The only way forward for Star Trek

[Maurice]

One of the parts I found especially "dark,' and that emphasized the differences in the two Kirks, was in the Kobayashi Maru. Kirk change the simulation so that the Klingon ships shields dropped, at the same time obviously the Klingons also stopped firing on Kirk's ship.

So on the field of battle, you have hundreds of now defenseless Klingon warriors, who are no longer any threat to Kirk's ship or the ship he's there to rescue.

At which point Kirk orders the Klingons killed.

That misses the point of the scene entirely. Kirk has no respect for the Kobayashi Maru test, which he thinks is bogus, so he's not taking it seriously at all. His hack turns the no-win-scenario into a can't-lose scenario, and he "pew pew" zaps the simulated enemy ships as a way of thumbing his nose at the whole thing.

 

[Trekker4747]

That was the essential point of what I said. After a decent start in '89 and then a weird sequel the next two films were crap.

And just because something is a commercial success that doesn't automatically make it good. Lots of things get embraced by the public at large while others shake their head over it.

Well, the second OU Batman movies' problem was Tim Burton's beginning to descend into madness and macabre. The last two movies having to do with an untalented director and studio involvement wanting to push the movies towards more kid-friendly visuals and to sell toys.

And while commercial success certainly has no bearing on how "good" a movie the word-of-mouth that comes with that success does. Star Trek '09 was a commercial success and a WOM success, even now nearly three years later people still regard it favorably. I watched the space-jump scene the other night when messing with a new sound system at a friend's and still found it to be a neat scene. The movie is not without its flaws but it was still decently made and well received.

On the other hand, you've got the Transformer movies which are commercial successes but very heavily maligned by audiences and reviewers.

So, pretty much by your own metric, Star Trek '09 was a successful movie because it was well regarded by critics and audiences and the movie made a tidy take at the Box Office.

Now, I agree the movie has a lot of problems in it mostly in terms of a rather pedestrian plot. I'm willing to wave that away as being a way to pull people in. Now for the second movie is a chance for the writers to more explore the concept and really delve into some heavier stuff and be more "Star Treky." (I say this while knowing nothing as far as pre-release/production news with the new movie.)

 

[Warped9]

^^ I suspect the sequel will emphasize lots of the very things many of us non-fans of the film dislike.

 

[Lord Garth]

I'd just like to squeeze something in here that has nothing to do with Warped9 and what he likes or doesn't like. Sorry for the inconvenience.

However, that said, I do think Star Trek needs to retain the idealism of TOS because that is its unique quality. And cable isn't unfriendly to shows that explore meaningful concepts such as "it's easy to be a saint in paradise." The Walking Dead in particular grapples with the issue of whether people can maintain their humanity in extremely brutal circumstances, and I think that's part of the show's appeal. But the challenges that cable would throw at Our Heroes would make anything Sisko or Kirk faced look like softballs.

This is something I would look foward to watching. A Star Trek on AMC would be great, and it would benefit from having a 13-episode season. Varied characters, more challenging material, and being able to take risks, either storywise or artistically, that a family show or expensive blockbusters couldn't.

 

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

But I still think "fun" trumps "respectable" where STAR TREK is concerned. Nobody ever got hooked on STAR TREK as a kid because it was really, really respectable . . . .

I know when I was five, I was watching because of the cool spaceships and fist-fights.

Hear, hear!

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The characters of TOS were intelligent and credibly flawed. The nuTrek characters are idiots and thoroughly flawed and never written as credible---they're all caricatures.

For the billionth time, you can't compare a TV series, with three full seasons with which to develop the characters, to movies, with two paltry hours every three years, and at least half the running time needs to be devoted to explosions.

Nonsense. All I have to do is compare "Where No Man Has Gone Before" or "The Corbomite Maneuver" or "Balance Of Terror" or any individual early first season TOS episode to ST09 and it's blatantly black-and-white. TOS was well thought out from the get-go to appeal on many levels while maintaining an adult sensibility throughout. ST09 is blatant sop to a juvenile mindset and it shows in every frame.

Okay, fine, Mr Literal. You can compare TV and movies, because it's possible for you to type the words.

What I meant was, it's senseless to do so, because it has nothing to do with anything could happen in actual reality.

Star Trek on TV would be very different from anything we've seen on TV before. The environment that allowed TNG to flourish is gone. It goes without saying that the environment that TOS existed in is an even more distant memory.

Abrams' movies are the way they are because that's what the summer popcorn movie audience demands. There's no TV audience demanding more Star Trek along the lines of TOS or TNG, at least not one large enough to maintain a decent budget.

There may not be one anywhere, but if there is, the most likely place for it is either SyFy, where Star Trek would be at risk of becoming a degraded shadow of itself, or AMC/FX/Showtime/HBO, where it could be fantastic, but also a huge departure from any TV series before it, because the audience for those channels is not going to want the episodic approach of TOS or the easy moralizing of TNG. Star Trek on any of those outlets would be more like Game of Thrones, The Walking Dead, or True Blood.

However, whenever I mention this idea, I get a few positive responses like Lord Garth's - which tells me that there may be some fire behind that smoke. I'd love to see Star Trek given the premium cable treatment, and I'd welcome a big change if that's what's required to get it back on TV, as long as the change is an improvement in quality - making the storytelling more complex and adult than it's ever been.

Some people will loathe this change, just as some people loathe Abrams' movies, but that can't be helped. Both movies and TV have their own logic and their own demands - not everything we can imagine can survive as a movie or as a TV series. At least in the case of TV, everything isn't being squashed into the same popcorn-action mold.

 

[Broccoli]

It is mass-market Star Trek, designed to appeal to the widest cross-section of ticket buyers it possibly can.

You've just described every Star Trek movie ever made. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

ST09 was a huge success as a summer popcorn flick, but it is not anywhere near achieving the cultural penetration that TOS and TNG did. When people today think of Kirk, they think William Shatner, not Chris Pine. And when people in 50 years think of Kirk, they will still think of William Shatner.

And when people think of Batman, they'll think of Adam West, not Christian Bale.

Seriously, when in the history of Hollywood, has a franchise ever gone back to the old continuity after rebooting itself?

Arguably, Superman did this.

They obviously had a history--just like Decker and Ilia, or Kirk and Carol Marcus, or Riker and Troi. Or Kirk and Ruth, Kirk and Areel Shaw, or Kirk and Janice Lester . . . .

All sex hook-ups. Nothing more.

Sadly, though, we live in an age where so many are afraid of mere words and take issue or offence over any little thing.

Like a movie, but I'm sure that's different...

 

[horatio83]

It is mass-market Star Trek, designed to appeal to the widest cross-section of ticket buyers it possibly can.

You've just described every Star Trek movie ever made. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

Actually the larger budget and the large marketing expenditures of ST09 influenced the design of the movie. More than any Trek movie before it was particularly designed to appeal to the wide masses but due to all the fanwank in it it was also designed to appeal to many Trekkers.
The most popular Trek movie on the other hand neither tried to reach everybody nor to reach every Trekker. Otherwise it would have been much more conservative and Meyer would not have implemented a lot of seemingly (in a nice dialectical twist at least the endings of his movies turned out to be more Roddenberryian than The Rodd himself) anti-Trek-ish elements like militarism.
In my eyes the best Trek movies have been the ones which combined thematic density with simple entertainment in a balanced fashion. You can neither make an entertaining Trek movie by merely trying to make an entertaining mass-market blockbuster nor by trying to make some artsy-fartsy 2001 copy, you need the best of both worlds. ST09 leaned too far towards one direction, that's why it is a decent but not an outstanding or memorable Trek movie.

 

[TrekFan70]

I think that it could be possible to create a new Trek series which fans would connect with that would be viable both economically for the studio, as well as popular with the fans watching. The problem is that, from my own perspective, the people who are in charge of Star Trek don't really like it, don't understand what made it popular with fans to begin with and as a result, because they don't quite grasp the ideals which Gene Roddenberry held in his mind when he created TOS and even TNG.. What we get feels off kilter to us somehow.

The story lines are familiar, because they're copying events from other series to some degree. Or else they just feel flat, with too much focus on one character or on technobabble (which I read about earlier in another thread and people there made some fantastic and very well though out comments on), or it just makes no sense at all in the grand scheme of the series.

It's like .. I have no interest at all in restoring old cars, but there's another junker out in the side yard by the garage waiting on yet more parts which my husband ordered for it to get it going. It's his 'thing', a hobby he really enjoys. Well, at least up to once he's got the car running and repainted and it looks nice. Then he gets bored with it, sells it, and buys another beat up junker to do it over with. So, put me in charge of fixing up that car out there. Yeah I'd manage it but it would cost more because hey.. girl.. no idea how to work on an engine beyond where to put the gas in, where the oil goes and how to check if it needs it, and how to change a battery or an air filter. Basic concepts easily managed by even someone like me who only learned how as a means of saving a little money.

You'll get the silly car fixed (this one is another RX7 out there.. 1983 model).. but would be done as well, with the same attention to the details as he'll give to the project?

Nope.

And not even because I don't share the same enthusiasm, but simply because due to my own lack of same level of interest (did that make sense?) there are details to the job that would never even occur to me.

Same thing with Star Trek. Voyager and Enterprise were handed over to people who knew how to do the basic maintenance jobs, but some of the details just didn't cross their minds because they never had that same level of enthusiasm and interest in it to begin with.

If someone who was a fan of the series, who had that enthusiasm and interest in the details..

The end result would be amazing.

 

[Ssosmcin]

You've just described every Star Trek movie ever made. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

Arguably, Star Trek III was aimed squarely at the fans. Non fans could watch the film and not get half of what they were talking about. TSFS practically demanded a prior knowledge of Star Trek, at the very least the previous film. But also, at the time, Trek fans, as a group, were large enough to bring in the bucks.

And when people think of Batman, they'll think of Adam West, not Christian Bale.

The 60's series is not being run anyplace mainstream and is not on DVD. Most people younger than my generation think Adam West is a character on Family Guy. The old Batman series is way off the map now. My son has no attachment to the old show and a lot of younger people (and plenty of olders too) would just think the series was "stupid." And it sometimes was. I preferred The Green Hornet.

They obviously had a history--just like Decker and Ilia, or Kirk and Carol Marcus, or Riker and Troi. Or Kirk and Ruth, Kirk and Areel Shaw, or Kirk and Janice Lester . . . .

All sex hook-ups. Nothing more.

Disagree: Decker and Ilia obviously had something stronger. Riker and Trio finally got married for Christ's sake, so there was a lot more involved there. Kirk and Carol? Nothing concrete, but she was important enough for Bones to remember her.

 

[chardman]

^^ I suspect the sequel will emphasize lots of the very things many of us non-fans of the film dislike.

We can only hope.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I suspect the sequel will emphasize lots of the very things many of us non-fans of the film dislike.

We can only hope.

You'll probably get your wish...and then it'll be yet another stupid piece o' crap just like the first one yet even more so.

In twenty years or so folks will probably be looking back at these turds and laugh themselves silly.

 

[Nerys Myk]

There are folks who already do that with TOS. Doesn't mean much.

 

[Broccoli]

It is mass-market Star Trek, designed to appeal to the widest cross-section of ticket buyers it possibly can.

You've just described every Star Trek movie ever made. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

Actually the larger budget and the large marketing expenditures of ST09 influenced the design of the movie.

While the new film had more money to throw around, no, every Trek film was made for a wide audience, regardless of design or size of budget. Star Trek III might be the least accessible, but that has more to do with the fact that it directly follows on from the previous movie. But, even still, the prologue fills in all the necessary details, because it was made for a wide audience.

No studio would finance a film for mainstream theatrical release aimed solely for a niche demographic.

You've just described every Star Trek movie ever made. It would be foolish to think otherwise.

Arguably, Star Trek III was aimed squarely at the fans. Non fans could watch the film and not get half of what they were talking about. TSFS practically demanded a prior knowledge of Star Trek, at the very least the previous film. But also, at the time, Trek fans, as a group, were large enough to bring in the bucks.

No, "Star Trek fans" were never that big as a group to carry a movie by themselves. You forget, Star Trek was popular with mainstream audiences back in the 80s. That's why those movies and, to some extent, TNG did as well as they did. If the next film is as successful as ST09, we could be looking at a reborn mainstream popularity.

But, I forget, we can't have that.

They obviously had a history--just like Decker and Ilia, or Kirk and Carol Marcus, or Riker and Troi. Or Kirk and Ruth, Kirk and Areel Shaw, or Kirk and Janice Lester . . . .

All sex hook-ups. Nothing more.

Disagree: Decker and Ilia obviously had something stronger. Riker and Trio finally got married for Christ's sake, so there was a lot more involved there. Kirk and Carol? Nothing concrete, but she was important enough for Bones to remember her.[/QUOTE]

-----=====WHOOSH!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

^^ I suspect the sequel will emphasize lots of the very things many of us non-fans of the film dislike.

Since these are apparently many of the things I liked, I'm fine with that.

And of course the studio is never going to go back to doing Star Trek the way they did it before this last film. They're not idiots, regardless of what would-be industry analysts in Internet forums like to imagine.

 

[Warped9]

^^ I suspect the sequel will emphasize lots of the very things many of us non-fans of the film dislike.

Since these are apparently many of the things I liked, I'm fine with that.

Good for you. Enjoy the lens flare, nonsensical story elements, dumb-as-shit characterizations and poor production design.

They're not idiots, regardless of what would-be industry analysts in Internet forums like to imagine.

 

[Ssosmcin]

No, "Star Trek fans" were never that big as a group to carry a movie by themselves. You forget, Star Trek was popular with mainstream audiences back in the 80s.

Which meant there were more Star Trek fans; the fanbase was larger. At its peak, there were tons of fans, not just the always-there core die-hard "Trekkies who wore costumes at conventions". Which is why a movie like The Wrath of Khan, a film following up an old episode, aimed squarely at fans, could do so well. I doubt the same movie could be made today and be a hit. They weren't simply looking to get "all the people who never heard of Star Trek" into the theater. They were looking to satisfy the audience they knew was there so they'd come and see the film multiple times (the so called "built-in" audience).

So yes, in the early 80's, the Star Trek Fan audience was large enough to bring in money because there were a LOT more of them. Without that, the first three films would never have made the box office money they did.

Today the approach to getting the audience in the seats is different. It has to be.

-----=====WHOOSH!

Apparently something flew over my head. My bad, I guess.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, "Star Trek fans" were never that big as a group to carry a movie by themselves. You forget, Star Trek was popular with mainstream audiences back in the 80s.

Which meant there were more Star Trek fans; the fanbase was larger. At its peak, there were tons of fans, not just the always-there core die-hard "Trekkies who wore costumes at conventions".

No. Just because someone enjoyed a movie didn't make them a "Star Trek fan" in the sense of having a previous interest or developing a forward-going interest in other Trek movies and/or TV shows. I attended a number of Trek films where out of, say, four people in a group I was the only one who had any real interest in the material - the others just wanted to see a movie with friends, preferably a good one (eh) and I happened to be the picker.

That's why a movie like ST 4 surged upward in ticket sales over the previous films and ST 5 fell back - because there was no previous interest and certainly no sense of curiosity (much less loyalty) generated toward Trek by The Voyage Home. People just heard that it was a good, funny movie.

 

[nightwind1]

^^ I suspect the sequel will emphasize lots of the very things many of us non-fans of the film dislike.

Let's hope so.

 

[T'Bonz]

Eh. This is more Gen Trek. It's gone a zillion pages now and is now pretty much a snipe fest, so I see no point in tormenting them by sending this there.

Plus - I'm back full-time from my holiday quasi-break.