The Destruction of Romulus!?

[Terok Nor]

Not if they wanted a successful movie.

Exactly. Let's not pretend there's anything new being brought to the Star Trek table with these movies. It certainly is not a case of out with the old, in with the new. More like out with the new, in with the old.

Yet your suggestion was 'They should have repeated what Not-so-Modern Trek had always done with each new incarnation (to diminishing returns, no less).'

That is not 'new' or 'brave' approach.

It was back in the 80's with TNG was my point not my suggestion. Are you telling me a re-do of TOS is more original than TNG?

I understand the franchise needed to be picked back up. It should have happened before Enterprise in all honesty or even before Voyager. All I'm saying is Abrams new Trek is nothing original. The destruction of Romulus and Vulcan may have been an attempt to show us the old continuity has been blown to pieces and we should move on to the new continuity but by leaving the door open on the Prime Universe it's a case of hedging your bets just in case. Nothing wrong with that bu I'm not going to pretend Abrams brought something new to the table. Not yet anyway. Let's see how the movies progress.

 

[Trekkin]

You haven't established it is a 'redo'. Characters from preceding movies coming back for sequels does not a 'redo' make.

Anyway - according to the 'rules' at the moment, they are a whole new crew in a whole new universe. Just like 'In The Mirror Darkly' followed new characters apart from ENT's usual protagonists.

And in a lot of ways, TNG did start out as a re-do of TOS. Right down to using scripts that were written for Phase II, and using the TOS archetypes in slightly mixed-around roles (for eg. Season 1 Riker was Kirk, Data was Spock, and then we got bloody Pulaski.) Also yeah, I would say a direct sequel is slightly less-original way to go about spinning-off than a sequel/prequel/reboot hybrid.

Not that any of that matter when deciding if TNG was a good show. Just like DS9's possible 'inspiration' (not rip-off) from a B5 pitch doesn't matter, nor does TOS debt to Forbidden Planet.

 

[Terok Nor]

You haven't established it is a 'redo'. Characters from preceding movies coming back for sequels does not a 'redo' make.

It does if they come back to do the same things all over again. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!!!

Anyway - according to the 'rules' at the moment, they are a whole new crew in a whole new universe. Just like 'In The Mirror Darkly' followed new characters apart from ENT's usual protagonists.

At the end of every Mirror Universe or parallel universe episode we return to the Prime Universe. What makes the Abrams Universe any more important than the Roddenberry Mirror Universe? Mistake #1 was not making the 2009 movie a straight reboot. That's why some fans are expecting a return to the old continuity. It may or may not happen but the door has not been closed or "blown to pieces".

And in a lot of ways, TNG did start out as a re-do of TOS. Right down to using scripts that were written for Phase II, and using the TOS archetypes in slightly mixed-around roles (for eg. Season 1 Riker was Kirk, Data was Spock, and then we got bloody Pulaski.) Also yeah, I would say a direct sequel is slightly less-original way to go about spinning-off than a sequel/prequel/reboot hybrid.

Not that any of that matter when deciding if TNG was a good show. Just like DS9's possible 'inspiration' (not rip-off) from a B5 pitch doesn't matter, nor does TOS debt to Forbidden Planet.

Those are superficial comparisons. Roddenberry set TNG in an entirely different century with a vastly different crew to that of the original Enterprise crew. Riker is Kirk? I don't see the comparison personally. Riker was a rude arrogant jerk. Kirk had those traits at times but they didn't define him. Data has similarites to Spock but he's a lot more childlike and innocent, qualities Spock never possessed. Pulaski was a rip off of Bones, I'll give you that. Didn't last long though, did she?

If you think TNG is less original than Abrams movies then fair enough. TNG created an entirely new universe where anything truly could happen. It gaves us a multitiude of new species, new conflicts, new ideas and reimagined takes on old ideas. All the Abrams movies have given us is a trip down memory lane so far.

I think TOS and DS9 being inspired by other properties is a lot different to the Abrams movies rehashing the same thing in a new dress but I'll agree to disagree. One day the Abrams universe will have to stand on its own with its own ideas like TNG and DS9 did (and Voyager and Enterprise to a small extent). If it manages to thrive without Kirk, Spock and all the other familiar characters and events we've seen before then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong about everything. Believe me.

 

[Trekkin]

So your evidence of the latest one being a 'redo' is purely the 'Khan' line and the dialogue from the reactor scene?

How did you handle so much of Khan's dialogue from TWOK being straight lifts from Moby Dick? All in all, 2/5's of his dialogue are probably quotes from other, better sources. Does that make it a redo? References and redo's are not the same thing, especially when the characters are aware of what they're referencing.

Quiet frankly, the fact that a dozen fans on the internet are hung up on 'returning to Prime' is not a mistake on productions part. Fans do that even for properties that have been clean rebooted. I know there's some people who - even well into Moores BSG - were convinced that a new movie would bring back their male Starbuck. Making multi-million dollar decisions around that mindset would be madness, especially they've proven twice that more people are happy with what they're doing than unhappy.

And that being said, so what if some people think it might go back one day? Who does it hurt other than themselves? (If they take it to the obsessive extreme. Most are just completely normal people spitballing possible plots on the Internet.) Even I talk about it a bit, because the NuTrek comic has had a Prime verse crossover. The creative team is actually still using what you claim is a loose end.

I'd argue that the new movies have already proven they can stand on their own feet. They managed to succeed in spite of the baggage that the franchise has been lugging around like a millstone for at least twenty years, and didn't even have the TOS movies somewhat more stable groundwork of sprouting from the post-Star Wars boom and the successful TOS reruns. They literally took a franchise that was dead and unmourned by a majority of the population, and made it more wildly successful and (most importantly) more well-liked than it had ever been. Even if the next one crashes and burns, the Abrams films did thrive.

And no, they don't need to necessarily move on from Kirk and Spock. No more than DC has had to move on from Batman. Paramount or CBS can do whatever they like with their toys.

 

[BillJ]

It was back in the 80's with TNG was my point not my suggestion. Are you telling me a re-do of TOS is more original than TNG?

Nothing is original. TNG was simply Roddenberry's Star Trek II. Star Trek II was nothing more than Star Trek with some tweaks to the formula.

 

[Squiggy]

Hm. No new series announced yet.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Those are superficial comparisons. Roddenberry set TNG in an entirely different century with a vastly different crew to that of the original Enterprise crew. Riker is Kirk? I don't see the comparison personally. Riker was a rude arrogant jerk. Kirk had those traits at times but they didn't define him. Data has similarites to Spock but he's a lot more childlike and innocent, qualities Spock never possessed. Pulaski was a rip off of Bones, I'll give you that. Didn't last long though, did she?

Do you actually think that changing a number and some names makes TNG different? TNG is the Phase II version of TOS, with the names crossed off. Yes, Riker is a riff on Kirk as is Picard. No one in the production team thought they were creating a rude arrogant jerk when they developed Riker ( or Kirk for that matter). They wanted an assertive and slightly cocky character. Someone who will speak his mind. They also wanted a young ladies man type. All of which describe Kirk. (and Decker). That Riker comes off as a rude arrogant jerk is a failure of the writers and the actor to understand their own character. Or it might just be the viewer not getting it.

Picard is the other side of the Kirk coin. The older experienced officer with intellectual tastes. (Think Season One/Phase II/TMP Kirk) In the hands of Patrick Stewart this worked better than it did for Shatner because of the different presence he bring. Oddly Picard takes on the romantic lead and action man qualities of Kirk as the show progresses, due to the failure of the Riker character.

Data is Xon, who was a replacement for Spock both in and out universe. Troi is Ilia and Spock. Being both alien and empathic and in Troi's case, half human. All three were meant to bring parts of what Spock brought to the original show. Worf is also a riff on Spock. As are Odo, Tuvok, T'Pol, Quark and Torres. Most of the non human character fall into the Spock archetype.

Yes Pulaski was an attempt to bring a McCoy type into TNG. It probably didn't work because it was too on the nose. Guinan was the same thing but becuae they didn't do the crotchety doctor thing, it worked. Tucker on Enterprise is also the McCoy archetype. The friend of the Captain who can speak his mind. Dax was supposed to be the "McCoy" on DS9.

 

[Esirprus]

I have been working full time on the trailer for the pitch which is taking a LOT more time than I anticipated but is nearly done. Keep an eye out for it. And isn't it a little early for Christmas?

 

[Squiggy]

Too late. Someone beat you to it.

 

[BillJ]

Too late. Someone beat you to it.

Is it me or is that article kinda all over the place?

 

[Squiggy]

Pretty vague. Looks like they wanted to go to press with little info, and more details will be out later today.

 

[BillJ]

Pretty vague. Looks like they wanted to go to press with little info, and more details will be out later today.

The howls from the folks who hate the Abrams films should be delicious!

 

[Squiggy]

We will feast on their tears.

 

[BillJ]

We will feast on their tears.

 

[fireproof78]

So your evidence of the latest one being a 'redo' is purely the 'Khan' line and the dialogue from the reactor scene?

How did you handle so much of Khan's dialogue from TWOK being straight lifts from Moby Dick? All in all, 2/5's of his dialogue are probably quotes from other, better sources. Does that make it a redo? References and redo's are not the same thing, especially when the characters are aware of what they're referencing.

Precisely so. I've yet to hear complaints that TWOK or FC are "Moby Dick" rip-offs because they borrow dialog and thematic ideas.

The fact that ID had one scene and one character be the same doesn't make it a "rip-off" (save for the "KHAAN!" thing, but I can let go of that two seconds ). The underlying themes are different, the character arcs are different, and the whole tone of the film is different.

Also, TNG, as Zombie Cheerleader, was simply reskinned TOS for the first couple of seasons. It even redid (excuse me, created a sequel for) a TOS episode, the "The Naked Time."

TNG was also riff with GR's views at the time, and the characters reflected that without their TOS counterpart's charm or chemistry. Most of the main cast come across as arrogant, and (for me) unsympathetic.

Really, TNG found its groove later on, in season 3, when the cast became less arrogant and more likable. But, I didn't really discover that until much later.

Thread for new series is here.

Several articles are linked, including one from the startrek.com site. Kurtzman has been tapped for executive producer, according to reports, with a release goal of fall 2016/winter 2017.

Salt shakers are available upon request.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I have been working full time on the trailer for the pitch which is taking a LOT more time than I anticipated but is nearly done. Keep an eye out for it. And isn't it a little early for Christmas?

You're making a trailer for a pitch meeting?

 

[Dukhat]

I have been working full time on the trailer for the pitch which is taking a LOT more time than I anticipated but is nearly done. Keep an eye out for it. And isn't it a little early for Christmas?

You're making a trailer for a pitch meeting?

This is all obviously moot now, if it was ever real to begin with. Fun's over, OP.

 

[Kor]

Precisely so. I've yet to hear complaints that TWOK or FC are "Moby Dick" rip-offs because they borrow dialog and thematic ideas.

I think it's considered respectable and literate when pop culture rips off classic literature, but not when pop culture rips off other pop culture, even though it's all a bunch of fictional stories.

TNG was also riff with GR's views at the time, and the characters reflected that without their TOS counterpart's charm or chemistry. Most of the main cast come across as arrogant, and (for me) unsympathetic.

+1

Kor

 

[WarpFactorZ]

I have been working full time on the trailer for the pitch which is taking a LOT more time than I anticipated but is nearly done. Keep an eye out for it. And isn't it a little early for Christmas?

You're making a trailer for a pitch meeting?

This is all obviously moot now, if it was ever real to begin with. Fun's over, OP.

Maybe the OP was Alex Kurtzman...?

 

[Squiggy]

Hm. No new series announced yet.

I just wanna point out that I said this about 45 minutes before they announced the new series.

I guess I should've waited.