RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,755
Posts: 5,216,215
Members: 24,216
Currently online: 860
Newest member: kasmuruis

TrekToday headlines

Q Meets NuTrek Crew
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

Pine In Talks For Drama
By: T'Bonz on Apr 18

New X-Men: Days of Future Past Trailer
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Nimoy to Receive Award
By: T'Bonz on Apr 17

Star Trek Special: Flesh and Stone Comic
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

These Are The Voyages TOS Season Two Book Review
By: T'Bonz on Apr 16

Kirk’s Well Wishes To Kirk
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Quinto In New Starz Series
By: T'Bonz on Apr 15

Star Trek: Horizon Film
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14

Star Trek: Fleet Captains Game Expansion
By: T'Bonz on Apr 14


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 > Welcome to the Trek BBS! > General Trek Discussion

General Trek Discussion Trek TV and cinema subjects not related to any specific series or movie.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 16 2013, 08:22 PM   #91
Praetor
Vice Admiral
 
Praetor's Avatar
 
Location: The fine line between continuity and fanwank.
Re: Not real Star Trek

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Praetor: Love your sig line, btw. That's probably my favorite line in all of TNG, and the one that best encapsulates what I personally think of as the "spirit" of STAR TREK . . . .
Thank you sir, agreed. It was a great line in "Q-Who?" and is still a great and appropriate line now.
__________________
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." - Q
Praetor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 08:31 PM   #92
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Not real Star Trek

Opus wrote: View Post
Yeah, but all their papers, photos and books had the corners cut off.
Wasteful bastards!
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:10 PM   #93
Ln X
Fleet Captain
 
Ln X's Avatar
 
Location: The great gig in the sky
Re: Not real Star Trek

It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.

So the question is not whether it is Star Trek, the question should be whether it is good Star Trek.
__________________
Star Trek: The Approaching Shadow...

Caption contest: DS9
Ln X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:13 PM   #94
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Not real Star Trek

Ln X wrote: View Post

So the question is not whether it is Star Trek, the question should be whether it is good Star Trek.
And the answer for every episode and movie made since 1964 is 'Yes' and 'No'.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:24 PM   #95
CorporalClegg
Vice Admiral
 
Re: Not real Star Trek

Mostly "yes," sometimes "no."
__________________
I haven't much to say.
CorporalClegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:46 PM   #96
Robert Comsol
Commodore
 
Robert Comsol's Avatar
 
Location: USS Berlin
Re: Not real Star Trek

Ln X wrote: View Post
It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob
__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
Robert Comsol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:51 PM   #97
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Not real Star Trek

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek
Perish the thought.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 10:54 PM   #98
BillJ
Admiral
 
Location: In the 23rd Century...
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Not real Star Trek

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".
But none of us know Roddenberry well enough to answer that question.

I think Majel Barrett appearing in TNG, DS9, VOY and the first Abramsverse film is as close to knowing whether or not Gene "approved" as we'll ever get.
__________________
I'm not popular enough to be different! - Homer Simpson
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 11:02 PM   #99
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Disguised as Reb Bad Thoughts
Re: Not real Star Trek

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob
Every film or TV series could be described as an interplay between artistry, commercialism, and vision. With Star Trek, we known exactly what supplies that vision: Roddenberry's worldview. I don't think that it must be "Roddenberry approved," but it must be in dialogue with his worldview. There have been dark chapters and violent confrontations throughough Trek, but in general, they have problematized heroism, something that doesn't happen in JJ Trek.
Bad Thoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 11:05 PM   #100
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Not real Star Trek

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Ln X wrote: View Post
It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob
In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter if he would approve? I seem to recall reading Gene saying something to the effect that he hopes the best days of Trek will be ushered in by someone other than him.

We can argue if we're there or not, given we have our varying personal likes and dislikes but it's continuing to grow and evolve. I personally don't much care for the JJverse as it doesn't seem that original, but maybe the 3rd movie will be better.

All drawing lines is going to do is put all the writers back into the Roddenberry box that turned out season 1 of TNG. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's not "real." Some may not like it, but those opinions don't constitute everyone else's reality.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 11:09 PM   #101
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Not real Star Trek

Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Ln X wrote: View Post
It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob
But wouldn't this reasoning eliminate DS9, Voyager, and pretty much every movie except the first one? Please don't tell that The Wrath of Khan doesn't count as "real" Trek!
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2013, 11:14 PM   #102
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Not real Star Trek

Every new iteration of Star Trek since the third season of TOS has been greeted with cries of it not being "real" Star Trek. No doubt this will continue to be the case for the forseeable future, if not longer.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 12:29 AM   #103
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Not real Star Trek

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post
Ln X wrote: View Post
It's real trek if it is set in the Star Trek universe; alternative, spinoffs, reboots or otherwise. Still Trek. JJ Trek is set at a point in the Prime universe's past, thus JJ Trek is Star Trek.
You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob
But wouldn't this reasoning eliminate DS9, Voyager, and pretty much every movie except the first one? Please don't tell that The Wrath of Khan doesn't count as "real" Trek!
I never got what's supposed to be the problem with DS9. The pilot is so incredibly Trek. The whole sequence with Sisko talking to the prophets, explaining to them what linear existence is all about, is one of the best bits in Trek history. The station crew is multicultural, the stories address relevant contemporary problems, it makes a stand against racism and sexism with a black Captain and strong female characters.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 01:20 AM   #104
J. Allen
Squeaky Clean
 
J. Allen's Avatar
 
Location: United States
Send a message via ICQ to J. Allen Send a message via AIM to J. Allen Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to J. Allen Send a message via Yahoo to J. Allen
Re: Not real Star Trek

I'm a Niner, myself, so I obviously agree with you here. DS9 was all about exploring the human condition. It's just that they managed to do much of it on a space station instead of a starship.
__________________
:: :: ::
Visit Brony Kingdom, where all of your wildest dreams will come true.
:: :: ::

-= All fantasy teaches me is that reality sucks. =-
J. Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 01:21 AM   #105
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Not real Star Trek

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Robert Comsol wrote: View Post

You are describing a franchise where anything labeled "Star Trek" automatically becomes Star Trek and that would make the original question of this thread somewhat meaningless and redundant.

Gene Roddenberry created and produced Star Trek and its most popular representatives, i.e. TOS and TNG, so the "real" Star Trek comes down to the question "would he have approved".

If this line isn't drawn than Star Trek is anything someone wants it to be and becomes indistinguishable from Star Wars and other series and franchises and their distinct properties.

Bob
But wouldn't this reasoning eliminate DS9, Voyager, and pretty much every movie except the first one? Please don't tell that The Wrath of Khan doesn't count as "real" Trek!
I never got what's supposed to be the problem with DS9. The pilot is so incredibly Trek. The whole sequence with Sisko talking to the prophets, explaining to them what linear existence is all about, is one of the best bits in Trek history. The station crew is multicultural, the stories address relevant contemporary problems, it makes a stand against racism and sexism with a black Captain and strong female characters.
I was just referring to the fact that Roddenberry had nothing to do with DS9's creation, so we'll never know if he would have "approved" of it. And we know he wasn't entirely happy about losing control of the TOS movies, although I think most of us consider them "real" Trek.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox 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 06:41 PM.

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