Star Trek is dead – long live Star Trek

[Jackson_Roykirk]

In fact the only thing that happened off screen that IS canon..

Khan seeing Checkov on the Enterprise....

Well...technically speaking, I always thought the "canon" part of that whole Chekov/Khan thing was Khan's statement in TWoK that he remembered Chekov -- and THAT happened on-screen....but I suppose that's splitting hairs.

by the way Qonos -- I see you're located in Long Pond...I'm not that far from you, relatively speaking (about 30 miles NNW)

 

[Captain Robert April]

Someone needs to reread the Chronology.

Robert April was included as first captain of the Enterprise at Roddenberry's insistance.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The Chronlogy's not canon either. Says so in the introduction.

 

[Qonos]

In fact the only thing that happened off screen that IS canon..

Khan seeing Checkov on the Enterprise....

Well...technically speaking, I always thought the "canon" part of that whole Chekov/Khan thing was Khan's statement in TWoK that he remembered Chekov -- and THAT happened on-screen....but I suppose that's splitting hairs.

by the way Qonos -- I see you're located in Long Pond...I'm not that far from you, relatively speaking (about 30 miles NNW)

cool

 

[Maurice]

^I assume you mean an actor who portrayed Superman in some of the earlier movie serials because George Reeves was dead by that time. And no, I didn't know that. Who was it and what part did he play?

I actually don't know what the actors name is (and I have this info only from the commentary track on the DVD), but he was the man in the train at the beginning of the movie (you know, the one who tells young Lois not to make up stories). The woman in that scene (according to the commentary) played Lois Lane once.

^^^One word: Google.

 

[Cheapjack]

I think messages are going to have to be a little more subtle for the next few decades. They seem to annoy people now.

Most of the really good Trek shows are stories that are ambitious enough to draw some inspiration from - the heavy "message" shows were always awful.

"The Doomsday Machine," for example, was a story about an obsessed character. That it bore the standard observation that people shouldn't play with big things that go "Boom!" is trivial.

As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."

..then you're just like that BBC culture reviewer who was annoyed by the message in Wallee.

Star Trek is primarily a message filled, morality show. Every single episode has a message. Perhaps some could watch Encounter and see that it was just about the new enterprise being able to split in two and seeing the Enterprise's new photon torpedoes. Others may see that it is about the farpoint creatures that can disguise themselves as space stations. Some may even take some notice of the considerable chunk of Q and Picard's dialogue that talks of humanity's progression from a savage race.

Gene Roddenberry said at the beginning that Star Trek was a 'Wagon Train to the Stars' - it was a vehicle for discussing morality issues. Every ST up to this point has been like this and if it is lost, it will not be ST.

I think it will be toned back a bit in ST11 and some people won't even be able to see it. We live in selfish, amoral times.

 

[Amaris]

I think messages are going to have to be a little more subtle for the next few decades. They seem to annoy people now.

Most of the really good Trek shows are stories that are ambitious enough to draw some inspiration from - the heavy "message" shows were always awful.

"The Doomsday Machine," for example, was a story about an obsessed character. That it bore the standard observation that people shouldn't play with big things that go "Boom!" is trivial.

As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."

..then you're just like that BBC culture reviewer who was annoyed by the message in Wallee.

Star Trek is primarily a message filled, morality show. Every single episode has a message. Perhaps some could watch Encounter and see that it was just about the new enterprise being able to split in two and seeing the Enterprise's new photon torpedoes. Others may see that it is about the farpoint creatures that can disguise themselves as space stations. Some may even take some notice of the considerable chunk of Q and Picard's dialogue that talks of humanity's progression from a savage race.

Gene Roddenberry said at the beginning that Star Trek was a 'Wagon Train to the Stars' - it was a vehicle for discussing morality issues. Every ST up to this point has been like this and if it is lost, it will not be ST.

I think it will be toned back a bit in ST11 and some people won't even be able to see it. We live in selfish, amoral times.

You mean like the amoral, selfish part of the interview where J.J. talks about optimism and the future of humanity that he wants to show in this movie? How he doesn't like the culture of darkness that society and pop culture is clinging to?

J.

 

[Cheapjack]

Most of the really good Trek shows are stories that are ambitious enough to draw some inspiration from - the heavy "message" shows were always awful.

"The Doomsday Machine," for example, was a story about an obsessed character. That it bore the standard observation that people shouldn't play with big things that go "Boom!" is trivial.

As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."

..then you're just like that BBC culture reviewer who was annoyed by the message in Wallee.

Star Trek is primarily a message filled, morality show. Every single episode has a message. Perhaps some could watch Encounter and see that it was just about the new enterprise being able to split in two and seeing the Enterprise's new photon torpedoes. Others may see that it is about the farpoint creatures that can disguise themselves as space stations. Some may even take some notice of the considerable chunk of Q and Picard's dialogue that talks of humanity's progression from a savage race.

Gene Roddenberry said at the beginning that Star Trek was a 'Wagon Train to the Stars' - it was a vehicle for discussing morality issues. Every ST up to this point has been like this and if it is lost, it will not be ST.

I think it will be toned back a bit in ST11 and some people won't even be able to see it. We live in selfish, amoral times.

You mean like the amoral, selfish part of the interview where J.J. talks about optimism and the future of humanity that he wants to show in this movie? How he doesn't like the culture of darkness that society and pop culture is clinging to?

J.

I hadn't read that part of the interview. Sounds good to me!!

 

[Rabittooth]

Bring it on. I'm up for New Trek as opposed to No Trek.

QFT.

-Rabittooth

 

[Temis the Vorta]

If they keep the essential core of Star Trek, it will be Star Trek. The core, for the record, is "optimistic future/all humans and aliens have the potential to play nice even if getting there is tough." The core is not whether Romulans have warp drive only at a certain point in history and not before or any of that trivia.

TOS and DS9 did a good job of furthering the core message; TNG was okay, and VOY and ENT dropped the ball entirely. We've got a new team that seem to understand the core message and how to integrate it into a fun story with great characters. That's essentially all we need.

From what I've seen, the rebooted aspects are the parts that need to be rebooted (recasting the characters with younger actors who more or less look the part; re-creating the aesthetics so that they are still lively and fun but don't evoke the 60s). This is the best hope that Star Trek has to become popular and relevant again, and I'm feeling rather positive about it all.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Someone needs to reread the Chronology.

Robert April was included as first captain of the Enterprise at Roddenberry's insistance [sic].

Can someone with the Chronology handy quote that exact piece of information? I thought Robert April was added as an homage to Roddenberry even going so far as superimposing Roddenberry's face onto a photo of a uniformed character from "The Cage."

Which brings me to the question of which Robert April is canon then? The soft-spoken, sweater wearing Captain from The Final Frontier? The elder Ambassador-at-Large from TAS? Or the military-minded Admiral from Early Voyages?

Oh, my. I got sucked into a canon debate. I need a colonic to get it outta my system.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Re: Star Trek is dead – long live Star Trek

I think messages are going to have to be a little more subtle for the next few decades. They seem to annoy people now.

Most of the really good Trek shows are stories that are ambitious enough to draw some inspiration from - the heavy "message" shows were always awful.

"The Doomsday Machine," for example, was a story about an obsessed character. That it bore the standard observation that people shouldn't play with big things that go "Boom!" is trivial.

As for the new movie being a potential embarrassment...if I were really capable of being embarrassed by "Star Trek" I'd have never looked back after "Patterns Of Force."

..then you're just like that BBC culture reviewer who was annoyed by the message in Wallee.

By which you're implying that I'm different from, say...you.

Hmm...BBC "culture guy" or you? That's a tough one. Yeah...

 

[Therin of Andor]

The woman in that scene (according to the commentary) played Lois Lane once.

Yep. Noel Neill and Kirk Allyn were invited to play young Lois Lane's parents in the train that whizzes through Smallville in "Superman: The Movie". Their closeup scene was cut for the theatrical version, but you can glimpse them in the window. The restored scenes (for TV and DVD) has them talking to young Lois.

(And we briefly see different parents of Lucy Lane in "Supergirl", of course.)

I'll be damned. All these years and I had NEVER heard that before. Wow, learn something every day.

Noel also plays the elderly, dying billionaire in "Superman Returns". And TV's first Jimmy Olsen (Jack Larsen) is the barkeep.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Someone needs to reread the Chronology.

Robert April was included as first captain of the Enterprise at Roddenberry's insistance.

You need to reread it! GR didn't insist. The writers asked him if they could add Robert April. And some elements of "Yesteryear".

We just return to the way things were in the 70's, with the exception that we won't be making fanzine stories, we'll be making our own shows.

And that is something that would delight Gene Roddenberry to no end.

Why?

And I seem to recall at least one interview with GR where he talks about ST being a new American mythology, which, decades from now will be being recast, retold and reimagined - and he was proud to have created a new mythology.

which brings me to the question of which Robert April is canon then? The soft-spoken, sweater wearing Captain from The Final Frontier? The elder Ambassador-at-Large from TAS? Or the military-minded Admiral from Early Voyages?

Why not a bit of each? They were all depictions at various stages of his life and career.

 

[MehtotheBigE]

Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks Trek is being dumbed down for the masses.

startrekisdead.blogspot.com

 

[SalvorHardin]

Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks Trek is being dumbed down for the masses.

startrekisdead.blogspot.com

I like it when people think they are smarter than .....Teh Masses

 

[M'Sharak]

Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks Trek is being dumbed down for the masses.

startrekisdead.blogspot.com

I like it when people think they are smarter than .....Teh Masses

Or something. Here's what you find at the link now:

Blog has been removed

Sorry, the blog at startrekisdead.blogspot.com has been removed. This address is not available for new blogs.

Did you expect to see your blog here? See: 'I can't find my blog on the Web, where is it?'

 

[ChristopherPike]

Well, what do you know? That Craig not Bond crowd have got themselves a new hobby...

 

[PhoenixIreland]

If, as people say, it could not continue in the same way (though all they did different it seems was make a more horrible ship design) then why not just wrap it up?

Why this abomination?

 

[Penta]

Because Paramount would be insane to let Trek die as a media property.

No, seriously. Leaving merchandising aside, the movie business is in not-good-straits right now.

Trek is, while not a guaranteed moneymaker, something for which a lot of the marketing prep work has been done already over the last 40 years. Not many franchises for which you can say that these days, and Paramount doesn't (to my recollection) have a superhero franchise to work with.