The only way forward for Star Trek

[The Castellan]

The prime timeline is dead and gone. Only the books and fanfiction will continue it, well, essentially the same thing ones just paid.

Only in your wildest dreams, sparky.

TOS merchandise sells out, while JJTrek stuff is on clearance at Big Lots. TNG is getting a nice shiny HD makeover. Original continuity novels are still coming out on a fairly regular basis. And if the old timeline is so damn toxic and JJTrek has you creaming your jeans on an hourly basis, riddle he this: Why have Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise in the first place if that period is such a dead fish?

Seems to me that there's plenty of life left in the original timeline.

Yep.

Let's get rid of the idealistic 60's and face the future with an eye to a more realistic portrayal of humanity.

What's this hard on for 'realism' and the dark, gritty stuff?

One man's "kewl" is another man's "visionary".

We're talking about the same guy who made "Lost", you know...that visionary is quite an overrated one...and I only have one word to describe that guy's success: Lucky. If that's going to be the new hopeful vision of the future...that's going to be one grim future.

LOL, people are so unoriginal and many don't even know what Star Trek is about. It's not about jet fighters in space idea that was JJ trek, or some "gritty" trash.

It's about a vision of a better future, it's about humans improving themselves, being better than they are. If you don't like it, watch something else.

If another creative genius comes along, he can easily set a series in regular timeline in the 26th century, new technologies would be invented, with new characters, and new stories - but they would all be linked with the theme of Star Trek. New generations of kids would be in awe of this strange new universe, and perhaps some of them would be inspired by it.

This is what happened with me when Gene decided to create something slightly different in the 80's instead of going back and rebooting and telling something that was already told. Of course, all this depends on someone original and in love with Trek taking over the franchise (what an ugly word with all its connotations), not some quick scheming money-grabber

You, sir, rock. ~Gives Tiberius a cookie~

If anything, we need to bring back the idealism of the 60's (a time I'm sorry I didn't live though, although it was close) and dial back all this angsty ambiguity.

Makes sense, especially when all things happening no one expected to see happen, especially this year alone....with the events in Egypt, Libya, the Occupy Movement (though the mainstream media is only focusing on the upper middle class folks only even being there so they can weasel out of paying their credit card bills, rather than focusing on the folks who are there legitimately ), and now Russia.



Someone wants a dirtier, grimier, grittier, and darker thing to watch....you got Star Wars (JJ LOVES Star Wars), Galactica, Stargate, Starship Troopers, and what not. Leave Trek alone.

 

[Rowdy Roddy McDowall]

J.J. Abrams has flair and talent, but he does the right things for the wrong reasons. Right thing: revitalizing TREK after two of the less impressive film sequels. Wrong thing: revitalizing it for the publicly stated purpose of trying to STAR WARSify TREK. (Ironically, this ''midichloridian'' business is rare moment of STAR TREKifying WARS.) Ever since George Lucas discovered SPFX ship clutter in RETURN OF THE JEDI, he's been overdoing it in prequel shots. Then Abrams is inspired by such clutter in his TREK's prologue. You could say he's turning the '60s into the '80s, '90s and '00s.
For Abrams the '80s comparison is significant because his SUPER 8 is a sly love letter to Steven Spielberg's '80s cinema naturally produced by Steven Spielberg. It's sly enough to cast the black teacher from GREMLINS as ANOTHER teacher as a Spielberg homage, but some of us caught that. It's weird enough to let an alien mass murderer get away in the end because Spielberg let aliens get away before, and the alien only kills adults, not kids. The only thing more offensive than that ending to an otherwise well-made film is the ridiculous extreme Abrams' head is lodged up Spielberg's rear ejection chute. But for better or worse, he is our new TREK conduit for the time being.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We're talking about the same guy who made "Lost", you know...that visionary is quite an overrated one...and I only have one word to describe that guy's success: Lucky. If that's going to be the new hopeful vision of the future...that's going to be one grim future.

I wasn't talking about anyone rather I was talking about how people perceive things differently.

But since you brought him up, looks like his "luck" is holding out.

Mr Lucky also has a new TV show

And a recent `film that has done well in theatres, DVD and critically.

Sorry you didn't like Lost.Looks like some people did.

Lost isn't Star Trek. The new movie wasn't "grim, dark and gritty" and I doubt the next one will be either.

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's weird enough to let an alien mass murderer get away in the end because Spielberg let aliens get away before, and the alien only kills adults, not kids. .

Kirk let Khan and the Kelvens go ( both murderers) and even gave them planets. Looks like Trek is in the right hands.

 

[The Castellan]

We're talking about the same guy who made "Lost", you know...that visionary is quite an overrated one...and I only have one word to describe that guy's success: Lucky. If that's going to be the new hopeful vision of the future...that's going to be one grim future.

I wasn't talking about anyone rather I was talking about how people perceive things differently.

But since you brought him up, looks like his "luck" is holding out.

Mr Lucky also has a new TV show

And a recent `film that has done well in theatres, DVD and critically.

Sorry you didn't like Lost.Looks like some people did.

Lost isn't Star Trek. The new movie wasn't "grim, dark and gritty" and I doubt the next one will be either.

JJ Trek looked pretty dark and grim to me. Apart from the names, felt nothing like Trek at all.

 

[Dukhat]

JJ Trek looked pretty dark and grim to me. Apart from the names, felt nothing like Trek at all.

Felt just like Star Trek to me.

 

[Nerys Myk]

We're talking about the same guy who made "Lost", you know...that visionary is quite an overrated one...and I only have one word to describe that guy's success: Lucky. If that's going to be the new hopeful vision of the future...that's going to be one grim future.

I wasn't talking about anyone rather I was talking about how people perceive things differently.

But since you brought him up, looks like his "luck" is holding out.

Mr Lucky also has a new TV show

And a recent `film that has done well in theatres, DVD and critically.

Sorry you didn't like Lost.Looks like some people did.

Lost isn't Star Trek. The new movie wasn't "grim, dark and gritty" and I doubt the next one will be either.

JJ Trek looked pretty dark and grim to me. Apart from the names, felt nothing like Trek at all.

No more that TOS was. TOS dealt with death on a planetary (and at times a system wide) scale as well as on a more personal level. The movie did the same. The society seen in the film wasn't a dark and grim dystopia. It was bright the same way TOS was bright. They just switched out primary colors for white. It's a positive future. Starfleet is a peace keeping armada not a war machine designed to grind down its opponents. Humans and aliens of all types work together as equals. There are dark moments in both versions. Kirk in each timeline survive horrible tragedy (Tarsus IV and his fathers death, respectively) and manage to come out of it positively. But it's the type of darkness that only helps shows the light.

So, again not dark and grim. Not sure what movie you saw, but it couldn't have been ST09. Which was a blend of action, humor, idealism and character like TOS.

 

[A.V.I.A.F.]

I wasn't talking about anyone rather I was talking about how people perceive things differently.

But since you brought him up, looks like his "luck" is holding out.

Mr Lucky also has a new TV show

And a recent `film that has done well in theatres, DVD and critically.

Sorry you didn't like Lost.Looks like some people did.

Lost isn't Star Trek. The new movie wasn't "grim, dark and gritty" and I doubt the next one will be either.

JJ Trek looked pretty dark and grim to me. Apart from the names, felt nothing like Trek at all.

No more that TOS was. TOS dealt with death on a planetary (and at times a system wide) scale as well as on a more personal level. The movie did the same. The society seen in the film wasn't a dark and grim dystopia. It was bright the same way TOS was bright. They just switched out primary colors for white. It's a positive future. Starfleet is a peace keeping armada not a war machine designed to grind down its opponents. Humans and aliens of all types work together as equals. There are dark moments in both versions. Kirk in each timeline survive horrible tragedy (Tarsus IV and his fathers death, respectively) and manage to come out of it positively. But it's the type of darkness that only helps shows the light.

So, again not dark and grim. Not sure what movie you saw, but it couldn't have been ST09. Which was a blend of action, humor, idealism and character like TOS.

At the risk of sounding facetious, I think a big part of the reason why many people mistakenly perceive TOS as utopian and ultra-positive is because of the tie-dye and other 60s-esque type clothing and designs in the show.

 

[MattWallace]

TOS, as a product of the 60's, did push boundries that existed at the time. Not as far as they could have if not for the network censors sticking their noses into things.

More realistic does not mean dark and gritty. Star Trek should not be NuBSG although it can take some cues from it in it's portrayal of the things good people can do in bad situations. It's about learning how to be better than we are, not simply being better than we are. It's about showing how we can continue to strive to reach an impossible goal.

A future version of Trek would do well to establish some paramaters and then stick to them and deal with the consequences instead of having the transporter or a subspace field or a previously unknown alien ability solve the problem in the final act.

Establish what the transporter can and cannot do and then stick to it. Don't allow beaming through shields in one episode and then prevent it in another. Establish who's in the chain of command and how they can be relieved. Figure out what the Prime Directive actually allows and stick to it. If someone breaks it, make sure that there's are very strong consequences for their actions, up to and including court martial and imprisonment. When someone dies, they stay dead. Death should not be a revolving door. No time travel. If you can simply go back and change the outsome of something, why isn't it done all the time. It's a can of worms best left closed.

Look at Stiles from Balance of Terror. He hardly came across as enlightened and yet it led to great drama between him, Spock and Kirk. He learned from his experience. It should be a journey though, not a single event.

An interesting way to do trek would be subplots that cross multiple episodes before growing into full stories. Your actions in one story may be expanded or curtailed by your actions in a previous one. Characters should grow, learn, love, die. Nobody should be safe. And safe doesn't just refer to safe from death. Legal actions, disease, personal issues. All of them can lead to characters leaving the show at any time. Don't just wait for people to decide they're not coming back, atructure the stories so that people leaving and new ones coming in is a natural part of the show.

 

[nightwind1]

We're talking about the same guy who made "Lost", you know...that visionary is quite an overrated one...and I only have one word to describe that guy's success: Lucky. If that's going to be the new hopeful vision of the future...that's going to be one grim future.

I wasn't talking about anyone rather I was talking about how people perceive things differently.

But since you brought him up, looks like his "luck" is holding out.

Mr Lucky also has a new TV show

And a recent `film that has done well in theatres, DVD and critically.

Sorry you didn't like Lost.Looks like some people did.

Lost isn't Star Trek. The new movie wasn't "grim, dark and gritty" and I doubt the next one will be either.

JJ Trek looked pretty dark and grim to me. Apart from the names, felt nothing like Trek at all.

It felt VERY MUCH like Trek, and I say that as someone whose been a total fan since 1966.

 

[CaptainMatt]

Is a reboot of the Original Series.

A recasting of the Kirk crew and a reintroduction to some of the old foes encountered in the 5 year mission.

Also a tie in to Enterprise, by encountering some Archer enemies, eg Suliban.

Thats my humble opinion, imagine Kirk with enhanced visual effects at his disposal

ST09 or haven't you been paying attention? A colossal fail in my view, but I'm used to being in the minority.

That is what I said in my post. So no sir you are not in the minority. At the very least you got me also of the same mind. ST 2009 is a reboot of TOS, we need no other, definitely not at the present time when the movies being made are based on TOS.

 

[A.V.I.A.F.]

Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but the phrase "you can't go home again" keeps coming to mind. Love the originals, but give up on trying to absolutely duplicate it. Such an endeavor is futile. Perhaps JJ realized this and that is one of the reasons why he created a re-engineered version.

 

[CaptainMatt]

Recreated it may be but it is still taking place in the OS universe. This should be the closest anyone comes to redoing TOS. We simply do not need it. Unless of course the original actors come together for a reunion movie like some of the surviving cast have done in predominantly fan productions.

 

[xortex]

Original universe, yes. Kirk and Spock, not neccessary. Original designs, no. A prequel, yes. Enterprise and Archer, no. A new premise, yes.

 

[CaptainMatt]

Sounds like you've been thinking hard about it.

 

[A beaker full of death]

Oh for fuck's sake. Star Trek is over. The movie took the name of Star Trek and turned it into the very opposite of what it had stood for. Forget it. Time to move on.
Master and Commander and the Horatio Hornblower films were the closest we've seen to Star Trek in years.

 

[Warped9]

Master and Commander and the Horatio Hornblower films were the closest we've seen to Star Trek in years.

 

[jayrath]

Why is this even on the TOS board? It should be on the Future of Trek board. It's just trolling, here.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Oh for fuck's sake. Star Trek is over. The movie took the name of Star Trek and turned it into the very opposite of what it had stood for. Forget it. Time to move on.
Master and Commander and the Horatio Hornblower films were the closest we've seen to Star Trek in years.

Actually, none of that is at all true. Abrams's movie is excellent Star Trek.

I liked Master and Commander, although Galaxy Quest was a better Star Trek movie.

 

[Warped9]

Abrams's movie is excellent Star Trek.

Evidently you don't ask for much.

...Galaxy Quest was a better Star Trek movie.

Case in point.