RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,666
Posts: 5,429,223
Members: 24,817
Currently online: 425
Newest member: 118_Larson


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 5 2014, 12:56 PM   #31
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

I think Gorkon's words in this trailer are quite fitting here.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 02:39 PM   #32
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

AustNerevar wrote: View Post
Do we even have an idea on whether or not there will be anymore Abramsverse content? I mean, I figured that was dead, now. It's kind of a shame, even given my disappointment with STiD. Two movies and the universe is dead.
They are making a third movie that's still produced by Abrams and Bad Robot and set in the same continuity with the same cast; it's just that Abrams won't be directing it himself this time.

Anyway, it's beside the point for this conversation. Even if a given continuity within a franchise ends, that doesn't preclude later continuities from being influenced by its ideas. It's fiction, after all, so any earlier iteration of a concept is fair game for inspiration. Batman: The Brave and the Bold was as much a pastiche of the Adam West Batman and Superfriends as it was of the Silver Age comics of the '40s through '60s, but it also drew on much more modern DC elements like the Jaime Reyes Blue Beetle and the Ryan Choi Atom. The Marvel Cinematic Universe draws on ideas from both the main ("Earth-616") Marvel Comics continuity and the Ultimate Marvel Universe, and The Incredible Hulk even borrowed a bit from the Bill Bixby TV series (which was about as far from the comics continuity as you can get).

The creators of future incarnations of Star Trek will probably create their own continuities for the same reason Abrams did: Because it's more liberating than being laden down by decades of past continuity, and because much of original Trek canon is growing increasingly outdated and in need of updating. And like any creators of a new interpretation, they'll draw on whatever past ideas inspire and interest them, or react against them (like the way the Burton Batman films were a reaction against the Adam West series, or the serious '84 Godzilla reboot was a reaction against the silly Godzilla films of the '60s and '70s). It doesn't matter which continuity those ideas come from, because they're all part of the source material.



King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
What I meant is that he'll keep coming back to menace every version of Kirk, just like Moriarty does each incarnation of Sherock or Zod does every Superman.
That's plausible. I'd hope, though, that he'd be joined by characters like Kor and Kang, and maybe the "Enterprise Incident" Romulan Commander.


Isn't it technically an alternate timeline in the same canon? Same universe (with a new lick of paint) but different events post-2233.
Well, really, "canon" does not mean "continuity." It means the original, core work in a franchise as distinct from derivative or pastiche works. A canon can encompass more than one continuity, or be discontinuous to begin with (lots of older TV series had a deliberate lack of continuity between episodes).

For instance, look at the 1988 Mission: Impossible revival. As a product of the writers' strike of that year, it started out by remaking episodes from the original series, though the strike resolved soon enough that it could revise and update them and do mostly original episodes. But it also presented itself as a sequel and continuation of the original, bringing back Peter Graves to star as Jim Phelps and featuring original cast members like Greg Morris and Lynda Day George in guest roles, as well as co-starring Morris's son Phil Morris as his character's son. So it was both a sequel and a partial remake at the same time. And it was from Paramount, an official continuation. So it's part of the canon just as much as ST:TNG is part of Trek canon, but it doesn't reflect a consistent continuity. Because canon and continuity are two different things.

(For that matter, Roddenberry intended TNG itself to be sort of a soft reboot of Trek continuity, but later producers brought it more in line with the original.)


Dukhat wrote: View Post
CBS owns the rights to all the Star Trek TV shows, and it owns the rights to the characters in those shows. In order to make a Star Trek movie, Paramount must license the characters from CBS. Yes, the Abrams films are owned by Paramount, but CBS is making money off of them.
Dukhat is correct, and it's easy to prove by looking at the copyright notice on any Abramsverse project. The movies themselves are Copyright Paramount Pictures, but there's also a notation saying "STAR TREK and related marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios." The movie novelizations, IDW comics, and Starfleet Academy YA novels are copyrighted by both Paramount and CBS.

CBS owns the concept of Star Trek as a whole. Anyone else who wants to make Trek productions for profit has to license them from CBS, because that's the way intellectual property works. A single fictional concept cannot have two separate and independent owners. By analogy, 20th Century Fox owns the copyright to its X-Men and Fantastic Four films, but the actual characters and concepts adapted in those films belong to Marvel, and Fox has to pay for the right to use them (as Sony does for Spider-Man). Fox owns the storyline and actual film footage of, say, X-Men First Class, but Marvel owns the title X-Men and the associated concept, the characters of Xavier and Wolverine and Storm, etc. By the same token, Paramount owns the plots and footage of ST'09 and STID, but CBS owns the title and premise of Star Trek, entities like the Enterprise, the Federation, and Vulcan, characters like Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Uhura, and Khan, etc.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 03:46 PM   #33
Dennis
Commodore
 
Dennis's Avatar
 
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
CrazyMatt wrote: View Post

No way. For me, canon matters and I consider Star Trek canon ended with the end of "Enterprise."
Nah. That particular "canon" ended, but there's no rule that says you can't start another "canon" . . . and another one a generation later. There's always room for a new variation on an old favorite. None of this stuff is set in stone.

You might just as well pretend that no more Tarzan movies were made after the Johnny Weismuller series ended . . . or that no Frankenstein movie made after 1948 is "canon."

Getting back OT, the Khan/Moriarity thing sounds plausible. Moriarity only made one or two appearances in the original Conan Doyle "canon." It was subsequent retellings that built him up into a major recurring character. (Ditto Irene Adler.)

I can see Khan going the same route . . . and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Borg turn up in some future iteration of TOS. They're too popular to leave on the shelf for long.
Exactly so, every word of it.
__________________
"I don’t think there is any place in the world where [the Ford Mustang] is not known. To build it right here in Michigan is something to be proud of." - UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles

Dennis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 03:55 PM   #34
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

AustNerevar wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
I can see Khan going the same route . . . and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Borg turn up in some future iteration of TOS. They're too popular to leave on the shelf for long.
Do we even have an idea on whether or not there will be anymore Abramsverse content? I mean, I figured that was dead, now. It's kind of a shame, even given my disappointment with STiD. Two movies and the universe is dead.
Why would you think it was dead? It did well at the box-office and, according to a quick glance at wikipedia, is the highest-grossing Trek movie to date (not adjusting for inflation). You make it sound like it was a tremendous financial flop.

Of course there will be another one.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com

Last edited by Greg Cox; May 5 2014 at 06:43 PM.
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:08 PM   #35
HIjol
Fleet Captain
 
HIjol's Avatar
 
Location: Currently U.A.E (a lot like Tatooine!)
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
^^ Wow, some real hideous merchandise I was gratefully (and previously) not aware of.

Bob
...Amen, Brother!

"Flashing Light Emitter"
"Pulsating Sound"

Wow

"There...Are...Four...Lights..."

...or just the one...
__________________
"If man is to survive, he will delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear" Gene Roddenberry
HIjol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:24 PM   #36
HIjol
Fleet Captain
 
HIjol's Avatar
 
Location: Currently U.A.E (a lot like Tatooine!)
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

King Daniel Into Darkness wrote: View Post
I think Gorkon's words in this trailer are quite fitting here.
Holy Crap!...

That was One. Incredible. Fucking. Trailer.

...thank you, King...I am currently watching it for the 15th time...
__________________
"If man is to survive, he will delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear" Gene Roddenberry
HIjol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:32 PM   #37
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

albion432 wrote: View Post
If Abrams has proven anything it's that Star Trek is here to stay. Now that Paramount knows Star Trek will sell tickets regardless of the cast, and once this reboot runs its course, we should expect to see other reboots in the future.

Just as 1980's British series Robin of Sherwood effectively added new elements to the Robin Hood legend which have endured in every version of Robin Hood since, so too has Abrams' movies introduced new elements to TOS's lore.

Anyone care to speculate on which changes they think are likely to survive into future versions of Star Trek, and which are likely to go the way of the dodo bird? For example, the Spock/Uhura relationship, should it stay or should it go?

(I wasn't sure if I should post this thread here or over in the Star Trek Movies XI+ section. I decided to post it here because the topic seemed to me to be more about TOS lore in general than about the new movies.)
That's an excellent question albion432.

Firstly, I'd like to say I'm really surprised (and delighted) to see an American who knows about 'Robin of Sherwood', and how influential it was to the Robin Hood mythology and all subsequent incarnations of such on film and television. 1980s mullets aside, of course.

Secondly, I'd say that yes, I could see certain elements established within JJTrek being adopted permanently into the canon ala 'Robin of Sherwood', even retroactively applied to "prime" Trek. For example, many elements of the TOS characters were surprisingly scarce on information in the "Prime" Star Trek, most of what we assume is either background from bibles that never made it to screen, or else nothing other than ascended 'fanon' that most of us accept as true despite no screen evidence of such. An example of former would be McCoy's backstory: most of us accepted his divorce and his teenage daughter, despite neither being given lip-service on screen at any point (his daughter was a near-miss; almost written into a script, and later given a namecheck in an episode of The Animated Series, but otherwise entirely absent). JJTrek went back to the source and officially 'canonized' the McCoy backstory. I can totally see elements of Chekov or Uhura or Kirk as first established on-screen in JJTrek becoming important to future portrayals of those characters, in ways that even the TOS originals weren't.

I think it is inevitable that, retroactively, later biographies of these characters, indeed later Reboots of the franchise using Kirk & Spock et al, will almost certainly incorporate/absorb elements of JJTrek as being 'fact'. Just like the way 'Robin of Sherwood' established Robin with a Saracen companion, and all subsequent portrayals of the character in many media thought that was a neat idea and took it on-board also, despite it not being a part of the 'classic' telling of the Robin Hood legend.

Christopher wrote:
I think it's natural for ideas from various iterations of a series to accrete onto the mythos over time. For instance, the '40s Batman serials introduced the Batcave and skinny Alfred (replacing the chubby, comic-relief Alfred of previous comics); the '60s TV series introduced Mr. Freeze (he'd been Mr. Zero before) and sort of introduced the Barbara Gordon Batgirl (in that the show's producers asked the comic's makers to create the character so she could be adapted to the screen); the Burton films introduced a retro/Gothic aesthetic; Batman: The Animated Series introduced Harley Quinn and Renee Montoya; and the Nolan films elevated Lucius Fox to a more central role that's been emulated by other adaptations.
Another great example. Or indeed the way the 'original' Superman was said to be unable to fly (merely "leap tall buildings in a single bound") and was at one stage grew up at an orphanage after his being discovered, before the Ma and Pa Kent backstory was added by later productions and became Supes' official backstory. And then there's Kryptonite, invented for one of the adaptations (the radio serial?), and then retroactively imported back into the comic book after-the-fact...

Last edited by Lance; May 5 2014 at 04:57 PM.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:40 PM   #38
A beaker full of death
Vice Admiral
 
A beaker full of death's Avatar
 
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

albion432 wrote: View Post
changes to TOS lore
I have no idea what this means. Star Trek was a tv show that ended in 1969. Nothing made after it changes it.
__________________
"shall not be infringed" is naturally open to infringements of all kinds, because shut up and think of the children.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...#ixzz2ImW0V3GV
A beaker full of death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:44 PM   #39
Relayer1
Commodore
 
Relayer1's Avatar
 
Location: The Black Country, England
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Unfortunately, none of the subsequent takes on Robin Hood have been anywhere as good as Robin of Sherwood...
__________________
Soon oh soon the light, Pass within and soothe this endless night, And wait here for you, Our reason to be here...
Relayer1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:53 PM   #40
Lance
Commodore
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Relayer1 wrote: View Post
Unfortunately, none of the subsequent takes on Robin Hood have been anywhere as good as Robin of Sherwood...
Agreed 100%. I think of it as being the definitive telling of the Robin Hood story, but it was seen as something of a genre-buster at the time, taking great liberties with aspects of what we thought we 'knew' about the legend... while also doing very, very clever things with other parts of it.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 04:54 PM   #41
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

The new movies also retroactively "canonized" Uhura's first name of Nyota, which had never been used onscreen before, despite having been introduced in the novels years earlier. I imagine that will stick around . . . unless Uhura gets turned into a man at some point.

I can also see later incarnations picking up on the idea of Chekov being some sort of youthful prodigy . . ..
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 05:39 PM   #42
CrazyMatt
Commander
 
CrazyMatt's Avatar
 
Location: Paradise
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Rarewolf wrote: View Post
CrazyMatt wrote: View Post
No way. For me, canon matters and I consider Star Trek canon ended with the end of "Enterprise."
For me I'd say it ended with Voyager. Enterprise probably rewrites the canon as much as the NuTrek movies - at least the movies can have reason to be doing things differently, not pretending to have done everything first. That undermines Kirk's legacy to say he is just following in their footsteps, having an easier ride.
I suppose I could live with that.

Of course, I almost never watch(ed) Voyager... it is canon, and it's also booorrrrriiiiiiinnnnnngggggg.
__________________
"You are speaking to a senior officer, Kirk!"
CrazyMatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 06:03 PM   #43
drt
Commander
 
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Christopher wrote: View Post
(For that matter, Roddenberry intended TNG itself to be sort of a soft reboot of Trek continuity, but later producers brought it more in line with the original.)
Shoot, TMP is also a soft reboot. I'd say the Bennett films are arguably as well...


Back to the topic: I think Uhura's elevation in status to "main three/four" is here to stay. Some others: the idea of Kirk being born in space during some kind of catastrophy ("I only grew up in Iowa"), the Kirk/Pine mentor relationship, perhaps as an adjunct to that, Kirk being Enterprise's first officer and rising to command during a crisis* (not the '09 lieutenant to captain jump, but a more normal progression).

* = which comes from Picard's biography, which I guess is full circle since he was originally derived from the idea of elder-statesmen Kirk.


I think what will be more interesting, is when they pull characters and situations from the TNG-era and incorporate them into a future retelling. For instance, as I mentioned in another thread, the idea of Mr. Worf (Klingon child raised by humans) would work in a TOS-setting, and be more interesting in a time when Klingons are actual enemies of the Federation (maybe providing a contrast where Worf is "raised" Klingon based on historical texts, etc., but have the actual Klingons only pay that lip service and be their original TOS schemey selves). And as Greg Cox mentioned, the Borg are too good of an idea to leave on the shelf, particularly in light of providing story-telling opportunities to explore/comment on the increasing use of nanotechnology in today's world.
drt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 06:16 PM   #44
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Lance wrote: View Post
Firstly, I'd like to say I'm really surprised (and delighted) to see an American who knows about 'Robin of Sherwood', and how influential it was to the Robin Hood mythology and all subsequent incarnations of such on film and television. 1980s mullets aside, of course.
I have that show in my Netflix queue but haven't reached it yet. I'm curious, what elements did it add to the mythos? You mention it starting the trend of including a "Saracen" or similarly ethnic character to the cast, but what else? I recall reading that it featured some supernatural elements, but I haven't seen those in subsequent Robin Hood films and shows.


An example of former would be McCoy's backstory: most of us accepted his divorce and his teenage daughter, despite neither being given lip-service on screen at any point (his daughter was a near-miss; almost written into a script, and later given a namecheck in an episode of The Animated Series, but otherwise entirely absent). JJTrek went back to the source and officially 'canonized' the McCoy backstory. I can totally see elements of Chekov or Uhura or Kirk as first established on-screen in JJTrek becoming important to future portrayals of those characters, in ways that even the TOS originals weren't.
The films also canonized Uhura's first name and those of Kirk's parents, which originally came from the novels. But then, The Undiscovered Country canonized Sulu's first name from the novels too, so it's happened before.


Or indeed the way the 'original' Superman was said to be unable to fly (merely "leap tall buildings in a single bound") and was at one stage grew up at an orphanage after his being discovered, before the Ma and Pa Kent backstory was added by later productions and became Supes' official backstory. And then there's Kryptonite, invented for one of the adaptations (the radio serial?), and then retroactively imported back into the comic book after-the-fact...
Actually I've recently been listening to the Superman radio series on the Internet Archive, and the original version of Superman's origin story was totally bizarre. Episode 1 tells the story of Jor-L (as his name was originally spelled) and the death of Krypton just as you'd expect, ending with the baby Kal-L being launched in a rocket from the dying planet -- but then episode 2 opens with an adult Superman arriving in that selfsame rocket in his full costume, somehow with a full knowledge of 1940s American English. He leaves the rocket, flies around for a bit, then rescues a random professor and his son on a runaway bus. When they ask what they can do to repay him, he asks where a guy can go to learn about crises as soon as possible, and the professor suggests getting a job at a newspaper -- along with adopting Earth clothes and a secret identity. The boy suggests the name "Clark Kent" on the spur of the moment. And that's his entire origin. It's odd that they went that route, given that the comics had already established in 1939 that he'd arrived as an infant and been raised by adoptive parents.

A couple of years later, in 1942, the series went on hiatus for 6 months and then returned in a slightly new format, and they took the opportunity to reboot the origin. The second episode of that series is titled "Eben Kent Dies in Fire; Clark Goes to Metropolis." Unfortunately, that episode, like many episodes of the restarted series, has been lost, but it's evident from the title that it used the same version of the origin story given in the 1942 novel The Adventures of Superman by George Lowther, who was the director of the radio series (an origin also used in the Kirk Alyn serials and George Reeves TV series). Lowther's novel also introduced the spelling Jor-El for Superman's birth father.

And yes, the radio series did introduce kryptonite, though there was an earlier unpublished comics story called "The K-Metal from Krypton" that may have been an inspiration.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 5 2014, 06:32 PM   #45
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Are the changes to TOS lore here to stay?

Another example of the way new "lore" is acquired over time can be seen in most modern versions of Dracula. The idea that Mina (or maybe Lucy) is the reincarnation of Vlad's lost-lost love is practically a cliche these days, seen most recently in the new NBC tv series, but it's nowhere to be found in Bram Stoker's original novel. As nearly I can tell, it first appeared in a 1974 TV-movie adaptation scripted by Richard Matheson, long before it was recycled in the Coppola movie.

Similarly, the idea that Dracula disintegrates in the sunlight seems to come from the original 1922 silent version of Nosferatu, not the novel.

"Canon" is always a work-in-progress . . . and subject to revision.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.