Do fans want the prime timeline back? Part 2: Poll edition.

[F. King Daniel]

Wait, Vengeance has much, much more internal volume than the Enterprise-D does.

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 18 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT. They got an awful lot out of it, but as we saw in ENT's first two seasons, they'd taken it as far as it could go. I don't want more stories in that style.

And going back even further, Wrath of Khan is about revenge. Into Darkness is about how far people will go to protect those they care about.

 

[doubleohfive]

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 30 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT.

Only 18 years passed between the beginning of TNG (1987) and Enterprise's finale (2005).

If you're going to make broadstroke generalizations, at least get the math right.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Silly you, assuming I can count.

(fixed. I think I meant 20)

 

[BillJ]

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 30 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT.

Only 18 years passed between the beginning of TNG (1987) and Enterprise's finale (2005).

If you're going to make broadstroke generalizations, at least get the math right.

It was eighteen years, but twenty-five seasons.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Wait, Vengeance has much, much more internal volume than the Enterprise-D does.

And back on the earlier topic, TNG's formula was stretched to it's absolute limit under the Berman administration (or whatever you want to call it)in the 18 years between TNG's start and the end of ENT. They got an awful lot out of it, but as we saw in ENT's first two seasons, they'd taken it as far as it could go. I don't want more stories in that style.

And going back even further, Wrath of Khan is about revenge. Into Darkness is about how far people will go to protect those they care about.

I disagree the formula is the problem, and I disagree that it was always formulaic. I believe that there was a lack of creativity with Enterprise and Voyager. They didn't develop characters beyond the original 5 or 6 episodes, and even then, it was hokey and contrived as if a 10-year-old was watching the show. A small example: Fight or Flight is a very interesting concept. Yet, the symbolism of "sluggo," is explained by the Doctor questioning Hoshi. I think someone who is a little bookish and not fully prepared for space travel, but loves languages, was a good starting point and a story that only Enterprise could tell. But the episode is rather blunt and lacks realism.

Kirk isn't thinking about protecting anyone. He is mad that Pike is dead and he wants to "take the bastard out." He doesn't care that he's violating his rights until Khan tells his story. He beats Khan until he collapses "in the name of Captain Pike." Not exactly about defending the world.

Further, Spock yells "KHHHHAAAAAAAANNN!" and proceeds to try and beat the living pulp out of him. Not because of what he has done to the Federation, but to make him pay for killing Kirk.

Only at the end of the movie, with Starfleet and the Enterprise re-built, does Kirk say "Oh, sorry. We shouldn't try to seek revenge."

Revenge is a theme in STID. Khan, Kirk, and Spock all have a grudge and they try to kill someone because of it.

 

[HaventGotALife]

Why were you a fan of Star Trek?

Why am I a fan of Star Trek is an interesting question (though not pointed at me, I figure I'm allowed to answer)? I am a fan of Star Trek because it use to be fun to watch before the TNG gang started to believe they were self-important and changing the world. Which bled into the rest of the spin-offs and the TNG movies.

Star Trek is entertainment. I watch it to be entertained. Abrams brought much of the fun back to the franchise. Do I still wish I got way out, weird stuff like Greek gods trying to capture the Enterprise? Sure. But I also know that modern audiences may not be as appreciative of such an approach.

Of course you can answer! The more the merrier!

I agree, Star Trek is entertainment. I can read to get information. I can have a discussion with a knowledgeable person. I don't feel Star Trek needs to be preachy, it just needs to be good. And good fiction is learned fiction, using all the tools and not talking down to an audience. Fun for me, is still intellectually stimulating. It needs to have a theme, symbolism.

I enjoyed the Greek gods episode because I'm an atheist and it gave me an alternative understanding of why the Greek gods died out. I thought it was imaginative, even if how they find the god is a little unorthodox. It's about the imagination of what we would find in deep space.

I don't like the violence of the last two films. A LOT of people died. All of vulcan. The heart of Starfleet. A man's head is crushed. Pike is shown being shot and dying. That's not fun for me, and, quite frankly, I can get that in other entertainment if I wanted it.

Did you start with '09?

I started watching TOS in 1975.

I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment. And that was my point.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Everything Khan does in ID is to free his people, and the only times he's out for revenge is when he thinks Marcus and later Spock has killed them. Ditto Spock when Kirk dies. It's certainly not the Moby Dick theme that completely dominates Wrath of Khan.

At the start of the film we see what that the father of the little girl will kill for her. Khan kills for his people throughout. We see Kirk die for his crew. That's the dominant, recurring theme of the movie - "Is there anything you would not do for your family?"

 

[Amaris]

I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment. And that was my point.

No, I love the original series, and I love the rebooted movies. You can love both without having to think either needs the other, because they don't. Also, I'm a vintage 1984 Trekkie. I was 4 years old when I started watching the original series.

 

[BillJ]

But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment. And that was my point.

That's simply non-sense. I'm actually watching Star Trek right this very moment and have seen the Original Series dozens of times.

Needed the reboot treatment? No. Was it welcomed? Yes. It's fun to see old favorites updated as society and technology evolve. But I can't imagine there is anything that will ever top TOS as my favorite TV series ever.

I was 4 years old when I started watching the original series.

Five here.

 

[HaventGotALife]

I was 4 years old when I started watching the original series.

Five here.

Six here.

 

[Greg Cox]

I was seven when STAR TREK debuted in 1966. And, yes, the Salt Vampire scared the heck out of me!

 

[Amaris]

I always closed one eye and squinted with the other when the Salt Vampire would appear in its true form.

 

[Hober Mallow]

What they have done with these two movies makes me long for Rick Berman.

I didn't like the movies either, but damn, that's taking it too far.

I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment.

The reason it needs to be rebooted is not because there's something wrong with it, but because there's something right with it. Otherwise it wouldn't be rebooted.

What's the other option? Yet another spinoff series about Captain Nobody on the U.S.S. Noonegivesaf*ck?

 

[Greg Cox]

What they have done with these two movies makes me long for Rick Berman.

I didn't like the movies either, but damn, that's taking it too far.

I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment.

The reason it needs to be rebooted is not because there's something wrong with it, but because there's something right with it. Otherwise it wouldn't be rebooted.

That's a good point--that extends beyond just STAR TREK.

Too many people seem to think that a remake or reboot somehow constitutes a rejection or criticism of the previous version, when that's not really the case. Accepting a new version doesn't mean you think the old version wasn't good enough. It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate both on their own terms--and accept that the new version is doing things differently. Not necessarily better, nor worse, but differently.

Doing a new version of Star Trek, and tweaking the formula, doesn't mean you have to insist that every previous version was somehow flawed. It just means you're having fun with an old standard, like doing a new jazz interpretation of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" or whatever.

Again, that doesn't mean the classic Judy Garland version isn't still great, but there's always room for another variation on the theme. Nothing is sacred, nothing is set in stone. Everything is grist for the mill.

 

[Timewalker]

I find that extremely reductive. "First Contact" from TNG looks nothing like "The Apple" in TOS. Yes, they are exploring planets that have other lifeforms like us on it. But there's a host of episodes, to be as equally reductive, where they have to learn to communicate with something that doesn't have a mouth and bumpy foreheads. They just aren't talked about like the Borg episodes.

Voyager, by the end of its run, had done nothing to further the Maquis, got rid of Kes, neutered Neelix, had become a host of guest star appearances (Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis, John De lancie, and Dwight Schultz) from TNG (esp. Sirtis and Schultz), and every two-parter, most especially the series finale, included the Borg. It didn't stand on its own two feet. It tried for 2 seasons and then mailed it in as a continuation of TNG, a bad season of TNG. That's bankrupt.

DS9, by the end of its run, had added layers to the Cardassians, Bajorans, Trills, and Klingons. They did whole character pieces about each of their characters and how they act in their society. They had a host of guest stars that were added during the run of the show, and only Marc Alamo had been a guest on TNG, although as a different character (but same race). The central themes were consistent throughout the show. They added the Dominion to the Star Trek vernacular. It was creative. That's what I want. And they managed to be creative in adding familiar elements. They abandoned the type of guest appearances that ruined Voyager (Q-Less comes to mind).

I figured the definition might need an example.

Yeah, DS9 was so creative that it imported a TNG character who had already turned TNG into a Klingon soap opera. DS9 was already bad enough with Smug, Perfect Jadzia Who Knows Everybody And Has Done Everything, but adding Worf to that... just made it worse, in my opinion. I was honestly dreading the day when they'd find a way to get Worf onto Voyager.

I know it's two different people, but complaining that TNG was a "soap opera" while complaining "nothing matters because they warped away" is being attacked from both sides.

I addressed Worf, although indirectly. Because you have to trash previous Star Trek to prove this was needed while seeing the world in black-and-white terms to not see the distinction. Why were you a fan of Star Trek? Did you start with '09?

I'm not sure who you were addressing here...

I just didn't really care much for Worf and was annoyed when he pretty much took over huge amounts of time from other characters. I thought he was more interesting in the first season when we learned things about him gradually, rather than having episode after episode be about Worf's family, Worf's dishonor, Klingon homeworld politics, Picard's involvement, etc. and so on. I get that there are people who really enjoyed these aspects of TNG; I just happen to have enjoyed different things about the series.

I became a Star Trek fan in 1975, at age 12. As to why... well, things would have turned out much differently if my grandfather had let me change the channel that night. He wouldn't, and basically told me to either shut up or leave the room because he wanted to see what this "Star Trek" show was about (it was his first time watching it, too). So I watched it, enjoyed it, and noticed it was on 5 days a week on two different channels. I decided to see if other episodes were as entertaining, and two weeks later had to admit I was hooked (especially after discovering the Blish books).

I wasn't really into science fiction before Star Trek. I was into science, but preferred to read mysteries. Nowadays, the vast majority of the books I own are science fiction and the only mysteries I read are the Roman historical ones by Lindsay Davis (the Didius Falco series). I started reading science fiction soon after getting into Star Trek, and discovered I'd been missing some really good stuff - Clarke, Asimov, Heinlein, and so many others.

It's hard to put it all into words in just a single forum post. The reasons I liked it then are not exactly the same reasons I like it now, 38 years later.

BTW, I just realized... today is the 38th anniversary of the first time I ever bought the Blish books - Star Trek 4 and 6, at Woolco.

I was seven when STAR TREK debuted in 1966. And, yes, the Salt Vampire scared the heck out of me!

I have a filk tape that has a song about the Salt Vampire. It's actually a really beautiful song that had me feeling sorry for the Salt Vampire.

 

[borgboy]

The salt vampire is pretty tragic. It is kind of touching how much it needed to be loved. It was much more interesting than if it had been a more two dimensional monster.

 

[Timewalker]

Doing a new version of Star Trek, and tweaking the formula, doesn't mean you have to insist that every previous version was somehow flawed. It just means you're having fun with an old standard, like doing a new jazz interpretation of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" or whatever.

Again, that doesn't mean the classic Judy Garland version isn't still great, but there's always room for another variation on the theme. Nothing is sacred, nothing is set in stone. Everything is grist for the mill.

My old music teacher would have a fit if she knew you'd said this. I was taking the Western Board of Music exams in spinet organ, and the syllabus was heavy on Bach. As in play it as written, with no extraneous frills or settings. Since I play by ear much better than by reading the notes, I had to memorize that stuff to the point where I could replay it in my mind and be note and time-perfect, and drill my fingers into automatically being in the right place at the right time. It was mentally exhausting, really frustrating... but the high I got when I finally got it right and knew I had finally made that crucial breakthrough is indescribable.

After the exams, I liked to take those Bach pieces and play around with them, different styles and settings... and the teacher looked at me in horror, that I'd do that to a piece of music I'd worked so hard on for months.

The salt vampire is pretty tragic. It is kind of touching how much it needed to be loved. It was much more interesting than if it had been a more two dimensional monster.

"Many different faces is a part of what I am...
........ ........ ........ the shifting desert sands."

I wish I could remember more of the song; it's really beautiful and makes me cry every single time I listen to it (I'm tearing up just thinking about it). My tapes are packed away, though, and this one isn't on the filk CDs I have. I remember part of another verse, though, and that's a crucial bit of insight into this "monster":

"I didn't want to kill... I didn't want to die."

 

[HaventGotALife]

What they have done with these two movies makes me long for Rick Berman.

I didn't like the movies either, but damn, that's taking it too far.

I started watching TNG in 1990, so I'm a little late to the party. But you still had to find something wrong with Original Star Trek to think it needed the re-boot treatment.

The reason it needs to be rebooted is not because there's something wrong with it, but because there's something right with it. Otherwise it wouldn't be rebooted.

That's a good point--that extends beyond just STAR TREK.

Too many people seem to think that a remake or reboot somehow constitutes a rejection or criticism of the previous version, when that's not really the case. Accepting a new version doesn't mean you think the old version wasn't good enough. It's perfectly reasonable to appreciate both on their own terms--and accept that the new version is doing things differently. Not necessarily better, nor worse, but differently.

Doing a new version of Star Trek, and tweaking the formula, doesn't mean you have to insist that every previous version was somehow flawed. It just means you're having fun with an old standard, like doing a new jazz interpretation of "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" or whatever.

Again, that doesn't mean the classic Judy Garland version isn't still great, but there's always room for another variation on the theme. Nothing is sacred, nothing is set in stone. Everything is grist for the mill.

I suggest re-reading through this thread. Everyone was complaining about old Star Trek before I put a point on it. "Star Trek wasn't fun anymore," "Star Trek was formulaic," "You want Rick Berman back?!"

It is possible to appreciate both, but that's not what is happening here. They are such vastly different interpretations that to appreciate one, and defend it, you have to tear down the other.

The prime universe had good and bad in it, like anything. But to reduce Star Trek to "warp to a planet, get in trouble, get out of trouble, and nothing matters..." is complaining about old Trek. I can be as equally reductive about the movies, both old and esp. new. "Put the Enterprise, a crew member, and/or Earth in peril. Make sure everyone's on the bridge at the end of the movie, the end."

My point to all of this is that your statement is logically sound, but that's not what's going on in here.

 

[borgboy]

I wish we were getting more movies/tv with the classic universe. I'd LOVE a new movie with characters from VOY, DS9 and TNG. At least we have the novels to carry those characters forward.
And I've really liked the new movies and am looking forward to the next one.
When I say I miss the classic universe, that doesn't mean my ideal is to keep Berman in charge. I don't see the two as being the same thing.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I suggest re-reading through this thread. Everyone was complaining about old Star Trek before I put a point on it. "Star Trek wasn't fun anymore," "Star Trek was formulaic," "You want Rick Berman back?!"

Rick Berman is "old Star Trek?"

Rick Berman created and produced Star Trek spinoffs, which were based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. They have as much to do with original Star Trek as JJ Abrams' movies, and are no more or less valid.

Sounds to me like you're more of a Rick Berman Trek fan than a Star Trek fan. There's nothing wrong with that, and I mean no offense by saying it; a lot of people grew up watching Trek spinoffs. But I see those shows related to Star Trek the same way Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes movies are related to Conan Doyle's original stories. The Rathbone films were a legitimate vision of the character, but eventually you have to move on from them to keep the character alive in other equally valid interpretations. Nick Meyer, Rick Berman, and JJ Abrams have all produced their own interpretations of Star Trek, and if there's going to be a future for Star Trek, that needs to continue.