Will they ever "boldly go" again?

[theFirebottle]

Personally, I'd hope not. That whole "Story Arc" thing drove me nuts during the newer Trek series, and almost every time I catch Voyager or Enterprise on TV nowadays, they're in the middle of some damn grand thing that makes no sense when you're not in sequence. "Captain's log: after 783 days in the expanse, and our recent encounter with the Boogawoogas, we have received a map and a compass.."

Oy.

One show hit-and-runs please, if we ever get on the tube in any form again. My time shifting future self thanks you. Before fighting nazis in a temporal cold war in area 51 with section 37...

Er, Voyager was the God-Emperor of the Reset Button, so I have no idea what you're talking about there... Its total lack of continuity and overarching story development was one of its drawbacks. In fact, they mashed the Reset Button so often and so hard that the damn thing may never work again.

 

[JustKate]

Perigee, I agree with Firebottle here. VOY has very few story arcs. If it had, it would have been a much better show. I like the show, but that was one of its flaws. You must just have the bad luck to repeatedly stumble on one of the few arcs.

And by the way, I like shows that have a mix of one-shot adventures and story arcs. Both ways of telling stories have their advantages, so why not use them both? Because too many one-shot adventures is one of the flaws of TOS, in my opinion - it's one of the things that really dates the show, almost as much as rubber alien suits. A show I am also very fond of, by the way.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

I would like if they did an adventurous version of a "Sherman's Planet" type of race to claim or get the upper hand for a planet.

That way, you could get some fictional political intrigue (we've been so soaked in politics lately, I think we need to have these movies take us away from that), and some good, rollicking adventure (think of some of the fun moments in the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie, but not too over-the-top with the humor).

 

[Peter the Younger]

As reported by Newsarama, Star Trek XI offers hopefulness and family togetherness. "When we sat down to ask ourselves what Star Trek is about, at the end of the day, it was about the spirit of the family and the promise of optimism," explained Kurtzman. "The bridge crew is a surrogate family and the idea we were out there working with other alien species to explore new worlds was just a very hopeful notion. At least it feels to me, especially based on last week's New York Times, that there is something about the spirit of optimism and the idea of coming together that our country is hungry for right now."

I mean, it was a good movie, but WTF? Hopefulness? Family togetherness? Spirit of the family? Optimism? Explore new worlds? Hopeful notions? Coming together?

I mean, I liked the movie, but I didn't see ANY of those things in this movie. It was a flat-out action flick. Yes, these are the things Gene said Trek was about, and what he wanted to do and explore (reference the intro he had on the The Cage pilot*), but I don't see any of that being part of this movie.

I would like to see the next Trek have no typical villain.

* Here it is! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4gl9u-owPA

Nothing brings people together like a bald-headed tattooed maniac trying to kill them all.

I think you have to view this through a non-Trekker's eyes. We take the dynamics of Starfleet and the Federation for granted, but to the uninitiated, the very notion of a unified world - hell, an alliance of worlds - and the vision of those people working together, is still pretty revolutionary.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

A TV series is a better format than film for handling complex, long-term political intrigues.

Especially if you want your ratings to sink by an additional million viewers or so every season.

 

[theFirebottle]

A TV series is a better format than film for handling complex, long-term political intrigues.

Especially if you want your ratings to sink by an additional million viewers or so every season.

Too many confounding variables to say whether that's correlation or causation. The West Wing had complex long-term political intrigues and it kept its popularity and ratings until its creator left and the people who took over made it episodic, melodramatic, and crammed it full of ratings-grabbing spectacle.

I never said the politics should dominate the show, but there's no reason it can't be built in as a rich, realistic backdrop to what really makes Trek tick: characters and their interactions.

 

[buzzknox]

I'm with the OP on this one. Break that frakking mold already!

I would rather they "Boldly Go" rather than "Carefully Tread".

We reach.

The easiest way to mix exploration and adventure, I think, is to take a page from TNG (sorry maryh) and add a "race for the prize" element to it, as in "The Chase", "Gambit", or DS9's "To the Death." Not that they necessarily have to go the archeological route, as that was pretty distinctively Picard's turf. Simple? Yes, on the surface, but most high concept movies are; you can easily weave subplots into that framework (the aftermath of the loss of Vulcan, Kirk tested as the young Captain, the further development of the Kirk-Spock-McCoy relationship, and so on.)

There's a lot of value in this. Perhaps they could pick up the mystery of the Preservers that was never resolved in TOS. They get intel that an adversary has found an "abandoned" Preserver base and head there to 1) explore it, 2) claim it and 3) prevent the adversary from doing likewise. They arrive to find that said adversary has kicked over a hornet nest and now they have to figure out how to resolve the situation.

Straczynski will be pissed.

I don't know why. The "looking for profit and finding serious trouble" story line was old when the Acropolis was still in the planning stages. When I think about it, Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens would have more issue with this line, since they did something similar with Federation (although with much different results).

 

[perigee]

Perigee, I agree with Firebottle here. VOY has very few story arcs. If it had, it would have been a much better show. I like the show, but that was one of its flaws. You must just have the bad luck to repeatedly stumble on one of the few arcs.

And by the way, I like shows that have a mix of one-shot adventures and story arcs. Both ways of telling stories have their advantages, so why not use them both? Because too many one-shot adventures is one of the flaws of TOS, in my opinion - it's one of the things that really dates the show, almost as much as rubber alien suits. A show I am also very fond of, by the way.

Probably right there - Voyager plus two episodes on the first run, and I wasn't making time in my schedule for viewing. But now, half the time I end up passing it - I think on SciFi - they're flying through some void or expanse or something (I get the impression it was driving em wacky, and then they followed a trash truck) And the next time I see it - maybe on some other channel - they're playing with some kind of species 409. It may have made sense when you see 'em in order, but it makes for bad viewing (for me) as succotash. To this day, I have no idea what they're doing hanging out in some void, or what pissed off the 409 guys - although they said Voyager had teamed up with the Borg against 'em at some point.

 

[Praetor]

There's a lot of value in this. Perhaps they could pick up the mystery of the Preservers that was never resolved in TOS. They get intel that an adversary has found an "abandoned" Preserver base and head there to 1) explore it, 2) claim it and 3) prevent the adversary from doing likewise. They arrive to find that said adversary has kicked over a hornet nest and now they have to figure out how to resolve the situation.

Straczynski will be pissed.

I don't know why. The "looking for profit and finding serious trouble" story line was old when the Acropolis was still in the planning stages. When I think about it, Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens would have more issue with this line, since they did something similar with Federation (although with much different results).

I know, but Straczynski did that whole reboot proposal a few years ago, the core of which was the mystery of the Preservers/Ancient One/whathaveyous.

Then again, he's not Harlan Ellison. So I guess no Guardian?

 

[Ovation]

The only old thing I'd like to see, possibly, would be The Guardian. Not because I love time travel stories or favour re-hashing old ideas as a rule. But watching Harlan Ellison have another apoplectic reaction to Trek would be an amusing sight.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I'm with the OP and others on this, and have been semi-ranting about it elsewhere.

If they make one more arch-villain with any kind of super-weapon or ship, and with the threat of (shock!) destroying planets, my head will explode in the theater, leaving nothing but a headless corpse, holding its soda, blood spurting a la Monty Python.

 

[Praetor]

Yeah, the way I see it, this last movie was the Trek Movie to end All Trek Movie Cliches. Now we should do something new and intelligent.

 

[Franklin]

I'm with the OP and others on this, and have been semi-ranting about it elsewhere.

If they make one more arch-villain with any kind of super-weapon or ship, and with the threat of (shock!) destroying planets, my head will explode in the theater, leaving nothing but a headless corpse, holding its soda, blood spurting a la Monty Python.

In slow motion?

 

[flemm]

They are divorced from reality. The political issues and maneuverings of the Silver Spring city council are more nuanced and passionately contested than those of the Federation...and not many people in Silver Spring give a fuck about that either.

I have this growing impression that you know a lot less about this than you think you do. Sci-fi and fantasy often work best when they are simultaneously very far removed from our world and yet very close to us.

If your argument is that the sequel shouldn't make the niceties of Federation political structure its main focus, that is simply a strawman since no one would argue that this would be a good idea.

On the other hand, the Federation and Starfleet tend naturally to create storylines that mirror situations in our world, many of them politically charged. Handled correctly they could add depth to a second Trek film in the same way TDK was thematically richer than Batman Begins.

It didn't work on TV. Absorption in the paper-thin fictional "Star Trek Universe" - the small-town peculiarities of its people and institutions - did as much to diminish the numbers of people who watched it as anything else did. I get that a lot of Trek fans liked DS9, but the plain fact is that every week fewer and fewer people watched the show, and the reasons for that were in the content - specifically, boredom with the content.

The idea that the political and social issues dealt with in DS9 were responsible for the gradual decrease in viewers doesn't stand up to much scrutiny. A more plausible explanation is over saturation of the market for Trek, including the insipid Voyager, the cosmetically similar Babylon 5, and more good quality television being produced across the board. Not to mention that DS9 remained a popular show until the end of its run despite all of this, more likely due to the richness of its content than in spite of it

If sci-fi plots rife with political tension were a recipe for disaster how could one explain the recent success of BSG, which borrowed heavily from DS9 as far as its political overtones are concerned

These are adventure movies. No other format will sustain the cost of production and promotion.

Right, which is exactly what would have been said about the Batman franchise before TDK, and we all know what a disaster being thematically ambitious turned out to be in that case

 

[CorporalClegg]

I'm with the OP and others on this, and have been semi-ranting about it elsewhere.

If they make one more arch-villain with any kind of super-weapon or ship, and with the threat of (shock!) destroying planets, my head will explode in the theater, leaving nothing but a headless corpse, holding its soda, blood spurting a la Monty Python.

I'd pay the price of admission just to see that!

The funny thing about all this is NONE of the movie villains have been very good. That includes the one from Hamfest '82.

 

[Captain Fine]

Maybe the Enterprise can stumble across some Iconian ruins somewhere...and an Iconian gateway (original eh?)

 

[maryh]

On the other hand, the Federation and Starfleet tend naturally to create storylines that mirror situations in our world, many of them politically charged. Handled correctly they could add depth to a second Trek film in the same way TDK was thematically richer than Batman Begins.

I always felt they did this in TOS but by the time of the spin-offs, the alleged "utopian society" existed so, the storylines were very different from reality or anything we actually experienced in this era. They were condescending instead of thought provoking and told from a know-it-all, righteous perspective instead of from a balanced, realistic perspective. Didn't quite get the drama and emotions going because it was so "fake" and heavy-handed.

A good story will naturally result in moral issues, thought provoking situations, and tough choices. They don't have to be forced. The best of Trek had a good story that mirrored timeless questions without trying to. The worst of Trek wanted to make a politcal, social or moral statement so wrote a story thinly veiled story around it.

Adventure and exploration stories WILL result in moral, social and political questions and observances. Writing about moral social or political situations disguised as a story often results in a poor, unrealistic storyline.

 

[flemm]

I always felt they did this in TOS but by the time of the spin-offs, the alleged "utopian society" existed so, the storylines were very different from reality or anything we actually experienced in this era. They were condescending instead of thought provoking and told from a know-it-all, righteous perspective instead of from a balanced, realistic perspective.

As much as I enjoyed TNG, you are right that it suffered from this problem at times. The show at its best found ways to tell great stories anyway, but couldn't always avoid being weighed down by the idea that perfection had already been achieved. DS9 was right to move away from the "utopia" model.

A good story will naturally result in moral issues, thought provoking situations, and tough choices. They don't have to be forced. The best of Trek had a good story that mirrored timeless questions without trying to. The worst of Trek wanted to make a politcal, social or moral statement so wrote a story thinly veiled story around it.

Adventure and exploration stories WILL result in moral, social and political questions and observances. Writing about moral social or political situations disguised as a story often results in a poor, unrealistic storyline.

Agreed, and well put.

 

[CaptainStoner]

I'm with the OP and others on this, and have been semi-ranting about it elsewhere.

If they make one more arch-villain with any kind of super-weapon or ship, and with the threat of (shock!) destroying planets, my head will explode in the theater, leaving nothing but a headless corpse, holding its soda, blood spurting a la Monty Python.

I'd pay the price of admission just to see that!

The funny thing about all this is NONE of the movie villains have been very good. That includes the one from Hamfest '82.

I don't think that. Khan was the perfect pole to Kirk. The Klingons in STIII were true Klingon bastards. The probe in STIV was fairly ingenius. Sybok was a great (non-planet destroying I might add) villian concept. Gen. Chang was allright, though the actor never sold me on his being a Klingon. Then we have Dr. Soran, who is, as I saw it, a sci-fi metaphor for a crackhead. A little two-dimensional, boiling down to the madman that must be stopped, but we understand why he is like this. Then it's the Borg Queen - creepy, sexy, horrifying, beautiful - a fascinating character. With INS we have several shades of villain characters present with Ru'alfo, his brother, the Starfleet Admiral. Then in NEM we have our cyberpunk Picard-boy bent on self-destruction, but not before he gets a little virtual Troi. Then finally, Nero, Romulan miner lost in space with his miner-buddies. He's lost his home & family, somewhat cracked, and the voices tell him that only when all the Federation planets are destroyed will the angels stop crying.
Actually, if they'd set up Nero a bit "crazier", he'd have made more sense.
Looking back over these villains, I can't really say any of them have been bad character concepts. But the "madman destroying a planet" button has been pushed too many times: If Khan gets Genesis. If Kruge gets Genesis. If the Probe doesn't get told what to go do with itself. If Soran launches the missile. If the Borg stop FC. (Ok that's not destroying the planet, but the life as we know it, Jim.) If Ru'Olfo manages to do his thing. If Shinzon makes it to Earth. If Nero makes it to Earth. In all of these the Earth is directly threatened in TMP, STIV, FC, NEM, and STXI, and Earth-like planets threatened in GEN & INS.
That's 7 of 11 films about saving planets, and 5 of them in a row! The villain characters have been pretty interesting, it's the "save the world" angle that's gotten tired.

 

[IDIC]

I'm with you. I don't want a "villain intricately linked to Kirk" scenario AT ALL. As I've said in other threads--"seek out new life and new civilizations". Do some friggin' exploring for crying out loud.

(of course, I don't pretend to think my views will carry the day, but I will be disappointed in another "grudge match" story)

Simple exploration is something that should be the focus of tv episodes not movies. It is only natural that you have some sort of villian or obstacle to overcome in a movie and it has to be appealing to a large number of people.