Trek canon is dead. Thanx JJ!

[archeryguy1701]

I've said it from the beginning, and I'll say it again: as long as it entertains me and I can recognize it as Star Trek, canon is irrelevent. If they have to make changes in order to provide a good story, then by all means make the changes. And, I like Plum's point about the time travel. It's hard enough to keep the facts straight after 40+ years. But it's down-right silly to say that no changes can be made to a show that has people constantly screwing around in the past. Star Trek is changing. Adapt, or go back to your DVD's. There's no point in dwelling on the fact that the series is changing without you, especially since there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Captain Robert April]

This is clearly a new definition of "respectful" than I'm familiar with.

 

[Plum]

As for the term 'reboot', both Dr. Who/Trek are just that in a production sense, not a Battlestar Galactica sense. Mmm K?

The different 'look' of various Trek/Dr. Who productions are explained canonically as timeline divergence. That's my theory.

That's worse than a Galactica-style reboot, since Ron Moore's version doesn't really touch on the original series in any meaningful way.

Using the "altered timeline" argument means that the intent is to wipe out the established continuity and replace it with this....thing.

Well, this 'thing' is a rather impressive Star Trek production. I'm not gonna dismiss it out of hand. Especially since it looks like a terrific addition to Trek. Canon is, after all, just what the others above are pointing out. It's fanboy elitism or just plain bullying. At least I'm looking to continue the fun of 'fanon' by offering an inclusive alternative.

And the beauty of this theory is, one can always just say 'that timeline' died out and didn't really matter. You can exclude this film if you like. Or ST:V. Which came to mind right off.

 

[DeafPoet]

After 40 years, 11 movies and 6 tv series, does anyone really care about canon anymore?

I don't. Trek's always played fast and loose with its own history, frequently ignoring stuff that isn't convenient from a dramatic standpoint. Which is great, I'd rather have good storytelling than someone combing over scripts from 1968 to make sure their cool idea fits with some fan's notion of what's acceptable.

Trek XI seems to be going a little further in this regard, but I'm willing to forgive more violations in this story because they're fudging "facts" that were more casually established than those in later Trek series. Take "Balance of Terror" for instance, which is rife with facts about Romulan-Federation history that made sense for that episode but would make for a piss-poor story if you were to actually recount events that took place prior to it.

The writer of the episode wasn't writing it with a larger canon in mind so they weren't taking into account that the Romulan War as written was probably the most boring conflict in fictional history. I say retcon away, boys.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Well put.

 

[Space Lizard]

...it's a reboot in a production sense. I can honestly say I could care less how the Enterprise looks compared to the original. Hell, the Defiant changed appearance when they switched to CGI. Does that mean there was a timeline divergence? No, there wasn't.

The only things that get erased from my personal canon are things that are really, really, really bad. Threshold, Sub Rosa, V, Insurrection, A Night in Sickbay, and And The Children Shall Lead are out of my canon for excessively sucking. Several Ferengi episodes are borderline; but not Spock's Brain, which is one of the funniest Star Trek episodes ever.

It's a production reboot only, not a canon reboot. Maybe it'll change format a bit, like how when Doctor Who came back it was in the same canon but with a new format-standalone episodes, with the occasional two or three parter and a loose season arc.

The writers and producers have stated several times that they are very interested in respecting all the canon of Star Trek, and I see no reason to doubt them. I mean, Berman and Braga honestly said they did not care about keeping canon when it came to Enterprise. I seriously doubt the producers of XI are lying about it not being a reboot, mostly because anyone in the past who could care less about canon were hardly subtle.

The only way XI will be non-canon in my mind is if it's awful. And, really, some of the casting choices are pushing me towards skepticism about quality. But until I see it, it is still canon.

Which is great, I'd rather have good storytelling than someone combing over scripts from 1968 to make sure their cool idea fits with some fan's notion of what's acceptable.

RDM has stated that he hated having to follow canon. They had to stop work on a ton of possibly great stories because some throw-away line of technobabble in some pre-beard TNG episode made the plot invalid.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I don't think any of the film producers were overly concerned with "canon". As if it were religious. Sometimes it's good, sometimes, not so good. I'm going to go take the Argus for a spin now.

 

[Tom Servo]

This is clearly a new definition of "respectful" than I'm familiar with.

Yes, it doesn't mean sticking with every detail that a TV show came up with over the years.

 

[Plum]

......it's a reboot in a production sense. I can honestly say I could care less how the Enterprise looks compared to the original. Hell, the Defiant changed appearance when they switched to CGI. Does that mean there was a timeline divergence? No, there wasn't.

Hmm. But it may be! This is a job for... retcon!

That is, it's sorta fun for me to imagine many more timeline divergences in Trek than have been even previously suggested. Just for fun.

James R. Kirk is one example. Or, perhaps the difference between the 'Cage, WNMHGB' enterprise and the regular series one might not be an upgrade, but actually ships from different timelines!

Did McCoy's/Scotty's transparent aluminium stunt in ST:IV contribute to the current films radical enterprise design??? O canon snap!

 

[Inquisitive]

I really do not get the concept of "establishing cannon", as it seems it only serves to divide fans of a franchise over minute details that have no real bearing on the quality of the television show, movie, comic book, video game, etc. I think some people are just too caught up this system of continually debating over established facts, when in reality how this movie presents the origns of Star Trek will have no effect on the series that proceded it. When this movie is released, I will still be able to go back and watch TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT on television without being paralysed in fear as to where the canonical origns of Star Trek lay.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I really do not get the concept of "establishing cannon",

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... - Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

[Ovation]

This is clearly a new definition of "respectful" than I'm familiar with.

"Respectful" is NOT synonymous with "worshipful". Sorry.

 

[Chaos Descending]

The fallacy lies in assuming that all consistency is foolish.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The fallacy lies in assuming that all consistency is foolish.

On the contrary, the aphorism specifies foolish consistency as distinct from simply consistency.

What we're saying - some of us - is that the obsession with Trek canon is, indeed, of the foolish kind.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

The fallacy lies in assuming that all consistency is foolish.

Which would be, one assumes, why Emerson specifically said it is only foolish consistency which is a problem.

What is more foolish than requiring adherence to a consistency which never existed?

 

[Basil]

Well, when you're in charge of "Star Trek" if you think those are good ideas you can try them out and see how they fly with the audience.

Abrams is clearly going for an approach far more true and respectful of the original than what you're suggesting.

Well, in for a penny . . .

In fairness to Abrams, I will say the trailer put me off less than I expected.

 

[Psion]

As for the term 'reboot', both Dr. Who/Trek are just that in a production sense, not a Battlestar Galactica sense. Mmm K?

The different 'look' of various Trek/Dr. Who productions are explained canonically as timeline divergence. That's my theory.

That's worse than a Galactica-style reboot, since Ron Moore's version doesn't really touch on the original series in any meaningful way.

Using the "altered timeline" argument means that the intent is to wipe out the established continuity and replace it with this....thing.

Nah ... it simply establishes a parallel universe. This new one co-exists with the old, and there are even possibilities of cross-overs occurring.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nah ... it simply establishes a parallel universe. This new one co-exists with the old, and there are even possibilities of cross-overs occurring.

Y'know (and I know you know) this is just popular fiction. I can watch one version for a couple of hours, and then another version for a couple of hours, and enjoy both without feeling any need to make them fit together by means of "parallel universes" or "alternate realities."

Since there is and was zero chance of the studio resurrecting a faithful version of the original 1960s "Star Trek" I can't get wrapped up in our faux "Captain April's" concern about this one "wiping out" or "replacing" the old one.

 

[Plum]

Nah ... it simply establishes a parallel universe. This new one co-exists with the old, and there are even possibilities of cross-overs occurring.

Y'know (and I know you know) this is just popular fiction. I can watch one version for a couple of hours, and then another version for a couple of hours, and enjoy both without feeling any need to make them fit together by means of "parallel universes" or "alternate realities."

Star Trek fans aren't like James Bond or Batman fans... they can't accept new takes on a theme.

Since there is and was zero chance of the studio resurrecting a faithful version of the original 1960s "Star Trek" I can't get wrapped up in our faux "Captain April's" concern about this one "wiping out" or "replacing" the old one.

To be honest, I still would love if Masao's Star Fleet Museum (http://www.starfleet-museum.org) was 'canon'. Love his stuff!





It's no wonder Hollywoodland is 'rebooting' it's franchise films serials. Batman, Bond, etc. paved the way for a 'new' Star trek. A production thankfully divorced from the previous era. Which went on about two series to long. Personally, I find there's far more old Trek to bitch about than the new film.

 

[RobertScorpio]

how can you think it'll lay to rest the canon debates?

it's more likely going to provoke more!

it's gonna be like Crisis on Infinite Earths! are you a fan of pre-JJ or post?

Huh..I like that analogy...and while I did like CRISIS, I long ago decided that I liked the multiverse of DC. Anything since, with the exeption of the current JSA comic book, is blah....

Rob
Scorpio