Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

[C.E. Evans]

I know. But my point is that high action isn't really star trek. It'd be weird seeing that kind of action associated with trek.

Action has always been a part of Star Trek. Until now, it was just scaled down to fit the budgetary limits of a (live-action) TV show or a modest-budget movie.

Social commentary and character development has always been a part of Trek. Any action that occurred was a bi-product of that, and merely used as plot devices.

Actually, that's a myth. Trek has always told more morality plays--issues of right and wrong--with social commentary a bi-product of that (albeit a frequently hyped one). Character development tends to vary from Trek series to Trek series though. Action-adventure, however, is prevalent in every Trek series.

An animated kids show would have to be action oriented, and the plot will be written around that. Sort of like how Abrams makes movies.

That last part isn't really true. But all Trek stories start with a McGuffin, something that forms the basis for a story and things develop from there.

I honestly have no idea what Trek you watch to say that Action is a part of Trek.

I honesty have no idea what Trek you watch to say that action isn't a part of Trek. From Captain Pike's tussle with a Kalar in "The Cage" to Spock's showdown with Khan in Star Trek XII (with plenty of space battles in between), Trek has had action as one of its mainstays.

To claim otherwise is simply overlooking or ignoring it. Trek has always been a mixture of drama and explosions.

While a small number of episodes were primarily action oriented, the majority of episodes were dramas with action as a minor component.

That was mainly with TNG, with other Trek shows (particularly TOS and DS9) generally having more action content. Trek movies, however, tend to be even more action-oriented (and rightfully so, IMO).

 

[wulfio]

ugh. I don't know where you got that I said there's no action. However, TOS was not an action centric show. It was social commentary. Any and all action in all of Star Trek is derived from that commentary. I don't know how else I can explain it to you so you can grasp what Star Trek actually is. This isn't conjecture, this is from the horses mouth. It's great that you have your opinion, but it is contradictory to what the creators of the show say, and the intentions of the story telling devices utilized.

If you watch Trek for the action, that's super, but know what it is, and what it isn't. It isn't an action franchise. The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats.

None of the pre lens flare Star Trek movies are action oriented movies(nemesis and insurrection don't exist for me). Yes they have action elements in them. But if you call them action based movies because of those sequences, I can't really have a serious conversation with you.

 

[mos6507]

Trek tended to have a minimum action quota that it felt obligated to dole out. The plot was contrived enough in order to lead to a fist-fight or phaser-blast every now and then, but the overarching plot was definitely issue-based, not just Flash Gordon style good vs. evil.

The problem often brought up about TAS was the runtime. Even the dialogue was delivered in an almost speed-reading fashion, just to cram as much of the plot into the runtime as possible. While it's possible to do 30-minute dramas (the 50s had its share) it's very difficult. And something as exposition, negotiation, and technobabble-laden as Trek kind of needs a full hour of runtime (minus commercials of course) which is hard to get with any animated show.

 

[C.E. Evans]

ugh. I don't know where you got that I said there's no action.

"high action isn't really star trek. It'd be weird seeing that kind of action associated with trek."

It actually isn't that weird given that action has been a staple of Trek from day one. It's just that with improved special effects and a larger budget, it can be done on a bigger scale than it has previously.

However, TOS was not an action centric show. It was social commentary.

TOS was an action-adventure show, and was originally conceived as such by Roddenberry.

"Star Trek is...action-adventure-Science Fiction."
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf

It was not really about social commentary, although it did have that from time to time.

Any and all action in all of Star Trek is derived from that commentary.

Not true on both counts. All aspects of Star Trek are derived from it being a drama.

I don't know how else I can explain it to you so you can grasp what Star Trek actually is. This isn't conjecture, this is from the horses mouth. It's great that you have your opinion, but it is contradictory to what the creators of the show say, and the intentions of the story telling devices utilized.

That is truly your conjecture. If you actually looked objectively at Trek in all its entirety, you would know that Trek is a mix of different things. It's not all high-brow stuff. Never has been.

Trek is often put up on a pedestal by fans, and even by people who work on the show, but that pedestal is built upon an action-adventure series in space.

Trek tended to have a minimum action quota that it felt obligated to dole out. The plot was contrived enough in order to lead to a fist-fight or phaser-blast every now and then, but the overarching plot was definitely issue-based, not just Flash Gordon style good vs. evil.

I don't think that's true. When NBC originally rejected the original pilot, there was reportedly a request to include more action than what there already was, but there's nothing to suggest the rest of that. And Trek's overarching plot was simply a ship exploring space and encountering things (both good and bad) along the way. The majority of Trek stories are not issue-based nor social commentary, but they are often about morality.

 

[BillJ]

TOS was an action-adventure show, and was originally conceived as such by Roddenberry.

"Star Trek is...action-adventure-Science Fiction."
http://leethomson.myzen.co.uk/Star_Trek/1_Original_Series/Star_Trek_Pitch.pdf

What would Roddenberry know about Star Trek?

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek was entertainment first and foremost, sometimes with a simple message like "The Vietnam war is horrible" or "Save the whales".

The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats

So you managed to miss the condemnation of the United States' use of drone warfare? It was about as subtle as the Vietnam episode.

 

[Harvey]

Star Trek is an action adventure series, which is not to be dismissive of it in any way, but to accurately describe what it is.

To put it another way, having read countless behind-the-scenes memos at this point, I'd be willing to bet that the most frequent comment from writers, executives, producers, and directors in these correspondence was "not enough action."

 

[Maurice]

One can argue that "A Private Little War" isn't just about Vietnam, but about when you involve yourself in the conflicts of others you get stuck in them: their problem becomes your problem: be it Korea or Vietnam or whatever.

The problem often brought up about TAS was the runtime. Even the dialogue was delivered in an almost speed-reading fashion, just to cram as much of the plot into the runtime as possible.

If that were the case the episodes would not feature those long pans over background paintings with only music playing. And there's no speed reading in that show. In fact, the delivery is frequently too leisurely.

 

[Ryan8bit]

To define it strictly as "action-adventure" is way too basic. Star Wars is also action-adventure. Are they the same?

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies. A cartoon made these days would definitely follow that pattern from the new movies.

 

[BillJ]

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies. A cartoon made these days would definitely follow that pattern from the new movies.

I believe that if Roddenberry were alive and in his prime today, a big-screen Star Trek would be much closer to the Abrams films in the amount of action present than either TOS or TNG.

 

[mos6507]

If that were the case the episodes would not feature those long pans over background paintings with only music playing. And there's no speed reading in that show. In fact, the delivery is frequently too leisurely.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. The pans tended to often be accompanied by Captain's Log exposition, and Shatner sounded like a chipmunk a lot of the time he was talking so hurriedly (and devoid of emotion). The rushed quality wasn't as pronounced with the other voices.

I believe that if Roddenberry were alive and in his prime today, a big-screen Star Trek would be much closer to the Abrams films in the amount of action present than either TOS or TNG.

I don't know what you base that on, considering that The Cage, TMP, and early TNG reflect Gene's emphasis on cerebral plots and talkiness over action. The only thing I can see is Gene wanting to stay current with FX even if it meant bending canon (ala the Klingon ridges). That's about it.

 

[BillJ]

I don't know what you base that on, considering that The Cage, TMP, and early TNG reflect Gene's emphasis on cerebral plots and talkiness over action. The only thing I can see is Gene wanting to stay current with FX even if it meant bending canon (ala the Klingon ridges). That's about it.

Gene in his prime would be Gene in the 1960's.

"The Cage" - Pike fighting with the Keylar, Pike threatening to break the Talosians neck, the laser cannon scene, Pike burning in his imagination, Number One threatening to kill them all. No action there. No way.

As much as people want to stick there fingers in their ears and go "lalala I'm not listening!", Star Trek (the original) was sci-fi action adventure. Were there talkie episodes? Sure. They didn't have access to the money nor the technology in the 1960's to make a film like we see today.

Why do you think so many kids connected with it at such a young age? I was four when I started watching.

 

[C.E. Evans]

To define it strictly as "action-adventure" is way too basic.

No, it's correct. Because within an action-adventure series, a wide variety of stories could be told, including dramatic ones, humorous ones, character-centric ones, and even allegorical ones.

Star Wars is also action-adventure. Are they the same?

As far as genre, yes they are. Some Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans may not want to admit it, but to the rest of the world the difference between them are apples and oranges. Sure, each have things that are unique to themselves, but both can be easily regarded as action-adventures in space or space operas.

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies.

A lot of that is due to not being able to do so previously due to technological or budgetary restraints.

A cartoon made these days would definitely follow that pattern from the new movies.

Which is true for any cartoon based off a current movie.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I believe that if Roddenberry were alive and in his prime today, a big-screen Star Trek would be much closer to the Abrams films in the amount of action present than either TOS or TNG.

I can't even pretend to care about speculation about Roddenberry would do.

As much as people want to stick there fingers in their ears and go "lalala I'm not listening!", Star Trek (the original) was sci-fi action adventure. Were there talkie episodes? Sure. They didn't have access to the money nor the technology in the 1960's to make a film like we see today.

I feel like if I had to define it, I'd say it was a light sci-fi drama with action-adventure elements. The drama was always heavier than the action. I'm not denying that the action wasn't there, but just that in all of Star Trek it was never at the pace or quantity that it currently is. But that's a sign of the times. Surely, Star Trek cannot and should not be exactly what it was before, and what they're doing is apparently working well enough.

No, it's correct. Because within an action-adventure series, a wide variety of stories could be told, including dramatic ones, humorous ones, character-centric ones, and even allegorical ones.

The same could be said of many genres. That's why it's too broad.

When I think of action-adventure, right away I think of Indiana Jones or Robin Hood. It's stuff that focuses all around the action. Star Trek has definitely had action in the past, but it wasn't often so much the focus as the drama was.

As far as genre, yes they are. Some Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans may not want to admit it, but to the rest of the world the difference between them are apples and oranges. Sure, each have things that are unique to themselves, but both can be easily regarded as action-adventures in space or space operas.

Isn't saying the differences are apples and oranges really saying that they are indeed different and not comparable?

Anyways, they are different, and the perception of them by people has long been different. Star Wars has a high focus on fantasy, mysticism, and action. Star Trek tries to cloak its fantasy in science fiction, and its emphasis was not as much action. This is even apparent by their names.

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies.

A lot of that is due to not being able to do so previously due to technological or budgetary restraints.

Not buying that answer. TMP didn't have heavy constraints and while it still has action in it, it's not nearly as heavy as it is today.

I think a lot of it is as I said, a sign of the times. Action movies these days don't give you much time to breathe. It's just spectacle after spectacle; a constant barrage of cumshots.

 

[C.E. Evans]

The same could be said of many genres. That's why it's too broad.

It's not broad at all, it's just an accurate description. Star Trek is an action-adventure series (in space), and one that has taken advantage of that to tell a wide variety of stories.

When I think of action-adventure, right away I think of Indiana Jones or Robin Hood. It's stuff that focuses all around the action.

And Star Trek is no different. Action-adventure is a genre in which characters undertake a journey or go on a mission and sometimes wind up in a jam they got to get out of. That describes the majority of Star Trek stories.

Star Trek has definitely had action in the past, but it wasn't often so much the focus as the drama was.

That was mostly a TNG thing, other Trek shows tended to mix things up.

Isn't saying the differences are apples and oranges really saying that they are indeed different and not comparable?

Actually, it's referring to things that are thought to be incomparable but share some similarity. "Apples and oranges." They're both still fruit when all is said and done. Same thing with Star Trek and Star Wars. While they both have things unique to themselves, they're both still space action-adventure series in the end.

Anyways, they are different, and the perception of them by people has long been different.

A lot of that long been different perception has been that "Star Wars is fun, Star Trek is boring" or "Star Trek is for nerds."

But really, only die-hard Trekkies and Star Wars fans (Warsies?) tend to quibble about the differences between the two, while everyone else couldn't care less about them as they just want to be entertained.

Star Wars has a high focus on fantasy, mysticism, and action. Star Trek tries to cloak its fantasy in science fiction, and its emphasis was not as much action. This is even apparent by their names.

See above response. But both do have an emphasis on action. Not all of Trek's action has involved a phaser, but it's still action.

Not buying that answer.

You don't have to buy it, you already have it.

TMP didn't have heavy constraints and while it still has action in it, it's not nearly as heavy as it is today.

Star Trek: The Snoozefest? The biggest appeal of that film, and the primary reason for its success, was seeing Star Trek back and on the big screen. Its story wasn't really that favorably received (reviews were very mixed on that).

Conversely, you had TOS' "The Omega Glory," which had a story that featured a ground battle involving thousands. It just was impossible to show that due to the budgetary and technological limitations of '60s television episode, but if it was made today as a feature film, we would have seen it. As such, they were forced to work around it. Ditto for TNG's "Best of Both Worlds" with the Battle of Wolf 359 (although we saw some of it in DS9's larger budgeted "Emissary").

I think a lot of it is as I said, a sign of the times. Action movies these days don't give you much time to breathe.

Some of that may be true because we do live in a faster-paced society. But there's plenty of non action-adventure fare out there that moves at a more leisurely pace.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Action-adventure is a genre in which characters undertake a journey or go on a mission and sometimes wind up in a jam they got to get out of.

That's not a very good definition as it could easily apply to most movies.

That was mostly a TNG thing, other Trek shows tended to mix things up.

No, drama was inherent in all the series, and I was specifically referring to TOS. The drama was high and it was the biggest focus of the show. Larger than the action.

But really, only die-hard Trekkies and Star Wars fans (Warsies?) tend to quibble about the differences between the two, while everyone else couldn't care less about them as they just want to be entertained.

No, I'm pretty sure that a large majority of casual viewers of the two could still tell you a lot of the differences (beyond the superficial).

Star Trek: The Snoozefest? The biggest appeal of that film, and the primary reason for its success, was seeing Star Trek back and on the big screen. Its story wasn't really that favorably received (reviews were very mixed on that).

But the quality wasn't the point, the point is WWGRD? (Abbreviated here to show the ridiculousness of that idea anyways.)

And just because a bigger budget might have allowed us to see some of those scenes on TV, I still don't think they would've been elevated to the level of the new movies, where it's fast-paced, action-quip-action-quip, with not a lot of time for contemplation. BoBW would've only been different in that perhaps one small scene would've been cut to include a longer run time to show the battle. In a way I'm glad they didn't. It was much more dramatic to have them (and us as the audience) not know for sure what happened, show up late, and realize the fleet was decimated. Showing the battle just for the sake of it would've probably been wanky anyways.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Action-adventure is a genre in which characters undertake a journey or go on a mission and sometimes wind up in a jam they got to get out of.

That's not a very good definition as it could easily apply to most movies.

No, it's the definition for action-adventure movies. Not all movies are that. Some movies are comedies, others are romance movies, others are purely dramas. What can happen, however, is that some of these other movies can include action-adventure elements (and vice-versa).

That was mostly a TNG thing, other Trek shows tended to mix things up.

No, drama was inherent in all the series, and I was specifically referring to TOS. The drama was high and it was the biggest focus of the show. Larger than the action.

No. TOS had plenty of action in it. It was actually a major draw for many viewers.

But really, only die-hard Trekkies and Star Wars fans (Warsies?) tend to quibble about the differences between the two, while everyone else couldn't care less about them as they just want to be entertained.

No, I'm pretty sure that a large majority of casual viewers of the two could still tell you a lot of the differences (beyond the superficial).

With the respective characters, but not much else.

Star Trek: The Snoozefest? The biggest appeal of that film, and the primary reason for its success, was seeing Star Trek back and on the big screen. Its story wasn't really that favorably received (reviews were very mixed on that).

But the quality wasn't the point, the point is WWGRD? (Abbreviated here to show the ridiculousness of that idea anyways.)

You're going to have to explain this. But in any event, the point stands regarding TMP's story.

And just because a bigger budget might have allowed us to see some of those scenes on TV, I still don't think they would've been elevated to the level of the new movies, where it's fast-paced, action-quip-action-quip, with not a lot of time for contemplation.

Many action-adventure movies do tend to be faster paced than television episodes, although the actual pace varies from film to film. But what might be considered "fast-paced, action-quip-action-quip," might also be considered just "not dragging its feet."

BoBW would've only been different in that perhaps one small scene would've been cut to include a longer run time to show the battle. In a way I'm glad they didn't. It was much more dramatic to have them (and us as the audience) not know for sure what happened, show up late, and realize the fleet was decimated. Showing the battle just for the sake of it would've probably been wanky anyways.

That's a difference of opinion, naturally. It could have still worked if some of the battle (but not its final outcome) had been shown.

 

[137th Gebirg]

So is the premise of the OP still a thing or has it the topic simply morphed into something else? The alleged "debunking" from the subsequent early posts on the first page still seemed to leave a small door open to the possibility.

 

[Tyberius]

Just skimming this thread now that it has devolved away from the topic, but this is a beauty here:

...The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats....None of the pre lens flare Star Trek movies are action oriented movies(nemesis and insurrection don't exist for me).

So, basically, ignore the movies that disprove your point. Got it.

 

[Ryan8bit]

No, it's the definition for action-adventure movies.

No, it's the definition of a standard plot. There are plenty of movies that would not be categorized as action-adventure, and that don't even have those elements, which would still fit under what you said.

The definition of an action-adventure movie is plain and simple. It's a movie with lots of action content, and where the characters go on an adventure. Star Trek is that, but it's not hyperfocused on that.

No. TOS had plenty of action in it. It was actually a major draw for many viewers.

I never said there wasn't action, I just said it wasn't the end-all-be-all. Surely people watched it for that, as people tend to watch shows for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that action was not the basis of everything. In a lot of episodes, particularly the good ones, the action was very secondary to the drama and the plot, not the other way around.

With the respective characters, but not much else.

That falls under the superficial I described. There is more than that which people can differentiate. Hell, as a kid I wasn't really big into either and I understood the difference.

You're going to have to explain this. But in any event, the point stands regarding TMP's story.

No it doesn't at all. Maybe if you're trying to make a point that's largely tangential to what I was actually discussing. The point was in reference to what Gene Roddenberry would do, as if his opinion was all that important anyways. It's almost treated religiously, and like religion people have this tendency to speak for what they think their god would want. It's ridiculous.

The point was that TMP had a large budget, and it was not as action packed as the new movies, or even contemporary action movies of the period. They had the money to make something with as much action as Star Wars, but they opted to go a different route. That's just one reason of many why you couldn't claim anything about what GR would want. Quality has zero bearing on that point.