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.
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'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.
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.
That's just silly. The "real" Star Trek is whatever I say it is. The "real" Star Trek for you is whatever you say it is. Any other opinion is just as valid for the author of that opinion.
Here's an interesting question: At what point does a popular fiction take on a life apart from its original creator? Would Arthur Conan Doyle have approved of Watson being re-invented as a stylish Asian woman? Who knows? Would Ian Fleming have approved of SKYFALL? I don't know and neither can anyone else. Just the other day I was reading about a new lesbian production of "Romeo and Juliet." Would Shakespeare have approved? Possibly not, but that hardly means this particular interpretation is invalid . . . . Ultimately, worrying about whether this or that version of STAR TREK counts as "real" doesn't seem terribly useful or interesting.
But GR created TAS, Majel was working on it but later he decanonised it. Also he was allegedly prepared to decanonise parts of TOS that he 'changed his mind about'/clashed with TNG. Do we see if he listed those episodes of TOS he later didn't want and declare them 'not real'? So does Star Trek become less real if GR or CBS or Paramount changes its mind about what is canon. Isn't CBS supporting TAS now? Does that mean its become 'real Star Trek'
It's hard to determine whether Gene would have approved or not of JJ Trek. TOS had a darker vibe and far more character conflict than TNG and Gene created TOS. TNG was squeaky clean Star Trek because Gene wanted to minimize conflicts between main characters. Finally Gene greenlit the DS9 series having read the series bible and the story synopsis for the pilot episode. Gene must have known that DS9 would be far more edgier and conflict-ridden than TNG. So since Gene Roddenberry's position changed so much on what he wanted from Star Trek, then it becomes rather irrelevant whether Gene would have approved of the JJ Trek films. We don't know and we will never know. Bottom line is if its set in the prime universe or an offshoot of the prime universe (JJ Trek) it is Star Trek. Star Trek has gone through various phases, mostly good, some average and a few which were terrible. DS9 was ST's zenith and afterwards it went downhill. The Star Trek 09' film was a nice renovation of Star Trek, primarily because of the visuals and the iconic imagery. STID was wasted potential of the JJ universe. It's kind of frustrating because it's the best the Star Trek universe has looked, yet STID kind of just partially rewound the promise of this new universe and these new characters. Hopefully the third film can rectify this!
Gene Roddenberry himself described The Original Series as an inaccurate dramatisation of "real" events, in his novelization of The Motion Picture. In Admiral Kirk's forward, he writes... Eventually, I found that I had been fictionalized into some sort of "modern Ulysses" and it has been painful to see my command decisions of those years so widely applauded [...] Nor have I ever been as foolishly courageous as depicted. I have never happily invited injury; I have disliked in the extreme every duty circumstace which has required me risk my life. But there appears to be something in the nature of depicters of popular events which leads them into the habit of exaggeration. As a result, I became determined that if I ever again found myself involved in an affair attracting public attention, I would insist that some way to tell the story more accurately. (pages 7-8) There you have it. The Motion Picture is a close depiction of what Trek's world is "really" like, The Original Series is foolish and exaggerated.
Exactly the way I see it. Trek started with TMP for me, and I imagine the original series with the design, tone and feel of TMP and TWOK.
This is exactly right. Doesn't matter - I know I am, which confirms (to me anyway) what which Misfit Toy wrote above.
Very good questions! Would Roddenberry have felt the necessity to introduce comic reliefs like Quark or Neelix? Would Roddenberry have felt good about a Star Trek film whose basic premise was vengeance, retribution and battle action? (on the other hand, I for one am confident he would have liked Nick Meyer's ST VI) There used to be a distinction between Star Wars and Star Trek and I liked it because I love both just as I love apples and oranges (however, having been an actifan back in those days collaborating in fan magazines about both universes I was always told "You can't have cake and eat it, too" ). Anyway, I had my apple and orange pie, but the road Star Trek has taken since Roddenberry's departure tastes like apple pie most of the time and I miss the "real" orange flavor, metaphorically speaking. An overemphasis on space battles and VFX not make Star Trek "real" as the other character with pointed ears from the other universe would have probably said. Bob