Blasphemy! Ooooooo... you gonna rot in hell for that one!
As long as someone wears a sombrero, I will NOT boycott this movie!
continuity? who cares
- Thread starter RobertScorpio
- Start date
As long as someone wears a sombrero, I will NOT boycott this movie!
Fail. World War II is history; these things happened and it's important to represent them with some accuracy. Doing otherwise would be, at least, irresponsible.
There's nothing irresponsible or lazy in the least about changing a fantasy.
Everything in Trek's continuity is fantasy - it didn't happen, it's only important if a given individual watching the movie wants it to be important. You want it to be respected, say "I want it to be this way" - asserting that rejecting it in favor of something better is "lazy" or that there's something wrong with a writer or producer improving on it is just overreaching nonsense.
There's nothing intrinsically important about Trek canon, and much of it can be profitably ignored or changed. I hope that at least some of it is.
I've been saying for years that they should throw out the continuity.
At some point they have to stop and start all over. They can't do it forever. I hope that Trek survives longer than I do. Will it be able to drag 100 years of continuity round? 200? I'd like to think in 200 years Star Trek will still exist, but it will be set in the 29th century for example - no timeship bollocks, but Kirk, Spock et all in a futuristic setting - telling stories we can't even concieve now. The timeframe doesn't even matter - at one time we didn't even know what year it was set in.
I'm tired of the mental gymnastics I have to perform every time someone says or does something that contradicts a throwaway line of dialogue from 40 years ago.
If we start all over than we cant violate canon because the canon doesn't exist. Doesnt mean the old stuff doesn't matter any more. At the end of the day, it is a fucking television show. It isn't real.
If they really took the bold step (and they will one day) and started all over - just think of the stories we could have. We could explore all these cultures and questions again.
At some point they have to stop and start all over. They can't do it forever. I hope that Trek survives longer than I do. Will it be able to drag 100 years of continuity round? 200? I'd like to think in 200 years Star Trek will still exist, but it will be set in the 29th century for example - no timeship bollocks, but Kirk, Spock et all in a futuristic setting - telling stories we can't even concieve now. The timeframe doesn't even matter - at one time we didn't even know what year it was set in.
I'm tired of the mental gymnastics I have to perform every time someone says or does something that contradicts a throwaway line of dialogue from 40 years ago.
If we start all over than we cant violate canon because the canon doesn't exist. Doesnt mean the old stuff doesn't matter any more. At the end of the day, it is a fucking television show. It isn't real.
If they really took the bold step (and they will one day) and started all over - just think of the stories we could have. We could explore all these cultures and questions again.
I too have thought a general reboot of the continuity would be good for Star Trek. What really matters is consistency of character. If Kirk turns out to be a whiny emo, I'd be pissed. As long as the characters are approximately the same, I'll be happy.
Yeah, pretty much.
Look, a lot of visual continuity is about to go out the window. That's certain.
Look, a lot of visual continuity is about to go out the window. That's certain.
Most of this board cares. I'm over it, for once.
Really? I get a different impression most of the time.
Not this fan.
Wipe the thing clean. Start over.
The fucking teaser trailer caused such a disgusting stink about "canon continuity" that it would be laughable if it wasn't so deeply sad - sad that it was even a factor.
Last edited:
And what was worse, was that the trailer is canon according to both Roddenberry and the ships own plaque, just the first time it had been shown, and it *still* started massive arguments. 
So really I don't give a flying fuck, after so many years of getting into needless arguments when I bothered to try and make a ship or story and got yelled at by dozens of nerds because of one tiny reference for it I just have this to say...
Canon can go get FUTA by a brand new JJ Abrams'd 1701.
So really I don't give a flying fuck, after so many years of getting into needless arguments when I bothered to try and make a ship or story and got yelled at by dozens of nerds because of one tiny reference for it I just have this to say...
Canon can go get FUTA by a brand new JJ Abrams'd 1701.
Wow. It's amazing how so many people (some in particular, I think, deliberately) miss the point I'm trying to make, The WW2 thing wasn't a comparison, it was an analogy.
All I'm saying is that a minimum of effort is all that would be required to fit any story they want to tell into established lore. The Trek authors (most of whom which are better storytellers than Abrams. Sorry just not a fan of Abrams. I lost interst in Lost after 6 eps and couldn't even make through the pilot of Alias) manage to "fix" continuity "errors" all the time with reletive ease. It's not hard to write a story that fits into the established lore. Good writers do on a regular basis.
If they want to start over, let them. I'm just saying that it is not even remotely necessary by any conceivable means.
Geez.
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. I like how people get attacked for sharing an opinion here. Whatever, people.
number6
Vice Admiral
I'm not sure why people insist on feeling so threatened by this film.
Yes, I would be somewhat disappointed if the film makers somehow change the Star Trek I've followed for 35+ years. I was skeptical of Tim Burton's Batman when it was first announced back in the dizzy. I was worried it would be too dark and brooding, and it would never live up to the hype it generated. I gave in and eventually saw the film several weeks after it opened and thought that, though it was still way overhyped, Burton nailed it on so many levels. I have the same doubts about the current Batman franchise, but the kids seem to like it, so what do I know??
My point is, I am generally and genuinely curious about how Abrams and all will pull off a film in a universe that had basically been the care of so many of the same people for so long.
Other Iconic television and cultural icons have been recast plenty of times and I know that some are uncomfortable about Kirk and Spock being recast for the first time ever.
I felt the same way about the fan series Star Trek: The New Voyages/Phase II and there are moments of quality that even I will concede in some of the newer installments.
The people making the new Star Trek are pros who are fans of the show and of good storytelling. Could it be awful? Sure it could. But it could also be a pretty descent film, too. I have no reason not to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, at least until I've seen the film in the theatres.
They are guaranteed to get something "wrong" in the estimation of some "fans," but I also think Abrams team only well aware of the hornet's nest they're stirring up.
They're also making the movie with a whole new team, so why not let them come up with something of their own to contribute to the lore of the show? After all, isn't that what EVERY Trek writer has done over the last 40 years???
Yes, I would be somewhat disappointed if the film makers somehow change the Star Trek I've followed for 35+ years. I was skeptical of Tim Burton's Batman when it was first announced back in the dizzy. I was worried it would be too dark and brooding, and it would never live up to the hype it generated. I gave in and eventually saw the film several weeks after it opened and thought that, though it was still way overhyped, Burton nailed it on so many levels. I have the same doubts about the current Batman franchise, but the kids seem to like it, so what do I know??
My point is, I am generally and genuinely curious about how Abrams and all will pull off a film in a universe that had basically been the care of so many of the same people for so long.
Other Iconic television and cultural icons have been recast plenty of times and I know that some are uncomfortable about Kirk and Spock being recast for the first time ever.
I felt the same way about the fan series Star Trek: The New Voyages/Phase II and there are moments of quality that even I will concede in some of the newer installments.
The people making the new Star Trek are pros who are fans of the show and of good storytelling. Could it be awful? Sure it could. But it could also be a pretty descent film, too. I have no reason not to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, at least until I've seen the film in the theatres.
They are guaranteed to get something "wrong" in the estimation of some "fans," but I also think Abrams team only well aware of the hornet's nest they're stirring up.
They're also making the movie with a whole new team, so why not let them come up with something of their own to contribute to the lore of the show? After all, isn't that what EVERY Trek writer has done over the last 40 years???
RobertScorpio
Pariah
Heck, the BATMAN-SPIDERMAN-IRONMAN movies tweeked things here and there and yet their fans didn't have strokes over it...some TREK fans are as whacko as Barry Manilow or General Hospital fans. Anything that isn't 'in line' can cause them to get their panties up in a bunch...
So I am with you..if they change something here and there and it works out then cool...I am with it!
Rob
Scorpio
number6
Vice Admiral
certainly fewer have.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.. Hold on a sec..
What do you have against Barry?? He writes the songs that make the young girls cry. He is music and he writes the songs!!
Seriously, why are you harshing on Barry?
did you forget about alternate history stories. it is a pretty old facet of sf.
older then wwII itself.
i suspect you knew this .
as for..
one bitg question is what version of trek lore does one deal with.
tos as others point out has its own contradictions.
Then I declare real life non-canon and say we should boycott it.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Uh, sorry, but the first episode that had Checkov has a Stardate that's earlier than Space Seed.
So Khan could easily have met Checkov, we just didn't see it.
Which is one of the many reason disavow it ever happening and we should ALL have the same attitude about it: toss it out the window. I don't bother with, I don't watch it, I hate that pile of junk with a fiery passion.
As long as one tosses Enterprise away, not so much.
As far as continuity goes, I think some folks still can't get the "total reboot" idea out of their minds. Period.
Others have problems with the movie redefining the look of the TOS era. Well for one thing, velour is so out these days as a futuristic-looking fabric.
As far as "historical" continuity goes (the blessed canon), from all that's been said by Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams, they have probably tried to be more faithful to continuity than they had to be. We'll see.
A very small minority will never forgive the liberties the movie undoubtedly takes with at least some Trek canon. As for the rest of us, even those willing to throw continuity completely out the window, maybe we will be surprised at just how faithful overall the movie is to the "history" we know. Maybe we should just trust them and what they say. (But the Enterprise better not be 2000 feet long as some have concluded!
)
Others have problems with the movie redefining the look of the TOS era. Well for one thing, velour is so out these days as a futuristic-looking fabric.
As far as "historical" continuity goes (the blessed canon), from all that's been said by Orci, Kurtzman, and Abrams, they have probably tried to be more faithful to continuity than they had to be. We'll see.
A very small minority will never forgive the liberties the movie undoubtedly takes with at least some Trek canon. As for the rest of us, even those willing to throw continuity completely out the window, maybe we will be surprised at just how faithful overall the movie is to the "history" we know. Maybe we should just trust them and what they say. (But the Enterprise better not be 2000 feet long as some have concluded!
)
canon errors and tos..
according to where no man has gone before true telepaths are unknown but then evidently that is wrong considering miranda jones diddnt seem to be presented as so unusual.
and then this from return tomorrow..
well after both in terms of stardate and of air time of the organians from errand of mercy.
so tos like ever other series wasnt a slave to canon but tried to be true to the spirit of canon especially the spirit of the characters./
by the way..
and i wouldnt use star dates as a way of determining when something happened.
especially if something happened before or after a certain date.
because taking that in mind one episode could have an earlier star date but due to the location of the ship ect take place after an episode with a later star date.
even gene said about the above explanation..
so i would nt even dare to bring up star dates as an explantion for chekov and khan.
a simpler at the time of space seed chekov could have been serving in a different part of the ship just like we knew that kevin riley did.
according to where no man has gone before true telepaths are unknown but then evidently that is wrong considering miranda jones diddnt seem to be presented as so unusual.
and then this from return tomorrow..
well after both in terms of stardate and of air time of the organians from errand of mercy.
so tos like ever other series wasnt a slave to canon but tried to be true to the spirit of canon especially the spirit of the characters./
by the way..
and i wouldnt use star dates as a way of determining when something happened.
especially if something happened before or after a certain date.
because taking that in mind one episode could have an earlier star date but due to the location of the ship ect take place after an episode with a later star date.
even gene said about the above explanation..
so i would nt even dare to bring up star dates as an explantion for chekov and khan.
a simpler at the time of space seed chekov could have been serving in a different part of the ship just like we knew that kevin riley did.
IIRC, Gene Roddenberry's take on continuity was to ignore it, or revise it, if doing so made the script of the particular episode being developed stronger. Hence, many minor details fell by the wayside if/when the franchise is looked at as a whole.
More luck than planning though, since there was no real planning. (Check out TAS.) And the original ST Writers' Guide essentially tells TOS writers to pick four random digits as a stardate. The only time they're supposed to follow conformity is throughout that one script, with the digits showing the passage of time during that episode.
Similar threads
- Locked
