Trek XI "changes" : Blasphemy or not?
- Thread starter Finnegan
- Start date
As James Cawley kindly pointed out in his editorial on TrekMovie.com, we've had varying interpretations of the Batman and Bond franchises over the years, and no one gets quite so het up over the continuity and "canon" issues they tend to throw out at regular intervals.
As long as JJ's version of Star Trek remains true to the ideals and spirit of TOS, it's close enough for me. Expecting a film produced in 2009 to adhere to every single piece of canon established over 40 years ago (no matter how silly), and to carry over the design aesthetic of a 1960's television series to a $150 million motion picture is utterly absurd.
So no, the changes are most definitely NOT blasphemous. I'd go so far as to say they're relevant and necessary in order to modernise Trek and tell a decent origin story for the characters.
As long as JJ's version of Star Trek remains true to the ideals and spirit of TOS, it's close enough for me. Expecting a film produced in 2009 to adhere to every single piece of canon established over 40 years ago (no matter how silly), and to carry over the design aesthetic of a 1960's television series to a $150 million motion picture is utterly absurd.
So no, the changes are most definitely NOT blasphemous. I'd go so far as to say they're relevant and necessary in order to modernise Trek and tell a decent origin story for the characters.
It's a piece of commercial entertainment with its own canon.How the hell can one even blaspheme against a piece of commercial entertainment?
No blasphemy, looks good. I don't really care if it fits in with "canon." The whole idea is rather stupid.
It's a piece of commercial entertainment with its own canon.How the hell can one even blaspheme against a piece of commercial entertainment?
And its own True Believers. Heresy isn't much of an issue without would-be inquisitioners.
I think "blasphemy" is an overused and rather melodramatic term to be using for this situation, and the thought alone doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
The Star Trek that the "canonistas" hold so sacred isn't going ANYWHERE. It'll continue to live on in reruns, DVD, novels, comic books, fan fiction, etc. Shatner's Kirk and Nimoy's Spock, along with the rest of the gang, will continue to live on in the hearts of all Trek fans. I daresay that if new fans are gained from the release of this movie, those who may not have ever seen a single Star Trek episode before, they'll be tempted to go back and check out TOS to see what inspired the new movie. I know I would.
During this movie's evolution, I kept cringing whenever Abrams and his crew would talk about how their vision of Star Trek would be respectful to the original material and how it would be faithful to canon. I wish they wouldn't have made such lofty promises, because there are those amongst us who I'm convinced were bound and determined to keep him at his word, and any deviation would be considered a...well...a "blasphemy". I really wish Abrams, Orci, and the rest would've stepped up, been brutally honest, and said something like this:
"I'm not worried about what this will do to Star Trek. I have a hard time believing anything I do to the franchise could cause any more damage than has already been done in recent years. I believe Star Trek needs a fresh start in order to remain relevent and evolve beyond its current state, and if that means going against certain canonical elements, then so be it. The fans will simply choose to get on board with our vision, or they won't. My goal is to make an entertaining, exciting motion picture. If it pleases the fans, so much the better. If it doesn't, I won't lose too much sleep over it."
The Star Trek that the "canonistas" hold so sacred isn't going ANYWHERE. It'll continue to live on in reruns, DVD, novels, comic books, fan fiction, etc. Shatner's Kirk and Nimoy's Spock, along with the rest of the gang, will continue to live on in the hearts of all Trek fans. I daresay that if new fans are gained from the release of this movie, those who may not have ever seen a single Star Trek episode before, they'll be tempted to go back and check out TOS to see what inspired the new movie. I know I would.
During this movie's evolution, I kept cringing whenever Abrams and his crew would talk about how their vision of Star Trek would be respectful to the original material and how it would be faithful to canon. I wish they wouldn't have made such lofty promises, because there are those amongst us who I'm convinced were bound and determined to keep him at his word, and any deviation would be considered a...well...a "blasphemy". I really wish Abrams, Orci, and the rest would've stepped up, been brutally honest, and said something like this:
"I'm not worried about what this will do to Star Trek. I have a hard time believing anything I do to the franchise could cause any more damage than has already been done in recent years. I believe Star Trek needs a fresh start in order to remain relevent and evolve beyond its current state, and if that means going against certain canonical elements, then so be it. The fans will simply choose to get on board with our vision, or they won't. My goal is to make an entertaining, exciting motion picture. If it pleases the fans, so much the better. If it doesn't, I won't lose too much sleep over it."
Yeah, you're probably right, TV execs are nothing if not total cowards, not a risk taker in sight. (although Futurama made it back - ok, its a cartoon....) I'll cross my fingers for a movie based on ENT then, although I think ST XI might have made that unlikely, so I'll worry about XI doing that instead.
If only they hadn't chosen that track for ENT's opening credits, they might have retained another couple of million viewers....
On the other hand neither Batman or Bond represent an entire Universe with its own timeline over hundreds of years...
Fortunately, Star Trek has enough flexibility due to alternate timelines and universes to cope with a little "canon abuse". (Not to mention its fictional, so the real canon is in your own head!. - Hope that wasn't a blasphemous remark.
)How the hell can one even blaspheme against a piece of commercial entertainment?
That's what they said after someone wrote the Bible!
Yeah, that.How the hell can one even blaspheme against a piece of commercial entertainment?
As it does not involve God or religion, it cannot be blasphemous.
One thing: Someone define for me the "spirit" of TOS, please?
If it means the Utopia, there-is-no-money, there-is-nothing-bad philosophy of Trek that is so popular to define as the "Spirit" of Trek...Well, I hope that has a hole put in it. Actually, many holes. Many fatal holes. (I respect Gene Roddenberry, I just think he's a lot like other authors and "key names" behind sci-fi: The editors are there to protect us from their dumber moments. When they're unleashed from their editors, really bad things happen.)
If you mean "An action-adventure series that occasionally makes you think in ways that are intriguing and do not produce headaches", then we're talking.
If it means the Utopia, there-is-no-money, there-is-nothing-bad philosophy of Trek that is so popular to define as the "Spirit" of Trek...Well, I hope that has a hole put in it. Actually, many holes. Many fatal holes. (I respect Gene Roddenberry, I just think he's a lot like other authors and "key names" behind sci-fi: The editors are there to protect us from their dumber moments. When they're unleashed from their editors, really bad things happen.)
If you mean "An action-adventure series that occasionally makes you think in ways that are intriguing and do not produce headaches", then we're talking.
I would disagree both franchises contain their own universes with a timeline of events that's how fiction works.
I'm thinking its this one.
Sharr
I think in a larger sense, the "spirit" of Star Trek, as Roddenberry originally saw it, was to show a positive, uplifting future for mankind. All the various races of humans (and aliens) working side by side, for some constructive, perceived common good--in Treks' case, exploration, scientific advancement, the triumph of diplomacy over warfare, and a respect for the inherent worth of all sentient beings. That's always been my take on his original vision, anyway.
Well, except for Star Trek V. But what does God need with a redesign?
I'm happy I'm getting what looks to be an exciting Star Trek movie. I do wish that they'd kept a little closer to the original designs for the ship and sets, OR go completely in the opposite direction and re-envision everything with bold, contemporary ideas from science and science fiction.
I suspect I'll be a fairly happy man on May 8th.
I suspect I'll be a fairly happy man on May 8th.
Similar threads
