There's a new piece on Star Trek canon and what at stake for the new movie at Soul of Star Trek .
Interesting?
Interesting?
Canon at Soul of Star Trek
- Thread starter the DoctorOLDACCT
- Start date
He lost me at:
My god, now I'm worried. Forget the future of the United States government, the debate about global warming, whether or not the german barista with the slyph-like figure and blonde curls who works at the Ellsworth Beach Starbucks would date an older guy - the effing Star Trek "saga" is at stake.
Sort of puts the kid who committed suicide last week because of the Large Hadron Collector into perspective, doesn't it?
Kowinski writes well, but he takes "Star Trek" way more seriously than any piece of pop culture - no matter how beloved - deserves. Part of what I mean by that is his tendency to analyze Trek primarily in solemn terms as it relates to religion, world history and science while showing considerably less consistent (though some) interest in placing the show in the context of said popular culture.
Which is my long-winded way of saying "It's just a TV show."
Kowinski is also a fan of "Doctor Who," while - surprise - rarely evincing much appreciation for its arch humor and generally light touch. DW is wonderful fantasy, sometimes heart-wrenching melodrama, but ultimately a big part of what the show does is tap dance on the genre and on popular culture at large. There are "messages" of various kinds and of varying import in Who, but none so pervasive as "Lighten up and have some fun, people!"
A far, far more interesting and useful article about "canon" - because it analyzes what the concept means from a social (read: fannish) and fictional point of view rather than pretending that something of serious importance is at stake - is this one by the "Doctor Who" writer Paul Cornell:
Canonicity in Doctor Who.
In short, "canon" as it relates to Trek has little to do with the history of Catholicism and much to do with an in-joke by fans of Sherlock Holmes - and it persists mainly as a rhetorical stick that fans use to one-up one another.
[fanboy]But Gene was allowed to do that, because he was the Great Bird of the Galaxy[/fanboy]
...(by the way, that above sarcasm and the following is NOT directed at you, pookha; I'm just borrowing your statement to make a point.)...
There are hardcore fans out there who truly believe that Roddenberry was entitled to "play fast and loose with canon", as he often did -- ignoring past events that did not fit in with the story he wanted to tell AT THAT TIME. I completely agree that he had the right to do so. However, I don't agree with many fanboy's reasons for Roddenberry's entitlement. It's not because he was Star Trek's past "creator", but because HE was the guy at the helm of the show at that particular time.
If back in 1987 and 1988 Executive producer Gene Roddenberry wanted to ignore certain aspects of canon to make TNG interesting -- and he did do just that -- then so be it. He was the Executive Producer -- it was his right.
Now, fast forward to 2008. J.J. Abrams is the Executive Producer and has the "keys to the store". He has EVERY RIGHT that Gene Roddenberry had to to ignore certain canonical events in order to make the most interesting and entertaining movie he can make.
Last edited:
Egg...xactly! I'd rather they throw everything out if it meant telling a good story with strong characters and a solid plot. To hell with everything else. Screw canon!
People who set standards of the type that Kowinski sets in this article will be shocked and disappointed by the new movie.
I hear that the Argus vehicle will be appearing in a scene where Kirk drag races a Klingon.
Good thing the moon-buggy is Canon!
Good thing the moon-buggy is Canon!
I'm not reading this article. I've already had my brain fried once today; I'm not looking to have it happen again.
There have been groups of fans who've been shocked and disappointed by every ST movie.
There have been groups of fans who've been shocked and disappointed by every ST movie.
And now there will be more.
So, let me get this straight...
Some people will like it, and some people will not? This sounds like a unique event unlike any other event in all of recorded history!
Next, you'll tell me that there are some people who will not even watch it at all. Ridiculous!
Some people will like it, and some people will not? This sounds like a unique event unlike any other event in all of recorded history!
Next, you'll tell me that there are some people who will not even watch it at all. Ridiculous!
It's guys like Kowinski that make me glad I decided against pursuing a master's degree in Pop Culture Studies (something I was seriously considering during my senior year of undergrad). People who take this stuff that seriously and do it for tenure are perhaps even scarier than people who take it that seriously just for shits and giggles or because they have no life otherwise.
Just reading that article made me want to stab my eyes out. Well, except for the picture of Q in judges robes (though he mistakenly identifies Q as a Cardinal); the caption was hilarious. Otherwise it was a bunch of hand-wringing, overly analytical drivel about things that ultimately make no difference in the long run. If Trek XI is a hit, it'll be because it was a well-made, well-marketed movie that was well-received by critics and successfully connected with the general audience. If it flops, only die-hard Trekkies will point to the canon as why it wasn't good. Everyone else will look at the real reasons, such as "it sucked," or "it didn't connect."
In short, he needs to get outside and think about more important things like the fate of the spotted owl.
And let's be honest, a far better Doctor Who metaphor for Trek canon would be to call it a "big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff."
uh... whoa dude... "He did a lot of LDS at Berkley." and I think he still is....
Similar threads
