“…In my opinion and others I have read here and on other threads, this film is almost 100% likely to be a Kirk/Spock TOS story. Not any of the other franchises because since TOS was first and did it well (for the most part, despite giant space amoebas), and it’s the most recognizable to fans and non-fans. Both are needed to make this film a financial success.
I disagree with the all the smack talk about TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. Especially TNG and DS9. Those shows were TREK in a different form, not just in a different uniform. All had their moments, and in many cases, well written. TOS had it’s salt vampires and TNG had it’s techno-babble… none were perfect. I won’t go into great detail, but poor writing was not the only problem ENT had… the final season was fun and that’s why I watch any Trek show…to ENJOY it. In my local market ENT was buried late at night and made it difficult to watch and the time varied. It made it hard to find or tape. I suspect this could have happened in several markets. Also, the audience has changed over time, tastes have changed… and more channels have been added. It’s fragmentation of the viewing market and TV viewing as a whole has suffered.

“resistance is futile”… where did that resonate from?

To those in defense of modern incarnations of Star Trek as being quality television entertainment….

Are we not in the slump and dryspell Trekwise because of those series?

Why the need then to go back to basics instead of revisiting Kirk?

Why was Berman axed?

It is no disrespect to the artists of those series to call a spade a spade. They recieved their paychecks just the same.

If modern incarnations of Trek had resonated, this dialogue would not be occuring.

I am justified in my assertion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOITwUrGyeg&mode=related&search=

Actually, in your admonishment to Josh (post #21), I thought you had spelled it correctly… you just forgot to capitalize the “v”.

I heard that Viritol is a new enhancement drug by the makers of Viagra. It localizes it’s effects to one’s tongue, making it harder and, in some clinical trials, sharper. One can only extrapolate by the contents of this thread as to it’s efficacy.

Josh… However, salient or insightful your arguments about what made the original series great is diminished when you refer to all other things Trek as… well, s**t. Moreover, it is insulting to a bunch of folks (including a few working on TOSR) who spent a good portion of their professional lives creating, crafting and caring about a franchise that deserves celebration… and respect.

As far as respectfully refuting your harsh opinions about the other incarnations of Star Trek, manpage (post #23) has done that… with accurate restraint.

I like dialogue… discourse… debate… I like when opinions (whether I agree with them or not) are advanced, expressed or otherwise proffered provided there is a civility of intent and the notion of acknowledgment. With out those elements these postings degenerate to rhetoric and one “ups-man-ship”.

I fully understand my finger-wagging may incur another appellation like “Scott of the Moronogites” (which, as in my face as it was, was pretty funny) or perhaps, this post like another may not merit your response.

Whatever your reaction, please keep your exuberance and exaltation of the original series with a humor and spiritedness it (and this site) deserves but, as MichaelT requested, please lose the scatological preoccupation.

Back on point… I truly wonder if Abrams, et al. can reinvigorate Star Trek. Many of Josh’s points about what made TOS great and delightful have gone the way of the times. There was this wonderful naiveté… this sense of “it is all new”… and it was in 1966.

Star Trek was born in time of the Viet Nam conflict… a time of societal discord this country hadn’t seen since the Civil War… a time of sexual awakening for many… a time when our fear of Red China was reaching an hysterical peak… all these things and more.

Granted, we face many of the same issues today and, sadly, some pretty horrific new ones. The difference is we lack, as a country, much of the optimism we held then. We hadn’t experienced Watergate or global terrorism or melting ice caps or AIDS or a frighteningly polarized political system or… yeah, a long list for sure.

The country for all of it’s individual hopefulness and accomplishment is collectively much more cynical… more jaded… less apt to “believe”… So, can the powers that be make this new Star Trek, as Josh put it, “fun and spirited, alive and colorful .” And can they make it resonate with that careful balance of adventure and gravitas that TOS had?

As much as I love the past forty years, my preference would be to not “re-boot” the franchise by going back to an early Kirk-Spock-McCoy story. I’d prefer them to totally re-start the universe that I’ve enjoyed so much. Believe me, I don’t abandon that “canon” easily. It has held together remarkably well, even with an occasional inconsistency. And to be honest, I’d miss that universe that has delighted me for so long. But…

The idea of telling new stories with a new Kirk and Company without being constrained to forty years of history is very compelling to me. I’d like to see a reinvention of Star Trek a la Battlestar Galactica (obviously, with a much less fatalistic viewpoint.) And I can see this being successful without Shatner and Nimoy… (manpage makes some very astute observations in posts #34 & #37 http://trekmovie.com/2006/11/09/shatner-there-will-be-another-captain-kirk/ and although I don’t agree with all of them, they are very well positioned and extremely thoughtful)

I agree with Josh when he says, “Going back to basics is the first BEST destiny for the Trek producers if they want to keep their cash cow fat and golden.”

The question is… can they? And, can we?

And to continue… you did “expand upon my post”, despite what you said. But I can’t figure out where I mentioned any “television series that have the quality of fecal matter served steaming fresh”. I was, I as said. doing a parody of some of the conversations in here to lighten the mood and mentioned in jest… “Star Trek XI: The Reign of Empress Sato”. If THAT was the fecal matter series… golly, I am sorry. I thought I made that one up.

I am off to study my thesarus.

Star Trek died not because of TNG, but because the radical success of TNG led to it being treated as a brand to stamp on just anything.

If one is bold enough to mention television series that have the quality of fecal matter served steaming fresh, one must be prepared to garner such anecdotes and allegories,

aside from which , you presume a great deal by suggesting your post mattered enough to me to merit expanding upon.

Which it didn’t.