[Snorp09]

For those of you who do not know what cannon means it means counted. O.K. but are the new movies or the reboots cannon? I mean all of the time lines for all of the shows except enterprise (quietly laughs) are not real or not happing??? The timeline is in air. They do not feel like star trek movies to me. And it looks like the Constitution class ship bridge looks better the galaxy or event better then the Sovereign class bridge. And maybe event technology. So again after a long post, are the reboot movies cannon.

Vote on the poll and also please explain your answer

[Flicky]

There's been a lot of discussion about this in the past, I'm sure. Personally I think that what is shown on-screen in the JJ films is canon, including what happened in the Prime Universe (destruction of Romulus, disappearance of Spock, etc.) but they're sort of a side-discussion.

Think of the JJ-verse as one of the parallel universes in the TNG episode Parallels. Technically, it's canon that in at least one universe the Borg overtook the Federation and assimilated the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. Similarly, it's canon that in another universe, the USS Kelvin was destroyed by a Prime Universe interference in the form of Nero and the Narada. Is what happens in the JJ-verse important to the overall canon of Star Trek? Other than the Prime Universe factors of Spock disappearing and Romulus being destroyed, not really. So in short, yeah, I think the JJ-verse is canon, but should only be a side-note to the Prime Universe.

[Cehus]

Voted no. The films just feel far too different.

[Morris]

I'm going to take a different approach. I'm voting no because of what I believe is implied with this question. I believe that, by the way this question is worded, the question is, is 'JJ Trek' canon in the 'Prime Trek' family of canon? My answer to that is no. It's the same to me as if someone asked me is 'Star Wars' canon in 'Star Trek' canon. They are not the same. They are their own separate pieces of work, creating their own standards for what is canon within their own universes. 'Prime Trek' was built upon a single continuity from TOS to Nemesis. 'JJ Trek' is so loosely connected to 'Prime Trek', and diverges so far away from 'Prime Trek', that in my mind, it creates it's own new universe (literally(within Star Trek fiction, for all of you nit-pickers out there))...and new canon...new canon that cannot exist within the 'Prime Trek' canon. They are separate.

With that being said, we are a community of Star Trek fans...fans of Star Trek in all of it's incarnations. Not all of us like every incarnation of Star Trek. To some of us, some versions of Star Trek blaspheme the original spirit developed through the 'Prime Trek' universe. To others, it's nice to see something new and exciting, something drawing in new fans to Trek that have never really been exposed to it before. Neither viewpoint is wrong. Both are just opinions of what Star Trek is, and should be. Gene Roddenberry was the only one, in my opinion, who could have made a definitive claim on what was canon or not, and he is no longer with us to do that. In all truth, I believe that Star Trek has grown well beyond what anyone can definitively claim is canon anymore. Whatever part of Star Trek that we associate ourselves with, on an individual basis, can be, and probably is, what is considered canon to us as individuals. That is what we associate as Star Trek in our own personal lives.

Whenever the question of 'What is canon, or not?' comes up, especially in regard to Fleet Uniforms, what some consider to be canon gets used as a hammer to quash all dissenting viewpoints. Without getting to deeply into that discussion, I'll just say that there is more than one version of what Star Trek fans consider to be canon, depending on where each of us fits inside the Star Trek Universe. Remember that the next time that you feel like wielding the all-deciding power of the canon hammer.

[Three of Seven]

I have gone with no, I don't feel it holds true to the original, in honouring it or respecting it. Starting from a blank slate to create something new and different, can't say I am a fan of that. JJ also clearly showed no love for the franchise after leaving to go direct a new film, directors are free to do this I imagine but if you truly love something, you stick with it.

There was a lot of material already around to work with, both in the future and parts in the existing universe that were left unanswered or unexplored. There was no real need to "reboot" the franchise, it may bring in new viewers but some may not investigate the past series and films or not respect those prior.

Also the uniforms are too shiny.

[Bridger]

I have voted NO because Star Trek TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and the movies had a story to tell. They were telling stories about freedom, exploration, self determination, criticizing what is wrong in our society and they showed as a possible peaceful future.

JJ Trek is the same as Transformers, Godzilla, Battleship... good action movies but nothing more than that and definitively not Star Trek.

[Kains]

I answered Yes: If we accept trash like Threshold as cannon just because of Captain Steinway, we probably should accept the Apple Store as the bridge of the Enterprise.

As a funny side note I do remember joking with friends in Junior High about how Ds9 wasn't real star trek when it was in it's second season: Too much junk, too much religion, and most heinous of all, no starship boldly going.

And 20 years later it is iconic. In the end I loved Ds9 (Have a model of it on my desk ) but I do find the arguments very similar. Especially since we had them again with Voyager, and Enterprise (Mostly Voyager...)

[Three of Seven]

Both Enterprise and Voyager honour their predecessors far more than JJ Trek...

http://www.blastr.com/2013-3-5/why-s...bull-jj-abrams

[Kains]

I'm not really sure I want to travel down this road again, but alrighty, once more into the breach.

Attempting to look at this objectively, we have the following similarities:
- An original cast member to 'canonize' your material (Bones in TNG, Picard in Ds9, Q in Voy, Spock in JJ... heh)
- Names, place settings, treknology is similar (Warp core is still warp core, not Super Ultra Fusion Core), and still bent when deemed necessary by the story (ie whenever the writers feel like it)
- Maintains the basic premise of many of the movies and shows: Starship full of people go out and have adventures.

I totally agree that is a radical divergence from the Roddenberry ideal, as there is simply nothing in there to make you look at it and see that humanity has gotten better as a people. No good message, or insightful commentary on the people we are now.

But is it cannon?

I think we can all think of dozens of episodes that meet the basic criteria of Trek, but also do nothing at all to further that Roddenberry vision. So if they are cannon, why isn't JJs?

I had read LeVar's comments before, and I agree with him: If that is true that JJ wants 'his' Trek to be the 'only' Trek, then I totally agree. However, I've never heard that substantiated in any way outside of this interview. All I ever got was that Trek was a resume for his Star Wars application, which makes me sad, but hopeful that at least keeping the idea of Trek current means that *maybe* more people will watch the old shows and learn a thing or two.

[Wesstan]

To me the prime universe that we all love so much is canon. JJs Trek are good action movies as Bridger already stated. But they are nothing else.

[Adster94]

I voted yes. Simply because what is on screen, is essentially canon. The fact that it is an alternate universe, also allows the JJ-verse to be canon. Prime Universe is definitely "more canon" than JJ-verse, but I would consider both as canon.

[Mush]

Is JJTrek canon? Yes. It appeared on screen as an official work. [/thread]

That said, I have no problem with individuals creating their own "head canon." That allows me to say, "Generahuh? Voyawho? Enterwhat? Never heard of them."

[Sysil]

My opinion is that, for any franchise, if something is added to the lore that conflicts with already established things and / or does not reflect the spirit of what came before it should not be considered canon.

That why the following things, for me, are not canon:

- Enterprise
- Star Wars Episode I, II, and III
- Star Trek (2009) and it's sequels.

[Kains]

Man, I wish I could pick and choose which parts 'really' happened...

... 'cause there are large parts on the 90's I wouldnt mind pretending didn't exist.

[Farron]

I'm voting yes because no matter how much I want to say otherwise, I can't objectively convince myself otherwise. That said, there are ways to cope with this...

It's a parallel universe, it doesn't wipe out everything we've seen before and continues on it's own alongside what we already know and love. That way it can't really conflict with established lore and is free to do what it likes, it also means we're free to ignore it and focus on the Prime Universe.

Why I agree it certainly isn't in the spirit of the franchise and it isn't really the Star Trek that had been established over the decades preceding, in terms of the events that take place, that stuff happens, It just happens on it's own without interfering with the Prime Universe. I still maintain it fails absolutely as "Trek" and is merely a fairly decent action flick. I liked the casting, costume and set design etc but it was all show, once you scratch a little bit there was nothing really there that I loved about Trek (which is why I've seen each JJ film once, and lost count of ST 1-10).

As Kains insinuated, we can't really pick and choose what official on screen works count but we don't have to like it and we can always watch it suffer in comparison to a far greater body of work.