• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Why is canon important in a prequel?

Samuel T. Cogley said:
"Star Trek: Enterprise" was mostly terrible, but canon violations were the least of its problems.

Abrams and Co. have stated that telling a story in existing continuity is a priority for them, and I think -- for the most part -- that's what we'll get.

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.
Click to expand...
Well Said.
 
Why am I noticing that the moment someone presents a new idea... I'd hate to do a new series or movie these days... the orthodox canonists would kill any new idea or perspective before it ever left the ground. Compared to them, Hollywood is easy...
 
Look at canon to be like the known history of the subject. The history in Star Trek is why we became fans of the show. Keep the look and feel by respecting the history of what is known.

That does not mean that new things can't be added. Something complimenting the history we do know- enriching it.

All that can be done without changing what we know. Obviously leeway has to be given for inconsistencies, but that has always been the case in Star Trek. Enterprise gave a decent account of why Klingons look the way they do. Calling the Enterprise an Almost entirely new ship in The Motion Picture explains a new model. And calling all of Data's cats Spot, while they obviously were not all the same cat- well, that was just a silly inconsistency that no one really cares about anyway.

Canon=History. It does not mean that the movie can't have new updated visually compelling stuff.
 
Except that canon is not history, so there's no reason to look at it as if it is. It should not be treated with the same priority that actual history is (and historical accuracy, especially regarding detail, is something that Hollywood has played fast and loose with in pursuit of good stories and design since the beginnings of the film industry).
 
Basil said:
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.
Click to expand...
They're arguably one and the same. Visual continuity and plot continuity are both forms of continuity.

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.
Click to expand...
I don't care if they throw out everything but the kitchen sink and then laser the sink into oblivion; provided that the resulting film is something I enjoy. If I feel some of the changes don't work; though, I will note so. So I don't really have a limit for this kind of thing in principle. :)
 
Kegek said:
They're arguably one and the same. Visual continuity and plot continuity are both forms of continuity.
Click to expand...

But if you're going to even pretend to maintain anything resembling a reasonable perspective in this context, they cannot be handled with equal priority. This argument effectively ends with everyone agreeing they don't want a multi-bazillion dollar film released in 2009 to be identical in costumes and set construction as something produced in the 60s.
 
Starship Polaris said:
Except that canon is not history, so there's no reason to look at it as if it is. It should not be treated with the same priority that actual history is (and historical accuracy, especially regarding detail, is something that Hollywood has played fast and loose with in pursuit of good stories and design since the beginnings of the film industry).
Click to expand...

Well you are right to some extent.

Canon is a rule, or law... However in the context of how Canon has been used, it has become what is historical in Star Trek.

History it self, is the record of past events. Events that as a rule, once having happened, can not be changed.

Of course laws and rules change- but again, I maintain that in the context of how canon has been applied to the Star Trek universe, what is canon has become history.

You can ADD to it. But by altering it, you only take away that known history.
You can interpret it differently, but if it is recorded as it happened, then you can not alter it.

And history can not be changed in its purest form.

Now for my disclaimer:
 
Last edited:
For Enterprise and now the new re-do and do-over Star Trek 11...

Forget the Canon.

Let creative freedom ring!
 
Starship Polaris said:
...(and historical accuracy, especially regarding detail, is something that Hollywood has played fast and loose with in pursuit of good stories and design since the beginnings of the film industry).
Click to expand...

Next you're going to try to tell us that Robin Hood didn't sound like Kevin Costner. :rolleyes:
 
Samuel T. Cogley said:
Starship Polaris said:
...(and historical accuracy, especially regarding detail, is something that Hollywood has played fast and loose with in pursuit of good stories and design since the beginnings of the film industry).
Click to expand...

Next you're going to try to tell us that Robin Hood didn't sound like Kevin Costner. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

HEY! Costner's accent was spot on!!! :lol::guffaw::guffaw::guffaw:Oh man, I couldn't type that without laughing!
 
Doge said:
number6 said:
The Saint said:
A title which should have been followed with: Really, It's Star Trek! We promise! *snicker! chuckle!*
Click to expand...
Are you here to express a real opinion, or to troll Enterprise fans?

I suspect the latter..
Click to expand...


some could dinterpret your comments as trolling too...
Click to expand...
Doge, number6 was advised back on the first page that in-thread is not the place to address that topic. I will remind him, since he has seemingly forgotten, and advise you as well to take it through appropriate channels, if you wish, but to drop it here.
 
M'Sharak, I think you are trolling Doge and number6!








:p No, just kidding. I think you do a remarkably good job as a mod on this forum. :bolian:
 
Remember that "Trials and Tribblations" is canon :). Maybe the entire movie will be created using clips from old episodes ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology
6 7 8
Replies
157
Views
7K
Iamnotspock
Iamnotspock
Trek Writers Room
STAR TREK: Expedition 8180 - Episode 3 "Fly Me to the Moon"
Replies
14
Views
1K
Trek Writers Room
Trek Writers Room
Trek Writers Room
STAR TREK: Expedition 8180 - Episode 1
Replies
8
Views
1K
Trek Writers Room
Trek Writers Room
Trek Writers Room
  • Locked
STAR TREK: Expedition 8180 - Introduction
Replies
1
Views
911
Oddish
Oddish
Starscape
Contest: ENTER March 2025 Art Challenge - Suggest Your Themes!
Replies
2
Views
516
Starscape
Starscape
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top