continuity? who cares

[Therin of Andor]

If this movie is good and blows up all the shows that came after TOS (TNG-DS9-VOY)

Why does one new interpretation of Star Trek "blow up" everything that came after TOS?

What, is Paramount going to start recalling DVD boxed sets?

 

[pookha]

Yes..I like your idea too. And I am totally with you. If this movie is good and blows up all the shows that came after TOS (TNG-DS9-VOY) then oh well...the so called 'continuity' was pissed on far before this movie so perhaps an enema is the way to go..

Rob

well considering tos didnt blow up when it had trouble with its own
continuity..
i dont see this movie harming the later series

 

[RobertScorpio]

Yes..I like your idea too. And I am totally with you. If this movie is good and blows up all the shows that came after TOS (TNG-DS9-VOY) then oh well...the so called 'continuity' was pissed on far before this movie so perhaps an enema is the way to go..

Rob

well considering tos didnt blow up when it had trouble with its own
continuity..
i dont see this movie harming the later series

It is a daunting task before JJ. I think we both agree on that...

Rob
Scorpio

 

[hamudm]

As I have said from day one, the continuity of Star Trek is the last thing these producers of TREK should worry about. Don't get me wrong, I love the history of Trek, but even some of us disagree about what has or hasn't happened in the continuity of TREK.

And to expect any new fans that may 'come' from this new movie to learn it as if the continuity is like some crazy ass TREK BIBLE would be silly. If this movie attracts new fans and has to jettison some long time fan with a continuity stick up their ass then I am all for it...

I have been with Star Trek from the begining, and I am willing to loosen the leash of the past that seems to choke every new star trek production that comes down the pike..

Rob
Scorpio

I agree 100%. When it comes down to it, Star Trek WAS nothing more than a great canvas to tell meaningful and entertaining stories. After so many years of reiterations, it's been bogged down with contradictory history, jargon and stigma. Star Trek is about the spirit of telling a great story. If it takes "reimagining" the universe a bit, then so be it! At the end of the day, I just want to be entertained by a great adventure yarn which is what Star Trek was at its best in its hayday.

Many may argue that it's laziness to avoid acknowledging every last bit of continuity, but I would argue that it's the only way to release the shackles of mediocrity that have turned a once great and respected property into little more than a low-production, budget joke.

I for one am excited for this movie!!

 

[Captain59]

It would be nice to see Jonathan Archer in Star Trek XI.

 

[Sector 7]

It would be nice to see Jonathan Archer in Star Trek XI.

Only if he's dead and buried. It's the only way... maybe a scene takes place at his grave site....
Wait I have an idea!
Jonathan Archer and Head of StarFleet R & D (played by Dean Stockwell) are working on a new top secret weapon when Archer is accidently thrown back in time. God wants him to correct all the canon mistakes over the various shows since TOS by leaping into different characters bodies.
Each time he corrects a canon flaw he hopes it will be the final leap home.
Yeah that sounds original................

 

[M'Sharak]

Oh, boy...

 

[Sector 7]

Oh, boy...

I boldly go where no smartass has gone before....

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It would be nice to see Jonathan Archer in Star Trek XI.

Archer dies the day after the NCC-1701 is commissioned, so that's unlikely.

 

[RobertScorpio]

As I have said from day one, the continuity of Star Trek is the last thing these producers of TREK should worry about. Don't get me wrong, I love the history of Trek, but even some of us disagree about what has or hasn't happened in the continuity of TREK.

And to expect any new fans that may 'come' from this new movie to learn it as if the continuity is like some crazy ass TREK BIBLE would be silly. If this movie attracts new fans and has to jettison some long time fan with a continuity stick up their ass then I am all for it...

I have been with Star Trek from the begining, and I am willing to loosen the leash of the past that seems to choke every new star trek production that comes down the pike..

Rob
Scorpio

I agree 100%. When it comes down to it, Star Trek WAS nothing more than a great canvas to tell meaningful and entertaining stories. After so many years of reiterations, it's been bogged down with contradictory history, jargon and stigma. Star Trek is about the spirit of telling a great story. If it takes "reimagining" the universe a bit, then so be it! At the end of the day, I just want to be entertained by a great adventure yarn which is what Star Trek was at its best in its hayday.

Many may argue that it's laziness to avoid acknowledging every last bit of continuity, but I would argue that it's the only way to release the shackles of mediocrity that have turned a once great and respected property into little more than a low-production, budget joke.

I for one am excited for this movie!!

You and me both. But you just know that there will be tons of GEEK TREKFANS that will roast this movie alive if the collar on the shirts is too short...or if the lettering on the ship is the wrong font. Shatner's GET A LIFE comment couldn't be more needed than it is now!!!

Rob
Scorpio

 

[Rhaenys]

I think that they need to respect canonn in a way that for example Kirk can not die in this movie. Or they can't have a big battle with the Borg.
But, on the other hand, if the movie is about time travel, than I guess past can be changed, right?

I think I agree with EyalM on this:

For me it all depends on what level of continuity are we talking about. If we're talking about the color of the railing being off, the length of the enterprise changing or the date of the eugenics wars, then I honestly don't care. That's all trivia.
I do care however if they change the characters (Kirk as a lesbian Eskimo) or the Trek "universe" (the federation as an oppressive entity), because that's messing with what trek is.

 

[number6]

I think that they need to respect canonn in a way that for example Kirk can not die in this movie. Or they can't have a big battle with the Borg.
But, on the other hand, if the movie is about time travel, than I guess past can be changed, right?

I think I agree with EyalM on this:

For me it all depends on what level of continuity are we talking about. If we're talking about the color of the railing being off, the length of the enterprise changing or the date of the eugenics wars, then I honestly don't care. That's all trivia.
I do care however if they change the characters (Kirk as a lesbian Eskimo) or the Trek "universe" (the federation as an oppressive entity), because that's messing with what trek is.

I will sooooooo boycott this film if Kirk isn't a lesbian eskimo.

 

[cybersoldier]

If they're making this movie a reboot, then yeah, I guess they can go ahead and throw continuity out the window. However, Abrams and cohorts still won't comment on if this movie is a reboot or not. And based on the rumoured plot feturing Nimoy as elderly Spock and time-travelling Romulans from the 24th century, it does seem they're trying for some connection with establised Trek lore.

A reboot is not a bad thing. If the movies are successfully the mistakes done on the the previous trek series could be avoided. A new version of TOS on tv perhaps after a few movies a new version of TNG seems like the logical progression.

I love the rich of trek, but if reboot the star trek universe is the only way to save it, then make it so. Not to say that it is not impossible to make good trek without a reboot.

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I, however, can see right through it because I, and I am sure even you, could punch wholes in the continuity as it stands right now. Khan meeting chekov...

Uh, sorry, but the first episode that had Chekov has a Stardate that's earlier than Space Seed.

So Khan could easily have met Chekov, we just didn't see it.

all the stuff ENTERPRISE monkeyed with...I mean, go down the list...

Which is one of the many reason disavow it ever happening and we should ALL have the same attitude about it: toss it out the window. I don't bother with, I don't watch it, I hate that pile of junk with a fiery passion.

So what I am trying to say? The continuity of Trek already has holes in it you could drive a Galaxy Class starship through....and to hold this new movie, which is trying to reignite interest in a limp franchise, is not only wrong, it could be damaging as well.

As long as one tosses Enterprise away, not so much.

Except that Abrams made it clear that he isn't disavowing Enterprise, and that it will be acknowledged in some way. So tough shit for you.

As for the capitalism issue: the United Earth Government has it to some degree but not to the excesses of the 20th-21st centuries, which likely caused WWIII in the first place. The discoveries of the replicator may in fact have led to capitalism lessening over the centuries as well, mostly because the humanistic precepts that the UEG and the UFP are based on repudiate the kind of capitalism we have now, which ain't doing a lot for humanity as a whole.

 

[seigezunt]

It would be nice to see Jonathan Archer in Star Trek XI.

who?