To Accept or Not to Accept

[Hartzilla2007]

Also ... "don't let facts and dates obscure characterization and story" ... did you make MISSISSIPPI BURNING or are you related to the King James responsible for the major rewrite to the Bible? Your statement is way too much like 'history is written by the victors' for comfort, or to give the rest of your comments credence.

You do realize that TOS had a redshirt who was adressed by name who died in an episode then came back in a later episode as that same character.

Not to mention they kept changing what the strongest metal in the universe was.

Plus didn't they say at one point on TOS that if matter and anti-matter mixed the universe would be destroyed, yet this did not happen when ever there was a warpcore brach in a later series.

 

[3D Master]

Also ... "don't let facts and dates obscure characterization and story" ... did you make MISSISSIPPI BURNING or are you related to the King James responsible for the major rewrite to the Bible? Your statement is way too much like 'history is written by the victors' for comfort, or to give the rest of your comments credence.

You do realize that TOS had a redshirt who was adressed by name who died in an episode then came back in a later episode as that same character.

His first name was never mentioned. Therefor it's not the same character; just a twin brother.

Not to mention they kept changing what the strongest metal in the universe was.

No, it didn't.

Plus didn't they say at one point on TOS that if matter and anti-matter mixed the universe would be destroyed, yet this did not happen when ever there was a warpcore brach in a later series.

Nope.

 

[Kemaiku]

Indeed. That particular episode made it clear that the villain was from an Antimatter universe, the reason both galaxies/universes were in peril was simply because he was breaking down the barriers between a matter and antimatter universe, a drastically different situation from two little streams in a ships reactor.

Obsession showed it took an ounce to remove *half* the atmosphere from the planet and create a blast wave that flattened the surface, the planet itself was still intact. So no, TOS never implied the universe would disappear from a normal matter/antimatter reaction.

 

[Augustus]

As I read through this thread, a scene from toy story came to mind. With Woody desperately trying to explain his nature to buzz "YOU ARE A CHILD'S PLAY THING!!!!"

and then there was Buzz, standing there, completely ignorant of reality.

canon isn't a big deal to me, because as gene wrote the series, there was no strict Bible, distances between worlds change, names, races, technology, etc etc.

Not to raise the ire of everyone here, but Babylon 5, now there was a show with true continuity and canon, but that is only because its creator planned it all out before hand.

Star Trek was never meant to be like that, and I like it that way.

 

[xortex]

Revisionist history is written by the victors. The greedy jews. Gene Roddenberry is dead. Long live Gene Roddenberry.

 

[M'Sharak]

Revisionist history is written by the victors. The greedy jews. Gene Roddenberry is dead. Long live Gene Roddenberry.

If I had the slightest notion what you meant by the rest of that, I might have more to say in reply. However, this:

... The greedy jews.

is unacceptable.

You are granted a great deal of latitude in what you may say at TrekBBS in the course of expressing an opinion, but denigrating any person or any group on the basis of race does not fall within that latitude, not even in TNZ. I do not wish to see it or anything similar posted by you again.

 

[urbandk]

Revisionist history is written by the victors. The greedy jews. Gene Roddenberry is dead. Long live Gene Roddenberry.

If I had the slightest notion what you meant by the rest of that, I might have more to say in reply. However, this:

... The greedy jews.

is unacceptable.

You are granted a great deal of latitude in what you may say at TrekBBS in the course of expressing an opinion, but denigrating any person or any group on the basis of race does not fall within that latitude, not even in TNZ. I do not wish to see it or anything similar posted by you again.

+1

that was super offensive. WTF.

 

[Gepard]

Also ... "don't let facts and dates obscure characterization and story" ... did you make MISSISSIPPI BURNING or are you related to the King James responsible for the major rewrite to the Bible? Your statement is way too much like 'history is written by the victors' for comfort, or to give the rest of your comments credence.

I will say this slowly. With big letters, so it is hard to miss.

THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

IS.

NOT.

REAL!

It's entirely fictional. It didn't happen. There is no "history" to be "victorious" over. It's all stories and myth. Experiencing discomfort comparable to that caused by revisionist history in the real world is insulting to reality. It's fake. A new version of fake that stands to actually be engaging and make the Star Trek mythos popular again.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Also ... "don't let facts and dates obscure characterization and story" ... did you make MISSISSIPPI BURNING or are you related to the King James responsible for the major rewrite to the Bible? Your statement is way too much like 'history is written by the victors' for comfort, or to give the rest of your comments credence.

You do realize that TOS had a redshirt who was adressed by name who died in an episode then came back in a later episode as that same character.

His first name was never mentioned. Therefor it's not the same character; just a twin brother.

Not to mention they kept changing what the strongest metal in the universe was.

No, it didn't.

Plus didn't they say at one point on TOS that if matter and anti-matter mixed the universe would be destroyed, yet this did not happen when ever there was a warpcore brach in a later series.

Nope.

Pretty sure that rationalizations aren't canon. So what ever "logical" explanations you come up with to smooth out the inconstancies really don't mean squat. When you get a job writing or producing Star Trek, then we'll talk.

 

[Yminale]

Revisionist history is written by the victors. The greedy jews.

[KIRK]"MADOFF!!!!"[/KIRK]
Sorry I couldn't help it


Anyway, if greedy jews were in charge of Star Trek, it would actually be good.

 

[Augustus]

Also ... "don't let facts and dates obscure characterization and story" ... did you make MISSISSIPPI BURNING or are you related to the King James responsible for the major rewrite to the Bible? Your statement is way too much like 'history is written by the victors' for comfort, or to give the rest of your comments credence.

I will say this slowly. With big letters, so it is hard to miss.

THE STAR TREK UNIVERSE.

IS.

NOT.

REAL!

It's entirely fictional. It didn't happen. There is no "history" to be "victorious" over. It's all stories and myth. Experiencing discomfort comparable to that caused by revisionist history in the real world is insulting to reality. It's fake. A new version of fake that stands to actually be engaging and make the Star Trek mythos popular again.

I am suddenly reminded of perhaps the "most true" moment of Galaxy Quest. When Tim Allen tells the young fan that it is all real, the show, the ship, everything and the fan reacts by saying "I knew it! I knew it, I knew it!!!!!"

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Also ... "don't let facts and dates obscure characterization and story" ... did you make MISSISSIPPI BURNING or are you related to the King James responsible for the major rewrite to the Bible? Your statement is way too much like 'history is written by the victors' for comfort, or to give the rest of your comments credence.

You do realize that TOS had a redshirt who was adressed by name who died in an episode then came back in a later episode as that same character.

His first name was never mentioned. Therefor it's not the same character; just a twin brother.

Not to mention they kept changing what the strongest metal in the universe was.

No, it didn't.

Plus didn't they say at one point on TOS that if matter and anti-matter mixed the universe would be destroyed, yet this did not happen when ever there was a warpcore brach in a later series.

Nope.

Well here some stuff I would like you to explain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1chtJQFQNs
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55NwNrkzz4s&feature=related
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42Q-pFlzung&feature=related

And yes I know they cover examples outside of TOS.

 

[M'Sharak]

Revisionist history is written by the victors. The greedy jews.

[KIRK]"MADOFF!!!!"[/KIRK]
Sorry I couldn't help it


Anyway, if greedy jews were in charge of Star Trek, it would actually be good.

Perhaps you missed my post back here. It's not acceptable for purposes of making a joke, either. Just don't do it, please.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

You do realize that TOS had a redshirt who was adressed by name who died in an episode then came back in a later episode as that same character.

His first name was never mentioned. Therefor it's not the same character; just a twin brother.

Mr. Leslie's twin brother . Gimme a break. If Abrams tried to pull something like you are suggesting, you would skin him alive.

 

[Borgminister]

You do realize that TOS had a redshirt who was adressed by name who died in an episode then came back in a later episode as that same character.

His first name was never mentioned. Therefor it's not the same character; just a twin brother.

Mr. Leslie's twin brother . Gimme a break. If Abrams tried to pull something like you are suggesting, you would skin him alive.

[Lovitz]Twin brother... yea, that's the ticket[/Lovitz]

 

[Foxy]

I don’t know if anyone has said anything about this before... but as no one can prove how time travel would work and the effect on events then anything can be possible. With that in mind there may be different effects depending on how time travel occurred.

So ... say for instance in First Contact they travel back in time able to see events altered as they travel back and so remained in their existing time line. Where as other forms of time travel force a new time line to be created... who knows... it would explain time travel throughout star trek I guess.

I cant wait for this film I was worried about all the things people are still talking about.. but after seeing the 3rd trailer , Im happy to go with JJ's flow as it were

 

[Palphramond]

Hello everyone, I just joined the forum. I am a long time Trek fan, and joined in order to share in everyones anticipation for the new film!

I just wanted to contribute ...

The way I see it (spoiler alert?):

The very premise of the movie (Spock traveling back in time in order to thwart the Romulans' nefarious plans) gives a nod to the "canon" ... and hence should be accepted in the same way that the Mirror universe is. Obviously, Spock traveling back in time from the canonical, post-Nemesis universe is fine (time travel has always been a staple of Star Trek) ... so it seems as though Abrams has anticipated / prepared for this exact debate. Perhaps the movie works perfectly with the established canon, simply because it takes place in tandem with the post-Nemesis world ... thus, the differences in the alternate timeline take place alongside the original timeline, while interacting inextricably with it. Hal, it seems as though you (trying to preserve the canonical timeline) and Spock are on the same side ... both are trying to keep Nero from screwing things up beyond recognition :-)

Also, the "canon" did not exist before TOS ... it came about organically, as new ideas were added, in the same way that I hope this movie will add to an already wonderful sci-fi universe.

Frankly, I see no reason why Star Trek XI would clash with the canon ... we are all sci-fi nerds on this forum: as soon as you introduce time travel to a story, you are going have a very complicated mythology. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, anyone? :-D

 

[True Trek Fan]

No one in favor of canon is arguing Star Trek is real, what we argue is that there is a know Star Trek universe which more or less accepts certain timelines. I personally have a problem with any director or actor who doesn't accept past films and decides to make his own mark. If your old enough to remember the Mission Impossible TV series you know the movies have very little in common with the TV show. So why should we care? Well if a director like JJ Abrams wants to make something new (in Film) make something new, don't rip off old TV and or movie names and concepts and put your own stamp on them because that's not why I would want to see a new Star Trek film, I would want to see a true fan (director) of TOS who gets it and can bring it to the big screen. So far I have seen poor trailers with poor dialog and very bad set designs.

 

[Palphramond]

No one in favor of canon is arguing Star Trek is real, what we argue is that there is a know Star Trek universe which more or less accepts certain timelines. I personally have a problem with any director or actor who doesn't accept past films and decides to make his own mark. If your old enough to remember the Mission Impossible TV series you know the movies have very little in common with the TV show? So why should we care? Well if you wnat to make something new make (in Film) make something new, don't rip off old TV and or movie names and concepts and put your own stamp on them because that's not why I would want to see, I would want to see a true fan of TOS who gets it and can bring it to the big screen. So far I have seen poor trailers with poor dialog and very bad set designs.

From what I understand, most of the people involved with the new film were very conscious of what had come before.

Abrams would have not gone through with any aspect of the story without Leonard Nimoy's go ahead (within reason, I suppose), and most of the actors did their research (especially Chris and Zach) ... I see these as good signs, and not actors and directors doing whatever the heck they want.

 

[The Academic]

The very premise of the movie (Spock traveling back in time in order to thwart the Romulans' nefarious plans) gives a nod to the "canon" ... and hence should be accepted in the same way that the Mirror universe is. Obviously, Spock traveling back in time from the canonical, post-Nemesis universe is fine (time travel has always been a staple of Star Trek) ... so it seems as though Abrams has anticipated / prepared for this exact debate. Perhaps the movie works perfectly with the established canon, simply because it takes place in tandem with the post-Nemesis world ... thus, the differences in the alternate timeline take place alongside the original timeline, while interacting inextricably with it.

That's exactly what I'm trying to tell the world since ages...

Also, the "canon" did not exist before TOS ... it came about organically, as new ideas were added, in the same way that I hope this movie will add to an already wonderful sci-fi universe.

Same here...

Frankly, I see no reason why Star Trek XI would clash with the canon ... we are all sci-fi nerds on this forum: as soon as you introduce time travel to a story, you are going have a very complicated mythology. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, anyone?

Perfect summary, case closed...