*Over the age of 50
Roddenberry's "vision" doesn't translate well today. Hell, it barely translated in 1987.
Done with Star Trek?
- Thread starter Warped9
- Start date
- Status
*Over the age of 50
That's a cop-out. You're saying that the only thing audiences will understand is a Kirk/Spock buddy movie with lots of 'kewl 'splosions'. Roddenberry's "vision" is part of the reason Star Trek has resonated with audiences for forty years.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
From Fade In by Michael Piller
"The new approach respected Roddenberry’s rules and by doing so, became a more complex story. He gave his blessing. And I began to learn how Roddenberry’s Box forced us as writers to come up with new and interesting ways to tell stories instead of falling back into easier, familiar devices."
It doesn't have to be either/or.
What making money?
You ever been run down by a wheelchair, punk?
BTW, do the terms of that infamous wager not-to-be-discussed-here apply outside TNZ, or just to that den of villainy?
Very little of Roddenberry's initial idea existed after he handed over the day-to-day oversight. The only reason Enterprise was in the same universe is because it involved a spaceship named Enterprise in the future. Pretty much everything else about it contradicted something Roddenberry himself produced.
It's everywhere.
You ever been run down by a wheelchair, punk?
BTW, do the terms of that infamous wager not-to-be-discussed-here apply outside TNZ, or just to that den of villainy?
Care to back that up?
I love how people talk about Gene Roddenberry and his "vision" like they used to have backyard BBQs and discussions about IDIC.
The only thing I judge Roddenberry on, is the work that he and his fellow creators put on screen. No backyard BBQ discussions here.
The Romulan War was fought with primitive atomic weapons and the ships didn't have any view screens. The Vulcans were xenophobic dicks. Etc etc.
Star Trek doesn't exist in a vaccum. It changes with society. TOS was the 60s with it's "subtle" commentary on race. TNG was the 80s with it's "subtle commentaries on drug use, AIDS, and homosexuality. Voyager was...well...on UPN. And Enterprise was post 9/11 grit. The movies changed too. TMP was a 2001 knockoff and a little over a decade later TUC was about old enemies coming together (COUGH UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA COUGH).
It's also a form of entertainment. Things that might have been entertaining in the 50s and 60s probably wouldn't be all that entertaining today. People's tastes change. The Honeymooners wouldn't fly today. I Love Lucy wouldn't be loved that much today. I'm not saying they're not good shows, because they are (I'm not so full of myself I can't admit something is good even though I don't like it)...but it's not what people want.
Star Trek doesn't exist in a vaccum. It changes with society. TOS was the 60s with it's "subtle" commentary on race. TNG was the 80s with it's "subtle commentaries on drug use, AIDS, and homosexuality. Voyager was...well...on UPN. And Enterprise was post 9/11 grit. The movies changed too. TMP was a 2001 knockoff and a little over a decade later TUC was about old enemies coming together (COUGH UNITED STATES AND RUSSIA COUGH).
It's also a form of entertainment. Things that might have been entertaining in the 50s and 60s probably wouldn't be all that entertaining today. People's tastes change. The Honeymooners wouldn't fly today. I Love Lucy wouldn't be loved that much today. I'm not saying they're not good shows, because they are (I'm not so full of myself I can't admit something is good even though I don't like it)...but it's not what people want.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
I agree with the atomic weapons comment but where do you get the idea that they didn't have view screens? There was no visual communication but that doesn't mean they weren't capable of it. They simply didn't show their faces. And a lot of the Vulcans we saw on TOS, and there weren't many, were xenophobic dicks.
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
For all that the Old School can sometimes be portrayed as "Get off my lawn" old fogies, the Nu School can just as easily be portrayed as ungrateful, arrogant little snot-noses telling their forbears "Hurry up and die, already!" so they can get their hands on their inheritance.
ST-One
Vice Admiral
I hate to break it to you, but that's already happened:
Star Trek
directed by
J. J. Abrams
directed by
J. J. Abrams
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
But what about us lifelong Trekkies/AARP members who loved the new movie--and thought it really captured the zest and energy of the original series? Are we invited to the reading of the will?
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
The Romulan War did get some retconning, but nothing that violated the all important part that Earth and her allies never knew the true nature of the Romulans
As for the Vulcans being Xenophobic dicks...go back and rewatch Amok Time again. T'pau was a right proper bitch towards Kirk and McCoy (and not much better to Spock "art thee Vulcan or art thee Human?", etc). Sarek wasn't too fond of humans OR Starfleet either..
^^^Yeah, but T'Pau in "Amok Time" didn't have a mullet and T'Pau in the ENT Vulcan trilogy did. Seriously, she looked like she belonged at an Iron Maiden concert, circa 1983. Total canon violation.
Unless it was a separate timeline.
Yes, I'm joking. I know it's hard to tell when one invokes the sacrosanct canon.
Unless it was a separate timeline.
Yes, I'm joking. I know it's hard to tell when one invokes the sacrosanct canon.
If she spoke in middle-English...that's just laughably retarded and a good reason why the franchise got updated and some parts are just going to be ignored.
Honestly, if you're going to quote, quote accurately:
Mr. Spock: "As you may recall from your histories, this conflict was fought, by our standards today, with primitive atomic weapons and in primitive space vessels ..."
(ie who know what type of 'atomic weapons' (if any) are used by StarFleet in the 23rd century - but nothing shown on ENT contraduicted this particular line.)
Mr. Spock: "Which allowed no quarter, no captives. Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication. Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other."
(Spock states: "Nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication." That doesn't mean 'no Viewscreens' per se. He also talks about 'allies' and prior to ENT there was plenty of fan fiction that had the Vulcans, and other founding member races as Earth allies during the war; so hell, in that context, the line - "Therefore, no human, Romulan, or ally has ever seen the other.")
Lastly, TOS itself is chock full of internal dialog contradictions - and this was while GR was in charge of the show. My point, if you're going io try and crucify later productions for 'contradicting something Roddenberry himself produced...'(paraphrased); you might want to start with the fact he effectively contradicted himself on a regular basis on the original Star Trek itself.
I don't care. Institutional Christianity has spent two millenia contradicting what Jesus said; why should Hollywood do better with a skiffy entertainment franchise?
- Status
Similar threads
