RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,916
Posts: 5,331,389
Members: 24,557
Currently online: 564
Newest member: PlayerUp

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: Inquisition
By: Michelle on Jul 12

Cubify Star Trek 3DMe Mini Figurines
By: T'Bonz on Jul 11

Latest Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Jul 10

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7


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 > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old April 6 2008, 02:51 PM   #1
omhguy
Ensign
 
STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Maybe one of the reasons that Trek does not appeal to the majority of the population is that it has not grown. It is soooooo rooted in the 1960's.
Trek needs......
1. better visuals. Lets see some graphic violence. Some blood from time to time.
2. Starfleet needs to be more of a military organization. Starfleet works to maintain peace through strength. It needs to be a group that is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers from time to time.
3. Some nudity, profanity, and a "popular" soundtrack.
I believe that incorporating these elements will turn Trek into something that all will agree is fitting for the society that we are all lining in today.
STAR TREK FOR TODAY BEGINS HERE
omhguy is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 03:14 PM   #2
Starseeker
Captain
 
Starseeker's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto, Canada
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Okay, number 2 is a very American approach to things. That would be the George W. approach to the future. I'd find such a future very depressing.
__________________
"I mean, what is this doctor show about? It sounds a little silly." - Hollywood Insider
Starseeker is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 03:54 PM   #3
John Vasiliou
Lieutenant
 
Location: Somewhere in Canada
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

I disagree that Trek is dead (There is a new film on the way)

But I agree there's always room for improvement in anything.
John Vasiliou is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 05:15 PM   #4
Wowbagger
Fleet Captain
 
Wowbagger's Avatar
 
Location: Back in the U.S.S.R.
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

omhguy wrote: View Post
3. Some nudity and a "popular" soundtrack.
...yes. Because Enterprise and "Faith of the Heart" were such huge hits.

In my unasked-for opinion, Trek needs a TNG-style reboot. Maintain the universe while essentially severing pretty much all ties to what came before. Maintain the original premise ("boldly go where no one has gone before") while coming at it with a very new vision. Maintain the optimism, but not the political correctness.

My $0.02.
__________________
Star Trek: Excelsior: a full-cast Star Trek audio drama, releasing episodes semi-monthly. With more than 100,000 downloads, we must be doing something right!
Wowbagger is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 05:33 PM   #5
FalTorPan
Vice Admiral
 
FalTorPan's Avatar
 
Location: Out there... thataway.
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Starseeker wrote: View Post
Okay, number 2 is a very American approach to things. That would be the George W. approach to the future. I'd find such a future very depressing.
Is gross overgeneralization a Canadian approach?
__________________
Watch ASTRONUTS! Visit Trekplace! Check out my personal website!
FalTorPan is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 06:08 PM   #6
M
Vice Admiral
 
M's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Spamtastic!
__________________
Bashir: »Out of all the stories you told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't?«
Garak: »My dear doctor, they're all true.«
Bashir: »Even the lies?«
Garak: »Especially the lies.«
M is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 06:18 PM   #7
ChristopherPike
Rear Admiral
 
ChristopherPike's Avatar
 
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Well, TNG had nudity with women of a certain age. Fortunately, Star Trek survived on TV for a whole decade and a half after that...

Why am I suddenly reminded of Family Guy and the Peter Griffin Side Boob hour?
__________________
STAR TREK: ENTERPRISE Season 5 on Netflix Facebook page
ChristopherPike is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 06:28 PM   #8
Garrovick
Guest
 
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Star Trek ended with Nemesis - TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY are a part of of Trek history.

Enterprise and the new movie represent a new beginning for the new kids on the block.

Let's hope for their sake, they have the cash, time and passion to make their Trek run for another 40 years.

I personally have grave doubts about their and Trek's future..
 
Old April 6 2008, 06:53 PM   #9
Cary L. Brown
Rear Admiral
 
Location: Austin, Texas
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

OKEYFINE...

You're a newby here, apparently, so you probably don't realize yet that it's a WARNABLE OFFENSE to "spam" the forums by posting the same thing over and over, in multiple forums. Just a word to the wise...

Now, having said that... I disagree with the premise as posted... ie, that "Star Trek is dead... Rest In Peace."

However, SOME of your points have some merit... so I'll address them point-by-point. Fair 'nuff?
omhguy wrote: View Post
Maybe one of the reasons that Trek does not appeal to the majority of the population is that it has not grown. It is soooooo rooted in the 1960's.
Of course, this argument is perfectly logical... if you assume that humanity has actually changed since the 1960s. Since I was alive then and am still alive, and can remember both... I think it's fair to say that I'm qualified to tell you that people haven't changed even a little bit between then and now. Human nature is 100% unchanged.

Yes, the current dumb-ass styles are different than the 1960's dumb-ass styles... the stupid "trendy" lingo and dress styles and so forth have changed. Yes, we have some fancier tech toys which do have an impact (not necessarily always a POSITIVE ONE) on our lives. But PEOPLE HAVE NOT CHANGED. And what people want, and like, hasn't changed either, really. This is a totally bogus argument.

That said, however, it's true that audiences in the 1960s didn't get everything that they wanted... they got what they were given. Just like today, we don't always get what we want, we get what we're given... and only SOMETIMES do the two match up.

Now, to your points:
Trek needs......
1. better visuals. Lets see some graphic violence. Some blood from time to time.
Um... that's not ONE point, that's two separate and TOTALLY UNRELATED points.

Better visuals does NOT equal "graphic violence." One need only look at some of the really bad b-movie horror flicks to demonstrate that.

But both points do have merit. Yes, the overall special and visual effects capabilities have improved dramatically since the 1960s (though the TARGETS which were being approximated... the images that the production staff wanted to show the audience... haven't). So better effects is a given.

And I'm in a minority in terms of wanting to see some occasional blood or other unpleasantness. Not because it's "cool" to see disembowlment or decapitation. But rather, because reality is far messier than Trek, and particularly latter-day Trek, has generally shown.

I don't want gratuitous violence, but I do want REALISTIC CONSEQUENCES instead of the oh-so-neat-and-clean world where, like in bad westerns, the guy who gets show just lies down and goes "ahhh" and dies peacefully. Over-the-top gratuitous gore is for kids... every bit as much as "sanitized violence" is.

Some "Band of Brothers" style violence would be appropriate... if it's called for by the plot.
2. Starfleet needs to be more of a military organization. Starfleet works to maintain peace through strength. It needs to be a group that is not afraid to ruffle a few feathers from time to time.
Well, Starfleet IS a military organization. Picard went around saying it wasn't during the first season or two of TNG, but that's because Roddenberry was loony as a bedbug by that point and was trying to have him be Jacques Cousteau instead of Horatio Hornblower. Once Roddenberry's sad influence (remember, he was suffering from a debilitating mental deterioration through that whole period... I'm not being mean, just honest!) was removed, they stopped saying that Starfleet wasn't military.

The issue is that "peacenik" types think that "military" is somehow a dirty word. It's not. But to some folks, "mililtary" translates to "Oh boy, let's go kill some babies! YAY!" and to those types, calling Starfleet Military is a bad thing.

This attitude is far more prevalent today with so few people, and in particular so few people in the entertainment industry, having served. Anyone who has ever served has a far different attitude towards what "military" means than these 60s-reject types who are now running so many college campuses.

Starfleet, very much in TOS times, very much in the later years of TNG, and very much during the entire run of DS9, was portrayed as an unabashedly military organization. Which is as it should be.
3. Some nudity, profanity, and a "popular" soundtrack.
Nudity? WHY? If there's a compelling story-driven reason for it, sure... don't AVOID it if it would allow a better story to be told.

But why actively TRY to insert it? There's no reason for that other than pure, prurient childish "oh, look, boobies, cool!" attitude. Actual adults, with actual sex lives, don't need to see nudity on-screen nearly so much as kiddies who think "boobies are kewl!"

Same thing goes with profanity. Trek has had profanity... but rarely. And as a result, when it has been used, it has had an actual IMPACT.

Grown-ups understand that swearing isn't "kewl." It's mainly rebellious teenagers who somehow think it's really awesome because it's forbidden. When a mature adult swears, it's not to be "kewl" but rather because that person is overcome and, to one extent or another, borderline "out of control."

That's why Kirk saying "Let's get the hell out of here" at the end of City on the Edge of Forever was so impactful. If Kirk swore all the time, this line would have been much less meaningful.

Profanity has its place... but it should be rare and used for impact, not as a crutch for bad writing.

And finally, as for a "popular soundtrack"... BAD IDEA.

Music in a movie is not intended to be in the forefront, but rather in the background. It is intended to be almost subliminal... bringing out an emotional response in the audience without the audience fully recognizing that this emotional response is being driven by the music.

"Pop music" scores, by and large, fail on this account. Even movies that have lots of "pop music" in them still rely on conventional scoring during the actual STORYTELLING portion of the film. The textbook example of this would be "The Lion King." Everyone remembers the Elton John songs, but if you go back and watch the flick, and pay attention to the whole thing, you'll find that there's a conventional, orchestral soundtrack that plays through most of the film.

Oh... and "Enterprise" tried to go down that route and was soundly flogged for the effort, don't forget.
I believe that incorporating these elements will turn Trek into something that all will agree is fitting for the society that we are all lining in today.
Again, your PREMISE is flawed. The society we live in today is made up of people who are, in every meaningful way, indistinguishable from the people who were living in 1966. The society we live in today is not very far removed, at ALL, from that of 1966. The fact that you think it is, simply tells me that you're too young to actually know anything about what you're talking about, and have a TOTALLY FALSE impression of the differences.
Cary L. Brown is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 10:04 PM   #10
mahler5
Lieutenant Commander
 
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Well if trek wasn't dead before, it would sure be after your changes.

Star Trek is alive and well, it just needed a little time off.
mahler5 is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 10:27 PM   #11
J. Allen
Best Pony™
 
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: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Cary L. Brown wrote: View Post
OKEYFINE...

You're a newby here, apparently, so you probably don't realize yet that it's a WARNABLE OFFENSE to "spam" the forums by posting the same thing over and over, in multiple forums. Just a word to the wise...

Now, having said that... I disagree with the premise as posted... ie, that "Star Trek is dead... Rest In Peace."

However, SOME of your points have some merit... so I'll address them point-by-point. Fair 'nuff?
omhguy wrote: View Post
Maybe one of the reasons that Trek does not appeal to the majority of the population is that it has not grown. It is soooooo rooted in the 1960's.
Of course, this argument is perfectly logical... if you assume that humanity has actually changed since the 1960s. Since I was alive then and am still alive, and can remember both... I think it's fair to say that I'm qualified to tell you that people haven't changed even a little bit between then and now. Human nature is 100% unchanged.

Yes, the current dumb-ass styles are different than the 1960's dumb-ass styles... the stupid "trendy" lingo and dress styles and so forth have changed. Yes, we have some fancier tech toys which do have an impact (not necessarily always a POSITIVE ONE) on our lives. But PEOPLE HAVE NOT CHANGED. And what people want, and like, hasn't changed either, really. This is a totally bogus argument.

That said, however, it's true that audiences in the 1960s didn't get everything that they wanted... they got what they were given. Just like today, we don't always get what we want, we get what we're given... and only SOMETIMES do the two match up.

Now, to your points:
Trek needs......
1. better visuals. Lets see some graphic violence. Some blood from time to time.
Um... that's not ONE point, that's two separate and TOTALLY UNRELATED points.

Better visuals does NOT equal "graphic violence." One need only look at some of the really bad b-movie horror flicks to demonstrate that.

But both points do have merit. Yes, the overall special and visual effects capabilities have improved dramatically since the 1960s (though the TARGETS which were being approximated... the images that the production staff wanted to show the audience... haven't). So better effects is a given.

And I'm in a minority in terms of wanting to see some occasional blood or other unpleasantness. Not because it's "cool" to see disembowlment or decapitation. But rather, because reality is far messier than Trek, and particularly latter-day Trek, has generally shown.

I don't want gratuitous violence, but I do want REALISTIC CONSEQUENCES instead of the oh-so-neat-and-clean world where, like in bad westerns, the guy who gets show just lies down and goes "ahhh" and dies peacefully. Over-the-top gratuitous gore is for kids... every bit as much as "sanitized violence" is.

Some "Band of Brothers" style violence would be appropriate... if it's called for by the plot.Well, Starfleet IS a military organization. Picard went around saying it wasn't during the first season or two of TNG, but that's because Roddenberry was loony as a bedbug by that point and was trying to have him be Jacques Cousteau instead of Horatio Hornblower. Once Roddenberry's sad influence (remember, he was suffering from a debilitating mental deterioration through that whole period... I'm not being mean, just honest!) was removed, they stopped saying that Starfleet wasn't military.

The issue is that "peacenik" types think that "military" is somehow a dirty word. It's not. But to some folks, "mililtary" translates to "Oh boy, let's go kill some babies! YAY!" and to those types, calling Starfleet Military is a bad thing.

This attitude is far more prevalent today with so few people, and in particular so few people in the entertainment industry, having served. Anyone who has ever served has a far different attitude towards what "military" means than these 60s-reject types who are now running so many college campuses.

Starfleet, very much in TOS times, very much in the later years of TNG, and very much during the entire run of DS9, was portrayed as an unabashedly military organization. Which is as it should be.
3. Some nudity, profanity, and a "popular" soundtrack.
Nudity? WHY? If there's a compelling story-driven reason for it, sure... don't AVOID it if it would allow a better story to be told.

But why actively TRY to insert it? There's no reason for that other than pure, prurient childish "oh, look, boobies, cool!" attitude. Actual adults, with actual sex lives, don't need to see nudity on-screen nearly so much as kiddies who think "boobies are kewl!"

Same thing goes with profanity. Trek has had profanity... but rarely. And as a result, when it has been used, it has had an actual IMPACT.

Grown-ups understand that swearing isn't "kewl." It's mainly rebellious teenagers who somehow think it's really awesome because it's forbidden. When a mature adult swears, it's not to be "kewl" but rather because that person is overcome and, to one extent or another, borderline "out of control."

That's why Kirk saying "Let's get the hell out of here" at the end of City on the Edge of Forever was so impactful. If Kirk swore all the time, this line would have been much less meaningful.

Profanity has its place... but it should be rare and used for impact, not as a crutch for bad writing.

And finally, as for a "popular soundtrack"... BAD IDEA.

Music in a movie is not intended to be in the forefront, but rather in the background. It is intended to be almost subliminal... bringing out an emotional response in the audience without the audience fully recognizing that this emotional response is being driven by the music.

"Pop music" scores, by and large, fail on this account. Even movies that have lots of "pop music" in them still rely on conventional scoring during the actual STORYTELLING portion of the film. The textbook example of this would be "The Lion King." Everyone remembers the Elton John songs, but if you go back and watch the flick, and pay attention to the whole thing, you'll find that there's a conventional, orchestral soundtrack that plays through most of the film.

Oh... and "Enterprise" tried to go down that route and was soundly flogged for the effort, don't forget.
I believe that incorporating these elements will turn Trek into something that all will agree is fitting for the society that we are all lining in today.
Again, your PREMISE is flawed. The society we live in today is made up of people who are, in every meaningful way, indistinguishable from the people who were living in 1966. The society we live in today is not very far removed, at ALL, from that of 1966. The fact that you think it is, simply tells me that you're too young to actually know anything about what you're talking about, and have a TOTALLY FALSE impression of the differences.

Excellently stated, Cary.

J.
__________________
:: :: ::
Visit Brony Kingdom, where all of your wildest dreams will come true.
:: :: ::
-=- My Patron Saint is Twilight Sparkle -=-
J. Allen is offline  
Old April 6 2008, 10:27 PM   #12
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

It's okay if Trek is dead.

Really.

It's in a better place, now.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline  
Old April 7 2008, 02:36 AM   #13
cardinal biggles
THE ZEPPO
 
cardinal biggles's Avatar
 
Location: potrzebie
Send a message via ICQ to cardinal biggles Send a message via AIM to cardinal biggles Send a message via Yahoo to cardinal biggles
Re: STAR TREK IS DEAD RIP

Tied up in your basement?

omhguy and mahler have both been shown the door, so there's nothing more to see here, really.
cardinal biggles is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:38 PM.

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