Star Trek Beyond

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Jet Beetle said:
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.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't disagree with this, and I would further agree that in any upcoming Trek project, a more utopian vision of the future should be implemented.
It is definitely an element of Trek which has been left out (I also think they need to beef up the McCoy/Spock dynamic).

However, I wouldn't say that TOS always carried this vision out perfectly (particularly with respect to women). Moreover, I would point out that a successful Trek film doesn't need to just blindly adhere to Gene's vision.

Trek VI is another example of a Trek iteration that wouldn't have flown had Roddenberry been given complete control over the project. Yet, the moments which make Trek VI such a good example of what Trek does best is precisely because it shows the characters being flawed and human, emoting prejudice against Klingons ("what about that smell?" "guess who's coming to dinner" "let them die" etc). Trek VI is also clearly Cold War allegory (they hit you over the head with it by borrowing Adlai Stevenson's "don't wait for the translation, answer the question!" line....and I certainly don't recall anyone saying that Cold War allegory was passe after thirty years of it.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I would argue that Trek wasn't the utopian concept GR conceived post TNG, with maybe the exception of Voyager. I think that was thrown out of the play book a while back.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

jlee562 said:
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.



Hyperbolic nonsense.



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.
Click to expand...


The final result is what it is and speaks for itself. Abrams Trek is devoid of cerebral content that TOS and TNG for that matter often possessed and did so at times so incredibly elegantly.

Another unquestionable fact.... Abrams is doing nothing original, his is one of taking another's greater creation and having his way with it.

His remakes are not thought provoking, there is nothing in them that uses Sci Fi as the great tool of the mind to ask "what if?"

This alone puts Roddenberry far above. Roddenberry continued to create original creations as well, though of course not the successes that TOS was.


Abrams again will go on to use another man's creations.... Star Wars.

Hell, I will argue that "Lost" was just Gilligan's Island (Actually on some DVD commentary that pre-dates "Lost" it was posited that perhaps the castaways were actually dead. LOL I bet Abrams got the idea from that. Sherwood Schwartz was more creative then Abrams in my book.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

CessnaDriver said:
The final result is what it is and speaks for itself. Abrams Trek is devoid of cerebral content that TOS and TNG for that matter often possessed and did so at times so incredibly elegantly.
Click to expand...

And now you're contradicting your previous post....again.

Another unquestionable fact.... Abrams is doing nothing original, his is one of taking another's greater creation and having his way with it.
Click to expand...

Please see the definition of "fact" in the dictionary. Your usage here indicates a misunderstanding of the concept of objectivity.

As a wider philosophical point: Everything is a Remix.

His remakes are not thought provoking, there is nothing in them that uses Sci Fi as the great tool of the mind to ask "what if?"
Click to expand...

More hyperbolic nonsense. While I would agree that on balance TOS/TNG/DS9 did it better (I haven't watched VOY in some years, and never got into ENT), I do not agree that STID is devoid of any thought provoking concepts which relate to society today. Moreover, I would point out that the Trek movies have consistently avoided dealing with the same kinds of narrative storytelling that the shows did because of the inherent differences in the two mediums. In other words, I would argue that it's simply not fair to hold JJTrek to the conventions of the TOS show, because even the movies with the TOS crew didn't adhere to those guidelines. TMP was in Gene's vision and it bored people to death (just the other week I fell asleep while trying to watch it). TWOK was NOT in Gene's vision, had very little to say about society in the future, and didn't ask "what if?"

This alone puts Roddenberry far above. Roddenberry continued to create original creations as well, though of course not the successes that TOS was.

Abrams again will go on to use another man's creations.... Star Wars.

Hell, I will argue that "Lost" was just Gilligan's Island (Actually on some DVD commentary that pre-dates "Lost" it was posited that perhaps the castaways were actually dead. LOL I bet Abrams got the idea from that. Sherwood Schwartz was more creative then Abrams in my book.
Click to expand...

But Star Trek was, by Gene's own admission, Wagon Train to the stars. He took a format and applied a sci-fi veneer to it.

And again, it's not all about Gene.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Roddenberry pitched it to the execs that way so they could wrap their mind around where he was going.

As we know, TOS doesn't come off much like a western other then some old style fist fights and ol Doc McCoy.


Abrams stands on the shoulders of Roddenberry's creation.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

CessnaDriver said:
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.
Click to expand...

This.

Although one can argue this ad nauseum, people aren't really as stupid as the studios think they are. Please treat me like I have the ability to follow an intelligently written story.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

George Lucas - Generally considered that he ruined his franchise and needed to pass it on to others to save it.

Gene Roddenberry - Golden boy who's franchise was ruined when it passed on to others to control it.

Hmmmm
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Shadow345 said:
Gene Roddenberry - Golden boy who's franchise was ruined when it passed on to others to control it.

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

Can't agree to this statement.

TWOK is generally considered to be one of, if not the best, TOS cast film. Roddenberry was muscled out of control after the failure of TMP. DS9, which offered the darkest and most "shades of grey" for a ST iteration, completely in contravention to Roddenberry's vision, was, IMHO, the best Trek series. Even if you don't want to agree with me, and even if you hated DS9, you couldn't argue that it 'ruined' the franchise, because the brand continued with the TNG films in theaters, and VOY and ENT on TV.

And again, it was the other people around Roddenberry who really put the meat onto the bones of ST. Gene even told David Gerold that he thought (that is, Gene thought) that Gerrold understood Star Trek BETTER than himself.

- - - Updated - - -

CessnaDriver said:
And Shatner is a far superior Captain Kirk. :p
Click to expand...

And once again, your reply is a total non sequitur.

One trick pony.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Bryancd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, so why do you like the new JJ Abrams films if they're using the TOS crew? That seems to be, by definition, using Old Trek material that had been previously established. Your reasoning is the kind of thing that writers would write technobabble in order to get around it.

Bryancd said:
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.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the wrong thing to do since, as you put it...

Bryancd said:
Those that wish to return to the past are wishing for is franchise to die. Period, end of story.
Click to expand...

And you still haven't given a reason why that would kill it. If you don't think anyone should return to Old Trek, than what is this "franchise" that you're referring to? If you don't want anyone to go back to Old Trek, why do you care if the 09 film garnered new fans of the franchise? If you're discounting everything before Trek09, it is not a franchise. It's just one movie. And regardless, fans and newcomers alike are still going back to old Trek all the time. They're still buying the DVDs, BluRay, Books, Comics, Toys and Video Games that are all based on old Trek, so where are you getting this idea that going back to old Star Trek is killing Star Trek? Despite it's many embarrassing moments, there are so many great unique stories in that continuity that deserve a lot more respect than simply labeling it as something that needs to be tossed away. Not me man. I support Star Trek.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Jeyl said:
Ok, so why do you like the new JJ Abrams films if they're using the TOS crew? That seems to be, by definition, using Old Trek material that had been previously established. Your reasoning is the kind of thing that writers would write technobabble in order to get around it.
Click to expand...


Oh come on.

You're just pulling our legs, right?

Far be it for me to speak for Bryan, but I think it's pretty clear that he's talking about the filmed canon of Star Trek.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

I don't know if anyone has thought of this, but what if ST 3 becomes the new Voyage Home, because they saved Kirk and there can't be a reboot of the third.
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

Actually the Franchise was taken away from Gene because the Suits thought he was ruining the Franchise.

While Gene came up with the concept of TOS, the other Gene made it the success it became

Shadow345 said:
Gene Roddenberry - Golden boy who's franchise was ruined when it passed on to others to control it.
Click to expand...
 
Re: New STAR TREK 3

jlee562 said:
To paraphrase the good Mr. Spock, you have a predeliction towards irrelevancy.

As is apparent from your response, you might also want to look up what a non sequitur is.
Click to expand...


Thank goodness it's Nimoy Spock your channeling, JJ Nu Emo Spock would ninja jump through the air and beat the hell out of me.
 
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
2,668
universaljoint
universaljoint
JiminSTLouis
Paramount Plans Another New STAR TREK Film, Set ‘Decades’ Before TREK ’09
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
3,403
Riceball
Riceball
TazMan2000
Rare Star Trek TNG SPFX video
Replies
3
Views
509
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
491
George
George
Back
Top