Has star trek changed

Yet, these same people who hate the 2009 movie and the upcoming sequel are the same ones who most likely hated TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise when they were all on, and were always bitching about their flaws and how the characters in each show weren't as good as that of TOS. Now that TOS is back in movie form, they'll be complaining about that, too.

 

Stop generalizing. I like TNG, DS9. VOY is okay. Enterprise sucks. I'm waiting for post-TNG stories ever since 2002.
I would also like to see stories set between TOS and TNG.

But no, it's gotta be prequels that fuck everything up.

 

With something like 526 hours between TNG, DS9 & VOY and 4 cinema outings from the 24th Century, I'll admit to still wanting a much better farewell to that era, than Nemesis. But ultimately it would still be farewell. A nostalgic round-up of characters, two months before retirement, to remind me of the good times we had during the 1990s.

Then ride off into the sunset, Undiscovered Country-style... having saved the day one more time.

I'd want the exact same thing from "Enterprise sucks" too in an ideal world. Although that prequel has far more to prove, while those previous series went above and beyond their potential.

I look at Star Trek Online's 25th Century, and I don't see any future series ideas I'd want to invest any time in.

I'll update my views about the Abramsverse, after having seen Into Darkness but it's not as if my opinion would carry any weight. It's a young fan's game right now, and I don't think they see their Kirk, Spock, McCoy et all as a prequel to anything. It's all brand new to them with its own future.

 

I don't even want that. I want new and fresh characters in the post-TNG era. Admiral or Ambassador Picard may show up if he wants to. But that's it.

 

This ^

The reason TNG work as well as it did was it set the clock forward and did a sort of a clean slate to the franchise. If we're going to return to the prime timeline we need to skip ahead again.

 

We're not going to return to the prime timeline.

 

Of course not. It's done - like proposing a Superman movie based on the George Reeves series.

 

I'm game for that. It can't be any worse than Superman Returns, can it?

 

Sorry, I liked Superman Returns a great deal. It's a good movie, and certainly better than at least half of those starring Christopher Reeve.

 

Being superior to the last two Christopher Reeve Superman movies isn't exactly a tall order. Outside of the sequence in which Superman battles himself in Superman III, I don't think there's a single memorable moment in either of the final two sequels.

But, I'm one of the few people who (mostly) enjoyed Singer's take on the character. I still prefer Batman, though.

 

THIS.

I too loved Superman Returns, and want to buy the Blu-Ray one day.

Also, the idea that Superman Returns was a flop is a ton of bull, as this article shows:

You're Wrong: 20 Common Box Office Misconceptions

 

Here is Ron Moore's take on TV vs. Film that I really agree with and points out how Trek has changed since it's gone from one format to the other.

"I think that Star Trek, in its DNA, is a television show. The features are great. They’re a lot of fun and they’ve certainly opened it up to a lot of different audiences, but the features all are basically atypical episodes, if you think about it. The features are very big action-adventure movies, lots of spectacle, run and jump, shoot-em-up and blowing things up. The fate of the Earth, or the universe itself, is always at stake. It’s always about the captain, and one other character has a strong B-story, and everyone else sort of has very small roles beyond that. But Star Trek, as originally conceived, and as you saw play out in all the other series, was really a morality play every week, and it was about an ensemble of players. They were exploring science fiction ideas, sociological ideas and moral ideas. That’s really what the shows are about, and the movies are just pitched in a different way and at a different audience. The movies will do a story where the captain is split in two by a transporter accident and one half is evil and one half is good, and the whole story is about where does the nature of a man’s strength come from? What makes a man a man? Is it his good side? His bad side? Or how the two come together to make something greater than the sum of its parts? The movies will never do that. They’ll never do a day-in-the-life story with Data or something like “Lower Decks,” where you go explore the other characters. They’ll never do all the things that all of us who are fans fell in love with this franchise for. So I think, at some point, Star Trek will return to television, and that would be great. I’d love to watch the weekly adventures again just because it gives you an opportunity to explore lots of other things besides the action-adventure component."

http://www.startrek.com/article/you-ask-the-qs-ronald-d-moore-answers-part-1

 

You're going to be waiting an awfully long time.

 

I don't know, it took seven years before another Superman movie was made, and that's a reboot. Maybe Returns isn't technically a flop, but is also isn't technically a success, either.

 

Well, I certainly never wanted to see SR again, after the first time.

 

How can it not be considered a success when it made 20 million more worldwide than Batman Begins? It isn't Returns fault that it got saddled with production costs for several prior attempts to bring Superman back to the big screen.

 

Roddenberry was probably more primarily motivated by the possibility of financial success in his attempts and approaches to bringing Star Trek back under his control than Abrams has been on the worst day of his life. Sorry to be the one to break that to you.

Anyways...Star Trek may not have changed that much, but Kha-a-a-a-a-a-n! has.

 

Which franchise takes off and which doesn't probably has to do with what's generally popular at the time, too. It seems that for the last few years, "dark" has been the buzz word in popular TV shows and movies, along with eccentric and maybe even a little bit flawed heroes. Batman fits into that genre far better than Superman does because he is by nature dark and brooding, while Superman is the apple pie eating boy next door who seems so good and innocent and is brighter than a penny. I don't think it's a coincidence that the trailer for "The Man of Steel" looks like it presents Kal-El as someone who is living through an identity crisis and is not particularly selfless and perfect. Superman needs to be humanized. He needs his flaws.

On topic, darkness has even found its way into "Star Trek". Kirk is allowed to be flawed. My guess is the brooding will be left to Spock while dealing with the loss of Vulcan and his mother. The interesting thing is how the powers that be have felt the need to assure people that there is still plenty of hope and optimism in the movie.