Why is canon important in a prequel?

[Cary L. Brown]

^
^^
^^^In my personal attempt to reconcile the use of the "Delta" as the insigia for Starfleet Command with TOS, I like to think of it in this manner:

The "Daisy (flower) Insignia" was worn by starbase personnel and was NOT Starfleet's insignia. The official insignia for StarFleet command was the "Delta Insignia", and IF the Enterprise was the flagship of the fleet, then it adopted the "delta" as its own. So it was the Enterprise that took the Delta from Starfleet, not vice-versa.

Before you say anything, I realize it is not canon that the Enterprise ever was the "Flagship of Starfleet", but there is nothing that says it wasn't the flagship either.

Well... there SORT of is...

Kirk, regardless of the fact that he held the rank of Captain, was still a rather JUNIOR captain, during TOS.

Typically, a flagship is not going to be commanded by someone more junior (no matter how CAPABLE the captain may be). In fact, you'd really expect the FLAGSHIP to be commanded by someone with the rank of Admiral. Or, if not Admiral... say, "Fleet Captain?" Or Commodore? (Pike? Decker? Wesley?)

It's really inconceivable that they'd give the FLAGSHIP to the "low man on the totem pole." That is, if Trek is supposed to be something we can watch and suspend our disbelief over.

On the other hand, if you're one of those who says "well, it's all make-believe, so you can do anything you want," well... we'll just say that all pretense of rank has gone away and everybody just thumb-wrestles for command!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

There's no "history" to be discussed - pure or otherwise. It's all part of a fictional continuity that can be amended as necessary - same as Superman or Batman.

In any event, the images released (or escaped) thus far start to give us the outlines of how closely the filmmakers will adhere to what's been established.

 

[Gepard]

There's no "history" to be discussed - pure or otherwise. It's all part of a fictional continuity that can be amended as necessary - same as Superman or Batman.

But..but..but...F-22s! In World War II! You know, because the audience wouldn't accept period planes!

Aww, hell. What're we supposed to complain about now?

 

[Avilos]

I wish they would spell the ship's name as the ENTERPRIZE. Just for the hell of it. You read that correctly. Right on the ship's hull. Of course it would still be pronounced by the characters the same way. It would likely only be visible on screen a few times. It would be just to piss off certain types of fans ....that don't deserve to be pandered to!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

There's no "history" to be discussed - pure or otherwise. It's all part of a fictional continuity that can be amended as necessary - same as Superman or Batman.

I somewhat agree in as much as this: I'm sure whatever Abrams does will be able to be reconciled with established canon by just using a litlle imagination on our parts. We (as fans) have been doing this for 42 years with the plethora of inconsistancies that have been laid before us -- we would be hypocrites if we don't give Abrams' film the same "creative explanation of inconsistancies" we have given to all other trek.

I think canon IS important, but not the strict purist interpration of canon, but rather the realists' interpretation -- a realist who can find ways to make perceived inconsistencies fit the canon.

Abrams will probably play it a little "loosely" with regards to canon (and definitely fanon), but I bet anything he does will not be overtly contradictory towards established canon.

 

[I am not Spock]

I think we have to distinguish between 'canon' and 'continuity' here.

The word 'canon' refers to a body of work. Canon is anything which has been produced with the Star Trek name attached. I don't like all of Will Shakespeare's plays, although that doesn't stop Titus Andronicus from being in the Shakespeare canon. Casino Royale ignored all previous Bond movies and started its own rebooted universe, yet it is still treated as the 21st movie of the EON Bond canon, not the 1st 'new' Bond.

Continuity is what we're talking about here: as in, how consistently they have maintained the rules of their fictional universe.

Whether Star Trek XI follows the established rules of ST or not, it is still part of the canon. One, of course, reserves the right to treat certain aspects of the ST universe as apocrypha if one chooses.

 

[Kemaiku]

I wish they would spell the ship's name as the ENTERPRIZE. Just for the hell of it.

Since the first ship to bear the name was an English sailing ship named HMS Enterprize then yes thats technically still accurate buuuuuut I think Enterprise the series already payed that one lip service by having it in the opening titles.

I want my new fangled S spelling damnit.

 

[Franklin]

There's no "history" to be discussed - pure or otherwise. It's all part of a fictional continuity that can be amended as necessary - same as Superman or Batman.

I somewhat agree in as much as this: I'm sure whatever Abrams does will be able to be reconciled with established canon by just using a litlle imagination on our parts. We (as fans) have been doing this for 42 years with the plethora of inconsistancies that have been laid before us -- we would be hypocrites if we don't give Abrams' film the same "creative explanation of inconsistancies" we have given to all other trek.

I think canon IS important, but not the strict purist interpration of canon, but rather the realists' interpretation -- a realist who can find ways to make perceived inconsistencies fit the canon.

Abrams will probably play it a little "loosely" with regards to canon (and definitely fanon), but I bet anything he does will not be overtly contradictory towards established canon.

I think that's what Orci means when he says one can't have a "strict constructionist" view of canon. If someone is the type of person who gets his shorts tied in knots about "James S. Kirk," then he's probably in for a rough ride in the movie.
If someone is the type who realized they were playing fast and loose with canon in FC, but still enjoyed the movie -- as many did -- then things will be fine.

I don't think the Superman or Batman analogies hold completely, Starship Polaris. Those origin stories have been told and retold. They have also been tweeked since the earliest days. There is no "one" origin story of Superman or Batman short of the skeletal facts of Superman being from Krypton and Batman having been orphaned.

This Star Trek movie will apparently be THE origin story. And despite what we think we know about the lives and times of our heroes at that time, we really know very little. And much of what we find out will probably have no effect on "the future."

Imagine if the premise of this movie had been a late season three TOS episode. There were younger actors in the main roles while Nimoy's Spock from the 2260s went back in time. The writers and producers would've faced the same constrictions from the history they had established to that point, and would've had to decide how to deal with it to tell the story they wanted to tell. It's the same thing, now, just forty years later.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I don't think the Superman or Batman analogies hold completely, Starship Polaris. Those origin stories have been told and retold. They have also been tweeked since the earliest days. There is no "one" origin story of Superman or Batman short of the skeletal facts of Superman being from Krypton and Batman having been orphaned.

TOS did the same. The first Captain was Pike, assumes "The Cage". Oh no, it was April, says TAS.

Ah, but Archer was before them, says ENT.

The crew used laser pistols. Oh no, they were phasers.

They reported to UESPA, not Starfleet. Actually, there was an Earth Starfleet before the UFP's Starfleet.

Dr Boyce was Kirk's CMO. Ah, but after him (and before him) there was Dr McCoy.

The Enterprise was about 40 years old when ST II claimed it was only 20.

And so on...

 

[Franklin]

I don't think the Superman or Batman analogies hold completely, Starship Polaris. Those origin stories have been told and retold. They have also been tweeked since the earliest days. There is no "one" origin story of Superman or Batman short of the skeletal facts of Superman being from Krypton and Batman having been orphaned.

TOS did the same. The first Captain was Pike, assumes "The Cage". Oh no, it was April, says TAS.

Ah, but Archer was before them, says ENT.

The crew used laser pistols. Oh no, they were phasers.

They reported to UESPA, not Starfleet. Actually, there was an Earth Starfleet before the UFP's Starfleet.

Dr Boyce was Kirk's CMO. Ah, but after him (and before him) there was Dr McCoy.

The Enterprise was about 40 years old when ST II claimed it was only 20.

And so on...

True. These inconsistencies abound in TOS, and are probably well-tolerated by the mainstream fans.
I guess my point was that the stories of the origins of Superman and Batman have been retold in ways that do more than just create inconsistencies within one story-thread or history. They are the same stories (incidents) completely retold, and each stands on its own merit as "the origin," with the differences in them not meant to be reconciled. Each story also exists as if the others didn't. Each is an authentic telling.
Some Trek fans make it their life's work to reconcile the inconsistencies in the one history stream.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...This Star Trek movie will apparently be THE origin story. And despite what we think we know about the lives and times of our heroes at that time, we really know very little. And much of what we find out will probably have no effect on "the future"...

I agree. There would be no point in this film exploring the origins of the TOS characters if those origins don't fit in with what we already know about TOS.

Artistic and set design notwithstanding, I think the fans who are worried that Abrams' film will stray too far from establish Star Trek histroy will be pleasantly surprised come May 2009. In my opinion the events in this film will fall right into place with the rest of Star Trek, especially TOS.

When Orci says he is not a 'strict contructionist', I think he's talking about 'fanon' and the 1960s aesthetics. I'm all for changing the look, and I'm even on board with clarifying items such as -- for example -- the position Dr. Boyce held in WNMHGB. I can easily accept that Dr. McCoy was part of the Enterprise's crew as long as i'm given a valid explanation...and that explanation could probably be accomplished in about 30 seconds of screentime.

...If someone is the type of person who gets his shorts tied in knots about "James S. Kirk," then he's probably in for a rough ride in the movie...

I realize this is just an extreme example that you used to make your point, but "James S. Kirk" is exactly the type of thing that would make me yell at the screen -- I would think that they could just as easily call him James T. Kirk. I truly doubt the "S" would be important to the plot, so why bother changing it.

However, like I said, even though I don't agree with that specific example, I DO agree with your sentiment in principle.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

TOS did the same. The first Captain was Pike, assumes "The Cage". Oh no, it was April, says TAS.

Ah, but Archer was before them, says ENT.

The crew used laser pistols. Oh no, they were phasers.

They reported to UESPA, not Starfleet. Actually, there was an Earth Starfleet before the UFP's Starfleet.

Dr Boyce was Kirk's CMO. Ah, but after him (and before him) there was Dr McCoy.

The Enterprise was about 40 years old when ST II claimed it was only 20.

And so on...

Laser vs Phaser -- OK, I agree this is an inconsistency, but not ALL of the items you mentioned are inconsistencies...

The laser pistol issue is just a function of Roddenberry changing his mind after the show was picked up by NBC for production -- just like he changed his mind about Spock going from someone prone to laughing and yelling to being the stoic character that he is. Yeah -- those ARE inconsistencies, but many TV productions have inconsistencies with their pilot episode...I can overlook these.

...And I'm sure your point is that you can overlook inconsistencies also and just enjoy the show for what it is.

HOWEVER:

I don't think it was ever stated in The Cage (or more importantly in The Menagerie) that Pike was the ship's first captain. If someone wants to make that assumption, they would be wrong.

And the whole idea that Archer's ship was the first ship called "Enterprise" being seemingly inconsistent with other Star Treks is easily explained by the fact that it wasn't part of the UFP's fleet. I find that to be a logical explanation.

Then we have Boyce...like I said in my post above, I see no reason that McCoy AND Boyce couldn't be part of the Enterprise's crew at the same time. In fact Boyce was never identified as the CMO. He was instead identified as the "head of the Life Sciences Department". Maybe McCoy was just preoccupied with some other matter.

An example of this would be Sulu: We had 20+ episodes later were Sulu wasn't seen anywhere and someone else was sitting in the Helmsmen's seat, but we never said "Hey, Sulu must not be part of the crew anymore since someone else is the Helmsman."

The explanation that McCoy was part of the crew but not available in WNMHGB is an acceptable explanation for me, just like Sulu was still part of the crew, but for some reason wasn't available to man the Helm (or be seen at all) for 20+ episodes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Some Trek fans make it their life's work to reconcile the inconsistencies in the one history stream.

And no new commercial version of ST will appease them. That's news?

 

[Franklin]

Some Trek fans make it their life's work to reconcile the inconsistencies in the one history stream.

And no new commercial version of ST will appease them. That's news?

No. And too bad for them. I'll always enjoy Shatner as Kirk, but I'm jacked as hell about this movie. That said, very little good rock music has been written since the early 1970s.

 

[Smiley]

For those who say that Abrams & Co must conform their movie to everything established in TOS, I have one question: when was TOS set again?

When the original part of a franchise is inconsistent about what century it's set in and is the genesis of the term YATI, there's not much basis in crying foul every time some detail gets changed for a new installment of the series.

I'm in the crowd that just wants an entertaining movie next May. Any deviations from previous canonical details can be explained with our imaginations like they have been since the first weeks of the series.