If Star Trek just stuck to what it's SUPPOSED to be about-exploring strange new worlds every week-then the whole issue of canon wouldn't be that big of a deal because you would be constantly adding to it and only from time to time going back to what happened in a certain episode.
As much as I love TNG, each season seemed to have a "shopping list" of stories it had to tell-each season had to have a Q story, a Luwaxwanna Troi story, a Klingon politics story and so on. This is how canon starts to build up and become an albatross to a franchise. If Trek in the 90's had stuck to just telling stories of new alien cultures and only rarely telling Klingon/Romulan/Cardassian etc. back stories, there wouldn't be so much canon to worry about.
Of course, Voyager and Enterprise were attempts to do that, but they were half hearted attempts and when the writers on those shows were unable to come up with interesting new alien races they fell back on "this week B'lanna must celebrate the Klingon holiday of G'grrth or she will die!" type of stories.
So hopefully, the new team will give us a great origin story in this first film and in the sequels just focus on great adventures that test the mettle of the Enterprise crew and NOT do any "diplomatic crisis in Klingon space" stories.
-
Quote:
If Star Trek just stuck to what it's SUPPOSED to be about-exploring strange new worlds every week- were unable to come up with interesting new alien races they fell back on "this week B'lanna must celebrate the Klingon holiday of G'grrth or she will die!" type of stories.
You don't watch much TOS do you. How many shows actually dealt with "exploring strange new worlds." Not as many as you think. One of the most popular stories of TOS, "The Trouble With Tribbles," had the ship dispatched to a Federation space station, with a whole lot of Klingon back story. So many others as well that did not just explore starage new worlds. Some off the top of my head include: "Charlie X," "Conscience of the King,"
The Enemy Within," "Dagger of the Mind," "Court Martial, and "Space Seed." There are more, and all dealt with mission within the Federation. This is because the writers found that a "new world each week" show gets to be stake and formulaic. Other episode
One of the best "add to canon" stories was episode 14, "Balance of Terror," which introduced Romulans, the Romulan-Earth War, cloaking devices, and so on.
As for your contention that Quote:
when the writers on those shows were unable to come up with interesting new alien races they fell back on "this week B'lanna must celebrate the Klingon holiday of G'grrth or she will die!" type of stories., what about "Amok Time" from TOS? If Spock doesn't mate, he will die!!! It is a great classic story. Or how about "Spock's Brain," the crap story where Spock's brain is stolen!!!!
My point is that new ideas, expansion of canon and so on can be good, but bad writing is bad. Bad Gene Coon for writing Spock's Brain, good idea to put a pen name on it!!!
-
Quote:
If Star Trek just stuck to what it's SUPPOSED to be about-exploring strange new worlds every week- were unable to come up with interesting new alien races they fell back on "this week B'lanna must celebrate the Klingon holiday of G'grrth or she will die!" type of stories.
You don't watch much TOS do you. How many shows actually dealt with "exploring strange new worlds." Not as many as you think. One of the most popular stories of TOS, "The Trouble With Tribbles," had the ship dispatched to a Federation space station, with a whole lot of Klingon back story. So many others as well that did not just explore starage new worlds. Some off the top of my head include: "Charlie X," "Conscience of the King,"
The Enemy Within," "Dagger of the Mind," "Court Martial, and "Space Seed." There are more, and all dealt with mission within the Federation. This is because the writers found that a "new world each week" show gets to be stake and formulaic. Other episode
One of the best "add to canon" stories was episode 14, "Balance of Terror," which introduced Romulans, the Romulan-Earth War, cloaking devices, and so on.
As for your contention that Quote:
when the writers on those shows were unable to come up with interesting new alien races they fell back on "this week B'lanna must celebrate the Klingon holiday of G'grrth or she will die!" type of stories., what about "Amok Time" from TOS? If Spock doesn't mate, he will die!!! It is a great classic story. Or how about "Spock's Brain," the crap story where Spock's brain is stolen!!!!
My point is that new ideas, expansion of canon and so on can be good, but bad writing is bad. Bad Gene Coon for writing Spock's Brain, good idea to put a pen name on it!!!
First, while the term canon has been in use for many years, it was Trek fans that began to use it with regards to the continuity of a pop culture franchise. Before that it was used to describe a set of works - Sherlock Holmes, Shakespeare, etc. - but Trek fans put a Biblical context behind the term. (Don't believe in the Biblical comparison? Check out how many posts here and at TrekBBS and elsewhere made reference to Enterprise being sacrilgious and in the Star Trek Chronology there's reference to certain storylines being considered apocryphal).
The comment accusing the prequel writers of "lazy writing, not wanting to do the research" is quite offensive. First off, the canon of Star Trek has become so damn top-heavy and convoluted that in my opinion it is no longer possible to write an original storyline that doesn't in some way violate "canon" -- at least not a storyline that the general public will give a damn about enough to pay their $13 to buy a movie ticket. So by doing a prequel they're avoiding coming up with something that may violate 40 years of continuity (at least in terms of TV and movies). Of course as the writers of Enterprise discovered to their peril, being a prequel doesn't mean you won't get bitch-slapped by the fans anyway.
But the Trek XI writers are correct - nowhere in the "official canon" as set by Paramount, meaning the movies and TV shows, has it ever been established how the original crew met. Vonda McIntyre wrote a (very poor) novel giving her take, but it doesn't count. Nor does Gold Key Comics' take. I think Marvel did one too. And anything else that comes up is just fanon, which is an even more insidious cousin of canon because it's all suppositions and speculation that have morphed into fact by some fans. Prime example: that Spock was the first Vulcan to serve in Starfleet. When the issue of T'Pol arose several fans over at TrekBBS watched the entire run of TOS and the movies and found no such reference anywhere. Which means it was a piece of fanon that had either evolved out of a book reference or a comic, or just from supposition and rumor.
Another piece of fanon that keeps kicking around is the issue of whether Uhura has a first name. Roddenberry said she didn't, because her name alone was supposed to mean Freedom. A few years later the fanzine Trek suggested Penda as her first name. And then some of the novels started calling her Nyota which got picked up by some of the fansites. Will Trek XI address this? Who knows.
And then of course there's the Robert April issue, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...
Al
-
Quote from sb2004:
The comment accusing the prequel writers of "lazy writing, not wanting to do the research" is quite offensive.
That might be "offensive" if it were entirely unfounded. Orci's dialog is laced with the message that canon is universally problematic. To the contrary, it's essential for everything except pure fantasy. Continuity creates a common frame of reference ("reality") for the author and his/her audience. This is hardly unique to Star Trek.
Just how much of your history or genealogy do you need to account for when you wax poetic about your summer vacation? A list of fictional entities is neither too large nor too small, unless you believe that name-dropping amounts to creative validation -- in which case you're talking about gratuitous "continuity porn", not legitimate storytelling.
Unforgettable and dramatic narratives about the human condition don't need to fill or utilize a cluttered universe. And let's not blame fans who invest in what the writers sell as "fact" in a fictional universe.
--------
Star Trek: Corps Of Engineers - Wounds
-
Quote:
The comment accusing the prequel writers of "lazy writing, not wanting to do the research" is quite offensive. First off, the canon of Star Trek has become so damn top-heavy and convoluted that in my opinion it is no longer possible to write an original storyline that doesn't in some way violate "canon" -- at least not a storyline that the general public will give a damn about enough to pay their $13 to buy a movie ticket.
You might have added "contradictory" to your description of canon. And you might also make the point that there are a statistically insignificant number of ticket sales that hinge upon STXI's fundamentalist devotion to any random definition of "canon." Is there anyone who can believe for a moment that there's anyone at Paramount that asked the writers or Abrams "...but is that canon?" Absurd.
-
Quote:
And then of course there's the Robert April issue, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...
That brings up an interesting point. It is widely accepted that Star Trek canon is anything that has been seen on-screen on television or the big screen. But there is another way for something to be considered "official" -- if the person who declares it so is someone who would have been responsible for putting it on screen anyway: Michael Okuda, Rick Sternbach, Michael Piller and especially Gene Roddenberry. His word has counted as canon on two major occasions:
First, he was responsible for Robert April and the Star Trek: Encyclopedia says this after the short bio: April is, of course, totally conjectural, but is being included at Gene Roddenberry's suggestion. Gene had used the character name for the ship's commander in his first proposal for Star Trek, written in 1964.
Roddenberry also speculated the origins of the Enterprise-A. This entry is also from the Encyclopedia: Roddenberry reportedly suggested that the second Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701-A, launched at the end of Star Trek IV, had previously been named Yorktown, since it seems unlikely that Starfleet could have built an all-new ship so quickly. If this was the case, the Yorktown may have made it safely back to Earth and been repaired and renamed.
So here we have two instances of Star Trek history that did not occur on screen, yet are considered canon because of who said it (and there is nothing out there to contradict these). All we know about April officially is that he was the first captain of the Enterprise when it was launched in 2245. This means the new film can flesh out more of his story without any limitation.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
I guess this would get into whether or not The Animated Series is canon, right? TAS actually has Robert April in an episode, the one where everybody is aging in reverse. Personally, I consider it canon, especially considering the way Enterprise picked up on its portrayal of the Vulcan Forge.
Still, even if people do consider TAS canon, it seems pretty ridiculous for Kurtzman & Orci to worry about fitting with it. What would the point be?
-
Quote:
I guess this would get into whether or not The Animated Series is canon, right? TAS actually has Robert April in an episode, the one where everybody is aging in reverse.
Ahhh, I was hoping noone would bring that series up. :) When you consider that The Animated Series was written, produced and voiced by the same people from The Original Series, then I guess that the show can be safely deemed 'canon' -- cetainly more so than the endless novels and comics churned out by random authors. I don't think Orci and Kurtzman will limit themselves to what the cartoon fleshed out for Robert April though..
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Quote:
And then of course there's the Robert April issue, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...
Oh god... don't even start. LOL
--------
"The idea of doing an impression of William Shatner… it would have no shot at succeeding. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner." - Chris Pine
-
Quote:
Another piece of fanon that keeps kicking around is the issue of whether Uhura has a first name. Roddenberry said she didn't, because her name alone was supposed to mean Freedom. A few years later the fanzine Trek suggested Penda as her first name. And then some of the novels started calling her Nyota which got picked up by some of the fansites. Will Trek XI address this? Who knows.
Nichelle Nichols has also said that Uhura's first name was Nyota. I don't know whether she got this from the fanzines or vice-versa. Chicken or the egg? But since this was never in an episode or film, this would not technically be "canonical" by most fans' standards.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
Just in case anyone is still in doubt, this is the Oxford English Dictionary's origin of the word canon:
canon 1
• noun 1 a general rule or principle by which something is judged. 2 a Church decree or law. 3 a collection of authentic sacred books. 4 the authentic works of a particular author or artist. 5 a list of literary works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality. — ORIGIN Greek kanon ‘rule’. Canonical is first attested early 15c.; canonize, "to place in the canon or calendar of saints," is from c.1384.
So there you go, the word canon existed 582 years before Star Trek premiered :) Now, on to more pressing issues:
Quote:
Every other Trek writer has had to deal with Trek continuity, some more successfully than others ... I have never been a Hollywood writer, but some folks have wrote 10 Trek films before this one, and they didn't take the easy way out. These guys did.
That is because those previous writers were writing films and TV shows that were continuations of the existing timelines. They had to follow canon. I have read interviews by the Pillers, Bragas, Moores and their counterparts, expressing how frustrating being brought into a confining canon was.. But that they HAD to follow it! These shows and films couldn't veer off track because they would begin to contradict each other -- especially when so many shows aired congruently, with films thrown in-between.
One of the producer/writers behind Enterprise said in 2001 as they wrapped on Voyager, "I don't think I can write another word of 24th century dialogue." So they went to the era that predated Kirk because none of that era had been fleshed out beyond a few small snippets. Yet still, they had to write their stories knowing that every one told could affect the universes of TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager that came after it.
Orci and company have been handed the reins to this franchise and have been given an opportunity to tell a new story AND avoid the confining canon-laden time periods that have already been covered. There is nothing wrong with that at all, regardless of the real reasons why they did.
By the way, I know the origin of the word canon "argument" was sarcasm TRexx -- my winking smiley implies I am being sarcastic too. So save it.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
You are right that the continuity of Star Trek has become an anchor to the franchise. That's not to say that it should be cast arise, but clearly some bad business decisions were made in the 90's that lead to the well being tapped too often from too many buckets - and that lead to the franchise's continuity becoming so unweldy. But that is water under the dam; now this film just has to fix it.
Having seen treatments for this thing, and being aware of the business context, I can say that as a point of clarification, the Abrams teams has been given the freedom to reboot the "Star Trek" franchise straight-up a la "Batman Begins" or "Battlestar Galactica", but they have chosen not to. This film is indeed a continuation of the existing "Star Trek" canon.
POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT!
That said, this film will establish an alternate timeline that is derived from the events of this film. Romulans and Leonard Nimoy Spock from the 24th century TNG/DS9/Voyager era will alter the course of pre-TOS and thusly create an alternate version of pre-TOS (and therefore the TOS) era in which this fillm will take place. That is how they are staying in continuity for those that care and allowing themselves the freedom to reengineer, recast, reboot, etc. to not be anchored by the need for the audience to otherwise need to know the secret passwords and handshakes the understand what is going on.
Based upon what I have seen, unlike other "Trek" stories like this, the alternate timeline is not ultimately undermined and all not set back to status quo. In other words, the events of this film will undermine the last 45 years of Star Trek lore - cleaning the slate within the context of the Star Trek narrative itself (not like they made "Batman Begins" as if the 60's TV show, comic books, cartoons, or Burton & Schumaker movies never existed). There is the intention of making sequels within this new timeline and thereby allowing some familiar stories to be retold.
Now that said, in the context of this film, there are still certain details that could not change as significantly as will likely be presented in this film. It is these sorts of exceptional suspensions of disbelief that may be required that are concerning some.
END OF POTENTIAL SPOILER
Okay, so geting back to my point, will this film fix the franchise. Probably not. Wiping the slate clean in one form or another will not correct the mistakes of the past and will more than likely just piss a lot of people off. There might be that intial curiousity where people wonder how this is going to work, but once the cat is completely out of the bag and seen there will be a big letdown.
-
Quote from cdydatzigs:
By the way, I know the origin of the word canon "argument" was sarcasm TRexx -- my winking smiley implies I am being sarcastic too. So save it.
I wasn't the first to spot "SarcasmAir" flying high over your clueless head.
Good luck, now that you've raised everyone's expectations of your boggle.
--------
-
Quote:
Good luck, now that you've raised everyone's expectations of your boggle.
Boggle is allright, I prefer Scattegories or Catchphrase though.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
And so ends all the B.S. about how the movie's timeframe was some artistic decision, getting back to Trek's roots and what made it good, etc. In reality, it's just lazy writing, not wanting to do the research to make something that fits into established continuity. How disappointing. Hope they can at least do it well.
Oh, and the word "canon" existed long before Star Trek.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
What really gets me is all of these armchair producers that make up this forum and the Star Trek fan base having the audacity to call the writers idiots, liars and lazy. Lazy? This coming from people who look like this:
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
"Lazy writing" is a silly thing to say, but whatever.
A TOS reboot with a young, hip, sexy cast. An origins story. And with Leonard Nimoy as a lagniappe. I can't think of a Trek movie I'd rather see. I'm stoked, and I see nothing lazy about it. The concept is exactly right. We'll have to wait and see about the execution.
-
"And so ends all the B.S. about how the movie's timeframe was some artistic decision, getting back to Trek's roots and what made it good, etc. In reality, it's just lazy writing, not wanting to do the research to make something that fits into established continuity. How disappointing. Hope they can at least do it well."
I'll be honest--I have no idea how you took that from their comments.
"Oh, and the word canon existed long before Star Trek."
Well, yes--they weren't literally saying the word didn't exist before that. They were speaking figuratively--that the notion of sci-fi franchise fans being obsessed over the concept of canonicity began with Trek. Before that, it was much less of an issue with other fandoms. That's all they meant.
--------
Rich Handley
Author, Timeline of the Planet of the Apes: The Definitive Chronology
Available now from Hasslein Books
www.hassleinbooks.com
-
Quote from rassmguy:
I have no idea how [Keoki] took that from their comments.
Consider that a particular figurative (or sarcastic) use of language can say something about the speaker.
Orci says, "Uh, yeah, the canon, that's a word that was invented for Star Trek -- meaning, you know, does it fall within the continuity of its 40-year puzzle."
And, Orci figuratively sticks his tongue out at canon when Kurtzman says, "It has 40 years of rules that you can't re-write", and Orci interjects with, "Or can you?"
Not only does Orci's choice of words tauntingly bind "canon" onto Trekkie DNA, he sees the big picture as a "puzzle", something that's associated with contrived perplexity. Orci is said to be the walking Trek encyclopedia for Team Abrams, so he might feel inordinately pressured to account for all the nuts and bolts in the machinery.
Some fans could be alarmed by Orci's beleaguered "attitude", because it's one that echoes the cynical (if not creatively bankrupt) "continuity pornographers" who've used canon and name-dropping as a substitute for competent storytelling (in ENT, for example).
Executive producer Bryan Burk says the final ST:XI script was groomed by five minds, including Abrams, not just K&O. Goodie!
--------
The Free & Open Productivity Software Suite (for Windows & Linux)
-
Quote from Keoki:
In reality, it's just lazy writing, not wanting to do the research to make something that fits into established continuity.
Roberto Orci rarely fails to put his foot in his mouth during interviews, and the belligerent idiot called cdydatzigs here thrives on trying to make others look even less competent than he is.
In this video interview, Alex Kurtzman does a better job of articulating their goal...
We, at first, we were scared -- not because we didn't think it was worthy, it was we didn't think we were worthy of it. So, it became kind of about thinking, "Alright, well, god, if we're going to do this, what did we really love about it?" What inspired us when we were kids, and how do we get back to that feeling, and what was that feeling about for us? Ultimately, I think it was very much about Kirk and Spock and that bridge crew, that was a big part of it. So, what got us through the fear was the excitement of that opportunity, which really comes probably once in a lifetime.
So, the ST:XI story utilizes Kirk and Spock at their most vital, in order to recapture that "feeling" about the original Star Trek, as experienced during mainstream viewer childhood. The plot includes how those characters came together.
--------
-
Quote:
So, the ST:XI story utilizes Kirk and Spock at their most vital, in order to recapture that "feeling" about the original Star Trek, as experienced during mainstream viewer childhood. The plot includes how those characters came together.
I'm interested to see what they come up with. One thing I find amusing, though, is the double standard when it comes to Trek 11 and the Star Wars special editions. When Lucas retconned something, somehow he was "destroying our childhood." When it happens in Trek, they're "recapturing the feeling." Funny.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
Quote from Keoki:
...they chose the path of less resistance.
That argument creates a Catch-22 scenario.
Writers shouldn't need to avoid a beginnings story simply because it might be perceived as too easy a canonical challenge.
Of course, old-school fans can't know in advance how their sense of nostalgia will react, until they sample the final product as it was intended to be presented.
--------
Masters of Science Fiction: Complete Series
-
Lazy writing? Tell me, have you ever been a Hollywood writer before? No, you haven't. In fact you have no clue what you are talking about. Writing for a feature film is difficult enough, especially for a franchise as big and important as Star Trek. When you combine the fact that there are 10 films and 700+ episodes worth of canon and history that they aren't even responsible for? It would be too confining and frsutrating not to pick a timeframe that hasn't really been fleshed out yet -- in this case, the years before season one of TOS. They chose a good time period.
--------
-- Steve
"If a sixth Star Trek television series is ever realized, it will be set in the new universe." -- cdydatzigs, June 15, 2009.
-
Quote:
Lazy writing? Tell me, have you ever been a Hollywood writer before? No, you haven't. In fact you have no clue what you are talking about. Writing for a feature film is difficult enough, especially for a franchise as big and important as Star Trek. When you combine the fact that there are 10 films and 700+ episodes worth of canon and history that they aren't even responsible for? It would be too confining and frsutrating not to pick a timeframe that hasn't really been fleshed out yet -- in this case, the years before season one of TOS. They chose a good time period.
I agree, it is a good period. But it apparently wasn't chosen for the reason we had previously been led to believe. Every other Trek writer (and there have been many) has had to deal with Trek continuity, some more successfully than others. I'm quite sure these screenwriters knew a lot of Trek had been done before when they started working on this project. To echo your childish phrase, they definitely "had a clue." Instead, they chose the path of less resistance.
I have never been a Hollywood writer, but some folks that have been wrote 10 Trek films before this one, and they didn't take the easy way out. These guys did.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
*******Canon, that is a word that was invented for Star Trek, meaning, does it fall within the continuity of this forty-year puzzle. But it was amazing when we went back to look at Star Trek, no one had ever done the story about how the original crew came together."
"[...] there's five thousand hours of Star Trek and no one ever covered how they all met [laughs]." Orci continued "So in a way that was liberating in that no one had stated how that happened exactly. ******
Where in that does it ever say we look at all of Trek canon and it was so overwhelming we decided to do the beginning to avoid it?
Reread the thing without your preconcieved opinion and you'll see that his intent is that they sat there in brainstorming sessions and "went back to star trek" to mull it over. It comes up in the thought process that no one had ever done the origin. And then there's the realization "oh wait, we don't have to shoe-horn the idea in or triple-check every fact - cool bonus!
He does not paint the picture that the goal was to avoid canon and from that sprang the idea - which is the agenda you're projecting onto them....imho
-
Quote:
Where in that does it ever say we look at all of Trek canon and it was so overwhelming we decided to do the beginning to avoid it?
"oh wait, we don't have to shoe-horn the idea in or triple-check every fact - cool bonus!"
You've answered your own question. I couldn't have said it better myself.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
Quote:
You've answered your own question. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Do you HONESTLY expect them to know all 700 hours write every line with the Encyclopedia in hand? Seriously?
To expect them to have to do that to any degree (Which you clearly do) is ludicrous.
Why NOT do the origin?
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
-
Quote:
Do you HONESTLY expect them to know all 700 hours write every line with the Encyclopedia in hand? Seriously?
To expect them to have to do that to any degree (Which you clearly do) is ludicrous.
I'm not sure why you believe I think that, other than, perhaps, poor reading comprehension. You're the one that brought up the Encyclopedia, for example, not me. I doubt any of the dozens of Trek scribes before them has gone to the trouble to "write every line with it in hand," though I'm sure many have referred to it to be sure their stories fit with what has gone before.
Quote:
Why NOT do the origin?
I never said they shouldn't. But it's refreshing to hear the real reason.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
I've read some pretty ridiculous nitpicks and complaints about this movie so far. I mean REALLY out there kinda whining, trying to find anything wrong with it.
Quote:
I never said they shouldn't. But it's refreshing to hear the real reason.
But this takes the friggin cake. Even Scorned himself couldn't come up with such an asinine complaint.
You're actually whining about WHY they picked a prequel?? Who the hell cares WHY they wanted to do the origin.
The REASON for them doing a prequel doesn't make a lick of difference at all. The movie is going to do well or not based on the MOVIE ITSELF. Not the motives the writers had for doing it in a particular time frame.
And one last thought, doing a prequel doesn't give them any free passes as far as continuity goes to begin with. Look at Enterprise, the biggest complaint about that series were the continuity issues. It was a prequel that was set LONG before this one. They're not copping out. Copping out would be if they introduced a brand new crew post Picard. A crew with no history to respect, no character traits to keep in mind etc.. As far as continuity goes, it'd be a hell of a lot easier to do that than a prequel.
--------
"The idea of doing an impression of William Shatner… it would have no shot at succeeding. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner." - Chris Pine
-
Quote:
The REASON for them doing a prequel doesn't make a lick of difference at all. The movie is going to do well or not based on the MOVIE ITSELF. Not the motives the writers had for doing it in a particular time frame.
And who, exactly, said otherwise?
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
you're the one griping about it. The entire purpose of your response to this article was to belittle them for their "motives" in choosing to do a prequel.
And if you don't think it's gonna affect the movie, why are you griping about it?
Don't play stupid, I really don't have the patience for it.
--------
"The idea of doing an impression of William Shatner… it would have no shot at succeeding. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner." - Chris Pine
-
Quote:
And if you don't think it's gonna affect the movie, why are you griping about it?
It's an Internet forum, meant for commentary. Not just "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down."
Quote:
Don't play stupid, I really don't have the patience for it.
That's OK, no one's forcing you to troll. That's your own personal decision. If you lack patience, you are welcome to spend your free time in other ways.
--------
Jesus Saves... no one dares charge him full price
-
Quote:
It's an Internet forum, meant for commentary. Not just "thumbs-up" or "thumbs-down."
Well your commentary clearly fits into the "thumbs down" category.
Quote:
That's OK, no one's forcing you to troll.
Ahh, the final argument of a moron. "You don't agree with me so you're a troll".
You started the whining here over the most ridiculous topic. And now I'm a troll cause I called you out on it? *eye roll*
--------
"The idea of doing an impression of William Shatner… it would have no shot at succeeding. The character is Jim Kirk, not William Shatner." - Chris Pine
-
Quote:
But it's refreshing to hear the real reason.
The whole tenor of your posts is that it's some sort of copout for them to use the origin as a story.
--------
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture." ---Pastor Ray Mummert speaking of those who favor Darwinian Evolution over Intelligent Design.
"If this is your God, he's not very impressive. He has so many psychological problems; he's so insecure. He demands worship every seven days. He goes out and creates faulty Humans and then blames them for his own mistakes. He's a pretty poor excuse for a Supreme Being." ---Gene Roddenberry
(2)
| 
