Jump to content


Photo

What should Trek do to fix itself?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 TheHSBR

TheHSBR

    Mirror Universe Moderator

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Interests:This will be quite the list...Star Trek, Star Wars, wrestling, He-Man, comic books, GI Joe, video games, and most of all collecting action figures!

Posted 07 August 2010 - 11:25 AM

See the arcs is the one thing i liked. I think with modern TV based on maintaining constant ratings you have to have a reason for people to tune in every week. If I am able to miss an episode and not really feel like I missed something big, why should I make it a point to tune in every week. Obviously the hardcore fans will, but to be successful you need to have those swing people want to tune in as well and feel as if they have to.

#22 knightone

knightone

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,235 posts

Posted 07 August 2010 - 03:36 PM

I think continuity and consistency is very important. It's what I thought Voyager and Enterprise lacked a lot of.



#23 s8film40

s8film40

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 08 August 2010 - 09:24 AM

QUOTE (knightone @ Aug 6 2010, 11:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Like I said in my first post, intelligent storytelling and compelling character development is first and foremost. If we can get the other stuff, like toys, that's great, but it's all in the writing and that is paramount. If the storytelling can keep people coming back week after week, then it doesn't matter if there are toys or conventions or costumes to buy. That stuff would probably follow, but the reverse doesn't happen. The toys and the cons and the costumes don't get people watching the show. I think that there was a passion that came across in the Treks until the mid to late 1990's. And I think the only reason it went away is because a lot of the people involved with the show had been there for a decade and got burned out yet refused to leave and refused to turn the reigns over to anyone new. The last couple of years of Enterprise started getting interesting because there was a lot of fresh blood brought in. It wasn't perfect by any means, but there is always a learning curve. Unfortunately, by then, the damage was done and the audience had left long before.

Yes I agree with you completely, the point I was trying to make is that those are all things that come along naturally when you have intelligent storytelling and and compelling character development. If the Abrams Trek had had Intelligent storytelling and compelling character development the action figures would have been far more successful there would likely be a much larger fan following right now and all kinds of great "Trekkie" things would have happened, however the box office results would not have been nearly as good. It's a catch 22 with something like Star Trek if you want to make something for the masses to get more money you have to sacrifice the core elements of Star Trek. Don't get me wrong I love a big budget space action movie but I would rather have a low budget really immersive Star Trek franchise instead.

#24 TheHSBR

TheHSBR

    Mirror Universe Moderator

  • Global Moderators
  • 3,621 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Interests:This will be quite the list...Star Trek, Star Wars, wrestling, He-Man, comic books, GI Joe, video games, and most of all collecting action figures!

Posted 08 August 2010 - 10:22 AM

How did the movie not have intelligent storytelling and compelling character development? I thought it had both those items. I also think that whether or not you have those things has very little bearing on action figure sales. What does have bearing on the action figures sales is poor articulation, static poses, and oversaturation. What this movie did do was make Trek at the very least relevant to the general audience. It reintroduced the the characters to a generation who had no idea who Sulu or Uhura are. It proved that Trek can be successful at the box office again. Its funny but all of a sudden people are saying that to be successful you have to make sacrifices. Some of the most successful and well regarded pieces in Trek have been both. Wrath of Khan comes to mind where the "message" is buried under a lot of action.

#25 s8film40

s8film40

    New Forceaholic

  • Members
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Celebration, FL

Posted 08 August 2010 - 10:35 AM

I guess it had a little but is was 90% big space action. That's just the nature of trying to make a movie for everyone, you just can't get too far off into storytelling or you'll lose people. I think the story was created to support the action sequences not the other way around.

#26 knightone

knightone

    If I don't have it, It's on preorder.

  • Members
  • 2,235 posts

Posted 08 August 2010 - 11:22 AM

It was a good, fun movie, but deep it was not.

#27 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 04 November 2010 - 09:15 AM

I'm not sure where people have been every other time a Star Trek movie has come out but none of the 10 movies have ever been as "deep" as the TV series and even then, I would say out of the 700 odd episodes less than half actually tackled a serious issue directly. Star Trek has always masked the morality play behind action (more so perhaps in TOS than TNG) so lets be real here.... First of all, whilst all of the TV series have touched upon very serious topics and dealt with very serious issues and were intelligent when doing so, many Star Trek episodes are incredibly daft. Second of all, In my opinion, regardless of OUR personal feelings and how Star Trek has changed OUR lives, the only radical aspect of the Star Trek franchise, has been the Original TV series. It really did help change millions of lives around the world, a series that did tackle the serious taboo's and that did break with convention and provoke serious discussion. Trek has never been as "intelligent" as it was (for it's time) back in the 60's.

Star Trek, when all is said and done, is entertainment but as with all aspects of Trek (and everything else), there's a relevant message/issue there to be explored or ignored by the audience. In 2009, Star Trek explored several Star Trek-esqu topics the only difference between Trek of old and the 2009 movie was that the 2009 movie was relevant to this decade in every way from production values, CGI (although as summer blockbusters go, Trek was far more sparing with CGI, only using it when it needed to be used) to story and in particular the message and issues it covered, just as TNG was relevant to the 80's and 90's.

Intelligence simply can NOT be defined as a story that uses less "bang bang" and more talk - some of the Star Trek of the 80's and 90's was completely dull and completely silly. I found Star Trek (2009) to be a story of great intelligence as well as great action adventure - It was intelligent in how both story and action complimented each other perfectly and although there was far more explosions in this Star Trek - I found it far more engaging and intelligent than Star Trek: Nemesis, Insurrection, Generations, The Final Frontier, The Search For Spock and The Motion Picture as well as countless Episodes such as These Are The Voyages, Spocks Brain, The Way To Eden, I could go on... It was a solid Star Trek story as well as being a fantastic summer blockbuster that as far as Im concerned was far more intelligent than X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Terminator Salvation, Transformers Revenge of the Fallen as well as GI-Joe: Rise of the Cobra and Avatar.

It's possible you just didn't like this movie which is totally fine but I have this feeling that many fans (not just people here) just simply don't like this movie because of it's premise and that "their" Star Trek has been "destroyed" (or something to that effect). Just a thought.

#28 JulesLuvsShinzon

JulesLuvsShinzon

    Will work for toys.

  • Members
  • 1,101 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bielefeld, Germany
  • Interests:Collecting Art Asylum 7&quot; Star trek action figures.

    Star trek &amp; writing fan fiction.

Posted 05 November 2010 - 10:03 AM

Your avatar suggests a certain mindset, so I'm wondering if there is really any point in arguing the case that Star trek 2009 wasn't an intelligent movie, especially as you haven't really explained why you think it is in a way that would convince me.

However, you could make a case of the movie being "intelligent" in terms of balancing action with some character development and linking into the zeitgeist for action movies and reboots of old intellectual properties. The casting people used their intelligence and cast a some great actors in the role and were smart enough to know that imitations of iconic and oft-imitated characters wouldn't cut it with the fans. The film was made intelligently enough to make it enjoyable for fans and newbies alike, but was it intelligent in itself? resoundingly no!

Was the decision to effectively scrap the old continuity particularly smart or edgy? Not really. It provided a few jolts, if not shocks, to the established fanbase, but it's an old device deployed for the convenience of the producers wanting to make their stamp on the franchise, but the newbies won't care because they won't know anything about the old continuity. In the meantime, the writers will eventually become just as hamstrung by their own continuity - if this film franchise lasts that long.

I'd be fascinated to know where the intelligence lies in the rather simplistic plot. There's no exploration of morality, loss, love, friendship, or teaming up to beat the odds that hasn't been done better dozens of times across the previous ten movies and seven TV series. There's nothing in that film that piques the intellect. Nothing whatsoever.

I can actually forgive the film for lacking in mental grist because I'd adjusted my expectations down to what I actually saw in the theatre. I also accept that this first film needed primarily to fulfil a function of introducing the new cast which it most achieved admirably. It also provided a few laughs and plenty of action. It was an efficient reboot, but to suggest that this film equals the intellectual content of the original series, or any of the later incarnations, is way wide of the mark. It is to be hoped that later films will not be a series of warbling castratos because the producers lost their balls in creating their own timeline and then safely slipped back into remaking movies like TWOK.

Reductively dismissing the concerns of fans who have grown up with thr franchise reductively as sour grapes is also wide of the mark. You'd have to do a whole lot better than that.

#29 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 November 2010 - 08:10 AM

Certain mindset? Zoe Saldana is a beautiful woman and a very talented actress, in my opinion if it wasn't for her, Avatar would have been dire... I dread to think what your Avatar says about your mindset :S... Nemesis? Intelligent? really? tongue.gif anyway...

I have to ask, does all this really matter? Certainly JJ Abrams Star Trek (recasting Kirk, Spock et al.) is a product of the era we live in, in that things were somehow better back then than they are today but does it matter? TNG was a product of the 80s so I don't think it does, Star Trek has always mirrored our own world, this Star Trek is no different and I just think that perhaps all these points you raise are just a little contrived. It's fact that nothing lasts forever, this is just the next chapter in the Star Trek franchise. When it has exhausted itself I'm sure the powers that be will look to make it relevant using new producing talent for the countless generations that follow.

Whilst past Star Trek's may have explored issues presented in the 2009 movie before (again and again in some cases), did Star Trek do it any better previously across the 10 movies and 7 TV series? Maybe, it's up to the individual to make that call and whatever our PERSONAL bias might be, the point of this Star Trek being made was to make the brand relevant to suit the current trends and a new, perhaps younger generation that may have never seen or liked Star Trek before... isn't that a good thing? My point being that just because it may not have resonated with you, doesn't mean that it didn't resonate with someone else.

So whilst I am partial to a bit of Star Trek: The Next Generation myself, I have to say, JJ Abrams did a great job in making Star Trek appeal and be seen as relevant to myself as well as a new, wider audience. Whilst I got a lot from the new movie, TNG was the Star Trek era I grew up with, I didn't care for Spock and Kirk, I didn't really know them, the Original Series seemed cheesy and dated but TNG really appealed to me... It's almost certain that in time, however long it may be, someone else will be having a discussion about how JJ Abrams Star Trek was "THEIR" Trek and that this new Star Trek just isn't what Star Trek is all about etc...

In the end it comes down to how people want to be informed through what is essentially to everyone but the avid Trekker, entertainment. To me Star Trek has always informed people about current social issues by tackling them behind a cloak of action and adventure. We have only 2 hours of JJ Abrams Star Trek to compare between 40 years worth but so far has Roddenberry and Berman done it any better than Abrams? In my opinion, Not at all, trends do change, people expect more but Abrams has not dropped the ball on the things that are essential to making GOOD Star Trek but if you don't like the way it's been revived then there is simply no convincing you otherwise which is fine but it does kind of render having a meaningful discussion with someone who is 100% against or for something pointless in the end...

Personal opinions aside, can we agree with the detractors that Abrams has SO FAR essentially made Star Trek relevant again by following current trends in what the majority of people expect from entertainment properties like Star Trek. It's come from pop-culture icon and the bench mark of Science Fiction on TV to geek obscurity and finally becoming something that anyone can get into and enjoy.

#30 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 November 2010 - 10:24 AM

QUOTE (1701 @ Nov 6 2010, 07:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Personal opinions aside, can we agree with the detractors that Abrams has SO FAR essentially made Star Trek relevant again by following current trends in what the majority of people expect from entertainment properties like Star Trek. It's come from pop-culture icon and the bench mark of Science Fiction on TV to geek obscurity and finally becoming something that anyone can get into and enjoy.


If your saying that Star Trek is relevant again because its rebooted its image to reflect current pop culture, then, no... I don't agree.

Star Trek created popular culture, not the other way around. It was the trend setter, not the trend follower.

I hate to say it but I really think that the new reboot of BSG has unseated Star Trek as the best Sci-Fi series ever made for TV, and they did it with smart, intelligent drama, and minimal techno babel!

#31 VulcanFanatic

VulcanFanatic

    Leonard Nimoy fan

  • Members
  • 3,165 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southeastern North Carolina

Posted 14 November 2010 - 10:34 AM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Nov 14 2010, 11:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If your saying that Star Trek is relevant again because its rebooted its image to reflect current pop culture, then, no... I don't agree.

Star Trek created popular culture, not the other way around. It was the trend setter, not the trend follower.

I hate to say it but I really think that the new reboot of BSG has unseated Star Trek as the best Sci-Fi series ever made for TV, and they did it with smart, intelligent drama, and minimal techno babel!

We can all have our own opinions, so i have to disagree about Reboot BSG being the best Sci-Fi show created for tv. Interesting it was, but in my opinion, there was no likable characters on that show, which is one thing that has endeared Star Trek to so many people. I have a hard time believing that anyone will be talking about Reboot BSG 45 years from now, or see any changes in our society that were inspired by watching Reboot BSG. I continue to dislike reboot BSG and i am sure there are a lot of folks out there that feel as i do. Of course, as i said to begin with, everyone has the right to an opinion.

#32 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 14 November 2010 - 02:12 PM

Oh for sure, its only my opinion. And even the R-BSG is not w/o its flaws, Season 3, for example, was a bit of a disaster IMO.

But you have an interesting point... will anyone be talking about BSG in 45 years? Certainly people talked about it enough after 30 years to decide to revive it... that says something.

But I have to say I enjoy watching 45 year old episodes of TOS more than I like watching 30 year old episodes of BSG.

If I was given the choice of watching 45 year old episodes of TOS vs R-BSG, I'd pick R-BSG.

To your point, does it have the staying power? Will people want to re-watch R-BSG? Does it have a message?

I think it certainly has a message (several in fact), that are very appropriate to the modern age, but for the other two I don't know... I guess only time will tell.

The real question (for this topic) is will people still be interested in Abram's Trek in 45 years? Or will we have rebooted it again and moved on to the next thing?

The thing about the format of a movie is its ment to be a momentary diversion for most people (the masses). They want to go to the theater enjoy the movie for the 2 hrs they are there and then forget about it and be entertained by something else a few weeks later.

If I were making a list of sci-fi movies that everyone should see... I'm not sure any Star Trek Movies would make the top 10 (and I like star Trek!). TWOK is the only one that would probably make my top 50... but as with everything its subjective and is only my opinion.

Love 'em or hate 'em movies like 2001, Blade Runner and Alien consistently make most top 10 Sci-Fi lists because they were ground breaking at the time and are still seem to have some relevance today. So what does Star Trek need to do to really show us something new? Maybe its still to constrained by the framework laid out for it, and its better suited to the small screen (which is what I really think).

It will be interesting to see what comes in 2012.

#33 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2010 - 09:28 AM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Nov 14 2010, 10:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
If your saying that Star Trek is relevant again because its rebooted its image to reflect current pop culture, then, no... I don't agree.

Star Trek created popular culture, not the other way around. It was the trend setter, not the trend follower.

I hate to say it but I really think that the new reboot of BSG has unseated Star Trek as the best Sci-Fi series ever made for TV, and they did it with smart, intelligent drama, and minimal techno babel!


Without Star Trek the face of Science Fiction would be different sure but without the likes of Forbidden Planet, Wagon Train or Metropolis, shows and movies like Star Trek would never have even been made (or not the same shows as we've come to adore)... We can't just say that Star Trek was the single thing that began pop culture because that's simply not true, we also owe a lot to Science Fiction and Sci-Fi on Star Trek to Star Wars... I'm not quite sure why you don't agree that it has made the brand relevant again, surely the excitement over the 2009 movie and now the 2012 sequel are testament to the relevancy Star Trek is enjoying. People are watching it for one thing that may not have bothered with it before but if it wasn't relevant for you then alright smile.gif.

I also have to ecco VF's opinion in that I too doubt anyone will be talking about the new BSG in 10 years time let alone 45 years time. Star Trek is enduring because of how relatable the characters are - and the 2009 movie was no different, being a guy in his mid-twenties, I could definitely relate to Chris Pine's Kirk and without going into too much personal detail, the story really helped me get through what has been a really heart-breaking 2 years after loosing my Dad to pancreatic cancer in March, so even though It is only entertainment, the kind of message in Star Trek (2009), in that you can live up to your dad's/mum's name and reach your potential etc... was a message that really resonated with me more so than many stories in Enterprise or DS9 etc... In the re imagined Battlestar Galactica, whilst it reflected the darker side of reality very well, I don't think it had a message that will be as long lasting because most of the messages in BSG were really quite depressing, I didn't much care for the characters and in the end it got to the point where I was siding with the Cylons - it kind of over stepped the mark with the "heroes" being too gritty and hard - Star Trek really did get the balance right I felt, Kirk and co were genuine people with their good and bad points, they weren't overly bad nor were they squeaky clean, they were normal, Starbuck and Co were kinda bastards... After listening to the DVD/Blu-Ray extras on Trek 09, I've gotta say under all the "I loved working with JJ" and the "This film was amazing to work on" I really got the sense that this was a film that was made with the upmost care and attention to detail in order to be as faithful to what had come before. I just felt like these guys really did care about what it was they were doing and how they were doing it and for that reason alone I think the franchise is in the best hands to take it forward.

#34 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 16 November 2010 - 06:14 AM

No doubt that Star Trek and BSG are different animals. It's a bet 1701! I think people will be talking about and watching the new BSG in 10 years. Again, I don't think its w/o its faults, but nothing is.

But back on topic, my point was that the new trek movie didn't add anything new to pop culture, it wasn't a culture changing phenom. it just re-imagined its self to "catch up" to pop culture. It was like putting a new coat of paint on an old car. Its not a trend setter, its a trend follower.

Don't get me wrong, it was fun, but I had friends (that aren't really Trek fans) go see the movie with me and they all said the same thing.... "That was fun, but I've seen that movie before". What they ment was it might as well have been one of those spoof movies like "Scary Movie" because there was nothing new. The basic plot, the special effects, the antagonist and protagonist... there was nothing really new and fresh about it. Neither I nor anyone I saw that movie with walked out and thought "Wow I really saw something special here".

...and yes, Metropolis, and Forbidden Planet also wind up on most top ten sci movie lists...

#35 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2010 - 01:17 PM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Nov 16 2010, 07:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No doubt that Star Trek and BSG are different animals. It's a bet 1701! I think people will be talking about and watching the new BSG in 10 years. Again, I don't think its w/o its faults, but nothing is.

But back on topic, my point was that the new trek movie didn't add anything new to pop culture, it wasn't a culture changing phenom. it just re-imagined its self to "catch up" to pop culture. It was like putting a new coat of paint on an old car. Its not a trend setter, its a trend follower.


But has Star Trek added anything new to pop-culture since TOS? In my opinion, definitely not. Star Trek is great but I wouldn't suggest that TNG, DS9, Voyager or Enterprise are as influential to popular culture as the original. This is probably why Kirk and Spock after 45 years remain house hold names and why I believe that the new Star Trek movie(s) are products of it's influence over the years - What the new movie does, whilst maybe not adding anything new, it continues the tradition set by TOS just as the spin-off's did for new generations to enjoy. The legacy of Star Trek is alive and well as a result of this new film and that for me has definitely made Star Trek relevant again...

QUOTE
Don't get me wrong, it was fun, but I had friends (that aren't really Trek fans) go see the movie with me and they all said the same thing.... "That was fun, but I've seen that movie before". What they ment was it might as well have been one of those spoof movies like "Scary Movie" because there was nothing new. The basic plot, the special effects, the antagonist and protagonist... there was nothing really new and fresh about it. Neither I nor anyone I saw that movie with walked out and thought "Wow I really saw something special here".


Ok, you do have a point but I think that is another argument altogether and one that isn't the fault of the 2009 movie - Star Trek (2009) is a product of the times we live in - as it always has been weather it be TNG or JJ Abrams 2009 movie. For one thing, there are only so many stories that can be told in this world - most of which Star Trek of the past 4 decades has covered time and time again. Lets not forget what we're talking about here and what it is we have to compare this movie to. Star Trek as a whole ever since I began watching it has been great fun but honestly, I've seen the same stories before countless times in other things like Star Wars, Stargate, Avatar, Battlestar Galactica (new version) and the list goes on.... More importantly for this discussion, in all of the 5 Trek TV series and 10 movies, you can't say that certain Trek episodes/films weren't rehashes of old stories done years before on Trek's of the past.

What this movie brought to Star Trek and the summer blockbuster genre was a fresh approach in style and relevance to an established vision - the story may not have been that original but IMO it was far more original than Avatar and was quite clever in preserving what had come before yet re-inventing Star Trek so that it could be enjoyed by anyone -This was a movie made to re-energize a dead franchise - it continues in the same vein as previous Star Trek's but it does it in a way that makes it appealing to a generation who would have turned off Enterprise and not bothered to go and see Nemesis. Star Trek has already been the pop-culture icon and because of the important influence it has had on the world... Does it need to do it AGIAN? I don't think it does and I think it's essential that it doesn't, in the end Star Trek became far too preachy rather than commenting on socially relevant issues, it preached from a pedestal which really turns people off, especially a new audience. So, does it add anything new to popular culture? perhaps, but if it doesn't, I don't think it needs to. Compared to every other 2009 summer blockbuster, Star Trek was by far the most intelligent, compared to Avatar, I feel it has far more substance and style, Avatar whilst I believe is a flash in the pan, the JJ Abrams era of Star Trek along with the history that goes with it, will I believe be remembered for a longer time. For most it is great fun, for me and a few, it engaged with us on a deeper, personal level. I feel it continues the legacy Star Trek created 45 years ago with a great deal of pride and care and for a franchise that has done it all, isn't it time for it to let it's hair down and have some fun with the already established vision of hope and optimism?

I think the JJ Abrams movie wasn't just needed, it's an essential and a logical progression in the continuing Star Trek legacy, just as TNG was back in the 80's - if nothing else, this movie comments on our world today in it's production values as well as story and that is the thing that makes Star Trek quintessentially Star Trek.

#36 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 16 November 2010 - 08:25 PM

Oh no! Long posts again! laugh.gif

Well, I'll try and keep mine brief.

I absolutely agree that later Star Trek did not drive popular culture so much as it tried to stay with it. I think TNG did drive popular culture. I knew little old ladies that watched it because they thought Patrick Stewart was hot! It drove a ton of merchandising, and spawned the whole "Kirk vs Picard" argument. I think it lost it somewhere during DS9, even though I personally like DS9 over all the shows.

I also agree that there are certain themes of stories that get told again and again... but there are plenty of examples where the same story is told in a fresh new way. Not all the time, but sometimes I go to a movie and it really exceeds my expectations, it shows my something in a new or different way.

I'm going to try and talk directly to the title of the thread, which is "What should Star Trek do to fix it's self". Fundamentally, I think my answer is Star Trek works best on the small screen. If they like they can stick with the JJ-Trek-verse, but they need to bring it back to TV. Thats where (I think) Star Trek seems to work best and drive popular culture instead of being led.

Others have mentioned an animated series, and I think that's a great idea. I like live action better, but either way, I think one of the things we can learn from something like the new BSG, is to keep the techno babble to a min! Really TOS had pretty minimal techno babble, and it seemed to get worse and worse as the years and series went by.

#37 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2010 - 04:43 PM

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Nov 16 2010, 08:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh no! Long posts again! laugh.gif


ah cm'on! that wasn't that long tongue.gif

QUOTE
I think TNG did drive popular culture. I knew little old ladies that watched it because they thought Patrick Stewart was hot! It drove a ton of merchandising, and spawned the whole "Kirk vs Picard" argument. I think it lost it somewhere during DS9, even though I personally like DS9 over all the shows.


If thats how you define Star Trek driving popular culture then how is it you don't feel JJ Abrams Trek drove it further? I mean I know young ladies who thought Chris Pine was hot as well as Zachary Quinto and hasn't this movie spawned the whole Star Trek Prime vs Star Trek Alternate or Shatner vs Pine debates (among many more debates)? I think as shows they were great (DS9, VOY and ENT) but the TNG formula didn't really alter much apart from the look and feel of the shows. They hardly did anything radically different to contribute to popular culutre in the way TOS did. TNG, I don't know, like Trek 09, it opened the door to a younger, newer audience... Star Trek 2009 however I feel has radically shifted the balance in Star Trek - no longer is it written or acted in the same way as TNG through to Enterprise or even TOS - nor is it filmed or cut in the way Trek has been cut before - essentially as production values go, Star Trek 2009 is radically different to it's predecessors in every way! As for story, well it's hard to find original story telling anywhere these days, for what it's worth in the context of the Star Trek universe i felt the story was a breath of fresh air allowing a franchise that had somewhat stagnated in terms of story and how the story's were executed, into a fast cut for a generation addicted to computer games and a faster pace of life. It may not have added anything to the popular culture scene but I feel it's added another dimension to Star Trek.

QUOTE
I also agree that there are certain themes of stories that get told again and again... but there are plenty of examples where the same story is told in a fresh new way. Not all the time, but sometimes I go to a movie and it really exceeds my expectations, it shows my something in a new or different way.


Well I can't help but feel your being a bit harsh on Star Trek 2009 because I felt that it did provide an exciting fresh take on a classic storyline, and in terms of how it linked the rest of Star Trek to it was pretty good since many fans thought that it would just be a complete reboot that dismisses the past 40 odd years but it didn't do that at all, if anything I felt it embraced the best pieces of Star Trek and kind of tied them altogether within a story that a mainstream audience seem to relate to in this day and age. I thought there were little bits of genius; like everyone would have expected Kirk to get Uhura at the end but he didn't, and also the writing for the main cast seemed to come across as intelligent which for a summer blockbuster is pretty unique since it's usually big explosions and megan fox so I think Star Trek in much the same way as Harry Potter has been for a while now, had a bit more depth to it, a bit more weight to it than many of these summer blockbusters made just to sell toys but sure, it had it's silly bits too but what Star Trek hasn't...

QUOTE
I'm going to try and talk directly to the title of the thread, which is "What should Star Trek do to fix it's self". Fundamentally, I think my answer is Star Trek works best on the small screen. If they like they can stick with the JJ-Trek-verse, but they need to bring it back to TV. Thats where (I think) Star Trek seems to work best and drive popular culture instead of being led.


You see I'd disagree with that, not because I think your wrong but because I think for now at least, Star Trek has really exhausted itself for weekly adventures onboard what would essentially be the Enterprise again. I think films for the foreseeable future are a far better way in slowly building the franchise up again as well as the fan-base and spoon-feeding it to a hungry audience (of whoever that is made up of). I'd give it another 5 years at least before returning to TV.

QUOTE
Others have mentioned an animated series, and I think that's a great idea. I like live action better, but either way, I think one of the things we can learn from something like the new BSG, is to keep the techno babble to a min! Really TOS had pretty minimal techno babble, and it seemed to get worse and worse as the years and series went by.


I think an animated series would be a great way in reaching out to the younger audience. As for technobabble - I completely agree.

#38 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 17 November 2010 - 08:52 PM

It's ok if you think I'm wrong! I don't mind because its all good!

I just think, where Star Trek is concerned, it works better as a TV series. The movies (most all of them) have been extra icing on the cake where TNG is concerned, and honestly, I felt most TOS movies were done because they were just finished with the TV series, but IMO they felt like an extension of the TV series. In other words the movies were like an extra special special TV event.

TOS became a phenom becuase they put it in syndication and it kept reaching a bigger and bigger audience. But TOS is just a bit to "Camp" for many people these days, and TNG had a pretty big market penetration already, so I don't think people are going "re-discover" it... they need to discover Star Trek somehow again... and it needs to be cool... and they need to be reminded its cool often, more than every 3 years anyway!

#39 Guest_1701_*

Guest_1701_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:18 AM

I don't think your wrong, I agree with you that Star Trek should return to TV but after 18 years non-stop of TV episodes, where could you essentially take it that was completely new and original this early on after the cancelation of Enterprise? I think when this new universe is established after what I assume will be three movies, certainly a TV series set in that universe to flesh it out a bit should be seriously considered, perhaps with Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman or Ron Moore doing it.

I mean I think what is happening with Trek is identical to what is happening with Batman, not long ago Karl Urban was linked to a new Batman TV series (head over to trekmovie.com) I think we'll get three movies from Abrams and then it will head back to TV. If there is an animated series it will most likely happen between movies 2 and 3... but who knows, I think animated series are kind of separate to boost the interest in kids and sales of toys.

QUOTE (Gothneo @ Nov 17 2010, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
TOS is just a bit to "Camp" for many people these days, and TNG had a pretty big market penetration already, so I don't think people are going "re-discover" it... they need to discover Star Trek somehow again... and it needs to be cool... and they need to be reminded its cool often, more than every 3 years anyway!


I think for many people, even TNG is very dated because essentially it's the 80's in space! where as DS9, Voyager and Enterprise never succeeded in recapturing the "magic" of TOS and TNG. What is interesting though is that it seems to me that you don't feel that new Trek does do the job you suggest - making Star Trek cool enough for people to discover Trek again? I mean doesn't the new Star Trek movie do that for a new audience? I don't think that TOS, TNG and the rest are ever going to be re-discovered in any major way because of how badly the've aged for a new generation to find relevant but the Star Trek mythos has surely been rediscovered going by the hugely positive response it got? I mean it may not do it for you but certainly Abrams Trek did it for a majority of new and perhaps old fans returning to a franchise they believe had lost it's way? no?

#40 Gothneo

Gothneo

    Knows Paul Bunyan

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land of sky Blue Oxen

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:29 PM

Maybe it does. Maybe I'm just impatient with the inevitable digression necessary to reboot a franchise the way they did. I really really wanted to like the 2009 movie... way more than I did.

So maybe what I need to do is just wait till all the movies are done doing what you say they need to do to rebuild a fan base and wait for a new TV series.

But I'm certainly not alone. Many long time fans felt much more betrayed than I. And I just haven't seen that the new Trek had as big of an impact... not long ago I was in a Toys R Us and a parent was desperately trying to get their child interested in something besides Star Wars or Transformers. I heard them say "Oh look there's Star Trek Here! How about something from Star Trek" and the kid just sneered and said "That's lame".




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users