Same canon?
- Thread starter Captrek
- Start date
I hope you are right. Right now BobOrci is getting rather one-worded when asked about it, and that isn't a good sign.
It's like when you ask a nerd "Did you ever have sex." and he choses not to answer, then you can be sure he didn't.
I hope you are right. Right now BobOrci is getting rather one-worded when asked about it, and that isn't a good sign.
It's like when you ask a nerd "Did you ever have sex." and he choses not to answer, then you can be sure he didn't.
I wouldn't be so sure.
You know that both the people who are in charge of the books and comics are just aching to be the first to tell that NuKirk meets NuKhan story. However I can't see TPTB letting that particular meeting taking place in ancillary material like books or comics.
Such a historic moment must take place on the big screen. Be it this next film or the third installment. It will happen.
I’m looking forward to the NuKirk meets NuGod story. The Narada’s intervention couldn’t have affected anything beyond the Great Barrier at the galactic core, right? So He must still be there.
I think its safe to say that Khan was a tad more memorable villain then "God". And I say that as one who like Star Trek V.
I bet normal movie goers are at least plugged into Star Trek = Plus Khan even if they aren't aware of "Space Seed".
Just because Mr. Evil Floating Head is still at the centre of the galaxy doesn't mean anyone's gonna visit him in this timeline. He should settle in for an eternity of shooting eye-lasers at flies...
I'd like to see a nuSybok. His exile from Vulcan makes him one of the lucky ones this time - and he'd have more in common with unhinged nuSpock than the STV versions of the two.
I wonder how Spock Prime would react if Sybok showed up on the new Vulcan colony world? It might make a better novel than film.
I'd like to see a nuSybok. His exile from Vulcan makes him one of the lucky ones this time - and he'd have more in common with unhinged nuSpock than the STV versions of the two.
I wonder how Spock Prime would react if Sybok showed up on the new Vulcan colony world? It might make a better novel than film.
But what could be more epic than meeting God? NuGod will be a great and memorable character with the right actor, somebody who radiates dignity like Morgan Freeman, Ian McKellen, Tom Hanks, Dennis Haysbert, Maya Angelou, or Kim Kardashian in a bikini.
Also Jack Black as NuHarry Mudd, Mason Vale Cotton as NuBalok, and Kevin Smith and Kathy Bates as NuGeorge and NuGracie.
Also Jack Black as NuHarry Mudd, Mason Vale Cotton as NuBalok, and Kevin Smith and Kathy Bates as NuGeorge and NuGracie.
Last edited:
People I know who barely know Star Trek (some of them didn't even bother watching the new one) do somehow know the phrases "What does God need with a starship?" and "Jim, you don't ask the Almighty for his ID." and even use them once in a while.
Hopefully Sybok was consigned to oblivion when Vulcan blew up in this timeline.
As to the original question: the new film is an alternate timeline in the existing canon (continuity). As for Chekov being born in a different year? His parents conceived earlier, and gave the kid the same name as they did in the prime universe.
As to the original question: the new film is an alternate timeline in the existing canon (continuity). As for Chekov being born in a different year? His parents conceived earlier, and gave the kid the same name as they did in the prime universe.
In some ways, yes. But physical events have changed to the extent that even if the Enterprise and some of the scenery elements are retcons, the order of events is an alternate timeline.
He's probably just getting sick and tired of all those Trek dorks asking him this same question over and over.
Having Khan in the next film would be the dumbest thing they could possibly do. The whole point of creating an alternate universe was so that they could tell new stories, not rehash old crapola. And really, what casual moviegoer in 2012 gives a shit about Khan or knows anything about him other than that he was played by that guy from Fantasy Island? And what kind of story could they possibly write about him without copying the plot of ST II?
Basically, the people making the movies will tell the best story they can, and the fans can rationalize the inconsistencies. That's been the tradition as long as this series has existed. Just because the stories take place in an alternate timeline/universe does not mean that a separate canon is created. The 2009 movie and its follow-ups are basically like an extended look at one of the "Parallels" universes.
Re: How come no one is working on the Star Trek sequel?
^Considering there's no more "prime" Trek forthcoming outside the novels, comics and games, it's more a case that the entire pre-STXI Trek universe has been bumped down to the level of "Parallels" or (more accurately) the future from the start of Voyager's "Endgame".
From the perspective of nuKirk and friends, TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY is no more than a possible future where he knew his daddy.
^Considering there's no more "prime" Trek forthcoming outside the novels, comics and games, it's more a case that the entire pre-STXI Trek universe has been bumped down to the level of "Parallels" or (more accurately) the future from the start of Voyager's "Endgame".
From the perspective of nuKirk and friends, TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY is no more than a possible future where he knew his daddy.
Khan will work fine in the sequel if that's what they decide to do. There would certainly be commercial advantages to it, and I'm sure that there are executive types at the studio who do advocate for Khan somewhere along the line.
Pretty much.
Pretty much.
In reality it was a total reboot. Altered timeline I can agree with. What I do not agree with is the theory that the events of the movie branched off into some parallel universe where the original Trek universe is unscathed.
I just cannot reconcile that with what I see on screen.
Oh, it's silly to try to reconcile half of Star Trek with the other half. Why worry? I'll buy this as a "branching universe" the same way I'll buy that the ship in ST:TMP was some kind of gussied-up version of the ship in TOS.
I take it you saw proof of the "scathing" of the original Trek universe on screen?
( And it's not completely unscathed in any event; it lost Spock and some Romulans that we never heard of before. )
And is this the same "original Trek universe" that featured its own branching parallel universes?
Its 10x more easy for me to accept a branching universe then TMP ship being the same Enterprise from the series.
Klingons always had ridges, and the Enterprise always looked (almost) like the TMP refit. At least for me. And rumor has it that's what Roddenberry wanted to imply when wrote in the novelization:
I think that implies that from TMP onward we see the proper Trek. Both in characters and - since we have retconned Klingons - in visual style. They went from the exaggerated ultracolorful cartoon to a more realistic looking universe. And all of it was okay until they made these tributes to TOS in which they really canonified (is that even a word?) the TOS design. And apparently Worf's remark "We do not talk about it with outsiders" (I can't remember the exact quote) wasn't enough, so they had to mess with the Klingons in ENT. KOR appeared in both TOS and DS9, and guess what, in DS9 he had ridges. Why? Because they always had ridges! In fact, it would have been better had they removed Worf's ridges for that particular DS9/TOS tribbles episode. That would have been the best thing to do.
The problem I have with the design of the new movie is that it doesn't fit to anything. It doesn't look at all like TOS (which is a good thing actually), but it also doesn't look like it was taking place a couple of years before TMP (which is - in my opinion, not so good).
Except that they didn't. So the point remains: it's as easy to pretend that the JJPrise is consistent with the TOS ship as it is to pretend that stuff in the TOS-based movies is.
Exact same level and kind of suspension of disbelief; accepting one or both is entirely a matter of audience willingness, not the plausibility of the assertions.
