If it were to be done so arbitrarily (like an actual reboot), that would bother me–no doubt. But if it is done using the very continuity established in the beginning (like an alternate timeline created by interference with the past), then I can honestly say that I have no problem with it. Referencing that area of continuity is no different to me than a new film making reference to something such as the “Corbomite Maneuver”.

“How many retcons does it take to weaken the cohesiveness of the Trek world that the makers of the film are counting on us being drawn into?”

As I think we’ve established already, I don’t think that the Trek World is all that ‘cohesive’ anyway. I think that we sometimes pretend that it is.

But with regard to the upcoming film, I don’t think that the use of the time travel/alternate timeline element makes it any less so. As I have always pointed out, all of these events you feel so protective over still must occur in order to advance the story to this point. I don’t feel that ‘canon’ must be limited to the strict passage of linear time. The previous timeline still plays out (as it did before) as part of the overall Trek mythos. It becomes no less relevant to me.

“Perhaps I’ll rent the final two seasons and see what people have been on about.”

As AJ alluded to above, the 3rd season got substantially better, and the show really peaked in its 4th season. My feeling about the 4th season is that (at least up until the disappointing finale) it actually began to feel as though it was leading up to the Universe we came to know in TOS.

I think that the 4th season of ENT is as good as anything we have seen in Trek television, post seasons 1 and 2 of TOS.

“VOY as a series, however, was quite disappointing.”

I didn’t like it either. The only difference to me is, my expectations were so low at that point that it is difficult for me to say that I was “disappointed”.

“TNG was fantastic, without qualification.”

To each his own. I know that alot of people enjoy it, but it never resonated with me.

Consider how you would feel, while watching a new Trek film or episode, knowing that any of the events unfolding on-screen might be rescinded, redone or erased from history because the writers of the Trek franchise were predisposed to doing so?

Don’t tell me that wouldn’t weaken the impact of the film. Talk about a lack of dramatic jeopardy…

Where’s the tipping point? How many retcons does it take to weaken the cohesiveness of the Trek world that the makers of the film are counting on us being drawn into? It’s a valid concern. This is the main point that I’ve been driving at here.

With respect to ENT, I got so bored of it at some point, about mid-way through the series, that I dropped out. Perhaps I’ll rent the final two seasons and see what people have been on about. Though, I must admit that I never really liked Blakula in the lead role. I just didn’t like the character or the way that he played him.

I never liked the theme song, either. Not because it was different, not necessarily because it had lyrics—though, I do think that a theme song wears much better over the course of a series without lyrics for you to get sick of hearing over and over and over and over and over and over—but, because I just didn’t like the song. Didn’t like the singer’s raspy voice, didn’t like the corny lyrics, didn’t care for the melody.

I really liked the VOY theme a lot, though. It’s my second favorite of the Trek themes, with TOS being my favorite. VOY as a series, however, was quite disappointing.

TNG was fantastic, without qualification.

In writing “left canon behind,” I mean getting away from the crowded 24th century ‘ verse of TNG/DS9 to go to the Delta quadrant or the 22nd century.

VOY simply recreated the old universe with new bumphead aliens and the Borg, while ENT struggled several years to find its way.

I enjoyed the Xindi/grumpy Archer story in season 3, but season 4 was top notch.

As for Moore, since I am not a professional writer for television, nor have I ever been, I’ll take his word that he (and others) felt that effect sincerely. My own (layman’s) point of view is that 24th Century Trek had simply run its course, and by the time of ENT, the “geeks only” club couldn’t get past the show being presented somewhat differently (like the theme song), and perhaps some of their preconceived notions of what the 22nd Century might have been like being dispelled. Many of its critics even confused those ‘fanon notions’ with actual canon.

When I finally did see it, I felt (first the first time in a long time) that I was watching new Star Trek.

There were things I didn’t like or agree with creatively, but I liked it far more than I ever did TNG or its 24th Century brethren.

And I do think it gets more love today in syndication than it ever did during its first run. At that time, I wasn’t even watching new Trek, and judging by its numbers, alot of others didn’t give it more than a few episodes to find its way.

Agreed. But the point remains that the writers of STXI (before the whole context is even in view) are, in some respects, held to a greater standard by the fans than any of their predecessors.

“…it had better be a great story, in order to justify their decision to re-imagine the main characters. Otherwise, it’ll come across as badly self-indulgent.”

Perhaps. But I would contend that bad stories (such as those we have already seen in Trek at times) have that same effect anyway. I’m not sure that the fact that they begin and end in the same exact timeline makes any difference. If this film is bad, it won’t be because a villain travelled back in time and altered the past. It will be because the story was badly written, the players acted poorly, or the film was poorly directed.

And I would much rather have the vague backstories of some of the primary characters altered, canonically–mind you, than the character of Kirk suddenly being relegated to William Shatner in a Starfleet uniform and suddenly becoming a horse-lover/equestrian, or Spock suddenly having a crazy half-brother.

As long as the characters eventually become people who behave and act as the Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that we know, I don’t feel that they have been “re-imagined”. It is only the road they took to get there which is “re-imagined”.

“I don’t understand why Trek writers can’t just be consistent. If the non-professional likes of us can manage to keep it all straight, it seems to me that the people getting paid to keep it straight should be able to keep it straight and consistent.”

I don’t think the ability to do that is in question. The retcons in TWOK/TSFS/TVH, to which I referred, were done because the filmmakers and keepers of the franchise at the time did so intentionally.

Beyond that, you must consider that—by requiring any new writer who comes aboard to familiarize himself/herself with 5 television series (28 full seasons) and 10 feature films to the degree with which you and I are familiar—you might be limiting access to the talent pool. It took me more than 3 decades of watching these episodes/films for me to become so familiar!

I have to say that I wouldn’t be willing to trade talent for familiarity with established continuity. Even Trek writers like Ron Moore, who was/is a huge fan as well, often complained that Star Trek (in the 90’s) was coming to the point of being buried in its own canon, and that the writers were limited in their ability to continue telling great stories because of it.

“I’d take great pleasure in tying up and explaining all of these loose ends and inconsistencies that have occurred in Trek throughout the years. I’d include at least one such tie-up in each film, with only enough explanation that the Trekkies would know what it was about, while the general audience would just take it as scene-setting dialogue.”

It’s ironic, but I have seen ENT get beaten up in some fan circles (on these threads, in some cases) for doing precisely that. But I know what you mean.

Unfortunately, the timeline retcons described above fall into the category of irreparable inconsistencies. But the truth is, most fans don’t even give them much thought now, if they ever did at all.

TNG/DS9/VOY was never really my Star Trek.

My Star Trek has always been TOS/the original films, and its strongsuit was never really consistency and continuity (it took 20 years to finally establish a cohesive timeline).

Its strongsuit was always, to me, its colorful characters and its ability to tell compelling stories which were sexy, adventurous, romantic, and unafraid of a good old fashioned bare-knuckled fistfight.

IMO, the best thing that this film can do to “honor” that is to return to that formula. If it does so—and in effect, return Star Trek to its roots—then I have no doubt that I’ll be happy.

—-Using the quite canon explanation of the possibility of interefernce with the past resulting in an alternate timeline is far less irritating to me than the arbitrary changes to the timeline of events established in the Original Series that have been made in past feature films.—-

I agree that the Orci & Kurtzman approach to re-writes is better than the “retcons” that you referenced, but this doesn’t necessarily make the former a good thing. Two wrongs don’t make a right, though it remains to be seen whether the Orci & Kurtzman approach was right or wrong.

I don’t understand why Trek writers can’t just be consistent. If the non-professional likes of us can manage to keep it all straight, it seems to me that the people getting paid to keep it straight should be able to keep it straight and consistent.

—-Perhaps the only “reason” they need is that they think this is a great story, and one that they would like to tell.—-

Well, it had better be a great story, in order to justify their decision to re-imagine the main characters. Otherwise, it’ll come across as badly self-indulgent.

—-If it is a great story, then you and I will no doubt be satisfied. If it isn’t, then you and I will no doubt say that they shouldn’t have done it to begin with. Since neither of us is fortunate enough to have seen any of this within the context of the entire film at this point…well, you know…—-

Yup.

P.S.– from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retcon

“Retroactive continuity is the deliberate changing of previously established facts in a work of serial fiction.[1] The change is informally referred to as a “retcon,” and producing a retcon is called “retconning”.”

For me, each retcon weakens the impact and compellingness of the Trek Universe. Though, I agree that keeping the new crew in their own universe was better than retconning the characters in the Prime Universe.

If I were a Trek writer, I’d take great pleasure in tying up and explaining all of these loose ends and inconsistencies that have occurred in Trek throughout the years. I’d include at least one such tie-up in each film, with only enough explanation that the Trekkies would know what it was about, while the general audience would just take it as scene-setting dialogue.

My goal would be to approach total consistency, even if I never got there. That would be great fun and better for Trek than making things less consistent and increasingly more chaotic over time.

Indeed. And yet at some point, this became a ‘no-no’ in the minds of many fans. In many ways, contemporary Trek is held to a different standard than TOS or the original films, as far as maintaining continuity.

“I think, as mentioned above, TWOK finally establishes it.”

Not precisely. It does establish the events depicted in the film as taking place in the 2200’s, but it is TVH which firmly places it in the “late” 2200’s.

And it wasn’t until VOY (”Q2″) that the five-year mission depicted in TOS was, once and for all, stated to have ended in 2270.

If we were only going by TWOK, Khan could have been seen as merely estimating that 1996 was 200 years ago, since it ‘could’ have been very early on in the 23rd Century. However, the line of dialogue in TVH which asserts that it is, in fact, the “late 23rd Century” makes Khan’s statement quite inaccurate.

The establishment of 2270 as the year Kirk’s 5 year mission ended makes Khan off by at least 69 years.

“It’s funny, that in these discussions, no mention goes out to Michael and Denise Okuda, who have actually documented the timeline for us based on shows prior to Voyager and Enterprise.”

Yes, they certainly put alot of effort into it, but if I am not mistaken—VOY’s placement of the five year mission throws quite a bit of it off. Perhaps that is why we see less reference to their conclusions now.

I think, as mentioned above, TWOK finally establishes it.

It’s funny, that in these discussions, no mention goes out to Michael and Denise Okuda, who have actually documented the timeline for us based on shows prior to Voyager and Enterprise (correct me if I am wrong).

Now that real life has intruded into canon (Eugenics Wars and WW3), ‘canon’ needs a major overhaul.