a Timeline comparison..

[MANT!]

I'm aware of the opinion that Star Trek needed a break between the end of Berman Trek..(Enterprise's last episode in May 2005) till Star Trek's 2009 release..practically 4 years in total..
Back in the early days of Trek fandom, there was a similar break between Star Trek the Animated Series ( last NBC airing August 1975) and Star Trek The Motion Picture ( December 1979).. now the real question?

Has it been enough time? and why so or why not?

 

[Cheebo]

Most of the general public never even watched (or probably even knew the existence of) Nemesis and Enterprise. So in that way I think it has been long enough. To the general public they probably haven't seen anything Star Trek since the heyday of the TNG crew.

 

[SalvorHardin]

Had they gone with the old teams of B&B and the already established cast of TNG or ENT etc., I would say that no there had not been enough time.

But, seeing how Paramount cleaned the house and seeing the new approach they have on Trek I think time is now irrelevant.
They were right to try to bring new blood and change. It remains to be seen how the general movie going audience will react.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's not a matter of time but of willingness to discard what doesn't work any more and to start over. The perspective of time is often helpful in that regard, but Abrams and his people seem to have the natural advantage of not being associated with the "old guard" to compensate for that - plus, most of the specific material they're referencing is four decades old.

 

[Franklin]

Besides being fresh in the approach, it also makes sense to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. Abrams is hot property right now.
Let's say they waited a while then did the Jendresen story. It got rid of considerable baggage, too. But it had the commercial appeal of okra. How could it have been seen as anything but yet another fan movie set in yet another time with yet another group of characters sold once more under the ever-diluted moniker, "Star Trek?" Ho hum.

 

[xortex]

To me the Romulan war sounds like a good place to start a Starship Troopers like spinoff with another cast.

 

[Franklin]

To me the Romulan war sounds like a good place to start a Starship Troopers like spinoff with another cast.

A story like that may work, but I hope it wouldn't be branded as "Star Trek."
I like the idea that "Star Trek" has been distilled back down to its essence. The simplest, purest form of what made it popular in the first place. Let's have fun with this for a while.

 

[Alrik]

The timing is likely perfect. The environment for making old new again is still very hot right now. With the success of Batman and Bond I'm sure the appeal was very great for Paramount to dust off their cash cow.

As far as the amount of time, Star Trek as been off of the radar for most ever since it was removed from the successful syndicated marketing of TNG and DS9 and hijacked to be the flag ship for the ever so popular UPN (Voyager-Ent).

 

[xortex]

The timing is likely perfect. The environment for making old new again is still very hot right now. With the success of Batman and Bond I'm sure the appeal was very great for Paramount to dust off their cash cow.

As far as the amount of time, Star Trek as been off of the radar for most ever since it was removed from the successful syndicated marketing of TNG and DS9 and hijacked to be the flag ship for the ever so popular UPN (Voyager-Ent).

A darker animated series before a movie spinoff with a different cast. Give Kirk a rest.

 

[Franklin]

The timing is likely perfect. The environment for making old new again is still very hot right now. With the success of Batman and Bond I'm sure the appeal was very great for Paramount to dust off their cash cow.

As far as the amount of time, Star Trek as been off of the radar for most ever since it was removed from the successful syndicated marketing of TNG and DS9 and hijacked to be the flag ship for the ever so popular UPN (Voyager-Ent).

A darker animated series before a movie spinoff with a different cast. Give Kirk a rest.

Not sure about "give Kirk a rest." Never understood it. There are only 79 TV episodes and six big screen stories with Kirk and his crew. There are over 170 TV episodes and four movies for Picard and his crew, and over 170 TV episodes each for Janeway and her crew, and the gang from DS9. There's even more of Archer on TV than there is of Kirk.

Doing the comparisons, I don't think we've seen enough Kirk.

 

[xortex]

The timing is likely perfect. The environment for making old new again is still very hot right now. With the success of Batman and Bond I'm sure the appeal was very great for Paramount to dust off their cash cow.

As far as the amount of time, Star Trek as been off of the radar for most ever since it was removed from the successful syndicated marketing of TNG and DS9 and hijacked to be the flag ship for the ever so popular UPN (Voyager-Ent).

A darker animated series before a movie spinoff with a different cast. Give Kirk a rest.

Not sure about "give Kirk a rest." Never understood it. There are only 79 TV episodes and six big screen stories with Kirk and his crew. There are over 170 TV episodes and four movies for Picard and his crew, and over 170 TV episodes each for Janeway and her crew, and the gang from DS9. There's even more of Archer on TV than there is of Kirk.

Doing the comparisons, I don't think we've seen enough Kirk.

Well, let me try to explain it this way. With the threat of the Klingons and the Romulans, is it really necessary to use one our top ships to explore the galaxy any more than it has. Reasonably thinking we would need all the ships we have just to protect Earth. Like there's no stories within that framework.

 

[Alrik]

A darker animated series before a movie spinoff with a different cast. Give Kirk a rest.

Not sure about "give Kirk a rest." Never understood it. There are only 79 TV episodes and six big screen stories with Kirk and his crew. There are over 170 TV episodes and four movies for Picard and his crew, and over 170 TV episodes each for Janeway and her crew, and the gang from DS9. There's even more of Archer on TV than there is of Kirk.

Doing the comparisons, I don't think we've seen enough Kirk.

Well, let me try to explain it this way. With the threat of the Klingons and the Romulans, is it really necessary to use one our top ships to explore the galaxy any more than it has. Reasonably thinking we would need all the ships we have just to protect Earth. Like there's no stories within that framework.

That is one of the big misconceptions that the "hardcore" fan base has. Most of us could accept a new direction with new characters and new ships as long as the story was true to the franchise and well done. But that is NOT what this movie is all about. This is re-introducing Star Trek to a much larger audience. The facts are, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, never said phrases like 'Beam me up Scotty', and the like are a part of our culture. This is what is familiar to non fans or casual fans, this is what is recognizable, so it is only logical that this is going to be the basis for this movie.

Like it or not, this movie is not being made for the "hardcore" fan base, this is being targeted to a much wider audience in hopes of making Trek hugely popular again. It appears that they have made an attempt to keep us happy as well, but we are not the focus of this party, we just get an invite like everybody else. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how they did.

 

[xortex]

Not sure about "give Kirk a rest." Never understood it. There are only 79 TV episodes and six big screen stories with Kirk and his crew. There are over 170 TV episodes and four movies for Picard and his crew, and over 170 TV episodes each for Janeway and her crew, and the gang from DS9. There's even more of Archer on TV than there is of Kirk.

Doing the comparisons, I don't think we've seen enough Kirk.

Well, let me try to explain it this way. With the threat of the Klingons and the Romulans, is it really necessary to use one our top ships to explore the galaxy any more than it has. Reasonably thinking we would need all the ships we have just to protect Earth. Like there's no stories within that framework.

That is one of the big misconceptions that the "hardcore" fan base has. Most of us could accept a new direction with new characters and new ships as long as the story was true to the franchise and well done. But that is NOT what this movie is all about. This is re-introducing Star Trek to a much larger audience. The facts are, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, never said phrases like 'Beam me up Scotty', and the like are a part of our culture. This is what is familiar to non fans or casual fans, this is what is recognizable, so it is only logical that this is going to be the basis for this movie.

Like it or not, this movie is not being made for the "hardcore" fan base, this is being targeted to a much wider audience in hopes of making Trek hugely popular again. It appears that they have made an attempt to keep us happy as well, but we are not the focus of this party, we just get an invite like everybody else. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how they did.

Well, the one thing we know about TOS, according to DC Fontana is that there are only twelve ships like Enterprise in the fleet. Now with so many space stations and star bases around and the amount of knowledge Starfleet knows about the galaxy there must be hundreds and hundreds of other type ships around, especially well armed warships to protect Earth and the UFP. So why is further space exploration such a necessity - to make more friends than enemies? I don't even know where I'm going with this.

 

[Franklin]

Like it or not, this movie is not being made for the "hardcore" fan base, this is being targeted to a much wider audience in hopes of making Trek hugely popular again. It appears that they have made an attempt to keep us happy as well, but we are not the focus of this party, we just get an invite like everybody else. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how they did.

Exactly. There were really only two forms of Trek that caught the popular imagination: TOS and TNG. VOY, DS9, and ENT, no.

Within those two core series, Kirk and Spock are true icons whose characters have been the least explored, especially in their primes. I'd guess that and taking a new approach to them is partially why Paramount has no problem going ahead with this project now. They are worthy of reviving and remarketing. Let it be 1966 all over again for a new crop of fans.
At the same time, consider those who say it's "too soon." Only the hard core fans would think that way. Burned out by too much Trek, or jaded by the quality of Trek lately, the answer is, "wait." For what? Until the ever diminishing fanbase is finally eager for yet another incarnation? Seven new characters being form-fitted into the same old formula? Between hoping lightning strikes from doing it that way, or seeing if it happens the way it's going to happen in May, I'll take the latter.

 

[Alrik]

Well, let me try to explain it this way. With the threat of the Klingons and the Romulans, is it really necessary to use one our top ships to explore the galaxy any more than it has. Reasonably thinking we would need all the ships we have just to protect Earth. Like there's no stories within that framework.

That is one of the big misconceptions that the "hardcore" fan base has. Most of us could accept a new direction with new characters and new ships as long as the story was true to the franchise and well done. But that is NOT what this movie is all about. This is re-introducing Star Trek to a much larger audience. The facts are, Kirk, Spock, McCoy, never said phrases like 'Beam me up Scotty', and the like are a part of our culture. This is what is familiar to non fans or casual fans, this is what is recognizable, so it is only logical that this is going to be the basis for this movie.

Like it or not, this movie is not being made for the "hardcore" fan base, this is being targeted to a much wider audience in hopes of making Trek hugely popular again. It appears that they have made an attempt to keep us happy as well, but we are not the focus of this party, we just get an invite like everybody else. I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how they did.

Well, the one thing we know about TOS, according to DC Fontana is that there are only twelve ships like Enterprise in the fleet. Now with so many space stations and star bases around and the amount of knowledge Starfleet knows about the galaxy there must be hundreds and hundreds of other type ships around, especially well armed warships to protect Earth and the UFP. So why is further space exploration such a necessity - to make more friends than enemies? I don't even know where I'm going with this.

Me neither (not a put down btw...just not sure what your point is). Let me try to sum it up for you. But before I do, allow me to add that I have been a die hard Trek fan ever since the day I first found it as a 5 year old when re-runs started playing after school in '72. With that said, I also have the ability to take a step back and try to understand just what Paramount is trying to do here.

No matter if someone watched TOS, its movies, or not, it is iconic. So much of Trek has found its way into the lexicon, that almost everyone is at least aware of it. The same could be said for Batman. You don't have to be a hard core fan of it to know that Bruce Wayne's parents were murdered and that he grew up to be Batman. Or that his 'butler' is named Alfred, or that he watches over Gotham City and works with Commissioner Gordon. Most have heard of Harvey Dent, The Joker, The Riddler, The Sandman, Catwoman, etc.... So when Batman Begins was released, most of these things were either already in place, or possitioned to be so by the end of The Dark Knight. Did the two movies really change anything about Batman, other than the look and style? Not really. If anything, some of the small changes that were made actually helped the story to be more believable. Did the two movies make a fortune and put Batman back on top? Absolutely. Why? Because they were good movies and done well enough to get people back into the seats.

So what about STAR TREK? I'm guessing it is going to get pretty much the same treatment. It will pretty much stick with what is known, because that is what people will expect. Spock has pointy ears. Uhura is a black woman, Sulu an Asian man. The ship is the Enterprise and it at least looks somewhat familiar (unlike the rumble Tumbler Batmobile). Will we likely see something here or there that "doesn't fit"? Most likely. But the entire point is to try and do for STAR TREK what Batman Begins and the Dark Knight did for that franchise. Open it to a larger audience and make it hugely popular again.

Unfortunately, to get the types of stories that many are talking about, the are going to have to stick to the books and fanfic. There are just to many niche areas that fans would like to see explored on screen that it would never be possible to visit. The audience for each is too spacific and too small to make it affordable. If nothing else, Enterpise (which I liked) very much proved that point.

 

[doctorwho 03]

Has it really been four years!?
(Frank Barone) Holy Crap! (/Frank Barone)