I wish someone responsible for this IP would do some gatekeeping before there isn’t enough audience left to justify spending anymore money on the Franchise. I’d like to see some new adventures of actual Star Trek before I die. But hey I guess continued returns aren’t worth the time and money you invest in a franchise. We’ll just let the crap writers from CW keep writing new Trek. That’ll work!
Star Trek XIV: What do you want?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
Some of them to the point of appearing to be utterly humorless on the subject, or even to be steely-eyed religious zealots.
If one were to do a head-count or show of hands, I suspect one might find that a lot of Star Trek fans would prefer not to have those steely-eyed zealots making assertions on our behalf. One might also find that said zealots aren't nearly so numerous as they would have us believe.
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
Also:No.
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
Score +5 Wild-eyed-Fanboi points for the "core audience" canard.
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
View attachment 22898
Bravo. :golfclap: What could have been a strong finish was rather marred by the too-predictable appeal to cancer, but that's hardly unexpected given the type and scope of the checklist which led relentlessly to such a conclusion.
'K, you've had your allotted time on the soapbox. Now shoo.
And don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.
You said a lot but refuted nothing about the statements I made. You just made snarky comments. I want the franchise to survive. If it keeps going in this direction it won’t make money and keep enough eyeballs. But keep pushing for more of what’s being made now. I’m sure Paramount CBS won’t abandon it as quickly if they find or create a new evergreen product.
Yawn.
Are we gonna listen to a guy who considers the (N)ever e(X)isting -01 Enterprise to be true Trek??
Why do any of these options matter, as if the production setup is quite malleable as long as the end result is a story using specific elements? If Vince Gilligan were to say that Paramount just gave him carte blanche to write and direct a Star Trek film as he saw fit, would I care what it was about? I’m also seeing a lot of settling for rumored plots, “Gimme what you wanted to give me”, not to mention rehashes of prior stories. Why would anyone want that if they can simply be astounded by the unexpected?
I originally voted for a Paramount+ tie-in, but after thinking about it, a continuation of the Kelvin timeline wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.
Although, I really wouldn't be all that crazy about seeing a continuation of Kirk and the crew. And that's because we've seen how they react to everything (for me after Star Trek Into Darkness it's like, "Okay, I'm good with these guys now"), so show me someone new this time. Give me a new crew or whatever.
Also...
Ultimately and ideally I'd want a third timeline.
Do something totally different with Star Trek. So different that if you tried to put it in either of the other two timelines it really wouldn't fit that well, so a third timeline would be the only place where it made sense.
Maybe do a Star Trek that's set 35 years from now or whenever and reboot it that way. And just start from there and go forward, and do Paramount+ shows and whatnot with that. And maybe ground it in a more real-world way, maybe have a fictionalized version of Elon Musk's son X Æ A-Xii be the founder of the Starfleet or something.
Do something that's really different though and would get some attention. Don't just do the regular ship, captain, bridge, blah-blah-blah. Not enough people will care about that... unless you do something really innovative.
EDIT:
So my final vote would be "other."
Although, I really wouldn't be all that crazy about seeing a continuation of Kirk and the crew. And that's because we've seen how they react to everything (for me after Star Trek Into Darkness it's like, "Okay, I'm good with these guys now"), so show me someone new this time. Give me a new crew or whatever.
Also...
Yes.
Ultimately and ideally I'd want a third timeline.
Do something totally different with Star Trek. So different that if you tried to put it in either of the other two timelines it really wouldn't fit that well, so a third timeline would be the only place where it made sense.
Maybe do a Star Trek that's set 35 years from now or whenever and reboot it that way. And just start from there and go forward, and do Paramount+ shows and whatnot with that. And maybe ground it in a more real-world way, maybe have a fictionalized version of Elon Musk's son X Æ A-Xii be the founder of the Starfleet or something.
Do something that's really different though and would get some attention. Don't just do the regular ship, captain, bridge, blah-blah-blah. Not enough people will care about that... unless you do something really innovative.
EDIT:
So my final vote would be "other."
Last edited:
What was there to refute?
You were working from the same tired and worn checklist of wholly unoriginal assertions that all of the "Core Fanbase" Gatekeepers who have preceded you worked from. Nothing in your post was anything which hasn't been declaimed from atop a Very Dramatic And Deadly-Serious Soapbox of Self-Appointed Authority™ in this forum hundreds of times before and answered almost as many times. We have had posters who did literally nothing but Humorlessly Read The Damn Checklist At People again and again for years, as if they expected that by persisting long enough they'd eventually achieve a different result.
One lesson most here have learned over time is that any attempt to refute such Zealous Checklist Recitations™ is worse than a waste of time and effort -- it's utterly pointless. Attempting to reason with someone who lectures and won't listen is an exercise in futility.
The only comment I had was to remind certain folks who identify as "passionate about Trek" and who are prone to making pompous assertions such as "It means much more to most of us than a brand, or TV show, or IP" that they do not speak for everyone, nor has anyone asked them to do so.
Speak for yourself, or keep it to yourself. Those are your options.
So again, I inquire: What was there to refute?
Seriously.
No one with a healthy outlook on entertainment is interested in engaging with that sort of twaddle. I suspect most fans vastly prefer watching Star Trek for what it is over grimly worshiping some unrealistic picture of what Trek never has been... but maybe that's just my own impression.
I sincerely hope that this answers your questions (but no, I'm not foolishly optimistic about it.) Now cease pestering people with this stuff. They've heard the missionary-on-the-doormat spiel plenty of times, already; if they were going to buy into that cult mindset, they'd have done so long ago.
Yeah, not really sure what's being alluded to in this post, butAre we gonna listen to a guy who considers the (N)ever e(X)isting -01 Enterprise to be true Trek??
1) if it's from outside this forum, better it be left there, and
2) maybe just skipping to (quietly) not listening would be the way to go here?
It will.
I don’t want the franchise to survive. As noted, I want it replaced by independent projects from enthusiastic showrunners and filmmakers, who could control everything as long as the end result is officially Star Trek. What’s the worst that could happen?
Cool. That's still survival of the brand. The how of it will be debated for decades.
No thanks.
Why not? Take away the oversight by someone like Berman or Kurtzman and more talented writers/producers/directors could be motivated to participate. What’s wrong with loose canon as long as the end result is mainstream-great? And even if it fails you’d get a lot more uncoordinated variety than we have now.
Because you can't guarantee mainstream great.
Alec. Peters.
No, but you can guarantee variety, even if someone with a great track record scores a miss on Star Trek.
Everything else aside, as an amateur he’d never be hired. Remember, we’re thinking of successful directors or showrunners who’d never do Star Trek because they don’t need to work in the current controlling environment. There would only be the property owners and the showrunner/filmmaker.
So, a bunch of independent films under the Star Trek banner?
Just make independent science fiction films then!!!!!!!!!!!
What large media property allows the kind of free reign you describe?
So, a bunch of independent films under the Star Trek banner?
Just make independent science fiction films then!!!!!!!!!!!
Sure, as long as the filmmakers don’t need Star Trek. But suppose they had ideas and simply wanted total creative control?
DC to an extent, especially if you include live-action TV and animation. Battlestar Galactica.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
