miles316 Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 The man who brought us Batalstar galactica got his start on star trek didn't he. Quote
Duke Togo Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 The man who brought us Batalstar galactica got his start on star trek didn't he. And utterly surpassed it. Quote
Mommar Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Honestly, I would rather have a series die then for it to be rebooted like Star Trek. Maybe the next movie will be good. Maybe. But putting a spin on Khan (if it's him) and one of the best revenge/sci-fi movies of all time is not the best idea for even the best directors. Abrams tried to introduce a bit of Khan in the Nero character. So this will be attempt number two. Some stories in Deep Space Nine were good. But around here is where I stopped watching: Weren't you just talking about great action, character development and stories that build? DS9 had all of that. His log entry there was brilliant and subtle. It's a man convincing himself he did the right thing when he knows he was wrong. Why do you think he keeps repeating he can live with it? He's trying to convince himself of the lie. It's hidden by the log entry thing at the end but it's really a one-man play, Shakespearean in delivery even. It really seems like you're looking for a reason to hate DS9 even though it embraced everything you claim you want in a story simply because it doesn't maintain that "ideal' Star Trek image which is boring to maintain to pretty much every writer out there. Really, if you take that whole show into account. If Sisko had embraced his image of being the Emissary in the VERY FIRST episode he could have prevented the whole thing. Every single death. He chose not to, went against all Federation beliefs and only in the end did he finally learn to embrace who he was and save The Federation. That's Tragedy there my friend. Do a little digging, Taks, the info is out there. Much like Lucas with Star Wars, Roddenberry became a deteriment to the franchise he created. Star Wars could weather it because of the size of the fanbase and the variety of media is spread out into; it's possible Trek would not have recovered from Roddenberry's meddling. J.J. Abrams has breathed new life into a stalled franchise, and a portion of its fanbase wants to lynch him for it. I just don't get it. He made Star Trek relevant, and the response is "BLARGH, DEEP SPACE NINE, HARUMPH HARUMPH HARUMPH!" No one has heard of Deep Space Nine. Just sayin'. Just because I am not a "fan" does not mean I am totally disconnected from the franchise. I really like Khan. I dig the whales movie. I even watched some TNG back in the day. The franchise needs to widen its audiance and keep people like me coming to see the movies to continue to succeed in the future. I think the movie was okay. I think he took it too far into Star War territory where it didn't need to be and still could have been an excellent movie. Then again, you're a fan of Battlestar... how many more of those shows are getting greenlit because they pull in huge numbers of viewers? Not to mention that they had pissed off half of their own fanbase by the third season and completely lost them by season four. Edited March 27, 2013 by Mommar Quote
Dobber Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Man, I'm going to have to go back and watch DS9 again. It really did become one of the....if not THE best Trek series. Hell, it even had Kirk! Chris Edited March 27, 2013 by Dobber Quote
Mommar Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 Man, I'm going to have to go back and watch DS9 again. It really did become one of the....if not THE best Trek series. Hell, it even had Kirk! Chris People argue with me all the time but I maintain it is the best. It lost a lot of fans though. Quote
Dobber Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 I never did get to see the final season. I remember it was moved to some obscure time slot without much notice + I was going to OCS so I think I noticed it too late. Chris Quote
Penguin Posted March 27, 2013 Posted March 27, 2013 Roddenberry became a detriment because he couldn't let his ideas evolve with the audience. From what I read, he was dead set against showing anything negative about humanity or the Federation. All the evils in the universe had to be somewhere else (cue the planet of drug addicts, because humans just don't do that anymore, etc.). Yes, the Federation can still be a positive place, but you couldn't just have it be all good all the time and have audience accept that at face value anymore. The cracks in it, the cost of it, were what people needed to see, and by seeing that struggle and sacrifice come to value the result even more. We didn't want a "happily ever after" Federation anymore. So, yeah, Star Trek needs to keep evolving, and yeah, there's definitely an argument that it had devolved into a certain amount of navel-gazing, especially within its fan circles. A shake-up was needed. Without a doubt, the new movies are that. All that being said, I can understand why some fans have rejected it, and even agree to a certain degree. From a certain perspective, it's just an action film wrapped in some of the trappings of the original series. For a person who defines Star Trek by the way the various TV series explored the "human condition" (hackneyed as that expression is), the first Abrams movie really wasn't worthy of the Star Trek name. It doesn't "evolve" those Star Trek ideas for a new audience, it abandons them in favour of wide commercial appeal. Not that the franchise didn't need a little commercial appeal by that point. I enjoyed the first Abrams movie for the most part, and I'm looking forward to the next. But, I kinda agree that it doesn't "feel" to me like "real" Star Trek. The beer brewery engineering sums up my beef. My notion of Star Trek has someone decide "a warp core looks like this", and then a set is built. The Abrams approach was "isn't this a neat room... maybe warp core looks like a brewing vat?" The vision of the future feels thrown together by random details. ("What if the motorcycle cop has robotic facegear? Wouldn't that be cool?") I don't want my Star Trek to look so much like my present. That was a BSG thing. Quote
Atharun Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 DS9 was the best Star Trek series IMO. A lot of people talk about that monologue by Sisko. It was what made the series great. He was forced to make tough choices. When he sent Nog on patrol and he lost his leg. Him blackmailing Quark to stay on DS9. Not going back for his son. Convincing the Bajorans to sign a non aggression pact with the Dominion. All these things made DS9 stand out to me. While I enjoyed TNG it was self righteous at times it felt like to me. In Wrath of Khan David even tells Kirk he had not experienced death to which Kirk admitted to on that emotional of a scale. Sisko was on the front line and had to deal with that regularly. Just my opinion though. Quote
Mog Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 J.J. Abrams has breathed new life into a stalled franchise, and a portion of its fanbase wants to lynch him for it. I just don't get it. He made Star Trek relevant, and the response is "BLARGH, DEEP SPACE NINE, HARUMPH HARUMPH HARUMPH!" No one has heard of Deep Space Nine. Just sayin'. Just because I am not a "fan" does not mean I am totally disconnected from the franchise. I really like Khan. I dig the whales movie. I even watched some TNG back in the day. The franchise needs to widen its audiance and keep people like me coming to see the movies to continue to succeed in the future. Duke, my comments were aimed at JetJockey's post. Anytime someone says that they stopped watching DS9 after "In the Pale Moonlight," I feel compelled to respond. But it seems that you want to bring DS9 into this JJ Trek movie argument (which wasn't the point of my post). If that's the case, let me just make one quick point regarding your "No one has heard of Deep Space Nine" comment: Popularity does not necessarily equal Quality. Believe me, most DS9 fans know the series isn't consider anywhere close to being the most popular. But as you can see from the posts in this thread, it was a damn good, quality show. I'll concede that the Star Trek franchise was already run ragged by the time JJ took over. And he has renewed popular interest in the Star Trek franchise. But the point of my original post was that just because someone doesn't like the new rebooted movies doesn't mean they can no longer enjoy the many various Trek TV series out there already. And vice versa, if someone doesn't care for the various Trek TV series, that shouldn't take away from whatever enjoyment they get from the rebooted movies. And if someone comes away enjoying the rebooted movies and is curious to check out some of the previous TV series, even better. Quote
Duke Togo Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 But it seems that you want to bring DS9 into this JJ Trek movie argument (which wasn't the point of my post). I Oh, no, my post wasn't aimed at you, Mog. I was just using it as a convenient example of some of the discussion being had out there. J.J. didn't take The Holy Trilogy and turn out a turd like The Phantom Menace; he took a dead in the water franchise and raised its visibility and popularity to a height it had never seen before. Even if you want more out of Trek than what J.J. is bringing to the table, this new-found interest is going to bring new investment and new opportunities for further Trek productions. Quote
myk Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 DS9 was the best Star Trek series IMO. A lot of people talk about that monologue by Sisko. It was what made the series great. He was forced to make tough choices. When he sent Nog on patrol and he lost his leg. Him blackmailing Quark to stay on DS9. Not going back for his son. Convincing the Bajorans to sign a non aggression pact with the Dominion. All these things made DS9 stand out to me. While I enjoyed TNG it was self righteous at times it felt like to me. In Wrath of Khan David even tells Kirk he had not experienced death to which Kirk admitted to on that emotional of a scale. Sisko was on the front line and had to deal with that regularly. Just my opinion though. TNG was always so "clean, proper and stiff," like Picard's personality. Considering that TNG took place during a time when the galaxy was mostly at peace, the most dangerous thing TNG ever had to deal with was then-taboo-homosexuality and Data's struggle to understand Sherlock Holmes. I always wondered what would happen to that perfect crew and their "ship of peace and perfection" had they been thrown into the Delta quadrant and faced Voyager's isolated struggle to get home, or had been placed on the front lines in the Dominion war like DS9. That being said, JJ's Trek was vital to the series, as Trek was mostly dead by the time he got to it... Quote
Keith Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Always seemed to me DS9 was constantly playing catch up with B5, and frankly, B5 did it soo much better. Quote
Mog Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Maybe it was the fact that B5 moved to TNT (and I was usually not home around the time it aired), but I never really got into Season 5 of B5. I got a little tired of Delenn's constant "Oh John"s, and I don't think we ever got a scene where Sheridan got knocked down a peg or two or was proven wrong about anything. Don't get me wrong: B5 had some jaw-droppingly good moments. But DS9 was pretty stinkin' good too. Those were some good science fiction years when those two shows were on the air. Quote
Dynaman Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 Maybe it was the fact that B5 moved to TNT (and I was usually not home around the time it aired), but I never really got into Season 5 of B5. I got a little tired of Delenn's constant "Oh John"s, and I don't think we ever got a scene where Sheridan got knocked down a peg or two or was proven wrong about anything. At the end of one Episode Sheridan was giving the "Kirk Speech" about forgiving someone who has paid for their crime, then he had to eat his words before the end of the speech. The last season did not really get its footing till near the end, the forced nature of the season 4 wrap up leaving JMS floundering around a bit to get the show back on the track he wanted. The end of the fourth season also being rushed too quickly. DS9, I'm still not thrilled with - it still has too much of that ST preachiness to it. Which is one thing in the JJ Treks that I really like - the preachiness has been excised. Quote
ErikElvis Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I was a fan of Star Trek before and I still am with the new movie. I think the change was a good thing. And I dont even mind the new enterprise. Quote
derex3592 Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 damn you guys...you've got me wanting to go back and re-watch DS-9 on Netflix in it's entirety now... Quote
TehPW Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 I think Star Trek started to lose people when they started the heavy techno babble in Next Generation. Then they continually wanted to show that the Star Trek universe isn't perfect so we got Deep Space Nine then Voyager. I believe the original Voyager premise was they had to work with their enemies and were far away from The Federation just like Deep Space Nine. Voyager..... erk. You know, for all the hate that show got, you would THINK, someone would suggest that the carpets only get mildly cleaned, the walls only mildly cleaned... some lights dimmer, some bulkheads only slightly repaired.... the filming miniuture weathered, etc.... (of course that isnt the only problem with VOY but. brought to you by the same minds that asked 'Who the &^%$ has been mowing the grass on a certain currently aired Zombie-themed TV show? anyway, back to our previous discussion on PONIES. Quote
Chronocidal Posted March 28, 2013 Posted March 28, 2013 damn you guys...you've got me wanting to go back and re-watch DS-9 on Netflix in it's entirety now... Did they finally add in DS9 to the online selection? For the longest time, they had everything BUT that. If it finally is there, I'll have to go watch it myself, since I never did. As far as Voyager goes.. For all the hate it gets, it still has some of my favorite moments in Trek. In particular.. the entire WWII holodeck nonsense episode. No, it wasn't really good in any sense of the word. No, it didn't make a lick of sense that a holographic airstrike would blow out 4 decks of the actual ship if the safety was turned off. But I laughed so freaking hard at the entire mess that I didn't care. The entire episode needed Benny Hill music put to it. Also, Seven as a 1940s nightclub performer. Quote
Greyryder Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 I've been watching Voyager on Hulu, since I never got to see the last four seasons. I like the show. It actually managed to make both the borg and Q interesting. Next Gen left me ambivalent about the borg, and the Q episodes were always annoying. Not saying the show is perfect, I still think the Hirogen are second rate Predator knock offs. Quote
Mommar Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 I've been watching Voyager on Hulu, since I never got to see the last four seasons. I like the show. It actually managed to make both the borg and Q interesting. Next Gen left me ambivalent about the borg, and the Q episodes were always annoying. Not saying the show is perfect, I still think the Hirogen are second rate Predator knock offs. Bizzarro world? Voyager neutered both The Borg and Q. Did they finally add in DS9 to the online selection? For the longest time, they had everything BUT that. If it finally is there, I'll have to go watch it myself, since I never did. As far as Voyager goes.. For all the hate it gets, it still has some of my favorite moments in Trek. In particular.. the entire WWII holodeck nonsense episode. No, it wasn't really good in any sense of the word. No, it didn't make a lick of sense that a holographic airstrike would blow out 4 decks of the actual ship if the safety was turned off. But I laughed so freaking hard at the entire mess that I didn't care. The entire episode needed Benny Hill music put to it. Also, Seven as a 1940s nightclub performer. The year of hell arc was pretty good too. It's how the ship should have looked, and been treated, the entire show. Quote
Knight26 Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 So while driving in this morning I figured to how they are making the Batch into Kahn, or one of Kahn's people off the Botany Bay. Due to the changed timeline one of two things happened, the Big-E find the BB, but instead of sending them to Set-Alpha system they ship them, or at least Kahn/one of his men off to Earth to stand trial for war crimes. Where Section-31 takes custody of him and turns him into an agent. The second option is that the Big-E isn't the one that discovers the BB, and instead another ship does, and sends the crew back to Earth, etc... In that way the cryo-chamber we see in the preview are actually shown in flashback when they discuss where Batch (Kahn/not-Kahn) came from instead of doing a full rehash of Space Seed. When it comes down to the timeline has been modified repeatedly at this point, first when the Ent-E chased the borg back in time, creating small ripples that would effect/cause the temporal cold war. Again several times in Enterprise with that stupid Temporal Cold War, and finally with the appearance of Nero, forever throwing the timeline off course. When you get down to it that is why Nero comments that Kirk is not the same Kirk from his timeline, it's not experience, Nero's appearance, and the other timeline alterations have forever rewritten Kirk's backstory. It's like replaying Mass Effect, and making Shephard the street kid instead of the navy brat, the adventure will proceed along similar paths, but the decisions will be different due to the change in history. Quote
derex3592 Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Every season of every Star Trek series is on Netflix now. FYI. Quote
Dynaman Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 New Trek or Old Trek I think everyone will love this commercial for the Star Trek video game coming out... http://www.blastr.com/2013-3-29/william-shatner-brilliantly-recreates-his-epic-battle-gorn Quote
Duke Togo Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 New Trek or Old Trek I think everyone will love this commercial for the Star Trek video game coming out... http://www.blastr.com/2013-3-29/william-shatner-brilliantly-recreates-his-epic-battle-gorn Watched the trailer earlier today; it made me think of Mass Effect Quote
Fly4victory Posted March 29, 2013 Posted March 29, 2013 Very Funny. Hope the game is as good as the marketing. Quote
taksraven Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Screw you idiots, I think Voyager's great.......lol...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sE5gNEWQNU Quote
JetJockey Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 Weren't you just talking about great action, character development and stories that build? DS9 had all of that. His log entry there was brilliant and subtle. It's a man convincing himself he did the right thing when he knows he was wrong. Why do you think he keeps repeating he can live with it? He's trying to convince himself of the lie. It's hidden by the log entry thing at the end but it's really a one-man play, Shakespearean in delivery even. It really seems like you're looking for a reason to hate DS9 even though it embraced everything you claim you want in a story simply because it doesn't maintain that "ideal' Star Trek image which is boring to maintain to pretty much every writer out there. Really, if you take that whole show into account. If Sisko had embraced his image of being the Emissary in the VERY FIRST episode he could have prevented the whole thing. Every single death. He chose not to, went against all Federation beliefs and only in the end did he finally learn to embrace who he was and save The Federation. That's Tragedy there my friend. When I saw the episode, I just didn't like how far the character was going away from Star Trek/Starfleet ideals. I believe there is a black ops episode of Deep Space Nine too. I can't remember if it happened before or after this episode. It just seemed to be going away from Star Trek and into Space Station Politics. I think I liked the show for a while too. I was trying to find my database entry of where that Gold Book VF-1S poster is and noticed that I own a signed Deep Space Nine lithograph. I have to dig that up and see who signed it. Quote
mechaninac Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 (edited) When I saw the episode, I just didn't like how far the character was going away from Star Trek/Starfleet ideals. I believe there is a black ops episode of Deep Space Nine too. I can't remember if it happened before or after this episode. It just seemed to be going away from Star Trek and into Space Station Politics. I think I liked the show for a while too. I was trying to find my database entry of where that Gold Book VF-1S poster is and noticed that I own a signed Deep Space Nine lithograph. I have to dig that up and see who signed it. I don't quite get the "Space Station Politics" complaint; after all, DS9's undertone for its entire run was the politics of having a starfleet command crew administering a Bajoran station of Cardassian construction in a hot zone of trade and migration (the wormhole) where the often conflicting political interests of the Federation, Bajorans, Cardassians, Klingons, etc., and the entire Gamma Quadrant clashed, occasioanally leading to armed conflict, with poor Benjamin Sisko caught between his role as emissary, commander, father, and starfleet officer, forced into "herding cats"... and sometimes failing at it or being forced into positions of moral/ethical ambiguity. DS9 had its share of problems, but the political intrigue and less than Utopian setting and situations confronting the characters, and having them make the best off of the bad was the entire point; i.e. "this is not Starfleet". Edited March 30, 2013 by mechaninac Quote
Mommar Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Screw you idiots, I think Voyager's great.......lol...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sE5gNEWQNU The Doctor was great, the show was not. Quote
Atharun Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I actually liked the 2009 Trek film alot even though it did have some seriously questionable issues....but that being said I would love to see a new trek series in the Prime timeline set after the events of Nemesis or maybe even adapt Star trek online. Not the part of using old ships but rather some of the situations. Romulus is gone and one of the most powerful forces has been turned into nothing but private factions. the Dominion are trying to rebuild, Cardassia is a mess etc etc etc...I think dealing with that kind of political instability could lead to a very interesting plot. Then again, being an animation fan I would be interested in seeing Star trek Destiny turned into a D2DVD animation or CGI along the line of Starship Troopers Invasion. I haven't read the book myself but from I have seen ti is supposed to be rather exciting. Quote
Keith Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I don't see the purpose of revisiting that timeline in any future series at this point. The absolute best thing Paramount could have done was what was done, whipe the slate clean, start fresh, while having that fresh start based on everything that happened before. Quote
lechuck Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Fresh!?The franchise was served on a platinum platter to Abrams. All that was needed was to take those core Trek (or Rodenberry) values out and to insert them into a completely new environment/setting. New characters, designs/aesthetics, uniforms, aliens... etc. Heck, we could have even had transforming shuttle crafts and I would have accepted. Why? Because it would have been really new and different --> fresh! Instead we get a semi-detached retro-rehash retelling, with very limited creativity and borrowing from left and right. Nope, that is not fresh. It is fermenting Sci-Fi action that has been repackaged and rebranded as Star Trek. As for longevity and renewed interest in ST universe - I doubt it. The movies are advertised as your typical summer blockbuster, interest and attention spans will last for the duration of the movies and then forgotten until next time. There is very little that would make for kids, teens and/or tweens to further investigate/indulge themselves with Star Trek. Quote
Duke Togo Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Fresh!? The franchise was served on a platinum platter to Abrams. All that was needed was to take those core Trek (or Rodenberry) values out and to insert them into a completely new environment/setting. There was nothing platinum about the platter. Abrams was handed a patient who was about to be taken off of life support and given its last rites. Not only did he save its life, but he had it up, walking, and talking again. "Core Trek" doesn't sell to anyone but a niche group, and even that group had grown frustrated and disenchanted with what the past 15 years of Trek had brought. Abrams made Star Trek relevant, and you're bitching because he didn't make what essentially amounts to a Voyager movie? This is the same sort of bizarro logic I see coming out of some Star Wars fans fretting over the sale to Disney. As if someone could do worse than what Lucas has done to the franchise in the past 15 years. And did you not see what Disney has done with its Marvel properties? No, the new Abrams movies won't inspire anyone to dress up like a Star Fleet officer to attend jury duty. And thank god for that, really. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.