Seth Macfarlane Should Helm the Next Trek Series

I counter by saying "The Inner Light" (an episode you cited as one of Trek's greatest) is not Star Trek. It's Picard growing old, having a family and learning to play the flute, and would have been better suited to the Hallmark Channel rather than shoehorned into Star Trek's world.

As for the new Kirk's characterizarion, I'm not sure where you got all this "whiny" and "entitlement" stuff from.

 

Victory Is Life: The main problem I have with NuTrek is that Abrams seemed afraid to be seen taking the material seriously. He's made both movies so far like a man embarrassed to be doing them and yearning to be making Star Wars, which AFAICT is exactly what he is. Their schlock factor is no accident, it's a deliberate choice, and I can see why some people are insulted by it; it's responsible for most of what isn't working about those movies.

However, he has at the very least proven that the Star Trek brand still has legs and, with some attention to spectacle and drama, can garner mainstream interest. In that sense saying he's done us a "monumental disservice" goes too far. He has reanimated Trek after years of its being basically stone dead. That's a service, even if it falls to someone else to actually revive it.

Owing to the signature flaw of AbramsTrek, though, I'm a hard sell on the proposition that the person to revive it is a career comedian.

Aside from this being a preposterous statement, it's also a step away from citing rubber and glue. You're better than that.

 

MacFarlane has to my knowledge no experience running a live action drama series and his animated sitcoms have shall we say run their course.

I'm not totally against the guy, the early years of Family Guy were some pretty funny stuff and Ted was pretty good movie. But running a Trek series? No, I don't think he'd be the right fit. At all.

 

Saying that a 'reanimated Trek' that is commercially succesful makes it viable is like telling Flava Flav in the 80's to hug a cop. Commercial success does not a succesful Trek make, at leat in my books. If you were worth your salt as a trekkie, then you would have found the simple statement of 'klingon warbird' in the 2009 reboot, as cringe-worthy as I did. That was an affront, to others, a minor one, but still an affront.

Spocks statement that a 'supernova threatened to destroy the galaxy' was also cringeworthy.

Being able to view the destruction of Vulcan from Delta Vega, also an affront.

Into Darkness:

Supposedly secret development of the USS Vengeance, while a garish model of said starship sits on his desk.

Khan Noonien Singh would never have the patience to develop weapons of war for Starfleet while the wellbeing of his crew was in question. he was never a slave, and would die rather than be one. He was a man in control.

Saltwater would never harm the Enterprise hull, and Scotty would have known that.

Starships in this movie traverse incredible distances in seconds, we are talking Warp factor 9.99999999999999999999995 or better, possibly closer to warp factor ten. In this respect, there is no respect to the perceived limitations of warp drive in the original universe.

And theres the military incompetence of the Klingons, unbelievable that they would find humans on their homeworld and not immediately dispatch their fleet to detect the source of the interlopers.

According to visuals, the Praxis disaster already happened, this is a lazy shout out to trekkies. In the original universe, this happened decades later, and required the collaboration of alpha quadrant powers to rectify, here, its a lazy pandering to idiots.

SHall we begin?

 

Commercial success does, however, present the possibility of a better, future reboot happening that actually does play to the strengths of Trek and, more importantly, understands what originally distinguished it. Absent the actuality of really good Trek, I take solace in its possibility.

If you were worth your salt as a Trekkie, you would have asked me if I was worth my latinum as a Trekkie -- but regardless, you don't have to brandish a list of the films' flaws at me, I know them all too well and could add more besides. Like I said, the root problem from which all those other problems stem is that Abrams didn't want to take the material seriously. Which again, makes the proposition that a comedian is the best person to take over the televised franchise -- should one ever again exist -- doubtful.

 

It was lazy, plain and simple, and we can all agree on that. With a budget like that and an immense knowledgabase to draw from (looking at you, Risk Sternbach and Michael Okuda) why the gaffs? its nonsensical. My only conclusion is that Abrams is arrogant and negotiated real tough with paramount. Too bad those on the Paramount side were too stupid to patiently wait for someone who would both restore loyalty to the brand AND remain true to the integrity of the franchise.

 

For a Star Trek film or series restarting TOS I'd rather see someone emulating the likes of "The Doomsday Machine," "Balance Of Terror," "The Corbomite Maneuver" and "City On The Edge Of Forever" than the likes of "I, Mudd," "Spock's Brain," "Wink Of An Eye" and "And The Children Shall Lead."

Man, what I would give to see Star Trek done again in a way an adult could appreciate without embarrassment.

 

That's nice, me too. What does that have to do with my post?

 

I'm not sure why you're singling out Sternbach and Okuda when they had nothing to do with the Abrams films.

 

Well... some of us can.

I don't expect Abrams negotiated the studio into anything they didn't already want to do; if you look at the trajectory the movies took up to Nemesis, they've been trying to make the Trek movie franchise into a mainstream action cash cow for ages. They spent the TNG crew's whole film run doing this, despite the fact the cast were totally unsuited to it.

Abrams' reboot is the fruition of that idea. They hired him because they were looking to make very clear their decision to break with the old franchise. I wouldn't be surprised if all his public statements about not being a Star Trek guy, not knowing what the fans thought and so on -- while perfectly sincere -- were played up specifically to make that break clear.

What I personally hope for is that they eventually realize that there's both money and credibility to be had in making intelligent action-adventure films that aren't dumbed-down or relying on cheap nostalgia. (Or, what Warped9 said.)

 

My response was towards the direction the conversation had taken regarding the direction Trek has taken of late.

 

This.

I feel ya.

 

I should qualify what I said. My favourite two episodes of TNG are "Measure Of A Man" and "Q, Who?" If the writing and execution is on that level then I'm willing to listen.

TNG does have other episodes I like, but in all candor it's generally not of the form in which I prefer Star Trek.

 

Think what you want, but I've said it before in the TNG forum. You could strip the B plot and de-Trek it with very little trouble. Ditto "Far Beyond the Stars" which basically told a totally random story with the DS9 actors.

None of that matters. If you applied this standard of anal nitpicking to the Trek you love, you'd find you would find yourself quite affronted indeed. Watch the videos in my sig for just the cream of the crop - Trek's continuity is and always has been an illusion, nothing more. It holds together in broad strokes only, the new movies no worse in that regard than what came prior.

 

I get what you're saying, I really do, but that's what most of it was: cheap nostalgia. With respect to Trek, as I knew it, Nostalgia was never cheap, and I yearned for more if it, and the writers knew it. They gave us little tastes, with McCoy in Farpoint, Spock and Sarek in Unification, Scotty in Relics, (Im omitting Generations on purpose, btw). They gave us realistic nostalgia, no hero worship, just recognition.

You know how badly I wanted Picard to say to Kirk in Generations that I melded with Spock and Sarek, I felt what you went through with McCoy and project Genesis. How did you do it? I was clamoring for something like that, instead, I got Geordi saying to Scotty "you're in the way!" and Kirk saying to Picard, "Dill". They deftly did it and it was great in its own way.

 

You lost me right there.

I've been a Trek fan since 1966. I was a member of STAR (Star Trek Association for Revival), the very FIRST national Trek fanclub.

I enjoy ALL Trek.

And I enjoyed the friggin' hell out of the two new movies.

So, raped? Yeeeaaahhh...no.

 

One of the BIG things I disliked about GEN was the crossover of having Kirk and Picard meet face-to-face. It really struck me as fannish in the worst way.

 

Well, I happen to like Season 1 of TNG. Yeah, the writing could have been strong...but you had certain 'Trek-ian' things such as the skirts and go-go boots, the feel of adventure, the sweeping music....

And there were other episodes, off the top of my head, I liked as well such as "The Schizoid Man," "Parallels" and "Conundrum."

"Q Who" was interesting as well.

 

That was the point of much of Trek, to tell stories that were good as stories, not just Trek stories.

You went to the TNG forum and said that, did you? Bless your heart.

 

This notion has crossed my mind a lot lately. I'm not sure if he should "head" a new Trek series but he does seem to have some pull in the Trek world these days and might make a decent producer. He interviewed the writers for the TNG season 3 Blu-ray, appeared on the commentary for "Cause and Effect" for no real reason other than being a big fan (albeit he did seem to know more than Braga did). He's good friends with many of the Trek actors. His ability to help re-launch Cosmos has only cemented my opinion that this might be the guy to pull off a new series. I don't think a being a "fan" is necessarily a bad thing as long as he has business sense, influence with TPTB and clout with writers and producers.