Is TOS really part of Trek Canon?

[number6]

The problem I have with people like you is that you seem to think the original followed its own continuity to the letter. You just don't LIKE newer Trek, and you invent reasons to marginalize it.

And it's one thing to pretend you've got your own "personal continuity" floating around in your head, but quite another to claim that your opinion on canon matters more than the people who actually produce the material. ST09 is canon, the writers intended it to be in the same continuity, and there is absolutely nothing you can say or do that is going to change that.

This is my view exactly.

I am a lifelong fan. I watched the show in reruns and saw a few episodes first run when I was very very little. I don't see why being a TOS fan always has to preclude liking any of the newer stuff. I don't see why those with a more, shall we say, "refined" point of view of what does and and doesn't "fit" in the Stak Trek universe feel the need to fell better about themselves by acting like they know more than you.

We're all fans here. This attitude isn't solely limitied to Star Trek fans, either. Sci-Fi and Sci-Fi/Fantasy fans have been fueding relenlessly for decades about the legitimacy of the other.

I can see disagreeing about things, but this kind of stuff always gets to the level of Religion/Political arguments and I don't really see those issues as that big of a deal.

This is an entertainment medium, not the cure for cancer.

 

[Luther Sloan]

It's a cool retro 60s time line and it works just fine for me.

 

[FormerLurker]

TOS isn't even internally consistent. In "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" Android Kirk answered Real Kirk's question "Tell me about Sam." with "George Samuel Kirk. Older brother. Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) Yet at the end of the season in "Operation Annihilate" Bones asks Kirk "What about Sam?" as if everyone calls him that. In fact, as a result of Bones' question, everyone does call him that. So what happened to the assertion that only baby brother Jim calls him that? Inconsistency. All future inconsistency is irrelevant. All current inconsistency is irrelevant. The fact is, it all happened just as it was depicted, it all ties together the way we want it to, and it all works. Because it does.

 

[Warped9]

That's funny, in the film I watched, nobody mentioned Romulans until 25 years after the Kelvin was destroyed.

Anyway, each to their own (even if yours is WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! )

Whatever.

 

[BillJ]

TOS isn't even internally consistent. In "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" Android Kirk answered Real Kirk's question "Tell me about Sam." with "George Samuel Kirk. Older brother. Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) Yet at the end of the season in "Operation Annihilate" Bones asks Kirk "What about Sam?" as if everyone calls him that. In fact, as a result of Bones' question, everyone does call him that. So what happened to the assertion that only baby brother Jim calls him that? Inconsistency. All future inconsistency is irrelevant. All current inconsistency is irrelevant. The fact is, it all happened just as it was depicted, it all ties together the way we want it to, and it all works. Because it does.

I would think McCoy would only about the brother through Kirk. So if Kirk calls him Sam, that's what McCoy will know him as.

 

[number6]

It could also inform the viewer that clearly McCoy and Kirk are somewhat close friends.

 

[Char Aznable]

1. NuOld Spock doesn't remember the things TOS Spock would know, namely Kirk wasn't in command of the Enterprise at such a young age.

Having just watched the scene in question, Spock gives no evidence that he knows exactly what year he's been sent to before the mind meld with Kirk. Since Kirk came to that planet from the Enterprise and he mentioned he was with NuSpock, it'd make sense for Spock Prime to get confused and assume Kirk'd have been Enterprise's captain.

2. Robau recognizes Romulans decades before they're revealed for the first time to Federation eyes in "Balance Of Terror."

See KingDaniel's post above. He covered this, "point" of yours perfectly.

The rest is just piling more dirt in. Of course if you choose to believe that I simply refuse to grant ST09 any credibility whatsoever that's your right.

Of course that is your right. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and go, "LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" whenever someone brings up actual facts and legit interviews, well, feel free to do so.

 

[RyanKCR]

Folks like to bring up personal canon or continuity or whatever. For me Trek started going off the rails after TMP, in fits and starts. There are things in all the first six films I like as well as some TNG, but not consistently so.

Hmm, a lot of fans consider TWoK to be the best Trek film of all time.

Do you like TWoK, but consider it non-canonical? If so, what is non-canonical about it?

Do you not like it (overall) and also consider it non-canonical?

It has good character moments. It has a lot of energy and good pacing. At heart it's a good story, but it's riddled with logic flaws that I can't buy. There are also a lot of ideas in it that I think ill-conceived. I also hate the look of the uniforms and the way the film is set up as some sort of reset button after TMP as if the first film never happened.

And, yes, I know I'm of the minority opinion.

How was TWOK a reset button after TMP? In TMP we had one of the biggest character changes in all of Trek: Spock. That change was followed through in TWOK: Spock pulling a joke on Kirk by giving command to Saavik when leaving drydock. You can also see that he was enjoying Saavik's discomfort over the difference between a lie and an exaggeration, etc.

 

[Luther Sloan]

Coming up with plausible excuses for the inconsistencies on TOS is not that hard of a thing to do actually. It is whether or not you choose to do so (because of your love for the characters and the show).

If you have characters, stories, and a universe that you enjoy watching, you will find ways to defend it.

At least thats my 2 cents worth, anyways.

 

[FordSVT]

^^ I don't need to reconcile anything. He believes what he believes and so do I. The evidence on the screen doesn't support his assertion or the film maker's. I'm not going to get into an argument over it, it's just the way it is.

Except that it totally does. STXI is as consistant with past Trek as past Trek has been with itself. Any major continuity errors are explained with the Narada attacking the Kelvin. I'm not going into an argument over it, it's just the way it is.

No it's not, in so many ways. But essentially two basic things:
1. NuOld Spock doesn't remember the things TOS Spock would know, namely Kirk wasn't in command of the Enterprise at such a young age.
2. Robau recognizes Romulans decades before they're revealed for the first time to Federation eyes in "Balance Of Terror."

The rest is just piling more dirt in. Of course if you choose to believe that I simply refuse to grant ST09 any credibility whatsoever that's your right.

In regard to the thread's original post: discounting TOS as part of contemporary Trek's canon? Go ahead, works for me.

1) How do you know he doesn't remember?

2) I just checked the script, and the word "Romulan" does not appear in dialogue until Kirk says their name when they identify the cause of the anomaly over Vulcan. Until then, the identity of the attackers is not mentioned.

So again, to sum it up: you're wrong. Your view of the movie is based around some lies you made up to fool yourself. Who knows if the rest of the "dirt" you piled on is any less a fantasy of yours?

 

[FormerLurker]

TOS isn't even internally consistent. In "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" Android Kirk answered Real Kirk's question "Tell me about Sam." with "George Samuel Kirk. Older brother. Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) Yet at the end of the season in "Operation Annihilate" Bones asks Kirk "What about Sam?" as if everyone calls him that. In fact, as a result of Bones' question, everyone does call him that. So what happened to the assertion that only baby brother Jim calls him that? Inconsistency. All future inconsistency is irrelevant. All current inconsistency is irrelevant. The fact is, it all happened just as it was depicted, it all ties together the way we want it to, and it all works. Because it does.

I would think McCoy would only about the brother through Kirk. So if Kirk calls him Sam, that's what McCoy will know him as.

Possible. But a one second throwaway line to establish this would be pretty much necessary to get it across to the fans. Besides, Jim Kirk only calling his brother 'Sam' to his face to tease him(for whatever reason) is the implication of android Kirk's line.

It could also inform the viewer that clearly McCoy and Kirk are somewhat close friends.

Only if the aforementioned one second throwaway line is there, this time as an absolute necessity. And why, if Jim Kirk calls his brother 'Sam' to tease him, would McCoy be using the name anyway?

 

[BillJ]

Possible. But a one second throwaway line to establish this would be pretty much necessary to get it across to the fans. Besides, Jim Kirk only calling his brother 'Sam' to his face to tease him(for whatever reason) is the implication of android Kirk's line.

Why? I'm a fan and caught it right away. Plus, I'm not even very bright.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I think it's still canon.

You know I didn't even use that fucking word until I came here.

(Mutters)

 

[JarodRussell]

Canon to the right of them,
Canon to the left of them,
Canon in front of them,
Volley'd and thunder'd.​

 

[number6]

TOS isn't even internally consistent. In "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" Android Kirk answered Real Kirk's question "Tell me about Sam." with "George Samuel Kirk. Older brother. Only you call him Sam."(emphasis mine) Yet at the end of the season in "Operation Annihilate" Bones asks Kirk "What about Sam?" as if everyone calls him that. In fact, as a result of Bones' question, everyone does call him that. So what happened to the assertion that only baby brother Jim calls him that? Inconsistency. All future inconsistency is irrelevant. All current inconsistency is irrelevant. The fact is, it all happened just as it was depicted, it all ties together the way we want it to, and it all works. Because it does.

I would think McCoy would only about the brother through Kirk. So if Kirk calls him Sam, that's what McCoy will know him as.

Possible. But a one second throwaway line to establish this would be pretty much necessary to get it across to the fans. Besides, Jim Kirk only calling his brother 'Sam' to his face to tease him(for whatever reason) is the implication of android Kirk's line.

It could also inform the viewer that clearly McCoy and Kirk are somewhat close friends.

Only if the aforementioned one second throwaway line is there, this time as an absolute necessity. And why, if Jim Kirk calls his brother 'Sam' to tease him, would McCoy be using the name anyway?

No "throwaway" line is necessary. Kirk and Bones are clearly close friends. I don't understand the constant need for everything to be painfully explained. Do you really need to be spoonfed?? Should every script and storyline come with bibliographical annotations?? I think people need to use their imaginations once in a great while.

 

[Nerd unRage]

But that would require people to think and a lot of people don't like to do that.

Personally, I agree with you. I don't need everything spoonfed to me. Writers are humans too and thus, they make mistakes/forget things or *gasp* want people to figure stuff out and draw their own conclusions.

 

[BolianAuthor]

I didn't read through the entire thread, as I knew that a topic with such an inflammatory title would probably get a lot of people going, but I would suggest that the OP either rent or locate an online torrent of the Star Trek 25th Anniversary Special. That way, they can see exactly what Gene Roddenberry himself said about the difficulties in selling and making TOS.

As has been stated, back in the day, the studios wanted more westerns, action, and John Wayne-manly bare-knuckle fistfights. Gene Roddenberry hated that idea, but he also wanted to sell/make Star Trek, so he rewrote the original pilot to include more action and a bare-knuckle fistfight.

For its time, TOS was ahead of its time, and like it or not, you cannot make children without parents.

 

[JarodRussell]

But that would require people to think and a lot of people don't like to do that.

Personally, I agree with you. I don't need everything spoonfed to me. Writers are humans too and thus, they make mistakes/forget things or *gasp* want people to figure stuff out and draw their own conclusions.

Considering how they spoonfed us how great Captain Kirk was and how awesome his friendship with Spock was...

 

[BillJ]

But that would require people to think and a lot of people don't like to do that.

Personally, I agree with you. I don't need everything spoonfed to me. Writers are humans too and thus, they make mistakes/forget things or *gasp* want people to figure stuff out and draw their own conclusions.

Considering how they spoonfed us how great Captain Kirk was and how awesome his friendship with Spock was...

How so?

Obviously, Kirk and Spock were the center of the show and since there were only twelve Constitution class starships they were the 'creme of the crop' as far as Starfleet was concerned.

But I don't remember them 'spoon-feeding' us how great they were. Only once were either of them called the best and that was Spock in Amok Time.

As far as the friendship goes... I didn't see that pushed a whole lot on Star Trek. They were friends, you'd almost have to be to work on a five year deep space assignment together. But they disagreed on courses of action quite a bit. I think the friendship angle (how close they really were), like a lot of things, was retconned onto the Original Series by the movie series.

 

[Warped9]

As far as the friendship goes... I didn't see that pushed a whole lot on Star Trek. They were friends, you'd almost have to be to work on a five year deep space assignment together. But they disagreed on courses of action quite a bit. I think the friendship angle (how close they really were), like a lot of things, was retconned onto the Original Series by the movie series.

Not necessarily. My best friend and I disagree about almost everything, but our core values are very much the same. People can disagree and still have enormous respect and even affection for each other. At the core we can appreciate what we see in someone else that we may feel we lack. And the different perspective helps us see things we might otherwise miss. Kirk could be impulsive (and he knew it) and Spock served as his objective conscience which helped Kirk temper his own inclination towards immediate action. In counterpoint Kirk was a natural leader who was fast on his feet whereas Spock could actually over think a situation. On more than one occasion Spock grudgingly admired Kirk's sense of intuition and how to quickly grasp a situation without exhaustive deliberation.

Kirk and Spock contrasted and complimented each other. It's easy to see a friendship growing out of that. But unlike today viewers weren't beat over the head with it. The friendship was conveyed by how they acted rather than what they said. Kirk or Spock or McCoy would never have to say, "I love you, man."