Hate for the new Trek and the Future of Trek

I feel that there is a lot of misdirected hate aimed at the new movies that I just don't understand. I remember times, multiple times actually, that there was no trek, and perhaps even no possibilty of future Trek. I am very optimistic at the moment about the future of Star Trek and the direction that it is heading in. While many feel that thte Abrahmsverse is a little too "actiony" for their likes, it's still Star Trek. While would like to see a return to the classic Trek stories, and character/moral driven story lines that speak to societal issues and high brow story lines, I think some fans miss the point. Interest is interest, and I think that the thing that I fear most is that the fans like myself are getting older and there just won't be any interest in Star Trek in 20 to 30 years. There has got to be a financial incentive for the studios to make new movies and series, and you have to draw in a new fan base. Are there times when Star Trek has made some missteps with the movies or series? Absolutely! Would I take any of those back? Never.

I think I just wanted somewhere to vent, anyway. KIt's good to see a community like this that is passionate about Trek, rather than talking about how much the new movies suck. Thanks.

 

Confirmation bias may give the perception of "a lot of misdirected hate." Another person might see a lot of something else. And no matter what the topic, "some [people] miss the point" from any one person's point of view. I see truisms here that will never go away - about anything, everywhere.

 

That's true, I see that point. I would rather see people be upbeat and positive about new Trek rather than negative. My opinion though.

 

It's impossible to hate something I haven't seen. Prefer to remain optimistic.

 

I agree that the "hate" on all sides is way overdone. Hyperbole seems to be the name of the game these days. It's sort of similar in the Star Wars fandom when aging fanboys make the absurd and offensive statement that "George Lucas raped my childhood" with his prequels. Give me a break.

The new Trek movies all have good points to them. And they have revived a franchise that seemed like it might be dead.

What really annoys me is the hate for the older Star Trek shows. In the threads about what the new Star Trek TV show should avoid, a few fans seem to almost say: "don't worry about 50 years of Trek history, just throw it away and start fresh!"

???

The 50 years of Trek history is a great strength. Of course you can innovate—look at how DS9 did that compared to TNG. But it doesn't mean you need to throw much of what makes Star Trek what it is away.

I'm also upset by the hate thrown at Voyager. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like c. 95% of the hate comes from men. Is there a connection? I don't know. I'm a man myself, but consider myself a feminist, and I think Janeway is an great captain.

So, like the OP, I'm venting a bit. I think Trek fans in general should try to see the glasses of the different generations of Trek as more than half full rather than 2/3 empty....

 

I always really liked Voyager, it had some goofy episodes, but so did a lot of TOS.

 

The problem for me is that Star Trek belongs on TV at the very least. That way you can have a variety of stories only limited by the writers' imagination. I liked how TOS and even TNG seemed to have episodes with a "moral to the story" flavor to it. You could watch an episode and learn a philosophical lesson about life in general.

That got screwed up by creating too many series, too quickly, airing one after another and in some cases, at the same time. Star Trek got diluted. Piss poor, lazy writing started being the norm. The Goose's Golden Eggs began to rust. TV Trek needed a long break so the baton was passed to the big screen to keep Star Trek alive.

What I don't like about some of the Trek movies is that in many cases they used the same formula: Angry Villian is hell bent on killing and destroying for some reason and our heroes need to stop him/her/it, usually at a great cost to themselves. Lots of space battles and explosions. Of course by the end of the movie our heroes, against all odds, somehow manages to save the day/universe. Lather, rinse, repeat for next movie.

I guess that's somewhat understandable, because there are 3-4 years between movies and with no Trek on TV to tell a variety of stories, Hollywood sticks with what sells. Still, I think a great movie can be made without reusing the same formula every time. I was glad to see the JJ reboot, if only for the fact that it was helping to keep Trek alive. I didn't care for STID because not only did it use the same safe formula as the previous movie(s) but it took a TOS episode and rewrote it. What's the point of a reboot if you can't come up with something new?

That's why I'm glad to see Star Trek coming home, back on TV where it belongs. I don't care if there is ever another Star Trek movie as long as we get a great new series that doesn't suffer the same fate as previous Trek shows. There's a lot riding on this, I hope CBS realizes it (I think they do) and I have no problem paying $6/month to watch a quality Star Trek series again, one that brings back the child-like wonder and fascination that I hope still resides in me somewhere.

 

I don't think the NuTrek films are bad movies. I think they're pretty good summer action movies that don't tap into what makes Trek special.

And I think the perception that a lot of hate is directed at them comes from the fact that when things are discussed over the internet with no view of body language, people focus the most on the most extreme sentiment and then project that onto the whole discussion.

 

I'm willing to bet that most of the posts you read on the topic are coming from males (not necessarily men). So it makes sense, but has no statistical validity in such a self-selected sample.

 

People aren't hating on old Trek when they want the new series to be in the Abramsverse, they're looking towards the future and picking what they think is best for the franchise.

Old Trek is great, it will always be there for us to watch and enjoy, but if the franchise is to stay alive for the next generation and the one after and the one after that, it may need to start completely fresh and not be tied down to this old canon. We wouldn't be here arguing over whether the show is to be set in the Prime or Abrams universe if we hated old Trek.

Not saying a Primeverse show can't be great in 2016, but I'd rather the writers have complete freedom than having to be worrying all the time about stepping on the canon established in TOS/TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT and ten feature films.

 

As a matter of corporate ownership, the Abramsverse is owned by Paramount and J.J. Abrams. I'm not sure, but my guess is that if CBS uses the Abramsverse they might have to pay Paramount or JJA? I honestly don't know. But my guess would be yes. In any case, the Abramsverse is rather limiting too. Vulcan has been destroyed, and now the Enterprise is going to be blown up yet again in Beyond, etc. There are definitely challenges with this universe as well.

On the other hand, CBS owns the Star Trek Prime universe free and clear.

I'll watch the show either way, and try to see the glass as half full, but I don't think it's clear at all that the Abramsverse is best for Trek. I'm not a hater, but it's pretty mixed to go that route in the minds of a lot Trek fans.

But fans in general seem pretty divided right now. Whenever the decision is made c. 40% of the fans might well be annoyed....

PS As far as I can tell, the new Trek show is not part of Bad Robot. But does anyone else know for sure about that?

 

Dennis says "Fuck canon." Ignore canon. So no worries at all. Why can't they just do that? People cling to canon as if it is immutable physics. It's not. We can do as we please with our imagination. The prison is self-made otherwise. We can rewrite TOS if we wish. "We can do anything." And it can be in the Prime universe (our universe) - no alternate scheiße.

That said, the conventional wisdom that you don't have freedom within the Star Trek canon is ridiculous when you have an infinite universe and all of time as your sandbox.

 

I'm prepared to be wrong, but I don't believe that is the case. CBS Television owns Star Trek.

Paramount has the rights to make Star Trek movies on behalf of CBS Television, and to keep some of the financial proceeds.

Abrams' production company was given limited rights to make a certain number of movies for Paramount and to keep some of the financial proceeds. Abrams doesn't own anything and alway had both Paramount and CBS Television vetting his ideas.

CBS Television owns Star Trek, and owns the movies too.

But if you eliminate too much of what came before, at a certain point it ceases to be Star Trek, even if it's labeled with that name.

In that case, why not create a "fresh" new science fiction series, with no pretense of a connection to Star Trek?

+

 

I don't really hate the new films. I kind of consider them an alternate reality. But I think they helped get young people who had never seen any of the series interested in going back and looking at what came before.

 

Really, who cares if some people hate certain aspects of Trek? That's human nature, not everyone is going to agree with everything and the point of discussion boards like this is to express our differing opinions regarding Trek. It's true, some people take the hate too far, but you'll always find assholes and douchebags everywhere, and when those people get out of hand, this forum has rules enforced by moderators to rein them in. Otherwise, hate Abrams Trek, love DS9, indifferent towards Enterprise, share whatever your opinion is and join in the discussions.

I will argue against the claim the Abramsverse "revived" or "reinvigorated" the franchise. Trek XI performed decently at the box office, but STID didn't do as well, and Beyond is barely a blip on the radar despite being practically right around the corner. The general public seems as ambivalent towards Star Trek now as they were prior to Trek XI's release.

No, although Bad Robot has authority over tie-in material related to the Abramsverse like the comics (which are personally signed off by Orci), the video game, and any novels if they were done, CBS is the highest authority over anything Star Trek and owns the franchise as a whole. If CBS wanted to do something with the Abramsverse themselves, they could and neither Abrams or anyone at Bad Robot could do anything to stop them and CBS wouldn't owe Bad Robot, Paramount or Abrams a dime.

 

I'm excited for the new series. I'll watch the new movie and probably never set eyes on it again once I see it. I'm not that into the JJ Abrams Trek movies but it doesn't mean I think they don't deserve to exist. Everyone likes different things. We don't have to like or watch every Star Trek incarnation. The beauty of it is that there are multiple tv shows and 13 movies. Something for every Trek fan.

 

Star Trek is a TV series and works that way, movie format is just too restricting, 2 hours and... that's it?
No, Trek doesn't belong to the movie theater.

 

So, basically, there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" when discussing visual media. There are no bad movies or series, it's all just a matter of opinion and we can never say "this sucks." Everything is as good as everything else. That would be about right, yes?

 

NuTrek is an abomination. Anyone who disagrees with me loves Hitler and wants the terrorists to win.

Trek appeals to me as an ongoing TV serial that explores the characters and the universe. The movies are all pretty forgettable as far as I'm concerned. Nu and old.

 

I don't think there really is a "Hate" for the nuTrek movies. (Well OK I will confess a mild degree of loathing over the newer ship designs and sense of aesthetic over traditional well thought out function. But that's just a matter of personal taste.) The nuTrek stuff is mostly good Trek. Adding action is great. Although there are some fair criticism's, especially with Into Darkness, that they added too much action and too many set pieces without any real solid underlying story. There is a happy medium to be found. You can both tell an engaging thoughtful and deep story and still include plenty of action. Here's hoping Beyond finds a better balance.

As for the rest. People have their favorites. People bicker on the internet. Yes Voyager is often the most maligned. But honestly no it is not because Men didn't like Janeway. It was more that it felt like for much of its run the show had poor editorial or character control over the writers room. Resulting in inconsistent and often contradictory feeling characters, while at the same time the showrunners were so determined to "make it a Star Trek Show" that they only seemed to cycle through a small number of seemingly repetitive stories that were more in line with traditional Trek. They remained trapped in the box of nostalgia and "homage to Gene" and rarely stepped outside to take advantage of the differences that Voyager offered. DS9 faired better as the black sheep of the family. The suits weren't paying so much attention to it, so they had room to be different. To explore more "non traditional Trek" areas, such as War, without anybody giving them any pushback. Enterprise originally suffered horribly from being stuffed in the "box" but eventually they attempted to move away from that and take advantage of what the show offered. (sadly not fast enough). One thing that gives me hope for the new show with Bryan Fuller is he does seem to be a point of balance, based on his track record. Yes he was highly and deeply involved in Voyager, and its traditional Trek "box". But at the same time his credited episodes include a few that are among the most refreshingly different. Such as Bride of Chaotica (As great a use of Janeway as there ever was.)

 

Enterprise was unwatchable gash.

Voyager was a moist romp into heart breaking televisual genius by comparison. I think a lot of the dislike is based on crappy aliens, episodic story telling and yes... thge fact that it had a female captain.