What is more Trek to you?

[JirinPanthosa]

Roddenberry had a negative influence on the later Star Trek (TNG, DS9, VOY). His vision of an Earth as a perfect paradise and where humans don't have interpersonal conflicts lead to stories in which conflict had to be introduced from an outside agency. This created a nightmare for the writers. Roddenberry's ideology had poisoned his creation. JJ Abrams has brought Star Trek back to its TOS roots, where Earth isn't a paradise and humans have interpersonal conflicts.

Don't most of the writers for TNG admit the 'Roddenberry box' is what forced them to be more creative with their stories?

I don't think the lack of crime on Earth is meant to be an absolute statement. Crime must exist, but it's unexpected to the point that most people feel safe enough to leave their door unlocked. There's obviously crimes of passion, and the person here and there who tries to get around trade regulations and such.

But, in a world where scarcity is eliminated, it's easy to imagine there's very little crime.

 

[throwback]

It depended on the writer. Melinda Snodgrass found herself restricted by the "Roddenberry Box" (she described herself as a passionate writer) and had left the show by the end of the third season.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't think the lack of crime on Earth is meant to be an absolute statement. Crime must exist, but it's unexpected to the point that most people feel safe enough to leave their door unlocked. There's obviously crimes of passion, and the person here and there who tries to get around trade regulations and such.

But, in a world where scarcity is eliminated, it's easy to imagine there's very little crime.

Let's be honest. We're all mostly speculating here, and reaching sweeping conclusions on the basis of tiny little bread crumbs of data, simply because STAR TREK seldom discusses the crime rate on Earth! And why should it? It's a space opera, not a cop show or legal drama. The crime rate on Earth has nothing to do with the the voyages of the Starship Enterprise and their latest encounter with a strange alien probe or whatever.

Seriously, when it was ever stated that there was no crime on Earth? I honestly don't remember Kirk or Spock or McCoy ever discussing the matter. Even when TOS did a murder mystery, as in "Conscience of the King" or "Wolf in the Fold," I don't remember anyone saying anything like "As you know, Captain, homicide no longer exists on Earth . . . ."

Heck, even Sarek was a murder suspect at one point!

When did we get the idea that there was no crime in the 23rd Century? And since when was the crime rate on Earth a topic of major concern on STAR TREK?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Seriously, when it was ever stated that there was no crime on Earth?

There are at least penal colonies on Earth, such as the one where Tom Paris was. It wouldn't really need to be on Earth if it was free of crime. And every series has had its share of criminal humans.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If any thing the talk of "paradise" is a bit a hyperbole. We do the same thing today.

 

[Greg Cox]

If any thing the talk of "paradise" is a bit a hyperbole. We do the same thing today.

And, honestly, I think a lot of the "paradise" talk is generated by some fans, as opposed to the actual show. TOS, in particular, barely discussed life on Earth at all, yet one occasionally runs into fans who insist that there is no crime, disease, unpleasantness, etcetera in the 23rd Century--despite what actually goes on in the movies and episodes.

It's almost like they're more invested in the idea of some mythical "utopian" backstory than the actual adventures and characters in the foreground . . . .

The way I see it, STAR TREK isn't really about some distant utopia we barely ever seen. It's about strange new worlds out on the final frontier, zillions of light-years away from anything resembling a utopia.

Indeed, as I've pointed out before, every time Kirk encountered a "perfect" society, there was usually an evil computer or mind-warping alien spore involved. Kirk himself was understandably leery of any society that claimed to have eliminated all conflict and imperfections--and usually ended up turning them upside-down!

 

[throwback]

Would you like me to provide quotes from Star Trek to support what I have said? I would be happy to do so.

Personally, I find the future as portrayed in Star Trek as unrealistic and, frankly, I think creating a future as perfect as the one shown in ST is just as bad as having nostalgia about a past that never existed.

 

[plynch]

Watched the teaser trailer. More vengeance coming. Is that the only plot these people know? Insurrection. Nemesis. XI, now XII all have vengeance at the core. It gets old to me. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Greg Cox]

Watched the teaser trailer. More vengeance coming. Is that the only plot these people know? Insurrection. Nemesis. XI, now XII all have vengeance at the core. It gets old to me. But maybe that's just me.

Again, the tag line for Wrath of Khan was:

"At the end of the universe lies the beginning of vengeance."

And that's the best Star Trek movie ever . . . .

 

[Temis the Vorta]

There's nothing unTrek about the trailer, and it might feature just one slice of the movie anyway. But it sure does look like Generic Summer Tentpole Franchise Movie. You could very easily sub in a cast of superheroes and not change anything but faces and names.

It seems chillingly calculated, and yes I know that's how Hollywood works. The movie business has telescoped into something very narrow, assembly-line-feeling and soulless. Except for the fall Oacar bait movies, but Star Trek will never qualify for that category. It gets lumped into the one-size-fits all interchangeable action movies category.

Star Trek wll never be back to its old self till its back on TV.

 

[plynch]

Watched the teaser trailer. More vengeance coming. Is that the only plot these people know? Insurrection. Nemesis. XI, now XII all have vengeance at the core. It gets old to me. But maybe that's just me.

Again, the tag line for Wrath of Khan was:

"At the end of the universe lies the beginning of vengeance."

And that's the best Star Trek movie ever . . . .

EXACTLY. Once was enough. It was great. So let's make another vengeful bad-guy flick. Yay.

It's just not my cup of tea anymore, after 40 years of Trek-watching. (46 if you count I was a baby plopped down in front of first-runs I don't remember.)

Sigh. Big, loud, ear-hurting, hyperkinetic shoot-em-ups, 'splosion-fests are not "it" for me. Enjoy it if you like it, though.

 

[SG-17]

Keep the canon and go forward after Nemesis.

A reboot will never be Star Trek. Star Trek was TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY (and the first ten movies). Even ENT wasn't Star Trek, that's why it failed so miserably.

That being said, I liked the movie. But it's not Star Trek.

That is a rather ignorant viewpoint.

This reboot is Star Trek, whether you like it or not. It is a new canon perfectly within the Prime Universe's depiction of quantum realities. Hell, one of the Enterprises that appeared in "Parallels" was probably from the Abramsverse.

Enterprise was Star Trek, it was a prequel that fit snugly in an undeveloped portion of Prime canon. It is just as much Star Trek as Voyager, TOS, or TNG.

The canon was stale and limited. There wasn't much that could be done in the Prime Universe after the destruction of Romulus. If you go even farther into the future you rapidly get a disconnect from the present that makes the show harder for the uninitiated to get into.

A reboot was needed for the successful future of the series. Star Trek is now in the hands of JJ Abrams. STXI and STID are just as legitimate pieces of Star Trek canon as were First Contact and The Voyage Home.

 

[Greg Cox]

Keep the canon and go forward after Nemesis.

Not going to happen . . . except in the books, of course.

What's the point of rebooting the franchise if you just go back to where you were before?

 

[Anji]

Put it this way, there are many painters who are Cubists, but there is only one Pablo Picasso. And you know a real Picasso when you see one. The others are all tributes to the master but they are not his works.

Kinda the way I feel about Star Trek. Roddenberry is dead and Star Trek went with him. Anybody else trying to work in his style is merely giving him a loving tribute.