Where are we right now??

[Count Zero]

I'd like to advise everyone to remain calm. Some comments are getting too close to the area of personal attacks in my opinion. Just repeat with me: "It's just a show. I should really just relax." Talking about Trek should be fun and not get people angry or annoyed.

 

[xortex]

Legal rights? There's a contadiction in terms oxymoron for you. You mean, money and power, don't you?

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's GR's creation, which is an artistic visionary project, not just Paramount's property, which just boils it down to a commercial product, which in and by itself doesn't interest me. If a guy makes money selling drugs or saves money doing something illegal or that disrespects somebody, does that impress you? 'Cause if it does, there's something wrong with you.

Are you actually comparing making a TV show or movie based on someone else's "creation" (one that you own the rights to) to selling drugs or engaging in other illegal activities? Seriously???

Sorry to break it to you, but Star Trek is a commercial product. It was created to make GR money. It was financed by the studio and network, with the hope that it would make them money. GR gave it to them. Later he tried to get on back on board the gravy train he jumped off of at least three time, so he could again make money.

If you're looking for something that's purely "Artistic", Star Trek ain't it.

 

[Greg Cox]

It's not even about money or copyright or business. Bram Stoker died a hundred years ago. Does that mean nobody can ever make another Dracula movie or write another Dracula novel because it was his own unique artistic vision? Of course not. Great characters and stories eventually take on a life of their own.

Roddenberry, may he rest in peace, had nothing to do with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, or even most of the movies. Does that make them all worthless and/or suspect?

Of course not. Ditto for new universe.

Unless you want to retire Star Trek forever, or keep it preserved in amber, you have to accept that new people are rework and revamp it occasionally, sometimes to good effect.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Legal rights? There's a contadiction in terms oxymoron for you. You mean, money and power, don't you?

No he means legal rights. As in whats being done isn't against the law and is fine because its theirs.

 

[cooleddie74]

If STAR TREK is going to survive it needs new people and new ideas to be infused on a fairly regular basis, even if those people and ideas are somewhat controversial. It's that simple.

TREKs 2009 and 2013 are helping keep the franchise profitable and breathing. I, for one, am forever grateful to Paramount for giving the franchise another chance at glory in the wake of the failures of NEMESIS and ENTERPRISE. The studio took a chance and reaped the rewards, and we the fanbase got to see our beloved TREK once again. It was a win-win for both sides.

 

[Enterprise is Great]

Except for those who don't like it. They're in the minority it seems though. Most seem to like/love Star Trek 2009. Paramount wants butt in the seats and so far it's working.

 

[xortex]

It's not even about money or copyright or business. Bram Stoker died a hundred years ago. Does that mean nobody can ever make another Dracula movie or write another Dracula novel because it was his own unique artistic vision? Of course not. Great characters and stories eventually take on a life of their own.

Roddenberry, may he rest in peace, had nothing to do with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, or even most of the movies. Does that make them all worthless and/or suspect?

Of course not. Ditto for new universe.

Unless you want to retire Star Trek forever, you have to accept that new people are rework and revamp it occasionally, sometimes to good effect.

The image of Fred Astaire is still selling dirt devil vacuum cleaners too. In fact some movie stars make more money after they die than while they were alive, so what was that about money again?

 

[cooleddie74]

It's not even about money or copyright or business. Bram Stoker died a hundred years ago. Does that mean nobody can ever make another Dracula movie or write another Dracula novel because it was his own unique artistic vision? Of course not. Great characters and stories eventually take on a life of their own.

Roddenberry, may he rest in peace, had nothing to do with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, or even most of the movies. Does that make them all worthless and/or suspect?

Of course not. Ditto for new universe.

Unless you want to retire Star Trek forever, you have to accept that new people are rework and revamp it occasionally, sometimes to good effect.

The image of Fred Astaire is still selling dirt devil vacuum cleaners too. In fact some movie stars make more money after they die than while they were alive, so what was that about money again?

Ummm.... and?!

What does that have to do with anything?!

 

[Nerys Myk]

It's not even about money or copyright or business. Bram Stoker died a hundred years ago. Does that mean nobody can ever make another Dracula movie or write another Dracula novel because it was his own unique artistic vision? Of course not. Great characters and stories eventually take on a life of their own.

Roddenberry, may he rest in peace, had nothing to do with DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, or even most of the movies. Does that make them all worthless and/or suspect?

Of course not. Ditto for new universe.

Unless you want to retire Star Trek forever, you have to accept that new people are rework and revamp it occasionally, sometimes to good effect.

The image of Fred Astaire is still selling dirt devil vacuum cleaners too. In fact some movie stars make more money after they die than while they were alive, so what was that about money again?

You can use it to buy a vacuum and your house won't be dirty.

 

[RandyS]

What it all amounts to is that some people just don't want the new STAR TREK because they feel(incorrectly and absurdly) that it defecates on the memory of the old TREK and its characters. And I and countless others say it doesn't. What you consider "inconsiderate" I consider a non-issue and that non-issue doesn't give me negative emotions towards the new films and timeline. So what if Romulus got destroyed in the Picard era? Does it really bother and nag you so much that it makes you completely jaded and miserable in regards to the bulk or entirety of nuTREK?

Your loss. I don't see a whole lot of others in here thinking its an abomination or blasphemy to the rest of the franchise. We have other, much more important things to nitpick besides the destruction of one planet in another timeline and having no immediate follow-up to satisfy our curiosity.

Yep, such as Picard. Will he have hair in the new timeline? I personally am VERY anxious to find out! And Riker, will he have a beard? Be bald?? What??

They better not, otherwise NuTrek (I REALLY hate that term!!) is disrepectful to Stewart and Frakes!!

Boycott the movie now!!

 

[You_Will_Fail]

The Many Worlds Interpretation. Real world science, an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I'm no expert, but there's the belief that there's infinite versions of our world that exists out there with an infinite number of differences caused by an infinite number of different choices/outcomes. That isn't the same as a universe literally popping into existence because of each decision is it.

So, if they blow up Romulus in a movie set in the prime universe its okay?

What hasn't been clear? If a prime-universe tv show/movie blew up Romulus then chances are they'd actually be dealing with it - that's fine. But nu-Trek just blew up prime universe Romulus when the film isn't even set in the same universe and have zero intention of really dealing with the consequences on the prime universe. Its not difficult to understand the distinction.

What it all amounts to is that some people just don't want the new STAR TREK because they feel(incorrectly and absurdly) that it defecates on the memory of the old TREK and its characters.

I've said roughly a bajillion times that my main issue with it is how much of a waste it feels that their reboot/alternative universe is just throwing aside years and years and years of world-building by very talented writers. All so paramount can dredge up the past and trot out the names of the original TOS characters to get people to see their movie. Which is where the whole "cynical reboot" thing comes in.

And, besides, it's still the same as what happened to Cardassia. They ruined it without any intention of going back and exploring the fallout.

Ok there's no way you can see that as directly comparable.

First of all, Cardassia was not wiped off the face of the galaxy. The Cardassian homeworld is still intact and Cardassians will still live there.
Second of all, as I've explained before, Cardassia was DS9's baby. The writers of DS9 spent 7 years fleshing out that whole region of space, they earned the right to bring their stories to a meaningful conclusion. Now if in the DS9 finale we saw Troi coming to visit DS9 in a shuttle and it exploded, that would be a different matter, albeit hilarious.

TREKs 2009 and 2013 are helping keep the franchise profitable and breathing. I, for one, am forever grateful to Paramount for giving the franchise another chance at glory in the wake of the failures of NEMESIS and ENTERPRISE. The studio took a chance and reaped the rewards, and we the fanbase got to see our beloved TREK once again. It was a win-win for both sides.

So is that really that matters most to you? That the franchise you're a fan of is profitable? Does that mean that NY yankees fans should be happy if the team doubles its profit by just renting the stadium out to concerts and hardly ever playing a game? Oh and I don't remember seeing my beloved Trek again, I remember seeing an enjoyable movie that basically didn't resemble Trek in any way and I think anyone who says it did feel like Trek to them is probably deluding themselves.

 

[cooleddie74]

Again... your personal, completely relative and subjective opinion and you're completely entitled to it. If you choose not to see TREK XII as a result of your dissatisfaction with the studio and Abrams that's kind of disappointing, but Trekkers are a diverse enough collection of thinkers that I don't think most of us would nail you to the wall for it. In the end it's all about the Vulcan concept of IDIC. If it's not the Trek you want or like, fine. It doesn't change our minds whatsoever, but believe it or not we do grasp the root of your frustration...even if we completely disagree with it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The Many Worlds Interpretation. Real world science, an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I'm no expert, but there's the belief that there's infinite versions of our world that exists out there with an infinite number of differences caused by an infinite number of different choices/outcomes. That isn't the same as a universe literally popping into existence because of each decision is it.

.

Thats exactly what it is. The two Trek Universes split with Nero's arrival, prior to that they are the same universe.

Choices are the same as decisions. A different choice/decision by Nero, Spock, Robau or someone else would result in something different or nothing at all.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

No it doesn't change your mind, but maybe you'll just accept your true feelings and stop pretending like these new films are like some magical, uncovered season 4 of TOS.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No one thinks that.

The fourth season of TOS is TAS.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

Thats exactly what it is. The two Trek Universes split with Nero's arrival, prior to that they are the universe.

Choices are the same a decisions. A different choice/decision by Nero, Spock, Robau or someone else would result in something different or nothing at all.

I've never really found it plausible that universes would pop into existence for every decision made and kind of found it silly when Uhura was all "Oh so a new universe is made blah blah blah", cringeworthy actually - since it was so obviously a tacked on reason to support this silly reboot idea without pissing off the "kerazy trekkies that we're not even making this movie for". Only that there would be worlds out there that exist for every possibility, but only due to the infinite nature of the universe.

 

[cooleddie74]

No it doesn't change your mind, but maybe you'll just accept your true feelings and stop pretending like these new films are like some magical, uncovered season 4 of TOS.

I don't think these new films are some magical, uncovered season 4 of TOS. I think they're stories about the NCC-1701 crew in an accidentally-created alternate timeline. There's a difference.

And for the record...NO. I don't think nuTrek is as good as TOS. But then, I don't think much of TNG, two seasons of DS9 or pretty much any season of either VOY or ENT were as good as the original series either. But you know what? I love the entire franchise, warts and all...no matter which timeline the series or film takes place in. If one of the measuring sticks of nuTrek is whether it lives up to classic TOS or not then I'm afraid an awful lot of the later movies and series don't measure up, either. There are more than a few things to complain about when it comes to the later shows and films, and some of the '80s, '90s and 2000s stories would be lucky if they lived up to "The Way to Eden," much less TOS as a whole.

 

[You_Will_Fail]

I find it kind of sad there are Trek fans that claim to love these new movies so much even when JJ Abrams specifically said that the Trek-movie going audience wasn't the audience they were shooting for. It almost feels like people don't want to seem like a downer (like me) so they just force themselves into loving the new franchise and the idea of a reboot. Heck they've probably even rationalized it to themselves to the point where they might actually think they believe it.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Thats exactly what it is. The two Trek Universes split with Nero's arrival, prior to that they are the universe.

Choices are the same a decisions. A different choice/decision by Nero, Spock, Robau or someone else would result in something different or nothing at all.

I've never really found it plausible that universes would pop into existence for every decision made and kind of found it silly when Uhura was all "Oh so a new universe is made blah blah blah", cringeworthy actually - since it was so obviously a tacked on reason to support this silly reboot idea without pissing off the "kerazy trekkies that we're not even making this movie for". Only that there would be worlds out there that exist for every possibility, but only due to the infinite nature of the universe.

You'd have to talk to a physicist about that. They came up with the idea, not the writers. The writers just used it as a plot device.

Its much more likely than Miri's world or Roman world .