Why is canon important in a prequel?

[Campe]

- Kirk and Spock together before the 5-year mission.

Where in canon does it state that Kirk and Spock were not together before the 5-year mission?

- rehashing elements of NEM and FC

Such as...?

- an Enterprise that cannot possibly be the original ship just y visual evidence alone.

That's somewhat fair, however we haven't seen the whole ship. We don't know what it looks like in space. Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

- having all the original characters together before the 5-year mission.

See my point about Kirk and Spock. Rinse. Repeat.

This isn't a genuine TOS era film. It's fanfic put to celluloid.

Why? Because they've recast the parts? Because they're trying to bring Trek into the 21st century more than they ever have before? Because, gosh darnit, they might actually be taking some risks in this film? Or is it just because you don't want it to be one? Honestly that's kind of harsh, dude. Its easy to armchair quarterback. Prove yourself with a pen and show me you can produce better "fanfic" than J.J. and his boys.

As for my harangues: it's my fucking OPINION and I'm entitled to voice it as much as anyone has the right to drool endlessly over left over MacDonald's trash. if you don't want to read it then skip my posts.

Personally, I have no problem with dissenting opinions. It takes different strokes to rule the world. However, the way those opinions are voiced may just have something to do with how people to react to those opinions. Especially since, well, Warped, we really don't know a whole heck of a lot about this movie yet.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

- Kirk and Spock together before the 5-year mission.

I don't think Kirk and Spock should 'pal around' prior to the 5-year mission, but I see no problem with them meeting or being on a mission together before the TOS era. Besides, I haven't seen or heard any evidence that Abrams will have them 'pal-ing around".

- rehashing elements of NEM and FC

I suppose if they truly are re-hashing plot elements from NEM and FC, then you may have a point. However, I (nor too many others) know anything about the plot. I'll reserve judgement on this one.

- an Enterprise that cannot possibly be the original ship just y visual evidence alone.

Aesthetic details to me are not canon. In my opinion, for the Enterprise design to be consistent with canon it must have a saucer section with the bridge located in a blister at the top, a mostly cylindical secondary hull, and two cylindrical nacelles supported by relatively thin pylons.

- having all the original characters together before the 5-year mission.

Again, I would agree with you if this ends up being the case. But I don't think the original seven will be together in this film until the very end...and I have the feeling that the part of this film that has all of these characters together will be taking place in the TOS era -- quite possible after WNMHGB.

This isn't a genuine TOS era film. It's fanfic put to celluloid.

I think a film that slavishly and artificially tries to recreate the aesthetics of a 1960s TV show in lieu of simply 'making a TOS Movie in 2008' is more likely to fall under the heading of 'fanfic'.

A film that constrains itself to "Fanon" (not canon) such as "Kirk and Spock never met prior to Kirk's Five-Year Mission" instead of creating NEW canon that is still consistent with the existing is more likely to fall under the heading of 'fanfic'.



EDIT TO ADD:
campe98 -- It looks as if I was composing while you were posting...it's funny how we came up with remarkably similar responses.

By the way, one of my avatars (I rotate among 3 or 4 every few weeks) is similar to yours -- except I photoshopped in Kirk, Spock and McCoy over John, Paul, and Ringo...

Here:

 

[Franklin]

As I think about it, how can this movie actually violate canon? Stay with me, here. OK, they could decide Kirk grew up in New Jersey and his dad was in the "construction business." But the things in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the movies haven't happened yet. It's a long stretch from saying the uniforms are wrong and the Enterprise doesn't look right to saying this story will jeopardize the events that have made up Trek on screen canon for over forty years. Even if they mess with continuity a little bit, the gray areas about what we know about the era of the story are open to their interpretation, not ours.

I think what some people are confusing with adherence to canon is the "r" word. They don't want to see the "history" go away. But, unlike the remakes of the origins of Batman, Superman, or Spiderman, the story Abrams wants to tell hasn't been told yet. For example, FC rewrote canon for what many fans conventionally took as the origin of warp drive (or they certainly played fast and loose with it). But Abrams is telling a story that hasn't been told yet. He is making canon. To the extent that he treads on the old or introduced incongruities, who occasionally hasn't in telling their Trek stories?

 

[blockaderunner]

. I hope this film will be a Star Trek film.

Well I hope that it will be a FILM about Star Trek. I've said this many times on this board. That the best MOVIES trancend the limitations of their genre and become so much more. The Godfather was a MOVIE about the mafia. Citizen Kane was a MOVIE about a newspaper mogul. Unforgiven was a MOVIE about the Old West. A MOVIE about Star Trek has to break the bonds of spatial anomolies and dropping shield percentages to become something so much more. I don't care about canon, continuity, or any of that crap. I just want Abrams to give me a MOVIE about Star Trek. I'll be happy than Mike Rowe in poo!

 

[Avilos]

The costume and production designs have always changed in Star Trek without explanation. From the TOS to TMP, and then to TWOK. An so on and so on...

The fans and the spin-off materials have tried to rationalize all these changes. As if there has always been a natural design progression. But its not true. Often those changes are only for the sake of something new.

So I think its highly ironic that some except those changes under the pretense that its forward in time so it makes sense. Yet any designs that appear earlier than we know or in unseen time periods would have to be completely tied to what has been already seen. As arbitrarily as Starfleet designs and technology have been I would expect it to have been just as much so in the past!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Insisting that the filmmakers hew to non-canonical but popular-with-some-fans silliness like "Kirk and Spock didn't know each other at the Academy" would be the quintessence of "fanfic on the big screen."

The TOS-Onlies can not have what they want.

 

[The Saint]

Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

There is if you're dealing with an established time period. Or would you go for a nuclear-powered, Tomahawk-missile-armed Black Pearl in a Pirates Of The Caribbean sequel?

The whole point of this is that it's supposedly telling the story of what came before TOS. An adventure these characters had on their way to being the characters we're all familiar with. Tear them loose of that established setting, and what's the point? They might as well be entirely different characters with entirely different names, personalities and histories, as long as we're throwing things out.

 

[Michael]

Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

There is if you're dealing with an established time period. Or would you go for a nuclear-powered, Tomahawk-missile-armed Black Pearl in a Pirates Of The Caribbean sequel?

That's maybe one of the most ridiculous analogies I've read on these boards. The "new" Enterprise will still be a starship warping through space. THAT'S the important thing. And judging from the trailer it even looks similar to the original.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

There is if you're dealing with an established time period. Or would you go for a nuclear-powered, Tomahawk-missile-armed Black Pearl in a Pirates Of The Caribbean sequel?

"Star Trek" isn't a period movie - there is no real historical context in which it takes place. The "Star Trek Universe" is completely fantasy, and can be changed and improved without violating a single thing which is actually a fact.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

As I think about it, how can this movie actually violate canon? Stay with me, here. OK, they could decide Kirk grew up in New Jersey and his dad was in the "construction business." But the things in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and the movies haven't happened yet. It's a long stretch from saying the uniforms are wrong and the Enterprise doesn't look right to saying this story will jeopardize the events that have made up Trek on screen canon for over forty years...

It's possible for Abrams to violate canon (such as making the Klingons an enlighten peace-loving race), but I think he would have to go out of his way to do so -- therefore, I don't see Abrams doing anything that will violate canon in an extreme way.

Having said that, I'm sure there may be some minor canonical inconsistencies with this film, but we have been putting up with these inconsistencies for 42 years now and have always used our imaginations to reconcile these inconsistencies with the agreed-upon canon. If we don't give this film the same benefit of the doubt and imaginatively intergrate small inconsistencies into canon, then we would be hypocrites.

Plus, I bet there will be some "fanon" issues that Abrams will violate, but so what -- fanon is not canon. If Abrams sets something to film that violates fanon, but is consistent with canon, then the canon created by the new film that will trump the fanon.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...They might as well be entirely different characters with entirely different names, personalities and histories, as long as we're throwing things out.

All we've seen or heard so far is the teaser that shows a ship that would be INSTANTLY RECOGNIZABLE to even to most casual Star Trek fan, and even many non fans...

...so what exactly are they throwing out?

 

[Basil]

It's curious how so many of these arguments really are thinly veiled debates about the aesthetics of the shows, not simply the consistency of the "facts" presented in them.

For people who want to see "Star Trek" appear more or less like it did in the 60s, the notion of it having modern Trek aesthetics is appaling, and vice versa. Nonetheless, everyone has a limit. The same people who say what the show looks like doesn't matter so long as it retains the spirit of "Star Trek" would probably balk at the notion of replacing all of the white characters with black actors, an almost purely visual conceit which shouldn't be a concern since only with rare exception did the race of any of the characters ever impact the stories. Or we could replace the Starfleet delta with a daisy, emphasizing with even greater symbolism the peaceful nature of the Federation and its exploratory efforts.

For people who say having a good story is more important than any lapses in the established history of Star Trek, we could move the Klingon Empire to the outer planets of our solar system. That would solve the various arguments about just how long it would take to reach them, and so long as the film had a good story, who cares, right? Or why not make Spock's father the human and mother the Vulcan? There's a dynamic rarely addressed, and the juxtaposition would allow the writers to tackle his history with a completely different angle than we've seen before.

 

[Hanover Fiste]

Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

There is if you're dealing with an established time period.

How much of the time period known/rumored to be depicted in Trek XI was previously established on-screen, and how does Trek XI contradict it?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

But what the franchise needs more than anything right now is a compelling story that draws in the masses. If preserving canon makes that goal impossible (which I don't think it does), then canon is a luxury we can no longer afford.

Exactly. Priorities.

Canon violations were, as Sam says, the least of "Enterprise's" problems - actual violations were trivial at most, and yet complained about the loudest from several quarters (I think that extreme conservatism in stories and characterization was a much bigger problem). Making devotion to canon to the degree demanded by some fans a high priority would be a mistake because it's a standard that can't be satisfied.

We've already seen that with online reactions to the teaser trailer and the photos of an unidentified shuttle.

Some people consider adherence to the major outlines of established events in the "Star Trek universe" sufficient as long as they enjoy the movie - this is the only "canonical" standard by which TWOK at the time of its premiere and in fact a good deal of later TOS actually works.

Some people consider devotion to every visual and aural cue they remember (accurately or not) from TOS and other previous Treks an absolute requirement or they become uncomfortable at the inconsistency. That won't work and it only works now because of some extraordinary mental gymnastics that they're willing to undertake for gods-know-what reasons on behalf of the Trek shows they like...yet they have ridiculously strong filters against letting in anything new.

The bottom line is: if someone thinks that different is bad, they won't like this movie.

I agree with all of that, without reservation. And I think that ought to be a candidate for your next sig line, personally.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

- Kirk and Spock together before the 5-year mission.

Where in canon does it state that Kirk and Spock were not together before the 5-year mission?

Answer - Nowhere. In fact, if you accept TWOK as canon, it's clearly indicated in that film that they DID know each other earlier. Primarily, Spock's seemingly personal knowledge of Kirk's Kobayashi Maru solution, both his and McCoy's knowledge of the situation with Carol. Sure, Kirk COULD have sat around at the Enterprise "Coffee clatch" meeting and gossiped about all that, but that isn't something I'd expect (or be willing to accept!) about the guy I grew up idolizing.

Kirk wouldn't talk about those things. The fact that Spock and McCoy know all about them implies that they were THERE.

Furthermore, in "The Man Trap," it's implied that Kirk knows a bit about McCoy's history pre-starfleet... particularly about his relationship with Nancy Crater (though he didn't know about "Plum" )

In my opinion, it's ANTI-CANONICAL to state that the three member of the troika had never met prior to Kirk taking command. I do believe, however, that it's entirely reasonable to assume that they'd never SERVED TOGETHER in a permanent assignment.

(I don't consider Academy training missions to be permanent assignments.)

- rehashing elements of NEM and FC

Such as...?

I tend to agree. I don't see any particular "Nemesis-like" or "First-Contact-like" elements.

Then again, I don't believe that what "Aint it Cool News" told us is the plot is really the plot. I'm in a minority who remain unconvinced that there is any TIME TRAVEL in this movie, or that it's a "mustache-twirling villain" who's going back in time to change history.

Call me stubborn if you like, but I've seen or heard NOTHING to convince me that's anything other than false information which has been let slip by the powers-who-be at PPC because misdirection can be good for a film sometimes!

- an Enterprise that cannot possibly be the original ship just y visual evidence alone.

That's somewhat fair, however we haven't seen the whole ship. We don't know what it looks like in space. Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

That's two points... and worth addressing separately.

1) We don't know exactly what it looks like, or even if that's really "the Enterprise" we know or (as has been hinted at) an "alternate universe" variation...

It is absolutely true that the ship we've seen could not be converted through any currently envisionable process into the ship we already know. And that's the one thing that really, REALLY irks me... it isn't the Enterprise, it's "another version of the Enterprise" and if that's supposed to be the "real" ship, then I'm on the same page as Warped here.

and your second point:

2) "There's nothing wrong with updating a classic?" No... there's nothing wrong with creating an UPDATED VERSION OF A CLASSIC.

Today's Corvettes don't look like 1960's corvettes. They've been updated, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But try to sell someone a cherry, perfect condition 1969 Corvette and then show up with your 1988 Corvette or your 2008 Corvette... and that person isn't gonna be very happy with you!

They are DIFFERENT THINGS.

The original ship is well-known and well-recognized, and there's a LOT to be said for "enhancing" it, as opposed to "updating it" in a way which makes it fundamentally different.

(FYI - This is my favorite "enhanced" 1701 shot... not my work, see the artist's sig line on the image)
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6066/drdnewent1cn9.jpg

(Cary, I'm converting this to a link because it's stretching the page. If you want to get another version that's not larger than 800x600 to replace it, that's perfectly all right. - M' )

That's not the same model we had in the 1960s, but it's identical in every meaningful way while still looking much improved. "Enhanced" not "revised."

- having all the original characters together before the 5-year mission.

See my point about Kirk and Spock. Rinse. Repeat.

I disagree here. I can accept Kirk knowing a few members of his crew prior to TOS, and having asked to have them assigned to his command. Senior members (Mitchell, McCoy... Spock was probably still there, so Kirk probably didn't have to ASK for him... maybe even Scotty). But it would reek to high heaven of "bad commander" if a ship's captain brought along his "cadet training cruise" crew to his new command. It's just... sick. Seriously, imagine you were a "normal" crewmember assigned to Enterprise and you found out that your new Captain had brought along all his cutesy-cutesy-buddy-buddies and was going to form a little "clique" that would include them and pretty much exclude everyone else???

DUMB. So I'm on Warped's side on this point. I'm hopeful that we won't see very much of these guys... Sulu, Chekov, Uhura, etc... because it just smells bad to me for them to have been part of Kirk's life prior to his command of Enterprise.

This isn't a genuine TOS era film. It's fanfic put to celluloid.

Why? Because they've recast the parts? Because they're trying to bring Trek into the 21st century more than they ever have before? Because, gosh darnit, they might actually be taking some risks in this film? Or is it just because you don't want it to be one? Honestly that's kind of harsh, dude. Its easy to armchair quarterback. Prove yourself with a pen and show me you can produce better "fanfic" than J.J. and his boys.

I think BOTH perspectives from the above quotes are just goofy.

Here's the blunt truth of the matter. NOT ONE GODDAMNED PERSON ON THIS BBS HAS READ THE SCRIPT AND COMMENTED ON IT IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. If there are people who've read a script... they're not going to make EITHER of the above comments.

The few people on here who have seen a script seem to be more comfortable about the plot. Whether or not that comfort is justified is something everyone else here will have to wait another year to really be able to answer.

Is the script divinely inspired? Is it utter and complete crap? Is there ANY TIME TRAVEL in it? Is Bana's character really a villain? Do the "second banana" characters have more than three or four minutes of total screen-time a piece?

Nobody who CAN say, WILL say... and the rest of the folks here simply can't say.

As for my harangues: it's my fucking OPINION and I'm entitled to voice it as much as anyone has the right to drool endlessly over left over MacDonald's trash. if you don't want to read it then skip my posts.

Personally, I have no problem with dissenting opinions. It takes different strokes to rule the world. However, the way those opinions are voiced may just have something to do with how people to react to those opinions. Especially since, well, Warped, we really don't know a whole heck of a lot about this movie yet.

I agree with BOTH sets of statements above.

I find it utterly INFURIATING when someone tells someone they disagree with to "shut the fuck up" just because of disagreement (ie, not because of actual MISCONDUCT). And it's even MORE infuriating when it comes from someone in a position of authority... so I'm 100% behind Warped on this point. I've been on the receiving end of that more than once myself, and it's probably the WORST thing that someone can do in a discussion, in my opinion.

Note that I'm not attributing that attitude to Campe98 here... just fyi. I actually rather agree with his comment, too... ie, that it's a bit premature to start ASSUMING that we know things about this film that, honestly, we don't.

People who are big fans of the supposed plot, or people who are big opponents of it... both are making the same mistake. They're ASSUMING things that they don't know, and insisting that their personal opinion be treated as fact.

Warped... you may well be proven to be right, and if so, I'll be right there with you with the pitchfork and torch. But let's be a bit more patient and see if there's really JUSTIFICATION for it before we start sharpening up our tynes and wrapping up the oil-soaked rags on the end... 'K?

 

[Hanover Fiste]

If I see anything but grainy stock footage of a giant, misoriented studio model, I'm walking out of the theater.

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Besides, there's nothing wrong with updating a classic.

There is if you're dealing with an established time period. Or would you go for a nuclear-powered, Tomahawk-missile-armed Black Pearl in a Pirates Of The Caribbean sequel?

"Star Trek" isn't a period movie - there is no real historical context in which it takes place. The "Star Trek Universe" is completely fantasy, and can be changed and improved without violating a single thing which is actually a fact.

Well, it's a fact that the 1701 design is the single most recognized science-fiction "icon" of all time (I can't recall the survey I'm taking that from but I remember reading it, just a few years back).

The "facts" we're talking about are REAL facts... not about the sort of stuff you get from reading the TNG tech manual. Rather the facts are "what do people know, what are they familiar with, what do they recognize?"

Those are REAL FACTS. I find it fascinating how so many in "Trek fandom" (and I'm including EVERYONE HERE among that number!) seem to think that they're part of some special club and that nobody else knows ANYTHING about the stuff we've all "specialized" in.

Not true. The world is FULL of people who know a lot about Star Trek. It's gone beyond simple TV and really is partially across the border into "mythology." Yes, most won't know what a "sarium krellide power cell" is (and thank GOD for that! ) but most will know what a Phaser is, how it works, etc, etc, without needing to be told. Most will know who Spock is, but most won't know that his mom was a teacher... nor should they have to.

To claim that "it's entirely make-believe and thus it can totally change without consequence" (which is a commonly-posited refrain in these threads) is just wrong. The argument that Dennis made, above, isn't the only one I've heard, but it's typical.

NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT STAR TREK IS REAL. And yet that is the apparent "point of contention" of this particular argument. That's the ultimate "straw man."

What is real is that people know what Star Trek is, and what it isn't... and if you give the audience things that don't fit with what they know... they're not going to be happy.

Get the combination to Kirk's safe wrong and you might annoy a half dozen really... interesting... individuals. Make Spock a Blorfiloonian instead of a Vulcan and everyone will know it... even people who've never seen the show but have left their plastic bubbles a few times in their lives!

Respecting canon and history is not the same as slavishly serving it up. It's just a matter of avoiding UNNECESSARILY and UNJUSTIFIABLY altering things. Because every time you alter something, you push your audience a bit further away from your show and will have to work that much harder to draw them back in!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...The same people who say what the show looks like doesn't matter so long as it retains the spirit of "Star Trek" would probably balk at the notion of replacing all of the white characters with black actors, an almost purely visual conceit which shouldn't be a concern since only with rare exception did the race of any of the characters ever impact the stories...

I actually had a long-going debate on the IMDB message boards a last year saying this same thing.

I argued that IN PRINCIPLE there is no reason why Kirk could not be played by a black actor, and that nothing Kirk ever said or did would necessarily be identified as being "white" (whatever that means). I went on to say that if a blind person were experience all of Star Trek, there would be no way for the blind person to identify the color of Kirk's skin.

However, I qualified that debate with the fact that I personally want the actors and the aesthetics to bear some sort of resemblance to the originals...for instance, a 6'6"-tall fair-skinned swedish actor playing Kirk would be equally as undesirable as a black man playing Kirk -- AND I would also be opposed to making the Enterprise look like the 'Galatica'. So I was personally opposed to a black Kirk because I think ST:XI needs to be recognizable as TOS, but not opposed to the principle that nothing about Kirk was necessarily "white".

Oh boy! That was a heated debate.

So to respond to your post, I'm all for making some aesthetic changes, but I have my limits -- it must still look like Star Trek to the casual fan. Therefore no black actor for Kirk, nor a 6'6"-tall blonde-haired swedish actor either. Conversely, if I ever change my mind and end my opposition to a blonde swedish-looking Kirk, then I will also end my opposition to a black Kirk for the same reason.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The same people who say what the show looks like doesn't matter so long as it retains the spirit of "Star Trek" would probably balk at the notion of replacing all of the white characters with black actors, an almost purely visual conceit which shouldn't be a concern since only with rare exception did the race of any of the characters ever impact the stories.

That's a good example - people do obsess over that kind of thing. Even introducing a Vulcan played by an African-American actor in "Voyager" was a source of complaint.

For people who say having a good story is more important than any lapses in the established history of Star Trek, we could move the Klingon Empire to the outer planets of our solar system. That would solve the various arguments about just how long it would take to reach them, and so long as the film had a good story, who cares, right? Or why not make Spock's father the human and mother the Vulcan? There's a dynamic rarely addressed, and the juxtaposition would allow the writers to tackle his history with a completely different angle than we've seen before.

All of these strike me as valid possibilities rather than reasons for complaint - it all depends on the approach that the people refreshing Trek choose to take. Changing the gender of known characters and casting without regard to the race of the actors who had previously played the parts has worked fine for the new "Battlestar Galactica," IMAO.

The only thing certain here is: We have had this debate before, and we will have it again.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I think the canon issue will be the main point of the film. Imagine Older Spock going back in time and in the opening scene he says, "But this isn't the way it was" or something more logical sounding and then all canon issues will be moot right off the bat. The characters may look and act differently. Known events may not happen as we so fondly remember them. Etc. etc. And you know what? That may be the best way to go. Then you, me and Moviegoer Joe can sit back and watch a new universe unfold for these characters for which we have obvious affection -- because its them, but it isn't. And the thing is we won't know what's in store for them down the road. Will their new adventures mirror what has come before? Will their adversaries be the same? Will they all... survive?