Regarding Canon: Mr Nimoy say................
- Thread starter Photon
- Start date
Ya, that seems a little insulting to fans.
This is why I have zero interest in this film. I don't care how well it may be done. Rebooting Star Trek was not necessary. Create new characters or revisit old ones. But don't change around the history and relationships of established characters and timelines to make your Burger King tie-in film.
Not really DS9-specific.
I agree with him though. If you're into that sort of thing, that's fine. I find some of it fun myself. However the new film-makers shouldn't feel themselves beholden to obey forty years of background, which is presumably why they've come up with this quasi-alternate universe explanation. I look forward to seeing the film to find out how it's all explained.
I agree with him though. If you're into that sort of thing, that's fine. I find some of it fun myself. However the new film-makers shouldn't feel themselves beholden to obey forty years of background, which is presumably why they've come up with this quasi-alternate universe explanation. I look forward to seeing the film to find out how it's all explained.
While I can understand where Nimoy is coming from, and I do intend upon seeing and hopefully enjoying this new movie, one of the things I liked about Star Trek is that it took place in a well defined universe with an intricate backstory. I think it is a great pity that this element of the franchise is being abandoned.
Not to mention the fact that the only show which is canon anymore is Enterprise. Try telling me that doesn't make you feel queasy.
Not to mention the fact that the only show which is canon anymore is Enterprise. Try telling me that doesn't make you feel queasy.
The way he said it could have been phrased better, and comes off a bit defensive (perhaps understandably so), but I agree with the sentiment. But like GodBen, one of the things I've always liked about Trek was that they actually went to the effort to develop a well-thought-out universe. I suppose, ultimately, that universe is relegated to nothing more than setting. 
Disappointed in one my idols really.
The film could've been a pure Star Trek Origin about Kirk meeting Spock then McCoy, like Harve Bennett's 1990 proposal. No need to put anybody's nose out of joint. No need to split universes, as well as infinitives.
As it is, the devastation Nero inflicts in the past, ensures this can never be part of a larger 40 year canvas. Not without a reset button in one of its sequels, at any rate... and the makers seem a tad prideful for that.
The film could've been a pure Star Trek Origin about Kirk meeting Spock then McCoy, like Harve Bennett's 1990 proposal. No need to put anybody's nose out of joint. No need to split universes, as well as infinitives.
As it is, the devastation Nero inflicts in the past, ensures this can never be part of a larger 40 year canvas. Not without a reset button in one of its sequels, at any rate... and the makers seem a tad prideful for that.
Yes, the tone does come across as demeaning. I wouldn't have thought that was his intention though.
This doesn't change anything that has gone before, but gives the new team a chance to create their own take which might be more attractive to modern sensibilities. The bottom line is that the new film had to be a success and had to be marketable.
John Eaves' blog about the film is worth a read. (But if you're reading Johnny, paragraphs never hurt.
)
Last edited:
Yeah. A reboot was a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' type proposition. I can see why they believed homage to the 'prime universe' was necessary, I'm just not sure that it really was necessary for what they were trying to do.
I don't "have to cling to my knowledge of the minutiae." I just find said minutiae interesting, because it is the minutiae of something I already liked. I'm sure I'll find the minutae of the XI universe interesting too.
I don't "have to cling to my knowledge of the minutiae." I just find said minutiae interesting, because it is the minutiae of something I already liked. I'm sure I'll find the minutae of the XI universe interesting too.
I do not agree with this. TOS had plenty of war-based episodes and conflict. It is the other modern Trek shows aside from DS9 that deviated from TOS's canon. DS9 is the only one that maintained TOS' canon, and developed it even moreso due to not being limited by the primitive 'episodic' format that TOS was. Had TOS' format not been sadly limited in that way, it probably would have been almost exactly like DS9.
I do not agree with this. TOS had plenty of war-based episodes and conflict. It is the other modern Trek shows aside from DS9 that deviated from TOS's canon. DS9 is the only one that maintained TOS' canon, and developed it even moreso due to not being limited by the primitive 'episodic' format that TOS was. Had TOS' format not been sadly limited in that way, it probably would have been almost exactly like DS9.
TOS had war and conflict, but that's not the "problem" (for lack of a better word). In order for DS9 to be as good and as nuanced as it was, it took what it meant to be in the Federation and twisted it on its side to examine it, which itself is so far ahead of simple war and conflict episodes (heck, having Starfleet on the losing end was unheard of prior to DS9). Basically, in order for DS9 to be an extension of TOS, it had to deconstruct TOS in the first place. TOS is legendary, no doubt about that, but I doubt the mindset back then was to devote whole episodes and subplots into Klingon culture.
And I suppose that's what I'm getting at: changing canon or continuity is not in itself disrespectful to what came before, and I argue that DS9 is a shining example of how to do it well (As opposed to, say, VOY and ENT).
As an example, Klingons in TOS are classic, but they were very, very black and white on the moral scale. To show that the vast majority of them weren't evil was to completely contradict/retcon TOS canon that dictated their evil side. In retrospect, DS9 ended up being quite respectful to TOS' depiction of Klingons, explaining their rhyme and reason.
But your 40 year canvas isn't disappearing either, and it'll go on in extended media. If, on midnight of May 9, your DVD collection goes poof, then I'll stand corrected. If you want to add to and preserve the Sistine Chapel, you don't try to shoehorn something onto the ceiling.
Last edited:
Wrong analogy. Think family tree or family quilt, instead of Sistine Chapel. A timeline of lineage, which is added to by succeeded generations or indeed, long lost ancestors previously unheard of.
I'm thankful for small mercies having a physical reminder of the true Star Trek Universe. But with all due respect to the authors of various novels (considered "non-canon" by the Studio), extended media is never, ever going to enough for me. Paramount can produce as many cinematic fancy dress parties as they like, I will always want my Star Trek back... dammit!
Here's a GREAT way for the film-makers not to feel beholden to forty years of background: come up with their own characters and their own distinctive fictional universe. Or at the very least use the Trek mythology/universe but create new characters to explore.
Because of this latest film are we going to make Kirk and Co into a Bond franchise? Every ten years you bring in new actors and just give the characters new adventures? Or maybe reboots will occur every 20 years and the origins of the charaters keep changing. I have no use for that. I also have no use for this new crew which looks like a bunch of teenagers in space (because demographics are more important than common sense). It reminds me of when Tony Kornheiser used to joke about how almost every person working for CTU on "24" looked to be 30 or younger.
I happen to totally agree with Leonard Nimoy. It's all just entertainment, folks. It's no religion. And believe me, the new movie is actually very faithful.
I agree with him, I just don't like the way he said it. But again, he probably has reason to be a tad defensive. And, what you say makes me feel better.
