StarTrek: The Next Next Generation

[ArlEammon]

So, the Original Series remake with the New Captain Kirk, etcetera, Star Trek, was a good movie. Even non-Star Trek fans loved it. What would a new Picard, Troi, Worf, etcetera, look like?

Could it be as succesful as the Original Series movie remake?

[Mauve Shirt]

Obviously Picard would be played by James McAvoy. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/) :smalltongue:

[Scowling Dragon]

Im on the side that loathed the movie. This wasn't star Treck, and it wasn't a good movie even if it wasn't star treck.

And I hope that this doesn't happen again.

[Mauve Shirt]

Omg I freaking LOVED the Star Trek 2009 movie, even though it was incredibly dumb. I could watch that movie 12 times in a row.

[The Witch-King]

Hated the 2009 film. It wasn't Trek anyway--it was just a rehash of Star Wars:

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/2009/05/14/star-trek-rips-off-star-wars/

[McStabbington]

Before I answer your question, I must confess that I wasn't a huge fan of Star Trek (2009), although not because it wasn't "real Trek." Rather, I wasn't a fan of it because the story didn't make any damned sense when you gave it an ounce of thought. Which is really the antithesis of what Trek is supposed to be about. It's a recurring enough theme in Abrams' works that I feel that Film Critic Hulk's criticism of Abrams' next project, Super 8 (http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/super-8-so-good-that-hulk-wish-it-was-better/), actually applies quite well to Star Trek as well: Abrams seems to understand character, plot and theme seperately, but he doesn't know how to weave them together very well.

So from that perspective, I would say that they probably couldn't make a successful TNG reboot. The TNG series, far more than TOS, had a fairly deep ensemble. There were several characters who never got fleshed out very well (Geordi, Beverly), and several who got fleshed out in ways that were deeply unsatisfying (Deanna, Natasha, Wesley), but in general you could throw a story about Riker or Data or Worf or Picard out and expect it to work without too much trouble. This is vastly different than TOS, which rarely relied on character-based drama, and then did so only for two people (Kirk, Spock). As such, given Abrams' weaknesses as a story writer, a TNG reboot would only exacerbate those weaknesses.

[Lateral]

Obviously Picard would be played by James McAvoy. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/) :smalltongue:

Not bald enough. There's only one person that I would give the role of Picard to, and that's Sir Patrick Stewart himself. Maybe Samuel L. Jackson, although he'd make a better Sisko.

...Actually, Samuel L. Jackson would make an awesome Sisko.

[Traab]

Not bald enough. There's only one person that I would give the role of Picard to, and that's Sir Patrick Stewart himself. Maybe Samuel L. Jackson, although he'd make a better Sisko.

...Actually, Samuel L. Jackson would make an awesome Sisko.

He really, really would. Clearly Picard should be played by Vin Diesel. After all, iirc, picard was an ass kicking rowdy in his youth. Got stabbed in the heart and laughed? Ill tell you what, it took at least till my third time of being stabbed in the heart until I could start laughing it off. The first two times STUNG!

[Omergideon]

Weeeeeeeell..............I really enjoyed the Star Trek reboot movie. It was not a Star Trek movie of course, save for similar names and some familiar places mentioned. But it was a good movie nonetheless. With characters who seemed largely like they should (Well the main Trio did). But it was not Star Trek. Just a fun actiony film in a similar universe.


Doing the same to the TNG crew?
No. Just, No. One does not mess with perfection.

Picard is Sir Patrick Stewart even moreso than Nimoy was Spock, and Dorn was Worf. Burton, Spiner, Frakes, Sirtis et al were simply perfect in their roles.

They were Star Trek for me much more so than Kirk was. With them it was not the characters alone, but the whole Trekness of them. To remove that wounds them so much more than it did Kirk and friends.


So I am against this. If forced though...............I am stumped.

[Kish]

So, the Original Series remake with the New Captain Kirk, etcetera, Star Trek, was a good movie.
Not to jump on the bandwagon, but: No.

No.

[thubby]

yeah i dont think you could ever replace piccard.

i don't think you could do a prequel, either. a lot of his character is defined by aspects that come from his age.

[hamishspence]

There's some moderately good prequel novels out there though- maybe one of them could be used as a prototype for a TNG prequel movie?

Perhaps a fully fleshed out version of the Stargazer incident, where Picard lost his first ship (but saved his crew by defeating his opponent with the Picard Maneuver)?

[Ravens_cry]

But that means we have Ferengi as badies again, and those guys are about as threatening as lawn gnomes.
On the subject of who should play who, just give Sir Patrick Stewart a wig.
He can play his own younger self just fine.

[thubby]

There's some moderately good prequel novels out there though- maybe one of them could be used as a prototype for a TNG prequel movie?

Perhaps a fully fleshed out version of the Stargazer incident, where Picard lost his first ship (but saved his crew by defeating his opponent with the Picard Maneuver)?

*googles picard maneuver*
captain picard used double team?!
and it was super effective?

[Lord Seth]

Obligatory SF Debris review link (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/film11.asp).

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Im on the side that loathed the movie. This wasn't star Treck, and it wasn't a good movie even if it wasn't star treck.

And I hope that this doesn't happen again.

Oh Star Trek fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgDiCnYjog) (other than myself). You kidders you. Trek 2009 is just as good as First Contact, and that was the only good Star Trek movie after Khan.

I can see a remake of DS9 (best series amirite?) though I can't name anyone bad*** enough to play The Sisko off the top of my head.

[Mando Knight]

Oh Star Trek fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgDiCnYjog) (other than myself). You kidders you. Trek 2009 is just as good as First Contact, and that was the only good Star Trek movie after Khan.

I've heard quite a few that say otherwise...

Personally, I don't like the Return of the Frankenfleet (ships with odd nacelle numbers and shapes, the Narada doesn't look like a Romulan design... and the Enterprise could use a few tweaks as well... and a not-a-brewery Engineering...) or the overabundance of lens flare, but I haven't actually watched the movie myself... (the HISHE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJ-y6BWfUc) is amusing, though. Plus, this (http://www.interrobangstudios.com/potluck/index.php?strip_id=989) is an amusing comic that runs off of that timeline...)

However, I do appreciate the update to the ship's UI... since, really, the Enterprise using 60s style controls and displays, while it would be amusingly retro, would also be a bit... odd.

[Seraph]

but I haven't actually watched the movie myself...

congratulations on providing a perfect example of why criticism of the movie is laughed off.

[Lord Seth]

Oh Star Trek fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgDiCnYjog) (other than myself). You kidders you. Trek 2009 is just as good as First Contact, and that was the only good Star Trek movie after Khan.What? You don't think either The Voyage Home or The Undiscovered Country was good? I can get one or the other, but it seems pretty odd to say that First Contact was the only good Star Trek movie after Khan...especially when First Contact wasn't that good itself. Admittedly, it does bear the distinction of being the best of the Next Generation films, but that doesn't say much when your competition is Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

[OracleofWuffing]

Oh hey, I know where we could get some plot hooks (https://twitter.com/#!/TNG_S8) to build off of!

[Mando Knight]

congratulations on providing a perfect example of why criticism of the movie is laughed off.

What I have passed judgment on is primarily from screenshots and a design PoV. The engineering is literally a brewery (in rather stark contrast to the bridge design), the new ships are fairly ugly (deviating rather significantly from standard Starfleet design (http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/design.htm) from the Prime continuity... and what's up with this (http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/scans/caps/enterprise-huge-saucer.jpg)?!), I strongly prefer the exterior of the Connie Refit from The Motion Picture and onwards over the new design (though if I were permitted to tweak the new design a bit, it wouldn't take much to fix...), and the screenshots (taken to illustrate something else entirely) seem to make it clear that JJ Abrams thinks that lens flare is the way of the future...

The approach is also a bit off. They go with a "screw the old universe, we're making our own, and taking your Spock with us" approach... couldn't there have been stories to tell as to how Kirk rose to become the captain he is in the Prime?

...Though, as far as bad ship designs go, they aren't the worst (http://www.ditl.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3782&sid=30e4a518affd54d576f002609bbef307).

[Lateral]

Oh Star Trek fans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mgDiCnYjog) (other than myself). You kidders you. Trek 2009 is just as good as First Contact, and that was the only good Star Trek movie after Khan.

I can see a remake of DS9 (best series amirite?) though I can't name anyone bad*** enough to play The Sisko off the top of my head.


congratulations on providing a perfect example of why criticism of the movie is laughed off.

Wow, guys, way to be incredibly offensive to anyone who criticizes the movie. Real smooth. :smallannoyed:

(Personally, I liked it, but it's definitely not Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek.)

[Grey Watcher]

... and a not-a-brewery Engineering...

Heh, I hadn't thought of it that way. For me the problem was more the bridge making me think "This is James T. Kirk, captain of the Apple store Federation starship Enterprise."

As for a TNG (or DS9 or Voyager or Enterprise) remake/reboot/rehash, I think it's too soon. If the whole point of 2009 was to be able to go back to the original characters without the burden of syncing it up with the continuity of 40 years worth of other works, it'd seem foolish to start rebuilding that continuity just for the sake of rebuilding it.

[shadow_archmagi]

I liked the movie. I thought the action was decent and the witty bits amusing. I liked the double fakeout they did with Sulu saying he knew hand to hand combat, then admitting he only knew fencing, then pulling out a cool space rapier.

I didn't notice that engineering was a brewery. Honestly, it was only ever going to be generic tubes and blinking lights, so good on them for finding a place that was naturally full of tubes and making due.

As for lumpy ship design, wasn't that always part of star trek, that the ships were really ugly? I mean, even the original Enterprise is a pretty weird design. (Though Spock's ship made me laugh every time I saw it. It's so silly!)

[Scowling Dragon]

I do agree. 2009 was JUST AS GOOD AS FIRST CONTACT.

Thats not that good a thing. Im frankly quite baffled by one thing:

People talking about how the story was about their characters.....WHAT? They where just stereotypes and cliches!

Yes the old series was composed of them, but nobody argues that they are amazing characters (Except perhaps in the movies where with subtlety and grace the characters become great).

The 2009 version just took their stereotypes, added some cliches and made them all even more annoying!

[factotum]

I didn't mind the movie or the concept of rebooting the Star Trek universe, which was getting very tired. However, I really have an issue with the *way* they rebooted it. Rather than having all this codswallop of multiple timelines (which, as far as I can tell, they did purely in order to give Leonard Nimoy a role in the movie) they should have just shredded the existing continuity and started again from scratch. There were too many compromises and improbable plot twists introduced in order to suit the "multiple timeline" thing.

Oh, and the stuff about the engineering room looking like an old brewery and the Narada very clearly looking nothing like a Romulan ship have already been brought up, so I won't rehash them here...

[Ravens_cry]

congratulations on providing a perfect example of why criticism of the movie is laughed off.
Thank you, I have seen it and, well, it just had nothing I liked about Star Trek in it.

[Omergideon]

Thank you, I have seen it and, well, it just had nothing I liked about Star Trek in it.

And THIS is the most common criticism of the movie I have seen. It did not feel like a Star Trek movie or story. A decent to very good action flick to be sure, but not Star Trek in it's heart. Not like Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered country were and Nemesis tried (and failed) to be. Or the series usually was.


Not saying it was a bad film, just that it was not Star Trek as Gene, TOS, TNG, DS9 or heaven help me Voyager were. I think there is a reason the best remembered Trek episodes are not usually the action flick ones, but the ones that play on our emotions. Tapestry. The Inner Light. Guardian on the Edge of Forever episode. The Visitor. They are what Trek is. Not a slick and Shiny action film with great effects, Lens Flare and relentless pace.

[willpell]

What? You don't think either The Voyage Home or The Undiscovered Country was good? I can get one or the other, but it seems pretty odd to say that First Contact was the only good Star Trek movie after Khan...especially when First Contact wasn't that good itself. Admittedly, it does bear the distinction of being the best of the Next Generation films, but that doesn't say much when your competition is Generations, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

I don't claim to only like movies that are precisely deserving of the title "good", but personally the most enjoyable of the four TNG movies to me was Insurrection by miles. First Contact was too gritty for my taste, and I get sick of time travel plots real fast, but Insurrection was a perfectly self-contained example of what ST is all about to me. There were a few cringeworthy bits, of course, there almost always are, but I didn't let those ruin the movie for me.

[Ravens_cry]

And THIS is the most common criticism of the movie I have seen. It did not feel like a Star Trek movie or story. A decent to very good action flick to be sure, but not Star Trek in it's heart. Not like Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered country were and Nemesis tried (and failed) to be. Or the series usually was.


Not saying it was a bad film, just that it was not Star Trek as Gene, TOS, TNG, DS9 or heaven help me Voyager were. I think there is a reason the best remembered Trek episodes are not usually the action flick ones, but the ones that play on our emotions. Tapestry. The Inner Light. Guardian on the Edge of Forever episode. The Visitor. They are what Trek is. Not a slick and Shiny action film with great effects, Lens Flare and relentless pace.
Oh gods, yes.

Star Trek 2009 had the skin of Star Trek, but not the core, nothing what made Star Trek something special.

Like anthology science fiction like The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone, Star Trek asked questions, probes reactions and emotions, posed moral, ethical, and social questions.

But unlike them, Star Trek also introduced us to characters who we could form a long term interaction with, who we could form a strange kind of bond, whose heartaches and triumphs became our own.

Star Trek 2009 had none of that for me.

Oh, I know they are trying to attract new audiences, and that's good, I want new people to enjoy what I have enjoyed, to learn what I have learned.
But what they have actually done in my opinion is they have skinned the old (cash) cow but merely inflated the hide, with nothing underneath to sustain it, to make it live.

[Scowling Dragon]

Insurrection was ruined to me by a ver cheep looking movie and the Baku being portrayed as all righteous when they where being INCREDIBLY selfish a-holes.

[Ravens_cry]

Insurrection was ruined to me by a ver cheep looking movie and the Baku being portrayed as all righteous when they where being INCREDIBLY selfish a-holes.
Yes, it was, unfortunately, a case where all the introspection went a little rotten, though it did have one of my favourite moments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M38niSUEWtY&feature=related).

[DigoDragon]

But that means we have Ferengi as badies again, and those guys are about as threatening as lawn gnomes.

**Spittake** Best. Comparison. EVER. :smallamused:

On the subject of remaking, I'm going to go with the side that's saying no to rebooting Next Gen. It was a pretty good TV series, but I'd like to move on and see some brand new sci-fi space exploration show rather than yet another Trek anything.

Trek is nice, but I think it's run its course.

[hamlet]

The 2009 Star Trek was not just a bad Star Trek movie, it was a bad movie all around.

Whenever I see it - on one of it's unnumerable and interminable reruns on television - I can always imagine Abrams behind the camera, literally foaming at the mouth . . . "More explosions! More more more! FASTER!!!! LENS FLARE LENS FLARE LENS FLARE!!!!"

The movie was too fast, to say the least. It really had a breathless, frenetic pace. Like a squirrel on crystal meth. No pause. No breather. Not even a quarter of a second that the movie wasn't, painfully obviously at that, trying to twist the audience into paroxysms of false tension and wring them out like old washcloths.

That, and the "logic" that went into that movie just . . . ugh. Logical suspension of disbelief, not hanging it by the neck until dead.

That, and I have an overwhelming urge to hit Chris Pine in the face. Not the character, just the actor.

If 2009 is the measure of new Star Trek, I really wish they'd just let the movie/television franchise die. Let it be what it was and move onto something new. Star Trek does not need to be remade. If anything, let them create a new television series in unbroken ground.

[razark]

not-a-brewery Engineering
I'm not sure what the problem with the Engineering is. A ship is going to have to move a lot of fluids around, and there's going to be somewhere onboard with a hell of a lot of plumbing. I simply take it as a part of engineering that hasn't been seen before. There's plenty of other issues with the movie, and this just seems an odd bit to get hung up about.

Besides, what exactly is a starship engineering section supposed to look like?

[Ravens_cry]

OK, why would a Star Trek starship need to move that level of fluids around?
It ain't water cooled and the antimatter/matter reaction ain't water moderated.
You know what I thought immediately when Scottie got stuck in the tube?
'The Chompers' from a far superior without actually being a Star Trek movie Star Trek movie.

[razark]

OK, why would a Star Trek starship need to move that level of fluids around?
Water lines. Sewers. Assorted chemicals that need to be in one place at one time, and another place at another. Lubricating oils for large machinery. Whale transportation tanks. Irrigation for botanical gardens. Environmental systems. Cooling systems for the phaser banks and photon torpedo launch systems. Salt water spray system to give the bridge that nautical feeling. Fuel for the lens flare generator system.

[DiscipleofBob]

Is it just me, or are critics of the 2009 movie comparing it to Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, etc. when they should be comparing it to original Gen?

Not exactly known for its subtle, introspective plots or restraint with special effects.

[thubby]

OK, why would a Star Trek starship need to move that level of fluids around?
It ain't water cooled and the antimatter/matter reaction ain't water moderated.
You know what I thought immediately when Scottie got stuck in the tube?
'The Chompers' from a far superior without actually being a Star Trek movie Star Trek movie.

fusion reactors (impulse power uses at least 1), computers. we don't actually know how the ship handles the heat generated by the crew and all the mundane stuff on board.
then there's electricity. as goofy as it sounds, even our most advanced nuclear power plants today are just glorified steam turbines

[Scowling Dragon]

Is it just me, or are critics of the 2009 movie comparing it to Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, etc. when they should be comparing it to original Gen?

Not exactly known for its subtle, introspective plots or restraint with special effects.

I realy don't get what your saying. Because the old series was rather blunt we should applaud the remake for doing the same?

[Omergideon]

Is it just me, or are critics of the 2009 movie comparing it to Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, etc. when they should be comparing it to original Gen?

Not exactly known for its subtle, introspective plots or restraint with special effects.

Moreso the franchise as a whole, which includes all the movies, TOS to Enterprise and everything else besides. If something claims to be Star Trek it needs to seem somewhat congruent with trek that went before, not merely a few tiny pieces of it.

Besides much of TOS had high concept plots, and introspection, far beyond that of the new Movie. And those episodes seem to be the ones best and most fondly remembered.

[Ravens_cry]

fusion reactors (impulse power uses at least 1), computers. we don't actually know how the ship handles the heat generated by the crew and all the mundane stuff on board.
then there's electricity. as goofy as it sounds, even our most advanced nuclear power plants today are just glorified steam turbines
There are other ways to harvest energy from a fusion reactor.
For example, MHD generator's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHD_generator).
Also, I really doubt the Enterprise-1701 is water cooled. If it was, it would be surrounded by clouds like Apollo 13 after the explosion.

[Scowling Dragon]

To the point:

They used an original set for the engineering room when there was already an established look for it which points to how "NOT" star treck it is again.

Just make a new science fiction show already!

[Ravens_cry]

To the point:

They used an original set for the engineering room when there was already an established look for it which points to how "NOT" star treck it is again.

Just make a new science fiction show already!
What bugged me was how it all look so not unified the whole thing looked from an aesthetic sense.
You go from blue and red plastic land, to glaring white and lens flare bridge to the atomic brewery.
It didn't feel like you were the same ship, the sense of 'place' was lost.
It's a minor thing, but that's just it, it's a minor thing that is elementary film making.
Every part of, for example, the Enterprise-D, felt like you were aboard the same vessel, the visual cues were united on at least some level.
Even the TOS sets of Enterprise-1701 had a certain unity to them in lighting and aesthetic.
But this . . .did not.

[Kish]

Is it just me, or are critics of the 2009 movie comparing it to Next Gen, DS9, Voyager, etc. when they should be comparing it to original Gen?

Not exactly known for its subtle, introspective plots or restraint with special effects.
Well, it's not just you. Other people have posted declaring criticism of the crappy movie invalid for bizarre reasons too.

[DiscipleofBob]

Wow, so much venom and hatred towards a movie that was probably the last and best attempt at revitalizing your favored franchise. A rebooted series with Kirk's crew traveling to strange new worlds instead of just all M-class worlds where all the races are mysteriously human and all the cultures correspond eerily to actual Earth history. But that probably won't happen when the Trekkies can't stand to see ONE action movie made. You will never get to see anything cool in life because you'll be too busy looking for the flaws, even in a legitimately good, fun movie that did fairly well to capture the spirit of the original Star Trek, and for that I pity you.

"Mr. Scott, steer us clear. Out of this. Cloud of. Negativity."
"It's no use, Cap'n. She'll never reach the edge in time!"

As for a casting call for a possible Next Gen reboot, I must admit I'm not as up-to-date on modern young actors needed for such a project. My first instinct would be that guy who played Luthor on Smallville to be Picard, but he's probably not Shakespearian enough. I like the one suggestion to use the actor for Young Xavier from First Class. Never actually seen the movie, but I've heard good things and I think that would be a wonderful little in-joke. Maybe Natalie Portman or Keara Knightley as Deanna Troi.

Worst possible casting choice would be Shia LeBeouf as Wesley Crusher. Not because it wouldn't be inappropriate, but because we'd have to deal with Shia LeBeouf as Wesley Crusher. Though I suppose if this were a reboot Wesley wouldn't be in the picture yet.

There's an idea: Wil Wheaton as Riker. He's got the beard now.

[Karoht]

@2009 Star Trek Film
I liked it, for what it was. It was decent for introducing new fans to Star Trek, but there really wasn't much there for old fans.
My favorite performance was Karl Urban as Dr McCoy. But that brings me to my next problem.

@Next Gen Reboot Film
Karl Urban was actually the guy I figured could play Picard rather well. Lots of his facial features actually line up, I could see him playing a rough and tumble young Picard decently well. Problem? He's Bones now.
He might have even made a decent Riker. Maybe.

Also, I think going with a young Picard wouldn't work out that well. Most of the TNG crew didn't meet until Farpoint Station. And when he was young, well, he wasn't really the Picard we all grew to know and love, so that would ruin it for many fans. Nope, I'm afraid we have to find another older fellow who can rock baldness.


For the record:
The TNG reunion in Calgary at the CCEE was awesome.
@Disciplebob:
They joked about Wil Wheaton playing Riker on stage at the reunion.
But the cast did say on stage, they aren't likely to do another film. Sadness.

[Scowling Dragon]

So anybody that dislike the 2009 movie is a dumb "Trekkie".

Wow and you PITY me. Great. And if there was one thing that it did NOT follow (argue its merits all you want) was the shows spirit.

[Derthric]

No more reboots, just in general. Make something new. First as just a film in its own right I give it a 'meh', Kirk's story arc had him go from being a pretentious jack-ass too full of himself, to being a pretentious jack-ass too full of himself because of a medal on his chest. You didn't get a sense of character growth, what makes this more jarring is there is a decent character arc in this movie with Spock. Someone looking to find his identity and feeling he is coming up short by not being Vulcan enough, or human enough. So when he is in starfleet he can throw himself in full bore and be that strict of an officer but in the end learns the flexibility it will take to be more than just that. Heck I actually liked the Uhura-Spock romance, it worked for the story they were making. And Nero just did not get fleshed out enough to raise him above Hanna-Barbera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_Dastardly) type baddies.

And that's just on the film on its own merits, actively trying to avoid the nitpicks that were flying around in my mind.

I guess my biggest problem is that Star Trek made it 42 years before the reboot not by doing the same thing over and over. The first 2 seasons of Next Gen tried this with their plots being very much like the original series and let's face it they stunk. Once they started going in their own direction the series really came into its own. My point is that Trek has reinvented and rebooted itself, but not by going backwards but by going forwards. DS9 is very different from TNG and Voy has a completely different crew relationship than either of those. Each one brings something new and different to the table. New Ship, New Captain, Going further into the Final Frontier. That's what the next form of Trek needs to be. Build up and build new, don't build over.

Edit, by stereotypical bad guy name got censored, just changed it and linked to who I meant.

[McStabbington]

I will say this for the 2009 movie: they tried something new and unproven.

That's really been the problem with Trek for a while now: whenever they run out of ideas (and they ran out of ideas by the end of DS9, which was almost 15 years ago), they just try and dust off something that used to work and try it again. Voyager's getting stale? People loved Q and the Borg; let's dust them off again. I mean, I realize that Q-Who, The Best of Both Worlds and I Borg are all first-rate stories that happen to include the Borg, and Tapestry and All Good Things are great yarns that happen to feature Q, but we all know that what they really want is the character, not the script. Don't have a script for a movie, or a director that knows anything about Trek? Eh, just say they're honoring Wrath of Khan. People loved that one.

For all that Abrams consciously tried to distance himself from those hokey old Trekkies, he nevertheless did the series a huge favor and went for something new. Yes, the plot doesn't make sense, yes the ship looks way more steam punk than the retro-futuristic look they went with in the 60's (which in fairness I actually have no problem with), yes it made Voyager look like Alien on the Moh's Scale of Sci-Fi Hardness. But it also doesn't feel like any Star Trek movie I've ever seen. Which is something I hadn't felt in the movies since Star Trek VI way back in 1991. While I ultimately didn't care for it, I can credit it that much.

[Velaryon]

Oh hey, I know where we could get some plot hooks (https://twitter.com/#!/TNG_S8) to build off of!

That was an awesome read. Thanks for the link! Finally something worthwhile to be found on Twitter. :smallbiggrin:



@2009 Star Trek Film
I liked it, for what it was. It was decent for introducing new fans to Star Trek, but there really wasn't much there for old fans.
My favorite performance was Karl Urban as Dr McCoy.

I have to agree with this. I went into the 2009 film expecting it to be horrible, first because I felt that the original Enterprise crew should not ever be recast, and in particular because I hated the casting of Karl Urban (whom I never cared much for and especially never forgave for the awfulness that was Pathfinder) as McCoy.

But Urban really knocked it out of the park. He gave hands down the best performance in the film (Spock was a distant second although he was still pretty good), and he was the only actor in the film that gave me the sense he actually tried to prepare for this role by watching the original actor's work.

By contrast, I thought Kirk was horrible in this film. His characterization was totally off, and there was nothing Kirk-like at all to me. He was just a generic rebellious teenage hero who showed a minimal amount of character growth and never felt anything like the James T. Kirk that made the franchise famous in the first place.

As far as a TNG reboot goes, I'm not in favor of it. Despite finding the 2009 movie better than I expected it to be (still not great though), I would not like to see TNG get the same treatment. It's definitely too soon to reboot any of the other franchises. I'd definitely rather see the Star Trek franchise do something new than retread old ground.

[Omergideon]

Oh yes the Actors in the Star Trek rebbot often did good jobs. Quinto and Urban especially seemed to do very well. Urban felt like Bones to me most of the time and Quinto brought "humanity" to the role of Spock that made so called emotionlessness seem emotionally moving.

And Disciple of Bob, I am not a "deluded Trekkie". I thought it was a decent to good movie. I enjoyed watching it. It was fun and action packed, even if the villain was weak etc etc etc. But it was nothing like the Star Trek I grew up with. It did not feel like Star Trek. It did not look or act like Star Trek. It did not have a sense of Star Trek about it.


A firmly legitimate complaint to make about a decades old franchise I would think. For the record DS9 was a totally different beast to TOS or TNG. But it felt like Star Trek. It was possible to make an action packed movie that felt like Star Trek a la First Contact. But the heart of "Strange New Worlds" needed to be there. And it was not.

[Turcano]

Star Trek 2009 had the skin of Star Trek, but not the core, nothing what made Star Trek something special.

The thing is that it really wasn't going to happen any other way, simply from a business perspective. One of the lessons that Hollywood has recently learned is that a remake/reimagining/reheating of a franchise should not be made for its original fan base, but for the general public, because the whole point of doing that is to cash in on brand recognition. The nerd subculture will almost always be written off because it's a) relatively small and b) almost impossible to please. And the TNG films are a textbook case of what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum.

So yeah, the lesson you can take away from that is that every time something you love will be remade, it will by necessity be made in a way that will make you hate it.


The engineering is literally a brewery...

"If this is true though, and they shot the unimportant locations in real locations to, like, save money or whatever, well, then that's kind of horrible, isn't it?" (http://redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-trek/star-trek-09/)


OK, why would a Star Trek starship need to move that level of fluids around?
It ain't water cooled and the antimatter/matter reaction ain't water moderated.

Yeah, we learned in First Contact that the warp core is cooled with flesh-melting gas in easily-breakable glass tubes (I mean seriously, between this and all the crap that happened in the TV series, do they just not have OSHA anymore in the 24th Century?).

[Ravens_cry]

The thing is that it really wasn't going to happen any other way, simply from a business perspective. One of the lessons that Hollywood has recently learned is that a remake/reimagining/reheating of a franchise should not be made for its original fan base, but for the general public, because the whole point of doing that is to cash in on brand recognition. The nerd subculture will almost always be written off because it's a) relatively small and b) almost impossible to please. And the TNG films are a textbook case of what happens when you let the inmates run the asylum.

So yeah, the lesson you can take away from that is that every time something you love will be remade, it will by necessity be made in a way that will make you hate it.

Oh, there is a measure of truth in that, but I felt that they didn't even add anything interesting or unique, mostly just generic action sci-fi.
I admit I am not immune to nerd conservatism, but these are my feelings nonetheless.

[Cikomyr]

Oh, there is a measure of truth in that, but I felt that they didn't even add anything interesting or unique, mostly just generic action sci-fi.
I admit I am not immune to nerd conservatism, but these are my feelings nonetheless.

Because a relatively generic action sci-fi movie was probably the safest bet for Star Trek at the time. I know many nerd are all butthurt over Abrams' treatment of the franchise, but let's face it, he probably did more good to the viability of the franchise as a whole to the general public than you could have dreamed.

Star Trek was becoming a rather niche franchise, only popping out books and games for the initiates. It last appeal to the Grand Public, with Nemesis, failed spectacularily and the TV serie that followed was a major flop. Star Trek simply wasn't viable for investors... Until Abrams's film.

And as long as the franchise stays alive, there is room for it to turn around and do great stuff with it. Appealing to the general public with the action flick meant Star Trek was FUN again. Not boring or painful.

Because let's face it. If the 2009 movie had been an ambitious brainflick that would have bombed, it would have spelled the end of the franchise on the great screen for a minimum of 20 years.. Where as we can expect anoter movie within 5 years now. And let's rejoice at that.

Finally, a good Star Trek movie doesn't have to reach for the far-fetched intellectual discovery. Wrath of Khan is a masterpiece about heroes, villains, revenge and loss. It's an Epic in Space, not a brainy piece.

As to The Voyage Home was a relatively light comedy that milked the same joke about "future people in the present days" for the whole movie. Again, not much ambition there. What mattered is to execute well.

And Abrams, for what he set out to do, executed damn well.

[Karoht]

So, Wil Wheaton as new Riker?
Bad, horribad, or potentially awesome?

[Ravens_cry]

Wrath worked because we had strong characters, and they were willing to explore that relationship as well as the consequences of characters past actions.
That was the other half of Star Trek's strength, the characters and the actors who portrayed them.
I personally don't see where the characters can go from here.

[grimbold]

Im on the side that loathed the movie. This wasn't star Treck, and it wasn't a good movie even if it wasn't star treck.

And I hope that this doesn't happen again.

i'm with SD
i really found that movie mediocre...:smallyuk:

[Cikomyr]

Wrath worked because we had strong characters, and they were willing to explore that relationship as well as the consequences of characters past actions.
That was the other half of Star Trek's strength, the characters and the actors who portrayed them.
I personally don't see where the characters can go from here.

How about you let them try rather than declaring it pre-emptively a failure?

Why this obsession saying anything that will come after will HAVE to suck?

The movie had just 1 ambition: make Star Trek popular again. Mission accomplished.

[SteveMB]

I didn't mind the movie or the concept of rebooting the Star Trek universe, which was getting very tired. However, I really have an issue with the *way* they rebooted it. Rather than having all this codswallop of multiple timelines (which, as far as I can tell, they did purely in order to give Leonard Nimoy a role in the movie) they should have just shredded the existing continuity and started again from scratch. There were too many compromises and improbable plot twists introduced in order to suit the "multiple timeline" thing.

A lot of the flaws were the result of trying to hard to artifically slot everybody into the same positions despite the timeline being different all the way back to Kirk's birth (the "instant career path from cadet to captain" was the most glaring example).

[Ravens_cry]

How about you let them try rather than declaring it pre-emptively a failure?

Why this obsession saying anything that will come after will HAVE to suck?

The movie had just 1 ambition: make Star Trek popular again. Mission accomplished.
I'm all for them trying, but let's look where Kirk and Spock are now.
Spock gets demoted and Kirk becomes Captain under what I felt some pretty shaky pretexts.
Sounds like a recipe for resentment, not partnership.
There just isn't the camaraderie, friendship, and even philia love of the original Spock and Kirk in my opinion, though other observers, such as Howard Taylor of 'Schlock Mercenary' admittedly disagree.
I don't loathe this movie, but I don't feel it worked very well either.

[Kish]

Edit, by stereotypical bad guy name got censored, just changed it and linked to who I meant.
Your link goes to ****_Dastardly, which does not exist. Try again. :smalltongue:

[Scowling Dragon]

The movie had just 1 ambition: make Star Trek popular again. Mission accomplished.
It did not. It made 2009 Star Treck Popular. This could have been done in many ways:

"Star Treck Directed by micheal bay"

That would have made it popular as well.

[Lord Seth]

A lot of the flaws were the result of trying to hard to artifically slot everybody into the same positions despite the timeline being different all the way back to Kirk's birth (the "instant career path from cadet to captain" was the most glaring example).Yeah, I agree with SF Debris in his review there, if they wanted to end it with Kirk in the captain's chair, they should've had a montage of him receiving commendations and promotions over a few years, culminating with him becoming captain.

[Traab]

So, Wil Wheaton as new Riker?
Bad, horribad, or potentially awesome?

I think he might enjoy the chance to play a character he doesnt hate. And it might be interesting to see how he has grown as an actor away from wesley.

[Ravens_cry]

I think he might enjoy the chance to play a character he doesnt hate. And it might be interesting to see how he has grown as an actor away from wesley.
I can see him as the Kirk-esque 'Red Trek' Riker, not sure so much about the later seasons though.

[Cikomyr]

{Scrubbed}

[Scowling Dragon]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Ok then. Its kinda annoying to dismiss one who you are talking to as "But-hurt" but thats beyond the point.

That movie is not star Treck. Unless the next Star Treck movie is a smart one without all the stupid camera shaking lens flares and stupid plot, then I don't care.

The Star treck franchise has been turned into a dumb stupid thing (Its just one movie for now but if this trend continues expect allot more movies to take the dumb action route).

The same logic means that if you thought that the Transformers movies where awful garbage your just "buthurt" and at the very least when the next movie comes out "Transformers 4: Boobs, Bombs and Optimus Prime- The camerashakening" people are more likely to watch it.

[factotum]

I think he might enjoy the chance to play a character he doesnt hate. And it might be interesting to see how he has grown as an actor away from wesley.

I think there's a lot of people who forget that Wil Wheaton was only 15 years old when TNG premiered, and his character was written as an annoying know-it-all! As for seeing how he's grown as an actor, he still appears in stuff, you know--if you want to see how he can act now, just watch Eureka or The Big Bang Theory.

[Cikomyr]

Ok then. Its kinda annoying to dismiss one who you are talking to as "But-hurt" but thats beyond the point.


It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell properly a 8-letter long franchise.


The Star treck franchise has been turned into a dumb stupid thing (Its just one movie for now but if this trend continues expect allot more movies to take the dumb action route).

You are 1 movie late. How wasn't Nemesis a dumb stupid thing already?

There was a buggy chase scene, dude.

[Ravens_cry]

@Scowling Dragon:
Erm . . . It's Star Trek, no 'c'.

[Scowling Dragon]

It's hard to take you seriously when you can't even spell properly a 8-letter long franchise.

I guess you can target my spelling or grammar but thats beside the point that you group anybody who disagrees with you into the "Haters gonna hate" group. Its just insulting when the person your arguing with dismisses you before the conversation even begins.


You are 1 movie late. How wasn't Nemesis a dumb stupid thing already?

And did I say I loved it? And Im always baffled at that:

"Well the old thing was bad too so its OK that the new thing was bad as well".

Here is a secret: If you did something wrong before, FIX IT.

[Lord Seth]

I guess you can target my spelling or grammar but thats beside the point that you group anybody who disagrees with you into the "Haters gonna hate" group.It's not just a matter of you not having great spelling and grammar. While I do firmly believe people should write correctly on the Internet in general, the issue here is that you are asserting you know enough about Star Trek to judge whether something is "not Star Trek," yet you apparently don't know enough about Star Trek to spell it properly.

[Scowling Dragon]

Or I don't know- MAYBE I JUST HAD A SLIP UP WITH THE WORD TREK.
A single misspelling and your automatically dismissed as an idiot.

[Cikomyr]

I guess you can target my spelling or grammar but thats beside the point that you group anybody who disagrees with you into the "Haters gonna hate" group. Its just insulting when the person your arguing with dismisses you before the conversation even begins.

No. It's simply that you just ignore whatever I said and just keep repeating that the movie didn't appealed to YOUR standards of what a good Star Trek movie should be.

My point is that we Star Trek fans should be happy that the movie turned out being popular, of making a generous buck at the box office. Otherwise, it would have doomed the Star Trek franchise to nothingness for years, if not decades.

It may have been a somewhat simple action flick, but the important part was that it was a GOOD simple action flick. It was well received, and justified sequels.

They decided to go for a rather simple formula for this tentative revival of the franchise. Ergo: They made the safe bet.

Wheter you liked it or not is, luckily for Star Trek, beside the point.




And did I say I loved it? And Im always baffled at that:

"Well the old thing was bad too so its OK that the new thing was bad as well".

Here is a secret: If you did something wrong before, FIX IT.

You know what they did wrong? They made a bad movie. Not an action flick: a BAD action flick.

They fixed that. They made a GOOD one. One that didn't ruined the studio. Ultimately, that's all that's important. We already have to suffer through so much bad stuff in the Star Trek movie franchise (Final Frontier, Generation, Insurrection and Motionless Picture).

I can't fault the executive to not be willing to mortgage the franchise's name and risk it on an ambitious mind teaser that could have turned out good (like Inception) or badly (Solaris). They took the same route, they did it well, they cashed in. They reintroduced the characters, some well, other clunkily. But point is, the pieces are now in place and proved to be worthwhile.

All of this has little to do about how much you disliked it. Bringing up that point again and again doesn't make it more relevant. So stop insisting that YOU didn't liked it, and learn to spell Star Trek.


Or I don't know- MAYBE I JUST HAD A SLIP UP WITH THE WORD TREK.
A single misspelling and your automatically dismissed as an idiot.

Except it wasn't a "single misspelling". It was in

Every
Single
Post

You made

Every
Single
Time

You (tried) writing Star Trek

[Ravens_cry]

A good reason to work on one's spelling.
As my English teacher pointed out, yes, it is unfair to be categorized as infantile for poor spelling and (gulp!) grammar, but that's why you should make sure it is as correct as possible.
Back on topic: Nemesis, eh, no, not a good movie. None of the Next Generation movies were all that good in my opinion, though First Contact had some wonderful moments, like poor Troi smashed out of her skull on *real* alcohol and the flight of the Phoenix.
Generations did weird things with canon, and the ending was rather . . . call it a mystified meh.
What they did to Picard's family was just mean.

[DiscipleofBob]

How about instead of this pointless "conversation" slowly devolving into a flame war, we just agree that some people liked the movie, and some people didn't like the movie, and then recognize that none of that has anything to do with the OP or topic and both sides drop it?

Random casting thought:

Steve Buscemi as Quark.

[Scowling Dragon]

My point is that we Star Trek fans should be happy that the movie turned out being popular, of making a generous buck at the box office. Otherwise, it would have doomed the Star Trek franchise to nothingness for years, if not decades.

Id rather it be comfortably dead. Roddenbury is spinning so hard that im sure Starships of the future will use his casket as a generator of electricity.


It may have been a somewhat simple action flick, but the important part was that it was a GOOD simple action flick. It was well received, and justified sequels.

I disagree with you on that. Even as an action flick I found it a failure. I found it a bad movie period.


Ultimately, that's all that's important.

So money. Money is all thats important.


All of this has little to do about how much you disliked it.

It doesn't. And Im not sure what your point is.



Every
Single
Post

You made

Every
Single
Time

You (tried) writing Star Trek

Spelling Nazi.

[Ravens_cry]

Random casting thought:

Steve Buscemi as Quark.

You know, I first read that as "Steve Buscemi as Q".
My revulsion was both histrionic and gesticulative.
*thinks*
It would be a saving on prosthetic teeth at least.

[Cikomyr]

How about instead of this pointless "conversation" slowly devolving into a flame war, we just agree that some people liked the movie, and some people didn't like the movie, and then recognize that none of that has anything to do with the OP or topic and both sides drop it?

Random casting thought:

Steve Buscemi as Quark.

Hey, I was just arguing what Trekkies thought of it was a bit Irrelevant, and ultimately it being popular was a good thing to Trek :)

But I do agree with you that it would be wonderful if they redid Deep Space nine, but with less "Status Quo is God" overfeel. Hell, you could have a deep and intricated storyline mixing TNG (Following the Federation's Flagship), Deep Space 9 (the chokehold outpost) and Voyager (the starship trapped in the Gamma Quadrant, trying to survive on the run from the Dominion)

Less fluff episodes. More storylines. More relevance between plotlines. After all, it'd be nice if the arrangement made on Voyager between Janeway and the Maquis would have an impact on Sisko's attitude toward the maquis rebels.

Just.. A deep overarching epic tales. Keep things moving. Have a storyline where Worf is in the Klingon Empire, trying to keep the Council away from war with the Fed...

[Cikomyr]

Id rather it be comfortably dead. Roddenbury is spinning so hard that im sure Starships of the future will use his casket as a generator of electricity.

What does Gene's vision have to do with what Star Trek is all about? The guy was a brilliant worldbuilder, but that's it. He wasn't a saint, a prophet or anything that would describe his word as sacred?


I disagree with you on that. Even as an action flick I found it a failure. I found it a bad movie period.

Isn't Paramount happy to know your taste are very different from the average public? :smallbiggrin:


So money. Money is all thats important.

Yhea. Star Trek is a FRANCHISE. The point of a franchise isn't to do charity work. If Star Trek ever stops making money, they'll kill it.

Which is why its a good thingthey succeeded making it profitable.

Btw, your Prophet and Savior Gene Roddenberry was a complete weasel douche when it came to money. He did a lot of bad things just to get extra bucks. Not really hard on following his own ideals, wasn't he?



Spelling Nazi.

I don't think it means what you think it means. Or you just want to Godwin the thread?

[Gift Jeraff]

Since these things usually have an established Trek star "pass the torch" (Kelley -> TNG, Stewart -> DS9, Shatner -> TNG films, Nimoy -> reboot), I propose that a TNG reboot recast John de Lancie as Q since he can take any form (thus it makes sense if he looks older). It would be a good way to draw in fans who may have otherwise dismissed it. I mean, I assume that was the whole reason for making Star Trek: The Star Trek a time travel story, right? So they could put Nimoy in there and trick people into thinking it's a new Trek film in the same universe?

[Scowling Dragon]

You know. Im just going to leave things as they are right now and embark on a trec.:smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Here's an idea, not sure if it's a good idea, but it's an idea, how about a show about the Temporal arm of Starfleet?
"To explore strange new timelines, to seek out new life times and past civilisations, no boldly go no when any have gone before!"

[Karoht]

@Wil Wheaton/Wesley Crusher
I'll never understand the fan hate that gets lumped on the actor. He had next to no creative control over the character. He disliked many aspects of just showing up and shooting, never mind actually portraying the character.
He was also 14, going through signifigant life changes. Blaming him for the character is pretty silly.
As for Wesley, I was a kid, I liked him. Again, I was 8 years old. Looking back on it from an adult perspective, I can see why people disliked him, but I still liked him.
But words out of Wil's own mouth.
Yeah, he disliked the outfits and the hair and other things about being Wesley Crusher.
But damn did he MISS being with the crew. Extremely.

PS-Wil Wheaton is a super nice guy in person. So is Marina Sertis and Michael Dorn. I didn't get to meet anyone else sadly, I was volunteering the entire convention, those 3 visits were all I managed to squeeze in.

[Cikomyr]

@Wil Wheaton/Wesley Crusher
I'll never understand the fan hate that gets lumped on the actor. He had next to no creative control over the character. He disliked many aspects of just showing up and shooting, never mind actually portraying the character.
He was also 14, going through signifigant life changes. Blaming him for the character is pretty silly.
As for Wesley, I was a kid, I liked him. Again, I was 8 years old. Looking back on it from an adult perspective, I can see why people disliked him, but I still liked him.
But words out of Wil's own mouth.
Yeah, he disliked the outfits and the hair and other things about being Wesley Crusher.
But damn did he MISS being with the crew. Extremely.

PS-Wil Wheaton is a super nice guy in person. So is Marina Sertis and Michael Dorn. I didn't get to meet anyone else sadly, I was volunteering the entire convention, those 3 visits were all I managed to squeeze in.

Wait. Wil Wheaton is hated by the fans? I mean, Wesley Crusher, sure. But I thought Wil Wheaton was a highly regarded geek persona, and very respected already?

[Derthric]

Here's an idea, not sure if it's a good idea, but it's an idea, how about a show about the Temporal arm of Starfleet?
"To explore strange new timelines, to seek out new life times and past civilisations, no boldly go no when any have gone before!"

I am going to go out there and say no. But that's my own personal foible here. I loathed that Voyager and Enterprise became so time-travel focused. It can work when used well, City on the Edge of Forever, Tapestry(though was that really time travel?) Yesterday's Enterprise, Trials and Tribblations. But make it sparingly used. It's just like the Mirror Universe, Enterprise did that just right, but by the end of DS9's run they had gone about 2 times too many.

Like I said New Captain, New Ship, New Mission. Or instead of the tried and true formula you go for more character focus following an officer from their first posting in the command division to becoming captain. Seeing them do things like what Picard did when He first stepped up and took command of the Stargazer in combat. But not actually rehashing the same old stuff.


Wait. Wil Wheaton is hated by the fans? I mean, Wesley Crusher, sure. But I thought Wil Wheaton was a highly regarded geek persona, and very respected already?

I enjoy Wil Wheaton actually. His time on Eureka, the Guild, BBT, and his general nerdiness.

[Ravens_cry]

Wait. Wil Wheaton is hated by the fans? I mean, Wesley Crusher, sure. But I thought Wil Wheaton was a highly regarded geek persona, and very respected already?
I have to agree there. Now, Wil Wheaton the character in the Big bang Theory may be a raging jerk, but Wil Wheaton himself is an OK guy.
His combination review/reminiscence on certain Next Generation episodes have been very insightful and revealing.

[Traab]

I am going to go out there and say no. But that's my own personal foible here. I loathed that Voyager and Enterprise became so time-travel focused. It can work when used well, City on the Edge of Forever, Tapestry(though was that really time travel?) Yesterday's Enterprise, Trials and Tribblations. But make it sparingly used. It's just like the Mirror Universe, Enterprise did that just right, but by the end of DS9's run they had gone about 2 times too many.

Like I said New Captain, New Ship, New Mission. Or instead of the tried and true formula you go for more character focus following an officer from their first posting in the command division to becoming captain. Seeing them do things like what Picard did when He first stepped up and took command of the Stargazer in combat. But not actually rehashing the same old stuff.



I enjoy Wil Wheaton actually. His time on Eureka, the Guild, BBT, and his general nerdiness.

Well they have to do something different to start a new series off of. The first star trek was all about exploration wasnt it? TNG was about the enterprise going through the federation and nearby space, making alliances, solving problems, and facing off against invading armadas of romulans and cardassians. Voyager was all about trying to get back home, ds9 was all about trying to survive in one area, and the archer series was all about humanities first real steps into the wider universe.

The idea of a temporal enterprise with an all new crew fighting a temporal cold war, fixing attempts by their enemies to alter the timeline so it favors other races, seeing events that have so far only been referenced in the various series, could be highly interesting. We could build off of the Sphere Builders from Enterprise, as I think they were the ones that brought in various bits of time travel, or whoever was constantly causing them to interact with time travellers in that series. I admit I never really watched it much. or if that doesnt work, just make up some sort of time lords style of bad guys for this new enterprise to fight.

[Derthric]

Well they have to do something different to start a new series off of. The first star trek was all about exploration wasnt it? TNG was about the enterprise going through the federation and nearby space, making alliances, solving problems, and facing off against invading armadas of romulans and cardassians. Voyager was all about trying to get back home, ds9 was all about trying to survive in one area, and the archer series was all about humanities first real steps into the wider universe.

The idea of a temporal enterprise with an all new crew fighting a temporal cold war, fixing attempts by their enemies to alter the timeline so it favors other races, seeing events that have so far only been referenced in the various series, could be highly interesting. We could build off of the Sphere Builders from Enterprise, as I think they were the ones that brought in various bits of time travel, or whoever was constantly causing them to interact with time travellers in that series. I admit I never really watched it much. or if that doesnt work, just make up some sort of time lords style of bad guys for this new enterprise to fight.

I think my personal opposition comes from my distaste for the temporal cold war timeline. It bogged down what could have been Archer laying the groundwork for the Federation and instead we get him punching alien nazi's in New York. Or better yet have had the grand manipulators not be temporal adversaries but just the romulans trying to keep the other local powers from ever being a threat. And I am about to admit something that will cost me my nerd card for all time but, I don't like Dr. Who. The perpetual shift in timeline and the nature of those alterations are tropes that are used all to frequently to just write out stories and ideas that are established. How many time in Voyager and Enterprise were there episodes that didn't happen because they altered the timeline back. You sit through a story and in the end it amounts to nothing.

My point is that the galaxy is just that effin big, the final frontier is that vast, that more missions going deeper into the unknown can work. The whole point of Starfleet's exploratory mission is to just see whats over there. There is so much more over there to see.

[Cikomyr]

Well they have to do something different to start a new series off of. The first star trek was all about exploration wasnt it? TNG was about the enterprise going through the federation and nearby space, making alliances, solving problems, and facing off against invading armadas of romulans and cardassians. Voyager was all about trying to get back home, ds9 was all about trying to survive in one area, and the archer series was all about humanities first real steps into the wider universe.

Actually, DS9 was the one about armadas of Romulans, Cardassians, Jem'Hadar, Federation and Klingons. I think the single largest fleet we've ever seen in TNG was Wolf 359's wreckages..

Actually, when I think about it, DS9 was also a lot about making alliance. The show was a lot more politically-themed than TNG ever became (if you don't count the useless "diplomatic conference" hosted by the Enterprise that never ever had any repercussions)

[Ravens_cry]

TNG Diplomacy was generally on a small scale "showing the flag" and dealing with local incidents, while DS9 diplomacy was more on a grand scale "Affect the entire Quadrant's balance of power," in my opinion.

[Crow]

2009 Star Trek: Sulu not gay enough.

All joking aside, I loved Eric Bana in that movie. Great choice.

Wasn't keen on a bunch of cadets getting command of the ship at the end, though.

[Cikomyr]

2009 Star Trek: Sulu not gay enough.

All joking aside, I loved Eric Bana in that movie. Great choice.

Wasn't keen on a bunch of cadets getting command of the ship at the end, though.

Only Kirk irked me.

I mean, Uhura proved to be a very skilled linguist/comm officer during the course of the movie

Scotty was already graduated

Spock was an experienced academy instructor

Sulu... yhea, but he did pulled allright and proved to be reliable in a time of crisis. Piloting the Enterprise through a cloud of exploding debris means kudo in my book.

Chekov was a very skilled officer, albeit young as heck.

McCoy was already a trained physician before the academy, and he seemed to be doing quite okay.

The worst is definetly Kirk, left in command. I mean, no matter how much you believe in this kid's potential, you don't hand him over the command of the fleet's flagship!!! You fasttrack him for command, SURE. But before even graduation?!?!

[Traab]

Actually, DS9 was the one about armadas of Romulans, Cardassians, Jem'Hadar, Federation and Klingons. I think the single largest fleet we've ever seen in TNG was Wolf 359's wreckages..

Actually, when I think about it, DS9 was also a lot about making alliance. The show was a lot more politically-themed than TNG ever became (if you don't count the useless "diplomatic conference" hosted by the Enterprise that never ever had any repercussions)

Yeah, i exaggerated, but there were plenty of episodes in TNG where picard and crew faced down say, a fleet of romulan ships that are going to try and stealth across the border, or a rival fleet of klingons lead by those sisters that wanted worfs body so bad. They had a large number of cold war style face offs with cardassians, romulans, and sometimes the klingons. Thats what I meant more than big space battles.

[Lord Seth]

Or I don't know- MAYBE I JUST HAD A SLIP UP WITH THE WORD TREK.If this was a one-time goof, fine. Everyone makes typos. But you misspelled it every single time you wrote it.
A single misspelling and your automatically dismissed as an idiot.As noted before, this was a repeated misspelling. But even ignoring that, this wasn't just any misspelling. If you're going to claim something "isn't Star Trek," you're asserting you know Star Trek fairly well, which is hard to take as credible if you don't know how to spell the name of the series.
What does Gene's vision have to do with what Star Trek is all about? The guy was a brilliant worldbuilder, but that's it. He wasn't a saint, a prophet or anything that would describe his word as sacred?I've always found it funny when people talk about how something or other was a betrayal of Gene's vision when his vision was what caused the worst seasons of TNG.
TNG Diplomacy was generally on a small scale "showing the flag" and dealing with local incidents, while DS9 diplomacy was more on a grand scale "Affect the entire Quadrant's balance of power," in my opinion.Well to be fair, TNG ended before the Dominion War.

[Ravens_cry]

The worst is definetly Kirk, left in command. I mean, no matter how much you believe in this kid's potential, you don't hand him over the command of the fleet's flagship!!! You fasttrack him for command, SURE. But before even graduation?!?!

Absolutely. I wanted that little git marooned on that ice planet til' kingdom come.

[Cikomyr]

Yeah, i exaggerated, but there were plenty of episodes in TNG where picard and crew faced down say, a fleet of romulan ships that are going to try and stealth across the border

1 time, actually. "Redemption, Part II"


or a rival fleet of klingons lead by those sisters that wanted worfs body so bad

1 time, actually. "Redemption, Part II"


They had a large number of cold war style face offs with cardassians, romulans, and sometimes the klingons. Thats what I meant more than big space battles.

Two spaceships staring at each other until one breaks away, a "big space battle"? :smallbiggrin:

(I'm sorry of acting a lot like a jerk there.. But it's a bit funny)

Now that's a real Space Battle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoIFUJxJwcQ)

When you have 3 Galaxy-Class starships acting as a mere "Wing", you know **** got mother****ing real :smalltongue:

[Ravens_cry]

Another one of my quibbles.
DS9 had mass space battles that were almost balletic and truly epic, while 2009 had *two* ships fighting feel almost nauseating in it's over the top shaky-cam.
Admittedly, I am one of those people who when they see things on screen move, their inner ear feels like they *actually* moved.

[Devonix]

TNG was about traveling some place, meeting a new alien and signing a treaty or something and moving on never to hear from them again.

DS9 was about the ramafications of alliances and political dealings. Since they stayed in one place every decision always came back to them.

[Traab]

ANYWAYS. The point that I was trying to make is that each series needed to have a new angle to work with, or else it would have been boring. Finding a decent group of look-alikes to replace the original cast of TNG so we can continue seeing them do the exact same thing would be boring. Even with a new crew it would get dull fast. There needs to be a new hook for the crew to draw in the audience, and an intergalactic crew of time cops could be pretty interesting imo.

There are a few other options with potential. Such as the opposite of the enterprise series, where we are dealing with the end of the federation, and the brave crew of the 97th vessel to bear the name enterprise is desperately trying to shore up alliances and protect their fellow federation member worlds from attack by some invasion force that is pushing them to the brink. We could use the borg and try to reintegrate them as a threat, or 8472 could have changed their minds and decided to purge our galaxy after all, or some new threat has shown up to make a solid effort at killing everyone.

Another option might be to steal the basic idea of andromeda. Some starship crew gets stuck in a black hole, or gets sucked into a time travel anomaly, and winds up far into the future where everything fell apart, and now the brave crew is split on trying to find a way back home, or reforging the federation again. It was a very cool idea imo.

[Devonix]

ANYWAYS. The point that I was trying to make is that each series needed to have a new angle to work with, or else it would have been boring. Finding a decent group of look-alikes to replace the original cast of TNG so we can continue seeing them do the exact same thing would be boring. Even with a new crew it would get dull fast. There needs to be a new hook for the crew to draw in the audience, and an intergalactic crew of time cops could be pretty interesting imo.

There are a few other options with potential. Such as the opposite of the enterprise series, where we are dealing with the end of the federation, and the brave crew of the 97th vessel to bear the name enterprise is desperately trying to shore up alliances and protect their fellow federation member worlds from attack by some invasion force that is pushing them to the brink. We could use the borg and try to reintegrate them as a threat, or 8472 could have changed their minds and decided to purge our galaxy after all, or some new threat has shown up to make a solid effort at killing everyone.

Another option might be to steal the basic idea of andromeda. Some starship crew gets stuck in a black hole, or gets sucked into a time travel anomaly, and winds up far into the future where everything fell apart, and now the brave crew is split on trying to find a way back home, or reforging the federation again. It was a very cool idea imo.

that is a cool idea though there are lots of things they could do. lots of other types of ships or places, perhaps a startrek show dealing with the Klingon empire.

[Derthric]

ANYWAYS. The point that I was trying to make is that each series needed to have a new angle to work with, or else it would have been boring. Finding a decent group of look-alikes to replace the original cast of TNG so we can continue seeing them do the exact same thing would be boring. Even with a new crew it would get dull fast. There needs to be a new hook for the crew to draw in the audience, and an intergalactic crew of time cops could be pretty interesting imo.

There are a few other options with potential. Such as the opposite of the enterprise series, where we are dealing with the end of the federation, and the brave crew of the 97th vessel to bear the name enterprise is desperately trying to shore up alliances and protect their fellow federation member worlds from attack by some invasion force that is pushing them to the brink. We could use the borg and try to reintegrate them as a threat, or 8472 could have changed their minds and decided to purge our galaxy after all, or some new threat has shown up to make a solid effort at killing everyone.

Another option might be to steal the basic idea of andromeda. Some starship crew gets stuck in a black hole, or gets sucked into a time travel anomaly, and winds up far into the future where everything fell apart, and now the brave crew is split on trying to find a way back home, or reforging the federation again. It was a very cool idea imo.

I don't dissagree with the idea that any new series needs a new angle, I just disagree about the degree of which it needs to deviate from the basic "Seek out new life and new Civilizations scenario".

For example in a ST Pen and Paper game I ran, the crew of the USS Cheyenne was simply assigned to patrol a sector of De-Militarized Cardassian Space in the post Dominion War Era. That put them on the far side ofthe old Cardassian Union, mostly new territory for the Federation to explore. The main crisis they encountered revolved around the changes brought on by the power vacuum and various new(to the Federation anyway) races growing in said vacuum. Not a lot of near death of the Federation stuff. Don't need to reinvent the wheel just make the ride interesting.

[Ravens_cry]

Maybe it's time for another animated series.
As cheap and often nasty as the cheapskate Funmation animation was, the sheer design freedom of animation let them do plots and characters that would probably be too expensive to do *now* effectively, and the DC universe animated series showed that a reasonably adult tone can be conveyed in western television animation.

[Omergideon]

I think of all the proposals (and I will happily shelve discussion on the merits of the 2009 movie for now) an animated series is probably the best one. I agree that the freedom of animation compared to CG or live action is something that Sci-Fi should take advantage of much more often.

[Traab]

I don't dissagree with the idea that any new series needs a new angle, I just disagree about the degree of which it needs to deviate from the basic "Seek out new life and new Civilizations scenario".

For example in a ST Pen and Paper game I ran, the crew of the USS Cheyenne was simply assigned to patrol a sector of De-Militarized Cardassian Space in the post Dominion War Era. That put them on the far side ofthe old Cardassian Union, mostly new territory for the Federation to explore. The main crisis they encountered revolved around the changes brought on by the power vacuum and various new(to the Federation anyway) races growing in said vacuum. Not a lot of near death of the Federation stuff. Don't need to reinvent the wheel just make the ride interesting.

Well the andromeda ripoff would still have the seek out new life thing, because much like the enterprise series, they are exploring space all over again, finding what races still exist, and what new ones have taken over in the however many centuries it has been. And aside from that, we have had two star trek series that didnt revolve around seeking out new life. Voyager and ds9 both had a significantly different focus than that, and I personally enjoyed them both. heh, it would even things out. Three series dedicated to exploration and new life, three dedicated to something else. :p

[Kish]

Id rather it be comfortably dead. Roddenbury is spinning so hard that im sure Starships of the future will use his casket as a generator of electricity.
More to the point, while it might--might, but probably won't--lead to more Star Trek shows or movies in the future, it also largely fixes in stone that there will be no more non-rebooted Star Trek shows or movies in the future. Or to put it another way, it might increase the likelihood of shows or movies with the name Star Trek on them, but as far as resurrecting actual Star Trek, it rather knocked the coffin half a mile deeper and poured cement on it.

[Karoht]

Wait. Wil Wheaton is hated by the fans? I mean, Wesley Crusher, sure. But I thought Wil Wheaton was a highly regarded geek persona, and very respected already?His fan reception after Trek was pretty... lukewarm... to put it mildly. He's mentioned some pretty negative responses to his character, and most such antagonisms have a tendancy to be directed at the actor specifically, not just the character.

His RECENT fan attitude is one of awesomeness. And his reaction towards that is nothing but awesomeness. Super nice guy, all the way.

[Jaros]

I've always maintained that the best new Star Trek series would be an animated comedy set on Terok Nor. It would chiefly revolve around the exploits of Dukat, Quark, Odo and the like, and Garak would feature as a sticom-rival type always making mischief for Dukat (who would repeatedly yell "GARRAAAAAAK!" ala Superintendent Chalmers' "SKINNEEEERRRR!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAwUImV8JY))

Animation would be similar in style and movement to Simpsons/Family Guy etc.

Potential title: "Keeping up with the Cardassians"

[Ravens_cry]

Oh gods no . . . :smalleek:

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I seem to remember there being talk a number of years ago about a new animated series. The plot, according to the internet article I read, would follow the adventures of a new Enterprise in the 25th Century where the Romulans have conquered a Post-Dominion War Federation using Omega-powered bombs, leaving the Enterprise to lead a rebellion.

It sounded awesome, but since I heard about this in...2005 or something, I guess it died prior to production. I can't quote anything specific because the site I saw it on went defunct.

[Karoht]

I've always maintained that the best new Star Trek series would be an animated comedy set on Terok Nor. It would chiefly revolve around the exploits of Dukat, Quark, Odo and the like, and Garak would feature as a sticom-rival type always making mischief for Dukat (who would repeatedly yell "GARRAAAAAAK!" ala Superintendent Chalmers' "SKINNEEEERRRR!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDAwUImV8JY))

Animation would be similar in style and movement to Simpsons/Family Guy etc.

Potential title: "Keeping up with the Cardassians"
I. Would. Watch. The Hell. Out of this.
Here's hoping a fan project produces a terrible terrible pilot episode some day.

[Ravens_cry]

There's already enough psuedo-adult (i.e. 'adult' without being mature) animation on television.
Too much in fact in my opinion.

[Lord Seth]

I can't quote anything specific because the site I saw it on went defunct.Did you try pulling it up via archive.org?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Did you try pulling it up via archive.org?

Tried. I can only get the last homepage (the one saying it's all gone) via the Wayback machine.

[Jaros]

There's already enough psuedo-adult (i.e. 'adult' without being mature) animation on television.
Too much in fact in my opinion.

Oh no, it would be as family friendly as any Trek series, just similar visually to the Groenig and MacFarlane shows, closer in tone to the former.

[Ravens_cry]

Oh no, it would be as family friendly as any Trek series, just similar visually to the Groenig and MacFarlane shows, closer in tone to the former.
Personally, I think that is a waste of the design freedom animation allows, too stuck in the Ghetto, Animation that is.

[Jaros]

Personally, I think that is a waste of the design freedom animation allows, too stuck in the Ghetto, Animation that is.

Well if you're going for a serious attempt at animation, sure. If you're proposing a fake animated Star Trek sitcom I think that fits the tone quite well...