Sex - The Most Important Invention Ever...

[Balthier the Great]

So what exactly should star trek scrog to get better? Battlestar? Farscape, Babylon 5, Dr. Who, andromeda?

Just sexing up the villiage idiot ain't gonna give you better offspring. And inbreeding is just wrong.

I'd be cool with Dr. Who Trek, or Farscape Trek. Not a fan of Star Wars/Star Trek combos personally, just cause of the Jar Jar Ewok factor.

 

[Captain Mike]

But it won't be a Star Trek movie... except in name... if it ends up separating itself from everything that's come before, so that none of what's been created previously "fits" anymore. It'll become a stand-alone item, separate and independent from 40+ years of Star Trek that's already out there.

This is how it becomes a Star Trek movie:

"what did you do tonight?

I saw the new star trek movie".

You are forgetting the retorical ,....OH? (meaning the discussion is now ended) kind of response.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The new Enterprise is great because it's different. The new bridge is greate because it's different. The new cast is great because they're different. The trailer is great because it's a different direction.

Nope. If there's a message here it's simpler than that.

Change may or may not be an improvement in any sense other than one important one: the alternative to change is extinction.

Well, unless you're a coelacanth. Coelacanths have certainly resisted being dumbed down for the masses.

That's pretty much what I said: all changes are good because any change is good. It renders all discussion moot because those who take that position don't have to discuss why they like the changes because any change is seen as fundamentally better (except of course returning to the characters and settings of 40 years ago).

 

[Dale]

Sex was invented? I thought it was hard-wired into us from the beginning.

I always assumed it was the accidental result of too much snuggling.

 

[Michael Chris]

(If you "don't believe in evolution" you really can just skip this whole thread. Thanks for reading this far.)

Dang. I really wanted to read the whole thing...

 

[Plum]

I'm pretty sure Starship P. isn't saying change is good, but that it's natural. Inevitable. Otherwise, you're extinct.

The new film isn't going to be a 1960s TV show, and anyone would be insane to think it can be.

So how sex plays into this I'm still not sure. What's with all the sex talk?

 

[M'Sharak]

Tight genes?

 

[Gepard]

So how sex plays into this I'm still not sure. What's with all the sex talk?

Zoe Sandala is hot. And takes off her shirt. 'Nuff said.

 

[Franklin]

I'm pretty sure Starship P. isn't saying change is good, but that it's natural. Inevitable. Otherwise, you're extinct.

The new film isn't going to be a 1960s TV show, and anyone would be insane to think it can be.

So how sex plays into this I'm still not sure. What's with all the sex talk?

Sex sells.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

So what exactly should star trek scrog to get better? Battlestar? Farscape, Babylon 5, Dr. Who, andromeda?

Just sexing up the villiage idiot ain't gonna give you better offspring.

You're looking at it eugenically. More basically, before you can consider "better offspring" you have to be situated so as to have offspring, period. The best way to do that is to have sex, period.

After all, we modern humans, the pinnacle of life development on this planet (he said, with tongue firmly in cheek) are not the result of a billion years of careful selection.

Or put more directly, any sex is better than no sex.

 

[Plum]

^^^
Ah.

 

[Captain Fine]

I'm pretty sure Starship P. isn't saying change is good, but that it's natural. Inevitable. Otherwise, you're extinct.

The new film isn't going to be a 1960s TV show, and anyone would be insane to think it can be.

So how sex plays into this I'm still not sure. What's with all the sex talk?

Didn't you read the very first post? The thread isn't about sex, it's about sexual reproduction. It's not about titillation, it's about procreation.

From a genetic perspective, there's asexual and sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction allowed genes to recombine in many new ways and to propagate among the population. Then comes natural selection and yada yada.

So yeah, I agree with the original poster 100%.

Personally I think they could have tried something like this in a post-Nemesis time period, to avoid all the canon issues. But movie execs probably insisted on Kirk and Spock. So we'll see how this turns out.

 

[Plum]

^^^
I did read it, obviously. I just didn't know where he was going with the sex part of his evolution metaphor.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I just didn't know where he was going with the sex part of his evolution metaphor.

Where would you like me to be going with it?

 

[Plum]

^^^
I think I'd better shut up now.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

To succeed, Trek just needs to return to the elements that made TOS and DS9 so great ...

No. Trek cannot succeed simply by returning to anything.

 

[chardman]

BTW, I love dinosaurs.

I'm a dinosaur fan.

I love books about them. I love going down to the Smithsonian and looking at the skeletons and drawings and models and other depictions of dinosaurs which many professional, smart, dedicated fans of dinosaurs have spent countless hours studying and assembling in various combinations back into evocations of what they believe dinosaurs were really like.

I understand that professional dinosaur fans engage in some pretty lively controversies and disagreements about what dinosaurs were really like.

As far as I know, none of these debates has yet produced a single live dinosaur.

I love to look at dinosaurs, and they're certainly not going anywhere.

Mhmm... whatever are you trying to tell us with this?

That Star Trek should evolve into something more like... er... Jurassic Park?

 

[Cary L. Brown]

BTW, I love dinosaurs.

I'm a dinosaur fan.

I love books about them. I love going down to the Smithsonian and looking at the skeletons and drawings and models and other depictions of dinosaurs which many professional, smart, dedicated fans of dinosaurs have spent countless hours studying and assembling in various combinations back into evocations of what they believe dinosaurs were really like.

I understand that professional dinosaur fans engage in some pretty lively controversies and disagreements about what dinosaurs were really like.

As far as I know, none of these debates has yet produced a single live dinosaur.

I love to look at dinosaurs, and they're certainly not going anywhere.

Mhmm... whatever are you trying to tell us with this?

That Star Trek should evolve into something more like... er... Jurassic Park?

And to continue this analogy... the missing bits of Trek should be recreated by splicing in something else? Resulting, inevitably, in a massive disaster. Right?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That Star Trek should evolve into something more like... er... Jurassic Park?

First we need blood samples from Gene Coon and Jeffrey Hunter.

 

[Lord Garth]

The right idea (sex) but maybe in the wrong places. Even Star Wars itself will only go so far. To say nothing about mixing with other franchises.

The real way to go about this is, if you want Star Trek to be indefinitely sustainable as a movie series, is to mix Star Trek with Movie Stars. Make it about the stars first and the premise second, then Star Trek might be able to continue indefinitely. That's how James Bond has managed to last on screen since 1962.

Depending upon how far Paramount would want to take it, in that case, the Big Name Actors wouldn't have to be Kirk or Spock either since the audience would be more interested in which actors are in the movie than who the characters they're playing.

Eventually the new Kirk and Spock will run their course and Paramount might remember Star Trek managed to get through the '90s without them, so they might want to take another stab at branching out. Using Trek as an Actor Vehicle could be the way to pull off this approach.