The TC wasn't really asking if XI is canon, he was rather asking how this movie relates to the continuity and canon of the previous Trek.
People really need to relax.
People really need to relax.
Will Star Trek XI be "canon" ?
- Thread starter Danoz
- Start date
Random guy?
My sources have never been wrong. e.g. Old Porthos being in the movie, George Takei playing old Checkov, etc.
It almost worked, but he forgot about the Butterfly Effect. That's the real reason Picard's uniform became red...
Canon doesn't work that way. Its not up to the individual fan.
If its on screen (and isn't TAS) , its canon. Isn't that right?
So Threshold and TATV are, sadly, canon.
Trek XI was produced officially, is a cinema release, not a fanfilm, etc. How can it not be canon?
So Threshold and TATV are, sadly, canon.
Trek XI was produced officially, is a cinema release, not a fanfilm, etc. How can it not be canon?
I guess that both "old timeline" and "new timeline" novels could be written and published in the future. In fact, the first "new timeline" novel is being published with Alan Dean Foster's novelization next month. And you could perhaps interpret "Countdown" as an old timeline/new timeline crossover.
Of course there's a strong possibility that all "new timeline" stuff needs to be authorized by Abrams, Orci and/or Kurtzman (especially if there's a Trek XII), while "old timeline" authors retain a greater autonomy and freedom. OT and NT will then subsequently ignore each other for the most part (except for future crossovers maybe?).
As for Memory Alpha... I don't know to what extent the folks over there have already discussed this, but there are two options:
1) Trying to work the new information into already existing articles (new timeline's "alternate" Kirk getting a separate paragraph in the article on James T. Kirk etc.).
2) Creating separate pages for information regarding Star Trek XI. This is also the way how the Mirror Universe stuff is handled, with articles such as "James T. Kirk (mirror)", "Starfleet (mirror)", "ISS Enterprise"...
The Battlestar Wiki also maintains separate pages on "Adama (TOS)", "William Adama", "Galactica (TOS)", "Galactica (RDM)"... but in this case it makes even more sense, because those are two entirely different franchises instead of two different in-universe timelines/realities.
Last edited:
Pocket is, in fact, getting ready to publish novels based on the new timeline.
Of course, the key problem with this whole idea is that this film isn't really aimed at people who read much, so...
Of course, the key problem with this whole idea is that this film isn't really aimed at people who read much, so...
I don't follow.
The fact is anything that Paramount wants to film is canon. Period. Even if it makes zero sense. They could make a movie where Mirror Spock is the father of NuKirk and the alien nazis from Enterprise are the nurses at his birth.
SO WE ARE LUCKY THAT THEY ARE EVEN DOING A SINGLE THING TO CATER TO US, CANON-WISE.
It's a simple concept. According to Countdown, the old timeline still exists and now we are watching a different one. That's all there is to it. It's all canon. Nothing to debate, really.
SO WE ARE LUCKY THAT THEY ARE EVEN DOING A SINGLE THING TO CATER TO US, CANON-WISE.
It's a simple concept. According to Countdown, the old timeline still exists and now we are watching a different one. That's all there is to it. It's all canon. Nothing to debate, really.
^ Not to convince the Unbelievers of.
I've seen people receive perfect explanations of what's happening here and they still respond with; "It overwrites Trek, blah blah, blah".
The Old way of always preserving the timeline in time travel episodes in Trek is, in some, so deeply imprinted they may never get this film, go to their graves believing it overwrites everything prior.
I've seen people receive perfect explanations of what's happening here and they still respond with; "It overwrites Trek, blah blah, blah".
The Old way of always preserving the timeline in time travel episodes in Trek is, in some, so deeply imprinted they may never get this film, go to their graves believing it overwrites everything prior.
He's calling the majority of people who will see this film, the casual-to-non Trek fan, illiterate morons.
It's his modus operandi. Oh well, pot and kettle...
according to Lindelof and Orci, this movie uses stuff from the novels, especially Best Destiny etc... seems to me that, henceforth, books are canon, as well.
How about, "some of this stuff happened in one movie" and "the rest of this stuff happened in another movie?"
My post above was partly a joke, but the more I think about the term "canon," the more useless it becomes.
The attorney in me finds the definition of canon to be only slightly more accurate than urban legend. I've seen it 'defined' differently by different posters. It seems to differ depending on who is defining it and the time period in which it is defined. When asked to cite to authority for the definition, I've seen references to various magazines, fanzines, novels, etc.
So, operating from one of the loose definitions that we seems to throw around here, "canon" is anything shown onscreen, minus TAS.
So, what does that do for us?
Does it guarantee us consistency? No. We've seen multiple 'canon contradictions' which cannot be explained away (except by the most fervent fanboys).
Does it guarantee us continuity? No. Same as above.
Does it guarantee us quality? I think 99% of even the most hardcore Trek fans will agree that we have had a lot of clunkers which fall squarely within canon.
So what does saying that Star Trek XI is canon really mean?
Since we can't say what it guarantees us, we are left to reverse engineer the meaning of the word from the definition. (A definition which is vague and changing and mysterious as to both its origins and its current meaning/application.)
So, if we are to assume that Star Trek XI is canon, it really only means two things:
1) It will be shown on-screen.
...and...
2) It is not TAS.
So, with much profundity, I pronounce with absolute authority to all that can hear me:
STAR TREK XI WILL BE SHOWN ONSCREEN AND IS NOT TAS!
To this I wholeheartedly say, "Who gives a fuck?"
That's pretty much useless.
And yet, like Bele and Lokai, we fight and fight and fight about it.
This deep thought was generated by a long mountain hike just outside of Palm Springs, California, followed by copious amounts of wine drank/drunk/drancken in the hot sun. So forgive my spelling/grammar/logic errors.
The attorney in me finds the definition of canon to be only slightly more accurate than urban legend. I've seen it 'defined' differently by different posters. It seems to differ depending on who is defining it and the time period in which it is defined. When asked to cite to authority for the definition, I've seen references to various magazines, fanzines, novels, etc.
So, operating from one of the loose definitions that we seems to throw around here, "canon" is anything shown onscreen, minus TAS.
So, what does that do for us?
Does it guarantee us consistency? No. We've seen multiple 'canon contradictions' which cannot be explained away (except by the most fervent fanboys).
Does it guarantee us continuity? No. Same as above.
Does it guarantee us quality? I think 99% of even the most hardcore Trek fans will agree that we have had a lot of clunkers which fall squarely within canon.
So what does saying that Star Trek XI is canon really mean?
Since we can't say what it guarantees us, we are left to reverse engineer the meaning of the word from the definition. (A definition which is vague and changing and mysterious as to both its origins and its current meaning/application.)
So, if we are to assume that Star Trek XI is canon, it really only means two things:
1) It will be shown on-screen.
...and...
2) It is not TAS.
So, with much profundity, I pronounce with absolute authority to all that can hear me:
STAR TREK XI WILL BE SHOWN ONSCREEN AND IS NOT TAS!
To this I wholeheartedly say, "Who gives a fuck?"
That's pretty much useless.
And yet, like Bele and Lokai, we fight and fight and fight about it.
This deep thought was generated by a long mountain hike just outside of Palm Springs, California, followed by copious amounts of wine drank/drunk/drancken in the hot sun. So forgive my spelling/grammar/logic errors.
If I didn't keep getting distracted by an avatar showing a sombrero'd dog getting his engineering hull penis substitute cut off I'd probably say that the above post was a point well made.My post above was partly a joke, but the more I think about the term "canon," the more useless it becomes.
The attorney in me finds the definition of canon to be only slightly more accurate than urban legend. I've seen it 'defined' differently by different posters. It seems to differ depending on who is defining it and the time period in which it is defined. When asked to cite to authority for the definition, I've seen references to various magazines, fanzines, novels, etc.
So, operating from one of the loose definitions that we seems to throw around here, "canon" is anything shown onscreen, minus TAS.
So, what does that do for us?
Does it guarantee us consistency? No. We've seen multiple 'canon contradictions' which cannot be explained away (except by the most fervent fanboys).
Does it guarantee us continuity? No. Same as above.
Does it guarantee us quality? I think 99% of even the most hardcore Trek fans will agree that we have had a lot of clunkers which fall squarely within canon.
So what does saying that Star Trek XI is canon really mean?
Since we can't say what it guarantees us, we are left to reverse engineer the meaning of the word from the definition. (A definition which is vague and changing and mysterious as to both its origins and its current meaning/application.)
So, if we are to assume that Star Trek XI is canon, it really only means two things:
1) It will be shown on-screen.
...and...
2) It is not TAS.
So, with much profundity, I pronounce with absolute authority to all that can hear me:
STAR TREK XI WILL BE SHOWN ONSCREEN AND IS NOT TAS!
To this I wholeheartedly say, "Who gives a fuck?"
That's pretty much useless.
And yet, like Bele and Lokai, we fight and fight and fight about it.
This deep thought was generated by a long mountain hike just outside of Palm Springs, California, followed by copious amounts of wine drank/drunk/drancken in the hot sun. So forgive my spelling/grammar/logic errors.
But I did....
The more this movie pisses him off, the better it probably is.
Similar threads
