The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > I'm tired of the Canon/Continuity debate. It's a dead issue, why even bother?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-27-2009, 05:33 AM
captain spock's Avatar
captain spock captain spock is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Planet Vulcan
Posts: 102
Default

didn't they kind of go their separate ways after "Generations" which buy the way had Shatner in it and many purists hated it, I mean really I think the black hole/Time thing is better than the "NEXUS"
The only crummy thing that this movie does (if you didn't like it) is it basically blocks the chance of a Kirk/Spock movie or show on the prime time line. But they could always try after NG, when you really think hard about it though this was really the only way to get it going again, forward is too hard, Enterprise did back wards and you'd only have few years to fill in.

Also what about the eugenics wars in 1990, where's Khan? (oops the canon is infallible)
__________________
"In any case, were I to invoke logic, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -- Spock
  • "Or the one." -- Kirk (Star Trek II)

Last edited by captain spock : 05-27-2009 at 07:48 AM. Reason: punctuation
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:29 AM
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 JSnyder4 View Post
You are looking for Best of Trek #7; which contains that article by Kyle Holland.

In fact, I have quoted some Best of Trek stuff on here previously.
Some even more esoteric sources as well.

Strangely, Best of Trek articles are not archived on the web (to my knowledge) and even brief excerpts are beyond rare.
I loved the Best of Trek books. Leslie Thompson's articles on the crew. She Walks in Beauty on Uhura. Kiel Stuart's parodies! The Doom and Gloom Machine! And Space Weeds! Good stuff! Wish I still had my copies.
__________________
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
  #13  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:37 AM
Commodore's Avatar
Commodore Commodore is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Starbase 24
Posts: 2,511
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain spock View Post
didn't they kind of go their separate ways after "Generations" which buy the way had Shatner in it and many purists hated it...
No, and it wasn't just "purists"----that hated Generations. And it didn't have anything remotely to do with canon or continuity anyway. Some folks just thought that the movie just wasn't that good or was just average at best.
Quote:
...I mean really I think the black hole/Time thing is better than the "NEXUS"
Both are kind of lame plot devices, IMO, but I think the Nexus is purtier to look at myself...
Quote:
Also what about the eugenics wars in 1990, where's Khan? (oops the canon is infallible)
They kept up with continuity in ENT. The Eugenics Wars was covered in the ENT story featuring the Augments. The episode "Borderland" in particular had Phlox make a passing reference to the Augments as being products of 20th-Century genetic engineering.

This brings up the inevitable question that many fans have problems with--Is Star Trek a fictional universe with its own history that's separate from ours? If so, then the Eugenics Wars did indeed happen in the 1990s there and Khan is currently out asleep right now aboard the Botany Bay...
__________________
Free your mind, and the rest will follow.
--En Vogue
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-27-2009, 09:53 AM
skippyluvs's Avatar
skippyluvs skippyluvs is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Stuck on Earth at the moment
Posts: 95
Default

Hehehe

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel View Post
A short answer to a long post: New explanations invalidate old ones simply because the older ones were wrong. They are not continuity errors. They are continuity corrections.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:00 PM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

I was one of the staunchest defenders of canon on this board up until the film came out and I saw A. The direction it took B. The changes that were made to the timeline, and C. What degree of success the film had, which was a little bit more than just considerable. I just have to look at Star Trek a little differently now. The Star Trek that I've enjoyed all my life, since I was knee-high to a jackrabbit, and the New, youthful, re-engineered Star Trek that I have newly found and enjoy just as much, but in a slightly different manner than it's predecessor. Watching TOS and then seeing STNG, DS9, Voyager mention it, pay homage and in some cases tribute to it with some degree of fond rememberance was a unique and special experience that I cannot forget, and I will continue to watch those series and enjoy them as I always have. If I live long enough, I'll go see whatever sequels are made of the current film, and enjoy it for the unique, new and fun things they will bring to the franchise. I just have to think of it like this: An author of a book or series of books that I've read and enjoyed for many years has died. He can no longer write those books, or about the characters I've been having fun reading about for many years, but I still want more. Thankfully for me, there is a new author out there who is willing to pick up where the old author left off and continue writing books about those same characters, but since the art tends to reflect the author, the new adventures of these characters will have the new author's own special spin on them and the literary events they become involved in. Ian Fleming is a good example. He wrote a series of novels about James Bond, a very popular and well known character that many people had a keen interest to read about. So since Mr. Fleming died shortly after that interest began to peak, other authors took up the torch and wrote more novels about James Bond and some of them turned out to be very, very good and were every bit as enjoyable as the originals. That's how I see Star Trek (2009).
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:14 PM
lordisaiah's Avatar
lordisaiah lordisaiah is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Aurora, Colorado
Posts: 468
Default

Actually, the Khan/Eugenics Wars in the 1990's brings up a point about the Star Trek universe which I'd never really thought too deeply about until this new movie came out.

One of the oft cited criticisms of the new movie was it's redesign of set pieces, like the Enterprise, and the bridge, ect. Often the argument cited for doing these changes was that the original set pieces and design of the Enterprise reflected a "1960's" vision of the 23rd Century that was incompatible with real world advances from that time into the beginning of the 21st century. The response typically was "Doesn't matter, this is how the 23rd Century looks. Been that way for 40+ years."

It has now finally dawned on me that they weren't being "clear" with their meaning. The Star Trek Universe is a fictional universe true, but imagine it this way, the Prime Timeline for Star Trek started in the 1960's and developed in ways that are different from our real world timeline, just as the new movie's timeline was altered from the arrival of the Narada. Yes, certain things did happen that were the same, but for example, in the Star Trek timeline, the Shuttle Enterprise was refitted as originally planned and joined the active Orbiter fleet, hence why Sisko has a model of the ISS with the shuttle "Enterprise" docked at it, and why the Enterprise in the opening credits of ENT had the tiles of one of the active orbiters. In that timeline, the nuclear propulsion program for space craft was never canceled and resulted in the development of the DY-100 series of Sleeper ships in the 1990's whereas in our timeline, such a vessel is still considered decades away from even the development stage.

I know, clear as mud right....
__________________
I have seen the darkness in my soul and shine brighter for it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:35 PM
GalacticCore GalacticCore is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MonsieurHood View Post
The old shows are made. They're on VHS/DVD/Blue Ray for all to see... All we can hope for is that the core meaning of Star Trek has not been compromised and that it's credo remains true....The great debate is over. Let's drop the arguments, the tirades and gripefests and enjoy ourselves. It's too late to worry now, the milk is spilt.
This is the most sad commentary on Star Trek and this forum. The credo: Space... the Final Frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before. Too boring.

"Remember" it, when the next pissed-off Romulan (or other known alien villan) comes back in the next "action, action, and more action" movie.

Computer, delete program.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:57 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

I honestly think people would have a problem if the movie just had ONE action sequence in the movie.

You should've heard ConfusedMatthew yelling at the trailer.

"STAR TREK IS NOT AN ACTION FRANCHISE! STAR TREK IS NOT AN ACTION FRANCHISE!"

You're right. It's not an action franchise.

It's an adventure franchise for sure, and I'm sorry to say, action and adventure almost never exclude each other in a movie.

They're the same thing. Get over it.

By the way, did you know that Nero is the ONLY Romulan villain to ever be portrayed in all 11 movies?

The ONLY one.

And if anyone mentions Shinzon they have no idea what they're talking about. Shinzon was a genetically altered human, just like Khan.

"Remember" it when the next pissed-off genetically altered human(or other known human villain) comes back in the next "revenge, revenge and more revenge" movie.

Star Trek movie follow certain main genres and those genres change every now and then.

TMP was mostly a sci-fi mystery.

TWOK was mostly a sci-fi action movie.

TSFS was mostly a sci-fi action/adventure movie.

TVH was mostly a sci-fi comedy drama.

TFF was mostly a sci-fi drama.

TUC was mostly a sci-fi mystery/adventure movie.

Generations was mostly a sci-fi drama.

First Contact was mostly a sci-fi thriller/action movie.

Insurrection was mostly a sci-fi mystery/action movie.

Nemesis was mostly a sci-fi action/adventure movie.

My question to you is this.

Now that the action sequences in Star Trek actually LOOK like action sequences they somehow make the movie worse for you how?

I guarantee you, if the other movies had the budget that this movie had, all the action sequences in the previous movies would be much more elaborate and flashy than they already were.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:59 PM
Samuel Samuel is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GalacticCore View Post
Computer, delete program.
Ok see ya.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:16 PM
GalacticCore GalacticCore is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lordisaiah View Post
Actually, the Khan/Eugenics Wars in the 1990's brings up a point about the Star Trek universe which I'd never really thought too deeply about until this new movie came out..


It has now finally dawned on me that they weren't being "clear" with their meaning. The Star Trek Universe is a fictional universe true, but imagine it this way, the Prime Timeline for Star Trek started in the 1960's and developed in ways that are different from our real world timeline,a. In that timeline, the nuclear propulsion program for space craft was never canceled and resulted in the development of the DY-100 series of Sleeper ships in the 1990's whereas in our timeline, such a vessel is still considered decades away from even the development stage.

I know, clear as mud right....
Good commentary. I have always found the parallels to 'our' real time-line and those 'predicted' by Roddenberry and others in TOS to be "facinating" (to coin a phrase)... We all know about the tech developments, cell phones and such, that outpace those in TOS, TNG or even the movies. But the mid-90's eugenics war (Khan et al), have a 'real' parallel. What military or foreign policy expert could've predicted in the mid-60s that we'd be fighting a war in SW Asia - starting with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, when we armed the jihadists (OSBL) and backed their resistance. Then by the mid-90's they've defeated the Soviet Empire and turn against us. They consider themselves so highly superior to us "infidels" that we should be destroyed if not converted to their world view...and so here we are becoming deeper and deeper involved and entangled in SW Asia wars, to the point we invade a country to remove a dictatorial meglamaniac ruler who ruled with an iron-fist and now a possible Afghan-Pakistan civil war with nuke weapons is looming.

I know an engineer that worked on the nuclear rocket engine program in the 60's. It was very far along and nearly ready to go. I have seen where it is mothballed. It would take relatively small effort to revive it, it only requires the will. Highly unlikely to happen as no one would want to risk launching a working nuclear reactor after the Shuttle disasters. But who knows what others not constrained by our ethics might do. There are several SW and east Asia nations working on combining their own space and nuclear technologies. They are in the news almost every night. Have you seen the symbol for the PR China space program? Its a very close facimile of the Star Fleet symbol. Life imitates art?
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 09:48 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.