Where does the Star Trek go from here?
- Thread starter Jim Kirk
- Start date
I read one of Muir's, but didn't see anything particularly persuasive about it. Sorry.
Why should I? I've seen the movies and determined from direct experience that they are crap. All the reviews in the world won't alter that. Just because someone writes something in a blog mean nothing. 99.9999% of the crap people spout has zero credibility, so why should I bother reading all that nonsense. Amazingly, I'm capable of thinking for myself.
I read enough to note that most people call it an opening crawl, not an opening scrawl. Unless there's a version where it's sloppily hand-written on index cards instead of crawling up the screen, that says that this reviewer might not be too well versed in the subject.
Besides that, the politics hasn't dated well, and the reviewer's charge that partisan sniping against Clinton led to the 9/11 attacks seems to me to be about as pointless as saying that partisan sniping against Bush led to Hurricane Katrina. And really doesn't change the fact that I saw this movie in the theater back in 1999, and didn't like it.
Besides that, the politics hasn't dated well, and the reviewer's charge that partisan sniping against Clinton led to the 9/11 attacks seems to me to be about as pointless as saying that partisan sniping against Bush led to Hurricane Katrina. And really doesn't change the fact that I saw this movie in the theater back in 1999, and didn't like it.
Temis, thanks for responding. You're very thought provoking and you make good points. While I may not always agree, I do try to look at different perscpectives.
Books & Comics aren't that great since none of it is officially canon, so there's no real sense of progression. Star Trek Online is...Star Trek Online. Enough said.
Where does Star Trek go from here? I honestly don't know. New Star Trek is flashy and all but I can't see it going beyond the movies. Old Star Trek seems to be long forgotten. And now that Romulus is blown to crap in the prime timeline there's no real "Villain" race to use except for the Borg, which are overused.
I'd say the introduction of a new, invasive species into the Milky Way would spruce things up. Kind of like what Star Wars did with the Yuuzhan Vong. It would force new alliances and make for interesting storylines. Alternatively; if one wants to take the more classic route, have it take place a hundred or so years after TNG, in the 2460s. Make it so that by then the Federation has explored the Milky Way and technology now allows them to explore the nearby galaxies like Triangulum. I don't know about Andromeda since TOS kind of screwed it up with the radiation thing though.
Where does Star Trek go from here? I honestly don't know. New Star Trek is flashy and all but I can't see it going beyond the movies. Old Star Trek seems to be long forgotten. And now that Romulus is blown to crap in the prime timeline there's no real "Villain" race to use except for the Borg, which are overused.
I'd say the introduction of a new, invasive species into the Milky Way would spruce things up. Kind of like what Star Wars did with the Yuuzhan Vong. It would force new alliances and make for interesting storylines. Alternatively; if one wants to take the more classic route, have it take place a hundred or so years after TNG, in the 2460s. Make it so that by then the Federation has explored the Milky Way and technology now allows them to explore the nearby galaxies like Triangulum. I don't know about Andromeda since TOS kind of screwed it up with the radiation thing though.
Disagreement isn't arrogance.
It's much nicer to imagine people caught up in a combination of nostalgia and fad, than to imagine them so emotionally stunted as to genuinely find the reboot a moving experience.
The character story in the reboot is, Kirk and Spock become friends. In the movie, that story is dreadful, completely empty of any emotion, sold by nostalgia for Star Trek brought to the screen by Leonard Nimoy. Unless they bring back more nostalgia (Shatner the next time?) the character bedrock of the sequel, the Kirk/Spock friendship, doesn't exist. Nerds won't be giddy over Trek being cool again. When the movie series winds down, no one will ever want to bring this back.
The number of potential TV or movie viewers who knew there was a difference or cared would be very small. It might not even be apparent what reality the TV show was in, except
1) it would look more like Trek XII aesthetically than like TOS because the TOS aesthetics cannot be used without looking comical
2) if guest stars are brought in, they'll be the cast from Trek XII since they have the PR value for the young audience the CBS will seek to appeal to
^^^I quite accurately observed that people can't or won't respond when asked simple questions, such as why Spock and Kirk become friends, or how this is a emotionally truthful story, or how the on-screen version of Kobayashi Maru dramatizes an interesting character. Then we observe once again that people who claim to be delighted can't come up with a sensible response about the movie.
The funny thing is that, if we really don't have to make intelligent arguments in support of our opinions, then a mildly hyperbolic remark doesn't even need justification!
The defenders of the reboot have failed miserably in responding to criticisms, and it is unfounded arrogance to pretend otherwise.
The funny thing is that, if we really don't have to make intelligent arguments in support of our opinions, then a mildly hyperbolic remark doesn't even need justification!
The defenders of the reboot have failed miserably in responding to criticisms, and it is unfounded arrogance to pretend otherwise.
^^^^^Well, I don't consider myself a film critic, but I thought that the emotional story was about the search for the father--a common literary trope--summed up in Pike's challenge: "I dare you to do better." On a meta level, it's interesting that this is a story that people re-inventing a 45 year-old franchise would choose to tell, at the very least.
I don't think that the world is really divided between benighted "defenders of the movie" and those who rationally belittle it. There are probably plenty of people who liked some aspects of the film and didn't like others.
Personally I found the version of Kirk's beating the KM in Ecklar's novel better than what we got on screen, but that doesn't mean that those who like the film version are insane.
I'm not about to argue anyone into liking a movie they didn't like, but I'm happy to talk about what I liked about the movie (or didn't), hopefully meeting a humble standard of intelligence.
I don't think that the world is really divided between benighted "defenders of the movie" and those who rationally belittle it. There are probably plenty of people who liked some aspects of the film and didn't like others.
Personally I found the version of Kirk's beating the KM in Ecklar's novel better than what we got on screen, but that doesn't mean that those who like the film version are insane.
I'm not about to argue anyone into liking a movie they didn't like, but I'm happy to talk about what I liked about the movie (or didn't), hopefully meeting a humble standard of intelligence.
Temis, I think you're right. However, after looking back at what I wrote, I actually meant continuing the original timeline somtime after Nemesis with a new crew, another more advanced starship, and a variety of new lifeforms to encounter, possibly in the Gamma and Delta quadrants; maybe even beyond the outer rim! Much in the same way they came up with Voyager. Interestingly enough, they could even toy around with the two timelines coming together at various points like they did in the 'Mirror, Mirror' storylines.
I caught the second half of the 2009 movie again last night, and was really impressed with it again. The red matter/black hole stuffs a little bit clunky, but I really thought the look of the production and the actors carried it.
I think a TV show derived from the basic elements (not necessarily the plot points) of the 09 movie would be great and would make Trek accessible to a new generation of fans.
Maybe they wait until after 3 movies are in the can, then they launch a TV show with new actors as the Enterprise crew.
I think a TV show derived from the basic elements (not necessarily the plot points) of the 09 movie would be great and would make Trek accessible to a new generation of fans.
Maybe they wait until after 3 movies are in the can, then they launch a TV show with new actors as the Enterprise crew.
No, no new actors, at least not so soon, please! They should have a rule of allowing reboots and/or new actors for the classic characters only once every 45 years. Have a TV show with a new ship with a new name and of a new design with a completely original crew, but set in the new alternate reality. Have occasional guest appearances of the movie characters and the Enterprise.
I don't know if that'll happen. If a new Trek series were to pop-up, it'll probably be in a different timeline. Usually shows follow the success of a hit movie. Unless they decide to do this one differently. I never thought any of the Treks hows were that bad, except for the bad acting Bakula did in Enterprise. The TNG movies I believe is what hurt Trek.
I think the only choice they have is to bring back TOS with new actors.
New actors, in the 23rd C, having TOS-type adventures but not the TOS characters. That's got the best chance for success.
Running TNG into the ground didn't help, but the real problem was audience trends have turned broadcast TV into hostile territory for niche genres such as space opera. Cable is the way to go, but for CBS, that means Showtime, and premium cable might not be interested in a franchise associated with free TV. Tough situation.
Do it well, and no one will really give a damn what the origin is. If CBS wants Trek on Showtime, they'll tailor Trek to fit Showtime. More grit, more emotion, more boobs. Sure, it would probably leave Roddenberry spinning in his grave, but that wouldn't be the first time someone pissed in his hippie bong water, whether actual or just perceived.
It's a popcorn flick from the people that wrote Transformers. Production, and to a lesser degree, acting is meant to carry the movie in spite of the dreadful plot. It's not really going to hold up under heavy critique, it's not meant to, and in fact the people that made it deliberately ignored detail out of some kind of mistaken belief that caring about the details is what killed the franchise the first time through.
That's the funny part about the endless debate over the size of the NuPrise. Nobody really cared about that during production, you'd have gotten chewed out or even fired if you did. They just wanted it to look "big." How big was largely irrelevant in the grand scheme, only looked at in the context of individual scenes as a matter of framing.
Last edited:
Exactly!
CBS co-owns CW and that would be better than cable.
Similar threads
- Locked
