Honestly, I mean no offence to anyone, but whoever made those maps was waaaaaaaaay out. The one where the galaxy is utterly covered by political powers is utterly absurd - I understand some really Z-canon sources like certain card games and stuff may have depicted this, but most people are of the opinion that the Federation is a small entity, nothing remotely like the huge galaxy-sized empires of Star Wars, Foundation or Warhammer 40,000. The best site I've ever found that collates geographic information in a similar way to how Ex Astris Scientia does starships, is this one: http://www.stdimension.org/int/Cartography/federation.htm Its is by far the most consistent with evidence - and it depicts the Federation as tiny. Q: Why do some episodes suggest a Federation about 150 ly wide, when First Contact said "spread over 8000 ly"? A: Because the furthest scientific outposts are that far, but core member worlds are within a 150 ly core. In one episode of DS9 it is stated that a ship can circle the Federation in just 90 days at high warp - suggesting a perimeter of perhaps 300 ly and a diameter of perhaps 100 ly. Q: Why does the Federation seemingly have a presence on distant stars like Deneb? A: In space, political territory is not contiguous, so the Federation has occasionally attracted distant members well beyond the Federation's core, or the Romulan/Klingon empires. Effectively, it has multiple small cores scattered very far out, like the USA controls small pacific islands. It actually fits everything we have seen PERFECTLY.
Also the Federation, despite it's name, doesn't seem all that Federal. It gives the impression that planets and cultures retain high degrees of autonomy. More like a humanitarian alliance. Except more binding.
Some people take this attitude to writing - Doctor Who just makes up whatever it feels like. But Star Trek is one of those settings that tries to maintain some geopolitical consistency, and arguably without that, it would feel a lot less immersive. True, there is some leeway for just making things up, but Star Trek is less of a Neil Gaiman-esque flight of fantasy, and incorporates elements of political fiction like a military sci-fi. Hence perhaps why it attracts such a broad base of fans - there is something for everyone; both those looking for a consistent setting, and via deep-sapce-exploration, those looking for self contained short stories,
Doctor Who and Star Wars destroy this thesis instantly. Also, as has been stated, when you have 800+ hours of legacy, any attempt to do a full reboot will just be a license to retell stories we've already seen rather than writing anything new. And we've already seen how raiding the warchest for themes played out in, let's say, Into Darkness. You could make the argument that every kind of Trek story that can be told, has been told. That's the big existential question.
Dr Who blatantly ignores a lot of it's own history all the time, using time travel to internally reboot many of it's stories and ideas over and over again, recasting and changing every aspect of the show every few years so that it in no way resembles it's original self. Star Wars has only 7 movies, far less material than either of them to worry about. And they still dumped the entire 30 year run of the EU and essentially remade A New Hope as The Force Awakens down to nearly every character and plot point for a new generation of Star Wars fans that didn't grow up with the original trilogy.
Does it though? Star Wars has never really left the public consciousness. Despite the last two movies and the upcoming Beyond, I don't know if you can make the same argument for Star Trek. And although Doctor Who doesn't deny the previous 50 years of its history on tv, it is never very beholden to it. Doctor Who does a good job of keeping its canon while simultaneously disregarding it whenever it feels like it. Edit: ninja'd by Chemahkuu
Just as a personal anecdote: I've taught over a thousand 17 and 18 years old for a decade. Lots of them have been Star Wars and Doctor Who fans. I can probably literally count on one hand the number of them who have been Star Trek fans. Out of a thousand! Younger generations just have not been into Star Trek like those other two.
This is one of the reasons that I like ST09 is because it had a fairly broad appeal for both seasoned Star Trek fans, and more casual movie goers. There was an attraction to the material that may not have been there in the 800+ prior adventures. Dr. Who, for all its discounting of prior continuity, as also taken some rather incredible detailed storylines involving the Daleks, and Davros and relying on past continuity. So there is a certain awareness of the past that doesn't dictate, but can inform, current stories. They just don't necessarily let the continuity dictate where the story has to go. Star Trek, in my opinion, is at a bit of a crossroads in terms of continuity. There are a lot of arguments made for both sides, Abrams and Prime, but I noticed one thing. The argument that if a new continuity (Abrams or otherwise) is explored, then it opens up the possibilities of revisiting stories that have already been done, and the STID is held up as the golden example, or worst offender, depending on your point of view. The problem is, since TWOK, several films have attempted to emulate that story as well (FC, Nemesis, in particular). It was successful, and studios like something that can be predicted as a success. I think that there will probably be a revisiting of certain stories, now matter what the continuity. So, if that is the case, I would prefer the story to have engaging characters and themes (like TWOK, TUC, FC, ST09, STID, for me) and not worry too much over the continuity.
I will admit that immediately following ST09 I was excited by the possibility of remaking older stories with a new twist. STID was a perfect example IMO of how that can go wrong. There are also some good and bad examples of this in the current comics run. I think the main difference is a intimate understanding of the source material and an inherent respect of what came before. I don't think JJ has that but I think Bryan Fuller does.
^^ I don't see it as a disrespect, so much as a desire to follow that success. The use of Khan wasn't necessary, but that doesn't make it bad or disrespectful, just different. The success or failure of STID depends on investment in the characters, in my experience, and I find myself very invested in Kirk. But, I do agree that the comics are hit and miss, but have certainly had some interesting takes on different characters and stories. Again, not bad or good, but not always successful as a story either. Often, it comes down to predictability, and comic books, unfortunately, can be quite predictable. Even the Star Trek and Star Wars (see Darth Vader ones). Respect for the material does not automatically mean a good story or good characters. Respect can tie the hands of a creator. I've heard many criticisms of The Force Awakens for exactly that. It's a fine line to walk, for certain, and Fuller has the experience to make a good attempt. Time will tell if it is successful.
Well I was referring to the mutability of the Federation's role/presence in the stories. It can be a help or a hindrance according to the needs of the plot. It can be presented as a loose alliance or a strongly united nation, again according to the needs of the plot. The actual workings of the Federation remains a mystery though. The show has never delved into how its government is run, beyond there being a "Council", a "President" and being vaguely democratic. At times it seems Starfleet actually runs the Federation.. I believe a fan or two even called it a Military Dictatorship. Non-canon material often fills in the blanks, so it feels more complete than it is.
2 hour intervier with Bryan Fuller in which he discusses Star Trek and writing influences. (Starts around 10 minutes in).
As an aside - why do people feel that First Contact and Nemesis are so close to The Wrath of Khan? If we are just going off the presence of a 'boss villain', that would cover like 75% of fiction. I don't think Star Trek needs to worry itself about originality so much; nothing has been original in drama for a long long time - I think it needs to worry about being just 'well written'. I wouldn't mind seeing the same general story hundreds of times if it were well-executed. I personally felt that JJ didn't really love Star Trek the way he clearly loves Star Wars. It comes across in the writing. He felt he had to justify Star Trek's existence, satirize it as if it were a camp anachronism, re-tool it, rather than letting it speak for itself like Marvel has done with their source material. In short; to take it seriously and accept it's message in earnestness, not to poke fun. An example of his different attitude is how he treated Kirk's love-life as a joke, instead of accepting the man earnestly, as he had done with say Han Solo. We had to see some pretty cringe-worthy scenes of him treating women like a series of flings - maybe instead they could have explored the reasons why he feels the need to fall in love with every alien woman he sees, and what this says about his personality, his desire to explore, for example.
That palpable sense of exploration disappearing is not due to the finite size of the galaxy being used up (actually ships are months away from safety when exploring even local space). It is purely a failure of writers and directors to capture that "Where No One Has Gone Before" spirit. To make space mundane when it should never be. In season one of TNG I remember Riker telling people that the planet Aldea was a legend - and when it de-cloaked on screen, it was a moment of palpable wonder just like what you are describing - that was lost in later Trek, and particularly in DS9 depicting travel as being utterly routine. To return, all we need are writers who will make every new lost civilization or ruin a wonder for the crew, and every star system distant, scary, and completely uncharted. That is a good and rational explanation of just how unexplored the Milky Way is - this isnt Star Wars people!
I think that FC is close to TWOK due to many thematic similarities, as well as a villain with a history with the hero. Nemesis feels like it is trying to do that but mired by its own incoherent story and motivations. And for me, the fact that they tried isn't a bad thing. It's the fact that there similarities, and that's ok, but STID uses Khan and it's unacceptable. I agree that J.J. didn't "love" Star Trek like Star Wars, but I'll disagree that it comes across in the writing or someone indicates disrespect. I don't "love" TWOK as a film, but I respect the work done there by Nicholas Meyer and the road it took for him to make it. The point being, I don't think love of the material automatically means or excludes respect for the material. Again, this is a place of disagreement. I don't see it as cringe-worthy, well not in the same sense, so much as I see it as informing us about Kirk and his attitude towards commitment in general. There is a level of rebelliousness and caviler attitude that is part of his character and his growth. It's not a joke, so much as a reflection of what Kirk is, and where he can grow. I think they explored it quite well, without being on the nose about it.
I would disagree.Yes, they've used Kirk's reputation as a ladies' man as a source of humor. But that reputation is something that has been floating around fandom for decades and has been a source for humor for almost as long. Its an integral part of Kirk's public perception and persona. JJ is not exactly an "auteur" here. Other writers and producers, who are bigger fans, were involved with the film. I think their involvement drove characterization more than Abrams. Kirk's motivations towards the fairer sex have always been obvious, even back in TOS, he likes the ladies. Not just aliens, but humans too. He tends to fall for a pretty face fairly quickly too. Of course that's because he was a character on an episodic TV. He's not going to have a wife or permanent girlfriend and limit plot potential. So either they die or he leaves. IIRC, that's one of the reason the Rand character was dropped. He's not above using his charms to manipulate women, either. But being Kirk he often falls for "marks". ( See Lenore Karidian). We could play amateur psychologist and attribute this to the nomadic life style of a Starfleet officer or his commitment to his career. Kirk in the new films has even deeper psychological problems. Dead father. Absent mother. His role models for relationships aren't exactly positive.
I felt the same way as SpaceLama. I think maybe the thing that makes me uncomfortable about that scene with him in bed with the twin aliens, is how these two women are reduced to a kind of cinematic window dressing. In TOS, we would linger on the emotions of both Kirk and his lover, so there would be some close-in shot of her face, to convey what she was thinking, or something; she would often be an integral guest star. Repeatedly in nuTrek, I felt living people were being used as something circus-like "look at the short person, arn't short people funny!", "haha, Kirk is bedding two alien cat women!" Dunno, is that just me? Thats not to say I didn't like things about nuTrek, its just it felt wrong in places.