Let's get back to Roddenberry's trek

[anh165]

I'll concede that Enterprise's characterization was completely lacking on so many levels, but the post-Roddenberry TNG and DS9 was Trek's finest hour in my opinion.

Finest hour eh?

I always found the characters in DS9/VOY and later TNG cringeworthy, sort of the characterisation and acting panache found in a eary 90's straight-to-video movie.

This made Trek unpaletable to millions of others who refused to go see Berman era trek, as the characters were totally charmless and unengaging.

The most successfull TNG era/Post roddenberry movie I believe was First contact, where a bunch of pale actors in rubber suits walk around like they had a carrot stuck up their behind and not say a word upstaged the main cast.

Just sums up the characterisation of post-Roddenberry Trek.

 

[R. Star]

I'll concede that Enterprise's characterization was completely lacking on so many levels, but the post-Roddenberry TNG and DS9 was Trek's finest hour in my opinion.

Finest hour eh?

I always found the characters in DS9/VOY and later TNG cringeworthy, sort of the characterisation and acting panache found in a eary 90's straight-to-video movie.

This made Trek unpaletable to millions of others who refused to go see Berman era trek, as the characters were totally charmless and unengaging.

The most successfull TNG era/Post roddenberry movie I believe was First contact, where a bunch of pale actors in rubber suits walk around like they had a carrot stuck up their behind and not say a word upstaged the main cast.

Just sums up the characterisation of post-Roddenberry Trek.

I just love when people state their opinions as if they're fact and find it acceptable to mock people who don't share their opinions as if it somehow is a fault for not thinking what they do. But yeah when the substantive argument includes phrases like "carrot stuck up their behind" well what can you expect?

Oh and spell check is your friend.

 

[Greg Cox]

What makes Roddenberry's vision unique beyond other fiction was something heavily discussed in Why Trekkies hated the 2009 movie.

A title which is a blatant lie. As a Trekkie who liked the movie, I deeply resent it when people who didn't like it claim that their personal opinion represents the consensus of all fandom. It's cowardly and dishonest to hide behind that pretense rather than just saying "This is my own personal view," and it's dismissive and insulting to those of us who have our own diverse opinions.
.

Amen. I keep vowing I won't get sucked into this same old debate again, but then somebody plays the "all real Trekkies hate the reboot" card again and my hackles ride.

Just the other day, I was contacted by a reporter who wanted to gin up controversy by pitting old-school Trekkies against the new movie . . . and who seemed genuinely surprised and frustrated when I refused to play along! (At one point, he actually asked me to recommend a Trek author who would be willing to state that the new movies weren't "real" Trek, but I declined to cooperate.)

And, as usual, he seemed to have bought into the myth that TOS was a "non-violent" series that never stooped to cheap thrills or action. I admit my jaw dropped to hear this from a professional journalist whom you'd think would have actually done a little research on the original series.

Jesus Christ, I pointed out, barely an episode went by that Kirk didn't get into fistfight, Federation colonies and outposts were wiped out on a regular basis, and all those redshirts didn't exactly die of natural causes. "Non-violent" indeed!

Where do people get this stuff?

 

[The Transformed Man]

Which Roddenberry are you referring to? The Roddenberry of TOS days? Or are you wanting the Gene from the early days of TNG's development? The Roddenberry who had basically lost most of his faculties and burned practically every bridge with TOS staff he had brought on board to shepherd the new show. The same gene who was pitching overly sexualized ideas like Betazoids having four breasts and the Ferengi being extremely well endowed in their nether regions (that would have been fun to see on syndicated TV).

More Sex Trek baby!

 

[MacLeod]

So long as you have engaging characters and stories, the actual look isn't as important.

 

[R. Star]

the Ferengi being extremely well endowed in their nether regions (that would have been fun to see on syndicated TV).

More Sex Trek baby!

Oh you -know- Quark would've bragged about that.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

Jesus Christ, I pointed out, barely an episode went by that Kirk didn't get into fistfight, Federation colonies and outposts were wiped out on a regular basis, and all those redshirts didn't exactly die of natural causes. "Non-violent" indeed!

Where do people get this stuff?

From faulty memories and also from their bums.

 

[Belz...]

(Spoiler Free) The Trek movie franchise was in trouble. JJ Abrahms has made it a commercial success but at the cost of the Trek vision of social utopia.

I'm not sure the latter is that great for the franchise. Maybe in the 60s and 80s it was relevant, but these days, I don't know. We should also distinguish between the Trek movies, which have almost always been more action-oriented, and the series, which can afford to expand on more complex themes.

 

[Tracer Bullet]

(Spoiler Free) The Trek movie franchise was in trouble. JJ Abrahms has made it a commercial success but at the cost of the Trek vision of social utopia.

I'm not sure the latter is that great for the franchise. Maybe in the 60s and 80s it was relevant, but these days, I don't know. We should also distinguish between the Trek movies, which have almost always been more action-oriented, and the series, which can afford to expand on more complex themes.

Of course it's relevant. It's one of the key things that makes Trek different from so much other science fiction and space opera--the idea that the future will be better that the present, that technology is not something scary but can be friendly and free humanity from the drudgery of working just to survive. If that goes away, then I don't really know what makes Trek anything special at all.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry. I meant relevant as in "appealing to people today". The studios don't seem to think so, but as long as we're stuck with movies it's hard to tell.

 

[wissaboo]

I don't know, the cities and civilians looked pretty Utopian to me.

 

[stj]

Jesus Christ, I pointed out, barely an episode went by that Kirk didn't get into fistfight, Federation colonies and outposts were wiped out on a regular basis, and all those redshirts didn't exactly die of natural causes. "Non-violent" indeed!

Where do people get this stuff?

From faulty memories and also from their bums.

The faulty memories come from so easily forgetting the supposedly exciting action scenes.

Misusing "violent" as a synonym for "aggressive," particularly in relation to modern idealizations of aggression as heroic, would be the part grabbed from the ass.

What has never seemed to be legit is the implication that the Kirk the womanizer and the scifi action is what made people watch Star Trek in syndication. Really?

 

[mlk]

Roddenberrys star trek isn't applicable to today, he created a sci fi show in the 60s and you could say the 80s, it's 2013 today, people have matured, they're not as naive. Today's biggest issues aren't USA vs Soviet, it's not interracial problems, it's culture clashes, religious clashes, and according to Roddenberry, earth 2260 is more or less western/christian culture. You can't create a tv show today which still pretends that the biggest issues we have today is if a white guy kisses a black woman, it has to be far more up to date, less cheezy, I mean by god I can barely stand 50% of Voyager's episodes today..

 

[Casas9425]

I can't help but think that Roddenberry was something of a hack. Outside of the first 2 seasons of TOS the rest of his credits are garbage.

 

[Belz...]

I wouldn't go so far as to say he was a hack. He did have the vision to Trek, and I did like some of the episodes/movies he helmed, but I don't think he understood how to appeal to audiences in general.

Anyway, some good, some bad.

 

[R. Star]

I don't know, the cities and civilians looked pretty Utopian to me.

Was this before or after a megavillain started blowing them up, then culminating with a giant megaship crashing into it having to kill thousands at the very least?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

You honestly think TNG got better after Roddenberry passed on the reigns???

The characters lost their souls. They didn't care about each other. Under Roddenberry the members of the USS Enterprise were family. Berman turned the ship into a cold, corporate work place.

They were one-dimensional characters that served nothing but to advance the plot.

And how about a little philosophy with your science fiction? You didn't see it under Berman. Berman era writers could barely write a plot let alone put some meaning into it.

Watch an episode of ENT and tell me that's not true.

Now, what I intended to post:

Star Trek is like fine art in this respect: there are many Cubists but only one Pablo Picasso. With Picasso dead we will never see Cubism created at such a high level. Same with Star Trek: Roddenberry died and took Star Trek with him. Such is the nature of creativity.

Enjoy what he left us.

Were we watching the same shows?

I'm a big fan of TOS. TNG, not so much. But your characterization of the "Berman era" doesn't ring very true.

Not in the least, agreed. Overpraising Roddenberry for the creative work done by many, many people does Trek no favors.

 

[Norsehound]

Of course it's relevant. It's one of the key things that makes Trek different from so much other science fiction and space opera--the idea that the future will be better that the present, that technology is not something scary but can be friendly and free humanity from the drudgery of working just to survive. If that goes away, then I don't really know what makes Trek anything special at all.

I recall reading someplace Roddenberry wanted to illustrate a humanist utopian society with Next Generation. That meant no tensions between the characters. Things got pretty boring when the characters weren't allowed to bounce off one another and be flawed in the slightest possible way. Utopia is boring.

TNG played this down in later seasons and ultimately DS9 put some cracks in the foundation of that perfect utopian society to make it a little more colorful.

Humans of the future being similar to humans of today is, well, human. If you want a perfect utopian society where everyone is striving for perfection and goodness, look at the Borg. And we all know how exciting they are.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Of course it's relevant. It's one of the key things that makes Trek different from so much other science fiction and space opera--the idea that the future will be better that the present, that technology is not something scary but can be friendly and free humanity from the drudgery of working just to survive. If that goes away, then I don't really know what makes Trek anything special at all.

I recall reading someplace Roddenberry wanted to illustrate a humanist utopian society with Next Generation. That meant no tensions between the characters.

Which was actually true of TOS as well because there really wasn't any tension between the characters there as well. Sure, Spock and McCoy occasionally got into disagreements and traded barbs with one another, but it wasn't like they hated one another.

The only real difference with the TNG characters was that their disagreements were more civil and didn't resort to name-calling.

But with both TOS and TNG, the main conflicts involved characters who weren't members of the crew (the sometimes referred to "conflict from outside").

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

All evidence is that nine out of ten trekkies like Abrams's Trek movies, about the same percentage that shows up in polls of the general movie going public.