What is ''Real Star Trek''?

[The Overlord]

I hear some fans say Discovery and the Kelvin verse movies are not real Star Trek, but then that begs the question, what is real Star Trek?

I wonder if people forget that this franchise was in trouble in the 2000s, Nemesis bombed at the box office and Enterprise went off the air after 4 seasons. I think what really killed the franchise back then was Voyager, Voyager took the TNG formula and ran it into the ground, it wasted a potentially interesting premise just to tell more TNG stories, only with far less interesting characters. Voyager killed my interest in an episodic Star Trek show, nothing seemed to matter, they would hit the reset button at the end of every episode and there seemed to be no consequences to people's actions.

The thing is TOS is different from TNG (when TNG tried to ape TOS in its first seasons, it was terrible) and both were different from DS9. Voyager tried to ape TNG through out its run and it was terrible and Enterprise only became good when it broke from the TNG formula in season 3.

Some fans may not like Discovery and the Kelvin movies, but the fact is the franchise was in bad straits in the 2000s and needed a change, you can argue whether the changes in the Kelvin movies and Discovery were good, but that does not change the fact change was necessary.

 

[C.E. Evans]

No such thing as "real" Star Trek. It isn't real at all.

 

[The Wormhole]

I'm sure someone's going to waltz in and wax on philosophically poetic about optimism, a better future, intellectualism, utopian values, Gene's Vision and associate horseshit, but when you get down to it, the ultimate deciding factor everyone uses in determining what is or isn't "True" Star Trek is quite simply this:

If I Like it, it's True Star Trek. If I Don't Like it, it isn't True Star Trek.

 

[uniderth]

Real Star Trek (also known as A Canon) is the four series(ST, TNG, DSN, and VOY) and ten movies (TMP - Nemesis).

[..]but the fact is the franchise was in bad straits in the 2000s and needed a change[...]

I completely agree that Star Trek needed a change. But it's possible to change and stay at least reasonably consistent with what came before.

 

[STEPhon IT]

Not a fan of Voyager but I don't believe the series ran the franchise to the ground. I believe there were circumstances which lead Trek to a dud which I believe will eventually do Star Wars in. In the 90's there was an over saturation of the brand: DS9 deserved to have its run uninterrupted without a so-called 5th network launch and the inclusion of another Star Trek show the network had to push to the limits.

TNG movies were on full throttle while having it in the same timeline as DS9 and Voyager which was a huge mistake. All of this caused Trekfans to separate and form their own circle which hampered the brand, and I haven't even brought up the addition of the then Sci-Fi Channel's Star Trek: Special Edition series which was very popular.

There was too much Star Trek and as fans had decided to stick to one show; it hurt word of mouth based on the individual's bias. The failures of each series' and movies attendance ended up hurting the upcoming "Enterprise" which didn't had a chance from the start. So it would be a hard for a new viewer to get into those shows.
But to answer your question, "What is 'Real Star Trek'?" It all depends on what the studio feels is authentic. When the Studio labels their property Star Trek, it is real.

 

[STEPhon IT]

I'm sure someone's going to waltz in and wax on philosophically poetic about optimism, a better future, intellectualism, utopian values, Gene's Vision and associate horseshit, but when you get down to it, the ultimate deciding factor everyone uses in determining what is or isn't "True" Star Trek is quite simply this:

If I Like it, it's True Star Trek. If I Don't Like it, it isn't True Star Trek.

Agreed, but that was not the question, there's a difference between "True Star Trek" and "Real Star Trek".

 

[Timewalker]

I hear some fans say Discovery and the Kelvin verse movies are not real Star Trek, but then that begs the question, what is real Star Trek?

I wonder if people forget that this franchise was in trouble in the 2000s, Nemesis bombed at the box office and Enterprise went off the air after 4 seasons. I think what really killed the franchise back then was Voyager, Voyager took the TNG formula and ran it into the ground, it wasted a potentially interesting premise just to tell more TNG stories, only with far less interesting characters. Voyager killed my interest in an episodic Star Trek show, nothing seemed to matter, they would hit the reset button at the end of every episode and there seemed to be no consequences to people's actions.

Part of a show's popularity can be measured by how it inspires the fans. Here's an interesting set of numbers from fanfiction.net, regarding the number of Star Trek stories posted there. Of course the numbers are not exact, but have a look:

StarTrek: Deep Space Nine (1.9K)
Star Trek: Discovery (90)
StarTrek: Enterprise (4.6K)
StarTrek: Other (1.8K)
StarTrek: The Next Generation (4.5K)
StarTrek: The Original Series (6.7K)
StarTrek: Voyager (9.7K)

Source.

These numbers pertain to the approximate number of stories posted in each Star Trek category. The "Other" encompasses the nuTrek movies, the TOS and TNG movies, and whatever else can't be neatly slotted into the regular categories. I'm not sure where TAS stories fit into this (stories that include the TAS characters of Arex, M'ress, and Walking Bear or deal with TAS episodes, ie. "Yesteryear"). I'm also unsure where crossovers fit into these numbers. I've noticed some nuTrek stories being improperly posted in the TOS section.

Notice which series has the most stories posted? That's right. VOYAGER - the series that you blame for "killing" the franchise. These are not individual chapters; they're stories, some of which run over 100 chapters and explore the characters and alternate takes on some of the episodes. Quite a few are alternate takes on "Endgame", and there are certainly a wide variety of views on what happens after the ship returns to Earth... if it does return to Earth at that time. Some stories have Janeway ignore the Admiral's nagging and avoid engaging with the Borg, so the journey takes much longer.

When it comes to rewatching Star Trek episodes, I noticed that unless it's a particular TNG episode I like, I don't bother. I turned DS9 off the other day less than 5 minutes into it, because Jadzia just really bores me - and it's been over a decade since I last watched any of that series.

The thing is TOS is different from TNG (when TNG tried to ape TOS in its first seasons, it was terrible) and both were different from DS9. Voyager tried to ape TNG through out its run and it was terrible and Enterprise only became good when it broke from the TNG formula in season 3.

So... your objection is that each series drew on its predecessors? At least Voyager didn't shoehorn Worf into it somewhere. That really would have made it unwatchable. I found B'Elanna's struggle to be more accepting of her Klingon heritage to be a more interesting story arc than Worf's constant bellowing and pontificating about HONOR!!!!!!!.

Some fans may not like Discovery and the Kelvin movies, but the fact is the franchise was in bad straits in the 2000s and needed a change, you can argue whether the changes in the Kelvin movies and Discovery were good, but that does not change the fact change was necessary.

What a shame the changes resulted in such inferior shows that I don't care if I ever see the rest of Enterprise, I actually hope they don't make any more nuTrek movies, and I'm surprised that I was actually able to tolerate the last two Disco episodes. Barely. Maybe they should have had the entire series take place in the Mirror Universe. That way they could get around just how NOT like TOS this really is, and how there is no way in hell it can be reconciled with a mere 10-years-in-the-future TOS, with Kirk as Captain of the Enterprise.

 

[at Quark's]

Only "the cage" (TOS pilot) is real star trek.

Well, except for that one dubious shot in the 32nd minute, of course.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Whatever you grew up watching. It's nostalgia, nothing more.

In real life, anything the rights holders slap the name on.

 

[Campe]

Star Trek is different things to different people. I am not about to suggest that anyone can make a judgment for me about what that is, nor can I make that judgment for anyone else. There are 750 or so Star Trek filmed adventures. I cannot believe for one second that anyone finds joy in exactly the same number of episodes, movies, series, what have you. That's what makes Trek special. Whether you love the characters, the technology, the optimistic vision of the future, there is something people can find as "Real Star Trek." Doesn't mean we all have to agree on that definition.

So, I honestly hate this question. Because it opens up a lot of judgmental answers that I find problematic.

 

[1001001]

So, I honestly hate this question. Because it opens up a lot of judgmental answers that I find problematic.

And it seems like we've discussed this for years and years and years....

 

[DimesDan]

Star Trek is what ever you want it to be. There are a myriad of flavours to it, some people will like some and some will like others.

But what one should always remember, no one is wrong and no who is right in what flavours of Star Trek they like.

 

[Amaris]

Star Trek is Star Trek. What can be done?

Seriously, though, all of the Star Treks are Star Trek, because the people who create and control the property can and do have the authority to say as such. Whatever one holds as their opinion is irrelevant outside of their own mind. One could drop a 10,000 word essay on why one particular series is not Trek, and it won't have any effect on the fact that it is only their opinion and nothing more.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

I know that The Chronicles of the Intrepid is not the Real Star Trek.

 

[Armus]

What is Star Trek? Character driven adventure stories that take place in the future where humans in a federation of planets explore the galaxy and try to coexist with alien species.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In real life, anything the rights holders slap the name on.

Yep. It's basically a no-brainer, really.

 

[Lord Garth]

"Folks, believe me, I don't know what Real Star Trek is but Real Star Trek is the best Star Trek you've ever seen. No one makes better Star Trek than the people who make Real Star Trek. That I can tell you. But no money in the future? Sad! And bumps on foreheads. What is that? Can you imagine looking at that on your TV every week? But that's okay. I like Star Trek. Real Star Trek, folks. See all those beautiful women Captain Kirk kissed? 10s, all of them. And I love the Ferengi! Any Ferengi fans out there?! I love the Ferengi. Let me tell you any Star Trek that treats the Ferengi poorly is Fake Star Trek! It's Fake Star Trek, people."

 

[Campe]

"Folks, believe me, I don't know what Real Star Trek is but Real Star Trek is the best Star Trek you've ever seen. No one makes better Star Trek than the people who make Real Star Trek. That I can tell you. But no money in the future? Sad! And bumps on foreheads. What is that? Can you imagine looking at that on your TV every week? But that's okay. I like Star Trek. Real Star Trek, folks. See all those beautiful women Captain Kirk kissed? 10s, all of them. And I love the Ferengi! Any Ferengi fans out there?! I love the Ferengi. Let me tell you any Star Trek that treats the Ferengi poorly is Fake Star Trek! It's Fake Star Trek, people."

 

[The Wormhole]

Agreed, but that was not the question, there's a difference between "True Star Trek" and "Real Star Trek".

Not really. Whether or not Star Trek is Real or True is largely determined by whether or not a person likes it.

 

[Prax]

Has Star Trek ever not been in dire Straits? Think about it.

Edit: Oh, there was a question. Real Star Trek is being able to say "I'm right. You're wrong."

I Win. You lose