A Reflection: Was "No Trek" better than "Bad Trek"?

[Apogeal Alpha01]

No. Some would swear on their mother's life that the last two years of Enterprise were examples of "bad" Trek. I'd rather have that "not as good Trek," maybe, over no Trek. If it were truly bad, would thousands have watched so that they could come online to blast it and anyone who enjoyed it?!!

Bad Trek doesn't reach the air. It's fan fiction.

 

[JoeZhang]

Bad Trek doesn't reach the air.

Never see Threshold?

 

[CommanderRaytas]

No. Well, I don't think any Trek series was bad as a whole, but even if they made one I hated, I wouldn't say it's better to have no Trek at all.

Anyway, I'm glad there's going to be Trek on the big screen this year again, I've been missing it!

 

[Jamee999]

No Trek is better than Bad Trek, but I don't think on the whole that VGR or ENT was Bad, they had bad episodes (but so did TOS, TNG and DS9), but weren't bad overall.

 

[Smiley]

We've already got 30 seasons of Trek and 10 (soon 11) movies, not to mention the countless novels, comics, fan fiction, and other assorted Trek products. There's enough good Trek in there to last a lifetime, so unless a new movie or series is spectacular, then I would still rather have nothing.

 

[Balrog]

I'd say, from a strictly business position, no Trek would always be better than bad Trek. You can't continue to dilute a product and expect the same kind of return.

For myself, I don't really care. When I enjoyed a Star Trek series, I watched it faithfully. If I thought a Trek movie was worth my time, I bought a ticket. Later Trek incarnations like Voyager and Enterprise, as well as the movies Insurrection and Nemesis, never captured my imagination or interest as the original or earlier ones did. I stopped watching new Star Trek after Deep Space Nine.

I am back because I'm interested in seeing what the new movie will bring.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Of course it was. Now the public perception of Trek is polluted by modern Trek. It's embarrassing.

 

[Jamee999]

The thing for me is, that quite a bit of TOS was bad, but it was worth it when you got Balance of Terror, the City on the Edge of Forever, The Trouble with Tribbles, The Enterprise Incident etc.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Bad Trek's survival means the current clowns aren't being booted out and replaced by people capable of making Good Trek. So No Trek is better than Bad Trek, even if it seems like we'd rather have something to watch. I'd rather suffer now and get something decent later on.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Of course it wasn't.

All "no Trek" meant was that some fans who wanted to control "Star Trek" by defining it got a little satisfaction out of imagining that they'd denied other people some entertainment they had no use for themselves.

 

[Forbin]

^Bullshit.

 

[Balthier the Great]

I'm the same way with most things I'm a fan of -- if I wouldn't watch it if it was named something different, then I don't watch it just because it has a given name on it. I don't see the point of watching a Trek that doesn't entertain me, or spending $50 on a new Suikoden that bores me. Simpsons is all but dead to me -- it doesn't make me laugh, so what's the point?

If you're just buying the label -- if you watch a bad show because it's Trek -- then sooner or later you get down to the lowest common denominator. For some die-hard fanboys, you could pretty much put dog feces in the DVD case, label it as such, and have people ready and willing to not only buy it, but give it rave reviews.

 

[ChristopherPike]

Since there are only a handful of truly bad episodes per series, I'm going to use the term "average Trek". It's all about perspective here. Somebody mentioned denying Roger Moore's James Bond status. Well, he was the character for a whole generation and it's the same with Trek. You effectively deny those that follow you, their own version simply because it's not to your liking.

While I hardly ever rewatch Voyager these days, I regularly tuned in the first time around and enjoyed the show week after week.

Enterprise, like all modern Trek series wouldn't have lasted forever and didn't need cancelling just to time nicely with a corporate takeover. It had a loyal enough following who watched regularly (a more favourable number than nuBSG in fact).

I could have done without this void, especially since for me at least, nothing has filled it.

 

[Apogeal Alpha01]

JoeZhang said:

Bad Trek doesn't reach the air.

Never see Threshold?

I did see Threshold, the season that aired and the 3 episodes that didn't, on the Sci-Fi channel. The last three convinced me that the series was going somewhere that would have been pretty interesting. The Network got skittish and dropped it before it could garner an audience.

 

[SeerSGB]

I agree 100% with the idea of "No 'Trek is better than bad 'Trek".

In actuality, no 'Trek for the last two years hasn't phased me in the least. I simply watch the DVDs of my fave episodes, read and reread old comics and novels, and move on.

 

[Deckerd]

I don't understand the "I don't like it so nobody else can have it" attitude here, speaking as a person who enjoyed the shows and never got that worked up about the duff episodes (apart from TATV of course).

I also find it a bit sad that rather than looking forward to new productions of whatever type, people go back and look at old stuff over and over again. That kind of attitude says 'stuck in history' to me, like the dinosaur friends of mine who think no music after 1980 is worth listening to.

 

[Forbin]

Apogeal Alpha01 said:

JoeZhang said:

Bad Trek doesn't reach the air.

Never see Threshold?

I did see Threshold, the season that aired and the 3 episodes that didn't, on the Sci-Fi channel. The last three convinced me that the series was going somewhere that would have been pretty interesting. The Network got skittish and dropped it before it could garner an audience.

He's talking about the Voyager episode "Threshold," where they break warp 10 in a shuttle and "evolve" into salamanders.

 

[Forbin]

BalthierTheGreat said: For some die-hard fanboys, you could pretty much put dog feces in the DVD case, label it as such, and have people ready and willing to not only buy it, but give it rave reviews.

http://www.dvdplanet.com/details.cfm?info=PRD005091

 

[Michael]

Forbin said:
He's talking about the Voyager episode "Threshold," where they break warp 10 in a shuttle and "evolve" into salamanders.

When you say it, it almost sounds credible.

 

[trevanian]

Deckerd said:
I don't understand the "I don't like it so nobody else can have it" attitude here, speaking as a person who enjoyed the shows and never got that worked up about the duff episodes (apart from TATV of course).

I also find it a bit sad that rather than looking forward to new productions of whatever type, people go back and look at old stuff over and over again. That kind of attitude says 'stuck in history' to me, like the dinosaur friends of mine who think no music after 1980 is worth listening to.

Put it in context, please. 'Stuck in history' with respect to TREK (or with respect to what I like in TREK) doesn't mean I think nothing that comes later is worthwhile. If there isn't new good trek, then if you are smart, you rewatch the good stuff and find other NEW good stuff from other outlets instead of just tuning in for crap.

As trendy as it might have been to 'give up' on television because the networks got more and more boring, instead smart viewers have tried alternatives, and man, we have gotten a plethora of riches. Between the F/X channel and HBO and SHO, there are more than a handful of excellent TV programs, some doing stuff that is really pretty daring (I still can't figure out how DEXTER -- a show I am amazed by -- was pitched successfully, unless Patrick Batemen from AMERICAN PSYCHO was the suit at Showtime.) nuBSG is probably edgier than anybody ever dreamed of Trek becoming (with mixed results), but at least they are aspiring to something more instead of cobbling up the same old/same old and saying it is something new because they are using no-blur on what passes for an action scene, which is what lil ENT seemed to be doing.

There's nothing sad about revisiting the good stuff ... if there were, then the very idea of a classic would be anathema to most. If I think CITIZEN KANE is one of the best films ever made, and I prefer rewatching that to sitting through all of TRANSFORMERS, there's nothing sad about that at all, except to think about what the TRANSFORMERS money COULD have been spent on. On a lesser level, I find BALANCE OF TERROR to be timeless and always enjoyable, despite various minor issues, so just like 1963's FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, I will revisit it time and again, but keep in mind I'll also rewatch (and love) the more recent spy flick TAILOR OF PANAMA.

And it certainly isn't, "I don't like it so nobody else can have it." It's more a matter of "I'm not wasting any more time on it." Nothing I say about this is going to stop you from watching (or rewatching) VOYAGER or TVH or NEMESIS, and if it did, I'd wonder why you bothered posting in the first place if your view was so malleable.