Do you think Star Trek needed a reboot?

[DarthTom]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

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

Elaborate please. The reason I like DS9 is because the characters [unlike TNG] are multidimensional and often flawed. Whether it's Sisko's anger [initially] at SF generally and Picard personally because of the Borg or that Bashir was genetically engineered because of his criminal parents - or Kira's hatred of the Caradassians.

And then in later episodes we see SF itself complicit with Section 31 in trying to commit genocide.

The episode Inter ARma Enim Silent Legas was especially well done IMO.

There are also the middle Dominion war episodes where SF leadership itself has been infiltrated with a commander over eager to protect earth by simulating a planet wide power failure to permit Marshall law.

If anything Dennis, DS9 adheres more so [not less] IMO to Abrams vision for Trek than the rest of the series do. [TOS aside]

[King Daniel]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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 to "TNG standards" to a movie based on TOS.

Also the Treknical fans. Those for whom Trek is about starship design and stardates lining up and technobabble over the stories themselves.

[thumbtack]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Also the Treknical fans. Those for whom Trek is about starship design and stardates lining up and technobabble over the stories themselves.

Of course. Imagine having to start your Galactic Encyclopedia over at page one when you've been religiously scribbling into it every day since 1987.

Why, you'd feel that much of your life has bordered on the ridiculous.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

thumbtack wrote:

---

Of course. Imagine having to start your Galactic Encyclopedia over at page one when you've been religiously scribbling into it every day since 1987.

Why, you'd feel that much of your life has bordered on the ridiculous.

Close that first book and put it on the shelf -- but within easy reach so you could enjoy it any time you want.

Then start a new book.

[Dale Sams]

Franklin wrote:

---

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.

On the flip side, Riker gave away his trombone pretty easily, and...what was it Riker and Picard looked for at the end of Generations? I can't remember, but it was just one thing.

[Franklin]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

On the flip side, Riker gave away his trombone pretty easily, and...what was it Riker and Picard looked for at the end of Generations? I can't remember, but it was just one thing.

They were looking for Picard's family photo album.

[DarthTom]

Dale Sams wrote:

---

On the flip side, Riker gave away his trombone pretty easily, and...what was it Riker and Picard looked for at the end of Generations? I can't remember, but it was just one thing.

The whole economy as presented in TNG was utterly absurd because he presupposes that scarcity of about everything has disappeared.

However we know that scarcity according to dialog in TNG hasn't disappeared. For example, the Pircard family owns a winery. So according to TNG dogma no one on planet earth [save the Picard family] wold ever cherish/desire owning that property and wouldn't be willing to trade for it.

The absnece of a barter system on earth or generally in the federation save trading with the Ferengi using latrium further convludes and makes the arguemnt absurd. Because further according to TNG Trek dogma the Alpha quadrant has de-evolved into trading only with precious substances something we've abandoned here on earth over 100 years ago.

The ulatimate form of scarcity other than land of course are people's skills. And to assume that human beings despite 10,000 years of human history would all of a sudden abandon our selfishness and desire to covet what we don't have it the final and ultimate absurdity in TNG - unless you count Denna Troi's contention that also in the 24th century that sorrow/sadness would go away as well.

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

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 to "TNG standards" to a movie based on TOS...

Those of us who grew up on TOS and wanted to paint ourselves a picture of the TOS universe had to rationalize many of the inconsistencies presented by what we saw on TV, and fill in many of the holes/conflicts in continuity.

It was actually fun to do, and I (for one) thought of it as a game -- i.e., "How do I reconcile THAT seemingly inconsistent fact with what was said two episodes ago". Reconciling what was presented on TV with perceived canon was a sort of brain-teaser game. Some people carried this to extreme levels by making starship plans, maps of the galaxy, and tables organization of the Federation based on nothing more than a few hints -- and a lot of conjecture ("Fanon"). That was fine, too.

The point is that TOS continuity, based strictly on what was presented on TV, was terribly inconsistent and incomplete. It wasn't until the fans started filling in the holes and rationalizing those inconsistencies with their own fanon that today's accepted version of TOS canon emerged.

TNG, on the other hand, was a lot more stringent and deliberate with its continuity (although it had its own inconsistencies). The canon of TNG was much easier to gather by simply watching the TV shows. There wasn't a lot of rationalizing and filling in of holes necessary. I'm not saying that is better or worse; I'm just pointing this out.

[Greg Cox]

Jackson_Roykirk wrote:

---

Those of us who grew up on TOS and wanted to paint ourselves a picture of the TOS universe had to rationalize many of the inconsistencies presented by what we saw on TV, and fill in many of the holes/conflicts in continuity.

Heck, some of us have built careers on that!

[Dale Sams]

DarthTom wrote:

---

The whole economy as presented in TNG was utterly absurd because he presupposes that scarcity of about everything has disappeared.

However we know that scarcity according to dialog in TNG hasn't disappeared. For example, the Pircard family owns a winery. So according to TNG dogma no one on planet earth [save the Picard family] wold ever cherish/desire owning that property and wouldn't be willing to trade for it.

The absnece of a barter system on earth or generally in the federation save trading with the Ferengi using latrium further convludes and makes the arguemnt absurd. Because further according to TNG Trek dogma the Alpha quadrant has de-evolved into trading only with precious substances something we've abandoned here on earth over 100 years ago.

The ulatimate form of scarcity other than land of course are people's skills. And to assume that human beings despite 10,000 years of human history would all of a sudden abandon our selfishness and desire to covet what we don't have it the final and ultimate absurdity in TNG - unless you count Denna Troi's contention that also in the 24th century that sorrow/sadness would go away as well.

*Don't* they use the barter system on Earth? Or some kind of volunteer system? Sisko's dads staff has to come from somewhere. In TNG, civilans trade work to see the galaxy.

What Picard, et al, don't tell the viewer is that it was the holodeck and 'recreational programs' that really wiped out the worst that man has to offer.

(We'll just pretend that Barclay's debut ep, and the artificial social shame, doesn't exist)

[UFO]

YARN wrote:

---

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!

Given how impressed I am by most of your post and a previous one I commented on, the above seems kind of like it was written by someone else. Sure, Greg's river metaphor may be poetic, but not plusible I believe, as it seems to me it overlooks the second law of thermodynamics (a point you yourself more or less made I thought). Nor do I think it would just mask a problem, I think it would be a problem. One sufficient to curtail popcorn munching in it's own right!

The supernova business already gave a false impression of that phenomena of course, but these are not faults that can be excused because it's Sci-fi. Not without some explanation in-movie as to why "normal science" doesn't apply.

Or... Better yet... don't write yourself into narrative corners! ...

That would be my preference.


By the way, I found the comment about the "timestream's way of mending itself". It was a line said by Old Spock to Kirk which they cut from the film (mentioned in the commentary starting at 1:17:35 or so).

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Heck, some of us have built careers on that!

I do it for fun; you do it for profit.

It's practically the same, but I don't make any money doing it .

[nightwind1]

King Daniel wrote:

---

Also the Treknical fans. Those for whom Trek is about starship design and stardates lining up and technobabble over the stories themselves.

I bet James Dixon had an embolism when ST'09 came out.

[Noname Given]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Good point. Did the show ever describe the young Kirk in those terms again, or was that just an odd artifact from the pilot that was largely forgotten as the show found itself--like Dr. Piper and the phaser rifle and "Jame R. Kirk"?

It was basically forgotten.

[Noname Given]

DalekJim wrote:

---

The Inner Light balances intelligent, imaginative sci-fi/fantasy and moving character drama perfectly. It's my ideal type of Trek.

One of the big reasons the TNG films suck, is that they made Picard more like Kirk.

Except The Inner Light had nothing really to do with the world of Star Trek after Picard went comatose. Even in that fantasy recreation, he gave up trying to get back to Star Fleet after a few years and basically forgot all about the UFP, StarFleet, the Enterprise, etc.

(I also have an issue with the fact that Picard lived DECADES of a life in that recreation; yet, afterwards, somehow, he's supposed to have retained that entire memory of the alien culture and his life there; yet obviously had no problems getting right back to his current Star Fleet functionality EVEN THOUGH for him, a lifetime had passed. After something like that, were Star Fleet realistically portrayed he probably should/would have been relieved of Command for some months or years while they checked his out for any mental/physical damage/effects.)

The episode was more Twilight Zone or Outer Limits than something suited for Star Trek. I've never understood what people see in the episode myself.