Trek canon is dead. Thanx JJ!

[trekkerguy]

And that is??

I have had lots of people who don't watch or like Trek tell me how excited they are to see this film and they didn't even know what else he made.

And the in theatre reaction to the trailer was very receptive as well.

In the end only time will tell. Jolan Tru.

must work in a place that likes sci-fi.? still doesn't value in the "original" public.

Who are you to assume what I do?

No, I do not. Everyone the reactions have come from are people from all kinds of ages and backgrounds.

Attempts to remove credibility from my statements by throwing an assumption of my background on it are not appreciated sir.

Again, Jolan Tru.

 

[dillon3001]

One reason I like to visit (and post more often I hope) boards like this one is to see other peoples opinions on Trek subjects. I'm in the "wait and see, but thinking positive" boat in regards to the movie and whats been released about it (interviews, trailers, pictures and such). I'm just wondering how much 'continuity' or canon must be respected for people to go see this movie. There might be some continuity missing that I personally wont miss but someone else might.

The Enterprise being built in Iowa? If so, it doesn't bother me.
Seeing Romulans before BoT? See above statement.

If this movie tries to capture the essence of what Trek is (optimism about the future, etc), then to me its a success. It seems like they've gotten some things right so far, with the latest being Majel Barrett coming back as the computer's voice. For some reason to me, having alot of the old TOS style sounds was something I thought would be cool to have

Thats my 2 cents on the subject, but of course to expect people to feel or think the same way I do about Trek...is illogical

 

[dillon3001]

*Bones examines canon with his medical tricorder*

"He's dead Jim."

 

[trekkerguy]

One reason I like to visit (and post more often I hope) boards like this one is to see other peoples opinions on Trek subjects. I'm in the "wait and see, but thinking positive" boat in regards to the movie and whats been released about it (interviews, trailers, pictures and such). I'm just wondering how much 'continuity' or canon must be respected for people to go see this movie. There might be some continuity missing that I personally wont miss but someone else might.

The Enterprise being built in Iowa? If so, it doesn't bother me.
Seeing Romulans before BoT? See above statement.

If this movie tries to capture the essence of what Trek is (optimism about the future, etc), then to me its a success. It seems like they've gotten some things right so far, with the latest being Majel Barrett coming back as the computer's voice. For some reason to me, having alot of the old TOS style sounds was something I thought would be cool to have

Thats my 2 cents on the subject, but of course to expect people to feel or think the same way I do about Trek...is illogical

Not totaly illogical. I feel pretty much the same way bout it.

 

[dillon3001]

One reason I like to visit (and post more often I hope) boards like this one is to see other peoples opinions on Trek subjects. I'm in the "wait and see, but thinking positive" boat in regards to the movie and whats been released about it (interviews, trailers, pictures and such). I'm just wondering how much 'continuity' or canon must be respected for people to go see this movie. There might be some continuity missing that I personally wont miss but someone else might.

The Enterprise being built in Iowa? If so, it doesn't bother me.
Seeing Romulans before BoT? See above statement.

If this movie tries to capture the essence of what Trek is (optimism about the future, etc), then to me its a success. It seems like they've gotten some things right so far, with the latest being Majel Barrett coming back as the computer's voice. For some reason to me, having alot of the old TOS style sounds was something I thought would be cool to have

Thats my 2 cents on the subject, but of course to expect people to feel or think the same way I do about Trek...is illogical

Not totaly illogical. I feel pretty much the same way bout it.

I just dont expect people to share my views or thoughts on any given subject; it just makes it that much more pleasant when someone does

 

[TrekGuide.com]

The entire series of "Star Trek: Enterprise" takes place in the alternate timeline created when Picard and the Enterprise-E went back in time to fight the Borg in "Star Trek: First Contact." "Enterprise" episodes showed wreckage of the Borg sphere on Earth, and mentioned Cochrane's recollections of the Borg attack. (We can assume that after the Enterprise-E returned to the future, it returned to the "Enterprise" timeline, rather than the one it was in at the beginning of "First Contact.") So the movie "Star Trek: Insurrection" takes place in the future of the "Enterprise" timeline that was started in "First Contact."

B'wha? Where was that established besides on internet message boards?

It hasn't, outside of Braga shooting his mouth off at some convention appearance somewhere. Officially, all the movies and series are in the same universe and any changes in the timeline have been relatively minor, or are examples of predestination paradoxes.

Yes, Trek has had its share of predestination paradoxes (e.g., TNG's "Time's Arrow," Voyager's "Parallax," and arguably "ST IV: The Voyage Home."

And, yes, some changes in alternate timelines are minor, such as Ben Sisko replacing Gabriel Bell's photo in history books in "Past Tense," or Worf's birthday cake being yellow instead of chocolate in "Parallels." But as we saw in "Parallels," whether it's the color of one cake, or the Borg having taken over the entire Federation, an alternate timeline is an alternate timeline.

In "Yesterday's Enterprise," when the Federation was losing a war with the Klingons, and Tasha Yar was still alive, would you call those changes relatively minor? In Voyager's "Endgame," when Admiral Janeway changed history and helped the Voyager get back to Earth 20 years earlier, was that change relatively minor?

You may be right that "Officially, all the movies and series are in the same universe," but you fail to realize that the universe is made up of many different timelines, where facts are changed from one timeline to another.

In "Star Trek Generations" when the sun explodes and everyone on the Enterprise-D dies, how can you say that's in the same timeline as all subsequent movies? Obviously, Picard and Kirk changed the timeline, so that history was completely different in the new timeline, just like Tasha Yar and the Enterprise-C made major changes to history in "Yesterday's Enterprise."

There has never been one single, "official" Trek timeline. The Zefram Cochrane that Kirk met in "Metamorphosis" was not the Zefram Cochrane who made his first warp flight with Riker and LaForge. Those were two different timelines.

Just because there was a predestination paradox in TNG's "Time's Arrow" doesn't mean that other episodes and movies didn't use other time travel methods that created major changes in the timeline.

Yes, the crew's goal in time travel usually is to maintain the status quo, by making the altered timeline closely resemble the one they came from (such as helping Cochrane make his historic flight on time). But in doing so, the time travelers are not in a predestination paradox, they are changing the history they remember to create a new history that is similar.

However, in other episodes, like "Yesterday's Enterprise," "Timeless," "Endgame," and "Star Trek Generations," characters go back in time with the specific intention of completely changing the history they remember, in order to "improve" the universe in the new timeline -- and in each case they succeed in creating entirely new timelines. This is exactly what Nero and Spock are doing in "Star Trek XI" -- going into the past with the intention of changing history.

We don't know what the storyline of "Star Trek XI" is.

Perhaps, like in "First Contact," Spock will succeed in "undoing" Nero's changes in "Star Trek XI" by making additional changes so that history gets back on track by the end, like Riker and LaForge tried to undo the Borg attack by helping Cochrane make his flight.

On the other hand, "Star Trek XI" could be like "Yesterday's Enterprise" or "Endgame," where the timeline at the end of the movie is a completely new and different timeline from the one at the beginning, and future episodes simply continue in that new timeline. That's exactly what happened in "Star Trek: Nemesis," where we saw Admiral Janeway, who was there solely because of the alternate timeline created in "Endgame."

No one was terribly upset that "Star Trek: Nemesis" took place in the alternate "Admiral Janeway" universe, so if "Star Trek XI" and its sequels take place in an alternate "Nero timeline," how is that any different?

Whether you destroy half the galaxy, or you step on a single butterfly, if the timeline is different, then it's a different timeline. Whether the changes are major or minor, "Star Trek" has depicted dozens of alternate timelines (not even counting the predestination paradoxes). There is no one "official" Trek timeline. There have been dozens of timelines depicted in various episodes, and all the timelines are equally real. Any new timeline created in "Star Trek XI" will be no different.

Again, there has been a new timeline depicted in each of the last four movies, each with different historic facts. Yes, Picard always has a red uniform, and the ship is still called the Enterprise, but each movie was in a different timeline. As you said, "changes in the timeline have been relatively minor" -- but that is admitting that there were, indeed, changes to the timeline. When you create alternate timelines, the size or number of changes don't really matter; you're still in an alternate timeline.

 

[DaveyNY]

I guess the difference here is that from what WE know so far (which ain't much really), this will be the most drastic, obvious change since TMP and it's being done by someone other than the Original Creator.

THAT may well be the biggest factor in how well this becomes accepted by those of US that have been around since the beginning.

It's easy to accept changes when one doesn't have an entirety of a lifetime of involvement/devotion to the subject at hand, since it's inception.

For me anyway, it's gonna take a while to come around to this new Trek.

And mind you, I was NOT one of the ones that objected to the changes of TMP.
My feeling at the time was it was GR's baby and He could do no wrong (I know, silly me), it wasn't until He started disavowing what had already been created, that I began to lose faith.

Anyway... as I said in the other similar thread, there's always a chance that the complete story, once seen, may alleviate my uneasness.

 

[trekkerguy]

It's easy to accept changes when one doesn't have an entirety of a lifetime of involvement/devotion to the subject at hand.

I guess that could be true, but my entire life has been just that and from the begining I have liked all the "changes".

 

[DaveyNY]

It's easy to accept changes when one doesn't have an entirety of a lifetime of involvement/devotion to the subject at hand.

I guess that could be true, but my entire life has been just that and from the beginning I have liked all the "changes".

Then you my friend, are a VERY UNIQUE Individual.

Very few people, willingly and immediately accept drastic changes to things in their life that they feel very close too.

Believe me, I know...

Just as an example...

I've worked in a hospital for over thirty years now and I've seen how all kinds of people, both employees and patients (including myself) have reacted to the multiple drastic changes that have come about there through the years.

It's not always pretty.

And one question, when you say your entire life, does that include being there from the begining of Trek (1966) or do you mean from a later point that you came onboard.

I'm not trying to be insensitive or insulting but in order to better understand your point of view, it would help to know.

And I guess I should edit my statement above to better reflect what I meant...

 

[trekkerguy]

I never "Came aboard" as my entire life since birth I was raised on and fed Trek, and continued on myself with it in increasing measure.

I don't think being there since '66 should matter since we are both attached to and just as fond of the same Universe.
Saying it does is like saying one has seniority on Trek and that it makes their feelings mean more.

If they reimagined TNG(The Trek era I was born into) I would have no problem with it.

It's... entertainment. It changes, time changes and so do we(Some of us). If it means the survival of Trek and bringing back the fun adventurous aspects of it that have been lost in so much technobabble and canon in the last decade, I welcome it.

I've watched the first two season of TOS over the last two weeks just to catch back up and you know what?
The more I watch the more excited for the new Trek I get. Not because it looks better, but the more I see TOS the more nuTrek doesn't look all that different. You just have to look through the cool aesthetic changes and it's all there, the fun, the adventure, humor, characters, as good as ever. Just looks a little younger and newer.

 

[Kaziarl]

I was raised on Trek. Yeah, I was born in 85, so I wasn't one of the original fans. But one of the first things I remember growing up was watching the adventures of Picard one day during the week, then watching Kirk a different day. I have every episode, and every movie. I've collected books with my mom, and now that she's passed away and I've inherited them, I've collected books myself.

I would like to think that my love for this show is JUST as valid as those of you who got to see TOS when it first aired, but it's thats not your opinion then so be it. I still know what I like about the show, I still know what I don't like, and I still know what this show has meant to me.

I also know that this movie is not going to effect those feelings in the slightest. And if it happens to effect yours, then maybe you should look within yourself.

The best you can do now, is wait. Watch the movie, the true fans owe trek that much. If you don't like it, fine. I didn't care for STV, or Nemesis, but I still watched them because no matter what your personal opinion. IT'S STILL TREK!

 

[starburst]

Ive never understood the mind set of 'if you didnt watch since the 60's your opinion doesnt quite count as much' as whats the real difference with watching from the start 40 years ago or watching reruns/TNG when it was first out in the 80s as a small child?

 

[DaveyNY]

I never "Came aboard" as my entire life since birth I was raised on and fed Trek, and continued on myself with it in increasing measure.

I don't think being there since '66 should matter since we are both attached to and just as fond of the same Universe. Saying it does is like saying one has seniority on Trek and that makes their feelings mean more.

If they reimagined TNG(The Trek era I was born into) I would have no problem with it.

It's... entertainment. It changes, time changes and so do we(Some of us). If it means the survival of Trek and bringing back the fun adventurous aspects of it that have been lost in so much technobabble and canon in the last decade, I welcome it.

Perhaps I am implying that with longevity the feelings are more intense, but it's not meant in an insulting way.
(which you just can't seem to leave out of the conversation... ie... your "Some of us" comment)

Your feelings toward Trek DO come from a different time and place and that's not a bad thing, it's just different.

It would be like someone trying to understand and describe how people feel about actually living through the decade of the 60's.

They could probably amass enough information and hear descriptions from people who lived through the time period to be quite capable of describing it in minute detail, but they still wouldn't really know what it felt like being there.

That's what I mean when I talk about my feelings toward Trek, we just have perspectives that come from different life experience's and neither is better, but both are completely unique and that may be why I tend to be a bit more intense about it.

 

[trekkerguy]

Ive never understood the mind set of 'if you didnt watch since the 60's your opinion doesnt quite count as much' as whats the real difference with watching from the start 40 years ago or watching reruns/TNG when it was first out in the 80s as a small child?

There isn't one. Though those that feel that way would make the argument that they've had more invested in it over a longer period of time.

That really doesn't matter because as I said, the feelings I have toward the show are just as strong as someone who started in the 60's.

They simply developed in a different era. But my personal exposure has been to all of Trek. So I care just as much about TOS as I do TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT. That's why I feel this movie to be such a good thing. The more I watch TOS again the more I can't wait to see those characters reinvented and relived on the big screen.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I never "Came aboard" as my entire life since birth I was raised on and fed Trek, and continued on myself with it in increasing measure.

Same here. As I mentioned once in another thread, I first got into Star Trek before I was old enough to really recognize actual changes in the show or the significance thereof. It just seemed like That Really Cool Sci Fi show that I watch all the time whenever it's on and make my parents buy all the toys.

I've always enjoyed the changes, because to me they were always "Some new Star Trek thing they came out with!" It wasn't until I was older that the entire concept of "continuity" even came up and even then it was something mostly confined to the weird bylaws of internet message boards.

In hindsight, the obsession with canon is something ubiquitous to the BBS-fanbase of pretty much ANY longrunning franchise. The "Canon violation! Damn you!" threads at the old Gundam Project message board used to erupt into epic scale flame wars where posters would actually divide up into squads and gang-flame each other for weeks at a time.

 

[Kaziarl]

I never "Came aboard" as my entire life since birth I was raised on and fed Trek, and continued on myself with it in increasing measure.

Same here. As I mentioned once in another thread, I first got into Star Trek before I was old enough to really recognize actual changes in the show or the significance thereof. It just seemed like That Really Cool Sci Fi show that I watch all the time whenever it's on and make my parents buy all the toys.

I've always enjoyed the changes, because to me they were always "Some new Star Trek thing they came out with!" It wasn't until I was older that the entire concept of "continuity" even came up and even then it was something mostly confined to the weird bylaws of internet message boards.

In hindsight, the obsession with canon is something ubiquitous to the BBS-fanbase of pretty much ANY longrunning franchise. The "Canon violation! Damn you!" threads at the old Gundam Project message board used to erupt into epic scale flame wars where posters would actually divide up into squads and gang-flame each other for weeks at a time.

Ahh... the good old days... The old Star Trek Lounge was like that too.

 

[Ezri II]

If you do not like Star Trek XI because it breaks your heart with how the trek universe should be. Go and be a Red Drawf fan ... anyone can sum up that series in less then 5,000 words or less.

 

[trekkerguy]

If you do not like Star Trek XI because it breaks your heart with how the trek universe should be. Go and be a Red Drawf fan ... anyone can sum up that series in less then 5,000 words or less.

Owned...

 

[DaveyNY]

Ive never understood the mind set of 'if you didnt watch since the 60's your opinion doesnt quite count as much' as whats the real difference with watching from the start 40 years ago or watching reruns/TNG when it was first out in the 80s as a small child?

There isn't one. Though those that feel that way would make the argument that they've had more invested in it over a longer period of time.

That really doesn't matter because as I said, the feelings I have toward the show are just as strong as someone who started in the 60's.

They simply developed in a different era. But my personal exposure has been to all of Trek. So I care just as much about TOS as I do TNG, DS9, VOY or ENT. That's why I feel this movie to be such a good thing. The more I watch TOS again the more I can't wait to see those characters reinvented and relived on the big screen.

We have invested more over a longer period of time.

That's part of my point that you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

And that's what makes our perspectives different.

But again, it doesn't make your feelings not count or less involved.

And you stated yourself the reason, "...They simply developed in a different era..."

And at this point your starting to come across slightly as if your perspective is better.

If you love TOS so much (and I'm not implying that you don't) how is it that you can be so cavalier about it being reinvented??

Do you really have invested feelings toward it?

Granted it's just a TV show, but to some of US it means a bit more than that.
For some of Us who've been with it from the beginning (and many throughout the years) it's become inspirational in OUR lives, and that may be something you may not understand.

And that doesn't mean that WE can't live without it, it just means that it's become a bit more important to US than it seems, to you.

Perhaps that's something you should take into consideration before you continue to berate and insult folks who object to the changes in Trek XI around here.

 

[trekkerguy]

Perhaps that's something you should take into consideration before you continue to berate and insult folks who object to the changes in Trek XI around here.

What in the fuck? Who have I berated and insulted?

And what I stated about my feelings for Trek developing in a different Era
have nothing to do with that being better. Just a fact that that's really the
only difference between you and I.

You don't know me as a person so there's no way for you to know and I'll
take it you're not assuming you do, but my life has been drasticaly shaped by
all Trek as I've grown and explored the world.
I would probably be a completely different person at this stage in life had it not.

And that is EXACTLY why I am so "cavalier" about it's reinvention.
Not because I have some hatred or resentment for old Trek.
I've explained that several times. It needs to survive for the next
generation to experience and have some effect on.

And because I would prefer to have more Trek to enjoy and experience over
the next 40 years. But anything that stagnates dies. Trek needs change
to survive, and it needs to be good entertainment for me to enjoy it.

So I am in full support of exactly what is happening with Trek.

And that doesn't mean that WE can't live without it,
it just means that it's become a bit more important to US than it seems, to you.

You're the one making a distiction between "US" and "WE".
I'm sorry we all can't just be Star Trek fans who happen
to have differing opinions on what's good for it.
I don't know what I've said or done to make it seem as though
it's less important to me, I must have missed that moment while
I sat here watching TOS dvds, I'll take your word for it...

Jolan Tru.