Still confused by Trek XI and "canon"/continuity

[darkwing_duck1]

Despite all the vague hand-waving about "following the map laid down" and "respecting the material", I have heard NO definitive statement made by anyone involved with the new movie to the following question:

Does this film take place in the same "universe" as all the prior incarnations of Trek? Is it bound by their "future history" and will it strive not to contradict any of it?

OR

Does this film take only the core concepts and characterizations from TOS and set them in an entirely new universe where no other Trek has "happened" before or after. Do they feel free to write events as THEY wish to have them, even if it contradicts existing Trek matierial?


Please note I am not asking for debate on the value of "reboot" vs "non reboot" or any of that other arguementation. ALL I AM SEEKING is what the PRODUCERS have stated their intentions are in this area.

 

[number6]

Like nearly every Trek film ever made, I would imagine the producers being eager to keep a tight lid on the plot until...oh about December of '08.

 

[xortex]

They respecting canon which means another coat of paint.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Reply hazy; Try again later.

 

[Broccoli]

Number6 said:
Like nearly every Trek film ever made, I would imagine the producers being eager to keep a tight lid on the plot until...oh about December of '08.

Unless we get another insider that decides to spoil the entire movie on the internet a year before release like last time.

 

[The Wormhole]

Well, Nimoy is playing an elderly Spock, so it seems possible it is supposed to be in the same continuity. That's all I'm going by.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

darkwing_duck1 said:
...Does this film take place in the same "universe" as all the prior incarnations of Trek? Is it bound by their "future history" and will it strive not to contradict any of it?

OR

Does this film take only the core concepts and characterizations from TOS and set them in an entirely new universe where no other Trek has "happened" before or after. Do they feel free to write events as THEY wish to have them, even if it contradicts existing Trek matierial?...

I think there is a third "grey area" in between your black-and-white scenarios. I think this could take place in the same "universe", and is bound by Trek "future history" and will it strive not to contradict any of it -- BUT just like almost all of the other movies and TV shows there will be occasions when existing Trek material will be contradicted. If these contradictions are minor, then that will not bother me. Some past examples of minor contradictions: James 'R.' Kirk as opposed to James 'T.' Kirk, and was Chekov there in 'Space Seed'.

 

[PowderedToastMan]

it is in the same universe, writers describe the film as 'filling a gap' in the known trek history

 

[Kegek]

I tend to think of it a bit like 'Superman Returns'. It's got a continuity with some of the previous films, but with the principals recast. The continuity is likely to be somewhat tighter than in that movie - continuity with the numerous series and films - but I wouldn't expect cardboard 60ish sets either.

But I can say one thing: I just hope whatever inevitable bickering about canon violations accrue after the film premieres are overwhelmed by the one argument to the contrary, that it's a great movie. Or in simpler language: I'm more interested in this being a good yarn than in fitting in empty gaps in a hodge-podge mythology.

 

[Vektor]

Well, if we go by the traditional definition of “canon” as applied to Star Trek, i.e. “what actually appeared on-screen,” then the mere fact that new actors in the roles of Kirk and Spock will not look exactly like Shatner and Nimoy is technically a canon violation right off the bat. I guess it depends on how literal-minded you feel the need to be.

If I had to guess, I expect the producers to adhere fairly closely to the established history of Trek, past, present and future, or at least the more commonly known elements of it, but not necessarily the “I was there and got the whole thing on film” aspects such as the appearance of the characters or the details of set and costume design.

To illustrate what I mean, let’s try a simple thought experiment. Let’s say you’ve never actually seen a single episode of Star Trek, but you have had the episodes described to you along with all the important characters, facts and events. You should be able to go see this new movie and not have anything you “know” about it glaringly contradicted. There may still be differences, but I’d wager they won’t be of any great significance, probably no more so than all the other continuity “errors” that have crept in over the years.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That's a very good way of making the distinction clear, Vektor. Bravo for thinking of it.

"Visual continuity" is likely to be violated in a thousand ways in this film; that's simple common sense.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

As long as there's a ship called Enterprise, a captain named Kirk, a Vulcan named Spock, a cranky Doctor named McCoy and damn good story, the hell with canon and continuity.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I'm not convinced that it would be that difficult to tell a good story and still adhere to "canon/continuity".

There were 78 distinct stories told during the TOS years, and they rarely referred to events in other episodes, except maybe in "I, Mudd", and references to the Orgonian Peace treaty.

This film could completely ignore any events that would later happen in TOS, TNG, the films, etc., and still do nothing that would violate canon or continuity, just like TOS basically ignored itself and still had some relative continuity.

Conversely, I feel that you could easily write a story that fits nicely within an existing TOS storyline and keep with continuity -- basically for the same reasons as stated above, which is that TOS really didn't have a lot of "canon" to begin with (although, as I said, it did relatively well with continuity.)

 

[Stardate]

As long as there's a ship called Enterprise, a captain named Kirk, a Vulcan named Spock, a cranky Doctor named McCoy and damn good story, the hell with canon and continuity

Spot on :thumbsup:

 

[Franklin]

Jackson_Roykirk said:
This film could completely ignore any events that would later happen in TOS, TNG, the films, etc., and still do nothing that would violate canon or continuity, just like TOS basically ignored itself and still had some relative continuity.

Conversely, I feel that you could easily write a story that fits nicely within an existing TOS storyline and keep with continuity -- basically for the same reasons as stated above, which is that TOS really didn't have a lot of "canon" to begin with (although, as I said, it did relatively well with continuity.)

I've always felt that way.

A lapse in continuity doesn't mean a lapse in canon. Further, many other shows had far greater, sloppier, and inexplicable lapses in continuity over time than TOS did (just watch the first three seasons of M*A*S*H). TOS was actually quite consistent. For example, no one at the time could've believed that a small thing like "James R. Kirk" would provoke anxiety and anger among folks for forty years.

Small mistakes in continuity will undoubtedly be made in XI. And, I pity Abrams, et al for the scrutiny some fans will put them under looking for and pointing out those mistakes -- whether they were intentional or not.
For example, God forbid there's "Chekov-Khan" type gaff like in TWOK.

Frankly, I trust the XI producers and writers with the general Trek canon. Unlike those who "took over" Trek before, these guys profess to be fans of TOS and knowledgeable of it going in.
Naturally they'll want to put their mark on Trek, but that's different than coming in and gutting it or making drastic changes in what they themselves watched before (and liked). I can't imagine that happening. Even if the story stinks, I actually feel the precious "canon" is in good hands.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The mere fact that there's recasting going on, does NOT mean that there's a canon violation (however much a technicality that may be).

This is simply because that sort of thing happened *within* certain Trek series. DaiMon Bok, for example, was played by two different actors depending on which TNG ep you're looking at (Frank Corsentino in 'The Battle', Lee Arenberg in...whichever one he did). Also the Romulan Senator Cretak was played by two different people on DS9 (Megan Cole and Adrienne Barbeau), as was Neral (Norman Large on TNG, Hal Landon Jr. on DS9).

That was irrelevant, and therefore so is this.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Franklin said:

Small mistakes in continuity will undoubtedly be made in XI. And, I pity Abrams, et al for the scrutiny some fans will put them under looking for and pointing out those mistakes -- whether they were intentional or not.
For example, God forbid there's "Chekov-Khan" type gaff like in TWOK.

Frankly, I trust the XI producers and writers with the general Trek canon. Unlike those who "took over" Trek before, these guys profess to be fans of TOS and knowledgeable of it going in.
Naturally they'll want to put their mark on Trek, but that's different than coming in and gutting it or making drastic changes in what they themselves watched before (and liked). I can't imagine that happening. Even if the story stinks, I actually feel the precious "canon" is in good hands.

For the record, I wasn't starting this thread either "pro-canon" OR "anti-canon". I just wanted to know what the producers said ABOUT canon.

Honestly, the idea of taking the "base principles" (setting, characters, etc) and starting over isn't all THAT bad in my book. Sure, I'd still like more 24th century Trek post-DW, but that ain't happening. I'd rather if we must have TOS Trek have it be something more than "pothole filling" the existing history.

Just as long as they don't RDM it, and wind up with another NuGalactica...

 

[Deckerd]

If the writers completely ignore everything which has gone before it would be really boring reading these canon threads after the release.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Actually, I think it'll be quite a hoot.

 

[Deckerd]

My tongue was firmly in my cheek.