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
  #21  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:37 PM
Gary Seven's Avatar
Gary Seven Gary Seven is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 836
Default



Yep, I can't see a darn thing.
__________________
I AM ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ:
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-09-2008, 05:50 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
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.
Which revisionists? I'm one, and I don't object to such revisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
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?
That's not fact only theory that can go either way. If you take a character with a certain personality out of one setting and put them in another setting will it really drastically change the character to something completely different? As a joke (and I love it really, I do) you've started a whole thread about "dialogue crossovers". And ironically you've sort of proved in that thread that House is still House and Spock is still Spock no matter what setting they're in.

Most likely, in my opinion, the character with a set personality, will still be that character even in a new setting.

The only thing that has changed (and rightfully so) in terms of Kirk's personality is Shatner's Kirk. Shatner's Kirk has become too much of a parody that's been done over and over, by comedians and sketch comedy shows. This is a respectable decision on Abram's and Pine's part to say, "This will still be Kirk, just not Shatner's Kirk."

Again the only thing I agree to hear your concerns about is the Enterprise. Since arguably the Enterprise is a character all her own, then it's easy to see that this Enterprise is drastically different.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
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.
Again, I've said over and over, you and people on your side of the fence keep saying they're "throwing it all out" and I'm saying the revisions are trivial. Beyond Enterprise's radically different look, there are canon revisions that are truly minor in the grand scheme of things. Anything else major (Pike being killed... maybe, Vulcan being destroyed... maybe) can be explained away, no not just explained away, but directly due to Nero's own actions within the story. Abrams may care enough to make only minor revisions to canon, Nero however is an evil villain and could give a crap about your precious Star Trek history. And why should he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
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.
I don't see how "fiction is supposed to make sense" is in support of "fiction should stick to a strict guideline of canon" especially when "Roddenberry has been known to decanonize things" as is quoted in my sig. "This movie is a reboot, and makes minor changes to canon, with the exception having a new look for the Enterprise" makes perfect sense to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Look what happened to the Matrix sequels if you don't believe me.
Bad example, since I happened to like the Matrix sequels, and actually think Revolutions was where the story was heading. Even after seeing the first movie for the first time, I thought, "if this was a trilogy, I could see..." and then the movies came out and I was right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Explain how my explanation was a cop-out.
You say it can be explained as an in universe typo on the part of the Mitchell character. At the very least your explanation is a fandom apologetic explanation that ignores the reality: the writers thought Kirk's middle initial should be R., later they decided on T. for Tiberius. Plain and simple. Your explanation is noble, but it's not realistic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
You don't think a guy who was losing his mind would screw up, super-powers or not?
I'm saying the criticism could go both ways. 1. He was apparently one of Kirk's close friends, and he didn't know Kirk's middle name? 2. He was evolved to include a superior form of esp. He knew where Kirk was before seeing him. A middle name doesn't seem like the kind of mistake a man with a superior form of esp would make.

In the end, I don't care. It's trivial. And I'm doing what I hate: nitpick. And I'm seeing a circular pattern. I nitpick TOS, you defend it and become apologetic for it. I do the same thing for ST XI against your nitpicks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
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.
In the words of many parents who counsel their teens upon experiencing teen pregnancy: "It only takes one time." The moment canon gets contradicted within itself, canon is compromised. I wouldn't take it as far as the original poster here, and say "canon does not exist". But I will say that while it should be honored and respected, it simply a guide and the rules are relative, not rigid.

Continuity is kept relatively intact, but we won't know how close that is until we see the final product. Thus far, a different Enterprise is here, and it's the only thing I've seen that's so radically different. But as I've said, different environments does not mean that the characters are gonna automatically change.

I'm gonna put it to you this way. I'm not saying your opinions are wrong. I'm saying that the difference of opinions weighs on this one thing: canon continuity is relative, that's the fact, the opinion is how loose is anyone allowed to be with Star Trek canon. Your opinion is that Abrams "threw it all out", my opinion is that so far it's still mostly there. "Mostly" is what I can say about a lot of Star Treks be it movies and shows.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000

Last edited by MigueldaRican : 12-09-2008 at 09:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-09-2008, 07:24 PM
Saquist's Avatar
Saquist Saquist is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
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.
Ta da...enter Abrams...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-09-2008, 07:29 PM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

My strong belief is that canon DIED with Gene Roddenberry... Trek is now run by other people and the god of it is dead. Just my opinion of true canon. It has lost its meaning completely.

R.I.P.
True Trek Canon
1966 - 1991
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-09-2008, 07:39 PM
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 Gary Seven View Post


Yep, I can't see a darn thing.

That sir is a Mortar... NOT a Canon!
__________________
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
  #27  
Old 12-09-2008, 08:42 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thypentacle View Post
My strong belief is that canon DIED with Gene Roddenberry... Trek is now run by other people and the god of it is dead. Just my opinion of true canon. It has lost its meaning completely.

R.I.P.
True Trek Canon
1966 - 1991
Two things.

1.) that which is quote in my signature. Roddenberry himself didn't stick to such strick rules of canon that some Trek fans seem to think exist.

2.) Roddenberry himself does not share your opinion:

"I would hope there are bright young people, growing up all the time, who will bring to [Star Trek] levels and areas that were beyond me, and I don't feel jealous about that at all. [...] It'll go on, without any of us, and get better and better and better, because that's the... that really is the human condition. It's to improve and improve." - Gene Roddenberry, The Star Trek Saga: From One Generation to the Next, 1988

"There's a good chance that when I'm gone, others will come along and do so well that people will say, 'Oh, that Roddenberry. He was never this good.' But I will be pleased with that statement." - Gene Roddenberry, Los Angeles Times TV Times, article "Star Trek's New Frontier", 1993
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-09-2008, 09:01 PM
Kukalaka's Avatar
Kukalaka Kukalaka is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Personal quarters of Dr. Julian Bashir
Posts: 336
Default

First off, there is no Trek canon, only continuity. Star Wars can have canon, because Lucasfilm has always been tight on the expanded universe shens and has made sure most of the stuff that authors come up with makes sense in the grand scheme of things.

Look, let's be honest, does anyone beyond those offended about the Enterprise give a chit? No, you don't. Don't even lie, you lying liefaces. There, I said it.
__________________


Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-09-2008, 09:17 PM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
Two things.

1.) that which is quote in my signature. Roddenberry himself didn't stick to such strick rules of canon that some Trek fans seem to think exist.

2.) Roddenberry himself does not share your opinion:

"I would hope there are bright young people, growing up all the time, who will bring to [Star Trek] levels and areas that were beyond me, and I don't feel jealous about that at all. [...] It'll go on, without any of us, and get better and better and better, because that's the... that really is the human condition. It's to improve and improve." - Gene Roddenberry, The Star Trek Saga: From One Generation to the Next, 1988

"There's a good chance that when I'm gone, others will come along and do so well that people will say, 'Oh, that Roddenberry. He was never this good.' But I will be pleased with that statement." - Gene Roddenberry, Los Angeles Times TV Times, article "Star Trek's New Frontier", 1993

Well yeah I agree somewhat... no strict rules, it's more about the characters n such... and I knew about those words Gene said.. I never said I agreed with him on much of anything... but he did create Star Trek so he earns points for that.

He did have creative control, and one man with said control, same man that created it, did give it concreteness I think. Even on little levels, it made a difference.

All I mean is, his general hold on the franchise gave it some sort of a stable nature... maybe calling it 'canon' isn't the right word for it... and after he died things just went outta control and in too many directions with too many shows and too many ideas that overlapped other ideas... etc etc.

That's all I meant.

I myself don't care much for canon unless it's just a 'general' guide... but if it's really a 'strict rule book' as some think... I want nothing to do with it... I don't like limitations, and that sounds to me like it would hold back future growth and/or expansion... general rules however... do not.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-09-2008, 10:46 PM
DrRogerLog DrRogerLog is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4
Default

Okay, the next movie will feature all the characters made out of Legos, which took over the planet in the late 21st century. That will explain the bumpy look to the Enterprise and really help the marketing department. "Why, you green blooded, pointer-eared lego!"
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 09:46 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.