Star Trek... the Next Thread

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

star Trek 2009 could have been better and more consistent with the rest of the series if Abrams had actually been a fan of the series but he wasn't and isn't. They only hired him because he makes the big bucks...

I liked Star Trek 2009 a lot. In fact, it's right up there with my other favorite Trek movies (2, 4, 6, and Nemesis).

The reason why JJ Abrams not initially being a Trek fan is a good thing, is because he's not intrinsically bound to the many constraints that the Trek universe had set for itself. I've seen the behind-the-scenes stuff for his Trek movie and he did seek a lot of input from various people, each of whom had different levels of interest in/knowledge about Trek (some of whom are serious die-hard fans).

Actually, the one thing I remember most about what JJ said Trek needed was that Star Trek is like classical music and Star Wars is like rock music; so he felt that Star Trek needed some "rock" injected into it in order for the franchise to capture new audiences. And you know... I agree with him about that. Star Trek, while awesome, had become so bound by its established canon, that it would have been difficult to continue the franchise with the intention of gaining new fans without rebooting it and/or finding a new and different approach for it to take.


King's Quest is a different matter. It didn't need new life breathed into it, nor did it need to be continued at all, and especially (if I may continue the injecting-one-franchise's-style-into-another concept) King's Quest does NOT need Monkey Island injected into it.

The only reason to continue the KQ franchise is to recapture the interest of previous hardcore adventure game fans. Telltale, for its own part, has had a recent track record of dumbing down their gameplay and overlooking bugs, as well the episodic nature of their games doesn't lend itself well to a feeling of unimpeded exploration. King's Quest doesn't need a fresh, new face; moreso, it needs to be respected. Star Trek's problem was entirely different, so it's not really the same thing when considering a reboot.

[MusicallyInspired]

Star Trek in its past state was amazing, but very very tired and old and needed a facelift for a new generation (one it probably should have gotten years ago). Star Trek 09 was exactly what Star Trek needed. It's the end of an era, yes, but to quote one of my favourite TNG episode titles "All good things must come to an end." But only to make room for new good things! You don't have to accept it or even acknowledge it, the original series is still there and always will be. As well as Star Trek Online if you want that universe to continue. But ST 09 wasn't near as bad as you're saying it was.

And yeah, King's Quest didn't live on throughout the years like Star Trek did. It didn't wear out its welcome, it just took a few wrong turns toward the end.

[Blackthorne519]

Yeah, Star Trek had been around for over 40 years before it got the 2009 Facelift. King's Quest is still only 28 years old.


Bt

[BagginsKQ]

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/870...an-abomination

Hahah

It's interesting if you go to many trek fan websites... The movie pretty much divides people about 1/4, that thinks its a bad movie, another 1/4 that thinks the movie destroyed everything that Star Trek stands for, and another 1/4 that like the movie was awsome, and another 1/4 that like the movie, but have 'reservations' about certain details...

The movie clearly divided the Star Trek fandom...

"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."-Roger Ebert

[thom-22]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

Star Trek in its past state was amazing, but very very tired and old and needed a facelift for a new generation (one it probably should have gotten years ago). Star Trek 09 was exactly what Star Trek needed.

Totally agree with this. I enjoyed the hell out of ST 2009 and thought it was perfect for moving the franchise forward.

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

Frankly perfect for the ADD riddled populous...

Baggins, you gotta balance the ADD with the OCD.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by BagginsKQ

It's interesting if you go to many trek fan websites... The movie pretty much divides people about 1/4, that thinks its a bad movie, another 1/4 that thinks the movie destroyed everything that Star Trek stands for, and another 1/4 that like the movie was awsome, and another 1/4 that like the movie, but have 'reservations' about certain details...

People, especially Trek fans, have no idea what they really want. People complained when DS9 aired because it was supposedly a Babylon 5 clone; People complained when Voyager aired because it felt too much like TNG-Revisited; People complained about Enterprise because it had too much fan service.

Trek fandom was already divided. Star Trek 09 wasn't going to change that.

"The Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action."-Roger Ebert

Why are you listening to anything Roger Ebert has to say? He's obviously a professional troll. Don't you remember when he put on his blog that "Video Games will never be art"? There was nothing to gain by it except to rile up the gaming community, so he's not going to say something nice if being mean will get more attention.

[MusicallyInspired]

I still don't like DS9. I like exploration, which Voyager epitomized. TNG will always be the greatest Trek that ever trekked, though.

[Chyron8472]

I didn't care about DS9 much, nor watch it really, when it aired... then, when I was in college, I decided to watch the whole show from beginning to end. (It is Star Trek, after all.)

Now, I like it quite a lot.

[MusicallyInspired]

I still need to sit through it. I started following it during the final season right to the end. Finales are always fun to watch. I have to start from scratch with it. Currently going through a Stargate marathon right now, though. After that's done we'll start TOS, TNG, DS9, Voy, Ent, and ST 09. Hopefully by then the new ST movie will be out lol.

[Lambonius]

DS9 is my favorite Trek series by far. The overarching storyline is pretty much awesome from start to finish--and the characters and mythos were fleshed out so much more deeply than in TNG or TOS. I loved how DS9 really went in-depth with the cultures of many of the various Trek universe races. TNG didn't do that nearly as much. In fact, DS9 was really the first Trek series to actually HAVE an overarching storyline--and it did it exceptionally well, too.

[Lambonius]

I loved Trek 2009. It was awesome. I love seeing new takes on classic franchises--and Star Trek was in DESPERATE need of a new take.

Only a pedantic fanboy gets his panties in a knot complaining about the new movie REPLACING the originals. The originals are all still there. They haven't changed.

I want to see this new Trek's take on the Klingons!

[Irishmile]

Wow... This thread turned nerdier than even i thought possible.... Just kidding...

But you may want to just start a star trek thread because this thread has turned way off topic.

[MusicallyInspired]

Probably right.

Originally Posted by Lambonius

I want to see this new Trek's take on the Klingons!

Have you seen the the deleted scene from ST 09 where Nero and his crew were captured by Klingons and held captive on Rura Penthe for 30 years before coming back and blowing up Vulcan?

Also, I heard the next movie is going to feature Kahn. While that would be neat, I have to wonder if that's wise. Now that Trek has a brand new universe I'd love to see them do new things not re-tread older ground. Plus there's only one Ricardo Motalban, and he's dead. If they mixed in Kahn along with a new idea or threat that might be neat, though.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

Also, I heard the next movie is going to feature Kahn. While that would be neat, I have to wonder if that's wise. Now that Trek has a brand new universe I'd love to see them do new things not re-tread older ground. Plus there's only one Ricardo Motalban, and he's dead.

I agree with this and reiterate that Trek fans have no idea what they really want. If the next movie really does have Khan Noonien Singh in it, then there will be an inevitable hailstorm of backlash from critics and fans alike who will complain at length about it being unoriginal.



...on the topic of creating a Trek thread, someone other than myself will have to do it because I don't feel like making a thread about my favorite TV franchise only to have people complain endlessly about how they believe DS9 and Voyager to be massive loads of suck. You can believe it; I just don't want to personally OP a thread that invites people to do so en masse.

[MusicallyInspired]

I was more thinking someone should just split this conversation into a new thread.

[Irishmile]

Originally Posted by MusicallyInspired

I was more thinking someone should just split this conversation into a new thread.

AAAAAAND done.

[Rather Dashing]

Originally Posted by Chyron8472

Why are you listening to anything Roger Ebert has to say? He's obviously a professional troll.

As someone who owns 10 books by Roger Ebert, as well as someone who reads his blog, subscribes to his Twitter feed, and reads all of his reviews, I object to this characterization based on two viewpoints.

[Ribs]

I've been watching TNG backwards over the past three weeks (starting with All Good Things) to ensure that I've seen every episode. I intend to, once finished, alternate between Voyager and Enterprise to ensure I've seen all of those. Then I'll alternate DS9 and TOS. And then I'll definitely be sure I've seen every Star Trek thing ever.

[corruptbiggins]

I loved the recent film and I can't wait for the next one. And I like all of the series, to varying degrees. For instance, I rank DS9 at the top of my list and the original at the bottom (though that's mainly because I watched them a fair while after I started watching TNG and got into Trek). I even like all the films, though some more so than others (like I feel that the Final Frontier is the worse thing to happen to Star Trek). I also try to go through one of the series every year (and all the films as well, though that's more like every couple of years or so), often more than one. I think I'll rewatch DS9 to start with this year.

So I think it's safe to say I'm a fan of Star Trek. And proud of it. Though I'd also say that I'm not an obsessive fan who feels like it's all real and that everything must be fitting to one person's idea of what they wanted to make nearly 50 years ago. I also don't get mad when changes are made or contradictions happen.

[Chyron8472]

Originally Posted by Rather Dashing

As someone who owns 10 books by Roger Ebert, as well as someone who reads his blog, subscribes to his Twitter feed, and reads all of his reviews, I object to this characterization [that he's a troll] based on two viewpoints.

Explain to me then why he suddenly decided to declare that video games are not and never will be art; and then when people stood up and told him to play various games that could prove to him otherwise, he basically said that to do so is pointless and no one would ever dissuade him from his opinion (regardless of the fact that the evidence he had gathered was woefully incomplete)?

He's a professional critic. He should be professional when considering his viewpoints. In this case, however, he was stubborn about it for no apparent reason, he started the whole thing with no apparent cause (beyond purposely making people mad), and he basically belittled the entire gaming community as though their activity of choice was stupid and unworthy of further consideration beyond watching someone else play a game or two for a few minutes. So, yes--I will hold it against him and call him a troll.