Where are we right now??

[xortex]

Once again there is a specific story behind Tarzan. I'm a TOS mostly fan and similar in age to you Mr. Cox. Have they decided whether to release the Nu-Trek books yet?
A forest without trees aint no forest anymore. If the trees bothered J.J. he should have went to the desert and got his own universe instead of knocking this one down and leveling the playing field with a bomb. People always say, oh yea but it made money. Who cares? If we leveled Iraq and built a gas station, America would make a ton of money too. Problem solved plus we come out ahead with a hunk of meat for our troubles as Serling would say. Then war is the solution to everything.

 

[Greg Cox]

Whereas Trek, as I've said, is simply an established backdrop against which to tell stories. I completely reject the comparison on those grounds.

But, again, I would argue that you're putting the cart before the horse. The backdrop is just the window-dressing; it's not the point of the stories.

And Planet of the Apes or Tarzan or whatever is not just one story any more than Sherlock Holmes is just "A Study in Scarlet" or Star Trek is just "The Cage." Once you've set up the characters or situation, you can run them through any number of narratives--which may or may not involve lots of in-universe continuity.

(I will concede, however, that both Apes and Tarzan place more emphasis on gorillas, the mugato notwithstanding.)

 

[Miss Lemon]

Its about the fact that its not the Trek I want to see take over. I want to see the Trek franchise that we know and love CONTINUE, what we're getting is an almost completely new reinvention with hugely different visuals and approach.

I see you point and I can partly relate to it. I didn't want DS9 to end and I didn't want ENT to end. I might even have cried when they did.

Your point about the visual thing I don't get though. IMO, the change in visuals and approach was the largest between the TOS series and the first movie. I mean, the retro colours, the cardboard sets, the hokey aliens, all gone. I even had more difficulty adapting to the visuals of DS9 after TNG than I had with the new movie. Or the sexing-up of Trek in ENT for that matter.

So as I see it, Star Trek has been changing continuously and sometimes it may take me a while to get used to, but in the end I'm happy that Trek is still alive.

I actually have a pet theory that most of the fans who are really bothered by the reboot are not old-school TOS fans such as myself, but are of the generation that grew up on the later spin-offs instead--and are perhaps more invested in that whole era of STAR TREK.

I wonder if there's an age issue as well. I'm old enough that I have seen most of my childhood favorites rebooted or remade several times by now, to the extent that remakes now longer fill me with the dread.

Interesting theory, but are you implying that I'm old?

 

[Greg Cox]

A forest without trees aint no forest anymore.

Been to Mt. St. Helen's lately? Trees grow back, sometimes taller than before.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except "60s, 80s and 90s" Trek is all just "Trek". So its a bigger loss than just a single tv show, its the death of a franchise and years upon years of work and material.

Nah, as long as they're making it, the franchise is still alive. And the new stuff will always build and borrow from the the older stuff.

 

[Greg Cox]

Interesting theory, but are you implying that I'm old?

I speak only of myself, I assure you.

Speaking of visuals . . .

It's funny. A while ago I met a fan (a very nice guy, btw) who told me that he couldn't get into the new movie because, in his opinion, the Starfleet insignia in the opening scenes were all wrong.

I gotta admit, I don't get that. An alien dreadnaught is attacking from the future, Captain Robau is butchered, George Kirk valiantly sacrifices his life even as his newborn son takes his first breath . . . and you're fretting about the friggin' insignia?

That's just art direction, for pete's sake!

 

[Miss Lemon]

I can respect that. I'm rather miffed about NuSpock's hair style myself. It just isn't quite right.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Interesting theory, but are you implying that I'm old?

I speak only of myself, I assure you.

Speaking of visuals . . .

It's funny. A while ago I met a fan (a very nice guy, btw) who told me that he couldn't get into the new movie because, in his opinion, the Starfleet insignia in the opening scenes were all wrong.

I gotta admit, I don't get that. An alien dreadnaught is attacking from the future, Captain Robau is butchered, George Kirk valiantly sacrifices his life even as his newborn son takes his first breath . . . and you're fretting about the friggin' insignia?

That's just art direction, for pete's sake!

The Arrowhead????? He must not have watched the Cage or WNMHGB very closely. Some major insignia shenanigans in those.

 

[xortex]

Think of all the people I could help and good I could do with the money I steal from a bank or if America levels Iraq with some of our problem solving three thousand pound bombs. Everybody wins in that case, especially the mercenaries who clean up.

 

[Admiral Bear]

I can respect that. I'm rather miffed about NuSpock's hair style myself. It just isn't right.

I'm sure that soone enough, you'll get to see Spock's spikey morning bed hair when he wakes up next to Uhura.

 

[Count Zero]

Spamming now, xortex? Or just posting in the wrong thread?

 

[xortex]

Right thread, wrong forum.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Except "60s, 80s and 90s" Trek is all just "Trek". So its a bigger loss than just a single tv show, its the death of a franchise and years upon years of work and material.

Nah, as long as they're making it, the franchise is still alive. And the new stuff will always build and borrow from the the older stuff.

Well in my opinion, it feels like a whole different franchise with very little heart.

 

[Greg Cox]

Except "60s, 80s and 90s" Trek is all just "Trek". So its a bigger loss than just a single tv show, its the death of a franchise and years upon years of work and material.

Nah, as long as they're making it, the franchise is still alive. And the new stuff will always build and borrow from the the older stuff.

Well in my opinion, it feels like a whole different franchise with very little heart.

Hard to judge on the basis of only one film. Without getting into (yet another) long debate about the pros and cons of the new movie, just remember that "Encounter at Farpoint" had its problems and that, IMHO, TNG didn't really get its act together until at least its second season. (To my mind, "Measure of a Man" was the first truly good episode.)

Heck, even the TOS movies didn't really hit their stride until the second film. (Indeed, one of the common complaints about TMP was that it lacked heart.)

The more things change . . . .

 

[Nerys Myk]

Except "60s, 80s and 90s" Trek is all just "Trek". So its a bigger loss than just a single tv show, its the death of a franchise and years upon years of work and material.

Nah, as long as they're making it, the franchise is still alive. And the new stuff will always build and borrow from the the older stuff.

Well in my opinion, it feels like a whole different franchise with very little heart.

Franchise in this context has very little with the feel,look or style of a particular production. The Batman TV series, the Burton films, the Schumacher films and the Nolan films are all part of the Batman Franchise. They are connected by the Batman character.

Frankly the 24th Century shows always came across as a bit "heartless" to me. TOS always had more heart and wore its emotions on its sleeve. The opening of ST09 and later scenes such as the death of Amanda have more heart and emotion than entire seasons of TNG and VOY. So to my mind ST09 is following the TOS lead. Which I guess might be a problem for fans of the 24th Century shows.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Hard to judge on the basis of only one film. Without getting into (yet another) long debate about the pros and cons of the new movie, just remember that "Encounter at Farpoint" had its problems and that, IMHO, TNG didn't really get its act together until at least its second season. (To my mind, "Measure of a Man" was the first truly good episode.)

Heck, even the TOS movies didn't really hit their stride until the second film. (Indeed, one of the common complaints about TMP was that it lacked heart.)

Yep.

Frankly the 24th Century shows always came across as a bit "heartless" to me. TOS always had more heart and wore its emotions on its sleeve. The opening of ST09 and later scenes such as the death of Amanda have more heart and emotion than entire seasons of TNG and VOY. So to my mind ST09 is following the TOS lead.

Agreed.

 

[xortex]

People said TMP lacked action, not heart, and just the opposite, said it came closest to capturing the essance of what Trek was really about until it became a cartoon with TWOK that is.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The lack of heart really refers to the cynicism of rebooting the franchise and redoing the original characters.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I didn't see much heart in TMP. The sets were a bit cold and sterile. The characterizations off. The plot a retread of a better written episode. Even the scenes where we are supposed to "feel" something fall flat. It pretty much missed the "essence" of what Star Trek is by a mile.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The lack of heart really refers to the cynicism of rebooting the franchise and redoing the original characters.

Not sure how that tracks. Cynicism????