RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,230
Posts: 5,347,550
Members: 24,607
Currently online: 589
Newest member: lueth2048

TrekToday headlines

Insight Editions Announces Three Trek Books For 2015
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

To Be Takei Review by Spencer Blohm
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Mulgrew: Playing Red
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Hallmark 2015 Trek Ornaments
By: T'Bonz on Jul 24

Funko Mini Spock
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

IDW Publishing Comic Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

A Baby For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Jul 23

Klingon Beer Arrives In The US
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Star Trek: Prelude To Axanar
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22

Abrams Announces Star Wars: Force For Change Sweepstakes
By: T'Bonz on Jul 22


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 17 2013, 02:00 AM   #106
Misfit Toy
Caped Trek Mod
 
Misfit Toy's Avatar
 
Location: Transporter buffer
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".
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.
__________________
Woof.
Misfit Toy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:03 AM   #107
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
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".
He had no problem cashing the checks.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:08 AM   #108
Greg Cox
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Oxford, PA
Re: Not real Star Trek

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.
__________________
www.gregcox-author.com
Greg Cox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 03:52 AM   #109
R. Star
Rear Admiral
 
R. Star's Avatar
 
Location: Shangri-La
Re: Not real Star Trek

Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
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".
He had no problem cashing the checks.
Gene was hardly unique in Hollywood in banking on preaching the evils of capitalism.
__________________
"I was never a Star Trek fan." J.J. Abrams
R. Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 04:19 AM   #110
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Not real Star Trek

R. Star wrote: View Post
Nerys Myk wrote: View Post
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".
He had no problem cashing the checks.
Gene was hardly unique in Hollywood in banking on preaching the evils of capitalism.
Not the point I was making.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 06:04 AM   #111
CommishSleer
Fleet Captain
 
CommishSleer's Avatar
 
Location: Way back of nowhere
View CommishSleer's Twitter Profile
Re: Not real Star Trek

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
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.
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'
CommishSleer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 07:36 AM   #112
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: Not real Star Trek

I hope TAS is real Star Trek now because there are dragons in it and I'm very fond of dragons.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 10:51 AM   #113
Ln X
Fleet Captain
 
Ln X's Avatar
 
Location: The great gig in the sky
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
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!
__________________
Star Trek: The Approaching Shadow...

Caption contest: DS9
Ln X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 11:10 AM   #114
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: Not real Star Trek

CommishSleer wrote: View Post
Greg Cox wrote: View Post
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.
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'
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.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 11:27 AM   #115
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Not real Star Trek

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.
__________________
lol
l
/\
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 12:15 PM   #116
Shazam!
Rear Admiral
 
Shazam!'s Avatar
 
Re: Not real Star Trek

teacake wrote: View Post
I hope TAS is real Star Trek now because there are dragons in it and I'm very fond of dragons.
Good point, me too.
Shazam! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 12:30 PM   #117
Bad Thoughts
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Disguised as Reb Bad Thoughts
Re: Not real Star Trek

To rebut Mr. Roddenberry, Cordwainer Bird .... .
Bad Thoughts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:05 PM   #118
iguana_tonante
Admiral
 
iguana_tonante's Avatar
 
Location: Italy, EU
Re: Not real Star Trek

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
Here's an interesting question: At what point does a popular fiction take on a life apart from its original creator?
The moment it squirts out of their pen/keyboard/stylus.
__________________
Scientist. Gentleman. Teacher. Fighter. Lover. Father.
iguana_tonante is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:22 PM   #119
bbailey861
Admiral
 
bbailey861's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, ON
Re: Not real Star Trek

Misfit Toy wrote: View Post
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".
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.
This is exactly right.

Greg Cox wrote: View Post
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?
Doesn't matter - I know I am, which confirms (to me anyway) what which Misfit Toy wrote above.
bbailey861 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2013, 02:38 PM   #120
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: Not real Star Trek

JarodRussell wrote: View Post
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.
So you want something that looks like a person from Cheron?
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk 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 12:30 AM.

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