Not real Star Trek

[F. King Daniel]

People have been saying this since The Animated Series, The Motion Picture and The Wrath of Khan. It comes up with every new series, most notably The Next Generation. Some are saying it now about Into Darkness. So lets hear it - which is real and which is fake Star Trek? Which episodes or films and why?

 

[Maurice]

It's all fake.

 

[Robert Comsol]

I'll try to make this concise (yes, I know some here will say that would be a first ):

IMHO, Star Trek had been and should be foremost about exploration, the exploration of the macrocosm (outer space) and the microcosm (i.e. the human condition) to qualify as "real" or "true" Star Trek according to Gene Roddenberry.

As strange as that may sound upon re-watching TAS, once you blend out the presentation and its target audience, there is so much "Star Trek" under its skin, that often it seemed to me, that TOS was a compromise Roddenberry had to accept but TAS gave him plenty of opportunities to present what he had tried to feature originally.

In a manner of speaking it feels to me like TNG is the continuation of TAS but for an adult target audience.

The biggest flaw of TMP, up to this day, is the deletion of the "Spock cries" scene. Its producers misunderstood that VFX is not what makes a movie great but the characters. But as a genuine science fiction film this one is among my top three with 2001 and Mission to Mars.

After that, IMO, Star Trek become too derivative once it started to compete with Star Wars (movies) or Babylon 5 (DS9).
Having "survived" the first two seasons of VOY I thought the show was really getting much better and truly went "where no man had gone before". Could be that their isolation from home and really being on their own gave it a genuine Star Trek feel I never quite had when watching TOS or TNG.

Bob

 

[MarsWeeps]

Star Trek was created as a TV series and that's where it belongs. Weekly episodes, each with a "message" or "moral to the story" that gets people to exercise their brains.

The problem with Star Trek these days is that there are only movies that come out every 3-4 years. Because of that, they use the same formula each time. "Evil Villain hell bent on revenge - causes massive death and destruction with lots of explosions!"

Until Star Trek comes back to TV, we are going to have to ignore Gene's vision and tolerate the same movie over and over again.

 

[Saito S]

All of it is real.

The entire notion of declaring certain parts of the franchise "not real Trek" or "not true Trek" is absurd, and really comes down to either "this part isn't real/true (because I don't like it)", or "this part isn't real/true because it doesn't conform to a narrow reading of what Trek 'should' be (often summed up as 'Gene's vision')."

And it's fine to not like parts of it, as well as to have favorite parts. We all have our likes and dislikes, and arguing about them here can be a bizarrely fun way to pass the time. But placing some kind of judgement on the parts that we dislike as being "not real Trek" is ridiculous. And it isn't as if we could ever get any kind of consensus on what the good and bad parts of Trek ARE. In the end, it's all down to our opinions.

So it's all real. Even the bad stuff, the cheesy stuff, the parts we'd prefer to forget - nobody ever said that Star Trek was perfect, and goodness knows, at times it's anything but.

But it's still all Star Trek. Yes, even Enterprise.

 

[Commishsleer]

Can someone explain GR's vision concisely so I can judge properly which pieces of 'alleged' Star Trek conform?

 

[BillJ]

Only The Cage and Threshold are real Star Trek.

 

[Commishsleer]

"The Cage" where multiple women are selected for one man might fit into GRs personal 'vision' I suppose. LOL. OK just joking.
But "the Cage" is the only part of Star Trek where GR didn't have to compromise. Although it seems GR was a bit of a collaborator (at least in TOS) and maybe compromise is what 'made' Star Trek.

 

[cardinal biggles]

Can someone explain GR's vision concisely so I can judge properly which pieces of 'alleged' Star Trek conform?

Which vision? His TOS vision or his TNG vision?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek was created as a TV series and that's where it belongs. Weekly episodes, each with a "message" or "moral to the story" that gets people to exercise their brains.

But isn't it true that very few of the episodes actually had messages or morals to the story? They aren't psalms, they're adventures in space first and foremost.

The problem with Star Trek these days is that there are only movies that come out every 3-4 years. Because of that, they use the same formula each time. "Evil Villain hell bent on revenge - causes massive death and destruction with lots of explosions!"

Until Star Trek comes back to TV, we are going to have to ignore Gene's vision and tolerate the same movie over and over again.

Didn't Star Trek Into Darkness have both a message (quite explicitly slamming America's use of drone weapons) and morals (Kirk deciding to bring Khan to Earth for trial instead of executing him from afar)? Yet you still claim it's not real Star Trek. What will it take?

 

[The Wormhole]

If I like it, it's real Star Trek. If I don't like it, it's not real Star Trek.

 

[RandyS]

Can someone explain GR's vision concisely so I can judge properly which pieces of 'alleged' Star Trek conform?

Dollar signs. Money.

The rest is just hype.

 

[RandyS]

Only The Cage and Threshold are real Star Trek.

You forgot TATV.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There is good Trek and bad Trek (often subjective), but it is all real Trek.

 

[R. Star]

When people say something isn't "real" Trek... it's usually just them venting their own opinions about what they personally do or don't like in an attempt to get others to think like they do. Nerys got it right... there's good and bad, but it's all as real as a fictional setting gets.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Didn't Star Trek Into Darkness have both a message (quite explicitly slamming America's use of drone weapons) and morals (Kirk deciding to bring Khan to Earth for trial instead of executing him from afar)?

Any "morals" in STID were buried within the same, overused plot that was used in the previous movie...and even the one before that.

Yet you still claim it's not real Star Trek. What will it take?

I made no such claim. You were the one that made the claim when you started this thread.

 

[BillJ]

Until Star Trek comes back to TV, we are going to have to ignore Gene's vision and tolerate the same movie over and over again.

I'll live, because two-thirds of Star Trek are far worse than the two movies made by Abrams.

 

[MarsWeeps]

I'll live, because two-thirds of Star Trek are far worse than the two movies made by Abrams.

You mean the single movie that he made twice?

 

[BillJ]

I'll live, because two-thirds of Star Trek are far worse than the two movies made by Abrams.

You mean the single movie that he made twice?

Define it however you like. I had a blast watching both of them.

 

[MarsWeeps]

Define it however you like. I had a blast watching both of them.

Good for you. I liked the first one better than the second. I'm thankful for JJ's Trek for the simple reason that it's helping keep Trek alive...but...

I'm hoping for Trek to return to TV.