Facts are facts. Does the Enterprise have this look, or that? "Onscreen is canon." Not any more? Then each piece is a stand-alone and there IS no continuity. Doubt you're saying that. How can the things we know are different not have meaning? You can't exclude them because they're visual elements, because those are also a part of the whole. (One of the novels actually explained why Uhura was wearing gold instead of red in her earliest onscreen appearance.) As for coming at the trailer in two different ways, I don't see how that would be. We're seeing what is, so it is what it is. If it's not the same, then it isn't. The only thing I can figure some of you mean is that at the end there'll be a big "RESET" button and everything will look like it did on the series, and all the events of the film that contradict continuity will fall apart and be undone. As much as I'd love that to happen, I seriously doubt it will. Do any of you REALLY think it will?
Anybody who thought they were going to make a TOS movie that looked like the 60s series was deluding themselves. The facelifts to the ship, sets, uniforms, etc. were a given. What remains to be seen is if any changes to the "canon" so far as events and such are concerned, is whether such changes are due to what happens in the story or if JJA just felt like rewriting stuff. If it's the former, then we still don't know whether such changes are resolved within the events of the film itself. It is a time travel story, after all, so who the hell knows what they've got. The comments offered by JJA and company at various times are all over the place (and deliberately vague, of course) on this point. So, until such questions are answered, everyone here is speculating.
I ask again: Are you therefore saying that the two different versions of Zefram Cochrane, or the two different versions of Saavik, are in different continuities because they have different looks? What about all those TOS episodes that cut in stock footage of the Enterprise miniature from the pilots? Are you saying it's canonical that the ship magically switched back and forth from a version with spired, unlit nacelle caps, rear nacelle grills, a smooth hangar-bay door, and a high bridge module to a version with unspired, lit nacelle caps, rear nacelle domes, a textured hangar-bay door, and a low bridge module? Yes, visual elements are part of the whole, but the whole has never been entirely consistent within itself. Existing Trek canon is full of direct self-contradictions, including visual ones, and we choose to suspend disbelief and pretend they're a common whole.
Perhaps the most relevant question in terms of this specific thread is, "If the bridge is going to look different from this point on, in this fancy new timeline, how will the novels address the issue?". I mean, wasn't that the original question? And how many novels up to date have addressed "how the bridge looks"? How does one address such a thing? I don't really remember a single passage that would have devoted valuable letters to such a thing, not to such a degree that one could tell the TOS, TAS, TMP, TOS pilot, or this new movie bridges apart! Timo Saloniemi
That's not quite what I'm saying. It's certainly not how I view Star Trek. Things aren't stand-alone. There is a whole. There is a continuity. But it's not literal. It's mythical, it's archetypal, it's an idea. Star Trek isn't a collection of historical documents. Star Trek is a collection of stories. The perception, the staging, the trappings of the stories may change, perhaps not even resemble what's come in the past. But as long as the idea is there, it's the same. I didn't say anything about "reset buttons." I don't know if there's a reset button. I don't know if there's a need for a reset button. I don't expect a reset button. But neither do I expect a big-budget episode of Star Trek: New Voyages. What I do expect is a big-budget Star Trek story that hits all of my "Star Trek buttons." I expect ideas. I don't expect literalism.
I must admit, I find these arguments fun to read and even have a laugh from time to time. Now, just to wad in and voice my opinion. I don't actually give a flying Frell if the new movie is in the same timeline as the events the vast majority of ourselves have seen on screen before, or a completely new time line different from what the vast majority of us have seen. It. Is. Star. Trek. If you want to continue this mass debate (yes the pun was intended) over which time line Star Trek will inhabihat, so be it. But, it is Star Trek and regardless of what I am told to do and regardless of the possibly massive differences between what we get in 2009 or that of FORTY-TWO YEARS AGO it will be in my own personal continuity which contains everything I have read and watched that is Star Trek except the MU and Myrd U stories, but thats a given as they were and have been a seperate continuity.
I'm totally with you on this. However, the questions we're getting -- essentially -- boil down to how the new flick will affect tie-in products like the fiction, and there's no way to know that right now, because we haven't been given any meaningful information. Regardless, my basic outlook on it is that it will adapt, as it always has. How it will adapt remains to be seen. Until then, I'm not drawing any conclusions, and I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Well, the best diplomat I know is a fully-armed phaser bank (though, since the movie takes place at least partially during Pike's captaincy, I suppose that should be "laser bank").
Ah, but that's only if you're referring to the original Trek continuity, not this rebooted alternate timeline continuity. They appear to have phasers while Pike is still in command in the trailer!
There's one important point people tend to forget. We don't know the timeline/continuity we 'know' from existing series/books is the original timeline... The timeline as seemingly depicted in the new movie/trailer might be the true timeline and something happens in that timeline to convert it into the one we know. In fact we know a whole lot of nothing. But at least we know we don't know it. Or something.
Why does it even matter - beyond broad details, why should any changes makes one iota of difference to the 24th century books unless you want to make it a problem? Unless someone is writing an adventure for Jean-Luc Picard that desperately relies on the fact that policemen of the 23rd century looked one way or the original enterprise was built in space? As long as the novels remain good (and although I'm quite vocal about some aspects of the current books that I don't like, overall the quality has never been higher), I simply couldn't care. As long as the film is consistent with what's gone before (the federation isn't suddenly a nazi like regime - Vulcans don't have the ability to shoot laser beams out of their eyes), I couldn't care less.
I really don't see why people keep getting so worked up over this. The movie doesn't come out until May, so there is really no need to worry any of this until like November or somewhere around that time.
Bob Orci has just given TrekMovie.com an in-depth interview about how the film fits with existing Trek continuity: http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/11/bob...-movie-fits-with-trek-canon-and-real-science/ The article sums it up thusly: So basically this is a Myriad Universes movie, so to speak. It's a tale about an alternate Trek universe that exists alongside the "classic" one. And yet, like some of the MyrU tales, it provides some insights that can be presumed valid where the main timeline is concerned. Many of the things that the film will reveal about the world and the characters are things that we can presume to have been true in the original continuity as well. And because of the quantum-probability issues Orci discussed, a lot of the events in the new timeline will end up pretty close to events in the original continuity, e.g. the same characters ending up on the same ship. Much as the same characters tend to converge on one another in alternate timelines such as the Mirror Universe, "Yesterday's Enterprise," and the MyrU tales. I guess this means we don't have to worry about the existing novel continuity being contradicted by the movie or its sequels. Which is a relief. On the other hand, though, I'm a little disappointed, because it's fun to try to weave new Trek continuity into the old. But as discussed, there will no doubt be ideas from the movie that we can assume are part of the main continuity's history as well.
Fair enough, but that interpretation gives a lot of credence to those who would say that this is "some other Kirk," the same way that the crews in the Mirror Universe or "Yesterday's Enterprise" aren't "the" crews. To be honest, my initial reaction is somewhat along these lines. Unless the story is about restoring the original timeline (and Orci didn't say one way or the other), it's going to matter less to me how this turns out--much like how I'm not particularly invested in the fate of the Marty McFly who grew up with Biff as a stepfather. To use my Doctor Who analogy again, it could be that the novel lines end up on parallel tracks, too, but occasionally reference this situation. Some of the DW tie-ins have implied that the Big Finish fiction and the BBC Books fiction lead to different versions of the Ninth Doctor, for example, and the existing ST continuity may end playing around with similar notions as well. I agree. I imagine that future novels will try to incorporate as much as will fit into the continuity of "ST-Prime" after the movie comes out...or at least, they will if people like the movie. If not, the novels may end up just preferring to go with the idea of ST-Prime chugging along and ignore the events of the film.