There's a petition to cancel a TV show that nobody has even seen yet?
There are people on this forum who are already describing themselves as "haters" of the new show, and/or its makers?
Chill out, already.
All we have are some scant details. It's pretty safe to assume the new show will not be set in the "prime universe", or the "JJverse", for that matter.
Sounds like they're starting over with a clean sheet of paper.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
Does this mean the new TV series will be "good"? Nobody here has any idea. As of this moment, based on what little we know, it could be a "good" show or it might be a "stinker".
None of us really has any idea and we likely won't until January of 2017. Sounds to me like the show's footage hasn't even been shot yet. How can you be opposed to something when you don't even know what it is?
Folks on here that keep saying that it better be part "JJverse" or else they will dismiss it seem disingenuous. If you think it's okay to reinvent the STAR TREK franchise in Abrams' image as was done with the recent movies, then it must be okay to reinvent the wheel again. The "JJverse" is no more or less disposable than the "prime universe", after all. Out with the old, in with the new... if that worked in 2009, it can work again in 2017.
The real question to be asked (which was glossed over with the recent movies) should be this: what do these new characters stand for? This was a serious question that was asked in TNG's early years, which fans tried to ignore. In "The Best of Trek" paperback book series of fan-written essays, Tom Lalli wrote an article called "Same Sexism, Different Generation" about how sexism was still a serious criticism during TNG's early years. And in 1990, a fan letter appeared in the "Star Trek: The Official Fan Club" magazine from one individual who described Commander Shelby ("The Best of Both Worlds") as "the kind of character Trek fans love to hate". Isn't that a little ironic, considering that Shelby was a stand-out character portrayed by an actress of TV, stage and screen, who left her mark on one of TNG's most outstanding episodes?
Melinda Snodgrass, a high-profile writer on TNG ("The Measure of A Man", "Up The Long Ladder", "The Ensigns of Command") left the show and wrote an acid editorial in "Omni" magazine titled "Boldly Going Nowhere", dismissing TNG. While I count myself as a fan of Snodgrass' TNG work, it's worth noting that the column she wrote didn't stop TNG from staying on the air about four more years after she departed, and then there were subsequent TNG movies as well.
All this negative and prejudging hyperbole on a show that may not even be shot yet seems premature at best; maybe patently absurd would be a better description. If anyone here has their mind made up this far in advance, then there's always reruns of FRIENDS on Hulu...
But doesn't GIRLS sound better?
If the new-new TREK is set in an entirely different universe, maybe it could open up new possibilities and new stories. I just hope the characters represent a positive image of humanity's future and they live by the same (or similar) rules as we saw Shatner's Kirk do. That's a more genuine source of concern.
There are people on this forum who are already describing themselves as "haters" of the new show, and/or its makers?
Chill out, already.
All we have are some scant details. It's pretty safe to assume the new show will not be set in the "prime universe", or the "JJverse", for that matter.
Sounds like they're starting over with a clean sheet of paper.
What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, that's what.
Does this mean the new TV series will be "good"? Nobody here has any idea. As of this moment, based on what little we know, it could be a "good" show or it might be a "stinker".
None of us really has any idea and we likely won't until January of 2017. Sounds to me like the show's footage hasn't even been shot yet. How can you be opposed to something when you don't even know what it is?
Folks on here that keep saying that it better be part "JJverse" or else they will dismiss it seem disingenuous. If you think it's okay to reinvent the STAR TREK franchise in Abrams' image as was done with the recent movies, then it must be okay to reinvent the wheel again. The "JJverse" is no more or less disposable than the "prime universe", after all. Out with the old, in with the new... if that worked in 2009, it can work again in 2017.
The real question to be asked (which was glossed over with the recent movies) should be this: what do these new characters stand for? This was a serious question that was asked in TNG's early years, which fans tried to ignore. In "The Best of Trek" paperback book series of fan-written essays, Tom Lalli wrote an article called "Same Sexism, Different Generation" about how sexism was still a serious criticism during TNG's early years. And in 1990, a fan letter appeared in the "Star Trek: The Official Fan Club" magazine from one individual who described Commander Shelby ("The Best of Both Worlds") as "the kind of character Trek fans love to hate". Isn't that a little ironic, considering that Shelby was a stand-out character portrayed by an actress of TV, stage and screen, who left her mark on one of TNG's most outstanding episodes?
Melinda Snodgrass, a high-profile writer on TNG ("The Measure of A Man", "Up The Long Ladder", "The Ensigns of Command") left the show and wrote an acid editorial in "Omni" magazine titled "Boldly Going Nowhere", dismissing TNG. While I count myself as a fan of Snodgrass' TNG work, it's worth noting that the column she wrote didn't stop TNG from staying on the air about four more years after she departed, and then there were subsequent TNG movies as well.
All this negative and prejudging hyperbole on a show that may not even be shot yet seems premature at best; maybe patently absurd would be a better description. If anyone here has their mind made up this far in advance, then there's always reruns of FRIENDS on Hulu...
But doesn't GIRLS sound better?
If the new-new TREK is set in an entirely different universe, maybe it could open up new possibilities and new stories. I just hope the characters represent a positive image of humanity's future and they live by the same (or similar) rules as we saw Shatner's Kirk do. That's a more genuine source of concern.
