Regarding Canon: Mr Nimoy say................

[The Grim Ghost]

Uh, Mr. Nimoy? I'm not clinging to minutiae. It is just that the people making the new movie decided to throw out the baby with the bath water when there was no real reason to do so.

I'm with Nkemp. Show some actual creativity and make new characters. Trek is about moving forward, at least to me.

 

[Tomalak]

Here's a GREAT way for the film-makers not to feel beholden to forty years of background: come up with their own characters and their own distinctive fictional universe. Or at the very least use the Trek mythology/universe but create new characters to explore.

They tried that with Voyager and Enterprise, but people stopped watching. The reality was that this film had to make money, and it was adjudged that the best way of doing so was to start again, using the familiar TOS characters. If the film had flopped, you could kiss goodbye to any more Star Trek for a generation. Fortunately it looks like a hit, and they are talking about a sequel already.

I'm sorry to make this sound so brutally dispassionate, because we all love the forty years of history behind Star Trek, but it's only going to be made if Paramount can make money out of it. That's why Star Trek was cancelled in 1969, why Enterprise was cancelled, and why Nemesis was the last of the TNG films. It's as simple as that. Money does make the world go round. If Paramount think this is the best way of making money out of Star Trek, you can be pretty certain they are right. Creative concerns are secondary.

 

[EliyahuQeoni]

The way he said it could have been phrased better, and comes off a bit defensive (perhaps understandably so), but I agree with the sentiment. But like GodBen, one of the things I've always liked about Trek was that they actually went to the effort to develop a well-thought-out universe. I suppose, ultimately, that universe is relegated to nothing more than setting.

I don't know, maybe its because I became a fan with TOS, back when the Trek universe wasn't well defined at all (Different episodes couldn't even agree on what century the show was set in), but this has never been something that was a major attraction to the series for me.

I think Nimoy is spot on. Some fans focus so much on the "canon" and the minutia that they lose sight of the actual shows. I saw the same phenominon with comic book fans in the mid-80s when, after Crisis on Infinite Earths, DC fans went out of their trees fretting over what stories "really happened" and what ones didn't, as if it was a sign of quality. Sad.

 

[Cyke101]

As it is, the devastation Nero inflicts in the past, ensures this can never be part of a larger 40 year canvas.

But your 40 year canvas isn't disappearing either, and it'll go on in extended media. If, on midnight of May 9, your DVD collection goes poof, then I'll stand corrected. If you want to add to and preserve the Sistine Chapel, you don't try to shoehorn something onto the ceiling.

Wrong analogy. Think family tree or family quilt, instead of Sistine Chapel. A timeline of lineage, which is added to by succeeded generations or indeed, long lost ancestors previously unheard of.

I'm thankful for small mercies having a physical reminder of the true Star Trek Universe. But with all due respect to the authors of various novels (considered "non-canon" by the Studio), extended media is never, ever going to enough for me. Paramount can produce as many cinematic fancy dress parties as they like, I will always want my Star Trek back... dammit!

Well, I use the Sistine Chapel because that's how highly I myself think of the past 40+ years. No one denies that it's a masterpiece, but sometimes you just gotta start over, with the inspiration being what came before.

 

[Kira Nerys]

Star Trek is entertainment which I enjoy.Actors comments are interesting but makes no difference to me.

 

[NKemp3]

Here's a GREAT way for the film-makers not to feel beholden to forty years of background: come up with their own characters and their own distinctive fictional universe. Or at the very least use the Trek mythology/universe but create new characters to explore.

They tried that with Voyager and Enterprise, but people stopped watching. The reality was that this film had to make money, and it was adjudged that the best way of doing so was to start again, using the familiar TOS characters. If the film had flopped, you could kiss goodbye to any more Star Trek for a generation. Fortunately it looks like a hit, and they are talking about a sequel already.

I'm sorry to make this sound so brutally dispassionate, because we all love the forty years of history behind Star Trek, but it's only going to be made if Paramount can make money out of it. That's why Star Trek was cancelled in 1969, why Enterprise was cancelled, and why Nemesis was the last of the TNG films. It's as simple as that. Money does make the world go round. If Paramount think this is the best way of making money out of Star Trek, you can be pretty certain they are right. Creative concerns are secondary.

You don't understand me. I didn't care if we went another 20 years without a new Trek. Trek was in the dumps because folks had gone to the well too many times. In another 20 years (or 10 for the real impatient) a new set of characters would have made the franchise fresh IMO. But if your only way to make it relevant is by casting new actors to play established characters and rewriting Trek lore to fit your premise for a two hour film, then a new film should have never been made in the first place. That's just my take. But Paramount continues to whore the product and of course jumped at the chance to Bring Back Kirk. I refuse to take part. What everyone else does is none of my business.

 

[Michael]

And, what you say makes me feel better.

Oh, believe me, J., you gonna love this movie!

But Paramount continues to whore the product and of course jumped at the chance to Bring Back Kirk.

Ha, that's just ridiculous. What, do you seriously expect them to refrain from making money? Whore the product, are you kidding? Last time I checked Paramount wasn't a charity.

 

[Cyke101]

And, what you say makes me feel better.

Oh, believe me, J., you gonna love this movie!

But Paramount continues to whore the product and of course jumped at the chance to Bring Back Kirk.

Ha, that's just ridiculous. What, do you seriously expect them to refrain from making money? Whore the product, are you kidding? Last time I checked Paramount wasn't a charity.

You mean Paramount's been selling out Trek since 1966? Blasphemy!

 

[Praetor]

The way he said it could have been phrased better, and comes off a bit defensive (perhaps understandably so), but I agree with the sentiment. But like GodBen, one of the things I've always liked about Trek was that they actually went to the effort to develop a well-thought-out universe. I suppose, ultimately, that universe is relegated to nothing more than setting.

I don't know, maybe its because I became a fan with TOS, back when the Trek universe wasn't well defined at all (Different episodes couldn't even agree on what century the show was set in), but this has never been something that was a major attraction to the series for me.

I think Nimoy is spot on. Some fans focus so much on the "canon" and the minutia that they lose sight of the actual shows. I saw the same phenomenon with comic book fans in the mid-80s when, after Crisis on Infinite Earths, DC fans went out of their trees fretting over what stories "really happened" and what ones didn't, as if it was a sign of quality. Sad.

I can certainly appreciate and respect that viewpoint. And I would even admit that at times I've felt too beholden to canon to the point of saying 'that's not true because canon says ______.' So I don't feel that they should feel tied down to canon, by any extent. I guess familiarity just builds fondness, so it's hard to accept a clean break and restart. I think that's why in some ways I'd have felt better had it just been a clean restart, with no acknowledgment of the original whatsoever - this would have absolutely no effect or connection with anything that had gone before. I dunno.

But we shall see when I see the movie.

And, what you say makes me feel better.

Oh, believe me, J., you gonna love this movie!

That makes me feel better.

 

[NKemp3]

Whore the product, are you kidding? Last time I checked Paramount wasn't a charity.

Yeah, I know. A charity at least is upfront about asking you to fork over your cash and time for nothing in return.

 

[Cyke101]

Whore the product, are you kidding? Last time I checked Paramount wasn't a charity.

Yeah, I know. A charity at least is upfront about asking you to fork over your cash and time for nothing in return.

And most of the reviews for the movie say that giving Paramount your money will result in one heck of a good time. I think that's fair to say.

 

[Phily B]

This is why I have zero interest in this film. I don't care how well it may be done. Rebooting Star Trek was not necessary. Create new characters or revisit old ones. But don't change around the history and relationships of established characters and timelines to make your Burger King tie-in film.

Got to disagree there, it needed a reboot badly. Voyager and Nemesis royally fucked up the TNG era, the last two films were awful and Enterprise drove away a lot of fans because it shit on the series far worse than the new movie.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Nimoy is right. Voyager is Star Trek because it's canon? A new Trek film featuring Kirk and Spock on a rebooted Enterprise isn't Star Trek because it isn't canon? Gimme a break.

The new film is closer to being real Star Trek than Voyager is. Word.

 

[NKemp3]

This is why I have zero interest in this film. I don't care how well it may be done. Rebooting Star Trek was not necessary. Create new characters or revisit old ones. But don't change around the history and relationships of established characters and timelines to make your Burger King tie-in film.

Got to disagree there, it needed a reboot badly. Voyager and Nemesis royally fucked up the TNG era, the last two films were awful and Enterprise drove away a lot of fans because it shit on the series far worse than the new movie.

All four TNG films were awful. And, yes, VOY blew. That's not my point. I take issue with treating Trek like a comic book franchise by planting new actors to play established characters. Unlike Batman, Superman or even a novel character like James Bond, the characters of Kirk, Spock, etc were first introduced to the public through people like Shatner and Nimoy. My preference therefore was to not make Trek relevant by recycling characters and altering established history.

 

[Michael]

... altering established history.

It's a TV show. Talking about it as if wasn't merely entertainment and making it sound like it had anything to do with real history makes you look ridiculous.

 

[Kelso]

I agree 100% with Mr. Nimoy.

 

[Tulaberry whine]

Trek canon is flimsier than crepe paper and doesn't stand up under even cursory scrutiny, so I really don't understand the anger over the new movie.

Watching the movie was the first time since DS9 was on the air that I felt I was watching a Trek that had scope and consequence. It didn't feel safe and hermetically sealed in the way conventional Trek too often did.

And while the movie is far from perfect, it has a verve and audacity that had me fondly recalling DS9 (as opposed to the TOS) as I left the theatre.

 

[Tomalak]

All four TNG films were awful. And, yes, VOY blew. That's not my point. I take issue with treating Trek like a comic book franchise by planting new actors to play established characters.

Like having two different Saaviks or three Ziyals? Characters have been recast all the time because the original actors were unavailable.

 

[NKemp3]

It's a TV show. Talking about it as if wasn't merely entertainment and making it sound like it had anything to do with real history makes you look ridiculous.

Well, thank you for your opinion. I don't know how I'll ever go on after such a swipe.

Anyway...now that I've been informed that Trek is a TV show can I at least ask when its okay to go against the established backstories, backdrops and characterizations of fictional works of art? Many people on these very boards would moan if a character’s race is changed from white to black. But why cry if Bond or Superman is portrayed by an Africa American? They are just fictional characters anyway. Why not move Tarzan to the jungles of Asia and Sherlock Holmes to the streets of Russia? What's the big deal? Its all just fiction. Lets do a remake of Star Wars in 30 years. And this time we can make Luke and Han school rivals who went their separate ways until they meet again as a result of Obi Wan's mission. It will be a great film. Doesn't matter if the people behind it can create interesting characters of their own so they decide to reuse very well known characters and then dispose of the part of those characters' bckstories that are not convenient to their little two hour film. Why not?

I will point out again that I don't judge anyone who wants to see this latest Trek. As I wrote earlier its none of my business. So I don't get why some of you are so insecure about my being totally disinterested in checking it out at the theaters. How does it affect you? If it makes you feel any better I didn't see First Contact, Insurrection or Nemesis in the theaters either. Right now I'm very content to see more thoughtful films like "Sin Nombre", "Sugar", "Hunger", and "Goodbye Solo" which tackles more challenging issues regarding the human condition. I have no interest in Transformers, GI Joe or most of these other brainless big summer vehicles that folks are drawn to. If the reviews warrant it I may see the Terminator film only because it deals with the storyline/timeline that you didn't see thoroughly addressed/visited in the previous films. So unlike Star Trek its not rebooting itself with a recycled setting; its not using the same characters of the same timeline and doing a different version of their origin story. Its moving forward instead. It may not be any good but I appreciate its attempt at least to be different than the Terminator films and stories that came before it.

So by all means please enjoy Star Trek during all ten times you see it this weekend. But don’t take offense to those of us not drinking the kool-aid. Live Long and Prosper.

 

[NKemp3]

All four TNG films were awful. And, yes, VOY blew. That's not my point. I take issue with treating Trek like a comic book franchise by planting new actors to play established characters.

Like having two different Saaviks or three Ziyals? Characters have been recast all the time because the original actors were unavailable.

Tomalak, there is a diference in casting a different actor to play a role within a year or so because of the unavailability of that actor or the dissatisfaction of that actor's performance. Its quite another thing to cast a completely entire new set of actors to play characters originated over 40 years ago by another set of actors. Especially when the original actors were the ones to introduced now classic characters to us in the first place. I'm not asking you to agree, I'm simply pointing out my feelings. Star Trek essentially now is set up to be like Bond and Batman for the next 60 years. Instead of developing new characters for the "Trek Universe" and taking on new and fresh angles with them, TPTB of Paramount will instead keep doing Kirk and Spock stories on film until the end of time. For all of you who like that then by all means don't let me keep you from enjoying it. That was never my intent. I was explaining why I had little interest in it.