After 50 years, an end to the Trek?

[kirkfan]

As Much as I like the nuTrek movies (and I do like them!) I have to say, that what they do more than anything else is make me watch the original series all over again!

And while NuTrek Pales in comparison to Classic Trek it does keep the name of Star Trek alive and for those of us who grew up with Classic Trek (well for me anyway.) the fact that there's something out there to remind humanity of the ideals and inspiration that Gene Roddenberry presented through that fun TV series.

For that reason I say:

KEEP 'EM COMING!!!

It keeps it alive alright... in an iron lung, with a bunch of tubes coming out of all its orifices... but alive...

 

[Dukhat]

While the first Abrams movie was almost a triumph, unless NuTrek recovers from ITD, which I have large doubts about, with Nimoy having left us, I'm feeling very pessimistic about Trek's future.

Huh? Recovers from what?

 

[kirkfan]

While the first Abrams movie was almost a triumph, unless NuTrek recovers from ITD, which I have large doubts about, with Nimoy having left us, I'm feeling very pessimistic about Trek's future.

Huh? Recovers from what?

Into Darkness?

 

[Tim Walker]

I feel like the Abrams movies opened new doors for Trek's longevity, and I fully expect that for the next few decades, more and more Trek will be produced, albeit in different versions, incarnations, timelines, etc.

And I say that because of Trek's place in American pop culture. Decades ago it was already a fixture, but now that there's unspoken permission -- under the Paramount umbrella, of course -- to produce separate versions of it, I expect it to get remade or reimagined or rebooted (or, god willing, revived prime-wise), akin to, say, the number of Robin Hood or Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes or Journey to the West productions out there.
.

The '90s showed that you could have spin off series without the TOS characters. And the Hero ship needn't be called Enterprise or even look that much like the TOS ship (Voyager, Defiant).

 

[The Wormhole]

I don't see CBS ever green lighting another Trek show. It would cost too much money, and where would the new stories come from? Half of Voyager was just rehashed TNG scripts, and Enterprise died because no one watched it.

There are plenty of storytelling possibilities for new Trek material. Just because writers of the shows and movies have been rehashing stuff from decades past is a reflection of their skill and imagination (or lack thereof) not proof that nothing can be done with Trek anymore.

 

[kirkfan]

I don't see CBS ever green lighting another Trek show. It would cost too much money, and where would the new stories come from? Half of Voyager was just rehashed TNG scripts, and Enterprise died because no one watched it.

There are plenty of storytelling possibilities for new Trek material. Just because writers of the shows and movies have been rehashing stuff from decades past is a reflection of their skill and imagination (or lack thereof) not proof that nothing can be done with Trek anymore.

Imagination seems to be a neglected matter nowadays.

 

[Tam Elbrun]

Hopefully they make a new series, time frame perhaps something post TNG.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

There is a market for Sci-Fi, but when the writers of Trek are told "Make it like Guardians of the Galaxy" (which I also loved) it's obvious they have no faith in the core idea.

So they make the fourth movie like that-so what? It's a space opera/action adventure franchise, and it's time for people to accept that and move on.

 

[Lance]

For all its ups and downs over the years, Star Trek has proven its worth, and to that end the franchise will never come to an end. It might lay dormant for moments in time, but it'll always come back. I don't think anyone would be well advised if they decided to draw a stroke under it and declare "This is it, end of the line." It would be tantamount to taking the golden goose and slitting its throat.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Nua trek is already a separate franchise, it should just be an exciting standalone film and not worry about the original franchise.

If it says "Star Trek" and CBS gives the okay, it's part of the franchise.

 

[Joby]

I love Trek, but there is a finite amount of money in Hollywood. People forget that when one film or series gets made, another doesn't. There is a choice to be made between stringing along an existing franchise, or risking money on fresh ideas.

There is a market for Sci-Fi, but when the writers of Trek are told "Make it like Guardians of the Galaxy" (which I also loved) it's obvious they have no faith in the core idea.

I do miss the "futurist" angle of Star Trek that only the original series and Next Generation seemed to have. They used to push the envelope with thinking of new technologies or newer, bolder ideas/concepts of human beings living and how these technologies could make humanity better. For instance, the IDIC from the original series, the very idea of the United Federatio of Planets, hyposprays that let you inject through skin and clothes, no money in the future, holodecks, etc, etc. This seemed to die with Gene Roddenberry back in 1991.

I mean really, as great as DS9 was, there was no new futurist technology or concept introduced, and nothing from Voyager, Enterprise or NuTrek. All of Star Trek post TNG has been about mostly sci-fi action spectacle. It's not really a completely bad thing if it's entertaining, but I miss how Trek used to be so fresh and innovative.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I love Trek, but there is a finite amount of money in Hollywood. People forget that when one film or series gets made, another doesn't. There is a choice to be made between stringing along an existing franchise, or risking money on fresh ideas.

There is a market for Sci-Fi, but when the writers of Trek are told "Make it like Guardians of the Galaxy" (which I also loved) it's obvious they have no faith in the core idea.

I do miss the "futurist" angle of Star Trek that only the original series and Next Generation seemed to have. They used to push the envelope with thinking of new technologies or newer, bolder ideas/concepts of human beings living and how these technologies could make humanity better. For instance, the IDIC from the original series, the very idea of the United Federatio of Planets, hyposprays that let you inject through skin and clothes, no money in the future, holodecks, etc, etc. This seemed to die with Gene Roddenberry back in 1991.

I mean really, as great as DS9 was, there was no new futurist technology or concept introduced, and nothing from Voyager, Enterprise or NuTrek.

Sentient holographic crewmen and Wormhole travel don't count? How about using the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanic as a plot point? Transwarp beaming?

 

[eyeresist]

While the first Abrams movie was almost a triumph, unless NuTrek recovers from ITD, which I have large doubts about, with Nimoy having left us,

It's not like Nimoy was writing the ST3 script.

 

[Cyke101]

I love Trek, but there is a finite amount of money in Hollywood. People forget that when one film or series gets made, another doesn't. There is a choice to be made between stringing along an existing franchise, or risking money on fresh ideas.

There is a market for Sci-Fi, but when the writers of Trek are told "Make it like Guardians of the Galaxy" (which I also loved) it's obvious they have no faith in the core idea.

I do miss the "futurist" angle of Star Trek that only the original series and Next Generation seemed to have. They used to push the envelope with thinking of new technologies or newer, bolder ideas/concepts of human beings living and how these technologies could make humanity better. For instance, the IDIC from the original series, the very idea of the United Federatio of Planets, hyposprays that let you inject through skin and clothes, no money in the future, holodecks, etc, etc. This seemed to die with Gene Roddenberry back in 1991.

I mean really, as great as DS9 was, there was no new futurist technology or concept introduced, and nothing from Voyager, Enterprise or NuTrek.

Sentient holographic crewmen and Wormhole travel don't count? How about using the Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanic as a plot point? Transwarp beaming?

For some of the concepts that TNG-on introduced, many of them were just different ways of labeling a tornado, for story intents and purposes. But yeah, for other concepts that are purely technological, that's much more forward-looking, I think.

One odd thing about DS9 -- it's often used as an example of deconstructing the Earth utopian ideal for Trek, but I'd argue too that that deconstruction wouldn't be possible in the first place had it not been for the futurist aspects that came before it. So while TOS and TNG would certainly have great technology, I feel DS9 did a fairly good job about how that technology helped shape a utopian society -- interstellar civilian travel from the farthest reaches of the Federation to Earth were fairly routine, we saw how holosuites are used as a paid service, Bashir bringing advanced medicine to the frontier, replicators in every day life (like how Joseph Sisko disdained them more than Robert Picard!). It wasn't perfect -- its depiction of war was pretty simplistic, I think -- but part of DS9's approach to futurism meant looking back and taking it apart in order to further appreciate it. To me, futurism isn't just technology, but how it impacts society.

 

[HIjol]

I don't see CBS ever green lighting another Trek show. It would cost too much money, and where would the new stories come from? Half of Voyager was just rehashed TNG scripts, and Enterprise died because no one watched it.

There are plenty of storytelling possibilities for new Trek material. Just because writers of the shows and movies have been rehashing stuff from decades past is a reflection of their skill and imagination (or lack thereof) not proof that nothing can be done with Trek anymore.

re: "new stories"

How about Boldly Going Backwards?

As in, exploring our origin and heading inward toward the center of our galaxy. Many Scientists from many disciplines believe a lot of the answers to our Questions lie in that direction. The stories could also incorporate the research and creation of necessary technology along the way, in order to further study and make sense of the data the Enterprise would collect. Even, perhaps, an arc regarding multiple generations of crew. A true long range mission with the Enterprise N(imoy) being a truly self-sufficient star ship capable of such a mission.

Star Trek will never die, never. It is too much a part of us. Too much a reflection of our spirit of exploration and discovery. Too much a place for our dreams and our eventual realities.

That is what Leonard and De Forest and Jimmy and Majel and Ricardo and Mark and Susan and the Great Bird himself and all the rest of the many, many Star Trek castmembers that have passed on have left us.

Discovery. Dreams. Exploration. Reality. What it is to be Human.

 

[T'Girl]

As in, exploring our origin and heading inward toward the center of our galaxy. Many Scientists from many disciplines believe a lot of the answers to our Questions lie in that direction.

Only if your questions lay in the field of cosmology, if your questions concern Humanity then you'd be looking in the wrong place.

 

[HIjol]

As in, exploring our origin and heading inward toward the center of our galaxy. Many Scientists from many disciplines believe a lot of the answers to our Questions lie in that direction.

Only if your questions lay in the field of cosmology, if your questions concern Humanity then you'd be looking in the wrong place.

But, I disagree...our origin, the Beginning, the real answers of our Humanity start Back/In...waaaayyy Back and wayyy In. Plus, I think it has all kinds of potential for some good writers to come forward and kick some serious script ass with the new territory and ideas they have to explore.

 

[kirkfan]

While the first Abrams movie was almost a triumph, unless NuTrek recovers from ITD, which I have large doubts about, with Nimoy having left us,

It's not like Nimoy was writing the ST3 script.

They were probably hoping to include him there as well. I wonder if they'll say something in the movie about his demise. There are examples where when an actor that had played the same role for many years dies, they make his role die in the fiction as well.

 

[just_me]

While the first Abrams movie was almost a triumph, unless NuTrek recovers from ITD, which I have large doubts about, with Nimoy having left us,

It's not like Nimoy was writing the ST3 script.

They were probably hoping to include him there as well. I wonder if they'll say something in the movie about his demise. There are examples where when an actor that had played the same role for many years dies, they make his role die in the fiction as well.

Just making his role is not enough and the doubt is that will they be successful? I dont think so

 

[kirkfan]

It's not like Nimoy was writing the ST3 script.

They were probably hoping to include him there as well. I wonder if they'll say something in the movie about his demise. There are examples where when an actor that had played the same role for many years dies, they make his role die in the fiction as well.

Just making his role is not enough and the doubt is that will they be successful? I dont think so

Successful in doing what? I don't get what you're trying to say here.