So do I...
I really can't stand those who "disguise" their opinion and bashing in the form of a "discussion".
Why is canon important in a prequel?
- Thread starter The Saint
- Start date
I really can't stand those who "disguise" their opinion and bashing in the form of a "discussion".
Wow! I'm amazing! I know what you are thinking... and you don't really think he can fit your foot up his....?!
On a more serious note, I will watch this movie when it comes out. I will hopefully enjoy the movie for its thoughts, plots, and action shots, etc. If they try to acknowledge every canon for Trek, they will be so boxed in that it will fail as a movie. I hope that doesn't happen. Every Hollywood Remake has had a newer interpretation... I hope this movie is no exception. I also hope it is SO GOOD that it makes me forget to notice whether it sticks to canon.
Last edited:
Canon is important, but people often confuse canon with style. Eg. Enterprise looks superficially like an Akira class ship, therefore it must be more advanced than Enterprise A, B, C etc.
The problem is, of course, that styles are cyclic, which means that the uniforms and ship layout doesn't really have to look a whole lot like the TOS versions (especially depending upon how much fictional time is supposed to pass between the two shows.) Style changes and ship upgrades can easily account for a different look in Kirks era.
The problem is, of course, that styles are cyclic, which means that the uniforms and ship layout doesn't really have to look a whole lot like the TOS versions (especially depending upon how much fictional time is supposed to pass between the two shows.) Style changes and ship upgrades can easily account for a different look in Kirks era.
The Saint asked a hypothetical question about canon. He didn't dump on the film, and using Enterprise as an example of something poorly done, is not outside the realm of being unrealistic. Enterprise wasn't cancelled because it was doing well.
Why is canon important? Because if major componants of the Star Trek universe are not used, then why call it Star Trek, and focus on characters we already know? If Kirk or Spock was re-cast as women, this movie would have been dumped on right from the get-go.
Why is canon not important? Because it is restricts what can be done. Or does it? Canon only applies to what we have seen- introducing new things is easy! The main point is to try to keep the look or feel, to make it seem that canon has been adhered to.
The Saint wasn't trolling. He was possing a question about why canon was important. Make an arguement for your point. There really has been too much dumping on people here as opposed to having a discussion. Especially since the movie was announced.
Oh yeah- NCC-1701, I really love your avatar!!!
Why is canon important? Because if major componants of the Star Trek universe are not used, then why call it Star Trek, and focus on characters we already know? If Kirk or Spock was re-cast as women, this movie would have been dumped on right from the get-go.
Why is canon not important? Because it is restricts what can be done. Or does it? Canon only applies to what we have seen- introducing new things is easy! The main point is to try to keep the look or feel, to make it seem that canon has been adhered to.
The Saint wasn't trolling. He was possing a question about why canon was important. Make an arguement for your point. There really has been too much dumping on people here as opposed to having a discussion. Especially since the movie was announced.
Oh yeah- NCC-1701, I really love your avatar!!!
^ Thank you. 
But I think the OP is confusing canon with the the look of the movie. (Why else would he mention the "The look is so '60s!" attitude of some posters?) When the ship won't look exactly like the 60s NCC-1701 or the uniforms won't have the Starfleet delta embroidered on the left chest — what does that have to do with canon? That's just aesthetics.
Having said that, I don't think canon is that important at all. Just tell me an entertaining story with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
Also ... I'm by any means a mod (who do their work just fine, btw
) but I think The Saint's attacks on Enterprise not only in this but in other threads as well are bordering on trolling Enterprise fans. What some people on these boards sometimes forget is that there are fans of every incarnation of Trek.
But I think the OP is confusing canon with the the look of the movie. (Why else would he mention the "The look is so '60s!" attitude of some posters?) When the ship won't look exactly like the 60s NCC-1701 or the uniforms won't have the Starfleet delta embroidered on the left chest — what does that have to do with canon? That's just aesthetics.
Having said that, I don't think canon is that important at all. Just tell me an entertaining story with Kirk, Spock and McCoy.
Also ... I'm by any means a mod (who do their work just fine, btw
) but I think The Saint's attacks on Enterprise not only in this but in other threads as well are bordering on trolling Enterprise fans. What some people on these boards sometimes forget is that there are fans of every incarnation of Trek.
What I'm finding AMAZING in this particular thread is just how hostility is being shown towards the original poster. I don't seem to recall him attacking any of YOU on any PERSONAL BASIS (not unless you somehow equate your own personal self-worth with "Enterprise").
His point is a legitimate one. His personal distaste for "Enterprise" is quite acceptable, provided that he doesn't do what VIRTUALLY EVERYONE ON THIS BBS DOES NEARLY EVERY DAY... equate your own personal opinion with "universal truth."
As far as I'm concerned, I tend to agree with his perspective... though not to the same extent. I didn't like "Enterprise" very much at first, because it tried WAAAAY to hard to be "nuTrek" instead of "Star Trek." IMHO, obviously.
But this whole argument is yet another "drag the thread off topic" effort by folks who seem to be enjoying doing so waaaay too much. The topic wasn't "Enterprise sucks," it was "why canon is important."
The reason that "canon" is important is the same reason that history is important.
History is to reality as canon is to the fictional "Trek Universe." If you fundamentally misstate "canon" you are creating a surreal situation where nobody knows what "reality" in this particular setting is.
It's like doing a WWII movie where it's not the Nazis, but instead the Swedes, who invade Poland. You don't have to go into excruciating detail about WHY it was the Nazis... you don't have to explain the entire warplan. But you have to stick to the basic facts, or you totally throw the audience out of their ability to follow the story. Too many of them already know that it was Nazi Germany, not Sweden, that invaded Poland.
Start telling your audience to forget things that they know, and they'll start getting pissed off at the storytellers.
THAT is why "canon" is important. And I believe that is what the OP's point really was.
ENOUGH with trying to turn it into a "personal flamewar" thread, OK?
Agreed. Though I think assertions like "Enterprise was an insult to the fans" are just presumptuous — how can he possibly know how people felt about Enterprise? Anyway.
I think that's a strange analogy. Everyone knows who invaded Poland during WWII. But I doubt the general audience is aware of what the dedication plaque on the orignal Enterprise read, for example. So how can canon be as important as history?
Actually I don't think that was the point of the OP. He equates canon with the look of the movie. Maybe that's just me, but canon is something different.
Which is, nonetheless, a subjective process.
I've decided that I'm going to call it a "Star Trek movie." Given the nature of Internet fandom, someone will doubtless disagree.
I'd argue that canon is important in maintaining the feel of a plausible, unified alternate universe across the Trek franchise. And that feel in turn is desirable because no part of that franchise can truly carry itself as an independent bit of drama, at least not to the exalted status we like to attribute to it. As part of a greater whole, yeah, it's pretty cool. As a series of independent works, it doesn't shine nearly as brightly.
Using characters from the Trek universe without keeping them within the Trek universe would not bode well for a work of art, because the characters themselves aren't automatically good for high quality drama or anything. If the movie, book or oil painting really wants to shine, it needs "innate qualities". Perhaps not so if the work of art were using a more substantial sort of source material - say, a main character originally developed for a novel or a movie, and hence already a well-constructed dramatic package, rather than the hodgepodge that the leading character of a non-serialized TV show usually is.
James T. Kirk is just a storytelling vehicle, an everyman character for the audience to identify with. Not great grounds for storytelling unless you bring along the contextual package. Spock is more of an icon, and one might indeed spin a tale or two on him while dropping all connection to the Star Trek universe, just milking the dramatic potential of an emotionally repressed halfbreed from outer space (say, the way multiple Batman movies have been made without regard for continuity, because the sufficiently exotic main character already lends himself to independent drama). Still, why bother with "Spock" when you can do "Spock in Star Trek" at the same price? All the more so when we don't really "know" that much about this great but secretive character in canon terms, and the writer thus isn't particularly constrained.
"Spock in Star Trek" is doable. "Kirk in Star Trek" is a must, as the man is a blank slate. And even more than Spock, Kirk is a blank slate in terms of canon as well: he seldom lets his emotions show, except when using them as a tool, and his early years are a series of semi-serious anecdotes that never paint a full picture. There are hints of everything there, really, fertile grounds for growing prequels: he's a bookworm, he's a young hothead, he's a troubled orphan, he's a teenage father, he's a militant authoritarian, he's a free-thinking humanitarian... All that well within the "limitations" of canon.
So why not go for canon, when it offers positive elements to writing and has very few negative ones? Inventing Batman or Superman over and over again can bring success, but doing the same with a less "superb" character is taking a big risk...
Timo Saloniemi
Using characters from the Trek universe without keeping them within the Trek universe would not bode well for a work of art, because the characters themselves aren't automatically good for high quality drama or anything. If the movie, book or oil painting really wants to shine, it needs "innate qualities". Perhaps not so if the work of art were using a more substantial sort of source material - say, a main character originally developed for a novel or a movie, and hence already a well-constructed dramatic package, rather than the hodgepodge that the leading character of a non-serialized TV show usually is.
James T. Kirk is just a storytelling vehicle, an everyman character for the audience to identify with. Not great grounds for storytelling unless you bring along the contextual package. Spock is more of an icon, and one might indeed spin a tale or two on him while dropping all connection to the Star Trek universe, just milking the dramatic potential of an emotionally repressed halfbreed from outer space (say, the way multiple Batman movies have been made without regard for continuity, because the sufficiently exotic main character already lends himself to independent drama). Still, why bother with "Spock" when you can do "Spock in Star Trek" at the same price? All the more so when we don't really "know" that much about this great but secretive character in canon terms, and the writer thus isn't particularly constrained.
"Spock in Star Trek" is doable. "Kirk in Star Trek" is a must, as the man is a blank slate. And even more than Spock, Kirk is a blank slate in terms of canon as well: he seldom lets his emotions show, except when using them as a tool, and his early years are a series of semi-serious anecdotes that never paint a full picture. There are hints of everything there, really, fertile grounds for growing prequels: he's a bookworm, he's a young hothead, he's a troubled orphan, he's a teenage father, he's a militant authoritarian, he's a free-thinking humanitarian... All that well within the "limitations" of canon.
So why not go for canon, when it offers positive elements to writing and has very few negative ones? Inventing Batman or Superman over and over again can bring success, but doing the same with a less "superb" character is taking a big risk...
Timo Saloniemi
If this turns out to be true, Paramount is in deep trouble with another Trek movie and after May of next year we'll have seen the last of "Star Trek."
I for one am going to give this new Star Trek movie the benefit of the doubt. I was hesident to exect Enterprise at first. But I ended up likeing it after watching the pilot.
"Star Trek: Enterprise" was mostly terrible, but canon violations were the least of its problems.
Abrams and Co. have stated that telling a story in existing continuity is a priority for them, and I think -- for the most part -- that's what we'll get.
But what the franchise needs more than anything right now is a compelling story that draws in the masses. If preserving canon makes that goal impossible (which I don't think it does), then canon is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Abrams and Co. have stated that telling a story in existing continuity is a priority for them, and I think -- for the most part -- that's what we'll get.
But what the franchise needs more than anything right now is a compelling story that draws in the masses. If preserving canon makes that goal impossible (which I don't think it does), then canon is a luxury we can no longer afford.
Exactly. Priorities.
Canon violations were, as Sam says, the least of "Enterprise's" problems - actual violations were trivial at most, and yet complained about the loudest from several quarters (I think that extreme conservatism in stories and characterization was a much bigger problem). Making devotion to canon to the degree demanded by some fans a high priority would be a mistake because it's a standard that can't be satisfied.
We've already seen that with online reactions to the teaser trailer and the photos of an unidentified shuttle.
Some people consider adherence to the major outlines of established events in the "Star Trek universe" sufficient as long as they enjoy the movie - this is the only "canonical" standard by which TWOK at the time of its premiere and in fact a good deal of later TOS actually works.
Some people consider devotion to every visual and aural cue they remember (accurately or not) from TOS and other previous Treks an absolute requirement or they become uncomfortable at the inconsistency. That won't work and it only works now because of some extraordinary mental gymnastics that they're willing to undertake for gods-know-what reasons on behalf of the Trek shows they like...yet they have ridiculously strong filters against letting in anything new.
The bottom line is: if someone thinks that different is bad, they won't like this movie.
Last edited:
I'm reminded of a thread I read when the trailer first came out, regarding whether to keep the enterprise design from TOS or to change it, in whatever degree. There were so many opinions on the subject from the fans, I mean there is no way to pander to all.
But I'm of the opinion, just don't suck, and I'll probably like it. Don't do anything that flies in the face of canon or conventional storytelling. This is not a time to be "avant garde" with a faltering franchise. In my opinion the product ought to be solid and exciting, not disappointing. Not a mishmash.
It's interesting to balance story canon with actual cultural context, of Star Trek's place in our own history. Harkening back to TOS also means harkening back to the 60's aesthetic? In a way some of us would expect that, wouldn't we.
Both DS9 & Enterprise revisited the TOS aesthetic with success. It can be done. But I for one have been there, done that, and I would love to see a fresh new take on the story. Personally I would not have gone with a prequel. Our culture is incestuous enough these days, with any old crap from TV land making the big screen. I saw it the first time when it sucked, thanks.
All told, I bet I will like it. I like most things Trek. And I think utilizing a whole new creative team can't be bad for the franchise, regardless of what they do with it.
But I'm of the opinion, just don't suck, and I'll probably like it. Don't do anything that flies in the face of canon or conventional storytelling. This is not a time to be "avant garde" with a faltering franchise. In my opinion the product ought to be solid and exciting, not disappointing. Not a mishmash.
It's interesting to balance story canon with actual cultural context, of Star Trek's place in our own history. Harkening back to TOS also means harkening back to the 60's aesthetic? In a way some of us would expect that, wouldn't we.
Both DS9 & Enterprise revisited the TOS aesthetic with success. It can be done. But I for one have been there, done that, and I would love to see a fresh new take on the story. Personally I would not have gone with a prequel. Our culture is incestuous enough these days, with any old crap from TV land making the big screen. I saw it the first time when it sucked, thanks.
All told, I bet I will like it. I like most things Trek. And I think utilizing a whole new creative team can't be bad for the franchise, regardless of what they do with it.
I don't see any reason why a potential Star Trek XII can't be a film that takes place during the TOS era and still be consistent with both ST:XI and existing trek canon (I don't consider aesthetic details to be part of canon).
There is no need to separate this film and its potential sequels from the established Star Trek universe from a historical standpoint (i.e. no alternate timeline is required). I don't care if the look is updated -- I will still consider it the exact same universe as long as they stay consistent with the historical events that have already been established by existing star trek TV and films.
You're dead on...IF your intention is to be true to the original source material.
However, if the intention is to refashion the product while only maintaining some familiar names and references for recognition value then you've pretty much got a free hand to do whatever the hell you please.
And it's most likely that the latter is the case in regards to Trek XI.
Is it, really?
I'm quite sure I'll be sorry later, but perhaps you'd care to elaborate upon why you think so? Do feel free to cite actual evidence in support, and not simply dust off the Same Old Tired Harangue, One More Time™, if you'd be so kind?
- Kirk and Spock together before the 5-year mission.
- rehashing elements of NEM and FC
- an Enterprise that cannot possibly be the original ship just y visual evidence alone.
- having all the original characters together before the 5-year mission.
This isn't a genuine TOS era film. It's fanfic put to celluloid.
As for my harangues: it's my fucking OPINION and I'm entitled to voice it as much as anyone has the right to drool endlessly over left over MacDonald's trash. if you don't want to read it then skip my posts.
- rehashing elements of NEM and FC
- an Enterprise that cannot possibly be the original ship just y visual evidence alone.
- having all the original characters together before the 5-year mission.
This isn't a genuine TOS era film. It's fanfic put to celluloid.
As for my harangues: it's my fucking OPINION and I'm entitled to voice it as much as anyone has the right to drool endlessly over left over MacDonald's trash. if you don't want to read it then skip my posts.
Similar threads
