Comments on: There Is No Star Trek Canon (Part II)

By: Troy

Troy — Mon, 25 May 2009 17:55:04 +0000

@Don

Don’t forget, this may not have been how Kirk Prime cheated on the Kobayashi Maru, this was how Kirk 2.0 cheated.

By: Dorian

Dorian — Mon, 25 May 2009 03:09:36 +0000

He should have left it to the imagination of the viewer of Star Trek II.

You’ve really missed John’s point.

By: Don

Don — Sun, 24 May 2009 22:41:16 +0000

Abrams believes in the mystery box?

So why did he destroy the Kobayashi Maru sequence? He should have left it to the imagination of the viewer of Star Trek II.

By: Your Obedient Serpent

Your Obedient Serpent — Tue, 19 May 2009 22:12:00 +0000

I don’t remember if I read the STTMP novelization when it came out, but, by and large, I’ve ALWAYS assumed that stuff like different-looking Klingons stemmed from The Unreliable Narrator, probably some crew member telling stories to his great-grandchildren decades after the fact, and simplifying matters accordingly.

But, dude. You dissed the Coast Guard. Not cool.

By: David Thiel

David Thiel — Mon, 18 May 2009 20:32:55 +0000

You know, I don’t concider the new movie canon to the previous star trek universe. I see it as a “Mirror Universe.”

That’s essentially what it is, except for the curious fact that it’s predicated on the actions of two characters from the “original” Star Trek universe, one of whom now appears to have taken up permanent residence!

Me, I couldn’t care less about what is and isn’t canon. It’s impossible to reconcile every last off-hand reference made over the course of hundreds of televised adventures. And attempting to do so just makes things much more convoluted, obtuse to non-fans, and–as John points out above–less fun.

“Enterprise” spent two entire episodes explaining how TOS-era Klingons lost their bumpy foreheads, but for my money, the best explanation is the one from DS9′s “Trials and Tribble-ations.” All we find out there is that there IS a reason for the real-world change to their makeup design, and that whatever it is, the Klingons find it deeply embarrassing. That’s much more satisfying than all the “Enterprise” hoo-hah about genetic viruses, and funnier to boot.

By: Juan

Juan — Sun, 17 May 2009 02:45:38 +0000

You know, I don’t concider the new movie canon to the previous star trek universe. I see it as a “Mirror Universe.” (like Star Wars Infinities, and Marvel Ultimates.) We should look at the TV shows and movies as one universe, the books as another, the animated series as another, and this movie and any upcoming sequels, (if any) as another universe.

While there were some things I didn’t like about this movie, (Destruction of Vulcan, deaths of Spock’s mother and Kirk’s father…maybe they should hook up.) I am interested in seing what direction this Trek universe will take.

I for one will go see any sequels of this movie.

By: Larry Parrigin

Larry Parrigin — Sun, 17 May 2009 00:49:11 +0000

Oy vey…I really wish they had jettisoned the entire “canon” thing when they did the movie. The series could have benefitted (ala “Battlestar Galactica”) from a complete reboot. Why get bogged down in decades’ worth of backstory? Leave that to the British…and even they make a flub or two when it comes to all things Who-ish. I personally love to see different takes on established series. The books are fun, and I can hold the idea in my head that the stories told in other media may contradict stuff in the “official” TV series and movies. Without my head exploding. It’s like hearing your favorite song covered by a different artist. The new interpretation always brings something new to the table.

By: Sir A1!

Sir A1! — Thu, 14 May 2009 21:14:57 +0000

The TMP novelization may not be canon in that only the TV shows and movies are generally considered “canon” but it certainly reflects Roddenberry’s serious wierdeness that would ham string TMP and later TNG when that first started. I remember an article in Cinefantastique about how Roddenberry had this whole thing worked out with the Ferenghi (sp?) about how they had huge genitals and could have sex 200 different ways; to him, it was an important plot point but everybody else started wondering how they could keep him off the Paramount lot.

By: Rabbi Gershom

Rabbi Gershom — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:01:46 +0000

Sorry for the all typos in my post above — I can spell, I just can’t type LOL!

By: Rabbi Gershom

Rabbi Gershom — Thu, 14 May 2009 15:46:19 +0000

Just to clarify: Gene R. did NOT consider his novelization to be canon. NONE of the novels are considered canon by Paramount, and where they differ from what is on screen, the on-screen version takes precedence. The ref to a “love instructor” wasn’t so radical, either, given the “free love” movement of the 60s (which got dampened by AIDS, but that is a whole other blog.)

Now for the JJ Abrams PARALLEL UNIVERSE — because that is really what it is, not a re-boot. He didn’t ERASE the hard drive, he created a new root directory on the same harddrive. The old Trek universe is still there, and no doubt people will still watch it, write in it, play in it, etc. The new movie doesn’t wipe all that out. It simply gives us another parallel universe, rather like “mirror, Mirror” did in TOS. Bot universes are happening at once.

In the real world, there was not much else he could do with a prequel. If we remained in the same universe, then the future stores would already be set. We would be gonig ho hum, here comes the Tribbles again… Plus the new versions of the characters would be little more than charactures of the old versions. By creating a parallel universe (which, BTW, branches off with the destruction of the Kelvin — that is the “butterfly effect” event), the possibility opens up to have a whole new set of stories.