Proto-canon allows the movie to officially exist in its own approved, "official" altered timeline but separate from the 700+ TV episodes and movies that came before it.
I don't know if I can acept the new movie as canon!
- Thread starter Jayson
- Start date
I thought Proto-canon meant that it could be shoehorned into the original timeline if one wanted it to, not necessarily that it had to.
But whatevs, I have my personal canon and I'm stickin to it. I'm watching this flick.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Which is why they designed the ship based on cars from the '50s.
And for the rest of us, one thing obviously isn't the other, so I'm not going to pretend that there are five lights when there are in fact four.
I've heard that one many times before, but no one who has ever used it has been able to respond to this question in a well-reasoned manner: If that were the case, why then did the ship have to be so completely redesigned? If the design doesn't matter, then they literally could've gotten the old filming model out of production and used that, or better yet they could've simply updated the old design the way many fan artists have done on their own and to good effect.
"Proto canon" seems to have a different definition depending which fans you talk to and which site you visit.
Rii
Rear Admiral
It's masturbation is what it is, you've got entire debates constructed around terms and concepts the definitions of which no three people can agree upon.
[Sammy Davis Jr] IDIC, baby.[/Sammy]
It's masturbation is what it is, you've got entire debates constructed around terms and concepts the definitions of which no three people can agree upon.
I am also a big fan of... wait, nevermind...
Because this new design is what the art designers for this film wanted the ship to look like. It's that simple. Just like the 1966 design is what Matt Jeffries wanted the ship to look like. It's not like the 1966 Enterprise always existed like some Taoist sculpture locked in a block of wood waiting to be discovered. No -- Jefferies wanted it to look a certain way, so that's what he created. Just like Ryan Church wanted the 2009 Enterprise to look a certain way, so that's what he created.
I suppose I've only explained why the ships look different. However, you want me to explain why they should be allowed to look different...and the only answer I have for that is because it is only a movie and that's what the filmmaker wants. That may be OK for me, but not for you.
I don't see this film as the 11th chapter of the Star Trek movie story -- I see it as the 1st chapter of a whole new story told by a new filmmaker -- but one that is still takes place in the basic TOS Star Trek universe with TOS characters. So I don't really see why the ship needs to look extremely similar to the TOS.
I guess our differences are philosophical. I'm satisfied with saying "I'll try to enjoy this new Star trek at face value, knowing it will not be exactly like TOS". However, your needs are different -- you are saying "I like my Star Trek exactly like TOS, so prove to me this will be exactly like TOS".
Therefore, due to this philosophical difference, my answer for why it's OK for the ship to look different is a valid reason for me, but not valid for you. We must simply agree to disagree.
Jackson: have you tried reading your whole post and then your sig right after that? It's really... what's the word... direct
Yes he did. He had a look-a-like on the ship.
There is actually evidence to support this claim in TUC.
Oh, and I'm a straight dude, too. It was just that good ol' "I couldn't have said it better"/"I agree so very very much with you" heterosexual bromance I was feeling for you. So no worries, I won't ask you to show me your sombrero.Well, I'm flattered -- but I think you should know that I'm a dude. A straight dude.I think I love you.
...
...and to paraphrase a line from Seinfeld..."not that there's anything wrong with [the alternative]"
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Captain X
Rear Admiral
The design either matters or it doesn't.
It also has the benefit of having been on screen already and therefore having been established as the Enterprise of that era.
JJ Abrams wanted the ship to be updated along with everything else he arbitrarily felt like changing because he thought it would be "cool".
No, what I want to know is if the design matters, or it doesn't. If it does, then there has to be an acknowledgment that any changes made were made out of a desire for flash over any real substance, like say simply updating everything to suit the big screen rather than redesigning everything. If the design doesn't matter, then there was no need to redesign everything, and the design should have been updated to suit the big screen, not redesigned.
I see it as another Star Trek movie that I'm going to loath every bit as much as I loath ST5 and other such brain farts.
The names are the same, but that's about it.
If it's supposed to be a TOS movie, there should probably be some effort made to make things appear like they are actually from that era. Any time it's been done previously, there was a lot of effort put into recapturing the look, even more exactly than they would've needed to, IMO - just look at what was done for IaMD or Trails and Tribble-ations.
No, I just want a TOS movie to actually be a TOS movie. Unlike several posters have suggested, that doesn't mean it has to look exactly as it did in 1966 - I'd be all for making things look more realistic and detailed, and for rationalizing various aspects (e.g. more decade-neutral hairstyles, more professional-looking uniforms, especially for the women, squaring tech with what has come to be established, etc.) My philosophy is that Star Trek deserves more than to be just another Hollywood remake, and just another flashy sci-fi that may try to be cerebral, but doesn't really end up getting there.
Personally I have no problem with this being the reason for the changes.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
I'm not an engineer, but I have enormous respect for a number of designers who take a lot of real-world aspects into consideration when they design -- even if it is only as a point of departure.
I really don't get the idea that is the case here. I've only talked to one person on the show, but based on that, it didn't sound like there were any technical considerations at all in the design process (outside of what goes into building full-size sets), that it was just a matter of drawing things till it looked good to Abrams.
And all that dovetails with the built-on-earth crapola ... as if Starfleet was operated by luddites!
I really don't get the idea that is the case here. I've only talked to one person on the show, but based on that, it didn't sound like there were any technical considerations at all in the design process (outside of what goes into building full-size sets), that it was just a matter of drawing things till it looked good to Abrams.
And all that dovetails with the built-on-earth crapola ... as if Starfleet was operated by luddites!
It's interesting that Fat Harry over at AICN remarked last week that none of the information that's been released or leaked out touches on most of what actually happens in the movie or what it's about.
And I reckon that's a very good thing. Sometimes I even think that I already know too much.
That's what I assumed, but ya never know.Oh, and I'm a straight dude, too. It was just that good ol' "I couldn't have said it better"/"I agree so very very much with you" heterosexual bromance I was feeling for you. So no worries, I won't ask you to show me your sombrero.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Then I would have to say the design does matter, but that design only needs to go as far as being reminiscent of the TOS design. Beyond that, Abrams' team is free to create any design they want. Beyond that, the design does NOT matter to me (but I'm sure it matters to the designer.)
I don't view this film as being the 11th installment in the Star Trek saga; I consider it the 1st film in a reinterpretation of that saga. You may wish to call that a re-boot (if it fits your definition of a re-boot), but I see a re-boot as what Ronald Moore did to BSG. It appears to me that Abrams is trying to reuse the existing TOS character with their familiar character traits and their familiar relationships with the other characters. That's why I use the word "re-interpretation". Plus since I only care if the characters are similar, I think the art design is open to a re-interpretation.
The design doesn't matter that much to me (beyond what I wrote earlier about it being "reminiscent"), but I'm sure the design matters a hell of a lot to the filmmakers and art directors who view a film as a personal expression. The design doesn't matter to me, so I'm just as ready to accept (or reject, if the case may be) this re-interpreted aesthetic as I would have been ready to accept an aesthetic that would be more to your liking -- one that looks more like TOS.
I never said I don't WANT this to look like the TOS era; I've only said that it doesn't NEED to look like the TOS era. If they made this film look like Trials and Tribblations or IaMD, then I would probably be just as excited to see it.
Ha Ha! If you're an engineer in the building design industry (electrical building systems engineer or HVAC/mechanical systems Engineer) then that may explain our situation...I'm an architect, and as any other architect or building design engineer (or anyone else familiar with the day-to-day drama of an A/E firm) would tell you, there is no way we will ever see eye to eye.
cheers
Last edited:
Similar threads
