To Accept or Not to Accept

[Palphramond]

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...

Just to add to the organic canon idea ... for example, Nimoy pretty much invented the Vulcan nerve pinch on the fly ... and now, thanks to his going against what the writers wanted, we have great Vulcan lore!

 

[The Academic]

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.

Like you said - YOU PERSONALLY have a problem. Other people personally don't have problems.

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...

That's quite a trick to do for a director when he's hired both to do a movie in an already established franchise and to bring it back to life again after several downright failures...

... 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.

Again, that's what YOU want...

So far I have seen poor trailers with poor dialog and very bad set designs.

I guess, you must have watched the wrong trailers. Everybody I talked to, particularly over the last week or so, has seen trailers that made them feel like schoolboys again...

 

[Palphramond]

I guess, you must have watched the wrong trailers. Everybody I talked to, particularly over the last week or so, has seen trailers that made them feel like schoolboys again...

The most recent trailer was amazing, personally. I have watched it dozens of times, trying to pick up as much as I can. I have to say, a trailer hasn't gotten me this excited for a movie in a long, long time.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I guess, you must have watched the wrong trailers. Everybody I talked to, particularly over the last week or so, has seen trailers that made them feel like schoolboys again...

The most recent trailer was amazing, personally. I have watched it dozens of times, trying to pick up as much as I can. I have to say, a trailer hasn't gotten me this excited for a movie in a long, long time.

When I saw the trailer the first thing I though was Star Trek is offically back and better than ever.

 

[Palphramond]

I guess, you must have watched the wrong trailers. Everybody I talked to, particularly over the last week or so, has seen trailers that made them feel like schoolboys again...

The most recent trailer was amazing, personally. I have watched it dozens of times, trying to pick up as much as I can. I have to say, a trailer hasn't gotten me this excited for a movie in a long, long time.

When I saw the trailer the first thing I though was Star Trek is offically back and better than ever.

Ditto. I saw the most recent one before Watchmen, and one of my friends who was with me (who has never seen a Trek movie) turned to me afterward and said, "I am definitely going to see that". I am going to try and drag as many of my uber-dork-though-not-Trekker friends to the midnight showing as possible ... seems like a good way to bring new people into the fold!

 

[hal9500]

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.

So there are some of us left. By us i mean trekkies who appreciated the continuing timeline that binded every series together.

Some of you have said its not a history... i disagree. How many times was the Original series referenced in one shape or another in TNG and its spin offs. Also i love the way many of you are refering to all these great series as un important and failures.... My god, without the next generation none of this would be happening... Star Trek has one history...

Remember those great episodes and films (first contact) where enemys such as the borg would go back and alter the past to destroy the future... How many times did our heros go back and avert there meddeling .... why did they do this ... to preserve the timeline.

Unfortunitly there will be no such luck here.... this is a reboot.... THE CHANGES ARE BEING MADE PERMINANT!

ANd as for the batman references... well ... lets just say altering the batman timline annoyed me a little, but so does stepping in dirt while im out jogging.... STar trek is importnat to me... its a part of my life, my childhood... i thought we were all trekkies...

 

[Orac Zen]

I'm always amused by the way Trek's "canon" and / or "history" is seen as some sort of inviolable absolute. Back in the 60s Roddenberry and co. were just making a TV show. They didn't plan it all out in advance; they didn't go back and scrutinise every last detail so that every episode dovetailed neatly with every other episode; they just made a TV show. For entertainment and to make a living for themselves. It's fans who've elevated "canon" and "history" - in all their inconsistency - to the status of holy writ and refuse to consider any changes (however trivial) by "outsiders", while managing to explain away all those inconsistencies the "insiders" were responsible for (Leslie's "twin brother", for example ) without a qualm. Sure, it has a "history" but it's not as consistent as it's made out to be and it is not going to cease to exist because of this movie.

When all's said and done Star Trek was a TV show. No more or less. It wasn't made to change attitudes or make the world a better place or anything else deep and meaningful. The fact it did achieve some of those things for some people was just a marvellous bonus. As much as I enjoy(ed) TOS it isn't some sacred thing that this movie is going to annihilate by means of its very existence. Watch it; don't watch it - that's up to each of us to decide for ourselves. But the absurd rhetoric surrounding this movie is just bizarre, and trotting in here to constantly assure everyone that "I'm not going to see / accept this movie" rings hollow after several iterations.


And yes, I'll be going to see it. I'll make up my mind about it once I've done so.

 

[hal9500]

I guess, you must have watched the wrong trailers. Everybody I talked to, particularly over the last week or so, has seen trailers that made them feel like schoolboys again...

Your welcome to your take on it and ive said that sine i began this thread... All im saying is ... TOS, the films, the next generation.. DS9, voyager, and even enterprise... all fitted together in one time line. Despite obvious discontinueties here and there, they existed in a universe where everyone new the history. Kahn, Kirk, the romulan encounter in the original series, the Gorn incident, the very idea and look of a constitution class ship, the Kitomer Peace accords.... All Part Of History.

THIS FILM

Not only is it not part of history,
But as it involves someone from canon going back to alter the canon timeline, it effectively Wipes out the established timeline.

Some of you are OK with that.... fine.. Your welcome to it...
But for me (my opinion) Destroying or disregarding Decades of other peoples writing is shamefull. And its being done with that great idea that fouled up enterprise... "to make it appeal to a wider audience"

I hope they enjoy it, We have certianly paid a heavey price for their amusment.

 

[Gepard]

I'm always amused by the way Trek's "canon" and / or "history" is seen as some sort of inviolable absolute. Back in the 60s Roddenberry and co. were just making a TV show. They didn't plan it all out in advance; they didn't go back and scrutinise every last detail so that every episode dovetailed neatly with every other episode; they just made a TV show. For entertainment and to make a living for themselves. It's fans who've elevated "canon" and "history" - in all their inconsistency - to the status of holy writ and refuse to consider any changes (however trivial) by "outsiders", while managing to explain away all those inconsistencies the "insiders" were responsible for (Leslie's "twin brother", for example ) without a qualm. Sure, it has a "history" but it's not as consistent as it's made out to be and it is not going to cease to exist because of this movie.

When all's said and done Star Trek was a TV show. No more or less. It wasn't made to change attitudes or make the world a better place or anything else deep and meaningful. The fact it did achieve some of those things for some people was just a marvellous bonus. As much as I enjoy(ed) TOS it isn't some sacred thing that this movie is going to annihilate by means of its very existence. Watch it; don't watch it - that's up to each of us to decide for ourselves. But the absurd rhetoric surrounding this movie is just bizarre, and trotting in here to constantly assure everyone that "I'm not going to see / accept this movie" rings hollow after several iterations.

Very well put.

I think we can close this forum now.

 

[Garak]

I hope they enjoy it, We have certianly paid a heavey price for their amusment.

No, you haven't.

 

[The Academic]

So there are some of us left. By us i mean trekkies who appreciated the continuing timeline that binded every series together.

You are NOT alone, so stop pretending being the only upright warrior left standing on a battlefield, surrounded by enemies. As far as I see it, EVERY Trekkie appreciates Star Trek's continuing timeline - particularly me, since I am a historian by profession.

Some of you have said its not a history... i disagree. How many times was the Original series referenced in one shape or another in TNG and its spin offs. Also i love the way many of you are refering to all these great series as un important and failures.... My god, without the next generation none of this would be happening...

Nobody ever said that it's not a history. Some posters simply said that it's nor REALITY, ergo nothing to get so immensely worked up about. Of course, the entire franchise cross-references itself. Nobody said that some of these great series are unimportant or failures. Everybody is grateful that TNG continued the saga, as it were, because otherwise we wouldn't be here right now, would we?

Star Trek has one history...

Well, duh...

Remember those great episodes and films (first contact) where enemys such as the borg would go back and alter the past to destroy the future... How many times did our heros go back and avert there meddeling .... why did they do this ... to preserve the timeline. Unfortunitly there will be no such luck here.... this is a reboot.... THE CHANGES ARE BEING MADE PERMINANT!

Yes, we remember, this is not a reboot and the changes are not PERMINANT. Why don't you stop your incessant whinging already?

STar trek is importnat to me... its a part of my life, my childhood...

Well, how about stating something less obvious? It's important to everyone of us here, it's part of all our lives, of all our childhoods!

... i thought we were all trekkies...

Indeed we are... but you seem to be something else entirely!

 

[Amaris]

I agree 100%. Fortunately there are lots of way to integrate known facts into great stories without sacrificing either. To bad nobody is really putting forth the effort.

Because this is a new approach with strong ties to the old guard.
If you want what was, there are 10 feature length movies and 716 television episodes to choose from.

J.

This is allegedly a TOS movie. So you're really talking (counting features) about a lot less than 100 hours of material to 'choose from.' If it had such close ties to this old guard, they'd probably be able to hew a lot closer. Any ties are probably points of departure, not points of similarity.

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.

The Academic, Rii, controlfreak, Hartzilla2007, Augustus (hilariously, I might add), Gep Malakai, Nerys Myk, and Palphramond have already walked down any avenue of explanation that I may have traveled, so you'll find my answer in their well stated posts.

Oh, and for further edification, the King James Bible was rewritten thousands of times over it's long history, mostly in very minor revisions. Of course, the King James Bible (as other Bibles) represents the core building block of a faith that has more than a billion adherents. Star Trek is a fictional television series. I love the show very much, but at the end of the day, the history never happened. Your post makes no valid point, instead drawing more attention to the hyperbole and fantastical drama it seems to incur. I would also suggest that you relax. You're taking this way, way too seriously.

J.

 

[The Academic]

But for me (my opinion) Destroying or disregarding Decades of other peoples writing is shamefull. And its being done with that great idea that fouled up enterprise... "to make it appeal to a wider audience"
I hope they enjoy it, We have certianly paid a heavey price for their amusment.

Nobody destroys or disregards anything.
Mate, just stop and read what you are writing... 'shameful', 'fouled up', 'We have certainly paid a heavy price for their amusement' (sorry for correcting your typos, that's the university lecturer coming through).
Get off your bloody high horse, get real, get a life! And, by the way, stop talking for the rest of us...

 

[hal9500]

But for me (my opinion) Destroying or disregarding Decades of other peoples writing is shamefull. And its being done with that great idea that fouled up enterprise... "to make it appeal to a wider audience"
I hope they enjoy it, We have certianly paid a heavey price for their amusment.

Nobody destroys or disregards anything.
Mate, just stop and read what you are writing... 'shameful', 'fouled up', 'We have certainly paid a heavy price for their amusement' (sorry for correcting your typos, that's the university lecturer coming through).
Get off your bloody high horse, get real, get a life! And, by the way, stop talking for the rest of us...

I find it disgraceful, disrespectful, and shameful, and i am not alone... When is began this thread, the first 15 or so posts were clearly in favor of Star Trek 90210 (another trekkie coined the phraise, which i find fitting).

But as it continued i began to notice several individuals sharing my opinion. This film is like an episode where the timeline is badly altered, and there is no fix at the end...

And what is the excuse... "we want it to appeal to a wider audience"

Well in all honesty i would say this to trek revisionists.... write your own canon if you wish... but dont go fouling up the trek timeline... and if you do have the decency to fix it when your done....

Does anyone have the telephone number for Temporal Investigations?

 

[The Academic]

I find it disgraceful, disrespectful, and shameful, and i am not alone... When is began this thread, the first 15 or so posts were clearly in favor of Star Trek 90210 (another trekkie coined the phraise, which i find fitting).

But as it continued i began to notice several individuals sharing my opinion. This film is like an episode where the timeline is badly altered, and there is no fix at the end...

And what is the excuse... "we want it to appeal to a wider audience"

Well in all honesty i would say this to trek revisionists.... write your own canon if you wish... but dont go fouling up the trek timeline... and if you do have the decency to fix it when your done...

I truly give up on you. There is simply no way of talking to you. It's like a one-armed man trying to clap his hands.
You are bloody hopeless, with a capital 'H'!

 

[hal9500]

I find it disgraceful, disrespectful, and shameful, and i am not alone... When is began this thread, the first 15 or so posts were clearly in favor of Star Trek 90210 (another trekkie coined the phraise, which i find fitting).

But as it continued i began to notice several individuals sharing my opinion. This film is like an episode where the timeline is badly altered, and there is no fix at the end...

And what is the excuse... "we want it to appeal to a wider audience"

Well in all honesty i would say this to trek revisionists.... write your own canon if you wish... but dont go fouling up the trek timeline... and if you do have the decency to fix it when your done...

I truly give up on you. There is simply no way of talking to you. It's like a one-armed man trying to clap his hands.
You are bloody hopeless, with a capital 'H'!

Im not trying to convince you, im simply spelling out my opinion which i have every right to do. And as for you talking to me ... i enjoy chatting to everyone about trek among other things. While we may not see eye to eye on this point, i hope to see you soon in less ..."turbulent" threads.. Where we can laugh at the sombrero fleet thats evolving into a Franchise of its own! Honestly im not here to offend anyone, ..... except Abrams who im sure ive seen on Americas most wanted... Perhaps a Romulan Spy!!!! lolol
good chattin to ya and sorry if i pissed you off!

 

[BillJ]

THIS FILM

Not only is it not part of history,
But as it involves someone from canon going back to alter the canon timeline, it effectively Wipes out the established timeline.

Some of you are OK with that.... fine.. Your welcome to it...
But for me (my opinion) Destroying or disregarding Decades of other peoples writing is shamefull. And its being done with that great idea that fouled up enterprise... "to make it appeal to a wider audience"

I hope they enjoy it, We have certianly paid a heavey price for their amusment.

This film starts history fresh, for a new generation. As a part of the old guard I look forward to dissecting the differences.

 

[trevanian]

Because this is a new approach with strong ties to the old guard.
If you want what was, there are 10 feature length movies and 716 television episodes to choose from.

J.

This is allegedly a TOS movie. So you're really talking (counting features) about a lot less than 100 hours of material to 'choose from.' If it had such close ties to this old guard, they'd probably be able to hew a lot closer. Any ties are probably points of departure, not points of similarity.

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.

The Academic, Rii, controlfreak, Hartzilla2007, Augustus (hilariously, I might add), Gep Malakai, Nerys Myk, and Palphramond have already walked down any avenue of explanation that I may have traveled, so you'll find my answer in their well stated posts.

Oh, and for further edification, the King James Bible was rewritten thousands of times over it's long history, mostly in very minor revisions. Of course, the King James Bible (as other Bibles) represents the core building block of a faith that has more than a billion adherents. Star Trek is a fictional television series. I love the show very much, but at the end of the day, the history never happened. Your post makes no valid point, instead drawing more attention to the hyperbole and fantastical drama it seems to incur. I would also suggest that you relax. You're taking this way, way too seriously.

J.

If you don't care to play, then don't. But if you choose to participate, I'd expect you to either take it seriously -- I mean, you are taking the time to write complete sentences, which puts you ahead of most folks here -- or at least enjoy the kibbutzing for the sake of tweaking people (which seems to be what a good quarter of the folks here seem to waste time doing.)

I find revisionism infuriating. That in my mind is a very legitimate concern. The 'print the legend' of LIBERTY VALLANCE is particularly disturbing to me when I see it play out in papers, on the net, and seemingly everywhere else. Trek seems to have gotten more spin on its history in the last 15 years than it had all the way up till that point, and now with a lot of primary sources dead, that revisionism is taking hold. If that doesn't matter to your enjoyment, then say so and leave it at that.

But don't try to pass off facts as unimportant as a given or an absolute in storytelling, because that trivializes the work of those who did bring these shows to you -- good and bad -- and made it enough of a phenomena that there is a website here about it.

 

[The Academic]

Im not trying to convince you, im simply spelling out my opinion which i have every right to do. And as for you talking to me ... i enjoy chatting to everyone about trek among other things. While we may not see eye to eye on this point, i hope to see you soon in less ..."turbulent" threads.. Where we can laugh at the sombrero fleet thats evolving into a Franchise of its own! Honestly im not here to offend anyone, ..... except Abrams who im sure ive seen on Americas most wanted... Perhaps a Romulan Spy!!!! lolol
good chattin to ya and sorry if i pissed you off!

Sombreros! Now that's a controversy-free topic for you...

[Although I have absolutely no clue why sombreros have such an enormous fascination on the posters of TrekBBS.]

 

[section9]

I find it disgraceful, disrespectful, and shameful, and i am not alone... When is began this thread, the first 15 or so posts were clearly in favor of Star Trek 90210 (another trekkie coined the phraise, which i find fitting).

But as it continued i began to notice several individuals sharing my opinion. This film is like an episode where the timeline is badly altered, and there is no fix at the end...

And what is the excuse... "we want it to appeal to a wider audience"

Well in all honesty i would say this to trek revisionists.... write your own canon if you wish... but dont go fouling up the trek timeline... and if you do have the decency to fix it when your done...

I truly give up on you. There is simply no way of talking to you. It's like a one-armed man trying to clap his hands.
You are bloody hopeless, with a capital 'H'!

Right. Let's end this nonsense here and now. I hereby invoke Professor Godwin!

"Hitler!"

A visit from the Adolf usually ends any doctrinal unpleasantness.