Who Wanted This To Be A Remake? Who Didn't?

[Ovation]

TeutonicNights said:

It's FICTION.

Yeah it is. No one is denying that. But the conclusions drawn from this fact by some people is quite strange.
Why do we consume fictional works? Do we want to see Tolkien's writing style or Nick Meyer's art of direction? Partly, yes. But we also want to dive into that fictional world, we pretend it's real for the time being. And we'd feel betrayed if the writers (whose job is to make that happen) neglect the inner coherence, the continuity.
And it's a canon that has been developed for 40 years that may be sacrificed. I think that should make anybody think twice about messing around with it.

It's EXACTLY BECAUSE OF "40 years of canon" that I want to see a fresh take. These are iconic characters and an interesting premise--let someone cut loose. When Frank Miller did the "Dark Knight" series in the mid-eighties, it side-stepped canon where it needed in order to do something fresh. When the entire "multiverse" of DC was collapsed, also in the mid-eighties, and Superman's continuity was dramatically altered, it was also to do something "fresh". I didn't cry and moan "now all my DC comics are meaningless because "Crisis" changed everything". I still read and enjoyed my pre-Crisis DC collection (nothing will ever "invalidate" O'Neil and Adams' run on Batman and Green Lantern/Green Arrow, for example) but I ALSO enjoyed the new take on Superman (I've been out of the comics loop for about five or six years now, so I don't know what's going on these days, but the principle is the same). Later on, the "electric" Superman came along and, well, it sucked (only Grant Morrison in JLA could make it work--the regular titles were painful). I hear the "multiverse" is back, now.

I don't need my fiction to be internally consistent with 40 years of "canon"--what a load to bear. I need my fiction to be internally consistent with itself (within a film, a novel, or a preset series thereof). Tolkien's "world" is a fascinating one and one I enjoy, but he didn't write hundreds of novels and stories. And he's a bad analogy anyway, as the number of people responsible for creating and maintaining his "universe" was/is quite limited.

Even Trek novels are not immune from continuity violations (at least old ones--I'm not up on the new ones--too many to keep up with and I have less time for my own pursuits what with a family and a job and all). One of my favourites is "The Final Reflection". Doesn't jibe much with "canon" but I still enjoy it. Diane Duane's Rihanssu (sp?) series is also good but not really in line with "canon". What about the first TNG (I say "first" because there may be others) novel set in the "mirror universe"? The Terran Empire did not fall and humans were still the dominant bad guys. Then along comes DS9.

As far as I know, Trek novels (until recently with the 'relaunches') were NOT canon. This did not invalidate onscreen Trek nor did it make the novels pointless.

It's the same with this new movie. If it is "canon", fine. If not, I don't care. I want to see a good movie set in A recognizable Trek "universe" with the iconic characters. I DON'T want the makers of this film to be obsessed with "Gary Mitchell" or "Areel Shaw" or "Finnegan" or... Any "canon" should be incidental to the movie, not central to it.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

^ Well, but I think the point is that on-screen Trek *is* canon...while the novels were never considered such.

I don't think most people care about the novels violating canon, because it was established early on that they were NOT canon.

However, even TPTB within Trek have been very clear in their distinction: if it's on-screen, it's canon.

THEY said that. Not the fans.

And in my view, canon should be internally consistent. Maybe not to the most minuscule and absurd detail, but certainly with regard to established characters' backstory or 'historical' events.

Now...if they want to make an alternative universe film...that would be one way of doing what they like. Certainly, an alternative universe gives the writers all sorts of freedom.

Or, they could make a film that they specifically state is NOT canon. But in that case, there is the chance that many fans would disregard it and relegate it to comic book status, like TAS.

But I do agree with Ron Moore. If you want to take on Trek as a writer, director, or even actor, you have to do your homework. Because if you don't, you will piss off huge segments of the already shrinking fan base who have put years of their entertainment-related lives into caring about this universe.

Canon is one of the things that makes Trek what it is. It is one of the things that gives it it's 'cult' status.

Once they start disregarding that, you are no longer left with a cohesive universe. And once you have no cohesive universe, you risk losing that segment of fans who feel the need to watch EVERYTHING....because they want to know everything about THE (as in, singular) Trek Universe.