OKEYFINE...
You're a newby here, apparently, so you probably don't realize yet that it's a WARNABLE OFFENSE to "spam" the forums by posting the same thing over and over, in multiple forums. Just a word to the wise...
Now, having said that... I disagree with the premise as posted... ie, that "Star Trek is dead... Rest In Peace."
However, SOME of your points have some merit... so I'll address them point-by-point. Fair 'nuff?
Maybe one of the reasons that Trek does not appeal to the majority of the population is that it has not grown. It is soooooo rooted in the 1960's.
Of course, this argument is perfectly logical... if you assume that humanity has actually changed since the 1960s. Since I was alive then and am still alive, and can remember both... I think it's fair to say that I'm qualified to tell you that people haven't changed even a little bit between then and now. Human nature is 100% unchanged.
Yes, the current dumb-ass styles are different than the 1960's dumb-ass styles... the stupid "trendy" lingo and dress styles and so forth have changed. Yes, we have some fancier tech toys which do have an impact (not necessarily always a POSITIVE ONE) on our lives. But PEOPLE HAVE NOT CHANGED. And what people want, and like, hasn't changed either, really. This is a totally bogus argument.
That said, however, it's true that audiences in the 1960s didn't get everything that they wanted... they got what they were given. Just like today, we don't always get what we want, we get what we're given... and only SOMETIMES do the two match up.
Now, to your points:
Trek needs......
1. better visuals. Lets see some graphic violence. Some blood from time to time.
Um... that's not ONE point, that's two separate and TOTALLY UNRELATED points.
Better visuals does NOT equal "graphic violence." One need only look at some of the really bad b-movie horror flicks to demonstrate that.
But both points do have merit. Yes, the overall special and visual effects capabilities have improved dramatically since the 1960s (though the TARGETS which were being approximated... the images that the production staff wanted to show the audience... haven't). So better effects is a given.
And I'm in a minority in terms of wanting to see some occasional blood or other unpleasantness. Not because it's "cool" to see disembowlment or decapitation. But rather, because reality is far messier than Trek, and particularly latter-day Trek, has generally shown.
I don't want gratuitous violence, but I do want REALISTIC CONSEQUENCES instead of the oh-so-neat-and-clean world where, like in bad westerns, the guy who gets show just lies down and goes "ahhh" and dies peacefully. Over-the-top gratuitous gore is for kids... every bit as much as "sanitized violence" is.
Some "Band of Brothers" style violence would be appropriate... if it's called for by the plot.Well, Starfleet IS a military organization. Picard went around saying it wasn't during the first season or two of TNG, but that's because Roddenberry was loony as a bedbug by that point and was trying to have him be Jacques Cousteau instead of Horatio Hornblower. Once Roddenberry's sad influence (remember, he was suffering from a debilitating mental deterioration through that whole period... I'm not being mean, just honest!) was removed, they stopped saying that Starfleet wasn't military.
The issue is that "peacenik" types think that "military" is somehow a dirty word. It's not. But to some folks, "mililtary" translates to "Oh boy, let's go kill some babies! YAY!" and to those types, calling Starfleet Military is a bad thing.
This attitude is far more prevalent today with so few people, and in particular so few people in the entertainment industry, having served. Anyone who has ever served has a far different attitude towards what "military" means than these 60s-reject types who are now running so many college campuses.
Starfleet, very much in TOS times, very much in the later years of TNG, and very much during the entire run of DS9, was portrayed as an unabashedly military organization. Which is as it should be.
3. Some nudity, profanity, and a "popular" soundtrack.
Nudity? WHY? If there's a compelling story-driven reason for it, sure... don't AVOID it if it would allow a better story to be told.
But why actively TRY to insert it? There's no reason for that other than pure, prurient childish "oh, look, boobies, cool!" attitude. Actual adults, with actual sex lives, don't need to see nudity on-screen nearly so much as kiddies who think "boobies are kewl!"
Same thing goes with profanity. Trek has had profanity... but rarely. And as a result, when it has been used, it has had an actual IMPACT.
Grown-ups understand that swearing isn't "kewl." It's mainly rebellious teenagers who somehow think it's really awesome because it's forbidden. When a mature adult swears, it's not to be "kewl" but rather because that person is overcome and, to one extent or another, borderline "out of control."
That's why Kirk saying "Let's get the hell out of here" at the end of City on the Edge of Forever was so impactful. If Kirk swore all the time, this line would have been much less meaningful.
Profanity has its place... but it should be rare and used for impact, not as a crutch for bad writing.
And finally, as for a "popular soundtrack"... BAD IDEA.
Music in a movie is not intended to be in the forefront, but rather in the background. It is intended to be almost subliminal... bringing out an emotional response in the audience without the audience fully recognizing that this emotional response is being driven by the music.
"Pop music" scores, by and large, fail on this account. Even movies that have lots of "pop music" in them still rely on conventional scoring during the actual STORYTELLING portion of the film. The textbook example of this would be "The Lion King." Everyone remembers the Elton John songs, but if you go back and watch the flick, and pay attention to the whole thing, you'll find that there's a conventional, orchestral soundtrack that plays through most of the film.
Oh... and "Enterprise" tried to go down that route and was soundly flogged for the effort, don't forget.
I believe that incorporating these elements will turn Trek into something that all will agree is fitting for the society that we are all lining in today.
Again, your PREMISE is flawed. The society we live in today is made up of people who are, in every meaningful way, indistinguishable from the people who were living in 1966. The society we live in today is not very far removed, at ALL, from that of 1966. The fact that you think it is, simply tells me that you're too young to actually know anything about what you're talking about, and have a TOTALLY FALSE impression of the differences.
