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

[Samuel T. Cogley]

Well, I think the Enterprise (interior and exterior) should both look cool and convincing. Of what I've seen so far, Abrams has achieved these goals. What I worry more about is the story ... But I'm confident that it'll be good as well.

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.

Good. So Shatner's in it, then.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Well, I think the Enterprise (interior and exterior) should both look cool and convincing. Of what I've seen so far, Abrams has achieved these goals. What I worry more about is the story ... But I'm confident that it'll be good as well.

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.

Wait -- Do you mean it's NOT only about a kid who wrecks a car, starts a barfight, goes to the Academy, then immediately becomes captain of a starship?

Well then -- I don't want to see it anymore.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, I think the Enterprise (interior and exterior) should both look cool and convincing. Of what I've seen so far, Abrams has achieved these goals. What I worry more about is the story ... But I'm confident that it'll be good as well.

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.

Good. So Shatner's in it, then.

Busted!

He guests as the "red matter bomb" that Nero is trying to drop on Vulcan. I understand that he gets to keep Denny's trademark cigar in the role.

 

[M'Sharak]

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.

Good. So Shatner's in it, then.

Busted!

He guests as the "red matter bomb" that Nero is trying to drop on Vulcan. I understand that he gets to keep Denny's trademark cigar in the role.

I suddenly have a mental image of Shatner as Major Kong.

"Denny Craaaaaaaaaaaaane!"

[cue Vera Lynn]

 

[xortex]

Good. So Shatner's in it, then.

Busted!

He guests as the "red matter bomb" that Nero is trying to drop on Vulcan. I understand that he gets to keep Denny's trademark cigar in the role.

I suddenly have a mental image of Shatner as Major Kong.

"Denny Craaaaaaaaaaaaane!"

[cue Vera Lynn]

'The proto-canon has malfunctioned, sir.'

 

[Captain X]

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 guess for me it comes down to what the movie should be, namely an origin movie about Kirk and crew, if that is indeed the intention of the film. For me that doesn't mean remaking everything, that means going back to basics. Basically everything in TOS could be updated and modernized to match up with the more technical aspects that have come to be established about the various plot devices of the show, but also the look, and any discontinuities could be rationalized (or ignored). As far as the look, again, a matter of updating and modernizing. To me that would show real creativity and effort, even though it's only half of the equation. I don't mean to say that JJ Abrams and his team aren't creative, it's just not the type of creativity I feel this movie needed.

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.

That's basically what it is, since it's a reboot of the franchise. That's a big part of what upsets me, because it has effectively marginalized and disenfranchised everything I have been a fan of within this franchise. Unless at some point in the future this movie is swept under the rug as a bad idea, the Star Trek I was a fan of can be no more, as in no more new chapters of it will be made.

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.

That's what I see JJ Abrams as having done with this movie.

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 only familiar things to me are the names, really. And I don't just mean how things look, either. Sure, a little of the same feeling is there, but the same can be said for nuBSG compared to the old version, too. But whereas the names are the same, I don't see much of the old characters in this new movie.

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.

Then I guess to me they should have left well enough alone, and redid another franchise, or created their own new sci-fi franchise.

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.

I guess to me, it would kind of go hand in hand with making a movie that's supposed to take place in this era - the look has already been established. We can play with it some - I'm not saying we should break out the plastic and the plywood - but the changes should be relatively minor, like the changes between TMP and TWoK. I've seen some good fan efforts at this, and I have some of my own ideas too, but the point is that everything could have been updated without completely redesigning everything.

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.

Yeah, mechanical engineering, actually. Joke for you because of that: What's the difference between a mechanical engineer and an architect? The engineer builds bombs and the architect builds targets. (You've probably head that one more than a few times, though)

cheers

Right back at you. And thanks for being cool with me in this discussion too. I know I can be abrasive (especially when I'm in a bad mood), so I appreciate you keeping things calm.

 

[Captrek]

I see them as two seperate canons.

If this movie is a singular thing with no sequels and Star Trek set in sleep mode, XI might be seen more as a tribute, a homage. Old canon prevails.

If this movie spawns sequels based upon it, however- maybe even a new series- I might look at "old Star Trek" like I look at old BSG now I will just accept it as the new Star Trek canon.
And though I know that Star Trek canon has been retconned and altered, I see this JJTrek as (the beginning of?) something new, different.

The time travel story puts this film into the same “continuity” (not same timeline) as the rest of Trek, so in a sense it’s a sequel and not a BSG-style reimagining/restart. However, in some ways it is clearly a different vision.

For example, one of the big changes is that the Uhura portrayed by Zoe Saldana is very unlike the character who always got lines like “Captain... I’m frightened” in TOS. By 1966 standards the TOS portrayal of Uhura was radically feminist, but a similar portrayal in 2009 would seem anti-feminist and condescending. Abrams chose to go with a portrayal that’s more palatable to 21st-century audiences instead of a portrayal that’s more consistent with established canon. Can’t say I blame him. Hardcore Trekkers may be a little put off by the inconsistency with canon, but new fans would be even more put off by the 60’s-era portrayal of the character.

And what’s with the uniforms? This movie takes place before “The Cage” and “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” For consistency with established canon, the film should have used the uniforms from those two episodes, but Abrams chose to go with the uniforms that came into use after those episodes. He wanted something that’s recognizable to people who are only casually aware of Star Trek, and decided not to worry about an inconsistency that would only be noticed by serious fans.

 

[Greg Cox]

Look, it's like the Klingons getting bumpy heads because Gene got a bigger make-up budget. Or James Bond getting a new face every few years. It's just artistic license; it doesn't need an onscreen explanation.

 

[Tulin]

See My Sig...

Why does "screen's" have an apostrophe? Making a word a plural does not require one.

 

[VulcanJedi]

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.

Right on! I hope you're not joking, cause I'm in total agreement. I prefer TAS to most recent trek. I think that cartoon is truer to the old show than most spin-offs.

1. TOS
2. TAS
3. Trek TMP-Generations
4. New Movie
5. Comics related to TOS.
6. Novels related to TOS.
7. Toys related to TOS.

Having said that, TNG is a great TV show; but it's not the original recipe.

 

[Jayson]

I'm surprised to see my old thread show up again. Anyways I do consider the movie as canon. I just look at the different actors as a visual reboot as someone said in another thread. The fact that this takes plus in a alternate timeline also works for me in terms of accepting things that seem out-of-character.

Jason

 

[Prydonian]

I'm surprised to see my old thread show up again. Anyways I do consider the movie as canon. I just look at the different actors as a visual reboot as someone said in another thread. The fact that this takes plus in a alternate timeline also works for me in terms of accepting things that seem out-of-character.

Jason

Ah, but does the new movie accept YOU as canon? That's what we really want to know!

And by "we," I mean "I". And by "canon", I mean "carrot."

 

[theFirebottle]

Even if you don't accept the new movie as canon and do accept everything else that happens on screen... good luck reconciling all of the inconsistencies, direct contradictions, and gaping plot holes.

For example: Does the civilization of Earth use money? According to Picard and Jake Sisko, no. According to various TOS characters, yes.

This is why canon zealots are off their rocker: they've forgotten that even the strictest "canon" is a spaghetti-pot mess of a writer-shared universe that even the creator could never rein in, and even when he tried he got it "wrong".

The best approach to canon is the way superhero comics fans do it. If it's written well and isn't a bizarre departure from characterization, it's canon. The rest is discontinuity and will be swept up by the advance of the sliding timescale (soon, we hope).

 

[TrekGuide.com]

I have two questions:

1. Who resurrected this three-month-old thread?

2. Why are we still confusing the words "canon" and "fanon"? What fans choose to believe is "fanon." What Paramount Pictures produces for the movie screen is "canon." Nobody chooses "canon." Why is this so hard to remember?