RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,388
Posts: 5,447,393
Members: 24,975
Currently online: 455
Newest member: HeathWescom

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Treachery, Faith and the Great River
By: Michelle on Nov 1

Crowded Coop Trek-Themed Bags and Wallets
By: T'Bonz on Oct 31

Original Series Hoodies
By: T'Bonz on Oct 31

Star Trek-Planet Of The Apes Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Oct 31

November-December 2014 Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Oct 31

Kruge Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Oct 30

Two Trek Actors In Green Room
By: T'Bonz on Oct 30

Trek UglyDolls First Look
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

New Star Trek Select Action Figure
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29

Trek Actors In Elsa & Fred
By: T'Bonz on Oct 29


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 TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2 2013, 11:20 PM   #121
Shawnster
Fleet Captain
 
Shawnster's Avatar
 
Location: Clinton, OH
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Lance wrote: View Post
Not really. Its the closest we've got, and the Okudas obviously worked on the production at the time so they had a lot of cred. But a lot of the entries in the book have got the footnote "conjecture" attached to them. I tend to look at it as only being as valid as any other piece of Star Trek fiction. Certainly an interpretation of events, but not necessarily the right interpretation of events.

That having been said, it was an interesting read and an updated edition is long overdue.
Just to make sure... we are not talking about The Bible right now?
No. The difference being most of humanity has been exposed to bias in understanding the data presented in the Bible.

Come to think of it, bias may likewise affect peoples acceptance of various Trek chronologies, too.
Shawnster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2013, 11:21 PM   #122
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over.
I'm not trying to be combative here but I'm curious as to what exactly he dumped? The story is problematic, I've always admitted that and thought even prior to its release it would be but so was TMP's. Because it puts the action-adventure first doesn't mean it lacks heart or scope it just means the expectations of the audience has changed in the 35 years since TMP was released.

For me, for the first time in a long time Star Trek was simply fun. The characters weren't exactly spot-on but were close enough that I was comfortable with them.

And honestly, who here thinks that a movie like TMP would be a major hit in the current environment? J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 2 2013, 11:26 PM   #123
Warped9
Admiral
 
Warped9's Avatar
 
Location: Brockville, Ontario, Canada
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
Yep. Anyone who thinks TMP represents what TOS is are the ones who must have been watch a different show.
I thought that was the main criticism of TMP... that it was remaking a mediocre episode:

"Where Nomad Had Gone Before"

Or was it "The Doomsday Machine" with Decker sacrificing himself to save the day?

The story was certainly Star Trek. The execution is where things got confused.

TOS tried to blend action and ideas. TMP was a "G" rated movie pitched to a "G" rated crowd that tried to be as cerebral as "2001". JJTrek is Star Wars in different costumes. TMP and JJTrek represent the extremes with TOS somewhere in the middle. The question is, just which "extreme" reflects the "heart" of Star Trek?

Star Trek began with "The Cage" and an idea to bring Jonathan Swift into the 1960s. Star Wars begins with an idea to remake "Flash Gordon". I think Star Trek starts cerebral and sugarcoats with action and adventure to make the message palatable. Star Wars is quite the opposite, beginning with action-adventure and down the road aspiring to remake John Frankenheimer in space.

Having said this, I admit that JJ Abrams is the right filmmaker for his time. He knows his audience. But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over. I'm sure that in addition to being a credit to JJ Abrams instincts, that says something about the unmarketability of Star Trek as it was originally conceived.

Or not.

It has got to be a lot harder to wrap an idea-driven script with action than it is to just do action. I think that's why we keep seeing filmmakers go to that well. But for being such a "failure", TMP sure inspires fanatic defenders even to this day, 33 years after its release. A script developed for TV being rewritten as the camera rolled, a studio determined upon a release date, SFX being wholly reconceived late in the production... and it's box office still ranks in the top 50 "G" rated films of all time. And it rebirthed Star Trek for the big screen and TV. And yet, all of us would agree that it didn't do what Roddenberry was setting out to do, which almost certainly was to tell a story well. But as I said above, wrapping an idea with action and adventure is hard. Particularly when you forget the action and adventure.

But was it "Trek" at heart? Absolutely. It was trying to say something deep and meaningful about the human condition -- that Man and God as Creator and Creation are interchangeable. That makes it Star Trek at its heart, whether it was perfectly executed or not. More so than any of the other Star Trek movies. Definitely more so than the current efforts.

JJ's Trek does not forget the action and adventure and is immensely popular. But IMHO it will not inspire a fanatic, deep obsessive fan base unless this road is followed long enough to build its own universe and mythos like the Star Trek that preceded it and the Star Wars that inspires it. Why? Because at heart, it isn't Star Trek. That doesn't make it "bad". Believe me, as an investor, I don't believe it is "bad". But I will be surprised if it results in a new "Star Trek" franchise. There is no "there" there, to steal from Stein. No heart. No Roddenberry and Jefferies (or Lucas and McQuarrie, for that matter). Just stuff -- stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing.
This. And I emboldened one section for emphasis.
__________________
STAR TREK: 1964-1991, 2013-?
Warped9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:01 AM   #124
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

BillJ wrote: View Post
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
But in order to do what he does so well, he had to dump most of what was Star Trek and start over.
I'm not trying to be combative here but I'm curious as to what exactly he dumped? The story is problematic, I've always admitted that and thought even prior to its release it would be but so was TMP's. Because it puts the action-adventure first doesn't mean it lacks heart or scope it just means the expectations of the audience has changed in the 35 years since TMP was released.

For me, for the first time in a long time Star Trek was simply fun. The characters weren't exactly spot-on but were close enough that I was comfortable with them.

And honestly, who here thinks that a movie like TMP would be a major hit in the current environment? J.J. Abrams didn't change Star Trek, audience expectations did.
In particular, I meant the Universe post Kirk's birth. That most notably includes what gave rise to Trek to begin with -- TOS. It includes all of Roddenberry's Trek. And to the extent that what gave rise to the phenomenon still beats at its heart, it dumped its heart. Does "heart" mean being aimlessly "cerebral"? Or does it mean mixing action with being focused on this thing Roddenberry kept calling "the human condition"? I think the latter, framed in the perspective of of a humanist fueled by early 1960s optimism.

A lot of that stuff is as long gone as Roddenberry, which probably explains why it was dumped. But that doesn't mean that when you reinvent Star Trek for the current market you just glom off the endless action-adventure trend and ignore your "cerebral" heart. From the conception of the STXI setting to the execution of a story so fast paced that it never leaves a moment to consider a thing that is going on, it's a blur. And once the thing slows down enough to come into focus, or people get tired of the ride, they'll realize there's no "there" there.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:05 AM   #125
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Ronald Held wrote: View Post
This thread probably should not be about JJ. I think that he is not the one to have "revived" Trek, but if we are fortunate someone else may take over after the third movie.
It is the case that the Prime universe still exist. IMO that should he the focus of future movies and tv.
Kind of my fault.

I suggested that a new edition of the Chronology (if there were to be one) include an appendix detailing the timeline of the "Abrams-verse" version of Trek. Not trying to integrate or reconcile it with the Prime Trek timeline, just having in the back of the book for comparison. And then everyone freaked out just a bit. Guess i did not make my point in a clear enough manner.

So I am sorry to have de-railed the discussion in this thread. Really, I am.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:10 AM   #126
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:13 AM   #127
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by.
Understood. I can get the same way when someone tries to tell me how superior TNG or VGR are to TOS.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:15 AM   #128
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
From the conception of the STXI setting to the execution of a story so fast paced that it never leaves a moment to consider a thing that is going on, it's a blur. And once the thing slows down enough to come into focus, or people get tired of the ride, they'll realize there's no "there" there.
I think this is more a product of having way too many things to accomplish in a two-hour format. I was (and still am) critical of them trying to cram too many elements into the first film though they may have worked under the "band-aid" assumption and figured it was better to do everything that needed to be done introduction wise in the first film.

Though I do have high-hopes that Into Darkness slows things down a touch and allows us to enjoy the ride more.

Like I've said before, never have I thought Star Trek 2009 was a perfect movie but I thought it was better than pretty much every TNG film outing and The Voyage Home/The Final Frontier. As a very casual Star Wars fan, I never really got a Wars vibe from the film. Yes they share common elements but lots of movies do and I think some allowed Abrams comment about making Trek more like Wars to color their judgement.

But at the end of the day, I have no problems with folks who dislike this film or any other element of the franchise. Where my problem comes is the petty name calling and throwing temper tantrums that some act like is a God-given right.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:35 AM   #129
Joker
Vice Admiral
 
Joker's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Joker
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

It's threads like these that really make me regret how little time I've spent in my life defending the integrity of a 60's TV show and its spin-off movie that a company used to make some money.

All those years spent doing other stuff... all wasted.

Damn. I feel so silly.
__________________
My name is Pain. You belong to me.
Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:35 AM   #130
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

My Name Is Legion wrote: View Post
Well, there's a lot of "get off my lawn" that goes on when TOS is discussed. This kind of thing takes care of itself, as the years roll by.
Which makes my statement that the new Star Trek is just stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing have an unintended (and uncomfortably personal) meaning.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 12:44 AM   #131
Joker
Vice Admiral
 
Joker's Avatar
 
Location: The North
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to Joker
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

All of Star Trek is just "stuff".

It's nice that some people consider it to be something more than that... but don't shit yourself when not everyone agrees.
__________________
My name is Pain. You belong to me.
Joker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 01:15 AM   #132
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Joker wrote: View Post
All of Star Trek is just "stuff".

It's nice that some people consider it to be something more than that... but don't shit yourself when not everyone agrees.
I assume you are replying to my post and that your advice is directed to me. Thanks. I will try to keep that in mind the next time I feel inclined to shit myself. However I am under no preconception that anything -- including life itself -- is anything more than just "stuff". Whether the stuff is floating on a big, dead pond of nothing, though... that's what's noteworthy.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 01:44 AM   #133
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

[QUOTE=Warped9;7890157]
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post

JJ's Trek does not forget the action and adventure and is immensely popular. But IMHO it will not inspire a fanatic, deep obsessive fan base unless this road is followed long enough to build its own universe and mythos like the Star Trek that preceded it and the Star Wars that inspires it. Why? Because at heart, it isn't Star Trek. That doesn't make it "bad". Believe me, as an investor, I don't believe it is "bad". But I will be surprised if it results in a new "Star Trek" franchise. There is no "there" there, to steal from Stein. No heart. No Roddenberry and Jefferies (or Lucas and McQuarrie, for that matter). Just stuff -- stuff floating on a big, dead pond of nothing.
This. And I emboldened one section for emphasis.
Thing is "JJ-Trek" doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's not a new thing, its just the latest iteration, just as TMP, the other films, TNG and the other series were. They and TOS are the pond "JJ-Trek" floats on. So far this iteration is successful. When that success fades a new one will take its place, just as Nolan's Batman succeeded Schumachers. And what ever comes next will succeed Nolans.

You say at heart it isn't Star Trek. I would disagree. There's a lot of Trek's heart in there. Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose

Finally we're customers, not investors. ( unless you mean time.)
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 02:47 AM   #134
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

Investor as in a shareholder in Viacom.

Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose
That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone want to dislike it? Why wouldn't they see this substance they are looking for if it is there?

Look, I don't think the majority of people that criticized the last movie as lacking in some way really expected something indistinguishable from TOS. I certainly didn't. But there is a "different" that feels "right" and one that doesn't. Many have said that in the end what we are talking about is "personal taste", and I'm willing to admit that is probably true. The popularity of something is determined by the cumulative "personal tastes" of the viewing public, and in this way nuTrek is inarguably a success.

But is there a differnt way to determine the "heart" of Star Trek? Something not measured in dollars? The essence of it without which it ceases to be itself? I have taken a stab at that by saying it is this thing Roddenberry started out to do -- Jonathan Swift in the 1960s, humanism as seen through the lens of 1960s optimism, commenting on the "human condition". I am sure there are other equally valid descriptions, and I know JJ Abrams did try to include some of this in his movie. I happen to think what he included was largely superficial and that at its heart ST XI was a story about revenge. Revenge of Nero. Revenge of Spock. Revenge of Kirk. That most certainly is about the human condition, but it also largely focuses on the negative and holds up as heroes people that are really not all that different from the villain. Once again -- that is a valid point to make, but in my opinion it isn't consistent with what has heretofore characterized Star Trek.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 03:10 AM   #135
Geoff Peterson
Fleet Admiral
 
Geoff Peterson's Avatar
 
Location: 20 feet from an outlet
Re: Do You Believe the Official Chronology?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Investor as in a shareholder in Viacom.
Ahso. One doesn't usually encounter a literal investor around these parts.

Folks who dislike it focus on the "flash" and miss the subtance. Probably on purpose
That doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone want to dislike it? Why wouldn't they see this substance they are looking for if it is there?
Come on. You're an oldtimer like me. You've seen how fans have reacted to any new version of Trek. Some will dig in their heels and stick to that to their last breath, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Look, I don't think the majority of people that criticized the last movie as lacking in some way really expected something indistinguishable from TOS. I certainly didn't. But there is a "different" that feels "right" and one that doesn't. Many have said that in the end what we are talking about is "personal taste", and I'm willing to admit that is probably true. The popularity of something is determined by the cumulative "personal tastes" of the viewing public, and in this way nuTrek is inarguably a success.
Very true, I just happen to be one who thought "Finally my Star Trek is back. TOS is back".

But is there a differnt way to determine the "heart" of Star Trek? Something not measured in dollars? The essence of it without which it ceases to be itself? I have taken a stab at that by saying it is this thing Roddenberry started out to do -- Jonathan Swift in the 1960s, humanism as seen through the lens of 1960s optimism, commenting on the "human condition". I am sure there are other equally valid descriptions, and I know JJ Abrams did try to include some of this in his movie. I happen to think what he included was largely superficial and that at its heart ST XI was a story about revenge. Revenge of Nero. Revenge of Spock. Revenge of Kirk. That most certainly is about the human condition, but it also largely focuses on the negative and holds up as heroes people that are really not all that different from the villain. Once again -- that is a valid point to make, but in my opinion it isn't consistent with what has heretofore characterized Star Trek.
I think Roddenberry was overfond of citing parallels that never quite lined up, be it Wagon Train or Swift. Especially once he stopped being a TV producer and became a guru/entrepreneur.

Never thought about ST09 being about revenge. I can see how someone might think that, now. For me it was about finding one's purpose. Their first and best destiny, to paraphrase a certain Vulcan.
__________________
Nerys Myk
Geoff Peterson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
book, chronology, dates, okuda, timeline

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 10:41 AM.

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