The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Canon Debate - Does it exist & is Canon important to you?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-11-2009, 08:03 AM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
Works for me.
I'm glad something does.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-11-2009, 08:07 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim
Works for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
I'm glad something does.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-11-2009, 03:37 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Yes, it exists. Yes, it's important. "Eh, I don't care, just put the name on it and we're good" does not fly.
__________________
"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
  #34  
Old 01-11-2009, 03:45 PM
MrQ1701's Avatar
MrQ1701 MrQ1701 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Espanola, New Mexico
Posts: 3,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
Yes, it exists. Yes, it's important. "Eh, I don't care, just put the name on it and we're good" does not fly.
Agreed. It seems where us fans have been disagreeing is in the details. The new E's design, the look of the bridge, the "sexy" appeal, the Star Wars "feel" of the movie, is it dumbing Trek down? Etc... I could really care less about the new design of the Enterprise. I may voice my opinion of it, but I do not consider it "canon" (as long as it still looks like the Enterprise in shape and basic design). Same goes for Kirk driving a car off a cliff as a kid, NOT important to me. I do not pretend to know Kirk well enough to say he would NOT have done that. I am stil hopefull the characters remain true to what we know and that the story is well told and "deeper" than a bunch of action sequences and explosions.
__________________
To secure the peace is to prepare for war. -Metallica

Last edited by MrQ1701 : 01-11-2009 at 03:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-11-2009, 06:05 PM
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 Scribbler View Post
I'm glad something does.
Ha. Ha.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 01-11-2009, 06:27 PM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
I do appologize for yelling? But it gripes me when somebody mentions the different bridges in the movies and compares that to the new bridge in the new movie. I never saw an Apple store bridge in any episode of TOS. This movie is supposed to represent past. Before the events of TOS. But apparently during Pike's tour of duty on the Enterprise. Again, we already know what the Enterprise looked like then. Why change it so radically. Why not stay a little closer to the original? And I'm not shoving my opinions down anyone's throat any more than anyone else is trying to shove theirs down mine. I'm told to shut up and to get over it and that the old Enterprise is dead and that I should get a life. So get over it if it irks me. I can express my opinion just as much as anyone else. And I don't curse or call anyone names, as I have been cursed at and called names here in the past. So I will continue to express my opinion. If you don't like it. Don't read it.
No one that I can see is saying "shut up". It'd be pointless. No one's going to shut up here, so why utter it. I've said "get over it" not as a command, but as method of something that many here need to do if they're going to consider this movie in any way a quality Star Trek movie. If you can't get over it, that's fine for you. There are things I can't "get over" either. It's a human trait. I'd like to give the movie "Grease" a chance, unfortunately I can't get over the girly girly hype that always surrounds it, so I just pass it up.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 01-11-2009, 06:56 PM
only1jamest's Avatar
only1jamest only1jamest is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Newport News, Virginia
Posts: 367
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
...Again, we already know what the Enterprise looked like then. Why change it so radically. Why not stay a little closer to the original?

1960's vs 2008 ~ Cardbord sets vs state of the art CGI ~ $100,000 budget vs $150million. ~ and most importantly it's a fracking movie based on fiction!

__________________
Believing oneself to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind. -Data, to Borg Queen, Star Trek: First Contact
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:41 PM
The Saint's Avatar
The Saint The Saint is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,575
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only1jamest View Post
1960's ~ Cardbord sets ~ $100,000 budget ~ and most importantly it's a fracking movie based on fiction!
So... why watch a Star Trek film at all? Doesn't sound like there's much you liked about where it came from.
__________________
"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
  #39  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:41 PM
CDH-313's Avatar
CDH-313 CDH-313 is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 302
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only1jamest View Post
1960's vs 2008 ~ Cardbord sets vs state of the art CGI ~ $100,000 budget vs $150million. ~ and most importantly it's a fracking movie based on fiction!

Much of the same could be said of the TMP version - years later with a much higher budget - but it still wasn't that radically different in overall shape & proportions. I still think MigueldaRican has a point about the movies moving forward in time (thus justifying, or at least allowing a reasonable explanation for, the differences,) as opposed to this film, which is supposed to represent the way the ship looked in the Pike era.
__________________
. . . just an old-school Trekker getting by in a newfangled galaxy.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:49 PM
LTJG Iferal's Avatar
LTJG Iferal LTJG Iferal is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 265
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by only1jamest View Post
1960's vs 2008 ~ Cardbord sets vs state of the art CGI ~ $100,000 budget vs $150million. ~ and most importantly it's a fracking movie based on fiction!

I dunno. Despite the oft-cited mischaracterization of my "side" of this argument as "I'll take anything so long as the name Star Trek is on it", I think there should be some kind of internal consistency; so do most people. The difference - the point of contention, as it were - is exactly what that consistency should be.

Were someone to ask me, my opinion is that small snippits of never-actually-seen-but-only-mentioned-in-somebody's-conversation-once backstory are fun bits of filler in the episodes where they're used. In some conversation in some episode or other, someone may have mentioned Kirk's underwear size - such details may fascinate those who like to gather all the sticks and build an encyclopedia out of them, but Kirk would still be Kirk whether that conversation took place or not; the factoid changes nothing about his character, his hopes and needs and motivations, one way or the other.

Yes, fine, soundbite miners may find something in some episode about how Kirk first met Pike at the swimming pool rather than at the grocery store - but is there a reason why a depiction of the meeting taking place at the grocery store after all must be so damaging to the character of Kirk? Because he apparently was able to drive a car when he was a kid, aside from causing a negligible and easily-solved inconsistency over a 10-second comic-relief moment in some episode, what changes about Kirk? Is he now less able to take risks? Does he like women less? Perhaps the original conversation was mistaken. Conversations can be flat-out wrong, sometimes, after all, even when it's people discussing events from their own pasts.

If Chekov is suddenly a few years older, what does that change about Chekov, really, besides the age we thought he was? I personally don't remember Kirk or Chekov ever stating their exact ages in an episode; but even if they did - what ripples does such a change create?

I really don't see any, aside from a few people having to update their encyclopedias.
__________________
"People can be very frightened of change." - Capt. James Kirk
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 11:09 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.