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
  #41  
Old 01-11-2009, 07:55 PM
Frenzy's Avatar
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 424
Default

Lol nice one McCoy
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-11-2009, 08:00 PM
Frenzy's Avatar
Frenzy Frenzy is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 424
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Saint View Post
So... why watch a Star Trek film at all? Doesn't sound like there's much you liked about where it came from.
I dont get it. Why do Americans always have to go " Oh you dont like this part? Dont watch it at all? " Geez, you are acting like any criticism of TOS means you are not a fan. TOS sucked except for a handful of episodes. But its those episodes that captured the attention and admiration of generation. The ship is just a prop, its the story thats eternal.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-11-2009, 08:05 PM
cjopbj cjopbj is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 581
Default

World events changed canon. Sure, I want the basic personalities and the overriding philosphy of Star Trek to remain ... but I don't give a rat's *** about what the bridge of the Enterprise looks like as long as it stays fairly believable.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-11-2009, 08:45 PM
martok2112's Avatar
martok2112 martok2112 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: River Ridge, LA
Posts: 6,458
Default

I've always felt that "canon" is what you make of it. I do tend to go by the official Paramount policy of canon for Trek though, although there is so much cool peripheral stuff out there (Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which was largely influenced by FASA gaming Corporation)....and it could almost be canonical. But, obviously, later supplements like the TNG and DS9 Tech Manuals have supplanted that.

Even if Gene Roddenberry said he considered Star Trek's V and VI to be non-canon, I still consider them canon. But, just because something's "canonized" doesn't mean it has to be obsessed over. Star Trek V came and went. It's part of official Trek history, but rarely if ever is it even revisited in any other official Trek outing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-12-2009, 03:50 AM
MigueldaRican's Avatar
MigueldaRican MigueldaRican is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 765
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by martok2112 View Post
I've always felt that "canon" is what you make of it. I do tend to go by the official Paramount policy of canon for Trek though, although there is so much cool peripheral stuff out there (Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise, which was largely influenced by FASA gaming Corporation)....and it could almost be canonical. But, obviously, later supplements like the TNG and DS9 Tech Manuals have supplanted that.

Even if Gene Roddenberry said he considered Star Trek's V and VI to be non-canon, I still consider them canon. But, just because something's "canonized" doesn't mean it has to be obsessed over. Star Trek V came and went. It's part of official Trek history, but rarely if ever is it even revisited in any other official Trek outing.
I wonder about Star Trek VI. I mean I love it, it's probably one of the best if not the best ST movies. But I just done watching one of the featurettes on the dvd. And one of the interviewees (forget who) said Gene Roddenberry hated the script, and the things he hated about the script weren't taken out of the final product. Now do the math, look at the quote in my sig. Eh? Yeah.

This just means you are more right than you probably think. Canon really is what we make of it.
__________________
01001110011011110010000001101101011011110111001001 10010100100000011000100110110001100001011010000010 00000110001001101100011000010110100000100000011000 10011011000110000101101000
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-12-2009, 06:12 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,257
Default

It is a great thing that Trek had achieved a high degree of internal consistency, but demanding it to be perfect would seriously limit creativity of any future writers/producers. While let's say Nick Meyer just did what he liked, JJA et al discussed continuity issues in their "Supreme Court".

"Canon violation" is just a cheap trick to cloud something of lesser relevance, your own opinion. Anyone has his holy Trek cows, the difference is that some people unleash havoc upon anyone who does not share their opinion and others just discuss what they like or don't like.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-12-2009, 07:35 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CDH-313 View Post
First of all, I really don't like the term "canon," because of the religious connotation; I don't see Star Trek as a religion. I prefer the phrase "Official Continuity."

The theory I have come to accept (which is my own & of course not binding on anyone else) is that anything produced or published by, or under license from Paramount or CBS as Star Trek fiction is part of the Official Continuity, unless & until it is directly contradicted by an on-screen fact or reference in one of the TV series or films. This would include the animated series, the novels, comics, etc., all of which were officially licensed products. I know it's a pretty broad definition, but I don't think it's unreasonable. If it has the "seal of approval" of the copyright owner, it should be accepted as part of the official universe.

There was a time when I thought only those episodes or films that were approved by Gene Roddenberry were part of the Official Continuity, but I came to believe that he was a bit too exclusive about it. I know it was his creation, but he also acknowledged that many others made it what it was. It has been enhanced by so many great writers, artists, etc., that it seems wrong to dismiss any of them as "not really part of Star Trek."
I truly have to agree on this point. "Canon" is a religious connotation. One that I am sure that Pope Benedict himself did not sanction in the edicts of the Holy Church of Rome. So the term to me is not applicable. Secondly what ever Paramount/CBS produces as far as Trek is concerned, is what we are going to get. Right,wrong or indifferent. We can debate, sure...it keeps us in the "loop" with other fans and often times is fun and exciting to hear another point of view. However at the end of the day with all the debate, arguments and speculation about "canon", we are still talking about something that does not exsist. (with maybe the exception of how we feel about it on a individual basis...not a whole)
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-12-2009, 07:45 AM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MigueldaRican View Post
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.

LOL! I can't force myself to watch "Grease" either!

"We go to GETher, like..."
(Argh! Going...into...sugar shock! Get help!)
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-12-2009, 08:01 AM
Dominus of Megadeus's Avatar
Dominus of Megadeus Dominus of Megadeus is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
If they were not going to respect the history and continuity of TOS, why even revisit that era and those characters?



Warp nacelles being slightly tapered? The original Jeffries design had slightly tapered nacelles. The Abramsprise has severely, grossly, freakishly tapered nacelles. They're huge at the front and pointy at the rear. And the ship does not look "about right". It looks totally wrong. The saucer is enormous, the secondary hull is tiny and looks like a squeezed tube of toothpaste, the dorsal connector is upside down and too far back on the secondary hull, and there are the afore mentioned freaky looking nacelles. The Abramsprise is a big, honkin', steaming pile of FUGLY!!!! And from what I've seen in the trailer and pictures, the technology looks quite a bit more advanced than anything we saw in TOS, movies, or even TNG. So the technology is definitely not on the same level as TOS, which it is supposed to represent. And, again, from what has been revealed thus far, the history is not mostly right either. Kirk, Pike, and the entire TOS crew on the bridge of the Enterprise at the same time????? Chekov an officer while Kirk, who is about 12 years his senior, is still a cadet????? Enterprise being built on earth?????? Starfleet encountering Romulans before "Balance of Terror"??? I could go on and on. But I digress..... It is pointless to argue about it now. The movie is done and there is nothing I can do about it. So I guess I'll just have to go see it and judge for myself if JJ actually "respected" canon or not. I am leaning toward "NOT". Apparently, only the names are the same. That's definitely not good enough for me.

I respect your viewpoint on the film. It differs from mine, but then again, I'm a pretty easy goin' dude.

Different viewpoints are what makes this country great! I do hope you go to see the movie, however. You may find that you like the story more than the asthetics. I remember when the 'reimaged' BSG aired on SciFi. The outrage some expressed! "Starbuck's a GIRL now!" "Why is the Galactica ribbed?" "Why don't the robotic Cylons speak anymore, and what's up with 'humanoid' Cylons?" It wsa a show cherished by many folks' childhood memories, and so, they expressed their displeasure. Again, it's their right. But after giving the show a chance, many of those naysayers now have become big fans of the show--even with Starbuck now being portrayed by a female (Talk about a change to cannon!) Some, however, turned away from the 21st century version, and watch repeats. To each his own.

My viewpoint falls back to the Bard and how many versions of his plays have been done--some even set in contemporary times. Some versions of Othello have been played by an all "black" cast with Othello being the only "white" character--a flip-flop of how the play was originally written. If the writing falls short, it doesn't matter how cool the SFX are (Lost In Space), the film will fall short. So, from one Trekker to another, all I ask is that when May comes around, go with an open mind and give it a chance. If it tastes like cabbage, and you hate cabbage, you can then say, "Yo, dog! This film sucks eggs! And the look of the ship stinks, too!"

I'm going with an open-mind. By hope is that it doesn't fail like "Lost In Space" did.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-12-2009, 09:05 AM
CAPTAIN MOUSE's Avatar
CAPTAIN MOUSE CAPTAIN MOUSE is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Placerville,CA
Posts: 2,564
Default

I just enjoy TOS for what it is...a progenator of what we will have in Trek today. I can see to a lot of people that "change" is often scary and uncomfortable. However to think it will not happen? Well is pretty silly. Times change. I for one do not wish to revisit the 60's and 70's of Trek. I refuse to wear polyester leisure suit jumpers and get a "Mike Brady" hair-do. those are thing of the past that had their time. In order to progress things have to move forward. We live right now in a more progressive era. If Star Trek is going to have a place in this time it must progress too.
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
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 12:48 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.