I don't know if I can acept the new movie as canon!

[The Borg Queen]

I've never noticed the inclusion of the animated series in "the list". But then maybe I've just not been paying attention.

 

[Captain X]

It's generally not. At best, TAS is mined for background information.

 

[Michael]

I've never noticed the inclusion of the animated series in "the list". But then maybe I've just not been paying attention.

Well, it really depends on where you are looking. Trek Nation and TrekCore do both list it, for instance.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I think the movie is going to be alot of fun but am I the only person who likes what I see though at the same time can't really buy into the idea that this movie will take place in the established universe we are familiar with. In my mind I think we should see this movie as something new instead of hold onto any tread of hope that it will fit into canon.


Jason

I appreciate your POV, though not a canon hound, even I die a little inside every time a joystick pops up on the bridge of a ship called Enterprise.
I have love for all the phases of Trek, even Enterprise (the NX design has a lot to do with that for me)
So this will be like all the other "new" Treks, take it as it comes...

 

[xortex]

Tas isn't canon cause GR said it wasn't. I think he was the final word. I hope they don't reset at the end. That would defeat the purpose of the new design.

 

[pookha]

So it seems everybody has their own personal canon, apparently, even if it means disregarding the TRUE canon of "if it was on TV = it's canon".

So the Animated Series is canon then?

No, it is not. But I like to think of it as such.

the theory has been no but bits of it can be made canon by the writers if they so choose to pick stuff from tas.
actually a lot of it over the years has that way strutted into canon.

hmm did someone say placate..

Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence

 

[Captain X]

Tas isn't canon cause GR said it wasn't. I think he was the final word.

Until he died he did. Even before that while they generally respected his wishes, they handed over the reins to others for season 3 of TNG.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

When Admiral Bennett reminds Bashir of the risks of genetic engineering by referencing the Eugenics Wars, he referred to it as having occurred "two hundred years ago." However, established continuity suggests that he is about 200 years off. Ronald D. Moore comments: "This is my personal screw-up. When I was writing that speech, I was thinking about Khan and somehow his dialog from "Wrath" starting floating through my brain: "On Earth... 200 years ago... I was a Prince..." The number 200 just stuck in my head and I put it in the script without making the necessary adjustment for the fact that "Wrath" took place almost a hundred years prior to "Dr. Bashir." I wrote it, I get the blame." [1] Of course, one explanation is that Admiral Bennett himself got the date wrong.

There's something sexy about a person taking personal responsibilty for a mistake, as opposed to, oh... I don't know, saying "We're all very pleased" over and over again.

 

[Ensign_Redshirt]

I for one want to see this movie. Then I will also be able to decide if it's good or bad and where it ranks in comparison to the other movies.

As for the supposed Canon and continuity issues... there were dozens of continuity errors, continuity negligences, and retcons in the past. It seems kind of arbitrary to me to start being annoyed by that now. What took you so long?

Everything that came since TMP isn't really Canon anyway, because the Klingons had inexplicable forehead ridges in that movie. Alright, everything since TMP has become Canon now because of another retcon in Enterprise's 4th season. Except that some people refuse to accept Enterprise as Canon, which means that everything since TMP still shouldn't be Canon for those people.

Seriously though... it's hard for me to accept that I'm not supposed to use my suspension of disbelief anymore, after I had used it for the past years/decades.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Tas isn't canon cause GR said it wasn't. I think he was the final word.

I agree with you that TAS isn't canon.

But items that were originally seen in TAS can become canon -- i.e., if a new writer includes that item in a feature film or TV series.

I mean, why would something "not allowed to be written into a live-action Star Trek" just becuse it was seen in TAS first? For example, if a writer wants to finally make it "real" canon that Robert April existed, then he can do that by putting the character and his familiar background in a feature film.

Just because TAS thought of it first does not make it "taboo" for future canonical Trek.

(...and I know you didn't say otherwise, xortex; I'm just saying this now because your post made me think of it)

I hope they don't reset at the end. That would defeat the purpose of the new design.

Since I personally don't think the new design has anything to do with the "alternate timeline" (and has everything to do with this being a movie made in 2009), I don't agree with that being the justification for NOT resetting. I don't necessarily want the reset button hit, but if they decide to reset, I don't think the new look as presented would need to change.

I have enough of an imagination for me to think that this design being presented by Abrams IS in fact the actual ship we saw in the TOS era. I don't need an in-film explanation for why it looks different, because for me it isn't necessarily any different "in-film" than the TOS ship.

At no time in TOS did the look of the ship have a major bearing on the plot, so changing that look now does NOT negate any major plotline that ever occurred in TOS.

 

[Michael]

I have enough of an imagination for me to think that this design being presented by Abrams IS in fact the actual ship we saw in the TOS era. I don't need an in-film explanation for why it looks different, because for me it isn't necessarily any different "in-film" than the TOS ship.

At no time in TOS did the look of the ship have a major bearing on the plot, so changing that look now does NOT negate any major plotline that ever occurred in TOS.

I think I love you.

 

[Plumster]

I have enough of an imagination for me to think that this design being presented by Abrams IS in fact the actual ship we saw in the TOS era. I don't need an in-film explanation for why it looks different, because for me it isn't necessarily any different "in-film" than the TOS ship.

At no time in TOS did the look of the ship have a major bearing on the plot, so changing that look now does NOT negate any major plotline that ever occurred in TOS.

I think I love you.

Is the ship considered a 'character'?

I always thought it was BUT that the shape was the thing rather than the detail.

Will the hard core fans like it if it's got big guns?

 

[RobertScorpio]

Jayson, let me ask you a few questions:

When in the history of the Star Trek universe did the Eugenics Wars take place? In the 1990s or the 2170s?

How do Trills really look? Do they have spots or forehead ridges? Also, do they use the transporter or don't they?

Was Scotty part of the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B or was he not?

Did Lieutenant Commander Dmitri Valtane die before the Excelsior arrived at Khitomer or did he not?

Does Spock have a brother? And did he ever marry someone?

With out a doubt, this is one of the greatest POSTS ever on this site. EVERY so called "Continuity" nitpicking fan should be made to read this. Oh..and add these beauts.


Did Chekov meet Khan before?

Great post!!!

Rob

 

[RobertScorpio]

Jayson, let me ask you a few questions:

When in the history of the Star Trek universe did the Eugenics Wars take place? In the 1990s or the 2170s?

How do Trills really look? Do they have spots or forehead ridges? Also, do they use the transporter or don't they?

Was Scotty part of the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B or was he not?

Did Lieutenant Commander Dmitri Valtane die before the Excelsior arrived at Khitomer or did he not?

Does Spock have a brother? And did he ever marry someone?

With out a doubt, this is one of the greatest POSTS ever on this site. EVERY "continuity is GOD" nitpicking fan should be made to read this. Oh..and add these beauts.


Did Chekov meet Khan before?

Great post!!!

Rob

 

[uniderth]

With out a doubt, this is one of the greatest POSTS ever on this site. EVERY "continuity is GOD" nitpicking fan should be made to read this. Oh..and add these beauts.


Did Chekov meet Khan before?

Great post!!!

Rob

I read it. And.....?

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I have enough of an imagination for me to think that this design being presented by Abrams IS in fact the actual ship we saw in the TOS era. I don't need an in-film explanation for why it looks different, because for me it isn't necessarily any different "in-film" than the TOS ship.

At no time in TOS did the look of the ship have a major bearing on the plot, so changing that look now does NOT negate any major plotline that ever occurred in TOS.

I think I love you.

Well, I'm flattered -- but I think you should know that I'm a dude. A straight dude.
...

...and to paraphrase a line from Seinfeld..."not that there's anything wrong with [the alternative]"

 

[Starbreaker]

I don't care about canon. I want to go see a good movie and not let it ruin my sleep.

 

[xortex]

first off Khan saw crew's records, that's how he knew Chekov.

 

[Cyke101]

I have enough of an imagination for me to think that this design being presented by Abrams IS in fact the actual ship we saw in the TOS era. I don't need an in-film explanation for why it looks different, because for me it isn't necessarily any different "in-film" than the TOS ship.

At no time in TOS did the look of the ship have a major bearing on the plot, so changing that look now does NOT negate any major plotline that ever occurred in TOS.

I think I love you.

Is the ship considered a 'character'?

I always thought it was BUT that the shape was the thing rather than the detail.

I always considered it a character, too (a woman, coincidentally). Hey, if Young Picard can be recast half a dozen times, then why not an inanimate object?

Will the hard core fans like it if it's got big guns?

Actually, I think so. All Good Things Enterprise, anyone? *blegh!*

 

[Ssosmcin]

Canon Shmanon.

Roddenberry: "The animated series doesn't count." I think he said that about Star Trek V as well.

But, jeez, TAS was televised, called "Star Trek" (no subtitle to differentiate it), starred the original cast, was written by many of the original series' writers and is being sold by Paramount. Sorry, if one is allowed to pick and choose which filmed, televised and sold Trek is "canon," then they might as well remove Spock's Brain or any other insipid episode.

Gene, by the way, was not the sole owner of Star Trek, so his was not the final authority of these "important" matters. When all is said and done, Paramount is the boss. If it was on TV and they're selling it (and getting my money), then it happened in continuity. Besides, was TAS any worse than half of the crap trek that came afterward? Much of it is a hell of a lot better.

To be honest, I couldn't care less. It's a fictional universe that is overloaded with crap. Why not just enjoy the individual stories and forget how it falls into the larger tapestry.