is your explanation for this? I'd love to hear it.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000

Last edited by MigueldaRican : 12-09-2008 at 05:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:22 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Currently, as I understand it, Paramount holds everything that appeared on the big and small screen to be canon, excluding video games.
Like Kirk driving, and where the ship was built, and age issues. Trivial!
Those are changes to the characters, which seem to be the only changes the revisionists do object to -- oh, unless the changes result in making the characters "s00p3r-l337", apparently.

Quote:
The only thing I'll agree that is major is the Enterprise's new look. Is that it? That's why you refuse to see this movie?
That and because it changes the setting, which in turn changes the characters, as noted by others previously. You can't imagine Shatner's Kirk on that ship? Well, we're supposedly getting the back-story of Shatner's Kirk. Or are we? If this isn't a younger version of the Kirk we already know, what's the attraction? Why use the name at all?

Quote:
I'm still having trouble seeing your very picky rules about canon revisions that apparently Abrams must abide by in order for this movie to be worthy of your chrisening. Gene Roddenberry, simply put, had a habit of decanonizing things in Star Trek.
And? Are you using that as the basis for saying it's okay to throw out what we know about the characters and the setting almost in toto? Right.

Quote:
That he was loose with canon, means canon didn't really follow some sort of official rule that all filmmakers must adhere to.
No, it followed an unofficial rule: "The difference between fiction and the real world is that fiction is obligated to make sense." Official rule. Still very much enforced. Look what happened to the Matrix sequels if you don't believe me.

Quote:
And I can explain your explanation as "cop out". Which is the same thing people on your side of the fence are accusing Abrams' supporters of doing by explaining his "canon revisions".
Explain how my explanation was a cop-out.

Quote:
And it's interesting, I just got done watching "Where No Man Has Gone Before", a typo is nothing that the evolved Mitchell character would have done. Oh, it may be a typo, but if it is, it was out of ST universe, off screen, done by the writers.
You don't think a guy who was losing his mind would screw up, super-powers or not?

Quote:
And if they changed more than once, aaaaah Jesus, there goes the galaxy. It's ruined! Ruined!
Um, no. If they changed more than once, it would prove the assertion of those who claim Star Trek canon does not exist. Unfortunately they didn't, which means there's nothing on which to base that assertion other than an unwillingness to recognize that TOS did indeed have continuity.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:25 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,574
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
You think I'm lying?



What adds more to it is the fact that this inconsistency occurs in the same scene at the end of the episode!

Evil Kirk was originally scratched on his left (our right) cheek. It stayed like this till the end of the episode, right up until Evil Kirk and Good Kirk start to confront each other on the bridge. Then the crappy stuff happens. Suddenly, Evil Kirk's scratches are moved to his right cheek, while Good Kirk's scratches remain the same. But it doesn't happen till somewhere in the middle of this confrontation right when things start getting really heated.

What is your explanation for this? I'd love to hear it.
Somebody was a total dumbass, is my explanation. That doesn't mean throw all canon out. Well, I guess if you're on a 'purge Star Trek of everything but the names' crusade, it might.
__________________
"Now I did a job -- and got nothin' but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character, so let me make this abundantly clear: I do the job... and then I get paid. Go run your little world."
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 09:40 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.