Heh. Well played, OP. Well played.
Do Trek fans still consider TOS to be apart of the real canon?
- Thread starter ReadyAndWilling
- Start date
Reading this post again really pisses me off. And some people wonder why I don't care much for modern Trek. This attitude is part of it.
We've had Trek almost nonstop since the '80s and generations of viewers weened on it. I can understand to some point how it seems more real to them. But it still strikes me as ignorant.
Doesn't matter because I suspect that when the dust settles years down the road the original Star Trek will be remembered for what it accomplished and the rest will be lucky to be a footnote.
TOS: The Only Series
L
Lord Garth
Guest
ENT is the most recent Trek available? Apparently you missed out on what happened last May.
Naah. For that, he'd be wanting his tricorder.
A
Amaris
Guest
^My phone can't call ships in orbit, but can Spock watch YouTube videos on his communicator?
Every TOS episode where someone else goes "If only we had access to the Enterprise computer!" on an away mission, I smile. I can access virtually the sum total of human knowledge on my phone. Google. Wikipedia. Memory Alpha.
But I guess seeing McCoy hunched over his communicator for two minutes would have been a less dramatic finale to "Miri"
Call me when you have a transporter and warp drive, otherwise I'm not impressed.
The communicator v. mobile phone comparison is based on ignorance of how mobile phones work: cell phones require an infrastructure. They're not stand-alone devices. You need cell towers and/or satellites to make them work. The communicators apparently need none of that, as they can contact one another without the ship (apparently), and the ship in orbit. My feeling was always that the communicator was also designed to facilitate transporter operations, and part of its bulk was related to that function...scanning the area and transmitting that info back to the ship so the crew could get beamed even when the ship's scanners didn't have a great view (as when they are deep underground).
Yep. My celphone can't do that.
Since none of Star Trek is "real"... meh.
It's just a TV show. Then there were movies, and spin-off TV shows. Now there's a new movie.
It's all worth getting upset over.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
I just flew back from my brother's wedding not too long ago (where I was Best Man) and in the plane, high in the sky and over the clouds, though I already knew the calls wouldn't work, I couldn't even get Internet access on my cellphone. The thing's useless above a certain altitude.
And plus, notice how nobody ever dials a number on a communicator? I mean, sure, they've got some voice-activated technology now, where you can say a name that's been preprogrammed in, and it'll dial that number (if it recognizes what you said). But if Scotty and Uhura switched communicators, and Kirk flipped open his and said, "Scotty," it wouldn't dial Scotty's number, it would ring the one that Scotty was holding. Cell phones can't even get close to that.
What a shame that would be.
I think I better stop now; I'm afraid I'll get too emotionally involved. I will say this, though. Canon is overrated; artistic value is all that matters.
Yep - that pretty much sums it up for me. I'd defy anyone to argue with either of those...
Canon is overrated; artistic value is all that matters.
I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Too much emphasis on canon gets in the way of novel ideas and limits creativity. Character development is also overrated; good character definition and consistency are better.
I agree with that, too. You don't need to have ongoing/extended character arcs to have well-developed, multi-dimensional characters. TOS demonstrated that very well.
Well, yes of course.
Certain things like the bad effects and costumes can be explained away by the times and can be disregarded, but the events of TOS are canon of course.
Certain things like the bad effects and costumes can be explained away by the times and can be disregarded, but the events of TOS are canon of course.
Canon schmanon. Honestly, canon should only be important to people making licenced tie-ins, like novels, comics and games. Even then it's flexible. It's a shame some fans don't get that. No-one can tell me that a bunch of obscure old novels and comics "didn't really happen" (in the ficticious universe) and change my mind!
Mini-rant over.
Mini-rant over.
I reach for my antique cannon.
A
Amaris
Guest
I think I better stop now; I'm afraid I'll get too emotionally involved. I will say this, though. Canon is overrated; artistic value is all that matters.
Exactly. You can't argue with it, because it is the original. Anything after that changes that does so at it's own discretion, but does not change the words of the original that came before it.
Only when I wear my tinfoil hat.
Stop stealing my thoughts.
Actually someone asks how anyone could ask the original post question. Well, there's WAY more TNG-era stuff, which many people younger than I grew up watching, and the TOS seems so ancient and different, I CAN understand someone feeling like BermanTrek IS Trek. It certainly outweighs GRTrek. Alas.
In my mind, all Trek is canon. You can't dismiss the original Enterprise because you don't think that the sets are shiny enough or the computer readouts fancy enough. You can ask the question of why the 23rd century looked so much like the 60's, but like reading a good book, if you have any imagination, it isn't a problem. CGI or high-tech looks isn't what makes the show.
As for the actual events of TOS, I see no major plot problems which cannot be explained in some fashion. The #1 reason why 21st century people are turned off by TOS is the graphics. We all know that a Gorn, as shown on screen, looks an awful lot like a man in an alligator suit doing some really bad acting. It is the story that matters though; not the quality of the set. Would that scene which I am referring to be any "more" Star Trek if it had Star Wars I-III style special effects? I don't think so.
When I first started getting involved in Star Trek, I watched the movies and then I bought TOS. I remember not liking the first few episodes of TOS because of the poor graphics. Once I was familiar with the characters, that changed. Once I knew everyone and I understood the spirit of the show, then my imagination filled in the details when the visual content was weak.
I'm just rambling now, but I will reitterate that yes, TOS - like all Star Trek - is Canon. We can't accept some material and throw other stuff out the window. The universe according to Roddenberry, with all of its glory, its corniness, and its plot holes, should not have one pixel detracted from it.
As for the actual events of TOS, I see no major plot problems which cannot be explained in some fashion. The #1 reason why 21st century people are turned off by TOS is the graphics. We all know that a Gorn, as shown on screen, looks an awful lot like a man in an alligator suit doing some really bad acting. It is the story that matters though; not the quality of the set. Would that scene which I am referring to be any "more" Star Trek if it had Star Wars I-III style special effects? I don't think so.
When I first started getting involved in Star Trek, I watched the movies and then I bought TOS. I remember not liking the first few episodes of TOS because of the poor graphics. Once I was familiar with the characters, that changed. Once I knew everyone and I understood the spirit of the show, then my imagination filled in the details when the visual content was weak.
I'm just rambling now, but I will reitterate that yes, TOS - like all Star Trek - is Canon. We can't accept some material and throw other stuff out the window. The universe according to Roddenberry, with all of its glory, its corniness, and its plot holes, should not have one pixel detracted from it.
Similar threads
- Poll
