Star Trek

[Draegan]

I'd like them to jump 500 years into the future and do something new.  Make it a good TV show, change the attitude so it's less hoakey and more sci-fi.  A more serious attitude, it doesn't have to be grungy etc.

[Merusk]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

[Ironwood]

Guys, I wish you'd get it through your heads :  They Don't Care What You Want.

Really.

[Murgos]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do.  At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of nerds fans.

Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want.

[Broughden]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do.  At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of nerds fans.

Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want.

They did that already. See Star Wars.

[Simond]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do.  At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of nerds fans.

Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want.

Although a Culture TV series would be interesting to watch, I don't think there's a large enough market for it.

[Murgos]

Although a Culture TV series would be interesting to watch, I don't think there's a large enough market for it.

Yeah, when I started thinking about what the Federation could look like in 10k years all I got was Culture too.  Well, I'd watch it.   

[stray]

The immediate timeline following DS9 is expansive enough. After the Dominion loses, the "Gamma" quadrant (if I recall correctly) is open for exploration. Voyager also had the Federation represent itself in the Delta quadrant, so there's that. Both of them are pretty alien places (in Trek terms), especially the Gamma. Thirdly, Fed, Romulan, and Klingon finally united towards the end of it.

[Nevermore]

Poor, neglected Beta quadrant.

[Draegan]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do.  At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of nerds fans.

Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want.

They did that already. See Star Wars.

Star Wars was in the past.  Ya know, "Long time ago in a galaxy far far away.."

[Venkman]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

Nah, going back in time still means you have a lot of crap to constrain what you do.  At any moment you can unintentionally step on some one-off sentence from any of the other shows and piss off a bunch of nerds fans.

Screw 500 years, they should jump 10,000 years into the future and make it all up however they want.

They did that already. See Star Wars.

Err? Outside of KOTOR, most of the stuff everyone cares about happened in the space of, at most, 75 years. That's less of a span than from Enterprise through Nemesis. Though of course, they did make everything up as they went in SW too 

On Trek, going back into the past has absolutely no value beyond pissing the fanbois off, particularly that late in the Trek IP. You weren't going to get a zillion new viewers because you lost that potential on DS9 and Voyager already. So all you had left was to fill in a timeline that had already been completely defined in book form, which means your series is a comic-book retcon with the same nerdrage attached.

Their only hope is this next movie. If that tanks (in that it doesn't attract more newbies than trekkies they likely lose), then it goes dormant again. But even if it's successful, unless these same actors (or most of them) move on to a subsequent TV series, it's going to be just a movie license. That's fine, but more a cash cow than an IP reinvention, imho. Because, if you lose the nerds, you're losing book sales, and therefore your entire story is just being told through movies every few years.

[Reg]

I think the continued participation of the "Trek has been DEAD since Wrath of Khan!!!11one!!" crowd in this thread proves that it's impossible to "lose the nerds" no matter what. They'll keep watching it on television and paying to rent DVDs or see the movies just so they can nerd it up on the internet with mammoth displays of angst.

[UnSub]

So in other words, you just want the fanbase with none of that pesky legacy to deal with.

That's why we had Enterprise.

Prequels are even more bound by legacy than sequels, since the framework is already laid out in the lore. You know which characters are under threat and which ones aren't. I never got the idea of "Enterprise" - it seemed to be based on the idea of "let's take this sci-fi series backwards because that's what people will want to see". They were wrong. We wanted to see new stories, not nods to lore from other series (or even total disregard of established lore).

To use the Star Wars link: Darth Vader was badass because he was badass, not because of anything he did while he was Annie Skywalker. Although what happened as Skywalker turned him into Vader, it really didn't do much for the character other than fill in some blanks (e.g. "He likes sand"). Arguably this was because the prequels were awful from a narrative point of view, but that's as it was.

If the idea is to reboot Star Trek, then do that. A new crew, a new mission, not a "here are all the names of characters you know, but with flashier effects and you can know learn why James T. Kirk is compelled to bone alien chicks regardless of what diseases he might catch and we can hear where each character learned their catch phrase"-type fill-in. The whole time-travelling Spock thing also fills me with dread.

Because time-travel + Star Trek = high probability of suck. "Trouble with Tribbles" is a noted exception, but that was a comedy episode.

[pxib]

Like the Marvel and DC comic worlds, Star Trek is old enough and geeky enough that it practically MUST escape its own continuity in order to flourish. The ancient trivia is largely embarrassing, and every time a writer has to reference it they risk either offending loud fans who know it exists and will not shut up, or simultaneously confusing and disappointing the high expectations of the narratively savvy uninitiated. That weight of background information serves a very small portion of the entertainment consumer public, and although they'll do the majority of the early word-of-mouth advertising... but when it comes at the expense of fun, accessible storytelling then it will lose more eyeballs than it gains.

So once the world design gets deep enough, outside of throwing a few bones to the rabid fans (a couple inside jokes, a historical reference, the development of a minor character from the canon,) old franchises are well served to stay as far from the known world as they possibly can. For everyone's sake... not just the bottom line's.

[UnSub]

Just add on to pxib - every time I see the theme of "young versions of characters" for a film or TV series I /facepalm. Apart from "Muppet Babies" it's not shown to be a good idea - "Young Indiana Jones", "Young Sherlock Holmes", the apparently in pre-production "Young X-Men", etc.

I see this movie as "Star Trek: Young Original Series". It's a dumb idea. IMO.

[Ironwood]

Because time-travel + Star Trek = high probability of suck. "Trouble with Tribbles" is a noted exception, but that was a comedy episode.

 

[Riggswolfe]

Just add on to pxib - every time I see the theme of "young versions of characters" for a film or TV series I /facepalm. Apart from "Muppet Babies" it's not shown to be a good idea - "Young Indiana Jones", "Young Sherlock Holmes", the apparently in pre-production "Young X-Men", etc.

I see this movie as "Star Trek: Young Original Series". It's a dumb idea. IMO.

I never saw Young Indiana Jones but I've always heard it was good. As for Sherlock, I actually have a bit of a weak spot for the movie even if it is trademark Spielberg '80s kid movies.

Young X-men sounds like the suck though.

[UnSub]

I've heard that "Young Indiana Jones" is good too, but I've never seen an episode that didn't bore me to tears.

[taleril]

Because time-travel + Star Trek = high probability of suck. "Trouble with Tribbles" is a noted exception, but that was a comedy episode.

 

Is there a "Trouble with Tribbles: The Game" beta that you can't legally discuss?

[UnSub]

I figured because he thought "Trouble with Tribbles" sucked, or I got the name of the episode wrong, or something like that.

And I did - the DS9 episode was "Trials and Tribble-ations" which included TOS "Trouble with Tribbles" footage. My bad.

[Ironwood]

Yeah, but I didn't dare point it out or Reg would POUNCE !

[Reg]

You were wearing your collectible Spock ears just now when you posted that message weren't you? All you bitter "Trek's been dead since the Wrath of Khan" guys have collectible Spock ears.  It's a well known fact.

[Nebu]

Nerd slapfights are always more about comparing trivial pursuit knowledge than actual comparisons of merit.  That or attempts to emulate the nerd status quo.   

I always preferred the original Star Trek to the derivatives, but it's largely because the original has nostalgic ties to my childhood. 

[rattran]

I'm with Nebu. I picked up the restored old series hd-dvds and rewatched season 1. Lots of fun. I gave up on the Next Gen pretty early, it was okay moral-of-the-week tv, but didn't really seem to have much in common with the old stuff except names.

So I guess Trek to me has been pretty much dead since the Mid 70's, before the movie with that Persis chick.

[Jain Zar]

I could never get into TOS as a child, since it was slow, boring, and talky. 

Basically it wasn't Star Wars.  And was thus inferior.

I tried giving it another shot in the remastered version, but it still failed to wow me.  It was just.. meh.

Even the big episodes like City on the Edge and the one with the Doomsday Device failed to do anything for me.

Maybe this makes me a sci fi heretic (along with largely hating the entire work of Joss Whedom), but fuck it.  By this point I am never gonna be anything but an outsider regardless of what I do so why fucking even care?

[Merusk]

City on the Edgeof Forever is an overrated bit that's only good if you like the characters to begin with.  The Doomsday Device is pretty good, but some of the pacing feels and it isn't as suspenseful as it once was, imo. 

Naked Time, Balance of Terror, Amok Time, Who Mourns for Adonis? and Patterns of Force were all better episodes, IMO.

[Abagadro]

Balance of Terror

This is the best episode of TOS in my opinion and it never gets shown in syndication for some reason.

[Tannhauser]

Balance of Terror

This is the best episode of TOS in my opinion and it never gets shown in syndication for some reason.

This man speaks the truth.  It's a great reflection of Cold War paranoia, plus a suspenseful battle.

[Merusk]

When TV land was showing Star Trek they'd show every episode in the original rotation and Balance of Terror came up quite a few times.   Of course, as of January 1 they're showing infomercials until something like 11am, so no more Star Trek.  Or Night Court for that matter

[Jain Zar]

Balance of Terror was one of the first remastered episodes they showed.  It wasn't bad, but again.. didn't WOW me.  Kept me interested though.

I think the Trek in my head without any socialist utopia or prime directives and just based around cool ships blowing each other up and a lot less rubber foreheads is the Trek I always wanted.

So basically Starfleet Universe, the kind of Trek but not really from Starfleet Battles and Federation Commander. (The latter being an actually fun game for people who are only mostly nerdy poindexters.)

[AngryGumball]

So uh yeah, Karl Urban is Bones? While I can buy his looks, I can't buy him fitting this role based off his past acting then sliding in and filling these shoes I'm gonna expect him to be my leading man now. I expect him to be more excellent than the no name Kirk actor. I even expect him to be more superior than Sylar.

Edit: hurray for 1/2 second commercial shot of him introducing himself.

[Khaldun]

I don't think it's impossible to lose the nerds. The thing is, you just don't hear from them in most of these threads. I didn't bother to see any of the films after the Borg one, just didn't interest me. I don't care whether they broke canon, or whatever, just seemed boring. Voyager I watched for the first season, it was so very bad as a show (I could care less about what it did to canon) that I was done with that. Enterprise, who cares. And though there are plenty of nerdfights I'll throw a mudball or two in, after Voyager, I haven't even really thought much about Star Trek, despite the fact that it was *the* show that defined my youthful attachment to SF. You can see some of that absence in the ratings and box office and so on. But of course modest indifference and resigned irritation don't catalyze a lot of board posts or other nerd outcry, so debates become defined by the truly obsessive haters and the truly crazed fanbois. As with much geek culture. But don't take that to mean that these are the only stakeholders.

So the only thing for me about this movie is: is it good? I could care less about what it does to canon, except inasmuch as canon offers a good story idea or characterization that gets passed over because some suit has what he thinks is a more marketable idea. As far as world-envisioning canons go, Star Trek is unusually full of shit ideas, inconsistent or unworkable premises, and guns-on-the-mantlepiece that go unfired, so violating that canon still further strikes me as the only consistent thing you could do it anyway.

[Velorath]

New Trailer (also showing on Watchmen) is up.

I swear, the stuff these guys say at panels or interviews when they talk about time travel shit, and hinting at TNG tie-ins and possible appearances from Data and Picard, all makes me want to avoid this movie.  Every time they release a trailer though it pulls me back in.  If I were to forget everything I've seen or heard except for this trailer, I'd say this shit looks fucking awesome.

[Riggswolfe]

That commercial was much better than previous ones. I'm not sure what to think about the implications with Uhura's character. Apparently Kirk's dad dying turned her into a slut somehow?

[Abagadro]

I swear, the stuff these guys say at panels or interviews when they talk about time travel shit, and hinting at TNG tie-ins and possible appearances from Data and Picard, all makes me want to avoid this movie. 

It's possible they are just fucking with people when they say that stuff. This is JJ Abrams after all. He likes to do that sort of thing.