Who no longer cares? (Raise your hand)
- Thread starter jayrath
- Start date
Amen!
Oh I am really looking forward to this movie. The trailer has gotten me even more excited. I just hope this is the beginning of a new upswing for the franchise.
Wait, we're anticipating a movie, therefore mankind is doomed? C'mon, even I'm not that cynical. I might think mankind will never grow up if we went back to teaching flat earth or something, but if anything this forum is proof that mankind is coming together. Imagine we have Trekkies from many different countries argueing about the proper lighting of the enterprise bridge. We have Jews, Muslims, Christians and Pagans argueing about whether or not Shatner should be in Trek XI. Jeez, I'm not seeing a lot of problems hear.
Perhaps he had a dream that one day people of all races clolors and religions would all get together for Klingon lessons.
Actually my problem with Trek recently is that space travel HAS become so mundane. By the time of TNG, travelling from one planet to another was about as exciting as a trip to the grocery store.
Starfleet was always just a phone call away, the Enterprise was an ultra-comfortable cruise liner, and people played around in a holodeck in between visits to alien planets. Except on VERY rare occasions (such as in Q Who), it never felt like these people were really exploring the vast, mysterious, unknown reaches of the galaxy.
I want to get back to TOS, where space travel was still a risky business and people acted like actual space explorers.
I'm in an "i don't care" mode but it is mostly because I have grown out of the fan-boyish need that everything conform to some selective subset of a fictional history that was never really that self-consistent to begin with. Now, I just want to go to a movie to have a good time and be entertained.
I care more.
I agitated on this board for a clean-sheet reboot featuring the TOS cast and while the reboot seems to be off the table, we're getting the TOS cast with some fantastic actors and what appears to be a top-notch visual concept that captures the spirit of Trekkian design without slavish reverence.
I'm very, very happy with what I've seen and will be there on opening day.
I agitated on this board for a clean-sheet reboot featuring the TOS cast and while the reboot seems to be off the table, we're getting the TOS cast with some fantastic actors and what appears to be a top-notch visual concept that captures the spirit of Trekkian design without slavish reverence.
I'm very, very happy with what I've seen and will be there on opening day.
That's not necessarily the only way to interpret GR's remark. He wrote a foreword for the novel called "Enterprise: The First Adventure", which celebrated 20 years of TOS by Vonda McIntyre going back to imagine the first days of Kirk's first mission on the USS Enterprise.
Had he really felt ST prequels were bad, would he have encouraged the writing of this novel?
Based on the success of that novel, the next "giant" mass market paperback was a prequel to the second pilot. The third "giant" mass market paperback was a prequel to "The Cage" and featured Captain Robert April.
All ST is "going forward"... from the 20th and 21st centuries. Prequels can be fascinating and clever.
I'm very excited about JJ Abrams' movie. Always was, and increasing in anticipation day by day.
I don't mean to be a jerk or anything, but why, after 40+ years, are we so concerned with Gene Roddenberry's original vision, especially if we're only basing that on a single idea of "going forward?"
I don't see any reason why someone else can't take the helm and create a new movie (prequel or otherwise) that is still in the spirit of the original series. Star Trek is about exploration of the human condition.
I don't see any reason why someone else can't take the helm and create a new movie (prequel or otherwise) that is still in the spirit of the original series. Star Trek is about exploration of the human condition.
The infamous 1989 memo is quoted, in part, in the editorial of DC Comics' "Star Trek" #1 (Series II), where Robert Greenberger explains that Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek Office had pointed out - during the renegotiations of licensing contracts in the hiatus between Seasons One and Two of TNG - that "TAS did not cross over with the movies". As a result, M'Ress and Arex had to be replaced by new aliens.
Similarly, Mike Okuda notes in the "ST Encyclopedia" that Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek Office had requested that TAS not be referenced in the book, although the authors sought an exception for data about Vulcan, the city of ShiKahr, and Spock's childhood ("Yesteryear") and the existence of Captain Robert April ("The Counter-clock Incident").
A movie about events happening in the 23rd century IS moving forward relative our 21st century vantage-point.
I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, I truly feel that's what Gene R. was talking about, not that every incarnation of the series needs to move the timeline forward.
I think Gene meant that Star Trek should be about US moving forward as a people and being more enlightened than we are today (or in the 1960s). There's no reason that the humans in ST:XI won't be more enlightened than we are today. Rioddenberry didn't want a future where man has moved backward -- reverted to barbarism for instance. He wanted an enlightened and optimistic future.
That 'moving forward' statement has everything to do wuth enlightenment/optimism and nothing to do with prequels, IMO
I am very leery of Hollywood re-making, re-inventing, re-imagining everything. There are some things that just should be left alone. And there are other things that could be re-done or re-vamped for modern audiences if placed in the hands of capable people (but how often does that happen?!). I enjoyed Transformers and Casino Royale and Battlestar Galactica, but for every one of those there is an equally bad re-make (like the lackluster Bionic Woman).
So the thought of someone re-making Star Trek is frightening. Because this isn't just a one-off film or series that we're talking about. Trek has 700+ hours of TV/film footage over a span of 40 years. If someone had asked me a few years ago "what about re-booting Trek and re-casting the TOS characters?" I would have laughed.
But I'm not laughing now. I'm actually really exicted. Why? Because I look at Trek's decline over the last 10 years or so. I look at missed opportunities with VOY and ENT. I look at the underwhelming INS and NEM. I'm sad that Trek lost its way. If the franchise is going to continue and re-capture any of its glory, it needs a big jolt. Something huge.
I love JJ Abrams. I've loved him since the beginning of Alias. The very notion of him coming aboard with his team of writers and producers from Lost excites the hell outta me. And reading the interviews they've given, and what they've said about Trek and their ideas for Trek XI.... I feel relieved already. I know that the franchise is going to be in good hands. And I am confident that they'll make a good product.
I honestly don't care anymore that this could be a "re-boot" and violate canon and go against TOS. If this is a whole new timeline and new universe, I am okay with that. I'm not going to sit here and critique the teaser images of the Enterprise and whine that they've changed the hull texture or the size of the ship or the font used on the lettering. I don't care if they change the set design or the costumes. All I want is a great story with great characters and a lot of excitement. I want something that remains true to the spirit of Trek but is also new and fresh. I want to be excited about Trek again! Because I haven't been in a really, really long time.
So the thought of someone re-making Star Trek is frightening. Because this isn't just a one-off film or series that we're talking about. Trek has 700+ hours of TV/film footage over a span of 40 years. If someone had asked me a few years ago "what about re-booting Trek and re-casting the TOS characters?" I would have laughed.
But I'm not laughing now. I'm actually really exicted. Why? Because I look at Trek's decline over the last 10 years or so. I look at missed opportunities with VOY and ENT. I look at the underwhelming INS and NEM. I'm sad that Trek lost its way. If the franchise is going to continue and re-capture any of its glory, it needs a big jolt. Something huge.
I love JJ Abrams. I've loved him since the beginning of Alias. The very notion of him coming aboard with his team of writers and producers from Lost excites the hell outta me. And reading the interviews they've given, and what they've said about Trek and their ideas for Trek XI.... I feel relieved already. I know that the franchise is going to be in good hands. And I am confident that they'll make a good product.
I honestly don't care anymore that this could be a "re-boot" and violate canon and go against TOS. If this is a whole new timeline and new universe, I am okay with that. I'm not going to sit here and critique the teaser images of the Enterprise and whine that they've changed the hull texture or the size of the ship or the font used on the lettering. I don't care if they change the set design or the costumes. All I want is a great story with great characters and a lot of excitement. I want something that remains true to the spirit of Trek but is also new and fresh. I want to be excited about Trek again! Because I haven't been in a really, really long time.
I've pretty much had a wait and see attitude since I first heard about the project. It's definitely not the direction I would have gone If I owned Star Trek but I'll just wait till it's out on DVD (I never go to the movies anymore) and have a look. I can't say I'm especially excited, just curious to see how it goes.
I agree. In every way.
I agree, the teaser is kind of over-dramatised and it feels a bit cheesy when Space..the final frontier.. finally comes in. According to the teaser, J.J. Abrams is trying to give Star Trek a whole different, more dramatic imago (and that's fine with me as long as he gets it right!).
I care. And I'm excited. This film will be great, and I really do want it to. Honestly, if you complain about the font of the lettering, you need to sort out your priorities.
Actually, my question about "where's the quote" was in reference to the oft-repeated claim that "Roddenberry has always said Trek was about going forward, not backwards," not about his remarks concerning canon.
Barring specific citation to the contrary, to all appearences this is an apocryphal remark. Other people with agendas have said that GR said it, but the quotation and citation never materializes.
Of course, I'd be just as interested in what Robert Justman, Gene Coon and Herb Solow thought "Star Trek" ought to be about, were it possible to obtain their opinions (obviously not, in Coon's case).
Yeah, that was an honest typo. I caught it when I was in "Preview Your Post" mode, and it made me laugh out loud. So of course I had to leave it in.
Similar threads
