How ST can be "canon" and still have new technology

[Matt]

Who_Trek said:
Who cares!? It's a new ST movie, for God's sake!

Exactly my thoughts. The obsession over what is 'real' Star Trek and what isn't is something that Trekkies do that is looked upon very poorly by the outside.

The nitpicking and obsession over details is what makes Trekkies look so ridiculous. If they just enjoyed the stories without complaining, it'd be nice.

And opinions aren't always warranted. Does the world care what a neo-nazi thinks? No the world doesn't care and rightfully so. People who stomp and kick and scream about Trek are honest to god ridiculous, and contribute to the stereotype.

"Get a life." - Shatner.

EyalM said:
The enterprise can be a giant banana in the movie, and it will still be canon if that's what Paramount says. That's the way these things work. The only thing left for the more obsessive fans to do, is to try to rationalize it (see Klingon ridges).

Yes, I suppose Chris Pine will morph into William Shatner one day. I mean, that could easily be used for Quinto, since we all know Vulcans change physical appearance during Pon Farr, as seen in Star Trek 3, which can also rationalize Robin Curtis as Saavik, since canonically Saavik is Vulcan, not Romulan... But humans? It's the strangest thing to me... I mean, if the new Enterprise was half as big, people would just say (in nerd voice) "They upgraded and added sections before TOS." It's ridiculous.

Like my Devil example earlier: Is Satan some red guy with a pitchfork, cloven feet, and a tail, or a scary bald girl like in The Passion of the Christ? They're both the SAME even though they look and act differently. Star Trek can have many incarnations and still be Star Trek.

Star Trek 1.0 (TOS to Nemesis) is over for the moment. Star Trek 2.0 (Abrams and beyond) is what we'll get from here on out. The next things we have to look forward to with canonical Star Trek 1.0 are any more possible remastered series and/or movies. I imagine since TNG is so intensive on special effects, they may opt to just do a few key episodes first, if at all... The Best of Both Worlds, Encounter at Farpoint, The Inner Light, All Good Things. The budget for that would be huge if they ever do it. If they DO, expect it around the 25th or 30th anniversary.

Enterprise will be released via HD-DVD and then eventually BluRay disc. No touch up necessary on that one.

So future Star Trek 1.0 things to look out for:

1. Star Trek Remastered HD seasons 2-3 (Announced.)
2. The Ultimate Star Trek Movie Collection HD (Announced.)
3. Enterprise series in HD (For sure to happen.)
4. Star Trek TNG Remastered HD (Very likely to happen.)
5. Star Trek DS9 HD (Depends on success of Enterprise HD and TNG HD sales. Likely to happen.)
6. Star Trek Voyager HD (Depends on success of possible DS9 HD sales.)
7. Star Trek HD downloads (SD downloads already available. Extremely likely to happen within next five years.)
8. You never know, in 30 years they may do a TNG remake and create Star Trek 3.0

Until then, enjoy what Paramount gives you.

 

[Outpost4]

If I was JJ Abrams, these would be my concerns, in order of importance:

1) Good storytelling.
2) Good storytelling.
3) Good storytelling.
4) Cool special effects.
5) Canon.

So yes, new technology is OK, although I don't want a deus ex machina ending, thank you. That wouldn't be playing fair.

 

[aridas sofia]

DrunkenSanta said:
If I was JJ Abrams, these would be my concerns, in order of importance:

1) Good storytelling.
2) Good storytelling.
3) Good storytelling.
4) Cool special effects.
5) Canon.

So yes, new technology is OK, although I don't want a deus ex machina ending, thank you. That wouldn't be playing fair.

Yessiree. Good storytelling can be a mighty big fig leaf for a multitude of sins. I would have swallowed ENT hook, line and sinker had the stories been TOS calibre. Do that with the new movie, and I'm asking for an action figure of Quinto for Quistmas. :thumbsup:

Of course, if they are going to mess with the Enterprise design, it will need to be a particularly good story.

Matt asks:

Does the world care what a neo-nazi thinks? No the world doesn't care and rightfully so. People who stomp and kick and scream about Trek are honest to god ridiculous, and contribute to the stereotype.

Does the world care what Matt thinks? Do any of us care what someone with over 2000 posts on the TrekBBS has to say about the ridiculousness of the Trekkie stereotype?

OTOH, it might be a good idea to pay attention to those neo-nazis. They have a bad habit of making trouble.

 

[pookha]

really the level of technology wasnt always consisent within trek itself.
most of the big stuff yeah but within episodes there were odd things all along.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

This question represents a confusion between the notions of "canon" and consistency.

There is no requirement that elements of a canon be consistent with one another. That's not what "canon" means by any reasonable stretching of the definition or understood usage.

The question being asked is actually more along the lines of "how could this film be done in such a way that it's not (too) inconsistent with the internal continuity of previous Trek productions?"

Of course, that wouldn't fit in the title field.

 

[Kegek]

^
How about: "How can this film remain consistent with established canon?" As when people speak about violating canon, it's the internal consistency of the canon to which they refer to.

So, what do I feel about this debate?

Rhett Butler said:
Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

Maybe it's time Star Trek cut its ties with Scarlett O'Hara. I just hope it gives us a good movie in the process.

 

[Miri9]

My thoughts go to Sci Fi's miniseries "Tin Man"...an original look to an old story FULL of canon. I think my point is though this can be handled creativly. I totally agree, its all about the story. If they just throw a bunch of space battles and shooting, they are going to lose me very quickly. No, and everyone will not be happy...but folks, anyone over over 40 (majority of TOS folks) is not who this movie is being made for - its beind made for the 18-24 year olds...so it has to interest them - we are given.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kegek Kringle said:
^
How about: "How can this film remain consistent with established canon?" As when people speak about violating canon, it's the internal consistency of the canon to which they refer to.

I know, but that framing establishes a false context: it assumes that established canon is consistent, and it implies that consistency is a core element of the definition of canonicity. Neither is or ever has been the case.

To the extent that "canon" has any meaning whatever in regard to a corporate product like "Star Trek," it's this and only this: that which has appeared onscreen in Paramount-produced "Star Trek" is canon, and nothing else is. And that is a pretty weak definition of "canon."

 

[Kegek]

North Pole-aris said:
I know, but that framing establishes a false context: it assumes that established canon is consistent, and it implies that consistency is a core element of the definition of canonicity. Neither is or ever has been the case.

The canon has been reasonably consistent. One could rattle off dozen of minor inconsistencies in the canon, and also major ones (the Trills, as introduced in TNG's "The Host", have a different appearance of both hosts and symbionts, relationship within symbiosis, attitude to transporters, historical familiarity with the Federation, et cetera). For a franchise that covers four live-action series and ten films with a wide variety of collaborators, the overall consistency of the canon is quite remarkable.

And whether or not consistency is the aim of the canon is perhaps, besides the point. Certainly, continuity was a bunch bigger concern on Enterprise than it ever was on the original Star Trek, but the issue is what role continuity to the earlier canon will play in this new addition to the canon, a conversation itensified by the fact that its status is ambiguous at best.

Had JMS been given the franchise and announced his planned reboot, we simply wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kegek Kringle said:
The canon has been reasonably consistent. One could rattle off dozen of minor inconsistencies in the canon, and also major ones (the Trills, as introduced in TNG's "The Host", have a different appearance of both hosts and symbionts, relationship within symbiosis, attitude to transporters, historical familiarity with the Federation, et cetera). For a franchise that covers four live-action series and ten films with a wide variety of collaborators, the overall consistency of the canon is quite remarkable.

Whether that constitutes "reasonable consistency" will vary from observer to observer, but it's beside the point: many things that are not consistent are nonetheless canonical (the two versions of the Trill being a good example) and this is because "canon" does not mean consistent. It purely and simply means "part of the body of work that is accepted as official."

That's a weak definition of "canon," however, because it begs the question "official according to what authority? On what basis is that authority constituted?" The only answer that can be meaningfully applied to that in the case of "Star Trek" - "by the authority of the corporation that owns the property" - is limited and deeply unsatisfactory to lots of folks.

No one, however, has proposed an alternative authority that's satisfactory to anyone other than themselves and the like-minded - nor can anyone.

 

[aridas sofia]

Well, I think a strong contender is "Trek as it was constituted at the time of Roddenberry's death, warts and all." It won't be as popular as "what comes down from Melrose" but it does have the benefit of limiting future unpredictability.

That's why I can live easily with whatever happens -- abandon the old sandbox to the fans that want to play in it, and build a fancy new sandbox for everyone else.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yule Gibbons said:
Well, I think a strong contender is "Trek as it was constituted at the time of Roddenberry's death, warts and all." It won't be as popular as "what comes down from Melrose" but it does have the benefit of limiting future unpredictability.

A preference shared by a number of fans I know, and one which "limits unpredictability" by rendering all "Star Trek" production after 1992 effectively non-canon. It can be argued that it renders all Trek production after about 1989 non-canon.

This is because Roddenberry's own standards or point-of-view cannot be applied to material developed after his effective retirement or death - only other peoples opinions and interpretations of "Gene's Star Trek" can be used. If "Gene Roddenberry Trek" is the standard of canon, only Gene Roddenberry himself is qualified to rule as an authority.

When individuals disagree about what constitutes "GR's Trek vision" some may be more articulate or passionate or informed than others, but some can not be "right" and others "wrong."

And as I said, there are any number of such standards that will satisfy groups of likeminded fans but don't provide any consensus whatever. It's like the nonsensical idea of "personal canon," which is - whether deliberately or not - an attempt to imbue one's personal tastes with some imaginary authority.

I can easily come up with a definition of "canon" that rules stuff I like in and stuff I don't much care for - like DS9 or "Voyager" - out. A lot of folks have invented standards that rule "Enterprise" out. Calling this kind of thing "canon" serves no purpose other than as a leaping-off point for folks to provoke people whose tastes differ by asserting a non-existent authority, because a canon doesn't exist without a ruling authority (or at least a consensus on principles, which is functionally weaker).

I've posted this link a lot, and I'll post it a lot more:

http://paulcornell.blogspot.com/2007/02/canonicity-in-doctor-who.html

I've never seen any discussion of or claims about "canonicity" by Trek fans that are as observant, defensible or honest as Cornell's in regard to "Doctor Who."

 

[Matt]

Miri9 said:
My thoughts go to Sci Fi's miniseries "Tin Man"...an original look to an old story FULL of canon. I think my point is though this can be handled creativly. I totally agree, its all about the story. If they just throw a bunch of space battles and shooting, they are going to lose me very quickly. No, and everyone will not be happy...but folks, anyone over over 40 (majority of TOS folks) is not who this movie is being made for - its beind made for the 18-24 year olds...so it has to interest them - we are given.

Exactly! Superb example. BSG 2.0 is another good example. Same characters and ideas, but radically different in presentation, and therefor fresh and interesting.

 

[Kegek]

North Pole-aris said:
Whether that constitutes "reasonable consistency" will vary from observer to observer, but it's beside the point: many things that are not consistent are nonetheless canonical (the two versions of the Trill being a good example) and this is because "canon" does not mean consistent. It purely and simply means "part of the body of work that is accepted as official."

Agreed completely. It is true that there are inconsistencies in the canon. My point is that the canon is largely consistent: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, in broad strokes, are consistent; and the latter shows, particularly DS9, VOY and ENT, are conscious of their consistency.

That's a weak definition of "canon," however, because it begs the question "official according to what authority? On what basis is that authority constituted?" The only answer that can be meaningfully applied to that in the case of "Star Trek" - "by the authority of the corporation that owns the property" - is limited and deeply unsatisfactory to lots of folks.

I'm entirely happy with the idea that the canon is determined by the legal owners, and I not consider this a problem or a weakness.

Therefore, naturally, I have no doubts that the new film is canon. It may not be a canon that is as consistent with the earlier canonical works as they were amidst themselves, however - not that this bothers me.

 

[3D Master]

Miri9 said:
we are given.

Really? If we were given, Enterprise wouldn't be canceled after the 4th season.

Indeed, if Enterprise showed us one thing, it's that there is no more given audience for Trek. They've ruined it for a large amount, and probably a majority, of the Trek fans.

Kegek Kringle said:
Agreed completely. It is true that there are inconsistencies in the canon. My point is that the canon is largely consistent: TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, in broad strokes, are consistent; and the latter shows, particularly DS9, VOY and ENT, are conscious of their consistency.

Enterprise isn't even in the neighborhood of being close to consistent. The less said about that bastard child, and the more it is ignored, the better.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Kegek Kringle said:

That's a weak definition of "canon," however, because it begs the question "official according to what authority? On what basis is that authority constituted?" The only answer that can be meaningfully applied to that in the case of "Star Trek" - "by the authority of the corporation that owns the property" - is limited and deeply unsatisfactory to lots of folks.

I'm entirely happy with the idea that the canon is determined by the legal owners, and I not consider this a problem or a weakness.

Well, I didn't say it's a weakness - I called it a "weak definition of canon" because the basis of authority in "Star Trek" is a provisional one and shifting one. "Paramount" is after all, an ever-changing collection of individuals with commercial concerns who consider the whole matter of what's "official" and what's not only glancingly if at all. They're an authority by default, not intent; they don't really care.

 

[Dale]

Matt said:

Miri9 said:
My thoughts go to Sci Fi's miniseries "Tin Man"...an original look to an old story FULL of canon. I think my point is though this can be handled creativly. I totally agree, its all about the story. If they just throw a bunch of space battles and shooting, they are going to lose me very quickly. No, and everyone will not be happy...but folks, anyone over over 40 (majority of TOS folks) is not who this movie is being made for - its beind made for the 18-24 year olds...so it has to interest them - we are given.

Exactly! Superb example. BSG 2.0 is another good example. Same characters and ideas, but radically different in presentation, and therefor fresh and interesting.

If you think the new Star Trek is going to be as unrecognizable when compared to the original as nuBSG or Tin Man, you are deluding yourselves... IMHO.

 

[Matt]

You think BSG 2.0 and Tin Man are unrecognizably dissimilar to the originals? And you say I'm delusional?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

merry CHRISTmas said:If you think the new Star Trek is going to be as unrecognizable when compared to the original as nuBSG or Tin Man, you are deluding yourselves... IMHO.

You're right that in what we're seeing so far there's no suggestion that nuTrek will diverge as much in design and tone from traditional Trek as nuBSG has from the old show. nuBSG has utilized premises, a few character names, and (sometimes close) echoes of a couple of visual designs from the first version - and that's about it.

Nonetheless, I expect that the style of production and storytelling in this film will be very different from any previous Trek production.

 

[number6]

Perhaps, but considering the pains they seem to take to make Quinto look almost exactly like a young Nimoy, we may be surprised with what direction this production company will take in recreating the look of Star Trek.