Where are we right now??

[You_Will_Fail]

Except Bond was a literary character, so the comparison isn't the same. And you're not getting more tales of Kirk and co, this is where the delusion comes in. Those people are not the characters of TOS.

Anywayz, I did like the ST09 movie and think JJ Abrams is a fantastic director, but he could have made just as amazing a movie without the need to dephile Trek.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Kirk and Spock have been done for goodness sake. That's what happens, actors get old and the stories end. Shatner was Kirk, Nimoy was Spock. Pretending that these new actors are representing the old characters is like some mass delusion.

No, that's not what happens at all. Characters get recast, stories get retold and rewritten. Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Batman. Now Star Trek - the original, real Star Trek, has passed into that immortal realm. To forget those iconic characters and dump them would be a monumental waste.

 

[Count Zero]

Defile? Could you crank up the hyperbole even more? Trek isn't anything sacred, it's a sci-fi franchise. You may not like its current iteration and that's fine but using the exaggerations you choose to characterise it make your stance look ridiculous, YWF.

Hey, crazy thought: do you think people in the 24th century object when somebody reboots a classic holodeck program?

"A new version of Dixon Hill? That's sacrilege!"

I think we can bet on that.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Except Bond was a literary character, so the comparison isn't the same. And you're not getting more tales of Kirk and co, this is where the delusion comes in. Those people are not the characters of TOS.

Anywayz, I did like the ST09 movie and think JJ Abrams is a fantastic director, but he could have made just as amazing a movie without the need to dephile Trek.

It is the same, deny it all you want. I saw the credits, heard the names, Kirk, Spock, McCoy. Heck the film even had Nimoy playing Spock. Denial, not just a river in Egypt.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

No, that's not what happens at all. Characters get recast, stories get retold and rewritten. Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Batman. Now Star Trek - the original, real Star Trek, has passed into that immortal realm. To forget those iconic characters and dump them would be a monumental waste.

All those characters began in comics or books. Once again, not comparable. The reuse of the TOS characters just a lazy way for the studio to ensure the movie had good brand recognition and higher box office potential. Likewise, the TOS characters are hardly as distinctive as Batman for goodness sake - they were officers aboard one ship of many, subsequent trek shows showed how it was the universe and the writing that was important, not that we're constantly following the same characters. Its like if we kept rebooting Friends instead of just making new sitcoms with new people.
There's a whole world out there to base new sitcoms on, and new characters to think up. Just like with Trek, there's a whole Trek universe to use to tell stories, we don't need to keep using the same characters who's stories have already been freaking told.

 

[Gov Kodos]

By that logic, it is lazy of DC Comics to keep reusing Batman when his universe has so many other characters that can be used. The general audience got tired of Star Trek, thus the audience abandoned it. Paramount decided to go back to Kirk and company as they were characters that general audiences would recognize to revitalize the franchise. It worked.

 

[Deckerd]

the TOS characters are hardly as distinctive as Batman for goodness sake - they were officers aboard one ship of many, subsequent trek shows showed how it was the universe and the writing that was important, not that we're constantly following the same characters.

I'll cut and paste wot I wrote in another thread:

It's impossible to make an NCC1701 film that doesn't have a huge amount of social awareness attached to it. More than any other science fiction show Star Trek reached mainstream consciousness and stuck there.

Even young people who have never seen an original Star Trek know who Captain Kirk is, who Mr Spock is, etc. Perhaps depth is the wrong word - rather resonance - since that's what the film is trading on. It would have been a crime indeed to waste that collective memory and even if 2009 isn't all that it could have been, it acquitted itself well and IMO dragged itself back from the pompousness of the original crew movies and back to the sense of fun the original series had.

Just because the original characters are used does not mean old stories are re-hashed - precisely as shown by the 2009 movie, which you like. You're complaining about something which doesn't bear scrutiny.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The reuse of the TOS characters just a lazy way for the studio to ensure the movie had good brand recognition and higher box office potential.

If this is true, then the reuse of the Star Trek name itself on any new series with new characters would just be an instance of the studio cynically attempting to artificially boost its ratings using the brand recognition earned by previous entries in the franchise.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

By that logic, it is lazy of DC Comics to keep reusing Batman when his universe has so many other characters that can be used.

I JUST explained the difference between the TOS characters and characters like Batman/Superman etc. Way to not pay attention.

The reuse of the TOS characters just a lazy way for the studio to ensure the movie had good brand recognition and higher box office potential.

If this is true, then the reuse of the Star Trek name itself on any new series with new characters would just be an instance of the studio cynically attempting to artificially boost its ratings using the brand recognition earned by previous entries in the franchise.

No, since those new series which used the Star Trek name were set in the same universe. Its the universe that remains even as old characters and actors die.

 

[F. King Daniel]

No, that's not what happens at all. Characters get recast, stories get retold and rewritten. Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Batman. Now Star Trek - the original, real Star Trek, has passed into that immortal realm. To forget those iconic characters and dump them would be a monumental waste.

All those characters began in comics or books. Once again, not comparable. The reuse of the TOS characters just a lazy way for the studio to ensure the movie had good brand recognition and higher box office potential. Likewise, the TOS characters are hardly as distinctive as Batman for goodness sake -

Why is it not comparable if the characters originated in books or comics? How and why are creations for television unworthy of being recast? William Shatner is not James T. Kirk. He played the character for many years, and now it's Chris Pine's turn. To say TV characters can't be recast but literary characters can is not only doing a disservice to the former, but to the creators of the former, too.

they were officers aboard one ship of many, subsequent trek shows showed how it was the universe and the writing that was important, not that we're constantly following the same characters. Its like if we kept rebooting Friends instead of just making new sitcoms with new people.
There's a whole world out there to base new sitcoms on, and new characters to think up. Just like with Trek, there's a whole Trek universe to use to tell stories, we don't need to keep using the same characters who's stories have already been freaking told.

Those later shows which played to smaller and smaller audiences until Star Trek was no longer viable. Does that really show the universe is more important than the characters who inhabit it? I think not.

Trek's universe is wonderful. But, to go back to an earlier point I made, this new Trek is set in that same damn universe! Albeit in an alternate timeline (and with a much-needed visual upgrade). The most recent series, Enterprise, is as much part of the past of this Star Trek's past as it was the old. Archer and beagle even get a cute little mention.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I think you are mixing up universe with timeline. If you were complaining that you hated alternate time lines, fine. That is what has changed, not the universe.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The reuse of the TOS characters just a lazy way for the studio to ensure the movie had good brand recognition and higher box office potential.

If this is true, then the reuse of the Star Trek name itself on any new series with new characters would just be an instance of the studio cynically attempting to artificially boost its ratings using the brand recognition earned by previous entries in the franchise.

No, since those new series which used the Star Trek name were set in the same universe. Its the universe that remains even as old characters and actors die.

So does this mean that In a Mirror, Darkly parts I and II weren't really Enterprise episodes? What about the other Mirror Universe episodes? Or the bulk of TNG: Parallels? Just cynical use of the brand name?

 

[Gov Kodos]

By that logic, it is lazy of DC Comics to keep reusing Batman when his universe has so many other characters that can be used.

I JUST explained the difference between the TOS characters and characters like Batman/Superman etc. Way to not pay attention.

I paid attention, you are unconvincing. The source of the fictional characters is irrelevant. Kirk is equally fictional as Bond or Batman. Different actors makes no difference to the character being still Kirk as with Bond, Batman, Doctor Who and many others who are playing the same characters in their repetive universes.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Those later shows which played to smaller and smaller audiences until Star Trek was no longer viable. Does that really show the universe is more important than the characters who inhabit it? I think not.

Trek's universe is wonderful. But, to go back to an earlier point I made, this new Trek is set in that same damn universe! Albeit in an alternate timeline (and with a much-needed visual upgrade). The most recent series, Enterprise, is as much part of the past of this Star Trek's past as it was the old. Archer and beagle even get a cute little mention.

Of course the universe of Star Trek is more important than the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy! If it wasn't, then billions of dollars wouldn't have been made of all the spin-offs. People certainly weren't watching in the hope Dr McCoy would pop up out of nowhere and racially insult some random Vulcan.
You can't say Trek went into decline because Kirk/Spock/McCoy were missing.

The fact of the matter is, going back and using existing characters is just damned lazy and cynical and uncreative. The story of the TOS crew pretty much reached its end with the fantastic "Undiscovered Country". Now with the reboot it feels like they're dredging up the corpses of the characters to use again and it all feels very necrotic.

So does this mean that In a Mirror, Darkly parts I and II weren't really Enterprise episodes? What about the other Mirror Universe episodes? Or the bulk of TNG: Parallels? Just cynical use of the brand name?

The only episode that was set totally in another universe with no link to the prime characters was "In a Mirror, Darkly" and that was just a two-parter, I would hardly be happy with a Trek show set totally in that universe. I wish people would stop dragging up ridiculous comparisons "Oh well if you don't like Trek 09 being set in an alternate universe, then does that mean Parallels was a cynical use of the Trek brand name". I mean Jesus Christ, was a silly thing to say. One episode among 177 is hardly comparable to a whole new direction for the franchise.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Of course the universe of Star Trek is more important than the characters of Kirk, Spock and McCoy! If it wasn't, then billions of dollars wouldn't have been made of all the spin-offs. Peoplecertainly weren't watching in the hope Dr McCoy would pop up out of nowhere and racially insult some random Vulcan. You can't say Trek went into decline because Kirk/Spock/McCoy were missing.

It was because they failed to create new characters that were the equal of Kirk or Spock or Picard or Data. People won't swallow any old shit just because it happens to be set in the Star Trek universe - as the cancellation of Enterprise made crystal clear. There weren't even enough die-hard superfans left watching to keep it going.

The fact of the matter is, going back and using existing characters is just damned lazy and cynical and uncreative. The story of the TOS crew pretty much reached its end with the fantastic "Undiscovered Country". Now with the reboot it feels like they're dredging up the corpses of the characters to use again and it all feels very necrotic.

But characters can be put into any number of different stories. Thats the whole point - to take the much-loved classic characters and put them in new situations. Spock in TOS never had to deal with anything like his mother being killed and his entire home planet being destroyed.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I agree. It is silly to complain about the direction the franchise is taking this decade. Especially since it will be only a few movies, compared to the hundreds of other episodes that there are.

By the way, does anybody have a count of the number of temporal incursions that there have been in Star Trek over the years? For instance, I don't recall Sisko and Dax being aboard ship during The Trouble with Tribbles. There was the Year of Hell. Heck, there was Yesteryear; a pet died. STVIII: First Contact. Lots and lots. Just which precise timeline did the Prime Universe end up being in when credits rolled on TATV?

 

[You_Will_Fail]

It was because they failed to create new characters that were the equal of Kirk or Spock or Picard or Data.

Ask plenty of people here and Kirk/Spock/Data won't even appear in their top 5. Yes, the quality of Trek declined with Voyager/Enterprise but that was due to writing/studio interference etc. It wasn't because the characters weren't as good as Kirk or Spock. Kirk and Spock just happen to be the most recognizable because they were in a show that got to air in reruns for 17 straight years with hardly any competition, and star in 6 major movies. That's why they're the most recognizable, not because they are these astoundingly out of this world amazing characters against which no one else can compare. And that's why they were brought back, name recognition.

But characters can be put into any number of different stories. Thats the whole point - to take the much-loved classic characters and put them in new situations. Spock in TOS never had to deal with anything like his mother being killed and his entire home planet being destroyed.

Just accept they were only brought back for the brand recognition and for the pure purpose of increasing the box office potential of a new Trek franchise. You seem to be assuming that no characters more interesting than Kirk/Spock/McCoy can possibly be created for Trek, well I obviously disagree and there have been several already.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I do not like it Sam I am, I do not like green eggs and ham.

Do you like it with a Pine?
Do you like it with all the shine?

No! I do not like it with a Pine, I do not like it with all that shine!

Do you like it with great heart?
Do you like it with Vulcan torn apart?

NO! I do not like it with so called heart, I do not like Vulcan torn apart!

Do you like a universe with a different fate?
Do you like NuSpock out on a date?

ABSOLUTELY NOT! I do not like a universe with a different fate and I hate NuSpock out on a date!

Do you like a cash cow so clinical
That all reboots must be cynical?

WTF have you read nothing I've written, why are you asking me these stupid questions about that stupid movie that had nothing to do with Star Trek. Geez.

 

[Deckerd]

YWF doesn't read anything anyone writes because they're all wrong. I notice that my post didn't merit an attempt at an answer because presumably YWF couldn't think of one.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Just accept they were only brought back for the brand recognition and for the pure purpose of increasing the box office potential of a new Trek franchise.

Only in the exact same way that the Star Trek name itself has been resurrected again and again. By your own logic, those in charge should've created their own sci-fi universe instead of bringing back what was dead and finished for The Motion Picture, then again for The Next Generation. If it weren't for their "cynicism" and "lack of creativity", as you put it, Trek never would have estabished the rich universe you're (wrongfully, IMO) bemoaning the demise of in the first place!