Done with Star Trek?

[T'Bonz]

Hey guys, I just had the chance to read today's offerings in this thread. Do me a favor and keep it on topic and don't use it as an "attack Warped9" opportunity. After this post, those who do that will be warned for it.

*

Nothing wrong with disliking some of Trek. I'm the type though, if I didn't like it, I wouldn't waste my time arguing about it. I'd just move on to another topic. Which is why you'll rarely if ever see me in a "I <3 Seven of Nine" thread.

 

[SeerSGB]

Now, when I say something like, "TOS wasn't near as deep and thoughtful as some like to think," or, "PrimeTrek had just as many continuity issues and holes as NuTrek," I'm not trying to bring old Star Trek down to give the new a boost. I actually love all of Star Trek (well, save for Voyager, half of Enterprise, and some of the movies). What myself and others are trying to get across, however, is that some of the older fans tend to look at what they love with rose tinted goggles .

Well put. And I really wish we could past the idea that there are the stubborn old coots who only like the old shows and the callow young whippersnappers who don't appreciate Classic Trek. There are plenty of us lifelong Trekkies who have fond memories of TOS and still enjoyed the new movie's take on Kirk, Spock, etcetera, and want to see more of it.

But, yeah, it does sometimes seem like the diehard traditionalists are holding the new TREK to a much higher standard than they did the old continuity. I swear, the way some posters talk, you'd swear TOS was a weekly symposium on the Great Issues of the Day instead of a rollicking space opera full of action, space monsters, and exotic alien beauties . . . . just like the new movie.

Continuity, canon, piffle. Never really worried about them enough to affect my enjoyment of the show. And I'm not adverse to a reboot (though I still don't like the nuEnteprise). As I said the movie was fun, but I don't think I could see myself getting interested in the long term in this version of the characters. Something, hard to explain, was missing in the way the characters were written that they just didn't "gel" the right way for me.

But that comes back around to why I've gotten out of 'Trek for the most part (TOS and TNG aside). The "spark" is gone, at least for me. It all feels "Been there, done that, bought the novelization".

 

[Destructor]

Hi T'Bonz,

my post wasn't really meant as an attack on Warped9 himself, more as a comment on how odd it is to go running around declaring that you're 'done with things'. When you're done with something, you are done with it- you don't need to go around saying how done with it you are- by doing that you are, by definition, not actually done with it.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

such sticks-in-the-mud, that I'd wager for all your pontificating about how important it is to attract new fans, that your belligerent refusal to acknowledge any of the positive impact the 2009 JJ Abrams film had is remarkably short-sighted, self-serving, and well, kind of douchey..

More to the point, you're never going to attract any number of new, young enthusiasts to anything based on continual assertions that all of the best of it was done long ago, is inviolate, cannot be added to or reinterpreted or played with in any way other than within the narrow confines approved by the Keepers Of The Flame.

Even churches can't manage that trick, and some of them are able to literally threaten Hell to scare folks into line.

There's a difference between growing a fandom and maintaining a cult. The attitude of many TOS Trek purists could conceivably manage the latter but can only inhibit the former. "TOS purism" will die with the first generation, even if they could somehow protect it from "dilution" until they go.

 

[Warped9]

Warped 9, I don't agree with much of what you say about Trek post-1979, but one of the things I enjoy about this place is getting a different perspective.

So I'm not asking this question to be a smartass or anything, but what exactly are you looking to get out of Trek these days?

What would make you not be "done" with it? A new TV series? No more movies?

I didn't say I was tired of the TBBS. There is indeed other stuff to talk about. But even talking about TOS has gotten way too familiar.

 

[Joker]

I thought Star Trek loved me.

Then she went onto her next customer.

 

[Warped9]

I thought Star Trek loved me.

Then she went onto her next customer.

Yep. She's a skank.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Did it HAVE to be done by "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? Berman and Braga needed to go a long time before they did, I agree. But the existing franchise wasn't given a chance to recover from their stupidity, despite the yeoman efforts of Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses, who were FINALLY getting Enterprise to where it needed to be. They just needed time, either to continue Enterprise or to come up with something new. The problem was B&B, not Rodenberry Trek.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Gary7]

More to the point, you're never going to attract any number of new, young enthusiasts to anything based on continual assertions that all of the best of it was done long ago, is inviolate, cannot be added to or reinterpreted or played with in any way other than within the narrow confines approved by the Keepers Of The Flame.

There's a difference between growing a fandom and maintaining a cult. The attitude of many TOS Trek purists could conceivably manage the latter but can only inhibit the former. "TOS purism" will die with the first generation, even if they could somehow protect it from "dilution" until they go.

Very well put. TOS is slated to be "museum material"... it's just gonna happen, when the folks who were watching it before any other Star Trek incarnations were around end up passing on. Things change, time moves on. It would behoove the "old guard" to recognize that. In any case, people are free to have their opinions and stick with what they wish... but if we already know about it, it's not very sensible to keep repeating it. We got it... let's move on.


TV and movies are a big hit, since their inception. They'll continue on and there will be more sci-fi series/movies. In the Star Trek genre too. But as ENT couldn't survive because the audience wasn't hungry enough (not much time had passed from VOY) by the time they hit their stride (Manny Coto/Reeves-Stevens finally shed the Berman/Braga curse), there will be a long stretch before we see another series. My hope is that in about 5 years they'll pick it up a little after ENT... maybe after Archer has become a desk admiral. I wouldn't want them to continue on with "nuTrek". We don't need the TOS characters continuing. We need fresh characters.

 

[Amaris]

I still love Star Trek. Old and new. In fact, they can take my Star Trek when they can pry it from my cold, dead pocket protector.

 

[AMQ]

Did it HAVE to be done by "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? Berman and Braga needed to go a long time before they did, I agree. But the existing franchise wasn't given a chance to recover from their stupidity, despite the yeoman efforts of Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses, who were FINALLY getting Enterprise to where it needed to be. They just needed time, either to continue Enterprise or to come up with something new. The problem was B&B, not Rodenberry Trek.

My thoughts exactly.

Well put! Totally agreed

 

[ST-One]

...like in "Blood and Fire"... horribly off balance and distasteful in some respects with how they handled the gay relationship....

 

[Amaris]

...like in "Blood and Fire"... horribly off balance and distasteful in some respects with how they handled the gay relationship....

I don't understand that one either. In my opinion, they were rather restrained with the whole relationship. I've seen heterosexual couples on family sitcoms get far racier than what was in Blood and Fire.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Fair enough point, but I don't see NuTrek fans bashing prior Trek efforts or their fans as often as I see the reverse.

I see a few hardliners on BOTH ends basically making a hell of a lot of noise and annoying the crap out of everyone else. The difference is that those supporting the Nu School tend to have the institutional support of the franchise controllers, which makes them even bolder and more prone to making it "personal" (hence the "40 year old basement dwelling fanboy " meme).

What myself and others are trying to get across, however, is that some of the older fans tend to look at what they love with rose tinted goggles or they focus only on the points that annoy them while out and out refusing to give the film any credit whatsover, which is ridiculous (granted that second part doesn't reflect everyone who dislikes the new film, but I know for a fact that's how warped9feels).

Fair point. I myself liked JJ's work for what it was, a "modern take" reboot of Trek. It worked well enough for that purpose and was even enjoyable. It however failed in my eyes to pass several "sniff tests" as being good Trek.

If by, "throwing the baby out with the bath water," you mean changing the timeline, I suppose not. I'll concede it wasn't necessary, but they made it a point to acknowledge that the original timeline still exists.

Which frankly, I wish they hadn't done, given the level of rebooting that they did. JJ should have had the stones to make his Trek his way as an entirely new entity and not tried to tie it to Rodenberry Trek, except that it was the same concept. That would have solved all the problems right there.

Granted, I'm not a continuity snob, so I don't care all that much personally.

That is a perfect example of what I was decrying above (not that I'm implying it was intentional on your part, mind). If you had simply said the last part, it would be an arguable difference of opinion, but one that could be let go.

Using the term "continuity snob", an arguably inherently perjorative term, just puts OS fans' backs up.

I do agree with you that ENT got shafted hard, but that's simply a symptom of how horribly Berman and co. handled Enterprise right out the gate. Coto's excellent work at saving the show came too little too late. Today's television climate isn't about giving shows a chance sadly.

Good point.

 

[ST-One]

...like in "Blood and Fire"... horribly off balance and distasteful in some respects with how they handled the gay relationship....

I don't understand that one either. In my opinion, they were rather restrained with the whole relationship. I've seen heterosexual couples on family sitcoms get far racier than what was in Blood and Fire.

Yeah, it was probably the two guys cuddling...
But I agree that BaF dragged on horribly. Especially in the second part.

As for the topic of this thread: I don't see myself to ever be done with Trek. I'm not as enthusiastic about it as I was when I was seven a poor Apollo's temple was destroyed before his eyes, but I'm still a fan.

Oh, and I can totally see how the OP lost interest in Trek in '79...

 

[BolianAuthor]

I'm sure there are a few around here who will assert that I've been done with Star Trek for decades. Well that's not quite accurate.

I held in for a long time. Firstly through the dry years of the '70s when Star Trek was kept alive by enormous success in syndicated reruns and significant fan interest as well as a smattering of occasional merchandise. Many folks like to call TOS a failure, but that is by a very narrow definition because in the long run TOS was incredibly successful such that it launched a huge franchise.

Although I had my quibbles along the way any real dissatisfaction with Trek really started to take hold for me in the mid '90s when TNG was in its final years, DS9 got going and VOY came along. That and the TNG movies. That and the exposure to other SF in television and literature helped give focus to things I was disappointed with and get an idea of where I felt it started to go astray (for my liking).

To say I'm done with Star Trek needs to be qualified. I will always love TOS (missteps and all) as well as some of the films and elements of TNG. To that end I will still collect stuff related to those parts of Star Trek that I appreciate. I will continue to pursue personal little projects also related to those.

For a long time I couldn't imagine turning sour on Trek, but I'm really done with the franchise as a whole. It hasn't interested me in any positive way for years. And assuming that Abrams' film is the new face of Trek then that is the final nail in the coffin until/unless it is ever revived into something bearing at least a passing resemblance to what it once was and what I loved about it. I won't elaborate any further on this point because I'm sure someone would take personal offense over it.

I could well be a lone voice here or perhaps there might be a handful of like minded souls lurking about. If it sounds like sour grapes then so be it. The franchise has gone in a direction I don't care for and don't respect. For those for whom it works, have fun.

I'm thankful there's other SF to enjoy out there.

I feel much the same way as you, Warped9, though I personally enjoyed TNG and DS9... it was VOY, ENT, and then JJ-Trek that kinda killed it for me. Thankfully by then I had become a nuBSG convert, so I had that. But I will say this much...

For a LONG time, I thought I had lost my "Trek button", creatively, in terms of writing. But for a little while now, TOS Purist has been helping me develop an idea I had for a TOS-era story, and I must say, it's really helped to get me back into the Trek groove, and make me "feel Trek" again, and I'm having a lot of fun with it.

Just my two cents on the matter. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[Warped9]

I feel much the same way as you, Warped9, though I personally enjoyed TNG and DS9... it was VOY, ENT, and then JJ-Trek that kinda killed it for me. Thankfully by then I had become a nuBSG convert, so I had that. But I will say this much...

For a LONG time, I thought I had lost my "Trek button", creatively, in terms of writing. But for a little while now, TOS Purist has been helping me develop an idea I had for a TOS-era story, and I must say, it's really helped to get me back into the Trek groove, and make me "feel Trek" again, and I'm having a lot of fun with it.

Just my two cents on the matter. Take it for what it's worth.

Personal projects are the thing that really sustains you when the "official" material has let you down. It's also very much like what sustained us in the '70s having to do without new stuff except TAS and some books.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Did it HAVE to be done by "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? Berman and Braga needed to go a long time before they did, I agree. But the existing franchise wasn't given a chance to recover from their stupidity, despite the yeoman efforts of Manny Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses, who were FINALLY getting Enterprise to where it needed to be. They just needed time, either to continue Enterprise or to come up with something new. The problem was B&B, not Rodenberry Trek.

My thoughts exactly.

Well put! Totally agreed

There's no evidence at all that a sufficient audience can be attracted to "Roddenberry Trek" to make it worth the studio's time and money to produce it.

"It worked twenty years ago, and people who agree with me still like it" doesn't cut the mustard.

On the other hand, the new stuff is popular. People like it. People will pay the studio for it. New stuff it is, then.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

^And yet, DVD sales, etc are apparently still strong for the older material.

The evidence shows that B&B Trek was losing steam, not the larger Roddenberry Trek universe. Enterprise should have been given S5 with a MAJOR ad push to showcase the changes made under Coto and the Reeves-Stevenses. But Les "I hate Star Trek" Moonives pulled the plug.

 

[Joker]

Why "should" Enterprise have had a 5th season?

No, "I wanted one" isn't a valid answer.