The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Possible solution for Cannon issues ?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 01-26-2009, 07:41 PM
Damage75's Avatar
Damage75 Damage75 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,593
Default

It's a good theory, but I don't see how they would try to get a non-Trek audience to get that reference.

Besides, ENT respected the TOS established line...it just took a couple of liberites here & there (just like all of the other Trek incarnations!).
__________________


You people have ruined "Star Trek The Next Generation" for me. You are absolutely the most insufferable group of jackasses I have ever had the misfortune of spending an extended period of time with. I hope you all f@*#! die. - Stewie after spending the day with the TNG cast.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-26-2009, 08:38 PM
Big D's Avatar
Big D Big D is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,112
Default

My "solution for canon issues" is fairly straightforward:
The new movie's based on the Original Series; it's obviously not a direct remake or re-telling of what we've already seen. It's today's depiction of the Original Series universe. Some deviation from 'canon', which is often riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities anyway, is to be expected and even welcomed.

I'm entirely convinced it'll be consistent enough with canon for my tastes. Except for some fairly trivial matters, I don't think it'll be glaringly inconsistent, except for radically different storytelling and a revised interpretation of the low-budget 1960s TV series' aesthetics.

Others will undoubtedly disagree. That is completely up to them, and I understand their perspective even though I might disagree.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-26-2009, 11:48 PM
kevin's Avatar
kevin kevin is offline
Federation Councillor
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: East Kilbride, Glasgow, UK
Posts: 21,077
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D View Post
My "solution for canon issues" is fairly straightforward:
The new movie's based on the Original Series; it's obviously not a direct remake or re-telling of what we've already seen. It's today's depiction of the Original Series universe. Some deviation from 'canon', which is often riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities anyway, is to be expected and even welcomed.

I'm entirely convinced it'll be consistent enough with canon for my tastes. Except for some fairly trivial matters, I don't think it'll be glaringly inconsistent, except for radically different storytelling and a revised interpretation of the low-budget 1960s TV series' aesthetics.

Others will undoubtedly disagree. That is completely up to them, and I understand their perspective even though I might disagree.
I think my general feeling is along similar lines as this.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-27-2009, 01:19 AM
mmoore's Avatar
mmoore mmoore is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: OKUSA
Posts: 1,973
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big D View Post
My "solution for canon issues" is fairly straightforward:
The new movie's based on the Original Series; it's obviously not a direct remake or re-telling of what we've already seen. It's today's depiction of the Original Series universe. Some deviation from 'canon', which is often riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities anyway, is to be expected and even welcomed.

I'm entirely convinced it'll be consistent enough with canon for my tastes. Except for some fairly trivial matters, I don't think it'll be glaringly inconsistent, except for radically different storytelling and a revised interpretation of the low-budget 1960s TV series' aesthetics.

Others will undoubtedly disagree. That is completely up to them, and I understand their perspective even though I might disagree.
+1, with a small addendum.

IMO, the "for new fans" and "alternate timeline" and "newest most tested theory" bites are for they who refuse to be satisfied with a "based upon" disclaimer, but instead demand an "in universe" explanation for everything.

Trouble is, many of them won't be satisfied regardless.
__________________
"Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01-27-2009, 02:29 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Well said, mmoore. If they had done the movie without the new universe trick, the same folks who cry "cop out!" now would have cried even louder because the holy "real" universe theory is overwritten. No matter how humble the writer and producers are, no effort to satisfy the old schoolers is appreciated.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-27-2009, 04:29 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 mmoore View Post
+1, with a small addendum.

IMO, the "for new fans" and "alternate timeline" and "newest most tested theory" bites are for they who refuse to be satisfied with a "based upon" disclaimer, but instead demand an "in universe" explanation for everything.

Trouble is, many of them won't be satisfied regardless.
True enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
Well said, mmoore. If they had done the movie without the new universe trick, the same folks who cry "cop out!" now would have cried even louder because the holy "real" universe theory is overwritten. No matter how humble the writer and producers are, no effort to satisfy the old schoolers is appreciated.
There is nothing "holy" about Star Trek. It is not a religion. That's why I have a little problem with the word "canon" used to describe the overall continuity of the fictional Star Trek universe. And yes, we probably would cry even louder about the radical changes being made to the established history of the, once again, fictional Star Trek universe had the "alternate reality" cop-out not been added to appease us old crotchety TOS fans. There have been continuity discrepencies in the past, any long-running series is going to have them. But the major events are pretty consistent and flows through a continuous timeline from the 23rd to the 24th centuries. The "alternate universe" explanation was just a way for the writers/producers to try to get the "canonists" or "purists" or whatever names you like to call us, off their backs. For me, it has almost worked...to an extent. I'm still angry and disappointed that I'm not going to get to see how the "real" TOS crew got together. Instead, I'm going to have to accept that this movie is about how an alternate reality version of the TOS crew came together. Fortunately, that leaves the floor wide open for CBS to do an actual origin story of the real TOS crew's origins. Maybe in a TV miniseries or direct-to-DVD movie. I know it won't happen, but it's wishful thinking.

Last edited by I-Am-Zim : 01-27-2009 at 05:13 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-27-2009, 05:53 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim View Post
True enough.



There is nothing "holy" about Star Trek. It is not a religion. That's why I have a little problem with the word "canon" used to describe the overall continuity of the fictional Star Trek universe. And yes, we probably would cry even louder about the radical changes being made to the established history of the, once again, fictional Star Trek universe had the "alternate reality" cop-out not been added to appease us old crotchety TOS fans. There have been continuity discrepencies in the past, any long-running series is going to have them. But the major events are pretty consistent and flows through a continuous timeline from the 23rd to the 24th centuries. The "alternate universe" explanation was just a way for the writers/producers to try to get the "canonists" or "purists" or whatever names you like to call us, off their backs. For me, it has almost worked...to an extent. I'm still angry and disappointed that I'm not going to get to see how the "real" TOS crew got together. Instead, I'm going to have to accept that this movie is about how an alternate reality version of the TOS crew came together. Fortunately, that leaves the floor wide open for CBS to do an actual origin story of the real TOS crew's origins. Maybe in a TV miniseries or direct-to-DVD movie. I know it won't happen, but it's wishful thinking.
Canon is used e.g. to seperate canonical books from apocryphal biblical texts or to seperate official from fan stuff. Nothing religious about the term, it just points out that some stuff is official or approved by a certain agency.

I used the term old-schooler which has a positive connotation because you mentioned that you found terms like canonistas or purists derogative.
I'd appreciate if you'd also stop using derogative terms like 'Abramsprise', old or original vs. new or #2 Enterprise would be more neutral terms. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01-27-2009, 06:34 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 Big D View Post
My "solution for canon issues" is fairly straightforward:
The new movie's based on the Original Series; it's obviously not a direct remake or re-telling of what we've already seen. It's today's depiction of the Original Series universe. Some deviation from 'canon', which is often riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities anyway, is to be expected and even welcomed.

I'm entirely convinced it'll be consistent enough with canon for my tastes. Except for some fairly trivial matters, I don't think it'll be glaringly inconsistent, except for radically different storytelling and a revised interpretation of the low-budget 1960s TV series' aesthetics.

Others will undoubtedly disagree. That is completely up to them, and I understand their perspective even though I might disagree.
That has to be the best solution to canon I have heard yet! You are a very wise man Big D!
__________________
CAN YOU CATCH SECOND HAND STUPIDITY? OR SHOULD I BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER HERE? - JEFF DUNHAM
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01-27-2009, 06:38 AM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmoore View Post
Trouble is, many of them won't be satisfied regardless.
Yeah, that is a problem, all be it a small one. They are definitely a minority.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01-27-2009, 07:40 AM
OneBuckFilms's Avatar
OneBuckFilms OneBuckFilms is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 909
Default

For those wanting an In-Universe explanation for the changes, one need only go to Orci and Kurtzman's "Alternate Timeline" quantum mechanics explanation, that both preserves existing continuity and allows the movie to take a different route.

I could buy that. Star Trek has had far stranger things happen.

For those who don't like nor buy that interpretation, then it is a "new canon", a remake that remains fairly true to the original. Think Battlestar Galactica, only no sex changes among the characters, and no darker take on the material (in fact it appears considerably bright in places, aka the Bridge).

I'm happy with either case if the movie is entertaining and true to the core of Star Trek (good characters, implicit optimistic viewpoint, action-adventure, some integration of current scientific knowledge).
__________________
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
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 10:16 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.