Trek canon is dead. Thanx JJ!

[Plum]

It's clear to me one thing the upcoming new Star Trek film ultimately lays to rest... the idea of 'canon' in Star Trek fandom. And I'm happy about that! At least, the assurtion that Trek history is a straight line.

But it still may sorta fit with canon... how? Same trick as Doctor Who... Time Travel.

The timelines are mutable. Thus, different iterations of Star Trek are 'valid'. Parallel universes count too!

Think about it, there was a time the captain of the enterprise was James R. Kirk.

Of course, First Contact also changed the timeline by having Borg crash on Earth... who inexplicably showed up on Enterprise and apparently originate the Borg invasion of the Alpha Quadrant in The Next Generation. But it all went poof thanx to the Temporal Cold War, Daniels, and the man who invented the Federation, Captain Archer. That's just a sample, of course.

And besides, the dregs of the last few Trek series and films have provided ample timeline shifts that, with little doubt, fling the various Treks into diverging timelines that conflict with any linear canonical timeline. That is, you simply cannot draw a straight line of history in Trek anymore. And this new film will be the final nail in the Trek canon debate.

From now on, Trek fans will simply say that Trek is made up of different timelines, thus there are 'inconsistencies' with the 'canon'. The canon, at best, must include the notion that it contains events from different dimentions in time.

I do believe a previous Trek producer once said things were a different timeline since First Contact, eh? So who's with me on this? I think it's rather undeniable these days.

Oh, and I'm looking forward to a Trek history that incorperates just where timelines diverge... and the resulting fan debates about where and how many time shifts have occurred in Trek... cause timetravel is just too popular with starship captains... face it!

 

[Captain Robert April]

So, will they be moving Starfleet Command to Gallifrey? Is the Enterprise now a TARDIS with an overactive chameleon circuit? A crew of Time Lords that are simply in new incarnations?

Someone just cue the Daleks and let's get this sorry act over with already...

 

[Plum]

^^^
Why are divergent timelines 'unTrek'? If I get the implication of your sarcasm. Seems like Trek has been timeline surfing since the beginning and that the TV shows and films demonstrate this. Transparent Aluminium might have been far more serious in the timeline that say... oh... a butterfly.

And hey, Doctor Who has recently been successfully 'rebooted' in a similar fashion as the upcoming Star Trek film has.

 

[captcalhoun]

how can you think it'll lay to rest the canon debates?

it's more likely going to provoke more!

it's gonna be like Crisis on Infinite Earths! are you a fan of pre-JJ or post?

 

[Mordock]

^^^
And hey, Doctor Who has recently been successfully 'rebooted' in a similar fashion as the upcoming Star Trek film has.

...which puts me in mind of a fine essay Paul Cornell wrote about the very subject of this thread...

"...There was never and now cannot be any authority to rule on matters of canonicity in a tale that has allowed, or at the very least accepted, the rewriting of its own continuity. And you’re using the fact that discussions of canonicity are all about authority to try to assume an authority that you do not have.

In the end, you’re just bullying people."

 

[The Wormhole]

And hey, Doctor Who has recently been successfully 'rebooted' in a similar fashion as the upcoming Star Trek film has.

Doctor Who has not been rebooted. The new show is a continuation of the original. Proof that you don't need to abandon extenssive 40 year canon to appeal to the masses.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Yes, you're correct. And just like Doctor Who I accept JJ Abrams in that the new Trek film is part of the same universe. One that has always had timeline problems... like Doctor Who. Just a theory mind you.

After all... the glaring fact about the new film is that the 'old' Spock appears!

^^^
And hey, Doctor Who has recently been successfully 'rebooted' in a similar fashion as the upcoming Star Trek film has.

...which puts me in mind of a fine essay Paul Cornell wrote about the very subject of this thread...

"...There was never and now cannot be any authority to rule on matters of canonicity in a tale that has allowed, or at the very least accepted, the rewriting of its own continuity. And you’re using the fact that discussions of canonicity are all about authority to try to assume an authority that you do not have.

In the end, you’re just bullying people."

I'm just putting forward a theory that previous Trek stories seem to suggest. Really!

 

[Mordock]

Doctor Who has not been rebooted. The new show is a continuation of the original. Proof that you don't need to abandon extenssive 40 year canon to appeal to the masses.

By virtue of you saying that, I bet you weren't around for any of the discussions about the new TARDIS interior...

 

[Plum]

^^^
Doctor Who: "You've changed the desktop!"

 

[Captain Robert April]

It was established thirty years ago that the TARDIS has more than one control room.

It was also established over forty years ago what the Enterprise looked like when Pike was in command, just like it was established that Kirk's first captain was named Garrovick, not Pike.

 

[The Wormhole]

Doctor Who has not been rebooted. The new show is a continuation of the original. Proof that you don't need to abandon extenssive 40 year canon to appeal to the masses.

By virtue of you saying that, I bet you weren't around for any of the discussions about the new TARDIS interior...

No I wasn't. In fact, I didn't get involved with Doctor Who until 05. But, my uncle, a huge fan of classic Who is constantly impressed with how much the new show respect the classic show, and even loads up each episode with lots of continuity referances, some overt, some subtle. And yes, he does point each one out to me after each episode.

Abrams could learn a thing or two from RTD...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

"Canon" is the wrong term to describe the attitudes espoused by some fans about Trek's fictional continuity.

There is a far more appropriate one, drawn from the same lexicon of religion.

There is no "Star Trek canon."

There is a "Star Trek orthodoxy."

The word orthodox, from Greek orthodoxos "having the right opinion," from orthos ("right, true, straight") + doxa ("opinion, praise", related to dokein, "thinking"), is typically used to mean adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion...Orthodoxy is opposed to heterodoxy ("other teaching"), heresy and schism. People who deviate from orthodoxy by professing a doctrine considered to be false are most often called heretics or radicals, while those who deviate from orthodoxy by removing themselves from the perceived body of believers are called schismatics.

Link

So, those of us "Star Trek" fans who embrace Abrams' movie are simply radicals or heretics within the framework of Trek orthodoxy. That's fine with me; puts us in some damned good company throughout history.

 

[Chaos Descending]

And hey, Doctor Who has recently been successfully 'rebooted' in a similar fashion as the upcoming Star Trek film has.

What? There was no "reboot" to Doctor Who.

 

[Plum]

And hey, Doctor Who has recently been successfully 'rebooted' in a similar fashion as the upcoming Star Trek film has.

What? There was no "reboot" to Doctor Who.

Yes. It's the same universe... and I say that's as true with the new Trek film.

As for the term 'reboot', both Dr. Who/Trek are just that in a production sense, not a Battlestar Galactica sense. Mmm K?

The different 'look' of various Trek/Dr. Who productions are explained canonically as timeline divergence. That's my theory.

 

[Candlelight]

After 40 years, 11 movies and 6 tv series, does anyone really care about canon anymore?

 

[Sector 7]

So, those of us "Star Trek" fans who embrace Abrams' movie are simply radicals or heretics within the framework of Trek orthodoxy. That's fine with me; puts us in some damned good company throughout history.

I always did like Martin Luther.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Infidels!

After 40 years, 11 movies and 6 tv series, does anyone really care about canon anymore?

Doctor Who fans?

 

[Captain Robert April]

As for the term 'reboot', both Dr. Who/Trek are just that in a production sense, not a Battlestar Galactica sense. Mmm K?

The different 'look' of various Trek/Dr. Who productions are explained canonically as timeline divergence. That's my theory.

That's worse than a Galactica-style reboot, since Ron Moore's version doesn't really touch on the original series in any meaningful way.

Using the "altered timeline" argument means that the intent is to wipe out the established continuity and replace it with this....thing.

 

[Basil]

Well, I say kill one of the major characters off, then -- Chekhov or Spock is fine with me -- and make Uhura the dirty little whore I always fantasized her to be. In this universe, it might be interesting, too, to see many of the caucasians replaced with minorities. There's certainly room in the universe for more blacks, browns, yellows, and reds, considering that collectively they're 85-90% of the human population. Canon's end may be good thing after all. I also think the Federation should adopt a "take no prisoners" approach to dealing with enemies, which will give scenes a lot more emotional angst than in the past incarnations. And give Kirk another brother, this one autistic and with the ability to count cards and drive a car real good.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, when you're in charge of "Star Trek" if you think those are good ideas you can try them out and see how they fly with the audience.

Abrams is clearly going for an approach far more true and respectful of the original than what you're suggesting.