CBS Television Studios announced today it will launch a totally new Star Trek television series in January 2017. The new series will blast off with a special preview broadcast on the CBS Television Network. The premiere episode and all subsequent first-run episodes will then be available exclusively in the United States on CBS All Access, the Network’s digital subscription video on demand and live streaming service.
The next chapter of the Star Trek franchise will also be distributed concurrently for television and multiple platforms around the world by CBS Studios International.
The new program will be the first original series developed specifically for U.S. audiences for CBS All Access, a cross-platform streaming service that brings viewers thousands of episodes from CBS’s current and past seasons on demand, plus the ability to stream their local CBS Television station live for $5.99 per month. CBS All Access already offers every episode of all previous Star Trek television series.
The brand-new Star Trek will introduce new characters seeking imaginative new worlds and new civilizations, while exploring the dramatic contemporary themes that have been a signature of the franchise since its inception in 1966.
Alex Kurtzman will serve as executive producer for the new Star Trek TV series. Kurtzman co-wrote and produced the blockbuster films Star Trek (2009) with Roberto Orci, and Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) with Orci and Damon Lindelof. Both films were produced and directed by J.J. Abrams.
The new series will be produced by CBS Television Studios in association with Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout. Kurtzman and Heather Kadin will serve as executive producers. Kurtzman is also an executive producer for the hit CBS television series Scorpion and Limitless, along with Kadin and Orci, and for Hawaii Five-0 with Orci.
Star Trek, which will celebrate its 50th anniversary in 2016, is one of the most successful entertainment franchises of all time. The original Star Trek spawned a dozen feature films and five successful television series. Almost half a century later, the Star Trek television series are licensed on a variety of different platforms in more than 190 countries, and the franchise still generates more than a billion social media impressions every month.
Born from the mind of Gene Roddenberry, the original Star Trek series debuted on Sept. 8, 1966 and aired for three seasons – a short run that belied the influence it would have for generations. The series also broke new ground in storytelling and cultural mores, providing a progressive look at topics including race relations, global politics and the environment.
“There is no better time to give Star Trek fans a new series than on the heels of the original show’s 50th anniversary celebration,” said David Stapf, President, CBS Television Studios. “Everyone here has great respect for this storied franchise, and we’re excited to launch its next television chapter in the creative mind and skilled hands of Alex Kurtzman, someone who knows this world and its audience intimately.”
“This new series will premiere to the national CBS audience, then boldly go where no first-run Star Trek series has gone before – directly to its millions of fans through CBS All Access,” said Marc DeBevoise, Executive Vice President/General Manager – CBS Digital Media. “We’ve experienced terrific growth for CBS All Access, expanding the service across affiliates and devices in a very short time. We now have an incredible opportunity to accelerate this growth with the iconic Star Trek, and its devoted and passionate fan base, as our first original series.”
“Every day, an episode of the Star Trek franchise is seen in almost every country in the world,” said Armando Nuñez, President and CEO, CBS Global Distribution Group. “We can’t wait to introduce Star Trek's next voyage on television to its vast global fan base.”
CBS All Access offers its customers more than 7,500 episodes from the current television season, previous seasons and classic shows on demand nationwide, as well as the ability to stream local CBS stations live in more than 110 markets. Subscribers can use the service online and across devices via CBS.com, the CBS App for iOS, Android and Windows 10, as well as on connected devices such as Apple TV, Android TV, Chromecast, Roku players and Roku TV, with more connected devices to come.
The new television series is not related to the upcoming feature film Star Trek Beyond which is scheduled to be distributed by Paramount Pictures in summer 2016.
Place your bets as to which actor or actress from any of the previous shows will be the first to guest star
Please, let it be new characters entirely (they're murdered the TOS cast, if they touch TNG as well then there will be anarchy). and let it be more TOS/TNG than Voyager/Enterprise...
I hope they go with an entirely new timeline/bootmagining/branding. Into Darkness pretty much ruined the JJverse setting for me, and the novels are doing better for the Prime timeline than Voyager or Enterprise ever did. I would also prefer to see a new crew as opposed to yet another recasting of Kirk, Spock, and the TOS crew.
So naturally it won't have any of that and will be complete crap.
Didn't Lindelof also write Prometheus? How in the hell is he still finding work?
Chipotle should have offed her on an away mission in season 1.
"Hey guys! Remember that thing last week that would have let us go home but would have violated the Prime Directive and Captain stick up her ass wouldn't let us do it?"
*Gumbles* "Yeah..."
"I'm captain now. We're going to go back and do that thing and go home now. As captain, I take full responsibility. Ready to go home?"
Or the Doctor. Robert Picardo was the only good thing about that entire series, aside from its ending of course.
Dark but not full on GRIM DARK and a completely unknown crew could be interesting. Everything else, not so much.
Why does Star Trek need to be dark? That's pretty much the antithesis of what the show was about: a hopeful future where peace and discourse win out over fear and violence. DS9 explored the underside of the issue, but without the Utopian ideals of the earlier series, it wouldn't have had any impact.
Making Star Trek darker and edgier would be like making Stargate SG1 more like nBSG. Is that what you want? Star Trek: Universe?
You're going to make your parents cry.
I mean, within a particular scope, dark and edgy could work. A series (or movie) about the covert nastyness that goes on behind the scenes in DS9 (and even that episode or two that I remember NG having) could be a neat concept.
To me, the big unanswered question is: when is this new series taking place? Personally, I want it to essentially open just like TNG did: far enough in the future that one of the TNG cast can make an appearance in the first episode as a really old character.
Now, the next question: Enterprise or no Enterprise? To be an all new Star Trek for a new generation, the Enterprise is a must-have.
daedalus wrote: I mean, within a particular scope, dark and edgy could work. A series (or movie) about the covert nastyness that goes on behind the scenes in DS9 (and even that episode or two that I remember NG having) could be a neat concept.
Why use the Star Trek brand to make a show that would only be tangentially related at best? It would be cheaper just to make a Far Trek show without the license fees and royalties, and CBS wouldn't risk damaging one of their biggest brands in the process.
One or two episodes exploring the darker aspects could work, but why waste an entire show on a Nolanesque fad that will seem dated and cheesy before they finish their five year mission?
Once again, look at what happened to Stargate Universe.
kronk wrote: Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.
"Hey guys! We can spotlight the creation of the Federation, the beginning of the Klingon War, and even have the Dorn!"
"feth that noise. Time traveling pig fethers from inter-dimensional space."
"But...Klingon war..."
"Pig...fethers..."
"..."
Enterprise should have been Das Boot in space. Cramped grubby ship with action shots of the crew manually loading photon torpedoes and charging down corridors shouting at people to leap out the way into their bunks. Instead we got the same clean spacious and boring stuff.
I hope they move the series on again in time though. For unnecessary guest stars, Brent Spiner is looking a bit old but can still play Data 200 years on if they like.
Why use the Star Trek brand to make a show that would only be tangentially related at best? It would be cheaper just to make a Far Trek show without the license fees and royalties, and CBS wouldn't risk damaging one of their biggest brands in the process.
One or two episodes exploring the darker aspects could work, but why waste an entire show on a Nolanesque fad that will seem dated and cheesy before they finish their five year mission?
Once again, look at what happened to Stargate Universe.
Well, and that's why I say "could" work. Starfleet Intelligence/Section 31 (I googled them) have hardly been tangential to the plot though, at least, if you count DS9. There were also a handful of novels written about them, though I haven't read them myself. I'm just saying, long as it was presented as "this is what they do", and not "this is how the entire universe is", I don't think it would be too bad.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
The Section 31 novels are pretty good, but their version of dark and gritty looks like My Little Pony compared to what we know real governments are doing right now on earth. Zero Sum Game would be a good place to start if you want to read the series. Still, most of the tension is caused by Section 31 sacrificing the ideals of the Federation in order to save the existence of the Federation, or even promote it's interests. Without spending most of the time establishing what the Fed's ideals are or why they are worth preserving, Section 31-style amorality just becomes a pointless 24-in-space hard-men-making-hard-choices, wetworks and manly-single-tears stroke fest. In my opinion, anyway.
There's a place for the darker side of human nature, realpolitik, espionage and all that stuff, but in Star Trek that place shouldn't be front and center. Also, Star Trek just doesn't handle gritty well these days. Look at Into Darkness.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
You want it to appear more real by being more like our current, cynical lives? The characters were starry eyed because they were striving to be. They dealt with the torture and loss they experienced, but never gave up looking forward. That was the idea.
if you want brutal, nasty universes, there are cheaper franchises to resurrect.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
It doesn't have to be dark, just not TNG/Voyager PC milquetoast lame. Data and Worf were so liked because everyone was a freaking zombie without emotions or faults. if you really examine how they acted it was almost the product of some North Korea esque thought control. Its like the entire human race turned into boring WASPs.
DS9 had the best variety of characters, even if some of them took a bit of getting used to. TNG seemed to loosen up in the fourth and fifth seasons, allowing the characters to grow some personality traits. Voyager had the Doctor and 7. Enterprise had a beagle.
Has anyone seen the Prelude to Axanar video? I'm honestly more excited for the Axanar fan film than for the new CBS series.
It doesn't have to be dark, just not TNG/Voyager PC milquetoast lame. Data and Worf were so liked because everyone was a freaking zombie without emotions or faults. if you really examine how they acted it was almost the product of some North Korea esque thought control. Its like the entire human race turned into boring WASPs.
I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but TNG did definitely have a bit too much Lawful Good in it. I'm okay with that as a theme, but a believable splash of something else in there would be nice too. At least TOS had Kirk's swaggering antics in it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: DS9 had the best variety of characters, even if some of them took a bit of getting used to. TNG seemed to loosen up in the fourth and fifth seasons, allowing the characters to grow some personality traits. Voyager had the Doctor and 7. Enterprise had a beagle.
I couldn't bring myself to actually watch Enterprise. The horror of Voyager was still too real. I might try giving it a shot one of these days. I agree with your evaluation of DS9 though. Some of the characters were a little cringeworthy, but of all the ST shows, it seemed like the one with the most believable cast of characters, and I think it was because of that diversity of motives and personalities. It also did a good job of keeping away from the 'all of this alien is good' and 'all of this alien is bad' trope that the previous ones had. Well, except for the shapeshifters, I guess, but again, not ALL of them.
I mean, sure, the Klingons were all Klingons, and the Ferangi were all obnoxious, but they didn't always follow those archetypes. You didn't ALWAYS know who was the bad guy simply because of the spoon on their forehead.
The mysticism stuff was a little annoying though. I didn't care much for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?
No, Marvel are winning because they had a 5-year head start that will have extended to 7 years by the time DC really kicks off with BvS... But once DC get up to speed and are bringing out 2 movies a year, it'll be pretty much level pegging year on year, I imagine.
But I agree that there's enough dark and gritty (read: often stuffed with unnecessary gore, violence and nudity) stuff around, what the TV world needs is more light, innocent and fun stuff. Which is why I love Flash so much and am very hopeful for the upcoming Shannara series.
A Star Trek series that just does Star Trek stuff would be great, no need to reinvent the wheel in an attempt to be edgy and relevant.
A thought occurs. If this is on pay cable, will they be going the whole Game of Boobs route, and loading up on the blood and nudity? An R rated Kirk could be...fun. Same with Riker or Troi. Dear God, the Barclay episodes...
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?
I'm down with fun. TNG characters were not fun.
There was no more fun character than Crazy Hair Riker. Some people think his personality growth happened on his chin, but it was really in his brush the entire time.
I am...conflicted about this. I really miss TV trek, but trek doesn't do dark and gritty well. While DS9 is my favorite, it also works because it was a different view of the optimistic and positive Federation.
The executive producer is worrying, as Star trek into darkness was horrible and hurt IMO the good will of the reboot by totally missing the point.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: A thought occurs. If this is on pay cable, will they be going the whole Game of Boobs route, and loading up on the blood and nudity? An R rated Kirk could be...fun. Same with Riker or Troi. Dear God, the Barclay episodes...
Doubtful. It's still CBS.
Don't knock game of thrones for boobs! The TV show had fewer nude scenes than the books!
AdeptSister wrote: I am...conflicted about this. I really miss TV trek, but trek doesn't do dark and gritty well. While DS9 is my favorite, it also works because it was a different view of the optimistic and positive Federation.
The executive producer is worrying, as Star trek into darkness was horrible and hurt IMO the good will of the reboot by totally missing the point.
And the milking of the cash cow continues, by the same people who made the mediocre "reboot" movies. Maybe it will end up being a decent show but I'm not going to get my hopes up until I see some evidence that it's worth watching.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Dont we get enough Dark from game pf thrones, The Strain, Walking dead. Isnt th reason Marvel is succeding over DC is because they embrace the fun?
I'm down with fun. TNG characters were not fun.
Plenty of today's Trek fans don't want fun. They want sterile, stilted and safe.
But truth be told, focusing on "fun" isn't a guaranteed path to success, as evidenced by the majority of the Marvel movies and shows. Marvel could stand to focus more on making their films and shows actually GOOD on an individual basis. It's not the mortar, it's the bricks.
kronk wrote: Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.
I complain about the movies as much as anyone but I'll cede one point. Abrams put the adventure back into Star Trek. TNG was boring as feth. To this day I still can't watch reruns because they... are... so... zzzzzzzz.....
DS9 was a bit better but it had some really terrible episodes and the social commentary was often really heavy handed. Voyager was better on the social commentary but was still stuck with bad writing and... yea.
Still, the fact that Kurtzman was part of Into Darkness gives me pause.
My God, this IP has suffered so much abuse. Please don't let this new series be "beating a dead horse".
kronk wrote: Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.
I complain about the movies as much as anyone but I'll cede one point. Abrams put the adventure back into Star Trek. TNG was boring as feth. To this day I still can't watch reruns because they... are... so... zzzzzzzz.....
Although I bet if you were to run a poll, TNG would come out on top..
What the feth is wrong with people putting Voyager above DS9
Also, Enterprise above the animated series?! I didn't even know there was an animated series, but don't need to watch it to know that it was better than Enterprise.
kronk wrote: Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.
I complain about the movies as much as anyone but I'll cede one point. Abrams put the adventure back into Star Trek. TNG was boring as feth. To this day I still can't watch reruns because they... are... so... zzzzzzzz.....
Although I bet if you were to run a poll, TNG would come out on top..
What the feth is wrong with people putting Voyager above DS9
Also, Enterprise above the animated series?! I didn't even know there was an animated series, but don't need to watch it to know that it was better than Enterprise.
I didn't mind Voyager as much as most people seem to mind. In fact, I liked it better than TNG and much (but not all) of DS9, especially the early DS9 stuff. I hated the way Enterprise (series) had the "oh, we invented that" complex regarding everything Trek but I really liked the actors on Enterprise the most.
The first Abrams Trek movie had adventure which was lost more or less when ToS went off the air. The new stuff tried to be too philosophical for it's own good. The second Abrams' Trek was just a horrid abomination that made even the worst Star Trek films look like masterpieces by comparison.
Why can't people in power treat an IP with respect? Shows are so much better that way. Daredevil. The X-Men, Captain America & sequal, etc. Even Nolan's Batman trilogy was good because he (mostly) respected the IP.
What happens when you don't respect an IP? Agents of Shield, season one. Batman & Robin. Heroes. True Blood.
Man, the entertainment industry has made me cynical.
I liked Enterprise and the new movies! There I said it.
My money's on the up-till-now unheard of adventures of Scotty, Engineer and master "swordsman" played by Pegg, set in the new universe.
His one season mission to get in zaney adventures with that Alf monster he had in the films, inadvertently pulling exotic crumpet, making jokes and generally blowing junk up.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
You want it to appear more real by being more like our current, cynical lives? The characters were starry eyed because they were striving to be. They dealt with the torture and loss they experienced, but never gave up looking forward. That was the idea.
if you want brutal, nasty universes, there are cheaper franchises to resurrect.
k
Agreed. Sometimes it's good to have some escape with something that doesn't make you want to slit your wrists after seeing it. If I want grim, gritty, and dark, I can open a newspaper or watch episodes of Torchwood. Guaranteed bummer by the end of each show.
Obviously the Captain will be Borg, as in the far future the Federation finally talked the collective into defeat by constantly telling them how wrong they were
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
Or, you know, not.
Star Trek is Star Trek, if you don't want starry-eyed utopianism then don't watch it. Like someone else said, this kind of mindset is what led to them turning one of the best lighthearted sci-fi adventure settings into 90210 IIIINNNN SPAAAAAACE!. If you want gritty, go enjoy Dark Matter, or gritty-but-still-not-too-serious there's Killjoys now. If you want po-faced navel-gazing Nolanverse-style growlymen space adventures, there's all those seasons of BSG-reboot just waiting for you. There's not one but two time-travelling conspiracy shows out at the moment(well, Continuum has just finished, but it's still new and we're getting more 12 Monkeys in the new year).
There has never been as much "serious" sci-fi on TV as there is right now, indeed virtually all sci-fi TV output at the moment is geared towards your tastes. I want my goddamn starry-eyed utopianism show back.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
Dark =/= realistic. I'd be fine with a Star Trek that made a genuine attempt to consider the messy reality where idealism conflicts with Doing What Must Be Done. In fact, that's something that existing Star Trek shows have done in the past, with conflicts between obeying the ideal of the prime directive and the crew's own morality. But I don't want to see a Star Trek that is dark just for the sake of being dark, because some accountant decided that dark shows produce better profit numbers these days.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
Dark =/= realistic. I'd be fine with a Star Trek that made a genuine attempt to consider the messy reality where idealism conflicts with Doing What Must Be Done. In fact, that's something that existing Star Trek shows have done in the past, with conflicts between obeying the ideal of the prime directive and the crew's own morality. But I don't want to see a Star Trek that is dark just for the sake of being dark, because some accountant decided that dark shows produce better profit numbers these days.
Ditto.
And I'd also add that it needs to either be in a the current alternate timeline or a completely different sector of the galaxy that hasn't been touched by Star Trek (universe is huge).
Star Trek needs to be about the hard choices good guys have to make to follow their morals. It'd be nice to see a universe on tv again where real good guys can win, rather than get killed off.
With Pere and Whembly on this one. Part of what made DS9 so great was that it didn't hand wave away the realities of politics. At the same time, it didn't try to destroy the Utopian vision of the Federation, but rather subjected it to some reality and make that part of the drama of the series.
It was great, and I often find the people who deride that to have missed the entire point; Utopia, and sticking to your ideals, is not easy. Sometimes it might even be self-destructive, but that doesn't make your ideals wrong.
LordofHats wrote: With Pere and Whembly on this one. Part of what made DS9 so great was that it didn't hand wave away the realities of politics. At the same time, it didn't try to destroy the Utopian vision of the Federation, but rather subjected it to some reality and make that part of the drama of the series.
It was great, and I often find the people who deride that to have missed the entire point; Utopia, and sticking to your ideals, is not easy. Sometimes it might even be self-destructive, but that doesn't make your ideals wrong.
If DS9 had dropped the crappy messiah Sisko subplot and all the Section 31 rubbish towards the end it would have been almost perfect(I say almost perfect because they did start to miss the mark a bit as the Dominion War arc went on, to my mind they went a bit beyond "not handwaving away the reality" and started to play up the militarism angle a bit too much). The way I see it now, DS9 was the most consistently watchable Trek series, with the right blend of TOS-style "socially progressive adventure funtime" show and TNG-style "morality play/philosophy class/science porn with a vague plot to justify showing it on TV" show(althought it could probably have done with a touch more of the former in the early seasons and a touch more of the latter in the later ones). Voyager was a trainwreck, all of its good episodes were ideas either ripped wholesale or partially from TNG and made watchable only by the actor(Voyager's showrunners owe Jeri Ryan and Robert Picardo a lot, IMO, since despite their cynical reasons for hiring her and their initial failure to realise the potential of the Doctor's character, those two actors basically carried the show once they got decent screen time, and their arcs are still the only eps I bother to rewatch occasionally). As for Enterprise, a potentially interesting concept completely squandered, its confusingly dull run punctuated by disturbing fanservice("decon-gel"; really?) and a very occasional watchable episode.
But even where Trek was flawed, or dull, it had something most other sci-fi TV shows lack, especially now; optimism. Yes, there would be a struggle to get there, and yes, there would be challenges to face, but the future, it told us, was a brighter place, and people are capable of being better if we work at it. With the endless parade of killer cyborgs from the future, killer cyborgs from the past, totes-not-9/11-honest-guv-future-terror-attacks, sinister alien infiltrations, and oppressive corporate dystopias that litter sci-fi programming, I think we need an occasional Star Trek or Stargate or Doctor Who.
Hell, who's going to be inspired to create the AI that murders the world if we don't have something like Star Trek to get kids interested in science?
EDIT: Oh, and if this is set in the JJverse, that's an auto-pass from me. I have zero interest in watching some horrifying "reinterpretation" of TNG-era Trek(because you know that's what would happen). Prime Universe or eff-off.
Totally agree about Seven of Nine and the Doctor. The Doctor really made that series enjoyable for me and his episodes remain many of the best, if not the best period.
LordofHats wrote: Totally agree about Seven of Nine and the Doctor. The Doctor really made that series enjoyable for me and his episodes remain many of the best, if not the best period.
The episode where the doctor had to deal with the consequences of saving one crew member vs another was beautiful. The emotions and lack of a clear resolution at the end bumped the doctor up several several slots on my list of favourite characters. That episode is a good example of what it means to be realistic, but not too dark. It presents tough choices to the characters which they have to reconcile with an optimistic world view. An entire series of episodes like that one would be a bit much, but an episode everynow and then would be good.
I heard a while back that there was talk of a Star Trek series featuring the adventures of Worf after DS9. Could this be the results?
Peregrine wrote: But I don't want to see a Star Trek that is dark just for the sake of being dark, because some accountant decided that dark shows produce better profit numbers these days.
Nor do I and that's not what I suggested. The earlier Treks were too 'Saturday morning cartoon' though.
kronk wrote:Hopefully it's closer to TNG than Enterprise. What a wasted opportunity that was.
"Hey guys! We can spotlight the creation of the Federation, the beginning of the Klingon War, and even have the Dorn!"
"feth that noise. Time traveling pig fethers from inter-dimensional space."
"But...Klingon war..."
"Pig...fethers..."
"..."
Enterprise was an abomination. That's what you get for letting Berman do his thang. Bloke didn't have an original idea in his head, just kept steering the show down the same tired path.
hotsauceman1 wrote:As long as jj Abrams stay as far away as possible.
Why? He did a successful, and popular, reboot.
hotsauceman1 wrote:Can we have janeway as a supporting character?
God no.
kronk wrote:Janeway sucked. Hard. The only thing good about voyager was 37D of nine. That's it.
A different TOS/TNG please! (obviously, new crew. Kirk and Pikard have had their time)
37D of nine sucked had as well. That wasn't intended as innuendo. Much.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:That's pretty much the antithesis of what the show was about: a hopeful future where peace and discourse win out over fear and violence. DS9 explored the underside of the issue, but without the Utopian ideals of the earlier series, it wouldn't have had any impact.
No. God no! What a dull show it ended up being when Voyager and Enterprise went all lovey dovey. TOS make it up as you go along fistfights and coyboy diplomacy is what you need. You don't need dark. Just don't go fething hippy either
Howard A Treesong wrote: Enterprise should have been Das Boot in space. Cramped grubby ship with action shots of the crew manually loading photon torpedoes and charging down corridors shouting at people to leap out the way into their bunks. Instead we got the same clean spacious and boring stuff.
Aye, wasted opportunity. But, that's Berman for you. Hopefully, they'll never let him near the reins of anything ever again.
A mediocre generic action movie, you mean. If the reboot is the best we have to hope for then I really hope they just cancel this show before it even begins.
A mediocre generic action movie, you mean. If the reboot is the best we have to hope for then I really hope they just cancel this show before it even begins.
You may have not liked it, but it was the highest grossing Star Trek film ever with Into Darkness not doing too shabbily either. I don't think the reboot time line will be finished and I expect the new series to carry on with the reboot in some fashion.
zedmeister wrote: You may have not liked it, but it was the highest grossing Star Trek film ever with Into Darkness not doing too shabbily either. I don't think the reboot time line will be finished and I expect the new series to carry on with the reboot in some fashion.
Successfully milking the cash cow doesn't make it a good movie.
Successfully milking the cash cow doesn't make it a good movie.
Expect it to be milked hard. But, if they retain good writers, a decent cast and thought towards universe continuity (something that Enterprise and Voyager failed abysmally at - how many shuttles did they loose in the end?) then it'll be worth watching. The reboot gives them a lovely blank slate to start without worrying about what's been made before. Should also allow for some interesting universe crossovers as well.
zedmeister wrote: The reboot gives them a lovely blank slate to start without worrying about what's been made before.
The problem is that the reboot ignored that blank slate in favor of milking the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. Instead of a new crew and a new story we got an inferior copy of the same iconic characters that seems to exist for the sole purpose of getting people to say "OMG SPOCK IS BACK" and feel superior because they get all of the references to the original series. If I want to see Kirk vs. Khan again I'll just watch the original movie, not a modern reboot that misses the whole point of the original story.
And the other side of the "blank slate" issue is that if you're going to have a blank slate then why do you need to put the Star Trek brand on it? Why take on all of that baggage instead of making an original concept where you're free to do what's best for the story? It's just a cheap way to sell tickets to the people who will buy anything with the Star Trek brand attached.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graphite wrote: Why the hell do people dislike Into Darkness? I seriously don't understand.
Because there's no reason at all to bring Khan in besides fanboy nostalgia. Trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan makes absolutely no sense in the reboot universe or at this point in Kirk's story.
I was afraid of new IP so this fits right into my wheelhouse.
New ideas are frightening and scary, and the idea we may not have gotten every ounce of cash out of this one doubly so. Can't just leave money on the table after all.
I'm not a Star Trek fan (DS9 was pretty cool, and I like Picard, and the Trek movies), but I'm really wondering when and where this would be set. Old timeline? New timeline? A third timeline?
zedmeister wrote: The reboot gives them a lovely blank slate to start without worrying about what's been made before.
The problem is that the reboot ignored that blank slate in favor of milking the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. Instead of a new crew and a new story we got an inferior copy of the same iconic characters that seems to exist for the sole purpose of getting people to say "OMG SPOCK IS BACK" and feel superior because they get all of the references to the original series. If I want to see Kirk vs. Khan again I'll just watch the original movie, not a modern reboot that misses the whole point of the original story.
And the other side of the "blank slate" issue is that if you're going to have a blank slate then why do you need to put the Star Trek brand on it? Why take on all of that baggage instead of making an original concept where you're free to do what's best for the story? It's just a cheap way to sell tickets to the people who will buy anything with the Star Trek brand attached.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Graphite wrote: Why the hell do people dislike Into Darkness? I seriously don't understand.
Because there's no reason at all to bring Khan in besides fanboy nostalgia. Trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan makes absolutely no sense in the reboot universe or at this point in Kirk's story.
Exactly. The first reboot did something new and every character had their moment to shine. Into Darkness compares poorly to Wraith of Khan. Wraith of Khan worked because:
1. It really is a well crafted movie
2. Its a continuation of the classic episode "Space Seed"
The history that Khan and Kirk have create a tension and balance that was great in Wraith of Khan. Kirk was confronted by his hubris and his need to win without sacrifice. It was a great, solid movie.
Into Darkness...sigh. It wallowed in Star Trek Trivia but missed all the points. Heck, so much was pointless. And it added so many issues....(Resurrection Blood. Super Transporters. Invasion of the Klingon home planet.)
Don't even get started about the casting of Khan....
AdeptSister wrote: Into Darkness...sigh. It wallowed in Star Trek Trivia but missed all the points. Heck, so much was pointless. And it added so many issues....(Resurrection Blood. Super Transporters. Invasion of the Klingon home planet.)
Not to mention the ramming of a warp core straight into Starfleet HQ. I'm surprised there was any survivors at all.
A mediocre generic action movie, you mean. If the reboot is the best we have to hope for then I really hope they just cancel this show before it even begins.
You may have not liked it, but it was the highest grossing Star Trek film ever with Into Darkness not doing too shabbily either. I don't think the reboot time line will be finished and I expect the new series to carry on with the reboot in some fashion.
Transformers make bank, but it isnt good.
Star Trek isnt action, its about the people on a ship facing obstacles and new experiances. My Favorite episode of TNG has to be the one where they all forget who they are, but suddenly there is a new crew member.
There's always room for Neelix if you dice him up finely enough.
Could never understand the hate for Neelix. Guy's a fashion icon
It's the way he was written. Just like how Mulgrew played Janeway as bipolar, Phillips had to play Neelix as annoying and oblivious just to match the writing. Considering how many situations he made worse, and how many crew members died because of his bullcrap, it's amazing they let him stay aboard all those years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: STOS was heavy action. Wagon train in...space!
Is that a William Shatner girdle joke?
I enjoyed TNG a lot, but it was clear that their budget really limited the amount of action onscreen. BOBW, The Wounded, Conundrum (@Hotsauceman), and many other episodes had to hold back or tell instead of show. With modern CGI, a TNG style series could have a lot more action, the way DS9 did in the later seasons.
Besides, I was not arguing against action, but rather against pointless 'darker and edgier' action.
hotsauceman1 wrote: He was Janeways lackeys to kill the Crew that disagreed with her.
I like this interpretation a lot.
It's almost as convincing as Counselor Troi actually acting as the political officer who makes sure the senior crew members think the proper thoughts and toe the Party line.
Voyager Makes alot more sense IF you think like this.
1: Janeway was a Bi-polar captain who Star-Fleet needed to get rid of.
2: Paris was only allowed because starfleet let him go to get rid of him
3: Harry Kim is the worst.
In the end, Voyager was meant to be stuck in the Delta Quadrant, full of criminals and horrible Officers & crew. So Starfleet decided to run a massive sociological experiment on how deepspace travel affects people
H.B.M.C. wrote: There hasn't been a Star Trek show on TV in 10 years. This is hardly 'milking a cash cow'.
Sure it is. Aside from the fact that you're just nitpicking the difference between a TV show and a movie it's milking the cash cow because there's no reason for it to exist. Just look at your own defense of it: there hasn't been a Star Trek show in 10 years. Why does there need to be a Star Trek show at all times? Why not just accept that the story has been told and let the franchise end?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AdeptSister wrote: Exactly. The first reboot did something new and every character had their moment to shine. Into Darkness compares poorly to Wraith of Khan. Wraith of Khan worked because:
1. It really is a well crafted movie
2. Its a continuation of the classic episode "Space Seed"
3. It's a continuation of Kirk's story. Wrath of Khan is fundamentally a story of Kirk's past catching up to him. His certainty in being the hero has left him an enemy that he didn't even bother to remember. His habit of sleeping with everyone has left him a son who hates him. His overconfidence gets his ship crippled in a trap he should have avoided. The rest of the movie (and the ones that followed) is about Kirk growing up and trying to fix his mistakes. And you just can't do that with a young Kirk.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
Grim, but not grimdark Starfleet protects the somewhat clueless utopian Federation citizens. DS9 nailed the feel of a "real" Star Trek Universe in ways that the other shows could only hope to touch on in a few really good episodes.
Frazzled wrote: STOS was heavy action. Wagon train in...space!
TOS is often viewed through the beer-goggles of modernity - people give TNG lots of gak for being "hippy" etc, but TOS was a show being broadcast in 1960's America that had a female black comms officer, a Russian weapons officer, an asian helmsman, and a mixed-race first officer(sure it was "Vulcan/Human", but the allegory was hardly subtle when it was used as a plot hook), who flew around the galaxy fighting horrible monsters that turned out to be parents defending their children from humanity's rapacious mining operations, or being stranded with alien societies that highlighted the absurdity of racism. It was hippy as gak, man.
Sure, Kirk shagged a few green alien girls and punched a few space-bums in space-bars, but this idea that TOS was a rock'em sock'em Cowboys In Spaaaace adventure show while TNG-era was nothing but navel-gazin' commie philosophizin' is a fiction. Trek has always(prior to the reboot films) been socially progressive and challenging for its day, so wanting the show go back to a time when the reason there was still lots of women in skimpy outfits and occasional outbursts of violence with troubling implications was the context of society at that time, is like wanting modern cop shows to go back to guys with huge mustaches, baggy trousers, and midlife-crisis muscle cars riding around beating up poor people and black people, because that's what they were like in the good ol' days. Except even more odd, because cop shows have generally never been deliberately written to be progressive social commentary.
To make it appear more real, there is no need to go too far but as long as the world and the characters accept and react to a more messy reality than earlier treks that would be fine. The utopian ideals would still be there but its a big, nasty universe and a crew that will either be or will become used to dealing with it so there really needs to be a reflection of that. The various Star Trek crews of yore were always a little too starry eyed.
Grim, but not grimdark Starfleet protects the somewhat clueless utopian Federation citizens. DS9 nailed the feel of a "real" Star Trek Universe in ways that the other shows could only hope to touch on in a few really good episodes.
Well yes, except for how it repeatedly explicitly rejected that idea. The whole Maquis arc, the Homefront two-parter, the Section 31 episodes, hell the entire reason In the Pale Moonlight is generally considered one of the best Trek eps of all the series' is the way it brilliantly conveys the way Sisko has to tie himself in knots and tear himself up inside emotionally to justify doing something he knows is so clearly wrong. The message is confused a little by the episodes where overt militarism is played pretty much straight, but I'd argue that's a flawed writing for those episodes.
I'd first like to say how articulate and knowledgeable a lot of these posts are. I never liked anything Star Trek, but I do like the reasons a lot of you have put forward as to why you do like Star Trek.
I love dark, I love abysmal, I love thinking the worst that humanity can do. Crossed is my favorite comic book if that tells you anything
But it kinda brings a ray of delight to me that so many really want to see something, I dunno, uplifting? That's cool.
Only way I could ever watch Trek would be if Patrick Stewart played every character a la Eddie Murphy. That dude is a legend among men.
And for what it's worth, I didn't like the Abrams reboot any more than I liked the one's that came out in the 90's. Resurrection was one I think? There definitely were Borg. God I am nervous for the new Wars.
I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
To be fair, TOS did have Star Trek: The Motionless Picture to compete for the boring award.
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
To be fair, TOS did have Star Trek: The Motionless Picture to compete for the boring award.
I actually liked how different that movie was from the show. Much more "campy 70's sci fi" complete with wonky music. It was better than Insurrection at least...
TMP is confusing for me because it is a terribly-paced, hokey film while also being a brilliant time capsule of a weird era in film and sci fi. The movie has some amazing special effects, and uses them to test the audience's will to endure. Who doesn't love male gazing the Enterprise? It also has some ill conceived effects that fail horribly, such as the wormhole. The characters are very stylized and often stilted. Remember Ilia announcing her oath of celibacy? Or Kirk and crew laughing at McCoy for not wanting to use the transporter just minutes after Sonak and some other poor bastard went all Brundlefly? The film is almost surreal.
I just don't know how I feel about it.
Insurrection, on the other hand, is a pile of crap. At least Nemesis was a spectacular failure. Insurrection is like the coke whore sister of Jeffrey Dahmer.
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?
And how many times did Wesley save the ship? (Not that that is Sesame Street stuff)
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
AdeptSister wrote: Exactly. The first reboot did something new and every character had their moment to shine. Into Darkness compares poorly to Wraith of Khan. Wraith of Khan worked because:
1. It really is a well crafted movie
2. Its a continuation of the classic episode "Space Seed"
3. It's a continuation of Kirk's story. Wrath of Khan is fundamentally a story of Kirk's past catching up to him. His certainty in being the hero has left him an enemy that he didn't even bother to remember. His habit of sleeping with everyone has left him a son who hates him. His overconfidence gets his ship crippled in a trap he should have avoided. The rest of the movie (and the ones that followed) is about Kirk growing up and trying to fix his mistakes. And you just can't do that with a young Kirk.
So the logic is that it's bad because a character called Khan is in it, and it isn't as good as Wrath of Khan? But NONE of the Trek movies are as good as Wrath of Khan, so that's a pretty damn high bar to set. One of these days I'll get around to watching Space Seed.
Personally I enjoyed the nods to previous Trek in Into Darkness. Each to their own.
Watching TNG now it actually comes off as less Hippy and a lot more Campy to me. Kind of Star Trek reveling a bit too much in itself. I mean, there was an episode where it took them 45 minutes to realize the solution to the crisis of the week was to turn the computer off and turn it back on. That was probably really clever back in the mid 80's but today it's like a really sloppily written episode of the IT Crowd XD
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?
And how many times did Wesley save the ship? (Not that that is Sesame Street stuff)
The thing I remember is that every other episode they'd be faced with Menace/Dilemma X, and Geordi or Wesley would "reconfigure the main deflector dish" to create plot resolution. Because technobabble. Which is fairly terrible writing.
The show was on a long time, and its fans remember the standout episodes. But there was a ton of repetitive mediocrity in between.
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
Except when Picard became a Borg, that was fun.
Agreed...and note how that's closely tied to the personalities of the shows' captains.
During some past election season, I made a post here about which ST captain you'd most like to have a beer with. And just imagine trying to have a beer and normal conversation with Picard. Good lord. It'd wouldn't just the boredom, it'd be the lecturing!
Meanwhile, imagine how that'd go with Kirk. It'd be like The Hangover in spaaaaaaace!
STOS: Our bars have green slave girls, drunk Irishmen fighting Klingons, and the occasional incorporeal serial killer. ST DS9: Our bars have holosuites, real booze, floozies, terminal alcoholic aliens, and gambling. Babylon Five: Our bars have real booze, alien food, floozies, gambling, and lots of bar fights. We're really into bar fights leading to fights all over the station. If you talk shop you have to buy everyone a drink. BSG (Moore version): We don't have a bar. We just sit around and drink ourselves silly. EVERY>>>SINGLE>>>DAY.
STTNG: We have a very nice wine tasting bar but its fake alcohol. Real alcohol might make us appear human. Our waitstaff is ugly and preachy. Gambling is strictly forbidden. We have a strict noise rule as well.
During some past election season, I made a post here about which ST captain you'd most like to have a beer with. And just imagine trying to have a beer and normal conversation with Picard. Good lord. It'd wouldn't just the boredom, it'd be the lecturing!
Beer? With Picard? That's where you're going wrong, sir! Picard will lecture you over beer, but brew up a nice pot of tea and you can while away the hours discussing morals, science and why everyone seems to hate his films despite them all being decent...
For me-from best to worst- Wrath of Khan, First Contact, Undiscovered Country,Generations, Search for Spock, Star Trek motion picture (the risks of teleportation bit was pretty good)Voyage Home, Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis .
TV show wise it's probably TOS, DS9,Voyager, TNG and Enterprise.
It is great to see all these different opinions and beliefs on what Star Trek should be. I think the idea of Star Trek works best as a television show. But the showrunner worries me. A lot.
Movie Order for me:
Wrath of Khan,
Voyage Home
Undiscovered Country
First Contact
Search for Spock
Star Trek Reboot 1
Generations
Series:
DS9
TNG
TOS Voyager
Disliked or unwatched shows/films are not mentioned.
I own one Star Trek movie and one movie only: The Wrath of Khan.
No wait. I forgot I was gifted the new ones on Blu-ray. For all their problems the new films are quite beautiful in HD and Into Darkness looks great in 3D.
Ahtman wrote: I forgot I was gifted the new ones on Blu-ray. For all their problems the new films are quite beautiful in HD and Into Darkness looks great in 3D.
They are pretty. I saw them both in IMAX. JJ Abrams is a good visual director (minus the excessive lens flair). But Into Darkness was the most disappointed I have ever been about a film. I was really crestfallen and even Idris Alba is not enough for me to not be hesitant for the next movie.
Ahtman wrote: I own one Star Trek movie and one movie only: The Wrath of Khan.
No, wait. I forgot I was gifted the new ones on Blu-ray. For all their problems, the new films are quite beautiful in HD and Into Darkness looks great in 3D.
Into Darkness was pants IMO. Didn't like Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal at all. They should've got someone who at least bore some resemblance to Ricardo Montalban as a younger man for Khan.
Frazzled wrote: STOS: Our bars have green slave girls, drunk Irishmen fighting Klingons, and the occasional incorporeal serial killer.
ST DS9: Our bars have holosuites, real booze, floozies, terminal alcoholic aliens, and gambling.
Babylon Five: Our bars have real booze, alien food, floozies, gambling, and lots of bar fights. We're really into bar fights leading to fights all over the station. If you talk shop you have to buy everyone a drink.
BSG (Moore version): We don't have a bar. We just sit around and drink ourselves silly. EVERY>>>SINGLE>>>DAY.
STTNG: We have a very nice wine tasting bar but its fake alcohol. Real alcohol might make us appear human. Our waitstaff is ugly and preachy. Gambling is strictly forbidden. We have a strict noise rule as well.
To be fair to TNG, the characters seem to skip the entire bar/out for drinks stage in seduction and move right into Troi's quarters (or Riker's). That ship was like a coed dorm after finals.
I remember Data playing the violin and stuff for a packed audience.
Yawn, dude why's everyone watching the robot? What idiot allowed A ROBOT to have rank? Thou shalt not make a machine with the likeness of the human mind!!!
gorgon wrote: You must have watched a different show than me. I remember it being the opposite of that.
Troi was directly based on the sexed-up character from TMP. Deltan-->Betazoid. Sexy mind powers-->uh, kind of. Oath of Celibacy-->nope. Advanced social-sexuality-->naked weddings and stuff. A lot of it is only implied in the show, but it's there. Riker trying to nail any sapient that came across his path was almost a running gag. TNG suffered a lot from telling instead of showing or indirect references to a lot of the social norms, and it wasn't terribly consistent, but Roddenberry's 60's woo-woo ideas about sex and permissiveness were all over that show.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: I remember Data playing the violin and stuff for a packed audience.
Yawn, dude why's everyone watching the robot? What idiot allowed A ROBOT to have rank? Thou shalt not make a machine with the likeness of the human mind!!!
They had holodecks. After a few months I'm sure the crew was so out of ideas and spunk that a robot violinist was a novel change of pace.
Frazzled wrote: Yawn, dude why's everyone watching the robot? What idiot allowed A ROBOT to have rank? Thou shalt not make a machine with the likeness of the human mind!!!
Because... diversity. Data is an "innocent child" and in this way served as a metaphor for mentally handicapped people. The way Data was trying to integrate into Trek society has analogies to the way people with down's syndrome, autism, and other "special needs" try fit into modern society. Thus episodes with LaForge teaching Data how to paint and Data playing the violin for an audience. All this at the same time he was a master intellect, indestructible, wise beyond his years, and still bringing a child-like perspective to every situation.
Oh, in case you're wondering, the Pinocchio analogy doesn't really work because they only used it once or twice before declaring him a "real boy".
gorgon wrote: You must have watched a different show than me. I remember it being the opposite of that.
Troi was directly based on the sexed-up character from TMP. Deltan-->Betazoid. Sexy mind powers-->uh, kind of. Oath of Celibacy-->nope. Advanced social-sexuality-->naked weddings and stuff. A lot of it is only implied in the show, but it's there. Riker trying to nail any sapient that came across his path was almost a running gag. TNG suffered a lot from telling instead of showing or indirect references to a lot of the social norms, and it wasn't terribly consistent, but Roddenberry's 60's woo-woo ideas about sex and permissiveness were all over that show.
I guess those *themes* were there surrounding that one character, but overall I found that show to be remarkably sterile and 'action'-less at the same time. I don't know how anyone would call TNG a sexy show.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I didn't call it a sexy show. I simply offered a counterpoint to the ridiculous bar metaphor that implied TNG had no adult themes or content.
It had all the adult themes the local yacht club would have, and about as exciting.
Graphite wrote: So the logic is that it's bad because a character called Khan is in it, and it isn't as good as Wrath of Khan?
No, it's bad because it's trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan to milk the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. There was no reason to include Khan at all, except to try to generate some nostalgia appeal that a new character wouldn't have. And that's just bad writing.
But NONE of the Trek movies are as good as Wrath of Khan, so that's a pretty damn high bar to set.
Then why try to copy Wrath of Khan? If you can't live up to the original then why sell your movie as a copy of it? At least do something new and different!
Graphite wrote: So the logic is that it's bad because a character called Khan is in it, and it isn't as good as Wrath of Khan?
No, it's bad because it's trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan to milk the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. There was no reason to include Khan at all, except to try to generate some nostalgia appeal that a new character wouldn't have. And that's just bad writing.
Don't forget people asked specifically if it was Khan, several times, leading up to te movies and each and every time were told that it was not Khan. So not only was he unnecessary there was a great deal of deception going on about it to boot. That and the writing in general was awful. It does look good in 3D though.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I didn't call it a sexy show. I simply offered a counterpoint to the ridiculous bar metaphor that implied TNG had no adult themes or content.
It had all the adult themes the local yacht club would have, and about as exciting.
Obviously, you've never been to my local yacht club
Ahtman wrote: I think the main difference between TOS and TNG isn't whether one was progressive or action oriented, but that TOS was fun and entertaining while TNG was boring. God was it boring. SOOOOOOOOOOO boring.
And when it wasn't too busy being boring, it was busy being Seasme Street for grown up nerds. Seriously, how many times in the series was there an episode involving Worf learning to cooperate? Or Riker trying to teach the child-like alien-humans that differences are what make us great? Or that by just being good people, bad people would see that they were wrong and stop being bad... just because?
And how many times did Wesley save the ship? (Not that that is Sesame Street stuff)
The thing I remember is that every other episode they'd be faced with Menace/Dilemma X, and Geordi or Wesley would "reconfigure the main deflector dish" to create plot resolution. Because technobabble. Which is fairly terrible writing.
The show was on a long time, and its fans remember the standout episodes. But there was a ton of repetitive mediocrity in between.
Another point that even my father, who had a passing interest in STTNG when it was on, noticed was that Worf got his ass kicked. A lot. Which is pretty lame for your toughest guy to be a total glassjaw.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I didn't call it a sexy show. I simply offered a counterpoint to the ridiculous bar metaphor that implied TNG had no adult themes or content.
It had all the adult themes the local yacht club would have, and about as exciting.
Obviously, you've never been to my local yacht club
Actually caught a few episodes last night (Pegasus, one involving Worf's Brother). It reminded me:
*Picard is a preaching little bureaucrat who in two episodes: pretty much committed treason against humanity by alerting the Romulans to key technology the Fed had developed against it and potentially started a war for...reasons. he also put his second in command in an untenable position by trying to breach the chain of command (what the ?)
*Picard blithely sentenced an entire group of people to death like a true bureaucrat citing a regulation. Everyone else is high and mighty. But when faced with the actual people, he can't do the deed himself. What a .
*interesting problems that bring up real issues are overcome by deux ex machinas on a minute by minute basis. medieval level person gets off holodeck and is faced with revealing the Enterprise to his people or living a lie so he immediately kills himself...WTF?
*I remember how stilted the writing and dialog is.
Yea its attack of the cardboard people. I'm shocked how ST survived TNG.
Graphite wrote: So the logic is that it's bad because a character called Khan is in it, and it isn't as good as Wrath of Khan?
No, it's bad because it's trying to re-tell Wrath of Khan to milk the cash cow of fanboy nostalgia. There was no reason to include Khan at all, except to try to generate some nostalgia appeal that a new character wouldn't have. And that's just bad writing.
Don't forget people asked specifically if it was Khan, several times, leading up to te movies and each and every time were told that it was not Khan. So not only was he unnecessary there was a great deal of deception going on about it to boot. That and the writing in general was awful. It does look good in 3D though.
It really does just come down to bad writing. It's quite possible to rewrite the Khan story in the new ST universe, and to do it very well, but they failed to do so. In trying to capture nostalgia, they lost the soul of it.
Frazzled wrote: Yea its attack of the cardboard people. I'm shocked how ST survived TNG.
IMO, genre fans -- and ST fans are an extra-special bunch within that group -- aren't very particular. They might be vocal. They might even complain a lot. But when push comes to shove, if it's sci-fi, they'll watch it.
I also think that many ST fans have reached a certain comfort level with stiff and stilted. I remember reading harsh comments from fans about Enterprise, just because the opening credits didn't feature an orchestral suite and Federation ships soaring through space. Personally, I think what marked Enterprise is how much sameness there was, even as the studio execs talked about wanting to shake things up.
I think there's a definite set of ST fans who don't like the Abrams films -- alternate timelines and such aside -- simply *because* they're more action-packed and visceral. They're much more comfortable with Picard lecturing about Federation policies. But then they still paid to watch the Abrams films, because at the end of the day it's sci-fi and ST.
jasper76 wrote: I serverd with Ricardo Montalban. I knew Ricardo Montalban. Ricardo Montalban was a friend of mine. Mr. Cumbercrunch, you're no Ricardo Montalban.
It was peculiar casting, to say the least. They needed someone who could generate some animal magnetism, even if it was in a hammy way like Montalban.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I didn't call it a sexy show. I simply offered a counterpoint to the ridiculous bar metaphor that implied TNG had no adult themes or content.
It had all the adult themes the local yacht club would have, and about as exciting.
But Frazz, don't you know how the Kaiser attending the sailing regatta for the Queen's Jubilee led to all sorts of shenanigans*.
Compare TNG to any other show around that time, and you will see they were all that way. it was the style at the time, like tying onions to your belt!
* In this case, the term Shenanigans refers to World War I
Thanks for the article, gorgon. I don't agree with it though. Star Trek has always dealt with mature themes. All of the series have gone to some pretty dark places. TOS was known for its sexy times (though I admit that the other series handled sex poorly). I do agree that the new series needs to be relevant to our times. But it needs to be optimistic and hopeful. Force should be considered the last option and diplomacy is vital.
People asking for a BSG style reboot worry me. Trek should not be depressing. It should be inspiring.
AdeptSister wrote: Thanks for the article, gorgon. I don't agree with it though. Star Trek has always dealt with mature themes. All of the series have gone to some pretty dark places. TOS was known for its sexy times (though I admit that the other series handled sex poorly). I do agree that the new series needs to be relevant to our times. But it needs to be optimistic and hopeful. Force should be considered the last option and diplomacy is vital.
People asking for a BSG style reboot worry me. Trek should not be depressing. It should be inspiring.
indeed. It can still be inspiring, with better writing and more human actors. A problem with Voyager (and Entprise in many ways) was it stuck with the TNG's antiseptic cardboard people.
Jeez they had a seen in what passes for the TNG bar NO ONE WAS DRINKING ANYTHING.
Khornholio wrote: Another point that even my father, who had a passing interest in STTNG when it was on, noticed was that Worf got his ass kicked. A lot. Which is pretty lame for your toughest guy to be a total glassjaw.
It happened enough that it became the name of a trope. Essentially it is setting up a character as tough just to beat them down to make something else appear even tougher.
Something I think the producers and writers underestimated with Voyager is that by taking Starfleet and the Federation out of the story...they immediately lost all those kinds of potential storylines.
I hazard to guess that inter-crew tensions were supposed to fill that void somewhat (and IIRC that was what we were told in the press), but after the pilot episode, they smoothed over 90% of that.
Berman and company were almost cult-like about the whole enterprise (pun intended) and the way the characters had to be part of one big happy family, Federation, etc. Always a healthy dose of sunshine and light. DS9 was superior to most of the rest because it at least pushed those boundaries, although it never really broke them either.
And I agree with Frazz that it's possible to write a modern, optimistic ST series that shows characters in more realistic and naturalistic ways. Have the characters strive to do the right thing, but portray them in complex situations, or in situations in which it's hard to decipher what the right thing is. Or even show them failing, but learning from it. Show some crew relationships that look like normal adult relationships with all their complications.
I actually think the article nailed it by saying that Star Trek needs to grow up a little. That doesn't mean brooding and darkness.
I'm so excited by this news. I don't mind admitting I'm a huge trekkie.
As people have already said, it needs to be a show of it's times. TNG may seem odd now, but at the time it was first on TV it was very comparable to other popular shows in terms of themes and pacing.
I grew up watching TNG and DS9, and my sense of morality is heavily influenced by them.
The biggest worry is this is being put behind a pay wall, how many people won't see this because they don't have the CBS service. By putting it out this way it ensures that only hardcore trek fans who go out of their way to get hold of this will see it.
Living in the UK i'm assuming the easiest way to see this will be to pirate it, which I don't like doing, and won't put money in CBS's pockets. Increasing the chance it will get cancelled after only 1 or 2 seasons.
President of Paramount’s Motion Picture Group recently told WIRED that he wants to “take advantage” of unexplored parts of the Star Trek universe going forward with future films, throwing out such “ridiculous” ideas as ‘Star Trek: Zero Dark Thirty’ and meeting the SEAL Team Six of the Star Trek universe. After the action-adventure shoot-em-up blow-em-up blockbuster that was Into Darkness, Paramount wanting a “less Star Trek-y” script, and the head of the reboot proclaiming that Star Trek is “too philosophical”, is this another indication that Paramount really has no idea how to do Star Trek?
Marc Evans, president of Paramount’s Motion Picture Group sat down with WIRED recently to talk about Star Wars, Star Trek, and more. The article focused on the Star Wars franchise, its continued success, and recent plans to develop Star Wars: Rogue One, a “Star Wars story” set to hit theaters on December 16th, 2016. Trek didn’t get much attention in the interview, but its brief mention may be indicative of a systemic issue within the heads of Paramount execs that see Star Trek as an action-adventure story, rather than the thought provoking cerebral sci-fi that we know and love.
On the heels of a conversation about the premise of Rogue One, Marc Evans told WIRED:
“I often think about the areas of the Star Trek universe that haven’t been taken advantage of,” Paramount’s Evans says. “Like, I’ll be ridiculous with you, but what would Star Trek: Zero Dark Thirty look like? Where is the SEAL Team Six of the Star Trek universe? That fascinates me.”
Hey, Paramount. I’ve gone ahead an made the promo material for Star Trek XIV, whose working title is Star Trek: Call of Duty. There would then be three spin-off films in an epic cross-over with the Transformers universe (directed, of course, by Michael Bay).
Well, I sure hope they'll handle the subject matter with the subtlety and tact Star Trek is known for... Can't wait for the Altairian Waterboarding episode.
PS: For those who thought TNG was sexless, look what happens what the computer provides when Troi asks for a table. The computer didn't anticipate a need for restraints when Geordi asked.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, I sure hope they'll handle the subject matter with the subtlety and tact Star Trek is known for... Can't wait for the Altairian Waterboarding episode.
PS: For those who thought TNG was sexless, look what happens what the computer provides when Troi asks for a table. The computer didn't anticipate a need for restraints when Geordi asked.
Wow, yeah. I almost expected Jon Lovitz to show up as the 'Ribald Tales' guy.
Again, I think what some of us are talking about are realistic adult relationships, not some obscure wink or nod here or there.
Edit: And there were cerebral, thought-provoking ST films? I wouldn't have called any of them that exactly.
Before everyone craps on it, a star trek series based around a core of inter species special forces (delta team or whatever sto calls them) could actually be good, or them being sent all over to do morally ambiguous jobs for the federation, there's your human emotional conflict right there, if written properly, it could work.
Yeah, not sure why people are losing their gak over the idea itself. It's a decent idea. Star Trek: Section 31 or Star Trek: Temporal Affairs could be cool shows with a sort of special forces vibe to them. Granted, I think I'd rather have those as movies than a full tv series. I'd prefer a TV series with the classic formula of "these are the journeys with Captain X, and his/her crew doing stuff all over."
?)
