Has star trek changed

[newtontomato539]

Abrams isn't leaving Star Trek. Yay!

Time Travel is great unless Abrams does it!?

Morality plays were done with TMP and Insurrection. They are boring.

Star Trek as a long history of action.

Should Bad Robot Star Trek do 10-15 minutes of morality and 10-15 minutes on science?

What about technobabble?

Did TOS explain in detail the science?

 

[Gojira]

I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.

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?

I think the term "Gene's Vision" has reached mythical proportions at this time to the point where it really isn't true. I think Gene's true vision was making money.

I do not mean to sound cynical because I do not think I am being cynical. I just think that the whole "Gene's vision" overrated. Plus Star Trek was made into what it became through the vision of many, not just one man.

 

[SeerSGB]

I could happily go the rest of my life without ever hearing the phrase "Gene's vision" again.

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?

I think the term "Gene's Vision" has reached mythical proportions at this time to the point where it really isn't true. I think Gene's true vision was making money.

I do not mean to sound cynical because I do not think I am being cynical. I just think that the whole "Gene's vision" overrated. Plus Star Trek was made into what it became through the vision of many, not just one man.

I know it's been denied, but Zephram Cochrane in First Contact screamed "commentary on Gene Roddenberry" the minute he gave that speech in the cockpit of the Phoenix.

He was a man of his times, he had some good ideals and a knack for getting some of the best and brightest to work for him,but he got turned into a hero and idol long after the fact by fans that only know the PR version of Gene.

 

[Opus]

Bring Back Captain Winter!

 

[BillJ]

Bring Back Captain Winter!

Only if Commander Autumn is his first officer!

 

[Harvey]

"Gene's Vision" has been an effective marketing strategy for the franchise since the seventies, but as many others have posted, it doesn't have much concrete meaning because it (a) exaggerates Roddenberry's status as a "visionary," (b) gives him credit for the creations of others, and (c) has been constantly revised to sell whatever the latest product happens to be.

When Star Trek: Voyager came out, the idea that Roddenberry at first wanted a woman as the lead in the original series was fed to the media more than once. Earlier, Brandon Tartikoff wanted the dedication in front of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country to invoke "Gene's vision." Roddenberry, of course, had almost nothing to do with that film, clashing in meetings with Nick Meyer and ultimately refusing credit as "executive consultant" before his death. And so on and so forth...

Anyone decrying the fact that the Bad Robot version of the franchise conceives of it as an action-adventure series has obviously never read a Roddenberry story memo from the 60s. Rarely did an episode go by where Roddenberry didn't comment on ways of increasing the action-adventure potential.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Also don't understand the view that Abrams 'has no interest' in science fiction. He's involved, however tangentially, in making so much of the stuff - Lost, Cloverfield, Super-8, Star Trek 2009, Star Wars - he seems to have at least a passing interest, no?

The only one of those I'd consider to be true science-fiction would be the time travel episodes of Lost and he had zero influence on them. They were conceived of/written by Damon Lindelof and Calrton Cuse

He is from the Spielberg/Lucas school of thought regarding the genre which is PERFECT for Star Wars Episode VII but entirely wrong for Star Trek. My two pence.

The phrase "true science fiction" is about as meaningless as "true Star Trek".

 

[Awesome Possum]

Also don't understand the view that Abrams 'has no interest' in science fiction. He's involved, however tangentially, in making so much of the stuff - Lost, Cloverfield, Super-8, Star Trek 2009, Star Wars - he seems to have at least a passing interest, no?

The only one of those I'd consider to be true science-fiction would be the time travel episodes of Lost and he had zero influence on them. They were conceived of/written by Damon Lindelof and Calrton Cuse

He is from the Spielberg/Lucas school of thought regarding the genre which is PERFECT for Star Wars Episode VII but entirely wrong for Star Trek. My two pence.

There's also Fringe, which is an actual science fiction show. As in fiction that deals with science. It features time travel, alternate universes, alternate timelines, cloning, genetic engineering and possibly the best "mad scientist" character ever featured in any media. Does that count as "real science fiction" to you or does it need space ships and laser guns going zap?

You should also look into what actually is covered in the realm of science fiction. Because Super-8 involves an alien and Cloverfield has a monster from the ocean in it. Both of which would traditionally count as science fiction since it is presented as vaguely possible instead of magical. Star Wars is in the vague area of science fantasy.

 

[M'Sharak]

"Gene's Vision" has been an effective marketing strategy for the franchise since the seventies, but as many others have posted, it doesn't have much concrete meaning because it (a) exaggerates Roddenberry's status as a "visionary," (b) gives him credit for the creations of others, and (c) has been constantly revised to sell whatever the latest product happens to be.

No doubt the phrase has and (to an extent) will continue to be effective as a marketing tool, but I also find—on message boards such as this—that its utterance may signal the onset of a load of sanctimonious claptrap in the form of mantras like:

"_____ is a slap to the face of _____" or
"_____ would have _____ spinning in his grave" or
"no True Fan of Trek™ would ever accept ______."​

"Gene Roddenberry's Vision™" is too often invoked as if it conveyed instant legitimacy upon the maker of any solemn or zealous pronouncements which follow, when all they usually are is just so much hot air standing in for "It's not what I would have preferred to see."

 

[Awesome Possum]

Didn't Gene want to do a movie where the crew goes back in time, accidentally stops the Kennedy assassination, feature Spock and JFK having a philosophical discussion and then have Spock kill Kennedy from the grassy knoll to preserve the timeline?

I'm pretty sure that "Gene's Vision" also involved the walls melting and being able to taste colors at that point.

Also I'm aware that Red Dwarf did the same thing as comedy.

 

[yousirname]

Also I'm aware that Red Dwarf did the same thing as comedy.

I read the first part of your post and thought "Oh I've gotta tell this guy about that Red Dwarf episode" and then got to the last bit.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I don't know what Gene was on when he wrote that, but I wouldn't mind trying it.

 

[Joby]

I think what I miss from Gene Roddenberry was the "futurist" aspect he contributed to Star Trek. Gene didn't appear to be a very good writer and came up with some kooky stories, but he did have some really cool futurist ideas that made into it Trek. Some ideas were too futurist for 20th century/early 21st century audiences, but plenty others made it into TOS and TNG and I'm all the grateful for it. I also liked how he tried to distance away from the TOS style and TOS aliens when doing TNG, again Gene wasn't a total loon, I think he was a pretty good TV pitchman and futurist, just not a very good writer/storyteller. But as others have repeatedly said, there really is no such thing as "Gene's vision" for Trek, other then something to energize the fanbase in the 1970s and early 80s.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think what I miss from Gene Roddenberry was the "futurist" aspect he contributed to Star Trek. Gene didn't appear to be a very good writer and came up with some kooky stories, but he did have some really cool futurist ideas that made into it Trek. Some ideas were too futurist for 20th century/early 21st century audiences, but plenty others made it into TOS and TNG and I'm all the grateful for it. I also liked how he tried to distance away from the TOS style and TOS aliens when doing TNG, again Gene wasn't a total loon, I think he was a pretty good TV pitchman and futurist, just not a very good writer/storyteller. But as others have repeatedly said, there really is no such thing as "Gene's vision" for Trek, other then something to energize the fanbase in the 1970s and early 80s.

Which cool futurist ideas were those?

 

[JoeZhang]

I think what I miss from Gene Roddenberry was the "futurist" aspect he contributed to Star Trek. Gene didn't appear to be a very good writer and came up with some kooky stories, but he did have some really cool futurist ideas that made into it Trek. Some ideas were too futurist for 20th century/early 21st century audiences, but plenty others made it into TOS and TNG and I'm all the grateful for it. I also liked how he tried to distance away from the TOS style and TOS aliens when doing TNG, again Gene wasn't a total loon, I think he was a pretty good TV pitchman and futurist, just not a very good writer/storyteller. But as others have repeatedly said, there really is no such thing as "Gene's vision" for Trek, other then something to energize the fanbase in the 1970s and early 80s.

Which cool futurist ideas were those?

That James T. Kirk is named after his Mother's love instructor?

 

[Amaris]

The only person who truly knew Gene's vision was his Optometrist.

 

[The Wormhole]

I think what I miss from Gene Roddenberry was the "futurist" aspect he contributed to Star Trek. Gene didn't appear to be a very good writer and came up with some kooky stories, but he did have some really cool futurist ideas that made into it Trek. Some ideas were too futurist for 20th century/early 21st century audiences, but plenty others made it into TOS and TNG and I'm all the grateful for it. I also liked how he tried to distance away from the TOS style and TOS aliens when doing TNG, again Gene wasn't a total loon, I think he was a pretty good TV pitchman and futurist, just not a very good writer/storyteller. But as others have repeatedly said, there really is no such thing as "Gene's vision" for Trek, other then something to energize the fanbase in the 1970s and early 80s.

Which cool futurist ideas were those?

That James T. Kirk is named after his Mother's love instructor?

Nudist parks where families bring their pet tigers, FTW!

 

[BillJ]

The only person who truly knew Gene's vision was his Optometrist.

 

[marksound]

GR's biggest successes were in looking for A. ways to make a buck, B. hot chicks to mount, and C. both A. and B.

If he started believing his own hype, well, he apparently had lots of company.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Which cool futurist ideas were those?

I'll bite: the idea that technology would eliminate the need to work for money.

Of course, he didn't think that through in terms of how it would be likely to affect everything that people do. He may well have simply lifted it from his friend Arthur C. Clarke, who used it in a number of stories.