• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Earth!

Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Wow. No offense guys, but I'm sort of embarrassed how long it took this thread to catch the note of sarcasm in the OP.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

And also, Gene probably wouldn't have given DS9 the go-ahead, and that's the best of the lot (IMO).

he actually did see the beginnings of the treatment from what I remember, even though he didn't like it.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

The only thing that's embarrassing is that we've had so many threads of this nature that were serious we can't really tell the difference anymore. :(
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

I vaguely remember some of that. Does it come from the TMP novelization? In any case, it's not canon. Even the word of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" himself, if not put on screen, is NOT canon.

It is the official movie tie-in by GR. TMP was written by GR, and the tie-in book was written by GR. If the film and tie-in material were created by the same person, then it should be official. What is the point of writing it if it wasn't official? What is the point of reading it if it wasn't official? What is the point of selling it? Isn't it dishonest to sell it and treat it as noncanon?
You do know that at this time GR was a womanizing Alcoholic and Cocaine user right? Which of course were all allowed in his version of Utopia..

Damn you JJ for pissing on Canon.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

I vaguely remember some of that. Does it come from the TMP novelization? In any case, it's not canon. Even the word of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" himself, if not put on screen, is NOT canon.

It is the official movie tie-in by GR. TMP was written by GR, and the tie-in book was written by GR. If the film and tie-in material were created by the same person, then it should be official. What is the point of writing it if it wasn't official? What is the point of reading it if it wasn't official? What is the point of selling it? Isn't it dishonest to sell it and treat it as noncanon?
You do know that at this time GR was a womanizing Alcoholic and Cocaine user right?

So? None of that is as bad as selling an official movie tie-in with a story by the film's writer and then claiming that it is non-canon.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

I vaguely remember some of that. Does it come from the TMP novelization? In any case, it's not canon. Even the word of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" himself, if not put on screen, is NOT canon.
And, even Roddenberry had a bad idea or two. I'd walk away from a couple of those things in favor of what Abrams put on screen any day.
Same here!:techman:
Personally if the OP is right about this stuff I have to wonder what Roddenberry was smoking that day.
I've asked myself that MANY a'times!:guffaw:
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

The only thing that's embarrassing is that we've had so many threads of this nature that were serious we can't really tell the difference anymore. :(
:guffaw::guffaw: I'm laughing so much I can't breath..
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

I guess those Roddenberry ideas listed in the OP can be filed along side Abrams's ideas for Superman.

I guess I can see the joke in the OP. But it was preaching to the choir of those who realistically know that Roddenberry was far from perfect in his "vision thing."
If it had not been for Gene Coon, Harve Bennett, Nicholas Meyer, Leonard Nimoy, Rick Berman, and probably eight or ten others, it's unlikely Abrams would've ever had a chance to get his mitts on the canon. If it had been all on Roddenberry, it would've likely been a defunct franchise decades ago.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

The only thing that's embarrassing is that we've had so many threads of this nature that were serious we can't really tell the difference anymore. :(

Not embarrassing that there are so many nutty threads, entertaining. I like it a little crazy in here, it keeps me amused all day long.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

I vaguely remember some of that. Does it come from the TMP novelization? In any case, it's not canon. Even the word of the "Great Bird of the Galaxy" himself, if not put on screen, is NOT canon.

It is the official movie tie-in by GR. TMP was written by GR, and the tie-in book was written by GR. If the film and tie-in material were created by the same person, then it should be official. What is the point of writing it if it wasn't official? What is the point of reading it if it wasn't official? What is the point of selling it? Isn't it dishonest to sell it and treat it as noncanon?
You do know that at this time GR was a womanizing Alcoholic and Cocaine user right? Which of course were all allowed in his version of Utopia..

Damn you JJ for pissing on Canon.

I think the white powder under Nero's nose in that scene before Spock Prime pops up might be a nod to this. You see, JJ promised us he'd respect canon, and I knew I was right to trust him. :D
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

Worst Star Trek Convention pickup line ever: "Hey there, did you know that "Love Instructors" are canon?"
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

It is the official movie tie-in by GR. TMP was written by GR, and the tie-in book was written by GR. If the film and tie-in material were created by the same person, then it should be official. What is the point of writing it if it wasn't official? What is the point of reading it if it wasn't official? What is the point of selling it? Isn't it dishonest to sell it and treat it as noncanon?
You do know that at this time GR was a womanizing Alcoholic and Cocaine user right?

So? None of that is as bad as selling an official movie tie-in with a story by the film's writer and then claiming that it is non-canon.

Even worse to take credit for a script you didn't really write...
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

And also, Gene probably wouldn't have given DS9 the go-ahead, and that's the best of the lot (IMO).

DS9, putting it mildly, was a Babylon 5 ripoff.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

That's right -- nuTrek utterly destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Earth!

Roddenberry shared his vision of Earth and humanity, and JJ and crew ignored everything! The word of Roddenberry was dismissed!

What was ignored?

Well, there's a whole list...

- James Kirk was named for his mother’s “first love instructor,” not his grandfather!
- George Kirk as just another of his mother's love instructors.
- Kirk's academy class had less "intellectual agility" than previous classes.
- "New Humans" who are willing to meld their own identities and individuality into a group consciousness versus rare "Primitives" like Kirk who still follow ancient customs like taking the last name of your father. In fact, using the father's surname is quite rare among most humans.
- Humanity moving beyond primitive monogamy and becoming swingers.
- The Federation installing cybernetic implants (senceivers) in Starfleet member's heads.
- A lower Mediterranean Sea because the Mediterranean Alliance built the Gibraltar hydroelectric complex!
- TOS isn't really canon but is instead a grossly exaggerated version of events in which the crew were portrayed as larger than life and the events were distorted by a misguided Starfleet PR campaign.

Where was this in the new film?

This was the official vision of 23rd-century humans and Earth from Gene Roddenberry, shared with us in 1979, and now it has been totally betrayed!

Now don't go screaming "not canon!" because this is the word of Trek's creator himself, as bestowed upon us in the official movie tie-in of the pinnacle of Star Trek at its absolute purest: Star Trek: The Motion Picture!

1) I'm a Star Trek fan who saw the original series first run on NBC in 1969.

2) As for "GR's Vision" (tm); by 1979, Gene had gone off the deep end in believing his own 'press' as it were about being a 'great humanist' - stating that Starfleet was not a military organization, etc.; and taking sole credit for A LOT of items that most fans would consider intergral to Star Trek that were actually introduced and developed by Gene L. Coon for the series.

IF ANYTHING - the new film returned to GR's original vision for Star Trek from the early 1960ies; and THANKFULLY disgarded all the ultra-moral, politically correct, near perfectly adjusted manaquins that was the 1701-D crew of The Next Generation (which GR tried to recon into being the way 'Star Trek' was from day one :rolleyes:).

But, again, by 1979; GR had already begun his retcon of "Star Trek philosophy". If you can find anything from the production memos from say 1964 - 1969 that back up your claims; then I'd be more inclined to agree.
 
Re: nuTrek destroys Roddenberry’s vision of 23rd-century humans and Ea

And also, Gene probably wouldn't have given DS9 the go-ahead, and that's the best of the lot (IMO).

DS9, putting it mildly, was a Babylon 5 ripoff.

Wrong thread. This is the thread in which I complain about official tie-in books and Borg-enhancements being made non-canon by those who hate Star Trek, not B5 fans who hate Star Trek.

No, back on topic...

I have decided that, of my initial list, the worse offense is the character assassination of James Kirk's mom compared to Roddenberry's vision for her.

Roddenberry wanted her to have no last name and be a New Human who had many sexual partners, the first of which was named only James. It was for this love instructor that she named a son she happened to have with a particularly good lay named Kirk.

Now Abrams and company have ruined the character, turning her into a Starfleet officer and the loving wife of her husband, George Kirk. They went even further as to give her a last name, which no good New Human would even have -- it hinders the group identity.

Kirk's mom should be as Roddenberry envisioned: New Age and easy.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top