Why is canon important in a prequel?

[The Saint]

I've read a lot of people saying it isn't, sentiments along the lines of, "TOS is dated!" and "The look is so '60s!" Tough. That's what the producers and staff signed on to deal with. What's the point of telling us an origins story if you're fundamentally altering the entire world these characters originated in?

Sure, a prequel that sticks to established canon and sticks close to (though, granted, not identical to) an established "look" is tricky to do. But changing that look and deviating from the established in order to do it is like bragging to someone that you can make a trick shot in the middle of a running game of billiards, then moving all the balls from the positions they were in before you do it. It's lazy and more than a little dishonest. the same kind of "bait & switch" Star Trek fans were dealt with "Enterprise." Frankly, once was enough. Do Star Trek, as opposed to "Enterprise: The Next Generation" -- or do something else.

 

[Michael]

What's the point of telling us an origins story if you're fundamentally altering the entire world these characters originated in?

So you didn't like the film? I've yet to see it.

"Enterprise." Frankly, once was enough.

I liked Enterprise.

 

[The Saint]

What's the point of telling us an origins story if you're fundamentally altering the entire world these characters originated in?

So you didn't like the film? I've yet to see it.

After the slap in the face that was Enterprise, you should pardon a preemptive flinch here and there.

"Enterprise." Frankly, once was enough.

I liked Enterprise.

I like Star Trek better.

 

[Dane_Whitman]

I like Star Trek: Enterprise.

 

[The Saint]

I like Star Trek: Enterprise.

A title which should have been followed with: Really, It's Star Trek! We promise! *snicker! chuckle!*

 

[number6]

I like Star Trek: Enterprise.

A title which should have been followed with: Really, It's Star Trek! We promise! *snicker! chuckle!*

Are you here to express a real opinion, or to troll Enterprise fans?

I suspect the latter..

 

[The Saint]

Well, it's the former. As I said, I like Star Trek. I hope this film will be a Star Trek film. But the sentiment, "What's so important about sticking to canon?" is generally uttered by writers too lazy, incompetent or apathetic to put in the work it takes to make a prequel that plays by its own rules, and by readers or viewers so long abused by such writers that they no longer give enough of a damn to protest that kind of sloppy hackwork.

 

[number6]

I don't think any of the writers of this film have said or implied that, in fact they have time and again emphatically stated the opposite.

They seem to have nothing but respect for the continuity of all the shows and claim to have written a film that honors all of it.

I am also a Star Trek fan. That doens't mean I need to insult fans of the other Trek shows to get my point across.

 

[The Saint]

Except that one of those shows, most particularly its showrunners, exhibited little to no respect for what had come before (chronologically; what came later, within the created universe of its setting.) Until Manny Coto took the reins and busted his ass to try to turn things around, Enterprise was an insult to the fans.

 

[Michael]

Until Manny Coto took the reins and busted his ass to try to turn things around, Enterprise was an insult to the fans.

Wow! I find your ability to read my mind quite astonishing! I bet that's an impressive trick on weddings or bar mitzvahs. Has that ever been scientifically analyzed?

Tell me, what do I think right now?

 

[RealTime]

If one thinks of "canon" as a list of things (plot points, characters, locations, technology, etc.) that have been established on film, then Star Trek has a massive, massive list.

So far we've seen a shipyard construction, a bridge console, some uniforms and a shuttlecraft. Hardly a dent in the list of canon. Definitely no "fundamental" changes that I can see.

It's all about perspective.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I don't think of that as a useful analogy at all.

They need to make a "Star Trek" film that's entertaining and relatively simple, with the freedom to use all that they think is best in the Franchise and ignore or correct its weaknesses. Any less than that, and they're hobbling their chances of either succeeding or producing a good movie.

The question which serves as title to this thread: "Why is canon important to a prequel?" still begs a good answer from those who believe that it is important. I am not convinced that it matters.

 

[Kegek]

The question which serves as title to this thread: "Why is canon important to a prequel?" still begs a good answer from those who believe that it is important. I am not convinced that it matters.

It depends on whether this film is a prequel, a reboot, or something in-between. If the film is quite literally and unambiguously a prequel; then of course continuity with existing canon matters - because if it doesn't have that, it's not really a prequel. Hence Enterprise; which strove (perhaps overzealously) to remain in continuity as it was intended as a prequel series. If it's a reboot it doesn't matter. If it's ambiguously in the middle; which I tend to think it is... *shrug* the level of continuity will be whatever they feel like.

"Enterprise." Frankly, once was enough.

I liked Enterprise.

I like Star Trek better.

Eh. So did I; but Enterprise had its merits.

 

[number6]

Except that one of those shows, most particularly its showrunners, exhibited little to no respect for what had come before (chronologically; what came later, within the created universe of its setting.) Until Manny Coto took the reins and busted his ass to try to turn things around, Enterprise was an insult to the fans.

As a fan, I don't agree with that at all. I enjoyed all the modern Trek series to varying degrees.

Keep in mind that NONE of the people involved in the last 20 years of Modern Trek are involved in writing or producing this film. Whether I agree with your opinion of ENT or not (and I don't), it has absolutely nothing to do with the people making this film.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It depends on whether this film is a prequel, a reboot, or something in-between. If the film is quite literally and unambiguously a prequel; then of course continuity with existing canon matters - because if it doesn't have that, it's not really a prequel.

Which is all hung up on labels and has nothing to do with the quality of the movie.

If one watches it and likes it, one can attach whatever label they're comfortable with - call it a reboot or a prequel or a "reimagining" and it won't change the film at all.

Conversely, if one doesn't care for it, label it in whatever way will make it easiest to declare it to have failed its objective.

Does the label that the studio and producers attach to it matter? Yeah, but in the long run it doesn't matter much.

 

[Kegek]

Which is all hung up on labels and has nothing to do with the quality of the movie.

True.

If one watches it and likes it, one can attach whatever label they're comfortable with - call it a reboot or a prequel or a "reimagining" and it won't change the film at all.

I'll call it whatever it appears to be, regardless of whether or not I like it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I will call this movie a prequel. That's it. I don't care how different it looks from TOS; I won't regard it as a reboot. A different perspective, yes. But it's still canon, still the same continuity, different 'look' notwithstanding.

Everything that happened in TOS happened in this 'new look' Trek. It's all the same in the end. I mean, we all *knew* it would look a lot different, so nobody has the right to be surprised here.

 

[M'Sharak]

I like Star Trek: Enterprise.

A title which should have been followed with: Really, It's Star Trek! We promise! *snicker! chuckle!*

Are you here to express a real opinion, or to troll Enterprise fans?

I suspect the latter..

Not the call to make in the thread, though, is it?

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

Frankly, once was enough. Do Star Trek, as opposed to "Enterprise: The Next Generation" -- or do something else.

Just because the prequel concept was badly executed--which is obviously just an opinion, since there are many who liked ENT--doesn't mean that the concept itself is flawed and should be abandoned. As an example, VOY was badly executed, but I still maintain that the initial concept held a lot of promise. I think the idea of a prequel movie/series is still a valid one, depending on how it is carried out. And since we really haven't seen how this movie is going to be executed, we really can't say if it works or not at this point.

 

[ancient]

There's no real evidence that they are pissing on TOS. Changes are inevitable, dumb ones are not. I'm sure the

will be just fine too.