Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by King Daniel Beyond, Jan 20, 2013.
It's pretty common, in fact.
I always assumed that, since Carol and Jim Kirk's relationship apparently soured in the prime timeline, that colored her attitudes towards Starfleet (even considering her line in TWOK about "Starfleet has kept the peace for a hundred years"). So if she resented Kirk in some way, she would most likely raise David with the same kind of bias. That happens a lot...a relationship splits, and the custodial parent raises the child to dislike the other parent.
That Enterprise design is pretty bland. Would like to see more pointy bits on her. Something more TOSy.
If that was the case then the 2009 movie didn't need to explain the whole alternate timeline thing as a way of preserving what came before.
^ Quite. Even if STXI had been a flat-out reboot, not mentioning anything from the prime universe (and not having any kind of time travel), it STILL wouldn't have been anything other than an alternate timeline - it still wouldn't have destroyed the prime universe or anything like that.
But that wasn't about worshipping canon as a holy principle. It was about considering the audience's (and creators') affinities and trying to balance the need to create something new and unbound by continuity with the desire to honor and carry forward what came before. It wasn't about what label you stick on a thing. Canon is just a label, and labels are not the sole and absolute source of meaning in the universe the way some people seem to imagine they are. They're just descriptions or approximations of more fundamental things. The label "canon" is a description that relates to certain aspects of creativity and continuity, but it's just a description. There are more important, ambiguous, and complicated things going on underneath it, and those real, meaningful things are a more worthy focus of our attention than the mere label.
Of course, but when you get to 700 episodes and 11 movies it's difficult not to label things as canon when the creators and producers have tried to follow that line and have it all set within one universe by claiming things to be within continuity of other series and movies.
That depends on the viewers personal belief if there actually is an alternate universe and we'd be arguing if there is or isn't till the cows come home.
So are we kinda-sorta back to thinking that Weller IS Carol Marcus' dad??
Or Harcourt Fenton Mudd??
(I think I'm more confused now... )
Fans still would have complained about every change just the same - just look at Smallville. Explicitly a new adaptation of Superman, yet fans reamed it every time it deviated from comic or film continuity. I'm sure Man of Steel is getting the same treatment in some circles now.
I'm guessing he's Carol Marcus's dad. At the very least, I think it likely Alex Marcus is going to a prominent character in the movie, based only on the fact that his name was in bold print when April said it, implying he's going to be a key player. Twenty years is enough time for Commander Marcus to become Admiral Marcus, a "CEO type" who could have his own starship.
Yes, I'm not disputing that. I'm just saying it's important to understand that "canon" is a concept with a lot of ambiguities to it, and it needs to be taken with a grain of salt and not obsessed over the way fans today tend to do.
Bottom line, no matter how much creators may put forth the conceit that it's all one universe, it's not. It's not a "universe" at all because it doesn't exist. It's just stories. Canon is just about categorizing one set of stories versus a different set of stories, but they're all equally imaginary, and definitions of canon can be changed or abandoned at a whim. There is meaning to canon, yes, but its importance should not be blown out of proportion.
It's not entirely on topic, but the link below lists a lot of the continuity errors in M*A*S*H, and they're worse than almost anything in Trek. Some are downright sloppy. My point? Over the years, comparatively, the Trek folks have done a pretty good job being as consistent as they've been across several TV shows and all the movies.
Of course, M*A*S*H remains one of the most highly regarded, intelligent, ground-breaking, and well-written TV shows of all time. So, I hope clicking on the link and reading the list doesn't negate everything else and all of a sudden ruin the show for any fans.
^No reason why inconsistencies should ruin anything. It's fiction, after all. Every bit of it is just pretend, so it's not so horrible if you pretend that some earlier part happened differently than you pretended before. Sure, consistency is nice to have, but it's not the sole, exclusive priority of fiction.
And it's not like the makers of M*A*S*H had any idea that their show about a 3-year war would run for 11 seasons. Eventually they had no choice but to play fast and loose with continuity and chronology.
But I'm not talking about internal consistency here. What I'm saying is that, whatever Roberto Orci might say about the comics being "close to canon," he also quite explicitly says that they are not part of the canon, so whatever they establish should be treated as less authoritative than what's onscreen. In Lucasfilm terms, they're "secondary canon" at best.
Exactly my point. Inconsistencies shouldn't ruin anything. "M*A*S*H" was a brilliant show, and Trek ain't so bad, either. Anything can be picked to death for inconsistencies and errors and in doing so its great entertainment value is lost (unless there's entertainment in picking it to death). Nothing is meant to stand up to the scrutiny some give Trek. It wasn't really created for that.
I honestly don't know why anyone should take Trek canon more seriously than Roddenberry, himself did. Or more seriously than anyone else who has been associated with Trek in a production role has, for that matter.
Parenthetically, I don't even want to begin to try to fathom what "secondary canon" is.
^Right. Keeping track of the continuity of a fictional universe can be a fun exercise; I've been doing it with Trek for decades. But it's important to remember that it's just part of the fun, and not take it too seriously or invest too much emotion in it. My personal version of Trek continuity has always been highly mutable; when something new has come along that contradicted my assumptions, I've just reworked them. And it's actually fun to rework the continuity, to get to play the game of fitting things together one more time in a new and fresh way. If I have to remove some books or comics I enjoyed, that's no problem, since they're still there for me to read; they're just in a different continuity category. (For a long time, the main thing that frustrated me was having to rewrite the entire chronology on new sheets of paper, or to erase a bunch of entries in pencil and rewrite them on new lines. It got much easier once I started keeping my chronology on computer.)
Well said. I love Trek canon and continuity and although I may come off as taking them too seriously, I really do it for fun. I'll read a comment or see something on dvd and a thought comes to mind and I'm like "Cool! That's how that could fit.". In some ways, I really like when inconsistencies or gaps in Trek history happen because I see them as potential opportunities to create new stories, or at least plot elements, were I a Trek novelist or Trek creator.
does anbody feel that JJ Abrams is not reading the comics?
Does it matter?
Separate names with a comma.