I don't know if I can acept the new movie as canon!

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You clearly haven't spent much time in the last couple of years hanging around this forum.

Some of the people here -- on several sides of any given issue -- are extremely resistant to being placated.

[quinto's_spock] "I will not allow you to placate me" [/quinto's_spock]

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

I think the movie is going to be alot of fun but am I the only person who likes what I see though at the same time can't really buy into the idea that this movie will take place in the established universe we are familiar with. In my mind I think we should see this movie as something new instead of hold onto any tread of hope that it will fit into canon.


Jason

Fuck canon. I gave up on canon because it gave me too many things I disliked with the Star Trek name on it. I no longer support the albatross that is canon. That's why the only Trek DVDs I own are the first 79 eps of Star Trek, TAS, the first six movies and... Generations but only for Kirk. I'm also going to see this movie and embrace it if it's good. If not I'll lump it in with all the other series.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Fuck canon.

Well said.

 

[shapeshifter]

I won't go so far as to say that because it would feel like I am saying FU to people who really care about canon & I do not want to do that but canon isn't as perfect as some make it out to be.

If it were completely perfect then it would be worth defending but lets be 100% honest; it is pretty fracked up. The only saving grace for it currently is, iirc, it's mistakes can be attributed to timeline jumps. Ahem

 

[xortex]

I won't go so far as to say that because it would feel like I am saying FU to people who really care about canon & I do not want to do that but canon isn't as perfect as some make it out to be.

If it were completely perfect then it would be worth defending but lets be 100% honest; it is pretty fracked up. The only saving grace for it currently is, iirc, it's mistakes can be attributed to timeline jumps. Ahem

This all sounds like how the economy all got mucked up.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Fuck canon. I gave up on canon because it gave me too many things I disliked with the Star Trek name on it. I no longer support the albatross that is canon. That's why the only Trek DVDs I own are the first 79 eps of Star Trek, TAS, the first six movies and... Generations but only for Kirk. I'm also going to see this movie and embrace it if it's good. If not I'll lump it in with all the other series.

This post is so beautiful. I think I just teared up a little...

 

[Captain X]

When in the history of the Star Trek universe did the Eugenics Wars take place? In the 1990s or the 2170s?

1990s

Rear Admiral Bennet disagrees.

RDM says: "my bad!"

When Admiral Bennett reminds Bashir of the risks of genetic engineering by referencing the Eugenics Wars, he referred to it as having occurred "two hundred years ago." However, established continuity suggests that he is about 200 years off. Ronald D. Moore comments: "This is my personal screw-up. When I was writing that speech, I was thinking about Khan and somehow his dialog from "Wrath" starting floating through my brain: "On Earth... 200 years ago... I was a Prince..." The number 200 just stuck in my head and I put it in the script without making the necessary adjustment for the fact that "Wrath" took place almost a hundred years prior to "Dr. Bashir." I wrote it, I get the blame." [1] Of course, one explanation is that Admiral Bennett himself got the date wrong.

Spock or Sybok? I don't recall any references to Spock being married.

Picard in Sarek:

I met him [Sarek] once... Many years ago, just briefly at his son's wedding.

Is there anything that says he couldn't have been married?

 

[Kelso]

I hope this film annihilates the "canon" to such an extent that the next generation of Trek-geeks will be completely unfamiliar with the concept.

 

[Michael]

1990s

Rear Admiral Bennet disagrees.

RDM says: "my bad!"

Well, that doesn't change one bit of what was shown on the screen. Not that I care, personally.

Picard in Sarek:

I met him [Sarek] once... Many years ago, just briefly at his son's wedding.

Is there anything that says he couldn't have been married?

Actually you're just (kind of) proving the point I was trying to make: Fans have always found a way to fit screwed up bits of canon into the established facts. Why do some fans believe this movie will be any different? It's beyond me.

 

[uniderth]

Rear Admiral Bennet disagrees.

Well I guess he was wrong then. Must have gotten his two hundreds and three hundreds mixed up.

I met him [Sarek] once... Many years ago, just briefly at his son's wedding.

Hmm. I never new that.

So it seems everybody has their own personal canon, apparently, even if it means disregarding the TRUE canon of "if it was on TV = it's canon".

So the Animated Series is canon then?

 

[Captain X]

Well, that doesn't change one bit of what was shown on the screen. Not that I care, personally.

Except it kind of invalidates your point, seeing as it was a mistake and admitted as such, as opposed to purposely frakking everything up, just because.

Actually you're just (kind of) proving the point I was trying to make:

By asking if Spock couldn't have ever been married?

Fans have always found a way to fit screwed up bits of canon into the established facts. Why do some fans believe this movie will be any different? It's beyond me.

Probably has something to do with the movie being too incompatible, as opposed to minor mistakes. Not that I've ever been one to just shrug anything off anyway.

 

[Michael]

Well, that doesn't change one bit of what was shown on the screen. Not that I care, personally.

Except it kind of invalidates your point [...]

No, it doesn't. I don't care if changes to canon are done on purpose or by mistake. My point is, that (in my mind) I am still able to fit it into the established Trek lore. I just use my imagination.

Actually you're just (kind of) proving the point I was trying to make:

By asking if Spock couldn't have ever been married?

No. By demonstrating how easy it is to make two (seemingly) contradicting canonical facts fit.

Fans have always found a way to fit screwed up bits of canon into the established facts. Why do some fans believe this movie will be any different? It's beyond me.

Probably has something to do with the movie being too incompatible, as opposed to minor mistakes.

Well, I think we can agree that this is about to be seen.

 

[The Borg Queen]

So it seems everybody has their own personal canon, apparently, even if it means disregarding the TRUE canon of "if it was on TV = it's canon".

So the Animated Series is canon then?

I've never seen any episodes.

Is it based IN the Star Trek Universe of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT or is it a spin-off based on Star Trek?

 

[Michael]

So it seems everybody has their own personal canon, apparently, even if it means disregarding the TRUE canon of "if it was on TV = it's canon".

So the Animated Series is canon then?

No, it is not. But I like to think of it as such.

 

[uniderth]

I've never seen any episodes.

Is it based IN the Star Trek Universe of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT or is it a spin-off based on Star Trek?

It is based just after the voyages seem in TOS. The voice actors are the same as the original crew.

But would your viewing of it determine whether it's canon or not. You said everything seen on screen is canon. However, Gene Roddenberry said the Animated series is not canon. Therefor not everything seen on screen is canon.

No, it is not. But I like to think of it as such.

As do I, well most of it.

 

[Jayson]

Jayson, let me ask you a few questions:

When in the history of the Star Trek universe did the Eugenics Wars take place? In the 1990s or the 2170s?

How do Trills really look? Do they have spots or forehead ridges? Also, do they use the transporter or don't they?

Was Scotty part of the maiden voyage of the Enterprise-B or was he not?

Did Lieutenant Commander Dmitri Valtane die before the Excelsior arrived at Khitomer or did he not?

Does Spock have a brother? And did he ever marry someone?

I know Trek has had things don't add up but to me the thing that makes this different is the recasting of Iconic characters. I can acept that Pine will be a good Kirk. I don't think I can buy into the idea that he will become Shatner's Kirk. I don't have a problem with this in terms of judging whether the movie will be good. My problem only exsit in buying into idea it is all part of the same canon. I don't mind if they do something similular to the last Superman movie. That wasn't officially a sequel to the Reeves movies but it was a sort of semi-sequel I guess you could call it. I don't mind this aproach and I don't mind these new movies creating it's own canon.

Jason

 

[The Borg Queen]

I've never seen any episodes.

Is it based IN the Star Trek Universe of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT or is it a spin-off based on Star Trek?

It is based just after the voyages seem in TOS. The voice actors are the same as the original crew.

But would your iewing of it determine whether it's canon or not. You said everything seen on screen is canon. However, Gene Roddenberry said the Animated series is not canon. Therefor not everything seen on screen is canon.

No, it is not. But I like to think of it as such.

As do I, well most of it.

Well didn't what's-his-name declare that Threshold "wasn't canon" either? I don't listen to him, so why wouldn't the animated series be considered canon?

Also, when talking about the Star Trek series', why isn't the standard line-up TOS, TAS(?), TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT then?

 

[uniderth]

Sorry Queen, I edited my post. Also I apologize if it seems a bit more confrontational.

 

[Michael]

Also, when talking about the Star Trek series', why isn't the standard line-up TOS, TAS(?), TNG, DS9, VOY & ENT then?

Well, it is, isn't it?

 

[Captain X]

No, it doesn't. I don't care if changes to canon are done on purpose or by mistake. My point is, that (in my mind) I am still able to fit it into the established Trek lore. I just use my imagination.

And I can't, even for lack of imagination. I just acknowledge mistakes for what they are, but I also have little tolerance for what I see as laziness.

No. By demonstrating how easy it is to make two (seemingly) contradicting canonical facts fit.

But there's no contradiction there that I can see.

Well, I think we can agree that this is about to be seen.

I've seen enough to make that determination.