It wasn't, then, because I was actually agreeing with you.
Will Trek XI repel old fans?
- Thread starter blockaderunner
- Start date
It wasn't, then, because I was actually agreeing with you.
True. But did ENT really attract new Trekkies? Didn't it lose so much of its audience, they axed it?
Re-read my last sentence...
It also brought some back. I know some TOS fans who loved the first five or so years of TNG, went on a hate binge throughout DS9 and VOY, then embraced ENT as if was the best thing they'd seen on TV.
ENT's difficulties in finding an audience seemed to have included that UPN was vanishing. There were many US cities that didn't have access to a UPN channel, and the show was often jumping around various timeslots and being pre-empted for sporting events.
I don't think it will repel me. I'm an old fan.
As long as it has a message and has some morality, that's fine by me.
Bob Justman says in the TND box set season one, that morality is what Star Trek is all about.
Maybe, they'll demonstrate some altrusim too, like Kirk risking his career in Amok Time or the whole crew in ST4.
Try Wikipediaing Star Trek, if you don't believe the crew are essentially altruists.
Or try absorbing some of the dozen or so examples I gave.
As long as it has a message and has some morality, that's fine by me.
Bob Justman says in the TND box set season one, that morality is what Star Trek is all about.
Maybe, they'll demonstrate some altrusim too, like Kirk risking his career in Amok Time or the whole crew in ST4.
Try Wikipediaing Star Trek, if you don't believe the crew are essentially altruists.
Or try absorbing some of the dozen or so examples I gave.
^
^^Message and morality are fine, and it would be a big plus if this film gave me something to think about after I leave the theater...but first and foremost on my list of requirements for this film to enhance my fandom would be a fun, exciting, and interesting adventure involving the familiar Star Trek characters.
I suppose one definition of 'interesting' would be for the film to have a morality-based message, so I can't argue with your assertion that it would be good to have a message, but many good TOS stories got by with very little and very subtle messages -- i.e. this film does not need to hit me over the head with a morality-based message to succeed for me.
...Conversely, even if this film put forth a very good message, but the familiar characters don't act the way they are supposed to act (or the film is just not fun and exciting), to me that would not be a good Star Trek film. So I suppose in that case, message and morality are not enough for me.
^^Message and morality are fine, and it would be a big plus if this film gave me something to think about after I leave the theater...but first and foremost on my list of requirements for this film to enhance my fandom would be a fun, exciting, and interesting adventure involving the familiar Star Trek characters.
I suppose one definition of 'interesting' would be for the film to have a morality-based message, so I can't argue with your assertion that it would be good to have a message, but many good TOS stories got by with very little and very subtle messages -- i.e. this film does not need to hit me over the head with a morality-based message to succeed for me.
...Conversely, even if this film put forth a very good message, but the familiar characters don't act the way they are supposed to act (or the film is just not fun and exciting), to me that would not be a good Star Trek film. So I suppose in that case, message and morality are not enough for me.
L
Lord Garth
Guest
Placebos, they make you feel good because that's how you expect them to make you feel. You don't need them, you only think you do.
No, it's not a hot-button issue, but that doesn't change the validity of what the episode wants to say. And, yes, placebos are a problem.
Never cram a bunch of information into your head all at once. People forget info dumps. A weaker case than above but if you've ever studied for an exam or prepared for a class discussion at the last minute, or even at the very last second, you'll appreciate it.
Someone else can take these.
^
^^Those are genarally considered inferior episodes (except Tribbles), but even one of the best episodes, The City on the Edge of Forever, wasn't really packed with 'Moral and Message', either.
Sure, Kirk's dilema as to allowing Edith die to restore the proper timeline is a semi-powerful story that makes you think a bit, but I wouldn't call that episode a "Morality Play". The need for Spock and (especially) Kirk to let Edith die for the greater good was more of a plot point than a message.
Like I said, I agree that a Star Trek film with a message may be a good idea; however it is not a requirement.
^^Those are genarally considered inferior episodes (except Tribbles), but even one of the best episodes, The City on the Edge of Forever, wasn't really packed with 'Moral and Message', either.
Sure, Kirk's dilema as to allowing Edith die to restore the proper timeline is a semi-powerful story that makes you think a bit, but I wouldn't call that episode a "Morality Play". The need for Spock and (especially) Kirk to let Edith die for the greater good was more of a plot point than a message.
Like I said, I agree that a Star Trek film with a message may be a good idea; however it is not a requirement.
It's about altruism, right?
Someone else can take these.
Mudds Women deals with the problem of delegating power to machines.
Spock's brain, the same again.
Trouble deals with the ethics of dealing with pest control.
Cat's paw - over powerful aliens and superior races.
I think, and I am backed up by what Roddenberry, Justman, Wikipedia and Whitfield have said, that Star Trek is a morality show. The action is a vehicle for the message. It's not like Star Wars. Star wars is about primarily making lots of money for George Lucas. I wouldn't agree that the death of Edith is just a plot point. It proves that Kirk IS altruistic, even if it means losing the love of his life. The whole episode is about interrfering with time lines. I cant see how you can watch 'Encounter', past tense, or indeed A Voyager episode with out seeing this. tense Star Trek without the message, whether some people get it or not, is not Star Trek. I hope ST11 has a message, even if it is a subtle one and I doubt Abrams is dumb enough to leave it out.
It's about altruism, right?
Someone else can take these.
I'm sorry I'm confusiing Mudd's women with I Mudd. Mudd's women deals with the morality of using drugs to enhance yourself and judging by appearances.
Richard Arnols once said that Gene Roddenberry told him they would 'eventually destroy' Star Trek. I hope they won't by just making it an action adventure story.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Where the Enterprise is built, is NOT a detail. Where it's built, IS one of the core ideals.
You see, one of the core things of Star Trek, has always been that it's pretty close to scientifically accurate, several big flaws in individual episodes that can easily be ignored not withstanding. The broad strokes have been very much in line with science. Hell, it gave rise to some of the cutting edge scientific theories of the past 2 decades.
An Enterprise built on the ground, is as unscientific and unrealistic as you can get. Which right there is a breaking point, but it bodes very little hope for the rest of the film and the franchise if something that big and up front is screwed over.
Along with other ignorant of science comments made by the creators, it seems as if Star Trek is going to be Star Wars, or Stargate. A fantasy show with little if not no effort to have a basis in science. Or in other words: a pile of junk.
Last edited:
^Detail, core ideal, or otherwise, that seems like a pretty minor thing to be a deal breaker. Besides, if we want to discuss "the broad strokes", the primary mode of travel for these starships is warping space. If they can travel that way, why can't they have the technology to build the ship or parts of the ship on the ground and move it up into orbit? 
GAH! You don't know its a waste! No-one here has any idea how to build a working Federation starship. Perhaps rocket engines in the 23rd Century are so safe and cheap that it just makes more sense to work on something on the ground then lift it into orbit rather than try to do the work in a vacuum. We see people in shuttles jetting all over the place in Star Trek, so it doesn't seem likely that rocket launches are anywhere near as big a deal to them as they are to us.
(also, hello everyone in this forum - don't think I've posted here before, but I'm a fan, not the oldest, I guess, but TOS is still my favourite, who's really looking forward to this new film)
3D Master
Rear Admiral
They don't use rockets anymore in the 23rd century. Not surprisingly, that would make the whole deal of building ships planet side even WORSE than it already is.
The biggest stumbling block is GRAVITY. Have you SEEN the Enterprise? See that saucer? See it high up in the air? When you attach it to at the latest to the neck, you'd either need a crane and something to fasten it to, or a constantly operational anti-grav lift. One mistake, one fluctuation, one failed mooring and CRASH.
While building that in space, not such trouble. At worst, it'll drift a few centimeters and gently bump into the space dock.
Building any ship on a planet when you can do it in space is pretty stupid, but one shaped like the Enterprise!?
Go find a single non-idiotic SF book or series out there that has their ships built planetside. You'll find none. If the Enterprise were built on the Earth in one fell swoop Star Trek would be reduced to idiocy. It'd be more fantasy and less SF than ffing Star Wars.
No, they don't use rockets, but they use some kind of engines which we don't, so rockets will do as an analogue (since obviously they don't use warp or impulse to fly into and out of an atmosphere). I get your point about attaching the saucer to the neck, but I never meant that the whole ship would be put together on the ground and then ascend majestically into its first flight, I just don't see what's so difficult about making the major sections on the ground, where it would undoubtedly be safer and easier work, then using some of the plentiful, safe, and easy to use space-flight technology we know they have to get them into orbit where they can be assembled into the finished product.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand why this minor detail (and yes, it's a detail at most in my book) would be a deal breaker for you. To use the example I used earlier, why is building ships planet-side so much more unacceptable than warp drive? And, how would this one minor detail reduce the whole movie to idiocy or more fantasy and less SF?
Similar threads
