ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Canon or not canon?

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 12:00 pm

Quote: Broadstorm @ Mar. 05 2012, 8:20 pm

>As for TAS, I don't see why the guy who gave us Star Trek shouldn't have some say on whether something is canon.


Because he changed his mind on what should be canon quite often.If he had his way, The Wrath of Kahn wouldnt be canon.


Photobucket

cyow

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 4:15 pm

Ok Gang I think we need t rember it just  TV SHOW / MOVIES I grow up on Star trek I love them and I real don't care what's what canon or not canon as long as I enjoy it and I think that the whole point of the show and to show there more to us then what we are now it shows us what we can be. original sta trek or JJ Abrams Prime Timeline/ New Timeline star trek it is all good and I love then both we can sit all day and say one is better the the next or TOS is better then TNG, DS9, VOY,  Ent or teh JJAbrams time lines.it this type of thing that make us look bad to the out side world and that why more people get Star Wars then Star Trek which is a hell of a lot better and all ways wil be!maybe its time we just move on from this and try to Assimilate all the Star Wars fans we can get! 

Mr. Spock: "We witnessed a birth…possibly the next step in our evolution."

OneDamnMinuteAdmiral

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1401

Report this Mar. 10 2012, 5:43 pm

The shows themselves contradict their own story lines a lot so canon doesn't mean much to me.


Star Trek is like your salad bar: I take what I want, leave the rest.


Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor?

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 5:36 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Mar. 05 2012, 1:24 pm

Quote: guillermo.mejía @ Mar. 05 2012, 8:19 am

Quote: Beershark @ Mar. 05 2012, 1:55 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>

>

>

>After ST09, does it really matter anymore?

>

Why would you say that?

 

I say that  because it is the truth. With the new/altered/ paralell timeline/universe/reality, (basicly what ever you want to call it), what has happened previously will now have little effect on what happens going forward. With out that continuity then what is and isn't canon is irrelevant.

The old timeline may still exist but it is no longer relevant, so, therefore, neither is the canon and continuity established there in.

It's still totally relevant. It's what the 40+ years of Trek are made off. It's what feeds the new timeline.

So right now there's an Alternate Reality/Universe going on. It's not in anyway better or more important that the Prime Timeline. Other way around.

And do you really believe wwe will ever see that "Prime Timeline" again?

I seriously doubt it. So, just as in the mirror universe, what has happened has no relevanve on the new time line. Unless, of course, it is JJ's plan to continue leapfrogging back and forth from one time line to the next.

No, I'm sorry my friend, but it's a whole new ball game now.

 



Maybe not if enough Trekkies stood up against the Abrams nonsense instead of going along with it - I've already been shot down in my own thread on this, but I still think that too many ST fans (on this board anyway) have been too quick to accept the whole 'alternative timeline' thing - but anyway, apparently I'm wrong to say that so what do I know...?

"There are always alternatives" Spock

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 5:42 pm

And on TAS, it's canon to me, especially considering the insight people here have provided re GR's position on it.

TBH, if anything made afterwards contradicted it, then it's the later series that's at fault - simple

"There are always alternatives" Spock

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 6:16 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Mar. 11 2012, 5:36 pm

> Maybe not if enough Trekkies stood up against the Abrams nonsense instead of going along with it - I've already been shot down in my own thread on this, but I still think that too many ST fans (on this board anyway) have been too quick to accept the whole 'alternative timeline' thing - but anyway, apparently I'm wrong to say that so what do I know...?


maybe its because more Trekkies enjoyed Abramsfilm then thoese that dikd not.Maybe more recognized that the last tng film failed to please the fanbase and it was time for a change.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 6:17 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Mar. 11 2012, 5:42 pm

>And on TAS, it's canon to me, especially considering the insight people here have provided re GR's position on it.


So, its canon to you because Gene said its not canon?


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 8:22 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>In the first case, the question becomes simply, Are the TAS episodes authored by Roddenberry or his legally authorized agents.  Answer: yes they were, so they are to be considered genuine...or canon.


Actully the answer is then no..............as Rodenbery himself requested that TAS be consindered NOT CANON.


That means he did not "recognize TAS as a genuine part of his works" nor did he want the fans to reconginze TAS as canon.


 


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 8:30 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>@stovkor2000-A;  Your continued insistence, after you have been corrected several times, that Abrams' outing supercedes TOS in any way, shape, or form is both non-sequitor and offensive.  TOS will always be there, like Shakespeare, and will always be first in the hearts of a great many Trek fans, quite regardless of what comes after.  You are, of course, entitled to your personal opinion, but I strongly recommend you refrain from weilding it here like a bludgeon, or none of the other children will want to play with you.

>


Excuse me?


I believe you have me confused with someone else.Please go back and re-read every post I made.I have yet to be corrected once because I have staten no postion on the issue at hand.


And I never once said Abrams film "supercedes" TOS...............so I'm not sure ehere you got that from.


All I have stated is Fact.Genes postion on the issue [not wanting TAS as canon], and how his word alone shuldnt be the ruleing factor because if he had his way TWoK weouldnt be canon.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 11 2012, 9:16 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>My most heartfelt apologies, stovokor2000-A.  That was unforgivably careless of me; my remarks about Abrams being said to effectively replace TOS should, of course, have been directed to beershark.  This is what happens when a legally blind person skims text.  Again, I stand humbly corrected.

>Meanwhile, I submit that it actually doesn't matter if Roddenberry later disclaimed TAS or not.  He created it, he oversaw it, he co-produced it, he rewrote much of it...it's all his, therefore "genuine", therefore canon.  If Shakespeare had left us a post-it note saying he wanted to dissavow MacBeth, do you imagine anyone would have listened?

>
No worries bud, and to tell the truth I'm pretty sure some might take such a request from Shakespeareto heart and compliy, while others might take it as evidence he was a crook and a hack.


Keep in mind I wouldnt be in either camp.


As for TAS, I dont havbe much of an issue with it being or not being canon.I rather enjoyed the series and would welcome it into the family even with the contradictions that may come.


Its not like there arent already pleanty of contradictions in the trek universe


Photobucket

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Mar. 12 2012, 9:34 pm

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>My most heartfelt apologies, stovokor2000-A.  That was unforgivably careless of me; my remarks about Abrams being said to effectively replace TOS should, of course, have been directed to beershark.  This is what happens when a legally blind person skims text.  Again, I stand humbly corrected.

>Meanwhile, I submit that it actually doesn't matter if Roddenberry later disclaimed TAS or not.  He created it, he oversaw it, he co-produced it, he rewrote much of it...it's all his, therefore "genuine", therefore canon.  If Shakespeare had left us a post-it note saying he wanted to dissavow MacBeth, do you imagine anyone would have listened?

>


With all due respect, I don't believe I said Abram's film renders TOS moot, rather it renders the arguments about canon and continuity moot.


It simply doesn't matter, IMHO, because with a new time line they are open to do what they will and not have to worry about following 45+ years of established story line. In fact, I think that aspect of it is brilliant and will help keep the franchise alive.


I admit there are pieces of the polt I didn't care for, but my biggest dissapointments were in casting, set design and production style.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

CloudMinder2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 482

Report this Mar. 13 2012, 12:08 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Mar. 11 2012, 6:17 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Mar. 11 2012, 5:42 pm

>

>And on TAS, it's canon to me, especially considering the insight people here have provided re GR's position on it.

So, its canon to you because Gene said its not canon?


No, because people have posted insight into why GR said it wasn't which provide a context for his remarks that shed a different light on it. 


 


"There are always alternatives" Spock

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 14 2012, 3:55 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Mar. 13 2012, 12:08 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ Mar. 11 2012, 6:17 pm

Quote: CloudMinder2 @ Mar. 11 2012, 5:42 pm

>

>

>And on TAS, it's canon to me, especially considering the insight people here have provided re GR's position on it.

So, its canon to you because Gene said its not canon?

No, because people have posted insight into why GR said it wasn't which provide a context for his remarks that shed a different light on it.


but even with his reasons........he requested that the series not be seen as canon.


 


Photobucket

CaptainBobApril

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 179

Report this Mar. 14 2012, 6:24 pm

From the last time this subject came up:



*sigh*



Guys, the whole concept of a Star Trek "canon" was cooked up purely as a tool for licensees (books, comics, toys, etc.), i.e., you can make references to these episodes and movies, but not this stuff over here.  And TAS was singled out because at the time (around 1987-88), they were still negotiating with Filmation (y'know, the guys who actually produced TAS; Paramount only distributed the show) over the rights to those 22 episodes, and until that matter was cleared up, they couldn't touch it.

Around 1992, the matter was cleared up, Paramount got ownership of TAS, and badda-boom, badda-bing, TAS is back in, as evidenced by the abundance of direct references to TAS in DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, as well as the fact that the DVD set was released by CBS Home Video, not Filmation. 

It was not meant to be used as a battering ram to bludgeon those materials that are not deemed to be "TRUE Star Trek".

Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Mar. 14 2012, 6:36 pm

Quote: CaptainBobApril @ Mar. 14 2012, 6:24 pm

>

>From the last time this subject came up:

>*sigh*

>Guys, the whole concept of a Star Trek "canon" was cooked up purely as a tool for licensees (books, comics, toys, etc.), i.e., you can make references to these episodes and movies, but not this stuff over here.  And TAS was singled out because at the time (around 1987-88), they were still negotiating with Filmation (y'know, the guys who actually produced TAS; Paramount only distributed the show) over the rights to those 22 episodes, and until that matter was cleared up, they couldn't touch it. Around 1992, the matter was cleared up, Paramount got ownership of TAS, and badda-boom, badda-bing, TAS is back in, as evidenced by the abundance of direct references to TAS in DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, as well as the fact that the DVD set was released by CBS Home Video, not Filmation.  It was not meant to be used as a battering ram to bludgeon those materials that are not deemed to be "TRUE Star Trek".


*sigh*


sorry, but none of that really settles the matter.


Regardless of distrubution rights, Gene didnt want TAS to be recognized as part of his singular vision of "TREK" because he wasnt happy with the series.He felt the same way about much of season 3 of TOS.


The abundance of direct or indirect TAS references in DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and even Trek09 dont really have an effect on this debate.




Photobucket

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam, darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum