Paramount going ahead with ST4 according to Engage

[Romulan Loyalist]

Exactly. And those of us who grew up on DC Comics have understood about Earth-1, Earth-2, and umpteen other universes since we were kids back in the sixties. It's not a radical new idea.

Parallel universes aren't a radical idea at all.. to learn about the possibility one must only read about the Multiverse Theory

To be quite frank, the biggest problem I have with the Kelvin and Prime universe, is the Destruction of Romulus.. I could understand the advent of things happening different in Kelvin vs Prime, if it wasn't so attached to a major catastrophic event in the Alpha Quadrant that didn't even need to happen..

But I do suppose they needed a plot device to even introduce one universe to the other.. perhaps I am just grumbling about circumstances rather than the entire situation.

 

[gerbil]

I'll never understand the fury around a rebooted Star Trek. The genres Star Trek touches upon are full of reboots, reimaginings, alternate universes, and retellings.

I mean, consider how many iterations of the X-Men there have been. Or Superman! The Mummy, Wolfman, Battlestar Galactica, etc.

As far as characters like Khan... Khan is the most iconic villain in Star Trek. He's Kirk's nemesis and it would be like having Sherlock Holmes without his Professor Moriarty. It makes sense. This Khan is definitely different but times are definitely different and should reflect that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

@Romulan Loyalist, there's no such thing as an event that "needs" to happen. Only events which the writers choose to use, which they believe will serve the plot.

 

[Greg Cox]

As far as characters like Khan... Khan is the most iconic villain in Star Trek. He's Kirk's nemesis and it would be like having Sherlock Holmes without his Professor Moriarty. It makes sense. This Khan is definitely different but times are definitely different and should reflect that.

Good point. I don't see people criticizing THE DARK KNIGHT because they brought the Joker back one more time, or because Heath Ledger wasn't exactly like Jack Nicholson or Cesar Romero. As far as I know, nobody accused TDK of being just a rehash of the 1989 BATMAN . . ..

 

[urbandefault]

Good point. I don't see people criticizing THE DARK KNIGHT because they brought the Joker back one more time, or because Heath Ledger wasn't exactly like Jack Nicholson or Cesar Romero. As far as I know, nobody accused TDK of being just a rehash of the 1989 BATMAN . . ..

But Star Trek is the One True Franchise. It must not be desecrated.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

@Romulan Loyalist, there's no such thing as an event that "needs" to happen. Only events which the writers choose to use, which they believe will serve the plot.

They needed something that created a way to have the realities collide, and create a villain.. all at the same time.. Perhaps they chose poorly - true, it's not a "need" necessarily.. but they needed plot devices nonetheless.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'm not sure who you mean by "them." If you mean Paramount, well yeah, absolutely. It's the studio's job to care about the financials. But I would take issue with the idea that the creators, the writers and directors, are making these movies solely because of the paycheck. .

Exactly. Here's the thing about art vs. commerce. It's seldom either/or. It's not "all about the money" or "nothing to do with money."

Nobody goes into the arts or entertainment just to make money. If that's your goal, you're better off becoming an orthodontist or hedge fund manager. People who make movies and TV shows want to make movies and TV shows because they love movies and TV shows. Actors want to act. Writers want to write. Creators want to create.

But to do so for a living, you have to keep one eye on the bottom line, especially if you're dealing with popular, mass-market entertainment.

Bottom line: show business is about the "show" and the "business," and the two are usually going to be entangled in all sorts of ways.

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Exactly. And those of us who grew up on DC Comics have understood about Earth-1, Earth-2, and the idea that "continuity" is not necessarily set in stone since we were kids back in the sixties. It's not a radical new idea.

People who read comics must look at the complaining that Trekkies engage in regarding continuity and cry tears of blood.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

People who read comics must look at the complaining that Trekkies engage in regarding continuity and cry tears of blood.

Although I never read comics.. I've seen some continuity issues as comical at times.. no pun intended. Enterprise was riddled with conflicts between itself and TOS/TNG.

Nothing is sacred it seems..

 

[Greg Cox]

People who read comics must look at the complaining that Trekkies engage in regarding continuity and cry tears of blood.

Oh, comics fans can be just obsessed over obscure matters of continuity and canon, and have the same generational disagreements as well.

Want to start a fight? Ask a bunch of comic-book fans who the "real" Green Lantern is. Or the "real" Batgirl.

Trust me, things can get heated.

 

[The Wormhole]

The track record with something new is rather unlucky.. Insurrection, Nemesis, and Enterprise were new... Yet they flopped..

They didn't flop because they were "new" but rather because they were more of the same.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

They didn't flop because they were "new" but rather because they were more of the same.

True - at least on Insurrection... It was essentially a 2 hour long TNG episode... Enterprise was new - Nemesis could be debated as a newer style for TNG - but I suppose you may be right.. at least in general.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Although I never read comics.. I've seen some continuity issues as comical at times.. no pun intended. Enterprise was riddled with conflicts between itself and TOS/TNG.

Nothing is sacred it seems..

TOS was riddled with conflicts between itself and TOS. Probably more that it has with ENT.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

TOS was riddled with conflicts between itself and TOS. Probably more that it has with ENT.

Well - TOS was also the fresh start with absolutely nothing to go on... I barely can watch TOS without rolling my eyes..

 

[Nerys Myk]

Well - TOS was also the fresh start with absolutely nothing to go on... I barely can watch TOS without rolling my eyes..

Nah, it was a work in progress. The end product works fine with ENT.

 

[The Wormhole]

Enterprise was new

Not really. A common criticism of Enterprise, particularly in the first two seasons was that they were just rehashing the same old Trek tropes, or in some cases just doing flat-out remakes of other Trek episodes or even movies. Or in a few cases, other sci-fi movies, like with the episode Dawn being compared to the movie Enemy Mine.

Nemesis could be debated as a newer style for TNG

Nemesis had copious TWOK "homages" that come off as rip-offs, along with a recreated scene (crew preparing for battle sequence).

 

[Nerys Myk]

Or in a few cases, other sci-fi movies, like with the episode Dawn being compared to the movie Enemy Mine.

Star Trek has been doing that since TOS Season One.

 

[The Wormhole]

Star Trek has been doing that since TOS Season One.

Which proves my point that Enterprise wasn't anything new like Romulan Loyalist indicated it was.

 

[Romulan Loyalist]

It is new, in the essence it was telling a pre-Federation story involving Starfleet and it's beginnings - technically that is new.. For the screen anyway. Whether or not they ripped off plots or not isn't necessarily a quantifier for new.

 

[fireproof78]

Trekkies:

"We want something fresh and new!"

Followed shortly by:

"Undo everything and reset the timeline!"

Shaking. My. Head.

Exactly so. Trying something new is playing with fire, even if it is necessary.

Not really. A common criticism of Enterprise, particularly in the first two seasons was that they were just rehashing the same old Trek tropes, or in some cases just doing flat-out remakes of other Trek episodes or even movies. Or in a few cases, other sci-fi movies, like with the episode Dawn being compared to the movie Enemy Mine.

Nemesis had copious TWOK "homages" that come off as rip-offs, along with a recreated scene (crew preparing for battle sequence).

Precisely so. Nothing about Nemesis was new, or failed because it tried something different. The only thing "new" was the ridiculous jeep vehicle, and that wasn't why the film was bad. It was the poor characterization, poorly realized villain, and unnecessary death of a character.