Will Star Trek XI be "canon" ?

[SalvorHardin]

It depends on what you mean by "canon". If you mean "official", then yes it's official Star Trek, as opposed to fan-made or whatever else. But if you mean "this movie's story takes place sometime after Enterprise and before TOS", then I don't think that's the case.

It seems like this movie is an entirely different universe/timeline/reality/storyline/divergence/whatever. At the end of the day, it appears to be a brand spanking new reboot.

I know what JJ and all them have been saying about timelines and all, but I think it's just lip service bologna to keep the Trek zealots from going crazy on the internet. I mean, c'mon, look at it. . . it's a reboot. The old has ended, something brand new is starting.

So it seems there's Trek Prime, and now NuTrek.

Well since it never happens can Paramount/CBS pay me back all the Money I've given them over my lifetime?

Sure.
Just send them back everything you've ever bought or watched and they'll see to it.

 

[FlyingLemons]

Well I think he wanted to blow up the Federation sounded too Andromeda to me anyhow

I think that was the animated series that was mooted. I hated that concept too - although I'm in favor of this film, the animated series threw out just about everything about Star Trek I liked. Far too big a change.

As for J. Michael Straczynski's idea, I would be astonished if Abrams and co. hadn't seen this before - a lot of their reasoning is similar. On the issue of continuity, this proposal says:

While we will avail ourselves of anything and everything from the currently existing Star Trek Universe that may assist us in this re-boot, we do not believe that this new Star Trek should be heavily burdened with the “reverse-continuity” of the past. It will only perpetuate the problem of painting creative teams into corners.

On respect for what has gone before:

That we reserve the right to make bold new interpretations does not mean that we will shun all the good work and characters that exist before and after in the Star Trek timeline. We may accept the vast majority of these decisions but simply change the way they happened.

A re-boot means a fresh start. That means not just new stories, but looking at our continuity in new ways. We know that a planet-eater was rampaging through space in Star Trek: Classic...but what if we discover that the device was a left-over piece of warfare tech from the race our characters are pursuing? Do they allow the planet-sized weapon to destroy a sparsely-populated colony world if in doing so, they gain the time to get information that could save billions of lives elsewhere?

Oh yeah, there's a Babylon 5-esque "ancient race" they're going after in this version, and Starfleet has a mandate to track down its technology in the JMS reboot. Needless to say, howls of "NOT CANON!!!!!11!" would have come from this too despite the fact that the previous canon explains anthropomorphic aliens everywhere through this device.

And the last quote, which sums up the attitudes of JMS and the new creative team:

No one can ever compete with Gene Roddenberry’s original series. We can, however, stand on his shoulders and see things from a different point-of-view.

This is what Orci (who by his presence on TrekMovie is the de facto new "Supreme Court" liason to the existing fans) primarily has been saying all along - it's not here to replace the older stuff, but rather honors it and offers up a new way of looking at it. Read the "reboot the universe" pdf - it's quite interesting.

 

[Tikkun]

There is no actual definition of "canon" that equates to "this is the stuff I personally like." The term and concept of "personal canon" is ignorant gibberish. It's correct to say "this is what I like and this is what I choose not to pay attention to."

That being your personal canon on Trekdom?

Sorry, I started watching Trek when there was no canon. I've watched this article go in circles for 40 years. There was debate whether the movies were canon, whether each new series was canon, whether TAS was canon. Paramount doesn't own me - and ideas are not subject to copyright law. You can go the corporate direction, if you will. To call anything else ignorant gibberish is more a reflection of you than anything in Trek.

 

[Tikkun]

I'm happy to see a spirited discussion on this, since I've been curious myself on this matter.

I'm not as happy to see that there are still people who claim it will or not be "cannon". The word is in the thread subject; it's not that hard to look at the top of your screen and spell it correctly.

Try to see it as a reflection of the explosive nature of the subject under discussion.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think he said the term "personal canon" is ignorant gibberish, because cause it shows an ignorance of the definition of the word canon. Not sure how old you are, but Dennis isnt exactly a babe in his mothers arms. He's been watching Star Trek for a long time too. Once that first episode hit the airwaves canon was born.

What Paramount does own is Star Trek and as such they get to decide whats canon. What you get to decide is if you like what they produce. Not the same thing.

 

[Tikkun]

I think he said the term "personal canon" is ignorant gibberish, because cause it shows an ignorance of the definition of the word canon. Not sure how old you are, but Dennis isnt exactly a babe in his mothers arms. He's been watching Star Trek for a long time too. Once that first episode hit the airwaves canon was born.

What Paramount does own is Star Trek and as such they get to decide whats canon. What you get to decide is if you like what they produce. Not the same thing.

Not just the term - the idea.

I'm well into my fifties - also a fan of TOS first run. Canon was a matter of discussion and debate in fandom back in the Interstat days before the first movie. There was much discussion of whether or not the movies should be considered canon or AU. I'm not sure if you or Dennis were part of that discussion, or even subscribed to Interstat - that was the main forum for Trek debate long before computers existed.

After Paramount decided to throw their weight around and close a few zines, the whole corporate ownership issue was also heavily debated. I will agree that paramount considers anything they produce to be canon, and anything not produced by them to be an annoyance at best. However, I retain the right, having seen this show grow from the first episode televised, to chose what is canon. Let's just say it's a right grandfathered in from those early discussions - before and during TMP, and long before TNG.

And, as I wrote - before I was told I was spouting ignorant gibberish - if anyone wishes to have a different view of canon - feel free.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Again, calling what you like "canon" shows an ignorance of the meaning of the term. You can debate all you want and chose what you like, but what you chose is not canon, personal or otherwise. You have no rights other than the right to like or dislike whats being made. There is no "grandfather" clause because you turned on a TV in 1966 and had a good time. Your right of proprietorship is misplaced.

 

[Pellmelody]

Again, calling what you like "canon" shows an ignorance of the meaning of the term. You can debate all you want and chose what you like, but what you chose is not canon, personal or otherwise. You have no rights other than the right to like or dislike whats being made. There is no "grandfather" clause because you turned on a TV in 1966 and had a good time. Your right of proprietorship is misplaced.

What canon means to me is history. There are 43+ years of history in the Trek franchise. Now, that means different things to different people. Those of us who grew up on the show, esp. TOS, canon is part of what makes Trek stand out. That history is IMPORTANT to us. We grew up watching Trek grow. You can say all you want that Paramount makes canon because they own it, therefore, they can go back on any previous thing they've said & done and change it completely.

But really, while they may own it, they didn't create it. Gene Roddenberry did, and putting everything after TNG aside, the show is the vision of Roddenberry and what "old skool" fans want is the series to remain true to his vision, especially during the early years. That's not to say that Roddenberry would have approved of all the changes made since TNG. I've read more than once that he wouldn't have liked DS9. But the series' have done their best to maintain some kind of continunity, and to stay true to his vision over all through the years. Even when Enterprise "skimmed the edges" of continunity many times, they never completely went over the line. I was watching...I mumbled about it...but I couldn't completely diss it. But this new movie erases those efforts.

For those that see canon as a shapeable thing where Trek is involved, owned by Paramount, this may be nothing but "personal gibberish." But a lot of us "old timers" feel a lot deeper about it. Re-writing 43+ years of Trek history with an alternate time line is nearly a slap in the face. I've never been Paramount's biggest fan anyway. There have been hundreds of times I'd like to have done what someone else said they'd like to do: request a refund from Paramount for all the books, movies, toys, etc. they've bought thru the years to help finance Trek because of moronic decisions by the producers (and owners). And I won't EVEN get into how the "Three B's" nearly destroyed Trek.

I'm going to see the new movie only because I don't believe in complaining about it until I've actually seen just how much was damaged. I may really like the movie. But I have a strong feeling that, while I may like it, it won't be Trek to me. It'll be a new thing with bright lights and an engine room that's out of an Apple showroom floor that someone has slapped a label on, and I'll consider Trek officially dead since Enterprise.

 

[urbandk]

I'm going to see the new movie only because I don't believe in complaining about it until I've actually seen just how much was damaged. I may really like the movie. But I have a strong feeling that, while I may like it, it won't be Trek to me. It'll be a new thing with bright lights and an engine room that's out of an Apple showroom floor that someone has slapped a label on, and I'll consider Trek officially dead since Enterprise.

Ummmm... the engine room really doesn't have that problem.

It might be "dead" to you, but it certainly isn't officially dead; Nerys hits the nail on the head. Whatever Paramount and CBS make is "canon," a bullshit term if I ever heard one. What they make is Star Trek. We can moan and groan and boycott and whine, but whatever they put out is official.

Jesus, I wish "Threshold" was never made and I hope TPTB ignore that POS, but it's still Star Trek.

You're entitled to think whatever you want and to yak and yak about it until you're blue in the face, but we've got a new Star Trek, whether we like it or not.

Personally, I like it.

 

[Aragorn]

AppleStore90210RayLiottaLensFlaresCanon!!! Did I miss anything?

Those damn teeny-boppers who are in their 30s!!!

 

[urbandk]

AppleStore90210RayLiottaLensFlaresCanon!!! Did I miss anything?

Those damn teeny-boppers who are in their 30s!!!

ShatnerMitchell0514FarragutEngineeringDeltaVegaVulcanJJPriseNimoyIsAMoneyGrubberScottysSidekick!

Damn it, what would Trekkies do without Abrams to give them shit to bicker about?

 

[Tikkun]

Again, calling what you like "canon" shows an ignorance of the meaning of the term. You can debate all you want and chose what you like, but what you chose is not canon, personal or otherwise. You have no rights other than the right to like or dislike whats being made. There is no "grandfather" clause because you turned on a TV in 1966 and had a good time. Your right of proprietorship is misplaced.

Main Entry:1can·on \ˈka-nən\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Latin, ruler, rule, model, standard, from Greek kanōnDate:before 12th century 1 a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council b: a provision of canon law
2 [Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b: the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>
4 a: an accepted principle or rule b: a criterion or standard of judgment c: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
5 [Late Greek kanōn, from Greek, model] : a contrapuntal musical composition in which each successively entering voice presents the initial theme usually transformed in a strictly consistent way

Your interpretation would be in accord with meaning 1 or 3, considering Paramount as Pope. Call me a Protestant, or better yet, a Unitarian - mine would be closer to 4b, which can be individually decided.

Given your signature line, and the fact that we are both looking forward to this movie - it seems rather odd that we're quarreling. If I continue to refuse to accept that I am "ignorant" and speaking "gibberish", am I then unwelcome here? Must I accept your canon as well?

 

[Tikkun]

Again, calling what you like "canon" shows an ignorance of the meaning of the term. You can debate all you want and chose what you like, but what you chose is not canon, personal or otherwise. You have no rights other than the right to like or dislike whats being made. There is no "grandfather" clause because you turned on a TV in 1966 and had a good time. Your right of proprietorship is misplaced.

What canon means to me is history. There are 43+ years of history in the Trek franchise. Now, that means different things to different people. Those of us who grew up on the show, esp. TOS, canon is part of what makes Trek stand out. That history is IMPORTANT to us. We grew up watching Trek grow. You can say all you want that Paramount makes canon because they own it, therefore, they can go back on any previous thing they've said & done and change it completely.

But really, while they may own it, they didn't create it. Gene Roddenberry did, and putting everything after TNG aside, the show is the vision of Roddenberry and what "old skool" fans want is the series to remain true to his vision, especially during the early years. That's not to say that Roddenberry would have approved of all the changes made since TNG. I've read more than once that he wouldn't have liked DS9. But the series' have done their best to maintain some kind of continunity, and to stay true to his vision over all through the years. Even when Enterprise "skimmed the edges" of continunity many times, they never completely went over the line. I was watching...I mumbled about it...but I couldn't completely diss it. But this new movie erases those efforts.

For those that see canon as a shapeable thing where Trek is involved, owned by Paramount, this may be nothing but "personal gibberish." But a lot of us "old timers" feel a lot deeper about it. Re-writing 43+ years of Trek history with an alternate time line is nearly a slap in the face. I've never been Paramount's biggest fan anyway. There have been hundreds of times I'd like to have done what someone else said they'd like to do: request a refund from Paramount for all the books, movies, toys, etc. they've bought thru the years to help finance Trek because of moronic decisions by the producers (and owners). And I won't EVEN get into how the "Three B's" nearly destroyed Trek.

I'm going to see the new movie only because I don't believe in complaining about it until I've actually seen just how much was damaged. I may really like the movie. But I have a strong feeling that, while I may like it, it won't be Trek to me. It'll be a new thing with bright lights and an engine room that's out of an Apple showroom floor that someone has slapped a label on, and I'll consider Trek officially dead since Enterprise.

I agree with you completely on canon - thanks for the insights.

I'm actually looking forward to the movie because I've decided it is totally AU. Somewhere before the birth of the oldest characters, there was a split in universes. Hence - I can see it as more like a movie made in the mirror universe, and a reflection of TOs rather than the real thing.

I am interested in the message, the visions. The movie scene I hated most of all was the one where Kirk kicks the Klingon repeatedly until he falls into the pit of fire. Granted, he had reason to break - what bothered me was that scene was constructed to draw cheers - and that is not the message of Trek, IMHO.

 

[Tikkun]

AppleStore90210RayLiottaLensFlaresCanon!!! Did I miss anything?

Those damn teeny-boppers who are in their 30s!!!

ShatnerMitchell0514FarragutEngineeringDeltaVegaVulcanJJPriseNimoyIsAMoneyGrubberScottysSidekick!

Damn it, what would Trekkies do without Abrams to give them shit to bicker about?

Hey, he's just a diversion in a bickerthon that began shortly after episode one was broadcast, and will probably last until well after we really do colonize the neighborhood.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Main Entry:1can·on \ˈka-nən\ Function:noun Etymology:Middle English, from Old English, from Late Latin, from Latin, ruler, rule, model, standard, from Greek kanōnDate:before 12th century 1 a: a regulation or dogma decreed by a church council b: a provision of canon law
2 [Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin, from Latin, model] : the most solemn and unvarying part of the Mass including the consecration of the bread and wine
3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a: an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b: the authentic works of a writer c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>
4 a: an accepted principle or rule b: a criterion or standard of judgment c: a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms
5 [Late Greek kanōn, from Greek, model] : a contrapuntal musical composition in which each successively entering voice presents the initial theme usually transformed in a strictly consistent way

Your interpretation would be in accord with meaning 1 or 3, considering Paramount as Pope. Call me a Protestant, or better yet, a Unitarian - mine would be closer to 4b, which can be individually decided.

Given your signature line, and the fact that we are both looking forward to this movie - it seems rather odd that we're quarreling. If I continue to refuse to accept that I am "ignorant" and speaking "gibberish", am I then unwelcome here? Must I accept your canon as well?

3b is how the term is used when speaking if something like StarTrek. Not sure how 4b would apply, Who is setting these rules, principles. standards and norms? What is the basis for their authority? Not sure such things are given out individually.

We're have a disagreement over Star Trek via the the internet. Not much a quarrel. It's been pretty peaceful as these things go.

All are welcome. There are almost as many opinions here as there are fans. For the most part we get along in spite of our differences. The ones who cross the line get smacked by the mods. Dennis can correct me if I'm wrong, but the ignorant gibberish is the term "personal canon". Which is a bit of an oxymoron.

I have no canon. I have stuff I like, shows I prefer and films I enjoy. I don't expect you to share my taste.

 

[El Chupacabra]

Again, calling what you like "canon" shows an ignorance of the meaning of the term. You can debate all you want and chose what you like, but what you chose is not canon, personal or otherwise. You have no rights other than the right to like or dislike whats being made. There is no "grandfather" clause because you turned on a TV in 1966 and had a good time. Your right of proprietorship is misplaced.

What canon means to me is history. There are 43+ years of history in the Trek franchise. Now, that means different things to different people. Those of us who grew up on the show, esp. TOS, canon is part of what makes Trek stand out. That history is IMPORTANT to us. We grew up watching Trek grow. You can say all you want that Paramount makes canon because they own it, therefore, they can go back on any previous thing they've said & done and change it completely.

But really, while they may own it, they didn't create it. Gene Roddenberry did, and putting everything after TNG aside, the show is the vision of Roddenberry and what "old skool" fans want is the series to remain true to his vision, especially during the early years. That's not to say that Roddenberry would have approved of all the changes made since TNG. I've read more than once that he wouldn't have liked DS9. But the series' have done their best to maintain some kind of continunity, and to stay true to his vision over all through the years. Even when Enterprise "skimmed the edges" of continunity many times, they never completely went over the line. I was watching...I mumbled about it...but I couldn't completely diss it. But this new movie erases those efforts.

For those that see canon as a shapeable thing where Trek is involved, owned by Paramount, this may be nothing but "personal gibberish." But a lot of us "old timers" feel a lot deeper about it. Re-writing 43+ years of Trek history with an alternate time line is nearly a slap in the face. I've never been Paramount's biggest fan anyway. There have been hundreds of times I'd like to have done what someone else said they'd like to do: request a refund from Paramount for all the books, movies, toys, etc. they've bought thru the years to help finance Trek because of moronic decisions by the producers (and owners). And I won't EVEN get into how the "Three B's" nearly destroyed Trek.

I'm going to see the new movie only because I don't believe in complaining about it until I've actually seen just how much was damaged. I may really like the movie. But I have a strong feeling that, while I may like it, it won't be Trek to me. It'll be a new thing with bright lights and an engine room that's out of an Apple showroom floor that someone has slapped a label on, and I'll consider Trek officially dead since Enterprise.

I felt the same way you did for a long, long time. But then I thought about it. We watch Mirror, Mirror, which is set in a alternate universe, but we call it canon Trek, just like all the other alternate reality shows. If this is an alternate timeline rather than a reboot, and retains characters from our timeline, how is that any different from Mirror Mirror, or even, say, the borgified earth seen briefly in First Contact? This Kirk and Spock are new characters. They aren't the same characters as Shatner Kirk and Nimoy Spock. Why then can't we consider it a new crew, with a new universe to explore, but that retains the core elements of Star Trek since its an alternate reality of the one you and I love as Star Trek? It it comes from canon, rather than a standard reboot, then I don't see why it can't still be called canon.

 

[Tikkun]

3b is how the term is used when speaking if something like StarTrek. Not sure how 4b would apply, Who is setting these rules, principles. standards and norms? What is the basis for their authority? Not sure such things are given out individually.

I think that's where the grandfathering comes in. The big debate in fandom at one point was the huge K/S debate - which was tricky because people could point to scenes in episodes that they believed supported that interpretation - while others were deeply upset. Both sides used the same material to prove their point - and canon was in how the scene was interpreted. Then came TAS - and the question of whether that was canon. It was generally regarded as canon, but evidently no longer is. TMP, TWOK, and finally TNG were all debated as they came along, as were the early Blish books - followed by the novels.

Because paramount had a period of time that they romped on fandom, there were a lot of people who then refused to accept that simply because a corporation created it, it had to be accepted as canon. Even now, books approved by Paramount are not canon - nor is TAS, which was televised. There is some degree of 4b even in those who are orthodox Paramountians.

What is a personal canon - a criterion or standard of judgment that does not rest on some form of group sanction? Rather like a Unitarian religious canon - it starts with a belief, and then allows many paths. I actuallly would probably consider only TOS to be pure canon, and everything after is an addition that can be accepted or rejected. That's more of a reflection as to when I entered the process than anything else, I suspect. Yes, that makes canon far more nebulous - even meaningless - as a term. But I resist being restricted to corporate creations.

We're have a disagreement over Star Trek via the the internet. Not much a quarrel. It's been pretty peaceful as these things go.

Agreed - and I love a chance to take our wits for a walk.

All are welcome. There are almost as many opinions here as there are fans. For the most part we get along in spite of our differences. The ones who cross the line get smacked by the mods. Dennis can correct me if I'm wrong, but the ignorant gibberish is the term "personal canon". Which is a bit of an oxymoron.

I hope I explained it better - but if not, oh well. Disagreement has strengthened Trek for 40+ years. Apathy is the true death.

I have no canon. I have stuff I like, shows I prefer and films I enjoy. I don't expect you to share my taste.

Only reply there is - IDIC