What is more Trek to you?

[los2188]

Like many of you, I've watched the new Trek teaser trailer more than once and no matter where I see it, there are a lot of comments made saying "this isn't very Star Trek...". To try to simplify things for me, what would make this movie, (yes I know, we haven't seen the movie yet) or even the last movie "more Trek?" Would it be more Trek if it were more lighthearted? If so in this day and age would that lightheartedness be considered some what antiquated? Would maintaining a strict continuity and having positive messages make it more Trek? What exactly would make it more Trek? Or has Trek simply evolved to the point where it shows you the good and bad of the universe?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Trek is a lot of things. It's funny and serious. It's full of action and ideas. It has character moments and big stunts. It's simple and complex. All it needs to do is tell a good story with some or all of those elements.

Strict continuity and positive messages are worthless without a good story.

 

[Melakon]

The future depicted in Roddenberry-Trek was a utopia. The future depicted in Abrams-Trek seems to be leaning toward dystopia.

 

[Minuet]

I think, personally, Star Trek works best in a television medium. That's not to say that the movies are terrible. In fact, there's several wonderful films but only a handful of them have even somewhat recreated the vibes of the television series'. The rest are either vastly divergent in tone yet still fantastic cinema, or outright mistakes.

To me, Trek has always been a television show first and foremost. It's about a future of hope, where we've put down a lot of our differences (not all of them!) as a society and work together for the common good. It's liberalism at its ultimate, successful end. It's about good hard sci-fi that doesn't forget about good, fun, likeable characters. It's not all laser blasts and explosions. It's about drama, heart, and people stuck in a ship together, somewhere in the cosmos, having to deal with each other and all of the horrors and wonders surrounding them. It's about big ideas. It's about what it means to be an individual. It's about what it means to be a human being, and what that means for a human race nearly drowned out by the millions of other races that inhabit the galaxy.

I'm not going to go into depth over what characteristics I've listed are missing from the new films, but suffice to say, none of the films over the last decade have really fulfilled this for me. In fact, really, only maybe three or four out of any of the films actually do. Even the so-called worst of the series, Enterprise, has a handful of episodes that are good, solid Trek that the '09 film or Nemesis couldn't even hope to approach.

That said, I like the 2009 film. It was a lot of fun. It's growing on me.

And really, everyone looks for something different in Trek. Trek speaks differently to different people. There's a Trek episode for every hot button issue, from race to gender to money and everything in between. That's the beauty of it. And what I look for in Trek might not be what you look for. I love that.

 

[Devon]

Like many of you, I've watched the new Trek teaser trailer more than once and no matter where I see it, there are a lot of comments made saying "this isn't very Star Trek...". To try to simplify things for me, what would make this movie, (yes I know, we haven't seen the movie yet) or even the last movie "more Trek?" Would it be more Trek if it were more lighthearted? If so in this day and age would that lightheartedness be considered some what antiquated? Would maintaining a strict continuity and having positive messages make it more Trek? What exactly would make it more Trek? Or has Trek simply evolved to the point where it shows you the good and bad of the universe?

What they mean is it doesn't look like Star Trek... from the past. They are correct. And this is a good thing. They're not used to Star Trek being treated as a viable franchise and given the red carpet treatment, thus why it's not "Star Trek." I don't notice a lot of those but the ones that I do see usually give a completely Bullshit reason.

For instance, the one tonight on YouTube from some user was that there was "No Trekkin" and that it looked like nothing but explosions, blah blah blah. In the same post they turned around and praised "First Contact" and said they missed Picard, etc.

Please, let's look at First Contact's Trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W2Ehf4qrh4

Machine guns, space battles, the dark tone, NO "Trekkin," etc. So they lost their point when all they really wanted to say was that they were a bigger TNG fan.

Some of those same people also clearly do not understand what a trailer is designed to do. We have technology now to see films in 3D, in Imax, etc. Paramount has ONE minute to sell the film. They are going to do this by showing as much of the visual spectacle as they can. People are not going to fork over money this summer to see something based on a trailer of Kirk talking about Gene Roddenberry's Vision™ for one minute.

So if you see those comments, ask them why, then watch as the bullshit train comes in.

So if they want "True" Star Trek, they can watch this latest quaint offering from CBS @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n85J7KYOtAg with 14,000 views.

Meanwhile, the rest of us will enjoy the new film trailer verging on 4 Million views in 48 hours.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

There is nothing that could have been added to ST:XI to make it more Trek for me. It was wonderfully, gloriously Trek.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek to me is the characters and universe that I love. "Not feeling like Star Trek" reads to me like "this isn't like anything Kirk, Spock and the rest have dealt with before," which to me is GOOD. The modernized classic characters in new situations.

The future depicted in Roddenberry-Trek was a utopia. The future depicted in Abrams-Trek seems to be leaning toward dystopia.

That would seem to be, from the teaser, to be the exact point of Into Darkness. Just like terrorist attacks made the US and rest of the world feel unsafe, Cumberbatch's baddie is doing the same on a planetary scale. He's challenging everything Trek's future is supposed to be.

 

[EyalM]

When TMP came out it wasn't very star trek.
When TWOK came out it wasn't very star trek.
Then TNG had its turn, then DS9 and so on.
No it's time for the new kid on the block to get picked on.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

The future depicted in Roddenberry-Trek was a utopia. The future depicted in Abrams-Trek seems to be leaning toward dystopia.

That would seem to be, from the teaser, to be the exact point of Into Darkness. Just like terrorist attacks made the US and rest of the world feel unsafe, Cumberbatch's baddie is doing the same on a planetary scale. He's challenging everything Trek's future is supposed to be.

And it's not like that challenge is anything new. We had the Terra Prime movement, the Maquis.. I'm sure when this comes out some will say this is not the future Star Trek was supposed to be but these stories have always been there.

 

[Mage]

People complain and whine to much. There is nothing that is 'real' Star Trek. Only different incarnations with different interpretations. Now, it's really possible that someone doesn't like a specific incarnation of Star Trek. But that doesn't mean it isn't 'real' Trek.

One of the reasons I avoid most of the sub-sections of this forum is to avoid comments like that. TrekLit and TrekArt are really the only ones I follow, with the DS9 and General Trek forum in second place, since I personally love DS9 the most, and General Trek can have some interesting discussions. But the other serie/movie specific forums (and yes, the DS9 forum is AS guilty of that as the rest of them) usually only have comments on why said series/movie is great or sucks. Getting a bit tired of that.

 

[Therin of Andor]

When TMP came out it wasn't very star trek.
When TWOK came out it wasn't very star trek.
Then TNG had its turn, then DS9 and so on.
No it's time for the new kid on the block to get picked on.

You forgot the anti TAS sentiments of the 70s.

 

[F. King Daniel]

And Enterprise, which deeply upset some Trekkies by not even calling itself "Star Trek" for the first two seasons.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Star Trek has always been a lot of things. It has been intelligent & philosophical, it has been stupid, it has been a comedy, it has been horror, action, a war story and much more...there is nothing that Star Trek hasn't done over the decades.
No aspect is more Trek than the other. There's only people who usually focus on one of these aspects and exaggerate about how prevalent it was.

Star Trek is all about these great characters and their adventures set in the Star Trek universes (prime, mirror, alternate or whatever else).

 

[Flake]

Star Trek is an Action Adventure show with strong characters - Gene Roddenberrys words from 1964. Trek at its core is indeed travelling to a new world and finding something new but with 750+ episodes and movies, Trek has done a bit of everything, from Zombies to comedy... the only thing it hasn't done is a full on musical!

We have all sat through some dire episodes and some fantastic ones, so what Abrams is doing here does not irk me in the slightest and because of that I can get hyped up, giddy and excited while I wait for the new movie. Abrams does not need to conform to my idea of Star Trek because I do not have one... all I want is to be entertained and enjoy the show regardless of what Abrams or anyone else involved in Trek does. Trek has broken its own rules a million times by now, if someone is not happy with what Abrams is doing then I suggest they get a grip, get over it and enjoy the show.

TL;DR: Star Trek = Strong characters & action/adventure.

 

[ChristianBobak]

Okay, so I've seen the trailer for the new Star Trek movie several times, and I get the feeling that it does not contain much in the way of Gene Roddenberry's original vision. Created to be a massive action blockbuster to be sure, but likely Star Trek in name only, if this preview is any indication.

The original Star Trek (and many of its later incarnations) was a bold vision before it was a name. It was a collection of politically progressive, allegorical morality plays commenting on present day hot-button issues, cleverly set in the future to slip them past the network suits at the time, who not only opposed the content on the basis of marketability but also opposed the concept of an ethnically diverse star ship crew. Stories of racism, religion, class warfare, imperialism, and human rights were what resonated with most fans, with the cool technology and action throwing it over the top.

There were villains, of course, but their actions were usually part of a broader message. Character conflicts tended to be more internal than external.

Though it contained little in the way of messages, the action-packed Star Trek film of 2009, a reboot of the franchise by J.J. Abrams, was very well made and paid suitable homage to the original characters, played by an entirely new cast. It was a good re-introduction, and, understandably, it was aimed at more than just the existing fans.

That being said, with the second film, entitled "Star Trek Into Darkness," - scheduled for a 2013 summer release - unless there's some additional depth to what we're being shown in this trailer, ostensibly a run-of-the-mill revenge flick, it would appear as if Abrams has disregarded any intentions whatsoever of pursuing any of Gene Roddenberry's vision. It would be rather unfortunate, if true, because it's not like there's a shortage of issue-oriented stories to tell these days, and the audience for those types of stories will always be there.

Much as we fans are looking forward to any new Star Trek - and I'm sure the new film will be great for what it is - a lot of us are wondering if maybe Paramount and J.J. Abrams' idea of rebooting wasn't to simply bury Star Trek in Stephen King's "Pet Sematary" back in 2009, leaving us with a soulless, altered form of what we once knew, a shadow of its former self.

 

[Kemaiku]

Gene's vision was a dollar sign, fans deluding themselves into thinking otherwise need to get over it.

The movie has the characters, the uniforms, the ship, the sense of scale and danger to exploration of space that I would want, so it's quite "Trek" to me and I fully intent to pay to see it the moment it comes out.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Terrorism is a current "hot button issue" - and this movie appears to be about a terrorist attacking the very core of Star Trek - that utopian future that Gene envisioned. Future-Earth is going to learn some of the same lessons that the US has in recent years.

Sounds Trek-ish enough to me.

 

[C.E. Evans]

For me, Trek is an action-adventure series with moments of high drama set in a futuristic setting that's fun and exciting, with people of all types working together, regardless of the color of their skin.

I saw that in TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY, & ENT. I saw that in the Star Trek XII trailer.

 

[wissaboo]

Like many of you, I've watched the new Trek teaser trailer more than once and no matter where I see it, there are a lot of comments made saying "this isn't very Star Trek...". To try to simplify things for me, what would make this movie, (yes I know, we haven't seen the movie yet) or even the last movie "more Trek?" Would it be more Trek if it were more lighthearted? If so in this day and age would that lightheartedness be considered some what antiquated? Would maintaining a strict continuity and having positive messages make it more Trek? What exactly would make it more Trek? Or has Trek simply evolved to the point where it shows you the good and bad of the universe?

burgandy sweaters I think.

I have some sympathy for the haters I really do. I felt the same way when I saw TMP and when I heard about TNG. I still feel that way about Voyager. But never in a million years would I rant for years about it. I am always amazed at the level of vitriol these people have maintained.

for me personallyt he best argument for this being trek is that when I left he theatre after seeing TMP I was cold inside thinking they should never have made it and trek was really over. When I left the theatre opening night for the latest star trek I was excited and looking forward to more.

this propbably isn't answering the origional question, but I just wanted to get that off my chest with the haters out in full force again.

 

[Franklin]

Star Trek to me is the characters and universe that I love. "Not feeling like Star Trek" reads to me like "this isn't like anything Kirk, Spock and the rest have dealt with before," which to me is GOOD. The modernized classic characters in new situations.

The future depicted in Roddenberry-Trek was a utopia. The future depicted in Abrams-Trek seems to be leaning toward dystopia.

That would seem to be, from the teaser, to be the exact point of Into Darkness. Just like terrorist attacks made the US and rest of the world feel unsafe, Cumberbatch's baddie is doing the same on a planetary scale. He's challenging everything Trek's future is supposed to be.

Yep. Youngsters need to remember TOS was being conceived of by Roddenberry before the Civil Rights Act or Voting Rights Act were even passed in the U.S. During the run of TOS there were race riots, other riots, wars (not just in Vietnam), and assassinations. And, TOS was cancelled and left the air before Neil Armstrong even walked on the moon.

Roddenberry's Earth was a "utopia" in that context. TOS showed the Earth could solve its problems and find lasting peace among its people, eventually. However, that didn't mean the Earth couldn't face outside challenges and dangers. The entire alpha quadrant is not a utopia. There were Klingons and Romulans, after all. There can be threats from Cumberbatch or Xindi or the Dominion or even a space probe that wants to talk to whales.

Lecture aside, whether they're facing space hippies, looking for whales, dressing up as 1920s gangsters or 1940s Nazis, sacrificing a love to set a timeline straight, dealing with tribbles, trying to stop a doomsday machine, or caught in af a life-or-death game of chess with a Romulan starship commander, to me, Trek is about the characters, plain and simple. They are the constant. They define Trek.