Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Star Trek] Let's make sure history never forgets the name Enterprise

13468999

Posts

  • TheBigEasyTheBigEasy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    A clean sweep allows the opportunity to create new stories and situations with little viewer investment. They can just jump in and enjoy the series. It also pleases fanboys because there isn't this gigantic elephant in the room.
    Read my earlier posts. I've debunked the idea that continuity can't be maintained while also having easy entrance to new viewers. This isn't an either/or situation here. I'm not sure why some believe that there's only one degree of continuity. Constant referral to previous entries does not have to be used. There's no downside to having a little bit of reference or other elements of continuity in something almost completely new. Again, like TNG did. It adds something for people who like that thing, and doesn't do anything to alienate new viewers.

    Also, again, I'm talking about a series on television not a film series. I don't care about ST movies. Most of them aren't very well made, some are nigh unwatchable. I'd totally agree that for a film series, the continuity would not work.

    No you didn't. All you did was cite TNG as your main point, and it is not that easy.

    TNG was another era of television. I doubt TNG would work the same way again today. Back then it was only TOS and about 4 movies in terms of canon/continuity. Today, as I have said before, there are 5 TV shows and 10 movies. As Priest said ... writers would be retconning your grandma into the show. Also, it is way to easy to do the same old, same old storylines.

    Plus, as has also been said ... TNG itself didn't have continuity. Most episodes were stand-alones. There was no big arc like in DS9.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Besides, technology in continuity at the beginning of TNG was basically limited to transporters, phasers and warp drive.

    By now you have warp 10 that can instantly get you anywhere in the galaxy, weapons and armours that allow you to dispense a fleet of Borg with one shot without chipping the paint off the ship, portable holograms, nanoprobes that can be programmed to cure anything... basically you can't write a storyline without someone pointing out "why don't they just use X they got in episode Y and get out of it easy?"

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2011
    TNG and the subsequent shows ran roughshod over plenty of TOS continuity, and while a lot of you would be too young to remember this, it was actually a barrier to entry for a lot of old Trek fans back in the late 80s. Space is a much more dangerous place in TOS, the aliens encountered are often very explicitly human with absolutely no explanation given as to why, and there are hints (especially in the earlier episodes, before the details got nailed down) that the show was taking place as late as the 27th century. It's just an entirely different vibe; TOS was a pulp adventure and TNG was in many ways a political show (which got accentuated in DS9).

    Most people didn't care, though, because those were details from a more primitive show in a completely different era of TV, and because TNG found its own voice and its own identity. There's now more distance between us and the start of TNG than there was between the start of TNG and the start of TOS, so I think it's fair to say that if a new Trek show wants to tweak, nudge, and finesse continuity, most viewers outside of a tiny, shrinking minority aren't going to get too worked up about it, especially if it's any good.

  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    TNG and the subsequent shows ran roughshod over plenty of TOS continuity, and while a lot of you would be too young to remember this, it was actually a barrier to entry for a lot of old Trek fans back in the late 80s. Space is a much more dangerous place in TOS, the aliens encountered are often very explicitly human with absolutely no explanation given as to why, and there are hints (especially in the earlier episodes, before the details got nailed down) that the show was taking place as late as the 27th century. It's just an entirely different vibe; TOS was a pulp adventure and TNG was in many ways a political show (which got accentuated in DS9).

    Most people didn't care, though, because those were details from a more primitive show in a completely different era of TV, and because TNG found its own voice and its own identity. There's now more distance between us and the start of TNG than there was between the start of TNG and the start of TOS, so I think it's fair to say that if a new Trek show wants to tweak, nudge, and finesse continuity, most viewers outside of a tiny, shrinking minority aren't going to get too worked up about it, especially if it's any good.

    And that'd be completely fine, if there was this empty space between TNG and now, just the TNG based movies. Heck, even DS9 would have been maneuverable in the grand scheme of things.

    Voyager and Enterprise pretty much exclude the coexistence possibility though, without doing a ton of work.

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Another interesting thought for a new series would be a story that took place so far in the future that it essentially rebooted the premise of the show.


    The pilot would open with basically all the worlds in the Federation finally getting along, and then blam! Everyone gets killed for some reason, except for like a handful of people. And then those disparate peoples of various races, species, and identities have to search the galaxy for new civilizations and survivors, carving out a new form of confederacy to combat whatever threat it was that killed everyone else in the first place.

    Think of it as Voyager mixed with BSG, with all the grittiness and exploration of the OT.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas “Three films a day, three books a week and records of great music would be enough to make me happy to the day I die.” Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    TNG and the subsequent shows ran roughshod over plenty of TOS continuity, and while a lot of you would be too young to remember this, it was actually a barrier to entry for a lot of old Trek fans back in the late 80s. Space is a much more dangerous place in TOS, the aliens encountered are often very explicitly human with absolutely no explanation given as to why, and there are hints (especially in the earlier episodes, before the details got nailed down) that the show was taking place as late as the 27th century. It's just an entirely different vibe; TOS was a pulp adventure and TNG was in many ways a political show (which got accentuated in DS9).

    Most people didn't care, though, because those were details from a more primitive show in a completely different era of TV, and because TNG found its own voice and its own identity. There's now more distance between us and the start of TNG than there was between the start of TNG and the start of TOS, so I think it's fair to say that if a new Trek show wants to tweak, nudge, and finesse continuity, most viewers outside of a tiny, shrinking minority aren't going to get too worked up about it, especially if it's any good.

    And a lot of those very vocal minority aren't going to give a shit if what gets run over is most of Voyager or Enterprise either. And there is a huge precedent in Trek Fandom for ignoring large swaths of related material. The novels have been declared non-cannon a long time ago.

  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Another interesting thought for a new series would be a story that took place so far in the future that it essentially rebooted the premise of the show.


    The pilot would open with basically all the worlds in the Federation finally getting along, and then blam! Everyone gets killed for some reason, except for like a handful of people. And then those disparate peoples of various races, species, and identities have to search the galaxy for new civilizations and survivors, carving out a new form of confederacy to combat whatever threat it was that killed everyone else in the first place.

    Think of it as Voyager mixed with BSG, with all the grittiness and exploration of the OT.

    They (as in Roddenberry) kind of did that. It was called Andromeda.

    Never watched it, but I hear it was not so good.

    The list never changes: http://www.infinitebacklog.com
    Chamberlain.jpg
  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I really don't want another BSG. A slightly more troubled federation sometime in the timeline or a new universe, sure.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I really don't want another BSG. A slightly more troubled federation sometime in the timeline or a new universe, sure.

    I meant BSG in the "rag-tag group of survivors drifts through space looking for survivors" sense, not the "robot angels and bloody jihad" sense.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Besides, technology in continuity at the beginning of TNG was basically limited to transporters, phasers and warp drive.

    By now you have warp 10 that can instantly get you anywhere in the galaxy, weapons and armours that allow you to dispense a fleet of Borg with one shot without chipping the paint off the ship, portable holograms, nanoprobes that can be programmed to cure anything... basically you can't write a storyline without someone pointing out "why don't they just use X they got in episode Y and get out of it easy?"

    I can't think of any examples, but I'm sure there was a couple episodes of TNG that should have lasted maybe 5mins due to them having tech that would solve the problem they faced, yet they didn't even think of it for some reason.

    It ain't easy writing for scifi.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Star Trek was always most relevant as a social commentary, both of what we are and what we could be. TOS had a good focus on the Cold War, with Klingons cast as the Communists.

    A new series should focus on social issues that are relevant to us today. I'm thinking namely of racism and terrorism. The need for omnipresent security (Section 31 would fit in perfectly) vs. personal freedoms.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I'm pretty sure Warp 10 and the rapid salamander breeding that induced was already retconned out of existance. As for the rest of Voyager's Magitek, you could say Section 31 commandeered it and that's why ships don't have it.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas “Three films a day, three books a week and records of great music would be enough to make me happy to the day I die.” Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I'm pretty sure Warp 10 and the rapid salamander breeding that induced was already retconned out of existance. As for the rest of Voyager's Magitek, you could say Section 31 commandeered it and that's why ships don't have it.

    Or it became the worst kept set of secrets in the Alpha Quadrant and now everyone has it.

  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    This may be the wrong thread for it, but about 15 years ago I remember catching a show. It had a group of like 5 or 6 people who'd been caught on the edge of a singularity. Because if it, they were caught in time for quite a while, and, once dredged out, found that basically everything they were fighting for had been destroyed. About all I remember is that the ship was in a lot of brown tones, and there was a chick who could change her hair color.

    If anyone could name the show, and tell me if it was any good, I might try and Netflix it.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Warp 10 and the rapid salamander breeding that induced was already retconned out of existance. As for the rest of Voyager's Magitek, you could say Section 31 commandeered it and that's why ships don't have it.

    Or it became the worst kept set of secrets in the Alpha Quadrant and now everyone has it.

    Can you imagine how screwed up a Nanoprobe warhead could be?

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Priest wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for it, but about 15 years ago I remember catching a show. It had a group of like 5 or 6 people who'd been caught on the edge of a singularity. Because if it, they were caught in time for quite a while, and, once dredged out, found that basically everything they were fighting for had been destroyed. About all I remember is that the ship was in a lot of brown tones, and there was a chick who could change her hair color.

    If anyone could name the show, and tell me if it was any good, I might try and Netflix it.

    Andromeda and no it wasn't that good.

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • ThomamelasThomamelas “Three films a day, three books a week and records of great music would be enough to make me happy to the day I die.” Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Warp 10 and the rapid salamander breeding that induced was already retconned out of existance. As for the rest of Voyager's Magitek, you could say Section 31 commandeered it and that's why ships don't have it.

    Or it became the worst kept set of secrets in the Alpha Quadrant and now everyone has it.

    Can you imagine how screwed up a Nanoprobe warhead could be?

    Treaty of Stardate X prohibiting the use of them. Could even make an episode out of it.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Warp 10 and the rapid salamander breeding that induced was already retconned out of existance. As for the rest of Voyager's Magitek, you could say Section 31 commandeered it and that's why ships don't have it.

    Or it became the worst kept set of secrets in the Alpha Quadrant and now everyone has it.

    Can you imagine how screwed up a Nanoprobe warhead could be?

    Treaty of Stardate X prohibiting the use of them. Could even make an episode out of it.

    Like "Pegasus", but without butting into the finale of another show!

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure Warp 10 and the rapid salamander breeding that induced was already retconned out of existance. As for the rest of Voyager's Magitek, you could say Section 31 commandeered it and that's why ships don't have it.

    Or it became the worst kept set of secrets in the Alpha Quadrant and now everyone has it.

    Can you imagine how screwed up a Nanoprobe warhead could be?

    Grey goo

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Priest wrote: »
    This may be the wrong thread for it, but about 15 years ago I remember catching a show. It had a group of like 5 or 6 people who'd been caught on the edge of a singularity. Because if it, they were caught in time for quite a while, and, once dredged out, found that basically everything they were fighting for had been destroyed. About all I remember is that the ship was in a lot of brown tones, and there was a chick who could change her hair color.

    If anyone could name the show, and tell me if it was any good, I might try and Netflix it.

    That sounds a lot like a specific episode of Farscape, in season one, where they get caught in some kind of alien trap. That's only about 10 years old though.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • JebusUDJebusUD Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Besides, technology in continuity at the beginning of TNG was basically limited to transporters, phasers and warp drive.

    By now you have warp 10 that can instantly get you anywhere in the galaxy, weapons and armours that allow you to dispense a fleet of Borg with one shot without chipping the paint off the ship, portable holograms, nanoprobes that can be programmed to cure anything... basically you can't write a storyline without someone pointing out "why don't they just use X they got in episode Y and get out of it easy?"

    Seems like they should all just fly around in portable holographic bubbles or something. The only thing that would have to really exist is the fuel and the engine.

    You haven't given me a reason to steer clear of you!
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Jacobkosh wrote: »
    TNG and the subsequent shows ran roughshod over plenty of TOS continuity, and while a lot of you would be too young to remember this, it was actually a barrier to entry for a lot of old Trek fans back in the late 80s. Space is a much more dangerous place in TOS, the aliens encountered are often very explicitly human with absolutely no explanation given as to why, and there are hints (especially in the earlier episodes, before the details got nailed down) that the show was taking place as late as the 27th century. It's just an entirely different vibe; TOS was a pulp adventure and TNG was in many ways a political show (which got accentuated in DS9).

    Most people didn't care, though, because those were details from a more primitive show in a completely different era of TV, and because TNG found its own voice and its own identity. There's now more distance between us and the start of TNG than there was between the start of TNG and the start of TOS, so I think it's fair to say that if a new Trek show wants to tweak, nudge, and finesse continuity, most viewers outside of a tiny, shrinking minority aren't going to get too worked up about it, especially if it's any good.

    Basically, the only way to work a new Star Trek without a reboot is to do what TNG did and basically ignore continuity all together.

    At which point, frankly, you are rebooting the show anyway.


    The other issue with just jumping forward another 100 years or something is at some point it becomes ridiculous with either the technology being too advanced or the technology being not advanced enough. TNG already runs into this problem somewhat.


    I think, overall, if you are gonna make a new Star Trek show, why not reboot? What's the point in pretending it's part of a larger series when you are just gonna ignore most of the other series anyway?

  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    The other issue with just jumping forward another 100 years or something is at some point it becomes ridiculous with either the technology being too advanced or the technology being not advanced enough. TNG already runs into this problem somewhat.

    That's why I like the idea of widespread destruction of the Federation. It effectively jettisons most of the entangling continuity while still acknowledging its existence.


    Like, say, start with blowing up the Federation headquarters. And the Earth. Put the humans on the defensive from the get-go, and let them take orders from the "aliens" for once.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I think, overall, if you are gonna make a new Star Trek show, why not reboot? What's the point in pretending it's part of a larger series when you are just gonna ignore most of the other series anyway?
    Conversly, why not not reboot completely. That's sort of the point I'm getting at. If you can have references or whatever every so often, is that so bad? Some people like that. I appreciate the sense of history within the star trek universe. I'd never desire some fanatical devotion to it, but still I don't see any downside to having it. Just an additional minor element that is enjoyable to some people but won't scare off new viewers.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    I think, overall, if you are gonna make a new Star Trek show, why not reboot? What's the point in pretending it's part of a larger series when you are just gonna ignore most of the other series anyway?
    Conversly, why not not reboot completely. That's sort of the point I'm getting at. If you can have references or whatever every so often, is that so bad? Some people like that. I appreciate the sense of history within the star trek universe. I'd never desire some fanatical devotion to it, but still I don't see any downside to having it. Just an additional minor element that is enjoyable to some people but won't scare off new viewers.

    But then you are suggesting rebooting and just not calling it that.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    More of a not quite but sort of reboot. Much like TNG was. New group of people exploring space but with the shared history. Granted I admit it's not integral to the quality of a new show or anything, it just seems pointless to completely remove it from the shared universe.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Basically what you guys are discussing are the motivations & mindset behind the JJ Abrams movies. And that's where I think Star Trek should stay for quite awhile - feature films. Oversaturation on television burnt the SHIT out of Star Trek. The series has just now experienced legitimately HUGE success for the first time in a very long time - I think immediately tying this rejuvenated property to the Wheel of Crom and having it push itself in circles for another 30 years straight is a bad call.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Then how would you explain away all the 'extra' stuff that people have been discussing here, like perhaps all that Time stuff, or the super tech that Voyager got?

    steam_sig.png
    NNID - bejamus | ESO - (at)guinneapig
  • ThomamelasThomamelas “Three films a day, three books a week and records of great music would be enough to make me happy to the day I die.” Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Then how would you explain away all the 'extra' stuff that people have been discussing here, like perhaps all that Time stuff, or the super tech that Voyager got?

    Pretend they were popular holodeck programs.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Then have Riker and Troi appear and talk about what an interesting historical moment it was.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Basically what you guys are discussing are the motivations & mindset behind the JJ Abrams movies. And that's where I think Star Trek should stay for quite awhile - feature films. Oversaturation on television burnt the SHIT out of Star Trek. The series has just now experienced legitimately HUGE success for the first time in a very long time - I think immediately tying this rejuvenated property to the Wheel of Crom and having it push itself in circles for another 30 years straight is a bad call.

    That's because Trekkies were the original Dave Matthews Band fans, and still are to a great extent.


    You can't put a new, fresh spin on a Trek TV series without a host of neckbeards fidgeting about how Incongruity X doesn't fit with Voyager Episode Y. At best, 2 million people a week watched Voyager. 40 million Americans went to see the JJ Abrahams flick.

  • ThomamelasThomamelas “Three films a day, three books a week and records of great music would be enough to make me happy to the day I die.” Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    Then have Riker and Troi appear and talk about what an interesting historical moment it was.

    Exactly. It's not like either series is beloved by the fans. Pretending they didn't happen makes it easier for the writers and the fans get what they want.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I haven't even watched a full episode of enterprise and only about half of voyager.

    No museum needs another upside-down toilet bowl once it has one.
  • Fatboy RobertsFatboy Roberts Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Basically what you guys are discussing are the motivations & mindset behind the JJ Abrams movies. And that's where I think Star Trek should stay for quite awhile - feature films. Oversaturation on television burnt the SHIT out of Star Trek. The series has just now experienced legitimately HUGE success for the first time in a very long time - I think immediately tying this rejuvenated property to the Wheel of Crom and having it push itself in circles for another 30 years straight is a bad call.

    That's because Trekkies were the original Dave Matthews Band fans, and still are to a great extent.

    Yeah, earlier in the thread, there was a guy who posted quite a bit about what he would like to see in a rebooted TV series - and not ONE of the suggestions had anything to do with story or character. It was all pseudo-military bureaucratic wank. I mean - the wank was on point, he was calling out legitimate detail problems, but that's the kind of thing I think the series needs to NOT pander to. I feel that immediately returning to churning out tv series will lead to that sorta tired wheel-speening much sooner than the alternative, which is letting Star Trek stay JUST a film series for awhile.

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Thomamelas wrote: »
    Then how would you explain away all the 'extra' stuff that people have been discussing here, like perhaps all that Time stuff, or the super tech that Voyager got?

    Pretend they were popular holodeck programs.

    The probe didn't send them to the alpha quadrant, it killed them and the show is about the crew of the damned doomed to fly through an endless hell with Satan herself commands the ship.

    The Enterprise has a plaque that says "To boldly go where no man has gone before".
    Voyager's plaque says "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate".

    bar_zps02bac615.jpg
  • AtomikaAtomika Merry Christmas your arse I pray God it's our lastRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Basically what you guys are discussing are the motivations & mindset behind the JJ Abrams movies. And that's where I think Star Trek should stay for quite awhile - feature films. Oversaturation on television burnt the SHIT out of Star Trek. The series has just now experienced legitimately HUGE success for the first time in a very long time - I think immediately tying this rejuvenated property to the Wheel of Crom and having it push itself in circles for another 30 years straight is a bad call.

    That's because Trekkies were the original Dave Matthews Band fans, and still are to a great extent.

    Yeah, earlier in the thread, there was a guy who posted quite a bit about what he would like to see in a rebooted TV series - and not ONE of the suggestions had anything to do with story or character. It was all pseudo-military bureaucratic wank. I mean - the wank was on point, he was calling out legitimate detail problems, but that's the kind of thing I think the series needs to NOT pander to. I feel that immediately returning to churning out tv series will lead to that sorta tired wheel-speening much sooner than the alternative, which is letting Star Trek stay JUST a film series for awhile.

    Which I am totally groovy with. JJ Abrahams' flick, while disjointed, was exactly what the series needed.

    One thing I loved most about that movie was how little actual time was spent aboard the bridge of the Enterprise, which has always been the mainstay of the Trek franchise in any incarnation. I hope it stays that way.

  • PriestPriest Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Basically what you guys are discussing are the motivations & mindset behind the JJ Abrams movies. And that's where I think Star Trek should stay for quite awhile - feature films. Oversaturation on television burnt the SHIT out of Star Trek. The series has just now experienced legitimately HUGE success for the first time in a very long time - I think immediately tying this rejuvenated property to the Wheel of Crom and having it push itself in circles for another 30 years straight is a bad call.

    That's because Trekkies were the original Dave Matthews Band fans, and still are to a great extent.

    Yeah, earlier in the thread, there was a guy who posted quite a bit about what he would like to see in a rebooted TV series - and not ONE of the suggestions had anything to do with story or character. It was all pseudo-military bureaucratic wank. I mean - the wank was on point, he was calling out legitimate detail problems, but that's the kind of thing I think the series needs to NOT pander to. I feel that immediately returning to churning out tv series will lead to that sorta tired wheel-speening much sooner than the alternative, which is letting Star Trek stay JUST a film series for awhile.

    Which I am totally groovy with. JJ Abrahams' flick, while disjointed, was exactly what the series needed.

    One thing I loved most about that movie was how little actual time was spent aboard the bridge of the Enterprise, which has always been the mainstay of the Trek franchise in any incarnation. I hope it stays that way.

    I was quite a fan of how industrial the society still was. From set to set, you could clearly imagine how Earth got from the Post-Industrial Information Age to the Warp Age. None of this "We have like 800 people on board, but like 5 shuttles." shit. No, an entire docking bay stacked to the nines with shuttles, bowels of the ship most people don't see because they're chock full of industrial parts.

    Despite the glaring plot holes, it was a charmingly acted, believable movie.

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2011
    Basically what you guys are discussing are the motivations & mindset behind the JJ Abrams movies. And that's where I think Star Trek should stay for quite awhile - feature films. Oversaturation on television burnt the SHIT out of Star Trek. The series has just now experienced legitimately HUGE success for the first time in a very long time - I think immediately tying this rejuvenated property to the Wheel of Crom and having it push itself in circles for another 30 years straight is a bad call.

    That's because Trekkies were the original Dave Matthews Band fans, and still are to a great extent.

    Yeah, earlier in the thread, there was a guy who posted quite a bit about what he would like to see in a rebooted TV series - and not ONE of the suggestions had anything to do with story or character. It was all pseudo-military bureaucratic wank. I mean - the wank was on point, he was calling out legitimate detail problems, but that's the kind of thing I think the series needs to NOT pander to. I feel that immediately returning to churning out tv series will lead to that sorta tired wheel-speening much sooner than the alternative, which is letting Star Trek stay JUST a film series for awhile.

    I am definitely down with letting Trek stay in theaters for the next ten years or so. But if they stay good and popular, a series is probably inevitable at some point, and I don't see why it has to be a churn or a grind or anything like that. Why can't it be exciting and reinvigorating?

    I guess I think it's possible in this day and age to make a Trek series that has the two-fisted action and kineticism of the original show and the Abrams movie but also the thoughtfulness and the character moments of the best of the recent shows. I'd like to see it in the movies as well - the recent one was fantastic fun but I hope the next one can kind of do a Spider-Man 2 and add some more depth and a plot that stands up to a bit more scrutiny.

  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited May 2011
    Lucid wrote: »
    I thought the recent movie was a little boring personally. It seemed more of an intro to mainstream audiences, people new to ST. For someone like me, who has been watching it since the early 90s and appreciates it for what it is, heavily action oriented star trek comes across as dull. More like an obvious attempt at re branding.

    The TOS films were somehow able to pull off action and thoughtfulness through well done characterization. Those films did fairly well I believe.

    None of them were really blockbuster hits on the order of the recent movie. They were modestly-budgeted movies (Wrath of Khan cost all of $11 million) that performed respectably to a niche audience.

  • emp123emp123 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I remember reading that they were thinking of taking the next Star Trek movie in a more cerebral direction to juxtapose the 2009 film. If they make it more like Star Trek 4: Lets Save Some Whales I'll be pretty pleased. If they make it like Wrath of Khan I'll be pretty pleased. If they try to kill god I wont be pleased (after finally seeing that movie I didnt think it was that bad, and its not like they kill god anyway Im pretty sure they determined it was just some imprisoned space alien guy, and the dune shit at the beginning was kinda cool).

    Maybe they shouldnt make it like Insurrection? I remember not liking that movie, and I dont know if Nemesis was any better since I fucking fell asleep, but I have a feeling it wasnt. The beginning of that movie was kinda cool too. Plus the Remans were kinda cool. Maybe I'll get around to watching it some time; every time I consider watching it I get the feeling that Ive seen it in its entirety but I never remember what happens in the movie. Im pretty sure I saw it not that long ago since Im pretty sure Ive seen every Trek film, but I have very little recollection of that film...

    camo_sig2.png
13468999
This discussion has been closed.