How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Jedi_Master, Mar 3, 2014.

  1. Shaka Zulu

    Shaka Zulu Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2013
    Location:
    Bulawayo Military Krral
    I'm pompous? Moi? I'm not the one making Star Trek more than it is. I'm not the one wanting Alfonso Cuarón to direct and make the movie like Gravity or any other hard SF novel. I accept that Star Trek is space opera, and has action-adventure as part of its makeup. And for a long while (more than the board member who wrote it) I've been reprinting what said board member said Star Trek was since the 1979 movie.

    But people have been ignoring it and going off in the same nonsense about how the new movies aren't being 'intelligent' enough simply because the movies had the above mentioned action-adventure as a part of their makeup. So basically instead of accepting the truth pointed out by myself and others, the same willful refusal to admit reality goes on. Hard-headed? Yes. Refusing to accept nonsense about a TV show. Yes again. But pompous? Actually, I think I'm being a bit realistic about what could likely happen (and I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet.):vulcan:
     
  2. Clark Terrell

    Clark Terrell Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Location:
    USS Reliant
    I agree. I don't think Star Trek drowned in its own continuity as much as we drowned it by whining about details that in another series wouldn't be such a big deal. I mean, who cares if it was really eighteen years that passed between "Space Seed" and The Wrath of Khan? Does that dampen one's enjoyment of the film? If it does, the fault is with the person watching, not the movie itself.
     
  3. BigJake

    BigJake Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2013
    Location:
    No matter where you go, there you are.
    So, to sum up: dissent from your bizarrely narrow view of what correctly constitutes "space opera" and "action adventure" is willful refusal to admit reality... but you're not pompous. (Oh, and liking any Trek that does anything other than what Abrams did is "making Trek more than it was.")

    Yyyeah. Got it.

    [​IMG]
     
  4. HaventGotALife

    HaventGotALife Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2011
    :cool:
     
  5. Misfit Toy

    Misfit Toy Caped Trek Mod Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Location:
    Transporter buffer
    To All Concerned:
    Dial back the antagonism, please. Lets leave the personal jabs OUT of this thread. Thanks.
     
  6. Ryan8bit

    Ryan8bit Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    I think Star Trek's continuity was a sort of house of cards, and shows like Enterprise really made it topple. In some ways I think a reboot was necessary. Or at the very least some severe retconning.

    I'd still watch a new show, but I wouldn't say I'm desperate for it. They'd have to work really hard to get me more excited about it than the other shows I watch.
     
  7. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    How desperate? I wouldn't watch something just because it had the Trek name on it. No, it would have to be something above average to get my interest and to hold it.
     
  8. Nero's Shadow

    Nero's Shadow Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Location:
    Into Darkness !!!
    Well I've been playing Star Trek online a lot recently so a new series set in that year and with the same history !!!
     
  9. Nero's Shadow

    Nero's Shadow Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2009
    Location:
    Into Darkness !!!
    Or a series set in TMP time loved to have seen Starfleet going through is tech change and uniform change !!! And single ridged Klingons !!!
     
  10. Clark Terrell

    Clark Terrell Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Location:
    USS Reliant
    A series between TMP and TWOK would be fun. There's enough of a gap that new races could be introduced without contradicting existing canon. And even if there are small discrepancies, who cares? I created a character for my Reliant fan fiction who, prior to my conceiving her, never existed anywhere in Trek lore. But part of the fun of writing her has been finding a way to work her into the existing continuity. And if I'm not able to do so perfectly, who's to say I've done anything wrong?
     
  11. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    Per Ardua
    You obviously wasn't around during the first-run of Enterprise. Everytime they introduced a species or idea that wasn't mentioned in a later series, you had people acting like Berman and Braga had raped and murdered their first born child. :eek:
     
  12. Nerys Myk

    Nerys Myk The Real Me Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2001
    Location:
    Down in the tube station at midnight
    OTOH, they also acted like that whenever an established race showed up. ;)
     
  13. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2001
    Let's be honest, that was basically the way everyone acted in regards to anything on Enterprise.
     
  14. Clark Terrell

    Clark Terrell Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Location:
    USS Reliant
    Oh, I was around. I just didn't see what the big deal was. I knew there would be some inconsistencies with established series, but that's part of the game when writing any sort of prequel or sequel. It happened with Star Wars, too.

    Well, people didn't like the idea of established canon being cast aside in favor of new information. My friend had a fit when the Borg made an appearance.

    Enterprise could have been better than it was. I think if the series had fared better that people would be more accepting of it. As it stands, a lot of people like to pretend it didn't happen.
     
  15. Timewalker

    Timewalker Cat-lovin', Star Trekkin' Time Lady Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Location:
    In many different universes, simultaneously.
    Why even bother to call it Star Trek if you're redoing everything? That's just borrowing a famous name and riding its coattails. As for a "reclusive" Federation that doesn't want to go anywhere... it's a pretty big part of space. Are you saying that nobody goes beyond the Federation boundaries, or nobody goes much of anywhere within the Federation itself?

    That's being rather melodramatic, not to mention inaccurate. Just because some people loathe nuTrek, that doesn't mean they loved the Berman/Braga stuff. I enjoyed most of Voyager, some TNG, some DS9, but wish that Enterprise had never been thought of, let alone made.

    And Enterprise just had to retcon stuff and insert stuff because...? You can't deride one series' continuity issues because a new show decided to wreck it decades later.
     
  16. Clark Terrell

    Clark Terrell Lieutenant Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2014
    Location:
    USS Reliant
    I agree. I don't particularly like Abrams' movies, but that doesn't mean I want a repeat of Berman and Braga's failed attempts at creating another series. I'd love to see Star Trek return to TV, but only if it's being run by people who know what they're doing and have a clear direction in mind for the series. Maybe doing an online mini-series as way of test-driving TV concepts would help, as it would give fans a way to evaluate the product before a long-term commitment was made.
     
  17. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Except presumably you'll still have Starships and Klingons and transporters and enough key elements to make the show recognizably "Star Trek" even if you've updated and revised it and started over again, continuity-wise.

    There's a difference between concept and continuity. You can keep one while discarding the other.

    There's no such thing as the only definitive version of anything. Any classic saga, characters, or concept gets reinterpreted over time. No one version is sacred.
     
  18. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    You could open another discussion about just what the key elements are.

    When they introduced starships, transporters, shields, phaser beams, hyperspace/warp, in Stargate, did the show have to change its title?
     
  19. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    Good point. There's certainly a discussion to be had about just how far you can tweak a property before it becomes something else altogether. But something doesn't cease to become STAR TREK just because you reboot it or give it a facelift. Just as, say, THE MUMMY doesn't stop becoming THE MUMMY just because it's not in the same continuity as the original 1932 Karloff version.

    Why bother calling it STAR TREK if you have a new continuity? Because it's still STAR TREK if it looks and sounds like STAR TREK. Again, the continuity is not the essence of Trek. It's the basic concept that matters.
     
  20. King Daniel Beyond

    King Daniel Beyond Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Location:
    #istandwithcbs
    Is one line about (for example) cloaking devices being "theoretical" in "Balance of Terror" worth scrapping several planned episodes over? What makes the odd line in some episodes sacred when others (like the many names used prior to "Starfleet" and "Federation" were settled upon, or how antimatter works in Trek's world - is it a universe destroyer, or common starship fuel?) are freely ignored? I think it just comes down to what people like, they'll accept and what they don't, they raise hell as if someone defecated on the bible.