RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,383
Posts: 5,505,004
Members: 25,126
Currently online: 605
Newest member: Captain Allen

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12

Rumor Mill: Saldana Gives Birth
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek Movies > Star Trek Movies XI+

Star Trek Movies XI+ Discuss J.J. Abrams' rebooted Star Trek here.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 27 2013, 06:40 PM   #16
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: Has star trek changed

mos6507 wrote: View Post
I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?
A) We have just such a hangout, it's this forum and you seem quite fond of hanging out here.

B) My view is that Star Trek isn't a religion with Gene Roddenberry as Moses. Neither we as fans nor Abrams nor anyone else as creators are beholden to "Gene's vision" in any way. As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether or not this or that is in line with "Gene's vision" is akin to wondering if Colonel Sanders 'would have approved' of the Zinger Tower or the Boneless Banquet. No-one cares if he would or not.

Likewise, Roddenberry's been dead for over twenty years. More Star Trek has been made without his involvement than with it. His 'vision' is sweet and all, but it's restrictive of the kind of stories you can tell and the kind of characters you can tell them about. There's just no real reason to keep mindlessly deferring to it, in my view.
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 06:41 PM   #17
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Has star trek changed

mos6507 wrote: View Post
yousirname wrote: View Post
I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.
I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?
No.

But let's be honest, Gene adjusted his "vision" according to whatever best stuffed his pockets with cash and his couch with starlets.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:01 PM   #18
sonak
Vice Admiral
 
Location: in a figment of a mediocre mind's imagination
Re: Has star trek changed

Star Trek has always had plenty of action. TWOK, FC, and NEM are all essentially action films. There's nothing new here.
__________________
"why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?"
sonak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:14 PM   #19
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Has star trek changed

starbuck wrote: View Post
Has star trek changed
As has already been pointed out, Star Trek has been in a constant state of change since before it first went on the air in 1966. It's not different in that respect from any long-running series.

starbuck wrote: View Post
The new film is looking good from the trailers, but what i was thinking has it changed now from Gene,s vision ,
The problem with a term like "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" is that it has no definite or useful meaning. It's quite nebulous, in fact, and when invoked is often far more indicative of the personal wishes of the invoker than it is of anything which can conclusively and inarguably attributed to Gene Roddenberry.

starbuck wrote: View Post
the trek we all liked and enjoyed the great stories that were told .
Which ones were those, that "we all" liked and enjoyed? Trekkies were never a monolithic group, all liking all of the same things - not even in the days when one series was all there was.

starbuck wrote: View Post
Is it now just a blockbuster special effects film with no real story to the trek world ?
No, but that's just my take. What's yours?
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:15 PM   #20
M'Sharak
Definitely Herbert. Maybe.
 
M'Sharak's Avatar
 
Location: Terra Inlandia
Re: Has star trek changed

mos6507 wrote: View Post
yousirname wrote: View Post
I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.
I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?
Warning for trolling; comments to PM.
__________________
The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but
that the lightning ain't distributed right.
— Mark Twain
M'Sharak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:22 PM   #21
The Wormhole
Admiral
 
The Wormhole's Avatar
 
Re: Has star trek changed

Okay, let's cut the pretentious talk about Roddenberry's vision. You know what Roddenberry really saw Star Trek as? A source of money. That's all it was to him. In fact, Zephram Cochrane in First Contact really is an in-universe Roddenberry figure. Revered by many as a man of vision when in fact all he wanted was enough money to retire to a nice island with amazing women.

Just because something has action and adventure doesn't make it incompatible with "Roddenberry Trek." And the truth of the matter is that Roddenberry is not God. Deal with it.
__________________
"Internet message boards aren't as funny today as they were ten years ago. I've stopped reading new posts." -The Simpsons 20th anniversary special.
The Wormhole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:26 PM   #22
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Has star trek changed

The Wormhole wrote: View Post
...all he wanted was enough money to retire to a nice island with amazing women.
This is the Roddenberry vision that I can get behind and strive for.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:36 PM   #23
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Has star trek changed

Yeah, Roddenberry was every bit as much of a money grubber as Abrams is. Note to purists, I'm NOT saying he was as clearly outright dumb as Abrams is, but money was the primary motivational factor throughout his involvement. The only thing that seperates them is that Gene Roddenberry had a genuine interest in science-fiction so we got something like The Motion Picture, whereas I honestly don't think Abrams understands what science-fiction is beyond "an action film with some aliens in it".

It's a bad idea to elevate one man and his ideas. My Star Trek heroes are Michael Piller, Ira Stephen Behr and Gene Coon. I see Roddenberry as a good TV producer, if somewhat sleazy, corrupt and lazy. Star Trek was and always has been a collaborate process. Even JJ Abrams gets way too much credit from people who don't know he hasn't written either Trek film he's made.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:38 PM   #24
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Has star trek changed

DalekJim wrote: View Post
Note to purists, I'm NOT saying he was as clearly outright dumb as Abrams is...
You blow any credibility the rest of your statement may have when you insert dumbass shit like this.
__________________
"...the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is I do not know." - Lt. Commander Data, "Where Silence Has Lease"
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 07:57 PM   #25
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Has star trek changed

If you paid attention to the post, you'd see I was actually defending Abrams and saying he's no greedier than Roddenberry was.

I as just trying to get purists off my case by making it clear I still think Roddenberry was a smart guy, which I'm not remotely convinced Abrams is from interviews. He seems confused in every press interview I've seen him in, I almost feel sorry for him.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 08:03 PM   #26
The Mirrorball Man
Vice Admiral
 
The Mirrorball Man's Avatar
 
Location: Switzerland
View The Mirrorball Man's Twitter Profile
Re: Has star trek changed

mos6507 wrote: View Post
yousirname wrote: View Post
I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.
I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?
Surely Trek's purists understand that whatever "Gene's vision" might be, it's Gene Coon's?
__________________
Check out my deviantArt gallery!
The Mirrorball Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 08:10 PM   #27
yousirname
Commander
 
yousirname's Avatar
 
Re: Has star trek changed

Calling Abrams dumb doesn't make any sense to me. Michael Bay makes extraordinarily dumb movies, for instance, but I'm sure he's at least of average intelligence.

Also don't understand the view that Abrams 'has no interest' in science fiction. He's involved, however tangentially, in making so much of the stuff - Lost, Cloverfield, Super-8, Star Trek, Star Wars - he seems to have at least a passing interest, no?
yousirname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 08:16 PM   #28
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Has star trek changed

yousirname wrote: View Post
Also don't understand the view that Abrams 'has no interest' in science fiction. He's involved, however tangentially, in making so much of the stuff - Lost, Cloverfield, Super-8, Star Trek 2009, Star Wars - he seems to have at least a passing interest, no?
The only one of those I'd consider to be true science-fiction would be the time travel episodes of Lost and he had zero influence on them. They were conceived of/written by Damon Lindelof and Calrton Cuse

He is from the Spielberg/Lucas school of thought regarding the genre which is PERFECT for Star Wars Episode VII but entirely wrong for Star Trek. My two pence.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 08:17 PM   #29
edshrinker
Ensign
 
Location: Pinehurst, NC
Re: Has star trek changed

DalekJim wrote: View Post
If you paid attention to the post, you'd see I was actually defending Abrams and saying he's no greedier than Roddenberry was.

I as just trying to get purists off my case by making it clear I still think Roddenberry was a smart guy, which I'm not remotely convinced Abrams is from interviews. He seems confused in every press interview I've seen him in, I almost feel sorry for him.
Read your own post. You called Abrams dumb. Outright dumb. Wondering when I can read a script from you as good as Regarding Henry - which dumb Abrams wrote.

And you are mistaking excitability for confusion. You may not like his style of entertainment, but to say the man is not intelligent as successful as he is in the industry (because Disney CLEARLY doesn't know what they are doing) is just, well, dumb.

And he is also a business owner. A little somewhat successful production company called Bad Robot. Maybe you have heard of it.
edshrinker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 27 2013, 08:28 PM   #30
Santa Claus
Believe
 
Santa Claus's Avatar
 
Location: J. Allen's Rooftop
Send a message via ICQ to Santa Claus Send a message via AIM to Santa Claus Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Santa Claus Send a message via Yahoo to Santa Claus
Re: Has star trek changed

BillJ wrote: View Post
mos6507 wrote: View Post
yousirname wrote: View Post
I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.
I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?
No.

But let's be honest, Gene adjusted his "vision" according to whatever best stuffed his pockets with cash and his couch with starlets.
This.

I have much love and respect for Gene Roddenberry, and the work he did, but things change, and there's no such thing as a "purist" because no series will ever be "pure" to everyone, not even TOS, which would occasionally contradict itself and it's own stated goals. People who claim to be "purists" are merely people who hate any kind of change whatsoever, and hold to their favorite series like a warm, fuzzy blanket. Nothing more.

I think the best explanation for Gene Roddenberry's vision was echoed by James Cromwell's Zephram Cochrane in Star Trek: First Contact, who said, "You wanna know what my vision is? ...Dollar signs! Money! I didn't build this ship to usher in a new era for humanity. You think I wanna go to the stars? I don't even like to fly. I take trains. I built this ship so that I could retire to some tropical island filled with ...naked women. That's Zefram Cochrane. That's his vision. This other guy you keep talking about. This historical figure. I never met him. I can't imagine I ever will."

Gene had a vision, but it was formed much later on, after he had convinced himself that he was doing something for the greater good of humanity.
__________________
---------
"I believe... I believe... It's silly, but I believe." - Susan Walker
---------
❄ A Joyful Holiday Season to You All! ❄

Santa Claus is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.