Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 Roddenberry Vs Abrams
06-14-2012, 09:47 AM
Looking at the new information on the upcoming Star Trek Sequel something occurred to me; is J.J.Abram staying true to Gene's dream and message?

He argued that Gene presented the Star Trek Pilot as 'A wagon to the stars' and 'Cowboys with lasers'...
however if you actually watch and listen to Gene talk about that, he says he only described it as such to get money out of the narrow viewed chairman at the time.
He stated that Star Trek is about hope for the future and exploring our potential as much as it is exploring the stars.

Have we as fans allowed the franchise we love so much lose its way just for the sake of some pretty light shows? Or is this simply a phase it must go through to become something greater?
Is this the final leg of the franchise's journey or simply a new chapter?

I would like to know your thoughts as I myself am so divided on this question.


Posted by myself on the 17/06/2012 at 1717hrs UTC; on the query if Batman Begins inspired the reboot:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysmith1
To be fair the Marvel and DC universe's already have a wide variety of versions so it isn't anything new to the fans, I think that's why the Trekkie community is so divided at the moment, because despite its attacks with the time traveling and alternate reality stories, Star Trek has always had a straight Continuum that allows a sense of realism or/and escape from reality and for some the reboot has ruined that whilst for others its a welcome breathe of fresh air.
For the first time we have a clear definition between Trekkies and Trekkers!
Your thoughts?


In no way am I referencing the quality of the film or opinions on its canon compatibility with previous series!
This is a heated debate with clear lines drawn amongst fans, so please try to keep it 'above the belt'.

Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
06-14-2012, 07:39 PM
Quote:
however if you actually watch and listen to Gene talk about that, he says he only described it as such to get money out of the narrow viewed chairman at the time.
Roddenberry was like everyone with something to sell: He'd say whatever it was the audience at the time wanted to hear. Be they a TV executive or a fan at a con.

Star Trek is a product. It always has been. That fans tried to make it more than it is is just fine and dandy for the people making money from it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
06-14-2012, 08:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by twg042370
Roddenberry was like everyone with something to sell: He'd say whatever it was the audience at the time wanted to hear. Be they a TV executive or a fan at a con.

Star Trek is a product. It always has been. That fans tried to make it more than it is is just fine and dandy for the people making money from it.
So you never noticed how he tried to get multirace actors, started subtly writing real drama (issues of the times) or kept getting stopped from doing what he wanted to do by the network.
I'm not denying what your saying, im just pointing out that the differance between Star Trek and other Sci-Fi's like Star Wars is that Star Trek was suppose to be more than a show, more than a franchise... but is it anymore, or is it JUST a show, JUST a franchise now!?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
06-14-2012, 08:30 PM
Yes, it's just a franchise. It alway has been. The multi-culturalism was part of the product because the audience wanted it... Well, the sane part did. Ignore the south.

If you accept this fact, you'll get less worked up over Chris Pine's big comedy hands next year.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
06-14-2012, 08:41 PM
Looking at those old episodes (admittedly I've only seen maybe a third of them) I'm not sure I see all the Hope For The Future some people so adore, at least not in any way not present in so many other sci-fi universes where the future is so idyllic. Okay you had a multiethnic command crew, but the only characters with any development were the 3 white guys who rescued the others every week. Using knowledge gained from only the show, what can you tell someone about Scotty that wasn't either a drunken Scotsman stereotype or super engineer, or what Sulu thought about the captain bedding the alien princess once a month, or even Uhura's full name? As for Kirk, what I most remember was stuff like a lot of fist fights and preaching about The Greatness Of Humanity (the virtue, not the species) from a very self-serving point of view. Spock was perfect at nearly everything, and McCoy was little more than a cynical counterbalance to Kirk. I personally don't see the great depth of characters or morality in TOS, just fortune-cookie wisdom to add fake depth to what was otherwise a standard sci-fi, little different than Buck Rogers or a dozen others.

Personally, I think the Abrams style fits TOS just fine.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
06-14-2012, 08:54 PM
I think what some people fail to notice when they trash Gene is that his idea at the time was unheard of and that is why it has survived this long. What JJ has failed to do in my opinion is that he did not do that. He made it FX porn with little substance. Given that is what people want in movies it was a success but as in terms of a star trek film and part of the franchise I worry that this will cause further problems. What we need is a series based in the original timeline that follows the events after the Supernova and leading to the late 25th century when they go into a new series that follows exploration and not only a wagon trail in space but more like the Captains searching for routes to china and searching for El Dorado.

By all means JJ did take the franchise out of its coffin but taking it into this path will drift further away from the original idea which was to explore not just new worlds and civilizations but the human condition. JJ himself stated that he did not understand the dynamic that was between the TOS crew. That is a BIG mistake on his part considering the past and the chemistry the characters had and their emotional being their psyche as it misses half of the message Star Trek always had and somehow lost during the Braga era and then now with JJ Trek.

Don't get me wrong I liked the film for what it was a summer popcorn flick but is it truly a Star Trek film... That is the question all of us fans have to ask ourselves.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
06-14-2012, 09:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_E_D_Allen89
I think what some people fail to notice when they trash Gene is that his idea at the time was unheard of and that is why it has survived this long. What JJ has failed to do in my opinion is that he did not do that. He made it FX porn with little substance. Given that is what people want in movies it was a success but as in terms of a star trek film and part of the franchise I worry that this will cause further problems. What we need is a series based in the original timeline that follows the events after the Supernova and leading to the late 25th century when they go into a new series that follows exploration and not only a wagon trail in space but more like the Captains searching for routes to china and searching for El Dorado.

By all means JJ did take the franchise out of its coffin but taking it into this path will drift further away from the original idea which was to explore not just new worlds and civilizations but the human condition. JJ himself stated that he did not understand the dynamic that was between the TOS crew. That is a BIG mistake on his part considering the past and the chemistry the characters had and their emotional being their psyche as it misses half of the message Star Trek always had and somehow lost during the Braga era and then now with JJ Trek.

Don't get me wrong I liked the film for what it was a summer popcorn flick but is it truly a Star Trek film... That is the question all of us fans have to ask ourselves.
Finally someone that gets me lol

The problem I have with this topic is it's hard to defend either side when both sides have such logical arguments, though I will have to disagree with Chris_E_D_Allen89 and others about the whole concept of Star Trek dying, yeah it needed a reboot but I doubt I could EVER see the logic in pressing the big blinking FX button labelled 'Reset-press when wallet is thin'! I always thought a movie series called Origins or Genesis would be cool, 5-6 short films based around the origins of differant races.
The story of Kahless, the Romulan Caravan, The Breen mystery, the Jem'Hadar creation, THE BORG, soo much potentail unseen by such narrow viewed chairman, I see why Gene got headaches! lol
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
06-14-2012, 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysmith1
So you never noticed how he tried to get multirace actors, started subtly writing real drama (issues of the times) or kept getting stopped from doing what he wanted to do by the network.
I'm not denying what your saying, im just pointing out that the differance between Star Trek and other Sci-Fi's like Star Wars is that Star Trek was suppose to be more than a show, more than a franchise... but is it anymore, or is it JUST a show, JUST a franchise now!?
It became that the moment Gene died, but the execs in charge of the TV shows were never willing to push too far beyond his vision for fear of losing their fanbase. These new films are the culmination of the steady loss of viewers the more modern Treks suffered, and the wet dreams of the movie execs at Paramount who always saw Trek as a potential cash cow, if only they could drop all that inconvenient philosophy and ethics stuff in favour of more pew-pew-lens flare crap.

I just find it horribly ironic that a world that was supposed to inspire us to be better human beings and to strive for a better future is now the domain of lockbox lotteries, microtransactions, and IMMA FIRIN MA PHAZER JJ-Trek movies.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
06-14-2012, 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickysmith1
Finally someone that gets me lol

The problem I have with this topic is it's hard to defend either side when both sides have such logical arguments, though I will have to disagree with Chris_E_D_Allen89 and others about the whole concept of Star Trek dying, yeah it needed a reboot but I doubt I could EVER see the logic in pressing the big blinking FX button labelled 'Reset-press when wallet is thin'! I always thought a movie series called Origins or Genesis would be cool, 5-6 short films based around the origins of differant races.
The story of Kahless, the Romulan Caravan, The Breen mystery, the Jem'Hadar creation, THE BORG, soo much potentail unseen by such narrow viewed chairman, I see why Gene got headaches! lol
What I meant was that Star Trek is indeed losing its way and I fear that is the path it is heading. I too see why Gene got headaches and I see why fans are frustrated. I don't disagree with you much. Just my meaning was that Star Trek is falling apart and we need to right the ship.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
06-14-2012, 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_E_D_Allen89
What I meant was that Star Trek is indeed losing its way and I fear that is the path it is heading. I too see why Gene got headaches and I see why fans are frustrated. I don't disagree with you much. Just my meaning was that Star Trek is falling apart and we need to right the ship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sosolidshoe View Post
It became that the moment Gene died, but the execs in charge of the TV shows were never willing to push too far beyond his vision for fear of losing their fanbase. These new films are the culmination of the steady loss of viewers the more modern Treks suffered, and the wet dreams of the movie execs at Paramount who always saw Trek as a potential cash cow, if only they could drop all that inconvenient philosophy and ethics stuff in favour of more pew-pew-lens flare crap.

I just find it horribly ironic that a world that was supposed to inspire us to be better human beings and to strive for a better future is now the domain of lockbox lotteries, microtransactions, and IMMA FIRIN MA PHAZER JJ-Trek movies.

Well if Star Trek has lost it's way, what could they do to make it the franchise it once was?
A new T.V series? The Animated Series on hold? A new direction with the Abram-verse?
How can we bring back that show that use to teach kids about a wider view of morality and challanged your imagination growing up, (defantly in my case)!
Better yet, name me one new thing (ST) you would want Paramount to put in production right now if you could make them!... and really think about this one!
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:19 PM.