Will Star Trek XI be "canon" ?

Done.


Next?

 

Any changes that happen and all that I'm just going to view it like I view another franchise...James Bond.

I don't think about how Daniel Craig can somehow be in modern times and also there's Sean Connery stopping Auric Goldfinger in the 60s.

 

James Bond was never meant to have an established canon or continuity from movie to movie. Bond is much like playing a new Zelda game and fighting Gannon over and over again in a new universe (like Batman). Star Trek, on the other hand, is one the largest and most developed fictional universes since the Lord of the Rings.

And yes, by "canon" I do mean a "story that occurs sometime after Enterprise and before TOS." It doesn't have to be part of JJ's vision, it just has to connect somehow.

 

Then you need another word, because that is not what "canon" means - not no way, not ever.

 

Agreed.

Every new Bond is, by definition, a reboot. Daniel Craig was no more, and no less, of one than any other new actor playing the role.

Trek XI, on the other hand, isn't as much of a reboot, since it takes the original timeline into account and even preserves it. It's not a nuBSG-style thing.

And yes, it's canon. As has correctly been pointed out, canon and continuity are not synonymous. Trek XI will be both, actually...

 

I think abandoning the old Trek universe instead of erasing it was probably more respectful than we deserve. The filmmakers could have done anything they wanted to, afterall.

 

Nothing has been abandoned.

We have no idea what ST XII, or any future novels or series, will involve.

Even if Abrams himself makes any film sequels, he could make them any way he wants. In either timeline. And if the sequels are made by somebody else, they could do the same.

 

Knowing Pocket Books we'll still get classic timeline novels and stories just to appease the more devoted and older fanbase. That's been their bread and butter for years now.

 

1. As Dennis pointed out, that isn't what canon means.

2. Why is this so important to some people? Why does it have to be the same continuity/universe in order to be entertaining? I've never watched Trek because of some huge supposedly interlocking fictional universe. I watch it because its entertaining. If the new film is entertaining then I'm happy.

 

Success honors only success. The box-office haul for Dark Knight did not lead to a new Catwoman sequel or a new spin-off set in Burton's batuniverse. The novels, however, could very well keep the old universe going. Since they are not canon, I can see them continuing for as long as sales hold up.

 

I still don't understand the poster who, even if the movie is a massive success, will dismiss the entire movie as being crap if Gary Mitchell isn't in it. Doing what? Doesn't matter, so long as he's in it. But it does show you the mentality of some of the posters here.

 

Oh, I use the term "in continuity" for that. And no, I don't think this movie is in the same continuity as all of the other Trek before it. It really just doesn't look like it takes place after Enterprise and before TOS. I think the goal of the filmmakers and CBS was to make a brand new, separate continuity.

 

Bingo! That was the whole point, and its just as canonical as the continuity that birthed it since the owners (the only people involved who have the legal right to do such, fans DO NOT) have labeled it to be "Star Trek".

Sharr

 

Bond strikes me as more analogous to Doctor Who (sans regeneration scenes, of course) than anything else. As for Trek, I agree, this "prequel" looks like it's really going to be just a reboot in disguise. If there is to be a follow-up to this movie the only way they could keep the "original" Trek universe in it would be to do another time-travel or alt-universe story that ties in with this one, and that would get pretty old eventually. Sooner or later Abrams-Trek will have to cut loose from the "original" Trek universe continuity-wise, and then sink or swim on its own.

 

Canon is irrelevent.

What you should be asking is, "Will this be a good story?"

 

Unless the movie is going to be worshiped and reverently recited, what the hell does it matter? Is someone going to be burned to death forty years in the future for watching non-canon Trek? Seriously now.

 

There was a kid who famously committed suicide giving the cancellation of the original Battlestar Galactica as the reason. Doubtless there were far deeper and more serious issues there.

 

No. It won't.
It's an Abomination.

 

I don't think canon really matters anymore.

Vote with your dollars, one movie/episode/book/comic at a time, based on quality (not canon-pressure) from here on out, folks.

 

"Star Trek Canon" is just a piece of thread that hold 62 pearls and 664 rabbit turds together in one long necklace of fluctuating value.