Discussion in 'Future of Trek' started by Beyerstein, Aug 14, 2013.
Responding to the threads initial question;
^I never said it wasn't forced.
I didn't claim you did. But it's an important distinction.
Wow, totally shocked at the amount of people saying they don't care or that the prime line is dead...
I'm all for going back personally, rather than sitting through another Into Darkness, which basically used the same story and just switched characters when it came to 'Who dies of radiation poisoning' and piled in a load of CGI explosions etc.
Star Trek for me is about a story, not just constantly blowing things up and shouting. For me at the moment Star Trek is dead because I can't see what they can do other than keep rehashing old story lines and switching what happens to who. If we want new story's etc. we have to explore very late 24th century early 25th. Going forward is the best possible way to 'revive' trek. What Abrams has done 'could' have worked but Into Darkness killed it for me. I couldn't believe what I was watching. This is best example of someone who doesn't care for Star Trek, he just wanted another action movie. The writing was LAZY as hell. Shit I think my 3 year old son could have come up with something better.
This is also a reason I'm buying TNG on blu ray and re watching DS9 because I love the prime verse and certainly would have it back in a heart beat given the chance.
Well said. I've mentioned a few times Into Darkness for me was Abrams cherry picking plot elements from across the franchise, changing them to suit, putting it all in a blender and boom, you have a "new" movie. Even though there wasn't anything in it we hadn't already seen before. Somehow I expect his third movie will be like this too. If you're going to go out of your way to invent a clean slate universe, do something original with it!
Hear, hear! I'm almost certain his third movie will just be a rehash too. Let's just say I'm not really looking forward to seeing it, and it pains me to say that about Star Trek.
Geez, I'm not even a huge Star Wars fan, but I can see him destroying that franchise too... But, maybe it'll work because he actually 'cares' for Star Wars...
Star Trek has been rehashing plots since season one of TOS. TMP was a rehash of "The Changeling". TWOK brought back a villain from TOS. TVH was a time travel story reminiscent of at least three TOS episodes. TNG and show that followed mixed and matched TOS characters. The Next Generation films desperately tried to duplicate the success of TWOK and TVH.
There was a kot of story in both of Abrams films. If someone can't see the story through the "explosions" I think the problem might lie with them.
^That just makes STiD a rehash of a rehash. That's a bad direction for Star Trek IMO.
A poll for this thread would be interesting. Is it too soon for a "Do fans want the prime timeline back? 2" thread?
Though make sure you have a yes, a no, and multiple other choices ("give it a chance" or "I don't know").
Star Trek has never shied away from rehashes in the past, so why would it be a "bad direction"? As I said, Star Trek has be reusing plots, characters and situations since it's beginnings. One of its more highly regarded episodes ("Balance of Terror") is lifted directly from a movie.(The Enemy Below) It's how the elements are used that's important, not the origin of the elements or if they've been used before. For my money, STID took elements from Space Seed and TWOK and created a new and interesting story.
Its never to soon for a poll. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a poll with that topic before ST09 came out.
I think you miss the point completely, it may have used similar plots in the past for episodes but we were still learning about the characters, a back story etc.
I can assure you there is no problem with me, I know what I'm watching, if you read my previous post you'd realise I said Abrams Star Trek 'could' have worked if it wasn't for Into Darkness, so mentioning 'both films' is irrelevant. Into Darkness offered us nothing new, I learnt nothing new. That is my point. Apart from Kirk 'dying' of radiation rather than Spock, it was just ooh big explosion and ohh more CGI.
You tell me where the new story is?
All I can say is that I had the most fun with Trek since 1991 watching Star Trek Into Darkness. Which is why I go to the movies.
Trek is nearly fifty-years old, I'm not sure there's anything you could produce that wouldn't be similar to something the franchise has already done and it still be recognizably Star Trek.
The "Prime Timeline" doesn't actually exist.
I think fans are making a distinction that exists nowhere except inside their own heads.
There is no a single cohesive overarching "prime" universe. Whether fans want to admit it or not, TMP was the first Trek reboot. The next film, TWOK, was another reboot. There is almost no reconciling Nick Meyer's Trek with Gene Roddenberry's. In Nick Meyer's Trek, Starfleet is unapologetically full military and Klingons have pink blood. TNG was Roddenberry rebooting himself, and the other spinoffs are derivative works created by other people. Fans consider all of this one vast universe only by ignoring the myriad contradictions between the various visions of the various creators and producers.
Abrams vision of Trek is no more or less valid than Nick Meyers'. And I say that as one who is not a fan of the Abrams movies. Let's just stop pretending that every derivative work of Trek to ever hit the airwaves or movie theater is all one unified whole. It ain't. It's no more one unified whole than the original Sherlock Holmes stories, the movies with Basil Rathbone, the new Sherlock with Cumberbatch, and the animated series SHERLOCK HOLMES IN THE 22ND CENTURY represent a unified whole.
I think the problem is -- and no insult is intended to anyone -- that some fans who call themselves Star Trek fans are really "Rick Berman Trek spinoff" fans. That was merely one vision of Star Trek; it had its day mostly in the 1990s, but that day is done. Star Trek needs to move on.
Again, I don't like the Abrams films, but I'm hopeful someday for a good reboot, with no baggage at all from any 1990s derivative TV series.
Sure it does, there are several hundred hours of it.
I understand what you're saying, but, regardless of having Klingons with pink blood etc. they all (for the most part) kept in line with what we knew about the characters and continued to build on them, on screen. All of them had a back story and again (for the most part) were well written and had a depth to them.
Nick Meyer's movies were all, pretty much, based in the middle of a war between Starfleet and the Klingon empire so it made sense that they were 'unapologetically military' in their approach.
It also made sense with new technology etc. that things would look differently than they did in the 60's and 70's so things like Klingon forehead ridges/blood colour was more an evolution than a reboot.
Abrams Trek, as others have mentioned, was meant to be a 'clean slate' reboot. For example The destruction of Vulcan, having Chekov from the start of the adventure, Scotty's sidekick etc. etc. Also his insistence that his movie would be called Star Trek and Star Trek: Into Darkness would be Star Trek 2 and not Star Trek 11/12 etc. He didn't want it to continue down that line as the others were.
I did enjoy Star Trek 2009. But why, after doing all of the hardwork, did he decide to almost just remake TWOK with a few bits added in. It just seemed such a lazy way to continue his version of Trek IMO.
^Except for fan shows, books, and games, which I think may last longer than the reboot, should part 3 fail.
While books may be able to survive selling thirty or forty thousand copies, that number of viewers is no where near enough to keep a TV or movie series afloat.
^If a new TV or movie series only brought in book fans, yeah, though that's unlikely.
Separate names with a comma.