Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[DalekJim]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

[
I like TNG a lot (as I do TOS). I love "The Inner Light".

Good! Was beginning to worry I was alone here in being a Star Trek fan and not just a TOS fan .

However, I still feel the whole "we are sooooo enlightened in the 24th century" shpeel to be unbelievable. Even with that, I like TNG, because I know it's just fiction, as is it idea that the 24th century is full of renaissance men who can all recite Shakespeare and Keats, all have a passion for classical music, and who all can't fathom the idea of human injustice, human violence, or human prejudice.

I'm too cynical to believe in it but I really love that level of optimism. That people will stop being anti-intellectual, cruel morons and team up in the pursuit of knowledge and kindness. That's what appealed to me about TNG as a kid.

I don't think the TNG idea of the 24th century is our future (at least I hope it isn't), but I still enjoy TNG immensely.

I'd say it's more convincing than TOS which seems to think in the future women will be sexually objectified constantly in the work place .

Nah, I actually love the mini-skirts. It seems so weird now that it adds to TOS' escapism factor. Still one of my fave TV shows despite it's flaws.

None of the Star Treks offer a convincing future but at least they make a solid enough effort. I have little doubt that Star Trek Into Darkness will be a dumb, shitty movie but I'll never bash it for being an unconvincing representation of the future. Only Blade Runner has ever really done a good job of that and even that's insanely dated now.

[Nagisa Furukawa]

BillJ wrote:

---

Forty-five minutes of me watching Picard watch a movie and Riker acting like a moron.

ANYTHING can sound dumb if simplified to this degree. Star Trek is about a group of people inside metal going from one geographical point to another.

[Dale Sams]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

I like TNG a lot (as I do TOS). I love "The Inner Light".

However, I still feel the whole "we are sooooo enlightened in the 24th century" shpeel to be unbelievable. As I said above, I find their ideas of what the 24th century to be like to be creepy in a way, and (as others have pointed out) a little pompous. Even with that, I STILL enjoy TNG, because I know it's just fiction, as is its idea that the 24th century is full of renaissance men who can all recite Shakespeare and Keats, all have a passion for classical music, and who all can't fathom the idea of human injustice, human violence, or human prejudice.

Well, yeah. That's why I love Lily's send-up of that so much in First Contact. That scene gives me goosebumps every damn time.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I'm too cynical to believe in it but I really love that level of optimism. That people will stop being anti-intellectual, cruel morons and team up in the pursuit of knowledge and kindness. That's what appealed to me about TNG as a kid.

I agree with the pursuit of knowledge and kindness. However, to me a person who acts like an intellectual is NOT the same a s a person who acts with intelligence.

Besides, even in the 24th century, not every citizen will necessarily be more intelligent on average than we are today (unless it's through genetic engineering, but that's another thread altogether). There will be some people who are less intelligent than average, and some who are more intelligent than average. Not everyone will be able to be an "intellectual" (which I think is a good thing! ), although hopefully everyone will be free to act with intelligence to the best of their ability.

DalekJim wrote:

---

I'd say it's more convincing than TOS which seems to think in the future women will be sexually objectified constantly in the work place .

Nah, I actually love the mini-skirts. It seems so weird now that it adds to TOS' escapism factor. Still one of my fave TV shows despite it's flaws.

Sexuality is a human animal thing. It's biological. I don't know if it will ever be eliminated from the workplace, considering that people spend a whole lot of their time in the workplace, and they meet many people of the opposite sex in the workplace. The workplace has become an extension of people's lives. I agree humans should attempt to curtail their sexual desires in the workplace, but it seems perfectly natural for a person to become interested in a co-worker in a purely sexual manner. They just need to control that desire.

[UFO]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

... I find it hard to conceive that someone would dislike AbramsTrek over some idealist vision of what THEY think the future will be like.

I’m not aware of anyone like that, but some of the people Greg Cox mentioned might be I suppose. For me it is not a matter of what I think the future will be like. I'm not sure, though I’m hopeful of course.

... why would Abrams' depiction of the 23rd century cause anyone to automatically dislike his film?

I was trying to avoid going over old ground, but you did ask.

I am interested in what TOS implies its future will be like. In ST09 we meet a group of four individuals in a certain bar, who would appear to be more at home in a local Hell’s Angles chapter. Already this raises questions: Are such people common place in ST’s optimistic future? If not, how did Starfleet’s vetting procedures allow people with obvious anger and discipline issues in as a job lot?

Now it has been suggested on this forum by those apparently in the know, that beating up someone in that fashion would earn members of at least some current military organisations a quick termination of their employment, if nothing else. In ST09 they were all on the same shuttle as Kirk the next morning.

Does that mean 23rd century Starfleet has more constructive solutions to such problems, despite failing to do anything based on their entry screening tests of these characters? Great, I’m impressed. But I'd like to know it exist at least. If the fight is that important to the movie, spend 10 seconds letting us know about these new messures somehow. Hopefully in an entertaining or even dramatic manner. I would prefer that to finding out how Bones got his nickname.

Personally I don’t find it acceptable to assume fans will fill in the gaps, especially since these guys probably shouldn’t still be there. Alter all, this is a serious issue and could have been far worse without Pike’s timely intervention. Uhura’s comments made no impression on them. Couldn't she whistle loud enough? There was really no reason to ignore it except the makers didn't think it important enough, or didn't think about it at all.

There are of course other issues of this nature in the movie. But that was the first and I took an instant dislike to it. Had they made some concession to making a Trek I could respect in that regard, despite other shortcomings, I would probably be closer to BillJ's camp.

[YARN]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

You may be overthinking it.

I don't think so. There were moments where my suspension of disbelief (even watching a sci-fi film) was overstretched with improbable events that would not have had to happen if the writers had spent a little more time arranging the pieces so that they would naturally fall together. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I do count it as a minor flaw. It's one of those details that you occasionally notice, and that you only notice because of the incongruity.

Story tellers are liars and good liars tell plausible enough lies that you don't question or notice the little details. I want to be lied to. I want to believe in that ship in space. I don't want my brain alerted and roused to consciousness by details that don't quite fit together.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

It was mostly just a plot contrivance to give the audience what it expected: the familiar cast of TOS, back together again.

Of course it was. Better writing, however, puts the band back together in a more plausible fashion. I mean, if the only goal was to show us the team together on the bridge of the Enterprise, then begin the film with team together on the Enterprise. You don't have to write yourself into a corner where you leave it to fans to speculate about the timeline "healing itself." Instead, a producer should have handed the script back to Orci and asked him for a little polishing and tightening up of certain details.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

I was just pointing out that the time-stream fixing itself is a standard plot device in classic SF, dating back to Amazing and Astounding, probably. It may be a cheat, but it's one time-travel and parallel universe stories have been using for decades. Kind of like "universal translators" or aliens who conveniently speak English.

Sure, plot-spackle has been around for a long time. But I would note that many of those old pulp Sci-Fi stories suffered similar defects. I'm not saying that the film offends any more than many other stories, and I am not protesting that the film is, for this reason, super-bad or something.

And genre-pleading only goes so far. Sure, we can conventionally accept energy weapons and FTL flight, but the details we're talking about are not really genre details, but simply clunky emplotment. It's sloppy writing to lazily stretch disbelief with the when, where, and how of character intersection and interaction - regardless of the genre in which your writing.

Trek fans take more time, effort, and thought in apologizing and rationalizing these flaws (it's a sort of game we all play) than the writers do in laying out their stories. Honestly, I am more impressed with your defense of Orci's script, than anything else. I really like the river metaphor. It's simple, plausible, and although it is also equivocal and masks the very problem at issue, if someone had something like this in the film, I probably would've kept munching my popcorn without immediately noticing this detail! Or... Better yet... don't write yourself into narrative corners! We've already got quite a bit of stuff to believe in Sci-Fi, don't abuse us by abusing suspension of disbelief in terms of simple emplotment.

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Plus, as a rule, I don't judge STAR TREK movies on whether they adhere to some abstract, ideological agenda. Telling a good story is at least equally as important as staying true to some sort of high-falutin' "vision." We're talking fiction here, not sermons.

And I will argue to my dying day that TOS was never "utopian." Optimistic, yes, but full of drama and tragedy and conflict as well . . .

And how optimistic can we be about our future if we believe that we are fated? In good times, we can feel very good indeed, for it would give us a false sense of security. But what of the times of crisis?

But let's bracket this question. There is a more fundamental detail we should discuss. Fatalism is not only at odds with the optimism of Trek, it is contrary to the ontology of the genre.

In Star Trek there are powerful alien forces which appear God-like, but which humans know are not really Gods, but purposeful agents with superior technologies. The universe itself in Star Trek is one which is comprised of matter and physical laws. Fatalism is contrary to this ontology. In invoking the fates, we take one step further away from science fiction and one more step toward science fantasy.

You can play the Tu Quoque, if you wish, and protest that Spock's soul getting transferred and his body regenerating was totally implausible, but if you did, I would only agree. Star Trek III was not conceived well with regard to these details. The weaknesses of this or any other sci-fi film, however, do not account or apologize for the weaknesses of any other film.

The most important thing Greg, is that this was not a needful detail (e.g., something which had to be done given the otherwise organically brilliant or fitting development of the plot) or something which simply emerged from the conventions and tropes of sci-fi writing. It was simply a matter of too loosely conceiving how to get characters A and B together and how to get A to point C.

And again, this did not rape my childhood, and its no worse a flaw than many films suffer. I only maintain that it is a minor flaw. I wish they would have gotten this and a couple of other details worked out better. That's all.

[King Daniel into Darkness]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I love DS9 the most out of the Treks...

You do realize DS9 deliberately shit on Gene Rodenberry's vision of a utopian future, yes? That same thing you've been arguing so hard in favour of in TNG that you feel is absent from Abrams' movie? Ira Steven Behr admits he hated Rodenberry's vision for humanity in "How William Shatner Changed the World"

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Well, DS9 damaged the Franchise's popularity enough to guarantee that they won't go down that road again.

[Sindatur]

I'm still at a loss as to why people are judging a TOS revival/Reboot (Hard/soft, whatever you want to call it) by pointing at TNG and/or DS9?

Any complaints/concerns about JJ Abrams Trek should be of things that go against TOS Trek, if you have to reach into TNG and beyond era to find a discrepancy of JJ Abrams Trek to Prime Universe Trek, then you are looking in the wrong place, JJ Abrams Trek is not TNG period.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Absolutely Right(TM).

[Franklin]

Sindatur wrote:

---

I'm still at a loss as to why people are judging a TOS revival/Reboot (Hard/soft, whatever you want to call it) by pointing at TNG and/or DS9?

Any complaints/concerns about JJ Abrams Trek should be of things that go against TOS Trek, if you have to reach into TNG and beyond era to find a discrepancy of JJ Abrams Trek to Prime Universe Trek, then you are looking in the wrong place, JJ Abrams Trek is not TNG period.

Well, that could simply be an age issue. TNG may be the main frame of reference for what Trek "is" for younger fans who've only seen TOS on VHS or even only on DVD. Us older farts lead with our TOS values.

As I recall it, Roddenberry's "vision" for TOS was not the same as his "vision" for TNG, either. Social harmony was the important vision in TOS. Most of the more specific allusions to other cultural and economic aspects of humankind were done in TNG.

Compare when Picard said people have moved beyond the need for personal possessions to Kirk's collection of antiques in his apartment.

The invention of the replicator probably made a difference in the attitude towards most things and allowed for the provision of goods across all people equally, too without concern for rich and poor.

[Sindatur]

Franklin wrote:

---

Well, that could simply be an age issue. TNG may be the main frame of reference for what Trek "is" for younger fans who've only seen TOS on VHS or even only on DVD. Us older farts lead with our TOS values.

As I recall it, Roddenberry's "vision" for TOS was not the same as his "vision" for TNG, either. Social harmony was the important vision in TOS. Most of the more specific allusions to other cultural and economic aspects of humankind were done in TNG.

Compare when Picard said people have moved beyond the need for personal possessions to Kirk's collection of antiques in his apartment.

The invention of the replicator probably made a difference in the attitude towards most things and allowed for the provision of goods across all people equally, too without concern for rich and poor.

Sure, but, it doesn't make the complaint any more legitimate if you're arguing a TOS movie got something wrong that agrees with TOS but not with TNG

[Greg Cox]

Franklin wrote:

---

Well, that could simply be an age issue. TNG may be the main frame of reference for what Trek "is" for younger fans who've only seen TOS on VHS or even only on DVD. Us older farts lead with our TOS values.

That's my own unscientific impression as well: that a good number (most?) of the fans who have issues with the movie are of the TNG generation, as opposed to us old-school TOS types. And, yes, I've grumbled in the past about people applying "TNG standards" to a movie based on TOS.

But, I suppose, if you're expecting something like TNG, the new movie might come as something as a shock. As I've said before, the reboot added a bit of a rock-n-roll vibe to a franchise that was starting to feel like chamber music . . .

[Squiggy]

Franklin wrote:

---

Compare when Picard said people have moved beyond the need for personal possessions to Kirk's collection of antiques in his apartment.

I thought the line was "the acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives..."

Or something to that effect.

I mean, everyone on the ship had possessions. Picard had his tapestry, flute, and photo album. Even in the Roddenberry era of TNG Picard liked his "stuff", going back to Stargazer to get it.

[Franklin]

Squiggy wrote:

---

I thought the line was "the acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives..."

Or something to that effect.

I mean, everyone on the ship had possessions. Picard had his tapestry, flute, and photo album. Even in the Roddenberry era of TNG Picard liked his "stuff", going back to Stargazer to get it.

In "The Neutral Zone" he said, "People are no longer obsessed with the accumulation of things. We've eliminated hunger, want, the need for possessions. We've grown out of our infancy." Later, he went on to say, "This is the 24th century. Material needs no longer exist."

Of course, you're right, too. Picard had things. He wanted his stuff. People undoubtedly still have things of practical and sentimental value in the 24th century (just try to walk off with Riker's trombone and see his reaction).

Maybe Picard meant people didn't accumulate wealth or things just for the sake of it (or the power they think they may get from it). Power is no longer equated with wealth. There is no need for it or incentive to achieve it.