After Abrams

[junxon]

they should make a pure traditional trek film that would tank at the box office and kill trek forever just to shut up future demands for pure trek.

[Nerys Myk]

junxon wrote:

---

they should make a pure traditional trek film that would tank at the box office and kill trek forever just to shut up future demands for pure trek.

Wasn't that called Insurrection?

[C.E. Evans]

I'm inclined to think that after Star Trek XIII, there will be several years of inactivity and then Paramount will announce a total reboot with new actors playing Kirk and Spock & the gang. This one will be a clean restart, as if no previous version of Trek had ever existed and it was being created for the first time, with everything being completely reimagined from the Enterprise to the uniforms (goodbye both prime and Ambramsverse continuities).

And CBS will just continue to sit back and continue what they've been doing with Trek on the TV front for the past eight years.

[The Wormhole]

Robert Comsol wrote:

---

With all the paradigm shifts within the franchise it is a difficult concept.

I don't know if I read you correctly, but what I missed a lot ever since Trek movies went down the wrath / revenge / conflict / war path is the original concept that Star Trek is about to go where no one has gone before (and not to go where George Lucas or JMS went, it's derivative), explore space, meet different cultures and how to handle human and interspecies relationships and conflicts.

That's what I always assumed to be Roddenberry's Star Trek Vision, that's what used to be Star Trek's trademark and - I have to put it bluntly - the animated series had more of these Star Trek characteristics than the same amount of "Star Trek" movie screen time I had to endure in previous years.

Unless, as you put it, a "traditionalist" puts Star Trek back onto its original tracks to create a noticable distinction from "Star Wars" or "Star...Ship Troopers" I don't see a promising future for the franchise.

Bob

Honestly, I just use the words "tradition" and "pure" simply to get a rise out of people. And it works much better than I usually intend. I'm really not that picky about Star Trek and honestly don't care about what is or isn't "true to Roddenberry's vision." But really, being an "anythign goes" kind of guy doesn't really make for an entertainng online persona.

[The Mirrorball Man]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

Honestly, I just use the words "tradition" and "pure" simply to get a rise out of people.

There is technical term that describes this particular approach.

[King Daniel Into Darkness]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

But in all honesty, Trek fandom is contrarian by nature and therefore anything that is not the current Trek is therefore Pure Trek. Abrams Trek cannot be considered Pure until after it is done and another incarnation of Trek is being made. Just like Enterprise did not become Pure until Trek XI's release.

This is the fundamental truth of purity in Star Trek.

This is actually true. I remember the Ex Astris Scientia website trashing Enterprise quite completely - the ship and technology, the continuity, the characters and storylines - and then when JJ Abrams came along I read "...at least Enterprise was pure Trek..." and laughed by ass off.

[The Wormhole]

King Daniel wrote:

---

This is actually true. I remember the Ex Astris Scientia website trashing Enterprise quite completely - the ship and technology, the continuity, the characters and storylines - and then when JJ Abrams came along I read "...at least Enterprise was pure Trek..." and laughed by ass off.

And by extension, Voyager was constantly ridiculed and criticized during its run, but as soon as Enterprise came around everyone online became "at least Voyager was pure Star Trek." Trekkies - we only like what came before.

[Robert Comsol]

The Wormhole wrote:

---

And by extension, Voyager was constantly ridiculed and criticized during its run, but as soon as Enterprise came around everyone online became "at least Voyager was pure Star Trek." Trekkies - we only like what came before.

I don't agree. IMHO, what we've seen in recent Star Trek is a steady "expectation erosion". If you think it can't get "worse" you better think again. If you feel the latest incarnation really isn't good, the contrast can at least help to discover more positive things in the previous one. Thus, attitudes can change which I think is only natural and last but not least human.

Bob

[Dix]

Trek lives on, but its soul is dead.

In 10-15 years the studio should consider making a new live action Trek series. In the meantime I think an animated series wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Greg Cox]

Dix wrote:

---

Trek lives on, but its soul is dead.

Nah, but its katra has been placed in Karl Urban's brain.

"Remember."

[poundpuppy29]

I just hope there is new Trek after Abrams

[C.E. Evans]

poundpuppy29 wrote:

---

I just hope there is new Trek after Abrams

There will be, it's just a question of when.

[Temis the Vorta]

Paramount will continually produce Star Trek movies for the foreseeable future. The movie biz has become centered around tentpole franchises, and thanks to Abrams, Star Trek is securely situated as a success in that category.

There really aren't a lot of franchises out there, and it's an expensive risk to try to create a new one (ie, John Carter), so nobody is going to discard one wantonly. Some franchises like Harry Potter and LOTR have an end date (they are going to stop after they stretch The Hobbit till it squeaks, right?) So an open-ended franchise is the best kind of all. Star Trek, Star Wars, James Bond and The Avengers are all golden names in Hollywood.

[Relayer1]

Whether it's on film or TV there will be more Trek. It will be in the JJverse (no going back to prime continuity folks) and may well feature new ships, cast and crew.

And it won't jump forward to the 24th century - they won't reboot TNG.

[Greg Cox]

Relayer1 wrote:

---

Whether it's on film or TV there will be more Trek. It will be in the JJverse (no going back to prime continuity folks) and may well feature new ships, cast and crew.

And it won't jump forward to the 24th century - they won't reboot TNG.

I agree with half of that. I can't imagine that they'll ever go back to the earlier continuity, but I can see somebody rebooting TNG one of these days. TNG nostalgia is bound to kick in at some point, especially as the generation that grew up on that show ends up in charge . . . . .