This is why I am confused as to the timeframe as outlined in the spoilers. I understand tweaking things, but this seems totally unneccessary to me.
4 Clip descriptions from Empire *Spoiler heavy*
- Thread starter datas_cat_spot
- Start date
This is why I am confused as to the timeframe as outlined in the spoilers. I understand tweaking things, but this seems totally unneccessary to me.
^^Well, I can't get any answers out of April when I ask him similar questions, so I can always hope that Wormhole would be more willing to enlighten me.
*shrugs* Not anymore, and that's okay by me. Its a new story. I'm not fretting about making every detail line up exactly with TOS. They're free to take liberties. It doesn't change TOS. This movie is its own thing.
Its only necessary if you want to have the entire TOS crew together in a post-academy movie. Which they do.
I've established many times over my problems and issues with this movie. It is because of these problems that the movie is illegitimate.
I feel I have seen enough from the photos, trailer and rumours to judge this movie. There is nothing there that represents Trek. What I see is a generic summer action flick with the Star Trek name stamped onto it, probably for marketing purposes. This is not Star Trek. This is a Trek impostor meant to dumb Trek down for the Average Joe or John Everyman.
I think it's a combination. Kirk is delayed a few years because of Nero's meddling and George's death. Checkov is apparently a wunderkid along the lines of Wesley.
Or something. I guess we'll have to watch the movie to find out.
It is probably necessary to the story. Since we are all just guessing at this point, don't worry about it too much just yet.
In other words, it's a complete reboot, these are not the same characters, it's not the same universe, not the same ship, and JJ Abrams and Co. are a bunch lying weasels for putting out the line that everything fits.
Like I've said elsewhere, it's not like we haven't seen Star Trek in thirty years and only have fond remembrances of the thing, it's in syndication right now! I just watched "Errand of Mercy" last night on Channel 2, for frak's sake. It's a pretty short walk from this movie to this week's episode and the conclusion that something doesn't add up.
Okay. If you want to judge it before seeing it, go right ahead. I'm psyched, and am more than willing to accept any changes they might have made for the prospect of big, new Trek.
If I don't like it I'll always have the other 10 movies and 5 series to fall back on. No skin off my back. I'll be out a few bucks for a movie ticket.
Logic, is it? I've seen ALL of Trek (multiple times) and while there may some individual inconsistencies within and between series (Enterprise included)--NOTHING but one's PERSONAL OPINION can declare Enterprise "a continuity violation". You didn't like Enterprise. We get it. It didn't conform to your fundamentalist views. But, again, YOU don't get to decide what IS and what IS NOT "canon". Well, you can, FOR YOURSELF--IN YOUR OPINION. But that's it. Simply making multiple assertions that things are "facts" does NOT give such assertions any foundations. Sorry.
1. No, cold logic can declare Enterprise a continuity violation. If the ship depicted, goes to warp as fast and as smooth as the 24the century state of the art Voyager, and faster than a 24 century runabout and 24th century Defiant, that alone makes Enterprise violate any and all continuity. If you then add the description of 22nd century ships from Spock, it's sinched in completely. And that's just the ffing ship, not even talking about all the other continuity violation after continuity violation.
2. I don't have any fundamentalist views.
3. Never claimed anything about canon.
4. It's a fact that we've gotten a whole myriad about information about the 22nd century in the 4 series before Enterprise, and they are facts because they are facts, my assertion of those facts, doesn't change they are facts.
1. What would my fanfiction have to do with anything, continuity violation or no?
2. Please point me to the Star Trek series or episode, where it said that Dana Scully was not an Immortal that lived to the 24th century.
1. Highlander, X-files, and Star Trek are different literary universes, showing that as long as it fits your idea you don't mind changing whatever you want.
2. It more goes to the statement of how your trek would be amazing from beginning to end... I quoted the wrong post.
BOTH written published by FSA and both "Disputed" Canon.Because April was only seen once in Trek's 42 year history, and that was in a cartoon which TPTB said isn't part of actual canon, it is logical to assume he doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, why haven't we seen him before in live action?
April is mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology, books which only represent that which is canon in Star Trek. If he's there, then he is canon.
BOTH written published by FSA and both "Disputed" Canon.Because April was only seen once in Trek's 42 year history, and that was in a cartoon which TPTB said isn't part of actual canon, it is logical to assume he doesn't actually exist. Otherwise, why haven't we seen him before in live action?
April is mentioned in the Star Trek Encyclopedia and the Star Trek Chronology, books which only represent that which is canon in Star Trek. If he's there, then he is canon.
In fact, the claim that they're canon is disingenuous since the introductions to the books make it clear that they are not.
Man get it through your head. Paramount OWNS the rights to all Star Trek movies If they say it's Star Trek (And they are the only people who can make a movie name Star Trek legally) It's Star Trek. This is not run by commitiee.
TO YOU. To the real world, it will be no less legitimate than the other ten movies. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Then don't go see it. Stay home and watch your DVDs and VHS tapes and whatever else you have that's "legit". In fact, if it puts you in such a paroxysm of agony to even contemplate how this new film will "rape your childhood" or some other such idiotic drivel, what are you doing in here?
(I'd say the same advice applies to anyone else who feels this new film will "ruin Trek").
As for all the apparent "continuity errors" and "canon violations" and such--by now, it should be apparent to even the most casual fan of sci-fi (much less Trek) that time-travel--a CERTAINTY in this film--can alter any and all things that might have been "known before" and, conversely, can restore most (if not all) that had been "known before". So far, the incomplete set of data available to us about the story of the film tells us that things are different. The logical inference is that time travel has led to these alterations (so there is no need to explain them as they happen--they're a result of the tampering with the timeline). Beyond that, the film may (or may not) resolve these changes (I suspect many of them will be resolved, but not all--just as in every other case of Trek time travel). Even if the film does not resolve anything, it is still not a "continuity error" or "canon violation"--it is simply the end product of time travel tampering and we have a new path for these characters to follow.
It's really not that hard to grasp, nor is it a "writing off" of the previous continuity. The previous one led to this new one (assuming no reset) and was vitally necessary to it (if one wants a "canonical" justification).
See how simple this is? No need to contemplate seppuku because the nacelle support pylon is not exactly where it used to be. Remember--it's entertainment, not a religion.
Pissing all over continuity and canon and passing it off as an altered timeline is just sloppy and lazy. And one of the primary reasons Enterprise failed.
Actually, the primary reasons for its failure are far more mundane than such an arcane complaint. A) The network on which it was aired was hardly solid (nor did it have nationwide coverage). B) The show was actually far too "safe" and "boring" to draw in new fans, while it was considered rather stale and repetitive among long-standing Trek fans. C) The show's format/tone/style was at odds with those that were "in" (the "writing constraints"--which included the leaden weight of nearly 40 years of continuity--that have been discussed in interviews at length by people who worked on Trek did not help). Those (along with others) were a lot more important as reasons why Enterprise failed.
It was clear to me way back when "Enterprise" was faltering that this - reinvention and modernization of Kirk and Spock - was the studio's obvious next step (other than complete retirement) - and I said so here, more than once.
I mean, what on Earth did you orthodox canonistas think they would do with "Star Trek" after "Enterprise" failed to revive the Franchise?
I mean, what on Earth did you orthodox canonistas think they would do with "Star Trek" after "Enterprise" failed to revive the Franchise?
3D Master
Rear Admiral
The thing is, I didn't change anything. It all FITS. In fact, it rather fits scarily well, cause it actually addresses a few plotholes that with this in it are nicely filled. But that's besides the point.
Did you read it? My FIRST story ever written the first in that series?
Seeing as Enterprise didn't adhere to continuity at all, it was not a leaden weight. What WAS a leaden weight, was sticking to the exact same formula that had been going on for close on 15 years, from TNG to Voyager.
In FACT. HAD they kept within continuity, HAD they considered it "a leaden weight they had to stick to", it would have done the EXACT opposite of what they did. The result would have been a Trek that broke with TNG/Voyager mold, a Trek that was edgy, much less sweet sweet, perhaps even dark. Space would have been DANGEROUS, transporters KILL people, the ship wouldn't be able to keep a straight line because the navigational computer was but a primitive thing and the physics they're using is still very new and largely unknown. There would be no "phase canons", no "photon(ic) torpedoes", no "shields/plating down to xx%". What you WOULD have, would be guns with bullets, and some form of totally separate non-lethal weapon, and a whole slew of other things you never saw before in Trek.
Sticking to continuity would have produced an AMAZING show, that had absolutely NON of TNG/Voyager trappings. You wouldn't even recognize it as Trek unless a Vulcan or another already known alien was on the screen.
The book writers manage to stay into continuity - hell, they PLAY with continuity (the Vanguard series for example chronicling the background events to TOS that would lead to the start of the war with the Klingons that promptly gets aborted by the Organians for example) - and produce AMAZING stories. Sticking to continuity does not mean you're constrained at all, continuity means you can produce absolute gems; unless your creatively dead and lazy.
And again, so wrong. We "canonistas" would have liked to see an Enterprise that was NOTHING like Trek you've seen before. You wouldn't even RECOGNIZE it as Trek unless you saw the right alien walk along the screen. You seem to think that keeping to continuity would mean continuity with the mold that was TNG/Voyager/Enterprise.
NOPE!!!
Sticking to continuity would produced an Enterprise that is rough, with a captain that'd fail, where planets and civilizations die because not only does no PD exist, NOBODY, not even any Vulcans or Denobulans ever thought anything remotely up. Archer, or whatever the captain would be, would land on planets with primitive aliens, and you'd get to see the place implode because of what he did. This captain would make mistakes that you never saw Kirk and Picard make - because they got to learn from the documentation of those mistakes.
This also means, that we have no problem with a new Trek movie that is edgier, more risk taking, rougher around the edges - but we also know, you don't need to break continuity to do it. In FACT, continuity, as Enterprise and the books show - would only ENRICH the new Trek. But alas, instead it all just gets tossed out the window - lazy, uncreative writing.
Last edited:
I seem to remember that argument being made back in the ENT days. So it probably was you.
