Letter to Moonves

[Lynx]

^^
So what you are saying is that it's allowed to mess up something which have been established since decades and developed during those decades only to attract a lot of people, many of those not interested at all in Star Trek as such?

Absolutely. If they don't attract a whole lot more people than have been interested in Star Trek in fifteen years or so, Trek is dead.

It's more than "allowed," it's a damned good idea.

And anyone who "hates it" because they consider it somehow reprehensible will just have to get used to the fact that its success guarantees that it's the way forward now.

Most of the actors in Abrams's version are more skillful than the folks they replaced, BTW.

Sell-outs often fails because it may attract some new fans........for a while but drives away the core of loyal fans. Then the new fans will abandon it for the next whim of action-loaded third-rate SF while the old core of loyal fans will not come back to something they see as a sell-out.

As for the actors, they are OK in a way but you can't be serious if you consider them better than Shatner, Nimoy etc.

And no, I will not waste any time on this "alternate universe". I watched the movie as an on-off entertainment movie but that's all.

What really makes me sad is that there is nothing less for us fans of the 24th century anymore because the reaunch books sucks!

The movie was at least acceptable compared to that destructive crap.

 

[Dukhat]

Sell-outs often fails because it may attract some new fans........for a while but drives away the core of loyal fans. Then the new fans will abandon it for the next whim of action-loaded third-rate SF while the old core of loyal fans will not come back to something they see as a sell-out.

As long as there are bulletin boards like this one for people to both praise and bitch, Star Trek will never lose fans. And anyway, did Doctor Who lose it's fanbase after the long hiatus between Sylvester McCoy and Christopher Eccleston? No. As a matter of fact, it gained a new fanbase along with the old one.

As for the actors, they are OK in a way but you can't be serious if you consider them better than Shatner, Nimoy etc.

They are far better than their 1960's counterparts, although those counterparts were still entertaining. The only portrayal I had an issue with was the "comic relief" aspect they gave Simon Pegg's Scotty, which was not indicative of the actor's known abilities.

And no, I will not waste any time on this "alternate universe". I watched the movie as an on-off entertainment movie but that's all.

And yet you still keep bitching about it. Ok, fine, you didn't like the movie. We all get that. No one's forcing you to like it. So don't waste your time getting yourself all riled up about it by continuing to bring it up.

What really makes me sad is that there is nothing less for us fans of the 24th century anymore because the reaunch books sucks!

That's not the authors' fault. That's just your personal preference. And saying the books suck implies that you've actually read them. So don't read them anymore.

The movie was at least acceptable compared to that destructive crap.

I'm sure several of the relaunch authors who regularly post here will be thrilled to make note of that bold statement of their hard work. When was the last time you were ever lucky enough to get a Star Trek novel published?

 

[Lynx]

^^
I haven't read books like "Full Circle", "Destiny" or "Unworthy". I just have to know the basic story in those books and know what characters are missing or why to know that I won't like them and no, I have no intention to read them.

I haven't got any Star Trek stories published and I won't get any stories published either because:

1. I don't live in the US and don't have an agent.

2. I write about the wrong characters.

3. I refuse to kill off or destroy main characters.

 

[Dukhat]

I haven't read books like "Full Circle", "Destiny" or "Unworthy". I just have to know the basic story in those books and know what characters are missing or why to know that I won't like them and no, I have no intention to read them.

And by virtue of not having read them, that makes you completely unqualified to judge them as "crap."

I haven't got any Star Trek stories published and I won't get any stories published either because:

1. I don't live in the US and don't have an agent.

2. I write about the wrong characters.

3. I refuse to kill off or destroy main characters.

1. What does it matter where you live? And if you seriously wanted to be a writer, what's stopping you getting an agent?

2. Huh?

3. So why would that stop you from writing a story that doesn't kill off or destroy main characters?

Honestly, I feel like I'm arguing with a 5 year old here (not implying that you are five, just that that's what the argument feels like), and I said before that I wouldn't get involved in this discussion again, and I did. Silly me.

 

[Lynx]

^^
No, Nothing has stopped me from writing stories where the main characters aren't killed off or destroyed. The only problem for me is time, or more precisely, lack of time.

But I have a feeling that my stories wouldn't fit into the current destructive Pocket Books universe because in them, Janeway is still alive, Data is still alive and Kes is around, still alive and well too.

Some years ago I made an attempt to sel a story in which one main character was restored back to normal but they weren't interested. Obviously I was writing about the wrong character.

And no, I'm not five years old, just very dissapointed with the current direction of Star Trek. Over the last 10 years almost everything I liked with Star Trek has been erased or abandoned, just like termites undermining a whole house and suddenly it just falls to the ground, only dust remaining of it.

As for the current books, I do find parts of the DS9 relaunch acceptable but I'm very dissapointed with the currentdevelopment of the TNG and Voyager books. As for the Voyager books I mentioned in a previous post, I don't have to read them to know that I will dislike them. The absence of certain characters is enough for me.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I haven't got any Star Trek stories published and I won't get any stories published either because:
1. I don't live in the US

Doesn't stop Diane Duane, Peter Morwood, Michael Schuster or David A. McIntee.

... and don't have an agent.

No agent will turn down a writer if their stuff is well written and commercial enough, and in the area of their expertise.

2. I write about the wrong characters.

There is no rule that says you can't write about certain Star Trek characters but, for a first-time novel submission by a ST first-timer, it should be set within the TV series of choice and not be a sequel to an episode or other novel. Pocket also prefers (at least in the time of John Ordover) that you already have at least two full-length original science fiction novels under your belt, which will help your submission to catch the attention of the editor and proves you are likely to meet your deadlines. Some have achieved a sale without this, but it helps.

3. I refuse to kill off or destroy main characters.

There is no rule that says you must kill off or destroy main characters. However, you do have to write a ST novel that will sell well, esp. if you wish to write a second one.

 

[startrekrcks]

each of the new actors brings fresh life into the iconic characters that was so wonderfully played by Shatner,Nimoy, Kelley and the others. What is wrong with liking both the original and new actors.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Sell-outs often fails because it may attract some new fans...

But the reboot has succeeded, so that's not an issue.

Killing characters that have overstayed their welcome is a good way to freshen up a series and the relationships of the characters in the series. Even childrens literature allows for death, after all, so there's certainly no reason that sf/fantasy ostensibly written for adults should eschew such opportunities.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Moonves just signed a new contract through 2015 as head of CBS.
Start writing those letters for the CW or to sell a produced show to another network...

Even still Trek XII will be in 2012 and Trek XIII may be 2014 or 2015...

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/450809-Moonves_Signs_New_Deal_With_CBS_Through_2015.php

 

[Temis the Vorta]

each of the new actors brings fresh life into the iconic characters that was so wonderfully played by Shatner,Nimoy, Kelley and the others. What is wrong with liking both the original and new actors.

Nothing's wrong with it at all. In fact, I like Kirk and Uhura better now than in their original incarnations. Spock and McCoy are my favorite original characters and I still like them greatly as well. The new timeline (or new universe, which is how I think of it) is a big success to me.

 

[Lynx]

The new universe with Vulcan and Romulus destroyed and no continuity with the original Star trek universe at all. How fun is that?

And even if I actually find the actors in the movie decent, they can't replace Shatmer, Nimoy and the others who really gave life to the TOS characters.

So I've asked Q or Captain Braxton to transport me back to the 24th century in the original universe.

"I exist there" as Sisko may have said.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The new universe with Vulcan and Romulus destroyed and no continuity with the original Star trek universe at all. How fun is that?

I'm having a great time with it.

And even if I actually find the actors in the movie decent, they can't replace Shatmer, Nimoy and the others who really gave life to the TOS characters.

Who cares? Nimoy and Shatner are no longer suitable for these parts, and most of the other Abrams Trek actors are better than the TOS actors.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The new universe with Vulcan and Romulus destroyed and no continuity with the original Star trek universe at all.

Romulus is destroyed in one reality, Vulcan in the other. There's no reality in which both are destroyed, at least none that we've seen.

I'd rather have Vulcan destroyed than Romulus destroyed, if only because Rommies make good villains, and have the potential to make great villains, and I want them more powerful, not less.

We really don't need a large, powerful Vulcan society. A small, struggling one will do just as well and in fact, opens up some interesting story possibilities. They can regroup on some colony that looks just like their original planet, that they name "Vulcan" (I can't see them going for Vulcan 2 or variants), they rebuild their culture and what has changed for the audience, really? Just that Spock is going to be wiggier than ever (and I'm not talking about his hair). I'm very much looking forward to the next time he crosses paths with a Rommie. Fun fun!

 

[USS KG5]

I'm surprised no-one has thought of this but surely the Vulcan colony Spock Prime mentions could be Vulcan as we know it from Trek IV for example.

After all it seems sparsely populated and barren whenever we see it in episodes dated after the new film! Perhaps its a different world altogether, and "New Vulcan" got dropped as too tacky.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Which is why we just call that city on Manhattan Island "York" now?

More seriously, that's not a terrible suggestion.

 

[USS KG5]

Which is why we just call that city on Manhattan Island "York" now?

The original York is still there!

More seriously, that's not a terrible suggestion.

Well personally I don't really worry, but I'm worried about Lynx he hasn't been the same since "Fury" aired.

 

[Lynx]

The new universe with Vulcan and Romulus destroyed and no continuity with the original Star trek universe at all.

Romulus is destroyed in one reality, Vulcan in the other. There's no reality in which both are destroyed, at least none that we've seen.

I'd rather have Vulcan destroyed than Romulus destroyed, if only because Rommies make good villains, and have the potential to make great villains, and I want them more powerful, not less.

We really don't need a large, powerful Vulcan society. A small, struggling one will do just as well and in fact, opens up some interesting story possibilities. They can regroup on some colony that looks just like their original planet, that they name "Vulcan" (I can't see them going for Vulcan 2 or variants), they rebuild their culture and what has changed for the audience, really? Just that Spock is going to be wiggier than ever (and I'm not talking about his hair). I'm very much looking forward to the next time he crosses paths with a Rommie. Fun fun!

I don't want any of those worlds destroyed.

The destruction of Vulcan and the creation of that "other universe" is just silly. Stick to the original premise of Star trek and the established history or don't make any movie, that's my advice.

The destruction of Romulus is totally unnecessary for telling a good story, nothing but a cheap stunt. But I guess that exploding planets is one of those "magnificent effects" which todays produces seem to love.


USS KG5 wrote:
Well personally I don't really worry, but I'm worried about Lynx he hasn't been the same since "Fury" aired.

That was the nail in my Star Trek coffin. Since then I haven't got any good Star Trek news, only dissapointments and character destruction.

 

[Dukhat]

The destruction of Vulcan and the creation of that "other universe" is just silly. Stick to the original premise of Star trek and the established history or don't make any movie, that's my advice.

No offense, but luckily your advice was not taken. (See next entry)

The destruction of Romulus is totally unnecessary for telling a good story, nothing but a cheap stunt.

No, the destruction of Gamma Epsilon II or Alpha Bigboote 7 or Veridian III would have been a cheap stunt, because they're planets and people we don't care about. The destruction of planets like Romulus and Vulcan had a huge dramatic effect on the fan-and-non-fan-based audience alike, because whether you're a hardcore fan or a casual fan, you know that Vulcan is Spock's homeworld, and the Romulans are Vulcan's cousins. Do you honestly think that it would have been the same movie if Nero just destroyed some no-name small Vulcan colony world, or the supernova destroyed the Pakled homeworld instead of Romulus? Of course not.

 

[AviTrek]

The destruction of Vulcan and the creation of that "other universe" is just silly. Stick to the original premise of Star trek and the established history or don't make any movie, that's my advice.

No offense, but luckily your advice was not taken. (See next entry)

The destruction of Romulus is totally unnecessary for telling a good story, nothing but a cheap stunt.

No, the destruction of Gamma Epsilon II or Alpha Bigboote 7 or Veridian III would have been a cheap stunt, because they're planets and people we don't care about. The destruction of planets like Romulus and Vulcan had a huge dramatic effect on the fan-and-non-fan-based audience alike, because whether you're a hardcore fan or a casual fan, you know that Vulcan is Spock's homeworld, and the Romulans are Vulcan's cousins. Do you honestly think that it would have been the same movie if Nero just destroyed some no-name small Vulcan colony world, or the supernova destroyed the Pakled homeworld instead of Romulus? Of course not.

Nero was as bland as villains come. You could have replaced Romulus with any other race and had the same movie. Vulcan was slightly more significant because of its connection to Spock and his reaction to the destruction.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nero was as bland as villains come. You could have replaced Romulus with any other race and had the same movie.

True, but meaningless - it all served its purpose very well.