Has star trek changed
- Thread starter starbuck
- Start date
Um, Star Trek changed from Gene's "vision" (before it was called a "vision", it was just a TV show pitch) pretty much the second the series was greenlit. Other people came in, and - through collaborative process - "Gene's Vision" (TM) was morphed into something 'changed'.
The new "blockbuster" (why do so many people - not necessarily you - seem to regard this as a dirty word for a Trek film??) is no more "changed" from the "Vision" than Star Trek II, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, later TNG etc etc.
"The Trek we all liked"...um, really? If you can find consensus on the Trek we ALL liked I'd be impressed. What you consider the Trek we "all" liked might be very different from me.
Don't mean to pick on you, but I see this "the new movie has changed things from everything before" line a lot, and it rankles; it makes it sound like Trek was one cohesive whole for 40+ years beforehand, and it's just not the case.
The new "blockbuster" (why do so many people - not necessarily you - seem to regard this as a dirty word for a Trek film??) is no more "changed" from the "Vision" than Star Trek II, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, later TNG etc etc.
"The Trek we all liked"...um, really? If you can find consensus on the Trek we ALL liked I'd be impressed. What you consider the Trek we "all" liked might be very different from me.
Don't mean to pick on you, but I see this "the new movie has changed things from everything before" line a lot, and it rankles; it makes it sound like Trek was one cohesive whole for 40+ years beforehand, and it's just not the case.
I think it has. But Gene was always using contemporary topics to fuel his stories. Race was a HUGE issue back then and you saw that "tolerance of others who are not like you" theme over and over. Others here can come up with many more example...theme-episode. I can't, I just remember how topical it was even as a child.
So now we have terrorism and corruption from within as a major societal issue here in the US - and very many other countries. Bob Orci is HUGE into conspiracy themes and poitical intrigue. I have followed his posts at (bleep) comments section for a long time. He still talks about President Kennedy's assassination.
So JJTrek has been written to reflect our times. If it was a movie about racial division, or hippies, or Nixon-ish leaders, or HUGE sideburns and wide glasses - it would not be relevant to movie goers. The betrayal of our government "servants" and terrorism are the topics of this decade.
I think that the new film franchise has a good chance of capturing Gene's original intent and feel. The chosen chemistry of the cast feels right so we shall see.
To answer the question that you proposed....who knows. If TOS was given 7 seasons who knows here it would have gone. Just in my opinion here but TOS had limitations due to budget and special effects even though of which can bring a certain amount of creative genius to the table. If TOS had an unlimited budget as well as the technology to visually produce anything back then who knows where the show would have gone. Our vision of what we think that we have today may be altered.
To answer the question that you proposed....who knows. If TOS was given 7 seasons who knows here it would have gone. Just in my opinion here but TOS had limitations due to budget and special effects even though of which can bring a certain amount of creative genius to the table. If TOS had an unlimited budget as well as the technology to visually produce anything back then who knows where the show would have gone. Our vision of what we think that we have today may be altered.
Since Roddenberry's alleged "original intent" changed constantly as the years passed there's no reason Trek shouldn't continue to change.
Yes, it's changed. So has music, the climate, public sexual behavior and the color of my hair. Everything that's not dead changes continually, and what's dead disintegrates. "Good versus bad change" is just people banging their opinions against one another.
Yes, it's changed. So has music, the climate, public sexual behavior and the color of my hair. Everything that's not dead changes continually, and what's dead disintegrates. "Good versus bad change" is just people banging their opinions against one another.
Yes, Sir, ain't it the truth.
Looking forward to seeing what's changed in about a month and a half, too.
I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.
I don't mind where it's been going, but would love for the next one to NOT be focused so much on having a big villian to overcome. Would like to see a little more science in my science fiction, and have story more around Enterprise versus a mystery, phenomenon, or ancient race type situation.
I think the last time we got a Trek movie without a big villian was ST:IV, with the Probe being closer to a force of nature rather than something to fight.
I knew, fewer phasers pew-pewing and capital ships in dogfights, but would be a nice change of pace. Of all our favorite Trek episodes, how many really had a big villian the crew was fighting?
I think the last time we got a Trek movie without a big villian was ST:IV, with the Probe being closer to a force of nature rather than something to fight.
I knew, fewer phasers pew-pewing and capital ships in dogfights, but would be a nice change of pace. Of all our favorite Trek episodes, how many really had a big villian the crew was fighting?
Action movies with lots of cool special effects and good stories are not mutually exclusive. I thought the last film had a good, fun story that also managed to tug at my heartstrings. I can't ask much more of a movie.
I would, however, be interested to see a more cerebral film made in this day and age. I wonder what TMP would be like if it was made now. I think there is still a place in modern cinema for such films, especially with modern special effects (it's easier to swallow a slower-paced film if there's lots of pretty stuff to look at).
One line from Insurrection always rings true:
"Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
I'd love to see the next Trek film be about exploring the final frontier, rather than defending Earth against yet another bad guy, but this is not a new problem. This trend has been going on for a long time.
I would, however, be interested to see a more cerebral film made in this day and age. I wonder what TMP would be like if it was made now. I think there is still a place in modern cinema for such films, especially with modern special effects (it's easier to swallow a slower-paced film if there's lots of pretty stuff to look at).
One line from Insurrection always rings true:
"Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
I'd love to see the next Trek film be about exploring the final frontier, rather than defending Earth against yet another bad guy, but this is not a new problem. This trend has been going on for a long time.
Although packed with all the action you'd expect, IMO Star Trek had a lot more depth than your average summer blockbuster. It packed an emotional punch and featured characters I instantly cared about. Story-wise, it packed Spock's lifestory (all of TOS, the backstory from TAS and a better version of his TMP resolution) into two hours - and did it as a coming-out allegory.
It looks like Star Trek Into Darkness is going to show Starfleet mirroring some of the extremely questionable things the US has done overseas in the past decade. Much like TOS depicted a fictionalized version of the Vietnam war in "A Private Little War" and a cautionary tale of what may have come of the Cold War in "The Omega Glory"
As for whether Star Trek has changed - of course! It was a 1960's television show. Now it's a 2010's summer blockbuster. But Star Trek was originally pictched as "Action - Adventure - Science Fiction" - and it still very much is all those things.
It has changed from ideas driven morality plays for television in to an action driven summer blockbuster. I personally see this is a bad thing but there are plenty here who think Star Trek is as good as it has ever been. It all comes down to what you'd like Trek to be.
I don't see how you can expect to not hear the phrase "Gene's vision" in a Trek BBS. Should we just erect JJ-specific Trek hangouts so people like you can avoid Trek purists?
Lt. Cheka Wey
Commander
Because Ron Moore's vision was so much more awesome.
A) We have just such a hangout, it's this forum and you seem quite fond of hanging out here.
B) My view is that Star Trek isn't a religion with Gene Roddenberry as Moses. Neither we as fans nor Abrams nor anyone else as creators are beholden to "Gene's vision" in any way. As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether or not this or that is in line with "Gene's vision" is akin to wondering if Colonel Sanders 'would have approved' of the Zinger Tower or the Boneless Banquet. No-one cares if he would or not.
Likewise, Roddenberry's been dead for over twenty years. More Star Trek has been made without his involvement than with it. His 'vision' is sweet and all, but it's restrictive of the kind of stories you can tell and the kind of characters you can tell them about. There's just no real reason to keep mindlessly deferring to it, in my view.
No.
But let's be honest, Gene adjusted his "vision" according to whatever best stuffed his pockets with cash and his couch with starlets.
As has already been pointed out, Star Trek has been in a constant state of change since before it first went on the air in 1966. It's not different in that respect from any long-running series.
The problem with a term like "Gene Roddenberry's Vision" is that it has no definite or useful meaning. It's quite nebulous, in fact, and when invoked is often far more indicative of the personal wishes of the invoker than it is of anything which can conclusively and inarguably attributed to Gene Roddenberry.
Which ones were those, that "we all" liked and enjoyed? Trekkies were never a monolithic group, all liking all of the same things - not even in the days when one series was all there was.
No, but that's just my take. What's yours?
Warning for trolling; comments to PM.
Similar threads
