Star Trek Beyond

Re: New STAR TREK 3

CessnaDriver said:
Not so much. I look at how Spielberg and Lucas effed up Indiana Jones, the original creators totally trashed their creation and that
was with some original actors. I actually support recasting to save that franchise.

Roddenberry would not have created such empty drivel. What Gene may have done today might have been boring to many, but
he would have tried to make people think.
Click to expand...
Contradictory statements are contradictory.

No one knows what Roddenberry would've done. Assume all you want.

People make this holy iconic thing out of TOS - but, it to was flawed and some major issues. If Roddenberry rebooted Trek exactly the way Abrams did, some folks (trashing the new Trek) would've made a mess of themselves.

The other thing is - and I like JJ's Trek overall much more than I did several of the movies that preceded it - the new Trek has been fairly successful, it's bringing new folks to Trek... folks that might discover TOS, TNG and the rest. That's a good thing.

So... bring on JJ Trek 3. Please.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

JD said:
Contradictory statements are contradictory.

No one knows what Roddenberry would've done. Assume all you want.

People make this holy iconic thing out of TOS - but, it to was flawed and some major issues. If Roddenberry rebooted Trek exactly the way Abrams did, some folks (trashing the new Trek) would've made a mess of themselves.

The other thing is - and I like JJ's Trek overall much more than I did several of the movies that preceded it - the new Trek has been fairly successful, it's bringing new folks to Trek... folks that might discover TOS, TNG and the rest. That's a good thing.

So... bring on JJ Trek 3. Please.
Click to expand...

Point is I WILL call foul on original creators.
Roddenberry's big thing was portraying the leveled up humanity embodied in Starfleet and it's purpose.

Yeah, TOS IS iconic and sadly is one of the few positive portrayals of humanity's future, imperfect as you may say it is and I admit it is.
It was made by humans so it will not pass Nomad's criteria. But it IS special. Even more so in light of the Abrams rapings.

Roddenberry was a "cartographer of human purpose" stealing a line from Sagan. He had some compelling and original thoughts he expressed on that, on humanity's future. And it often manifested in his creations.

Where is the compelling content of JJ Abrams mind?

Was he so in love with Trek that he wanted to continue it's higher vision?

Or was it just a start key franchise to reboot?

Answer is beyond obvious to me.

- - - Updated - - -

And they should bring in the entire surviving cast of TOS.
Nimoy shouldn't get to be the only one to make money off the reboot.
 
Last edited:
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I just love the black and white one dimensional argument that anyone who likes Trek worships the ground that Roddenberry walked on and that we all think anything pre-JJ is a masterpiece.

Like Cessna I will call foul on quite a bit of pre-JJ Trek. I do not think Roddenberry was brilliant, he was only one of many people who helped craft Trek. Trek was never perfect but it was not cut and paste brainless popcorn entertainment either and that is what made it special to many.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Mola Rob said:
I just love the black and white one dimensional argument that anyone who likes Trek worships the ground that Roddenberry walked on and that we all think anything pre-JJ is a masterpiece.

Like Cessna I will call foul on quite a bit of pre-JJ Trek. I do not think Roddenberry was brilliant, he was only one of many people who helped craft Trek. Trek was never perfect but it was not cut and paste brainless popcorn entertainment either and that is what made it special to many.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you that Rodenberry was brilliant, he was many things but brilliant really wasn't one of them. If you look at his track record he was really a one hit wonder with Trek being his one great and successful creation, every other series he tried creating before and after Trek were abject failures and that includes Andromeda since that series was only based on his ideas and was brought to life by others. It could be argued that if it weren't for his illness and eventual death causing him to give up creative control over TNG we might no even be having this argument today since it's likely the franchise might have ended after ST VI and a couple of seasons of TNG.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Bryancd said:
As a TOS fan and long time supporter of Trek I can say with the strongest conviction I have zero desire to go back to old Trek. It's time for Trek to. Be knew and that is exactly what JJ created and I am grateful for it. Those that wish to return to the past are wishing for is franchise to die. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

GR did exactly that himself - moved it forward - and he did so by jumping ahead in time. Then the spread out for different aspects with voyager and DS9 (regardless of your opinions of them). Never did he move it forward by going backwards and rebooting things.

If you want to go forward pick up with the enterprise 1701-G or something and go from there - don't rewrite the past. Do just what you're saying and move it forward.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

CessnaDriver said:
Point is I WILL call foul on original creators.
Roddenberry's big thing was portraying the leveled up humanity embodied in Starfleet and it's purpose.

Yeah, TOS IS iconic and sadly is one of the few positive portrayals of humanity's future, imperfect as you may say it is and I admit it is.
It was made by humans so it will not pass Nomad's criteria. But it IS special. Even more so in light of the Abrams rapings.

Roddenberry was a "cartographer of human purpose" stealing a line from Sagan. He had some compelling and original thoughts he expressed on that, on humanity's future. And it often manifested in his creations.

Where is the compelling content of JJ Abrams mind?

Was he so in love with Trek that he wanted to continue it's higher vision?

Or was it just a start key franchise to reboot?

Answer is beyond obvious to me.

- - - Updated - - -

And they should bring in the entire surviving cast of TOS.
Nimoy shouldn't get to be the only one to make money off the reboot.
Click to expand...

:facepalm
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Bryancd said:
As a TOS fan and long time supporter of Trek I can say with the strongest conviction I have zero desire to go back to old Trek. It's time for Trek to. Be knew and that is exactly what JJ created and I am grateful for it. Those that wish to return to the past are wishing for is franchise to die. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

I'm curious. How would you describe "Old Trek" to be like? Is it any story set in the prime universe? Well, can't really say that going back there will kill the franchise since back it ran well for more almost two decades. Is it sticking with the old crew? That certainly can't be right because that's what JJ has given us. Is it the long, slow and boring stories like The Motion Picture? That's just one movie. Is it the episodic "story of the week" with no continuity? Would that apply to Deep Space Nine as well when that show had many long running stories that spanned seasons?

And how exactly does wishing to "return to the past" the same as wishing for the franchise to die? Are you saying that if we choose to buy the original series on DVD, BluRay, or digitally that we are killing the series? That is after all another way of "returning to the past" by having a means of watching the series. I don't think studios ever told fans that buying products based on their franchises was hurting it. The only thing that was ever hurt in fans buying this stuff was Gene Roddenberry's message that owning any kind of possessions is infantile, even though he himself wanted you to buy them.

I think you need to go a bit more into detail on what "Old Trek" really is exactly and why it's such a black hole of a problem that even thinking about will kill the franchise.

My personal opinion? Just because I personally would like to see Star Trek continue in the Prime Universe does not mean I want all the problems that Old Trek had. I don't want just Star Trek to be back, I want the universe to be back as well. Have writers that want to continue the lore, but be so scared of it that they'll openly confess that canon is a hinderance that needs to be burned alive.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

"old Trek" does not mean go back in time.

I want Trek that engages the mind with concepts I have not entertained before and shows a potential incredible future that maps
where we might go if we commit to them. As Q said... "....charting the unknown possibilities of existence."
In between Gorn fights and hot space babes of course, I'm not stupid.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

In my opinion the reason Star Trek was suffering was from an overexposure on TV (one series after another was too much), weak movie scripts and catering to stars whose egos got too big, and the fact the TNG crew did not work that well on the big screen.

There was a need for a change but they didn't need to go overboard and make big screen adaptations of the Gold Key comics. A proper balance with a thoughtful story and exciting action is what Trek needs. That and focusing on a new crew. Kirk and the gang were done right the first time around.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Dump Abrams, get someone who understands Sci Fi and hires writers that "get it" and Trek's role within that and I'll be the first
to give praise. Hell I will give praise if at least they try and fall short trying. Risk. Take it! Don't underestimate an audiences
ability to grasp higher concepts.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

The Roddenberry worship is fanboy nonsense.

If Roddenberry had only his way, some of the most iconic Trek episodes would have never seen the light of day. It's no secret that Roddenberry clashed with folks like Gene L. **** over the direction of the show. Reportedly, he hated The Trouble With Tribbles because "Trek isn't supposed to be a comedy."

Say what you will about the Trouble with Tribbles, but for better or worse, it's one of the defining episodes of the show.

Trek canon is more than Roddenberry. And to solely credit him with the vision that TOS set out is a disservice to the writers, actors, and production crew which made Trek as what we know it today. Don't get me wrong, Gene is essential to Star Trek and it would not exist without Gene, but so too would it not exist without folks like Gene L. **** and David Gerrold, who injected crucial elements into Trek canon.

As far as JJTrek 3, can we FINALLY get some LGBT characters in the Trek Universe?
 
Last edited:
Re: New STAR TREK 3

jlee562 said:
The Roddenberry worship is fanboy nonsense.

If Roddenberry had only his way, some of the most iconic Trek episodes would have never seen the light of day. It's no secret that Roddenberry clashed with folks like Gene L. **** over the direction of the show. Reportedly, he hated The Trouble With Tribbles because "Trek isn't supposed to be a comedy."

Say what you will about the Trouble with Tribbles, but for better or worse, it's one of the defining episodes of the show.

Trek canon is more than Roddenberry. And to solely credit him with the vision that TOS set out is a disservice to the writers, actors, and production crew which made Trek as what we know it today. Don't get me wrong, Gene is essential to Star Trek and it would not exist without Gene, but so too would it not exist without folks like Gene L. **** and David Gerrold, who injected crucial elements into Trek canon.

As far as JJTrek 3, can we FINALLY get some LGBT characters in the Trek Universe?
Click to expand...


There was clash and there was debate and it was healthy, that kind of thing can be good, imagine how the SW prequals would have been if not for Lucas and all his yes men. Roddenberry still was there to insist on some basic leveled up humanity elements.

Do you think anyone clashed or debated with JJ on anything like Roddenberry would have? Oh hells noes!
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Another aspect is Roddenberry and others had a TON of other life experiences before becoming writers and creators.
Some weren't products of Hollywood. Roddenberry a war hero pilot, a policeman. No small matters when it comes
to giving a sense of reality to the fantastic. We can actually believe a starfleet could exist as it functions in
ways that are real to us today. Not so much with JJ Starfleet where getting into the Captain chair of a huge
vessel is based on whatever they feel like at the time.

I think of Rod Serling, a master writer, terrible war experiences and it punches through in his stories.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

CessnaDriver said:
There was clash and there was debate and it was healthy, that kind of thing can be good, imagine how the SW prequals would have been if not for Lucas and all his yes men. Roddenberry still was there to insist on some basic leveled up humanity elements.

Do you think anyone clashed or debated with JJ on anything like Roddenberry would have? Oh hells noes!
Click to expand...

This sounds to me like you are looking back through rose colored glasses.

More to the point though, your opinion on JJ is founded on nothing but supposition. We know, in fact, that there WAS a conflict between the writers as to whether or not Khan should be the villain of the film. For you to assume that there was no 'clash' or 'debate' based on the fact that you didn't like the final film is, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical.

And oh, I would also vigorously argue that STID had a bigger message that is relevant to today's society and today's problems.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Jeyl said:
I'm curious. How would you describe "Old Trek" to be like? Is it any story set in the prime universe? Well, can't really say that going back there will kill the franchise since back it ran well for more almost two decades. Is it sticking with the old crew? That certainly can't be right because that's what JJ has given us. Is it the long, slow and boring stories like The Motion Picture? That's just one movie. Is it the episodic "story of the week" with no continuity? Would that apply to Deep Space Nine as well when that show had many long running stories that spanned seasons?

And how exactly does wishing to "return to the past" the same as wishing for the franchise to die? Are you saying that if we choose to buy the original series on DVD, BluRay, or digitally that we are killing the series? That is after all another way of "returning to the past" by having a means of watching the series. I don't think studios ever told fans that buying products based on their franchises was hurting it. The only thing that was ever hurt in fans buying this stuff was Gene Roddenberry's message that owning any kind of possessions is infantile, even though he himself wanted you to buy them.

I think you need to go a bit more into detail on what "Old Trek" really is exactly and why it's such a black hole of a problem that even thinking about will kill the franchise.

My personal opinion? Just because I personally would like to see Star Trek continue in the Prime Universe does not mean I want all the problems that Old Trek had. I don't want just Star Trek to be back, I want the universe to be back as well. Have writers that want to continue the lore, but be so scared of it that they'll openly confess that canon is a hinderance that needs to be burned alive.
Click to expand...

Everyone else seems to understand my meaning, odd (not really) you don't.

By Old Trek I mean all the previous content in it's entirety. By Old Trek I mean the TOS crew, the TNG crew, the DS9 crew, and The Voyager crew and the ENTERPRISE crew. Those stories are done, and were done well more often then not. But I see in this new iteration/timeline and new versions of the TOS characters a new and dynamic universe for the future of Trek. It is beyond debate that the '09 film brought in a lot of new fans to the franchise and that is key to any future Trek may have. The fan base need to be broadened and they have made the decision to do it with this concept and it's the correct instinct. We can debate the "quality" of the product as fans of what has come before, but by every meaningful metric the new films are very successful and they should continue to develop this new content.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

jlee562 said:
This sounds to me like you are looking back through rose colored glasses.

More to the point though, your opinion on JJ is founded on nothing but supposition. We know, in fact, that there WAS a conflict between the writers as to whether or not Khan should be the villain of the film. For you to assume that there was no 'clash' or 'debate' based on the fact that you didn't like the final film is, as Mr. Spock would say, illogical.

And oh, I would also vigorously argue that STID had a bigger message that is relevant to today's society and today's problems.
Click to expand...


STID is late to the party on allegory to the war on terror, and had nothing new to say about it.
Rather a tired worn out line actually. Enterprise had already gone over that years before.
Nothing creative, nothing compelling. Yawn. If it was even meant that way,
it was an excuse to have giant fed starships called "Vengeance".


It's fascinating that whatever debates there were with Abarms would be over how to rape others creations.

That wasn't happening with Roddenberry, it was over higher ideals of what he felt the TOS era humanity should be about.

That wasn't on Abrams laundry list, though making the most violent Trek labeled product ever was.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Do you Abrams supporters really want to see "JJ Trek 3: More ass kicking"?

Don't you want a change in gears yet?

Wouldn't you prefer that now that starfleet is squared away without warmongers and
the Enterprise free and clear to gasp.. explore, that we get a different less action oriented and more boldy go and seek out story?

Would you not enjoy that?
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

CessnaDriver said:
STID is late to the party on allegory to the war on terror, and had nothing new to say about it.
Rather a tired worn out line actually. Enterprise had already gone over that years before.
Nothing creative, nothing compelling. Yawn. If it was even meant that way,
it was an excuse to have giant fed starships called "Vengeance".
Click to expand...

To borrow from JD earlier in the thread: "contradictory statements are contradictory."

First you argue that JJ has no "compelling content," then, you acknowledge that there is a larger message, but one that you didn't like.

Whatever.

Again, I don't want to tread too far into the political territory, but in as much as it is germane to the conversation: I see parallels in STID to the use of unmanned drones.

It's fascinating that whatever debates there were with Abarms would be over how to rape others creations.
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic nonsense.

That wasn't happening with Roddenberry, it was over higher ideals of what he felt the TOS era humanity should be about.
Click to expand...

That's not according to folks who worked on the show.

There are many instances of former producers and writers talking about some of the difficulties that they had working with Gene. And it's not just about "higher ideals" of humanity. Particularly with Gene's insistence that there be no interpersonal conflict.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I will say - I finally pit my finger on why I don't like these JJ movies and that is the general state of mankind does nothing to hint that we have made great strides in our conditioning. Petty fighting, distrust, betrayal -- all there in spades. The people of TOS seemed to disregard the flaws and greed demonstrated by their ancestors.
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

Captain Dunsel
Star Trek: Discovery Season 5
3 4 5
Replies
83
Views
2,677
universaljoint
universaljoint
JiminSTLouis
Paramount Plans Another New STAR TREK Film, Set ‘Decades’ Before TREK ’09
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3,406
Riceball
Riceball
TazMan2000
Rare Star Trek TNG SPFX video
Replies
3
Views
510
pengbuzz
P
Captain Dunsel
New Book: The Making Of Star Trek II
Replies
11
Views
1,137
DarkKnight
D
The Terminator
RIP Manny Coto - 24, Star Trek. Writer Producer
Replies
3
Views
493
George
George
Back
Top