Why not the Next Generation for STXI?

[Luke Lightsaber]

The animation used for Lucasfilm's Star Wars Clone Wars cartoon would be cool for a Trek movie.

 

[Red Ranger]

Well, quoting an online article clearly makes it true.

More seriously, there will inevitably be a revival of TNG in some form in the next ten years or so - for two reasons:

1) Hollywood remakes and recycles everything they can from television, and that's not going to change;

2) TNG was the Trek series that entire families watched together - that's not boosterism, it's a fact reflected in the demographic measurements of the audience (and it was far more true of TNG than of TOS or any of the spinoffs to follow). It's why so many different sponsors loved the show for so many years - and any marketer who's not incompetent can eventually come up with lucrative ways to ride that nostalgia to at least one more big payday as the TNG audience ages.

I will disagree here because TNG WAS nostalgia - it was nostalgic of TOS, just not that good. The reason I watched TNG was because I was hoping to get back some of the TOS magic and, it didn't happen. They are taking a gamble that using the original recasted characters might grab some of the magic again. I happen to think they are correct. Without the TOS characters ST is just another space movie.

I disagree with you about TNG being a family show. TOS was great in that it was VERY sexy - yet you never saw people in bed together, the word 'sex' was never mentioned, we never knew if anyone ever got laid, and there was tons of censoring. Yes there were tons of scantily clad women but that was it and kids see that when they watch Miss America. Everything was indirectly implied or concealed. You could let your 2 year old watch it - the language and 'adult situations' simply would go over their heads. But somehow it was sexier than the blatant stuff they had later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEHHhTH9YjE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibiyQFgCcYI&feature=related

When I was younger we watched TOS as a family in syndication years ago. Now I can't interest my own kids in any of these spin-offs however.

Another thing is that TOS had much more action than TNG. Try getting your kids to watch all the talk, sermons, and diplomacy that TNG offered. They need excitement and action, not verboseness. TOS had us on the edge of our seats. TNG put me to sleep.

Maybe you fell asleep watching TNG because you have ADD? Kidding.

I find it amusing all the elevation of TOS before all the other series, and all the fire and damnation for TNG.

I am an unabashed fan of most of the ST shows. Sure, TOS occupies a special place in my mind and heart, because without it, you wouldn't have had the others.

However, I value TNG as well. I like most of the characters, and I enjoyed many of the "talky" shows you seem to deplore.

There were a number of talky TOS's as well, where the action was quite limited, like Return to Tomorrow with Sargon and company.
However, I must agree that the main reason TOS's characters were chosen for this new movie is because of their more iconic and more recognizable status. More average folks will recognize the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty, than they would Picard, Riker, Data, and Worf. I do acknowledge that. And they want butts in seats for their movie!

Red Ranger

 

[maryh]

Maybe you fell asleep watching TNG because you have ADD? Kidding.

I find it amusing all the elevation of TOS before all the other series, and all the fire and damnation for TNG.

I am an unabashed fan of most of the ST shows. Sure, TOS occupies a special place in my mind and heart, because without it, you wouldn't have had the others.

However, I value TNG as well. I like most of the characters, and I enjoyed many of the "talky" shows you seem to deplore.

There were a number of talky TOS's as well, where the action was quite limited, like Return to Tomorrow with Sargon and company.
However, I must agree that the main reason TOS's characters were chosen for this new movie is because of their more iconic and more recognizable status. More average folks will recognize the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty, than they would Picard, Riker, Data, and Worf. I do acknowledge that. And they want butts in seats for their movie!

Red Ranger

Actually where I think TNG failed for me is because it was trying to elinimate the errors TOS made, but which in hindsight weren't so bad afterall. For example I even complained about the old Kirk - he was too emotional, not militaristic sounding, got involved with too many women, he was too casual for the setting etc. These complaints about the captain were common at the launch of TNG. When they brought out Stewart I though I was going to be happy because they "fixed" the problems with the old captain. But then I slowly began to realize that he also was pretty boring. Lets face it, putting seat belts on the charis will not produce a better show. We need entertainment, not a more realistic TV show.

I don't watch a lot of TV nor see many movies, so when I do, it better be good. Shows like "24" keep us enthralled in a way TOS did, but has not been realized since.

 

[Red Ranger]

Maybe you fell asleep watching TNG because you have ADD? Kidding.

I find it amusing all the elevation of TOS before all the other series, and all the fire and damnation for TNG.

I am an unabashed fan of most of the ST shows. Sure, TOS occupies a special place in my mind and heart, because without it, you wouldn't have had the others.

However, I value TNG as well. I like most of the characters, and I enjoyed many of the "talky" shows you seem to deplore.

There were a number of talky TOS's as well, where the action was quite limited, like Return to Tomorrow with Sargon and company.
However, I must agree that the main reason TOS's characters were chosen for this new movie is because of their more iconic and more recognizable status. More average folks will recognize the names Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Scotty, than they would Picard, Riker, Data, and Worf. I do acknowledge that. And they want butts in seats for their movie!

Red Ranger

Actually where I think TNG failed for me is because it was trying to elinimate the errors TOS made, but which in hindsight weren't so bad afterall. For example I even complained about the old Kirk - he was too emotional, not militaristic sounding, got involved with too many women, he was too casual for the setting etc. These complaints about the captain were common at the launch of TNG. When they brought out Stewart I though I was going to be happy because they "fixed" the problems with the old captain. But then I slowly began to realize that he also was pretty boring. Lets face it, putting seat belts on the charis will not produce a better show. We need entertainment, not a more realistic TV show.

I don't watch a lot of TV nor see many movies, so when I do, it better be good. Shows like "24" keep us enthralled in a way TOS did, but has not been realized since.

I can buy your argument that in some ways, TNG was a "do-over" of TOS. But that was more relevant in the first few seasons when Rodenberry had his hand in the production of the show. As the show moved away from the Rodenberry influence, it had its own cadence.

I liked Picard partly because he wasn't Kirk. He was an older, more seasoned commander. In the ep The Last Outpost, Riker is clearly annoyed that the Ferengi haven't replied to their message, and Picard calmly says, "Patience. Patience."

But seat belts? Funny, I never noticed them on the Enterprise-D!

Red Ranger

 

[Therin of Andor]

But seat belts? Funny, I never noticed them on the Enterprise-D!

Exactly. And we'd actually seen Starfleet seatbelts in TAS and TMP.

 

[Tralah]

I always thought it was particularly ridiculous that they didn't seem to have seat belts in shuttles which are by their very nature landing and taking off frequently.