Nero/Alternate Universe...When did it actually become 'alternate'?

[OneBuckFilms]

Perhaps, to show why Spock was necessary, I should phrase this as a Q and A.

Q: How do you start over with Star Trek?

A: You go back to the most identifiable elements of Star Trek, The Enterprise, her crew (Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Etc.) and start over with them afresh.

Q: How do you do this, while preserving the 40+ years of stories, history and lore that have been established on screen?

A: You find a link to the rest of the franchise, and make that link an emotional and logical cause for the changes you have to make.

Q: What character/event/whatever would fit with established canon, and have the emotional and logical resonance to do this?

A: Spock is the only character that the general public generally link to Star Trek, and who's ultimate fate is unestablished, with the emotional weight to pull it off.

See... you're really just bullshitting yourself here. If it had been just a solid, well made with lots of explosions 'generic' sci-fi flick it would've still done solid business. People like sophomoric humor (see Police Academy) and big 'splosions (any buddy cop movie) which this movie had in spades.

So you didn't need Leonard Nimoy... you didn't need William Shatner... you didn't need Patrick Stewart, you needed empty calories to satisfy the audiences 'hunger'. That is what this Star Trek film got right... nothing more.

And if they had left Nimoy in the retirement home, they wouldn't have needed to twist the film's story logic like a pretzel.

Take the Humor out of your thinking here. Nimoy's Spock's presense is immaterial to this, regardless of your opinions either way.

The film's logic was actually far more straightforward to me and most viewers than your opinion implies, and if you believe that Nimoy was not needed to pass the tource, or make the film legitimate, then I welcome your good, serious solution, irrespective of the elements of the movie you did not like.

PROVE ME WRONG.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

This is what this Star Trek film got right... nothing more.

I couldn't disagree more. There was a lot more than "empty calories" to STXI.

See... I thought it was a well-directed, well cast film (as I've said many times). But the story was just so underwhelming I found little of redeeming value in it. Now whether this is because the writers are truly bad or if it was caused by having a 'checklist' of things they had to put into the story, I truly don't know. Nimoy's role in the film feels forced... like they were told fit 'Old Spock' in, we don't care how it's done (much like Generations). YMMV.

Define "Forced". If you are going to make major changes to the Star Trek Universe, then you have to find some way to do it.

Kirk? He died in Generations. McCoy? The actor has passed away, and McCoy was a frail old man at the time.

The rest of the crew? Not enough iconic weight to pull it off.

TNG or other crew? Requires too much familiarity with Star Trek lore, alienating the uninitiated.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Whether you see the dramatic and emotional need for Spock to be the one to pass the torch or not changes absolutely nothing.

It's not the generic "think it's Star Trek", it's the "accept the massive changes required to Star Trek" requirement that Spock fulfills.

A Straw Man argument and a low opinion of the film's humor does not a good argument make.

It seems to me that if they had gone for the straight reboot some favour, there would be even greater changes and no one to hold our hands, presumably. I can't see it making much difference to the overall revenue take. Most of the things people like about it would have been the same and if no one expected Nimoy's involvement no one would have been disappointed by his absence.

I, for example, didn't have a clue Nimoy was going to be in it. I had seen the trailers so I knew it was going to be more a first person shooter than a strategy outing but I still thought it would be basically Star Trek at heart and my biggest problem would be getting used to new actors playing the iconic roles. Oh the innocence of youth!

Still, I was a little ambivalent and the weird thing was I got invited to go by a friend who didn't like Star Trek! Why wasn't I deafened by alarm bells I hear you ask! Needless to say he didn't know Nimoy would be in it either, and didn't care.

I think if a cold reboot works well enough for other franchises then, combined with the likelihood that a link character is something most patrons aren’t even expecting and is only a feel good bonus for the rest, we can probably bypass question three of your Q&A. Question two could be satisfied by making it more obvious the movie is set in different #@%&* universe (IMO)!

I see where your coming from, but most other franchises are more used to reboots.

How many incarnations of James Bod have their been? Batmans?

No other franchise has built up over 40 years of continuity that a full reboot would effectively trample on.

If it does not generally fit into the overall continuity in some way, it would not truly be Star Trek, and the writers knew this.

To clarify: JJ Abrams DID like Star Trek, he was simply not a big Star Trek fan, and grew up liking Star Wars more.

Someone else wh did not know much about Star Trek, but directed a Star Trek movie to positive effect: Nicholas Meyer.

 

[BillJ]

The film's logic was actually far more straightforward to me and most viewers than your opinion implies, and if you believe that Nimoy was not needed to pass the tource, or make the film legitimate, then I welcome your good, serious solution, irrespective of the elements of the movie you did not like.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Seems to me that Star Trek: The Next Generation had no problems bringing in millions of viewers right from the get-go with nothing more than a forty-five second cameo from De Kelley (that had nothing to do with the story).

Your vastly over-rating how important continuity is to anyone... even most Trekkies.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The film's logic was actually far more straightforward to me and most viewers than your opinion implies, and if you believe that Nimoy was not needed to pass the tource, or make the film legitimate, then I welcome your good, serious solution, irrespective of the elements of the movie you did not like.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Seems to me that Star Trek: The Next Generation had no problems bringing in millions of viewers right from the get-go with nothing more than a forty-five second cameo from De Kelley (that had nothing to do with the story).

Your vastly over-rating how important continuity is to anyone... even most Trekkies.

That is not the impression I get from these boards.

The fact that Dr. McCoy fit in with the greater story was a nod to fans of TOS, and a way to pass the torch. Far easier to do going forward in time. It was not revisiting TOS and making changes. Different thing entirely.

The fact that Doctor McCoy had nothing to do with the immediate story meant that to non-fans, he was simply a background character who appeared and hinted at the fame of the name "Enterprise" in the TNG universe being portrayed.

TNG also did nothing that would change anything that had happened earlier at that point. It was a continuation.

Lets not compare an Apple to an Orange.

 

[BillJ]

The film's logic was actually far more straightforward to me and most viewers than your opinion implies, and if you believe that Nimoy was not needed to pass the tource, or make the film legitimate, then I welcome your good, serious solution, irrespective of the elements of the movie you did not like.

PROVE ME WRONG.

Seems to me that Star Trek: The Next Generation had no problems bringing in millions of viewers right from the get-go with nothing more than a forty-five second cameo from De Kelley (that had nothing to do with the story).

Your vastly over-rating how important continuity is to anyone... even most Trekkies.

That is not the impression I get from these boards.

The fact that Dr. McCoy fit in with the greater story was a nod to fans of TOS, and a way to pass the torch. Far easier to do going forward in time. It was not revisiting TOS and making changes. Different thing entirely.

The fact that Doctor McCoy had nothing to do with the immediate story meant that to non-fans, he was simply a background character who appeared and hinted at the fame of the name "Enterprise" in the TNG universe being portrayed.

TNG also did nothing that would change anything that had happened earlier at that point. It was a continuation.

Lets not compare an Apple to an Orange.

The membership of this board probably represents less than one-tenth of one percent of all people who call themselves Star Trek fans. So let's not try to make this board seem more significant than it is. Because if this board carried that much weight, we'd be talking about a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine feature film instead of a reboot of TOS.

You said they needed a link to previous Trek's for people to understand this was Star Trek:

In order to sell this to fans (yes, US), they needed to bring in someone iconic.

Both Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek 2009 relaunched the franchise... sometimes an apple is just an apple.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Seems to me that Star Trek: The Next Generation had no problems bringing in millions of viewers right from the get-go with nothing more than a forty-five second cameo from De Kelley (that had nothing to do with the story).

Your vastly over-rating how important continuity is to anyone... even most Trekkies.

That is not the impression I get from these boards.

The fact that Dr. McCoy fit in with the greater story was a nod to fans of TOS, and a way to pass the torch. Far easier to do going forward in time. It was not revisiting TOS and making changes. Different thing entirely.

The fact that Doctor McCoy had nothing to do with the immediate story meant that to non-fans, he was simply a background character who appeared and hinted at the fame of the name "Enterprise" in the TNG universe being portrayed.

TNG also did nothing that would change anything that had happened earlier at that point. It was a continuation.

Lets not compare an Apple to an Orange.

The membership of this board probably represents less than one-tenth of one percent of all people who call themselves Star Trek fans. So let's not try to make this board seem more significant than it is. Because if this board carried that much weight, we'd be talking about a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine feature film instead of a reboot of TOS.

You said they needed a link to previous Trek's for people to understand this was Star Trek:

In order to sell this to fans (yes, US), they needed to bring in someone iconic.

Both Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek 2009 relaunched the franchise... sometimes an apple is just an apple.

Actually, I believe I said (don't know exact words off by heart) that bringing in someone from TOS such as Spock was needed to allow for the changes to TOS, and had to be someone iconic and recognizable outside of fandom in order to make these changes legitimate within canon/continuity.

TNG was not trying to change already established character backgrounds and events the way Star Trek 2009 had to.

 

[BillJ]

Actually, I believe I said (don't know exact words off by heart) that bringing in someone from TOS such as Spock was needed to allow for the changes to TOS, and had to be someone iconic and recognizable outside of fandom in order to make these changes legitimate within canon/continuity.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Why would people from outside of fandom give a damn about the legitimacy of this particular story within canon/continuity?

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Actually, I believe I said (don't know exact words off by heart) that bringing in someone from TOS such as Spock was needed to allow for the changes to TOS, and had to be someone iconic and recognizable outside of fandom in order to make these changes legitimate within canon/continuity.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Why would people from outside of fandom give a damn about the legitimacy of this particular story within canon/continuity?

- Star Trek fans need to have someone they recognize, and who works within established Canon to credibly allow the major changes deemed necessary for the movie to work. (That means a major Star Trek character alive in the 24th Century with the capability to travel through time in some way.)
- Non-Star Trek Fans need to be able to follow the story without needing to know anything about Star Trek going in. (That essentially rules out the TNG Cast, or any other cast except someone from TOS, as that it the cast we are dealing with in the movie)

Since the story (aside from the Time Travel/Alternate Reality elements) is essentially the two stars of TOS (Kirk and Spock), it then follows that a future version of one of these characters would be the least confusing choice.

In continuity, James Kirk was killed on Veridian III after emerging from the Nexus with Picard (Generations), so that leaves: Spock.

If a B or C character, or another TOS character presumed alive in the 24th Century was used, it would not have the intended dramatic impact.

If an unknown character was placed in the Spock Prime role here, there would be far too much explanation and exposition needed, taking the general focus away from Kirk, Spock and the TOS crew.

If a TNG or other cast were used, this would bring in additional necessary exposition/explanations, and would not bring the dramatic and emotional weight Spock Prime does to the Kirk/Spock evolution.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

Actually, I believe I said (don't know exact words off by heart) that bringing in someone from TOS such as Spock was needed to allow for the changes to TOS, and had to be someone iconic and recognizable outside of fandom in order to make these changes legitimate within canon/continuity.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. Why would people from outside of fandom give a damn about the legitimacy of this particular story within canon/continuity?

Doing things within continuity is for us fans, and the writers as fans.
Doing things with a character who is identifiable outside of Star Trek fandom, who's younger self is a major character in the movie, keeps things simple enough for non-fans, and provides opportunity for the audience to better understand Spock in a sense.

 

[BillJ]

- Star Trek fans need to have someone they recognize, and who works within established Canon to credibly allow the major changes deemed necessary for the movie to work. (That means a major Star Trek character alive in the 24th Century with the capability to travel through time in some way.)
- Non-Star Trek Fans need to be able to follow the story without needing to know anything about Star Trek going in. (That essentially rules out the TNG Cast, or any other cast except someone from TOS, as that it the cast we are dealing with in the movie)

Since the story (aside from the Time Travel/Alternate Reality elements) is essentially the two stars of TOS (Kirk and Spock), it then follows that a future version of one of these characters would be the least confusing choice.

In continuity, James Kirk was killed on Veridian III after emerging from the Nexus with Picard (Generations), so that leaves: Spock.

If a B or C character, or another TOS character presumed alive in the 24th Century was used, it would not have the intended dramatic impact.

If an unknown character was placed in the Spock Prime role here, there would be far too much explanation and exposition needed, taking the general focus away from Kirk, Spock and the TOS crew.

If a TNG or other cast were used, this would bring in additional necessary exposition/explanations, and would not bring the dramatic and emotional weight Spock Prime does to the Kirk/Spock evolution.

I have no idea of what point you're trying to make and I'm not sure if you do either?

Batman Begins viewers didn't need the Alford from the Burton movies to be able to follow along with the story. What the viewers needed was a compelling story to pull them into that universe. Which Nolan delivered. Nolan didn't give a damn about how highly fanboys regarded issue #227. He took the generalities of the Batman mythos and put his own spin on it, independent of what had come before. That was what I was looking for from Star Trek 2009 and I'm convinced Abrams would have had a bigger hit if he had simply dropped all the baggage that was associated with Star Trek. Instead of being bold they tried to straddle the fence and in doing so created a story that was just a mess.

Honestly, did fans need a future time-traveler to hold their collective hands in 1966 when watching The Man Trap?

"The more you over think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain."

 

[F. King Daniel]

FWIW, the writers themselves said on the DVD special features that they thought the only way fans would accept he changes to the timeline is if Nimoy's Spock was involved. They said that the film wouldn't have happened without him onboard. "Nimoy Spock changes history" seems to be the idea the film sprung from.

 

[BillJ]

FWIW, the writers themselves said on the DVD special features that they thought the only way fans would accept he changes to the timeline is if Nimoy's Spock was involved. They said that the film wouldn't have happened without him onboard. "Nimoy Spock changes history" seems to be the idea the film sprung from.

The story as we seen it wouldn't have happened without Nimoy aboard. Since Paramount greenlit a Star Trek film, it would have happened in some form with or without Nimoy.

One of the reasons Abrams signed on at Paramount was to do a Star Trek movie, so I imagine he was planning on making one regardless of Nimoy's interest.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

- Star Trek fans need to have someone they recognize, and who works within established Canon to credibly allow the major changes deemed necessary for the movie to work. (That means a major Star Trek character alive in the 24th Century with the capability to travel through time in some way.)
- Non-Star Trek Fans need to be able to follow the story without needing to know anything about Star Trek going in. (That essentially rules out the TNG Cast, or any other cast except someone from TOS, as that it the cast we are dealing with in the movie)

Since the story (aside from the Time Travel/Alternate Reality elements) is essentially the two stars of TOS (Kirk and Spock), it then follows that a future version of one of these characters would be the least confusing choice.

In continuity, James Kirk was killed on Veridian III after emerging from the Nexus with Picard (Generations), so that leaves: Spock.

If a B or C character, or another TOS character presumed alive in the 24th Century was used, it would not have the intended dramatic impact.

If an unknown character was placed in the Spock Prime role here, there would be far too much explanation and exposition needed, taking the general focus away from Kirk, Spock and the TOS crew.

If a TNG or other cast were used, this would bring in additional necessary exposition/explanations, and would not bring the dramatic and emotional weight Spock Prime does to the Kirk/Spock evolution.

I have no idea of what point you're trying to make and I'm not sure if you do either?

Batman Begins viewers didn't need the Alford from the Burton movies to be able to follow along with the story. What the viewers needed was a compelling story to pull them into that universe. Which Nolan delivered. Nolan didn't give a damn about how highly fanboys regarded issue #227. He took the generalities of the Batman mythos and put his own spin on it, independent of what had come before. That was what I was looking for from Star Trek 2009 and I'm convinced Abrams would have had a bigger hit if he had simply dropped all the baggage that was associated with Star Trek. Instead of being bold they tried to straddle the fence and in doing so created a story that was just a mess.

Honestly, did fans need a future time-traveler to hold their collective hands in 1966 when watching The Man Trap?

"The more you over think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the drain."

I am pointing out the reasons that Spock Prime was needed for Star Trek 2009 to work.

There is also a strong reason not to break with continuity, which although a strong break may have worked, would have given a slightly different group of fans cause to completely dismiss the film because "It's a Reboot. It's not Star Trek to me."

The Continuity of Star Trek IS and historically HAS BEEN a key element of Star Trek. 40+ years of stories and history that collectively creates a fairly consistent, large universe, to the point that computer software, and several books, are dedicated to illustrating and exploring this universe as a single entity, and sites such as Memory-Alpha attempt to organize and chronicle the same.

To the point where many fauns, and not just here, debate, often passionately, about the Star Trek Canon, and Enterprise made a multiple-part story dedicated to explaining a long-debated mystery stemming from a Canon inconsistency (Klingon appearance being different in TOS than other incarnations).

To dismiss Canon, IMHO, would not be a wise thing to do.

So with that as a parameter, the way they went was the most logical way to go.

The film was NOT as much of a mess plot wise as you contend, IMHO, and many non-fans understood what was happening well enough to see it multiple times, and become fans.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

FWIW, the writers themselves said on the DVD special features that they thought the only way fans would accept he changes to the timeline is if Nimoy's Spock was involved. They said that the film wouldn't have happened without him onboard. "Nimoy Spock changes history" seems to be the idea the film sprung from.

The story as we seen it wouldn't have happened without Nimoy aboard. Since Paramount greenlit a Star Trek film, it would have happened in some form with or without Nimoy.

One of the reasons Abrams signed on at Paramount was to do a Star Trek movie, so I imagine he was planning on making one regardless of Nimoy's interest.

The writers, and JJ, also assert that if Nimoy had not come aboard, they would have been in trouble.

 

[BillJ]

The Continuity of Star Trek IS and historically HAS BEEN a key element of Star Trek. 40+ years of stories and history that collectively creates a fairly consistent, large universe, to the point that computer software, and several books, are dedicated to illustrating and exploring this universe as a single entity, and sites such as Memory-Alpha attempt to organize and chronicle the same.

Get back to me when you can reconcile the events of Star Trek: First Contact and the novel Federation or Where No Man Has Gone Before and the novel Enterprise: The First Adventure or Balance of Terror and Minefield. Or the fact that every piece of Starfleet tech underwent a radical change in just a 18 month period between Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The thing your missing, is that fans will always explain away discontinuities if the story is worth it. You could have simply placed the film on an updated, but not radically different, Enterprise... replace the original actors and given us a Nero who had an axe to grind and somehow stumbled upon superior alien technology. Then like all the other major turning points in Trek... allow the fans to hash out how it all fits together. And allow the general audience to enjoy a story not weighed down by writers trying to show how clever they are. And a story not weighed down by the sheer stupidity of sending a 160 year old ambassador on a solo military mission into enemy territory with enough dynamite to rearrange the universe and the whole 'cadet to captain' nonsense. YMMV.

 

[BillJ]

FWIW, the writers themselves said on the DVD special features that they thought the only way fans would accept he changes to the timeline is if Nimoy's Spock was involved. They said that the film wouldn't have happened without him onboard. "Nimoy Spock changes history" seems to be the idea the film sprung from.

The story as we seen it wouldn't have happened without Nimoy aboard. Since Paramount greenlit a Star Trek film, it would have happened in some form with or without Nimoy.

One of the reasons Abrams signed on at Paramount was to do a Star Trek movie, so I imagine he was planning on making one regardless of Nimoy's interest.

The writers, and JJ, also assert that if Nimoy had not come aboard, they would have been in trouble.

So they only had one idea for a $150 million dollar project? I find that rather hard to believe.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The story as we seen it wouldn't have happened without Nimoy aboard. Since Paramount greenlit a Star Trek film, it would have happened in some form with or without Nimoy.

One of the reasons Abrams signed on at Paramount was to do a Star Trek movie, so I imagine he was planning on making one regardless of Nimoy's interest.

The writers, and JJ, also assert that if Nimoy had not come aboard, they would have been in trouble.

So they only had one idea for a $150 million dollar project? I find that rather hard to believe.

They had to have a basic script in place in order to get the Green Light. Once that happens, there is no TIME to come up with and develop an alternate story.

I got the impression they approached Nimoy fairly late in the game script-wise, so they would have been scrambling to change a LOT of the script while already greenlit with a deadline looming.

It's not that they didn't have another idea, it's that they didn't have 2-3 alternate scripts with the option of not having Spock in the picture ready to go.

Creatively, they have to work to a tight deadline, and deliver fundamentally a film based on the script Paramount greenlit.

The story as we seen it wouldn't have happened without Nimoy aboard. Since Paramount greenlit a Star Trek film, it would have happened in some form with or without Nimoy.

One of the reasons Abrams signed on at Paramount was to do a Star Trek movie, so I imagine he was planning on making one regardless of Nimoy's interest.

The writers, and JJ, also assert that if Nimoy had not come aboard, they would have been in trouble.

So they only had one idea for a $150 million dollar project? I find that rather hard to believe.

Whether or not it is hard to believe, that is what they said in the special features of the DVD and Blue-Ray.

I'm sure they'd appreciate being called liars by someone who forgets that the basic script has to be in place before casting can take place, and that working on more than one script would unnecessarily take time and creative energy from the main story they wanted to tell.

The Continuity of Star Trek IS and historically HAS BEEN a key element of Star Trek. 40+ years of stories and history that collectively creates a fairly consistent, large universe, to the point that computer software, and several books, are dedicated to illustrating and exploring this universe as a single entity, and sites such as Memory-Alpha attempt to organize and chronicle the same.

Get back to me when you can reconcile the events of Star Trek: First Contact and the novel Federation or Where No Man Has Gone Before and the novel Enterprise: The First Adventure or Balance of Terror and Minefield. Or the fact that every piece of Starfleet tech underwent a radical change in just a 18 month period between Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The thing your missing, is that fans will always explain away discontinuities if the story is worth it. You could have simply placed the film on an updated, but not radically different, Enterprise... replace the original actors and given us a Nero who had an axe to grind and somehow stumbled upon superior alien technology. Then like all the other major turning points in Trek... allow the fans to hash out how it all fits together. And allow the general audience to enjoy a story not weighed down by writers trying to show how clever they are. And a story not weighed down by the sheer stupidity of sending a 160 year old ambassador on a solo military mission into enemy territory with enough dynamite to rearrange the universe and the whole 'cadet to captain' nonsense. YMMV.

Novels are not considered Canon, certainly not by Paramount.

 

[BillJ]

The writers, and JJ, also assert that if Nimoy had not come aboard, they would have been in trouble.

So they only had one idea for a $150 million dollar project? I find that rather hard to believe.

Whether or not it is hard to believe, that is what they said in the special features of the DVD and Blue-Ray.

I'm sure they'd appreciate being called liars by someone who forgets that the basic script has to be in place before casting can take place, and that working on more than one script would unnecessarily take time and creative energy from the main story they wanted to tell.

I don't really care what writers of Star Trek movies do or don't appreciate. I find it absolutely ludicrous that they would put all their marbles in one bag... that being the commitment of an 80 year old retired actor (write the entire script then try to get Nimoy involved). They would have destroyed their credibility to present Paramount with a script that couldn't be shot. They had to have had multiple ideas to present. What if Nimoy had dropped dead prior to completion of the script?

***

Paramount Exec: Okay guys what do you have for us?

Orci/Kurtzman: Well the main idea focuses on Spock changing history.

Paramount Exec: Interesting. Who is gonna play Spock?

Orci/Kurtzman: Well... we want Nimoy to play the older Spock, he'll be the centerpiece of the film.

Paramount Exec: Thought he was retired?

Orci/Kurtzman: Our plan is to write the script, then get you guys do the budget for the film then we'll ask him if he wants to be in it.

***

One of the conditions of J.J. Abrams joining Paramount was that he got to do a Star Trek movie. So once he signed on the dotted line, Paramount was committed to bringing Star Trek back to the big screen. Nimoy or not.

 

[OneBuckFilms]

The Continuity of Star Trek IS and historically HAS BEEN a key element of Star Trek. 40+ years of stories and history that collectively creates a fairly consistent, large universe, to the point that computer software, and several books, are dedicated to illustrating and exploring this universe as a single entity, and sites such as Memory-Alpha attempt to organize and chronicle the same.

Get back to me when you can reconcile the events of Star Trek: First Contact and the novel Federation or Where No Man Has Gone Before and the novel Enterprise: The First Adventure or Balance of Terror and Minefield. Or the fact that every piece of Starfleet tech underwent a radical change in just a 18 month period between Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

The thing your missing, is that fans will always explain away discontinuities if the story is worth it. You could have simply placed the film on an updated, but not radically different, Enterprise... replace the original actors and given us a Nero who had an axe to grind and somehow stumbled upon superior alien technology. Then like all the other major turning points in Trek... allow the fans to hash out how it all fits together. And allow the general audience to enjoy a story not weighed down by writers trying to show how clever they are. And a story not weighed down by the sheer stupidity of sending a 160 year old ambassador on a solo military mission into enemy territory with enough dynamite to rearrange the universe and the whole 'cadet to captain' nonsense. YMMV.

Whether or not I can reconcile the events of novels I have not read, because I'm not much of a reader when it comes to Star Trek, and don't consider them a part of Canon (neither does Paramount), is frankly irrelevent.

I'm not saying that Star Trek is completely free of inconsistencies, but that the writers are keeping the movie legitimate by finding a way to reboot within continuity in a way intended to tell existing fans to come along with them.

The "discontinuities" in the movie are no greater than the discontinuities within Star Trek in general. The Writers ARE fans, even if JJ wasn't (though he'd seen some episodes of the show, and got the concept).

So, is Canon important or not? If it is, then a clean reboot would be too much of a risk. I think it is. I've seen it to the point of this very thread being created, to fan fiction dedicated to explaining Canon issues.