The 90's Golden Age.

[Amaris]

The Abrams movies were ok. I'm happy they have had success and the associated sequels that it they will no doubt generate. I don't really get the need for all the gnashing of teeth or the subsequent defenses that set Star Trek fans against each other when it comes to the JJ verse. If you don't like them then just treat them as the stand alone films they are and disregard their impact on whatever "universe" you hold dear. But fandom is fandom I guess.

It's happened with every new iteration of Trek.

Oh no doubt. It's just that considering that these movies are a reboot and the main crying points are usually about how these movies deviate so strongly to the "real Star Trek." Seeing as how they are a reboot and actually contribute nothing to the original timeline, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to just watch the movies and disregard their impact on the Star Trek universe if you don't like them.

The original ten movies had a lasting impact on the timeline of Star Trek that couldn't really be ignored. You weren't able to just disregard them because they were steering the massive story of 4 TV franchises in a certain direction. Obviously those events would polarize the corps of the Star Trek fanbase.

It shouldn't be that hard to just watch JJ Trek in a vacuum and enjoy the ride.

Some people just love to hate. If the next movie executed a script that followed the suggestions of those who hate the Abramsverse, it would be slammed by those same people for being predictable. There are some people who will just hate it to hate it, and will always find some kind of reason to do so; whether it be because the only people who like it are illiterates (I love the movies and I've been reading since I was 3!), just like big dumb action movies (I love deep, introspective movies), or aren't "real" Trek fans (I've been a fan since the age of 4, when my mother sat me down in front of TOS and I was hooked. That's 29 years of Trek fandom).

Usually they're ignored, but when someone posts something blatantly false, or opinion masqueraded as a fact, of course people are going to shoot it down, only to find that person getting into a fit because their opinion isn't accepted as fact. They don't like it, so you shouldn't like it, else you're not a "real, true" Trek fan.

They're fundamentalists, but instead of a classic religion, they've chosen their favorite Trek as their idol, and the heretics be damned.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

^Thanks for the ad hominem.

 

[Use of Time]

It's happened with every new iteration of Trek.

Oh no doubt. It's just that considering that these movies are a reboot and the main crying points are usually about how these movies deviate so strongly to the "real Star Trek." Seeing as how they are a reboot and actually contribute nothing to the original timeline, it shouldn't be that big of a deal to just watch the movies and disregard their impact on the Star Trek universe if you don't like them.

The original ten movies had a lasting impact on the timeline of Star Trek that couldn't really be ignored. You weren't able to just disregard them because they were steering the massive story of 4 TV franchises in a certain direction. Obviously those events would polarize the corps of the Star Trek fanbase.

It shouldn't be that hard to just watch JJ Trek in a vacuum and enjoy the ride.

TMP, TWOK and TNG were reboots (after a fashion) and polarizing as well. And there are/were fans who would love to disregard any and all of the various films. The TOS films pretty much did their own thing and ignored what was happening on TV. "Unification" and TUC sorta "crossed over". And the TNG films crossed with DS9 out of necessity (Worf). Though,all the 24th Century films and series were interconnected because of Berman.

Spot on.

 

[Trek Survivor]

My golden age is the period 1994-1996. Such a fun time to be a fan! In the space of those two years I had:

* The finale of TNG (still remember trotting down to John Menzies to pick up the video after school. October 1994)

* Build-up, hype and premiere of "Generations" (we in the UK got it in Feb 1995). This has to be the biggest "mass popularity" push Trek had (before 2009 at least).

* The release of Star Trek Monthly (a brand new monthly Trek magazine! March 1995)

* Premiere of Voyager (video released in the UK June 1995. Again, such clear memories of eagerly racing down to the shop to buy this one and then watch it with my friends)

* Season 4 of Ds9, all the speculation about Worf joining etc (1995; the series premiered on video here in the UK in Feb 1996)

* Loads of Trek merchanidse around; the book programme went into overdrive; loads of behind-the-scenes type books as well as novels. Plus toys, videos etc.

* 30th Anniversary of Trek - a whole BBC2 night of programming devoted to Trek, inc. the terrestrial premiere of Voyager (Aug 1996)

* Premiere of First Contact (December 1996). I went to its opening night in Oxford with my mates. Such good times

So there you go; just a great time to be a fan. I was 15/16, got some disposable income of my own for the first time etc... yeah. Good times.

 

[Ln X]

90s indeed, it started with TNG's season 3 and ended with the last season of DS9. After that the quality went downhill. Oh well good times.

 

[Hober Mallow]

They're fundamentalists, but instead of a classic religion, they've chosen their favorite Trek as their idol, and the heretics be damned.

I've no doubt that describes some fans. Then there are others, like me, who simply think the Abram's films are dull.

 

[Nightdiamond]

Nu trek doesn't have the advantage of having episodes to establish the characters the way TOS and TNG did.

If they rebooted it and added new stuff like Uhura's and Spock's relationship (I have to admit, I get nothing from it) then it's going to turn some fans off.

Then again, Trek franchise was lagging, and I don't necessarily think they wrote it entirely for Trek fans anyway. Business wise, that was a smart decision.

I don't think people who don't like Nutrek are bitter and close-minded, I suspect they don't like the recent 'blockbuster movie' formula it's written around.

Everything appears hyperactive, shallow, gimmicky with lots and lots and lots of explosions.

Remedy-- watch what you think is a lame movie (or marathon) during the holiday season when nothing else is on..this can make a movie grow on you.

 

[Viper78]

Nu trek doesn't have the advantage of having episodes to establish the characters the way TOS and TNG did.

If they rebooted it and added new stuff like Uhura's and Spock's relationship (I have to admit, I get nothing from it) then it's going to turn some fans off.

Then again, Trek franchise was lagging, and I don't necessarily think they wrote it entirely for Trek fans anyway. Business wise, that was a smart decision.

I don't think people who don't like Nutrek are bitter and close-minded, I suspect they don't like the recent 'blockbuster movie' formula it's written around.

Everything appears hyperactive, shallow, gimmicky with lots and lots and lots of explosions.

Remedy-- watch what you think is a lame movie (or marathon) during the holiday season when nothing else is on..this can make a movie grow on you.

Absolutely spot on

 

[Hober Mallow]

Nu trek doesn't have the advantage of having episodes to establish the characters the way TOS and TNG did.

Kirk and Spock are pretty well-established characters.

I don't think people who don't like Nutrek are bitter and close-minded, I suspect they don't like the recent 'blockbuster movie' formula it's written around.

That's mainly what it is for me. Action movies today don't start with the script, they start with a list of ideas for set pieces, then a story is built around that. Call me old fashioned, but I think a movie should begin with the story, with a writer who actually has something to say. Instead of a story that builds to a climax, you have one action set piece after another; it makes for a flat movie experience. Setup, pay-off, next set piece; set-up, pay-off, next set piece.

That said, there are certainly are close-minded fans who would never accept a reboot of any kind. What they fail to see, and whether they want to admit it or not, is that Trek has already been rebooted several times.

Remedy-- watch what you think is a lame movie (or marathon) during the holiday season when nothing else is on..this can make a movie grow on you.

I have a better solution -- I just don't try to make myself like lame movies.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

For me, TOS is quite a poor show [I love it], it just isn't written well enough.

...

TNG, DS9 & VOY are the pinnacle of the franchise.

Wow. I need a drink.

Poor me a double while you're at the bar, would ya?

If by pinnacle you mean saturation, sure maybe. But quality? Newp. And how do you say TOS is "poor"? By what criteria?

TOS is repetitive. It has about 2 plots it recycles constantly:

1. Super powered being threatens the ship. [Charlie X, Trelane, Abe Lincoln, Mitchell]
2. Kirk & someone beam down, end up stranded, ship is threatened.

This combines with frequent plot holes and nonsense [duplicate Earth in Miri, the greatest geological discovery of all time, never gets mentioned. Spock's Brain...The Empath....all full of nonsense]

Did you see actually see TNG Seasons 1 and 2?
Great storylines and mature writing. Are you kidding me? Yes it got better.
How about "SubRosa", "Threshold", "A Fistful of Datas", the boxing Chakotay episode.

I think you're admiring the writing because it has a sort of sameness - consistency to it. You know whats going to happen next. Which can be a strength and a handicap.

I suppose TOS only had a bunch of hack science fiction writers for its stories.

*sigh* You are pointlessly quoting a few bad episodes out of hundreds produced by those 3 series. AS I STATED WAS THE CASE.

No it is not sameness. 'The Inner Light', 'Best of Both Worlds', 'Year of Hell', 'Far beyond the Stars' etc etc are all far better episodes than anything TOS could come up with.

So you're saying you're a Star Trek fan who doesn't like Star Trek?

No thats what you are saying. I stated I love TOS if you read my post. It simply IS the poorest of all the shows in my opinion. Its weakly written and frequently nonsensical.

Im aware, from my years of lurking here, how many fanboys of TOS are here. As much as I love it, I view TOS as more of a nostalgia-trip than anything even close to TNG, DS9, VOY. It simply isn't as deep, as clever, as moving, as sharp....

Some of the tones in response to my comment is disappointing. I really dont think it is deserving of 'eye-rolls' or 'I need a drink' comments to say: 21 seasons of TNG, DS9 & VOY are far better than anything the 3 of TOS produced.

And I do not care how many noses that statement puts out of joint.

 

[BillJ]

Call me old fashioned, but I think a movie should begin with the story, with a writer who actually has something to say.

Has Hollywood ever really operated that way though? Especially in regards to big budget movies?

Did Harve Bennett go to Paramount with The Wrath of Khan? They went to him. I'm also sure that they had a checklist of things that had to be accomplished by the films story (including killing off Spock). Much like Moore and Braga were given a checklist of things that had to be done in Generations.

I think when you have smaller, independent films the writers are much more a driving force. In big-budget or franchise films, the directors and the studios have a much bigger say in the product.

Is it the right way? I don't know? But it has been this way for a really long time.

 

[BillJ]

Im aware, from my years of lurking here, how many fanboys of TOS are here. As much as I love it, I view TOS as more of a nostalgia-trip than anything even close to TNG, DS9, VOY. It simply isn't as deep, as clever, as moving, as sharp...

As a reader of science-fiction, I appreciate what TOS did far more than what the spin-offs later did. They weren't afraid of any idea, no matter how outlandish it looked on paper. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. But that is why I find TOS to be one of the absolute best TV series of all time.

Modern Trek simply became 'very safe'. Very little of what was done during those twenty-five seasons fired my imagination the way the original Star Trek did.

Some of the tones in response to my comment is disappointing. I really dont think it is deserving of 'eye-rolls' or 'I need a drink' comments to say: 21 seasons of TNG, DS9 & VOY are far better than anything the 3 of TOS produced.

Be prepared for some ribbing no matter what statements you put forth here. This is a very eclectic collection of people with wildly varying viewpoints.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Call me old fashioned, but I think a movie should begin with the story, with a writer who actually has something to say.

Has Hollywood ever really operated that way though? Especially in regards to big budget movies?

Did Harve Bennett go to Paramount with The Wrath of Khan? They went to him. I'm also sure that they had a checklist of things that had to be accomplished by the films story (including killing off Spock). Much like Moore and Braga were given a checklist of things that had to be done in Generations.

I think when you have smaller, independent films the writers are much more a driving force. In big-budget or franchise films, the directors and the studios have a much bigger say in the product.

Is it the right way? I don't know? But it has been this way for a really long time.

That's some major parsing. Hober Mallow wrote much more about what he thought about the scripting process. Moreover, I don't think that the fact that filmmaking is a collaborative process, involving many people, negates his point.

 

[BillJ]

That's some major parsing. Hober Mallow wrote much more about what he thought about the scripting process. Moreover, I don't think that the fact that filmmaking is a collaborative process, involving many people, negates his point.

I usually don't quote a posters entire post, only what's relevant to a point I'm making. It bothers me to have to scroll again through a complete post after having already read it. It's a pet peeve of mine.

I'm not trying to negate his point. Only state that different types of films are driven by different objectives.

 

[Commishsleer]

Im aware, from my years of lurking here, how many fanboys of TOS are here. As much as I love it, I view TOS as more of a nostalgia-trip than anything even close to TNG, DS9, VOY. It simply isn't as deep, as clever, as moving, as sharp....

Yes TOS fanboys are just lame whereas TNG, DS9 and VOY fanboys are deeper, cleverer, more moving and sharper.

 

[R. Star]

Im aware, from my years of lurking here, how many fanboys of TOS are here. As much as I love it, I view TOS as more of a nostalgia-trip than anything even close to TNG, DS9, VOY. It simply isn't as deep, as clever, as moving, as sharp....

Yes TOS fanboys are just lame whereas TNG, DS9 and VOY fanboys are deeper, cleverer, more moving and sharper.

People who take shots at other people for liking differing things are so classy. It's really great and in tune with the message of Star Trek that all differences are to be scorned and ridiculed.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

That's some major parsing. Hober Mallow wrote much more about what he thought about the scripting process. Moreover, I don't think that the fact that filmmaking is a collaborative process, involving many people, negates his point.

I usually don't quote a posters entire post, only what's relevant to a point I'm making. It bothers me to have to scroll again through a complete post after having already read it. It's a pet peeve of mine.

I'm not trying to negate his point. Only state that different types of films are driven by different objectives.

Not the actual cut and paste, but the fact that you reduce Hober Mallow's argument to this one sentence, when his complete thought went on.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Much like Moore and Braga were given a checklist of things that had to be done in Generations.

And we know how well that turned out.

I think what Moore and Braga did back then is akin to what goes on now with set-pieces. Don't get me wrong, it clearly is a winning formula for putting butts in theater seats. I don't like them much, but clearly many do. But is anyone going to be talking about this last year's worth of Hollywood action flicks in ten years time? I doubt it.

Not the actual cut and paste, but the fact that you reduce Hober Mallow's argument to this one sentence, when his complete thought went on.

I can't complain. I do that, too.

Modern Trek simply became 'very safe'. Very little of what was done during those twenty-five seasons fired my imagination the way the original Star Trek did.

Same here. Yes, there were parallel earths in TOS, but is that really any different than virtually every alien in the Berman era looking like a bumpy-headed human with virtually identical and, astoundingly, compatible technology (communications, warp speed, UT, transporters, etc.).

 

[The Old Mixer]

1. Super powered being threatens the ship. [Charlie X, Trelane, Abe Lincoln, Mitchell]

Abraham Lincoln didn't threaten the ship.

 

[Hober Mallow]

1. Super powered being threatens the ship. [Charlie X, Trelane, Abe Lincoln, Mitchell]

Abraham Lincoln didn't threaten the ship.

"Drop your shields and surrender or I shall suspend the writ of habeas corpus."