Comments on: Editorial: Star Trek Lives! http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/ the source for Star Trek news and information Fri, 25 May 2012 12:41:19 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Jake http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-344357 Jake Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:22:50 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-344357 Once again, Mark A(nnoying) Altman proves how biased he is by saying that TNG & DS9(series he initially praised) are now outdated while TOS is not, simply because neither of those two spin-offs has Kirk. Guess what, Mark? You're not the world's greatest writer either(as those House of the Dead films and the overrated Free Enterprise prove) and you're certainly not the self-proclaimed 'world's foremost Trek-spert'(more like the world's foremost Kirk-spert). Once again, Mark A(nnoying) Altman proves how biased he is by saying that TNG & DS9(series he initially praised) are now outdated while TOS is not, simply because neither of those two spin-offs has Kirk.
Guess what, Mark? You’re not the world’s greatest writer either(as those House of the Dead films and the overrated Free Enterprise prove) and you’re certainly not the self-proclaimed ‘world’s foremost Trek-spert’(more like the world’s foremost Kirk-spert).

]]> By: Mike Niemi http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-17138 Mike Niemi Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:53:58 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-17138 I think people are stuck on the stars, Shatner, Nimoy, and Hollywood lost its nerve, you rarely see anything really new.BattleStar is ok, but Adama takes slow sips of coffee it seems between lines, lots of dead air between lines is what I mean, but people love it. What about Space Cowboys? no one seemed to mind look alikes when Clint Eastwood was at that age and he did the voice overs. It was an essentiial part of the movie and it needed faces and no one seemed to care. It was well written and acted, and I think thats all anyone wants. TNG took the first drubbing because it was not Kirk, and I dont think Steward gave it his all in the first years. In the movie Dune, Steward seemed very much like Picard towards the end of the series. But TNG petered out of stories as well, remember that last awful episode "MASKS". And in the TNG movies, way too much Data. The story for Innsurrection came out of no where and it was great. Characters had brains, and there was even some meaningful tension between Baku characters. No one seemed to mind a Posiden remake either. Everything is going to be remade. The real issue is, or should be, like in the Movie CONTACT, where is our sense of adventure? We fret over shuttle launches, put off going to Mars because of the war, we ship off jobs to poor countries. The debate isnt really political as it is are we living on Earth just one big consumer ant farm, or are we ever going to accomplish something worthwhile? Ever? MrMikl I think people are stuck on the stars, Shatner, Nimoy, and Hollywood lost its nerve, you rarely see anything really new.BattleStar is ok, but Adama takes slow sips of coffee it seems between lines, lots of dead air between lines is what I mean, but people love it.

What about Space Cowboys? no one seemed to mind look alikes when Clint Eastwood was at that age and he did the voice overs. It was an essentiial part of the movie and it needed faces and no one seemed to care. It was well written and acted, and I think thats all anyone wants.

TNG took the first drubbing because it was not Kirk, and I dont think Steward gave it his all in the first years. In the movie Dune, Steward seemed very much like Picard towards the end of the series. But TNG petered out of stories as well, remember that last awful episode “MASKS”. And in the TNG movies, way too much Data.

The story for Innsurrection came out of no where and it was great. Characters had brains, and there was even some meaningful tension between Baku characters.

No one seemed to mind a Posiden remake either. Everything is going to be remade.

The real issue is, or should be, like in the Movie CONTACT, where is our sense of adventure? We fret over shuttle launches, put off going to Mars because of the war, we ship off jobs to poor countries. The debate isnt really political as it is are we living on Earth just one big consumer ant farm, or are we ever going to accomplish something worthwhile? Ever?

MrMikl

]]> By: JoeB http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-13654 JoeB Sun, 31 Dec 2006 05:49:56 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-13654 This reviewer made some good points but he lost me when he started with his political trashing. How in the hell, when you're talking about an upcoming Star Trek film find a way to slip in some political slam against Republicans? Yeah maybe Star Trek fans are more left leaning but hey we're not all hard left socialists. And stop with this whole bashing of one series or another. I personally love them all. This reviewer made some good points but he lost me when he started with his political trashing. How in the hell, when you’re talking about an upcoming Star Trek film find a way to slip in some political slam against Republicans? Yeah maybe Star Trek fans are more left leaning but hey we’re not all hard left socialists. And stop with this whole bashing of one series or another. I personally love them all.

]]> By: Mike http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-10967 Mike Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:35:12 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-10967 Jonboc wrote-- I think people still like to feel good Just look at “Happy Feet” or “Cars” or any Pixar movie over the last ten years. And who has been a close runner up at the box office, just slightly trailing “Happy Feet”? Eough and tumble James Bond, The "feel good" one gets from cartoon movies is a little different from more adult entertainment or thinking man sci-fi like STAR TREK. Surely, you don't want TREK to be as broad and as dumbed down as a cartoon? The act of making TREK more escapist is precisely what helped destroy TREK. Just look at VOYAGER AND ENTERPRISE and TNG films. And the new James Bond HAS been updated to fit a more realistic age. Just take a look at the new Bond's face and you can see they are going for a more realistic, gritty, less cartoon look and tone. Don't know if you read my post carefully. I specifically said the new TREK can't be simple good guy vs bad guy--like the TOS series, nor can it be as jaded as BSG. It has to be both. The silly optimism of TOS I spoke of is the "we are all brothers, while we force our philosophy on you message", which has already been done by TREK. That position was the message of 60's USA imperialism, which was "be like us, or else". Silly hypocrisy. The new TREK film needs a new framework or emphasis than 60's TOS, otherwise, it is going to look silly, old fashion, preachy and derivative. The new TREK film can deal with the current themes of greed, the Iraq war, etc, like TOS (and currently BSG does, and excellently, I might add) dealt with such issues in the 60s, but my point is, it can't be as obvious, hypocritical, uneven and preachy with it, like TOS. Jonboc wrote–

I think people still like to feel good Just look at “Happy Feet” or “Cars” or any Pixar movie over the last ten years. And who has been a close runner up at the box office, just slightly trailing “Happy Feet”? Eough and tumble James Bond,

The “feel good” one gets from cartoon movies is a little different from more adult entertainment or thinking man sci-fi like STAR TREK. Surely, you don’t want TREK to be as broad and as dumbed down as a cartoon? The act of making TREK more escapist is precisely what helped destroy TREK. Just look at VOYAGER AND ENTERPRISE and TNG films. And the new James Bond HAS been updated to fit a more realistic age. Just take a look at the new Bond’s face and you can see they are going for a more realistic, gritty, less cartoon look and tone.

Don’t know if you read my post carefully. I specifically said the new TREK can’t be simple good guy vs bad guy–like the TOS series, nor can it be as jaded as BSG. It has to be both.

The silly optimism of TOS I spoke of is the “we are all brothers, while we force our philosophy on you message”, which has already been done by TREK. That position was the message of 60’s USA imperialism, which was “be like us, or else”. Silly hypocrisy. The new TREK film needs a new framework or emphasis than 60’s TOS, otherwise, it is going to look silly, old fashion, preachy and derivative. The new TREK film can deal with the current themes of greed, the Iraq war, etc, like TOS (and currently BSG does, and excellently, I might add) dealt with such issues in the 60s, but my point is, it can’t be as obvious, hypocritical, uneven and preachy with it, like TOS.

]]> By: Chris Roberts http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-10346 Chris Roberts Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:20:05 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-10346 I think DS9 Is so much better than the NG.It was the best spinoff series.Now when I watch Star Trek I pretty much stick to the OS,DS9,and the Movies.I am glad now people are starting to realize William Shatner Is a good actor.Also Star Trek XI has the poentional to be a Marking dream.Have Shatner and Leonard Nimoy return one last time for sequences to begain and end the film,and the prequel showing how Kirk first command of the Enterprise,and his meeting Spock and the first mission of the Enterprise under his command.Just Imagne the marketing of showing how Kirk and Spock became legends.Now I also hope the writers are paying closer attention to history.Sulu was first the ship's phycist not helmsman(of course they could just not Include him) as for Mccoy there are over 400 people on the ship they could say when he started on The Enterprise he was not the Chief Medical offiver but a docton under Dr Piper(the chief medical Officer In Where No One Man Has Gone Before) and If they want to Include Uhura they can use the Chekov Explantion she was on the ship but In a different department at the time.I am thankfully this Isn't a Galactica take by throwing out all history and changing character enterily(Including race and sex) I think DS9 Is so much better than the NG.It was the best spinoff series.Now when I watch Star Trek I pretty much stick to the OS,DS9,and
the Movies.I am glad now people are starting to realize William Shatner
Is a good actor.Also Star Trek XI has the poentional to be a Marking
dream.Have Shatner and Leonard Nimoy return one last time for sequences to begain and end the film,and the prequel showing how Kirk
first command of the Enterprise,and his meeting Spock and the first mission of the Enterprise under his command.Just Imagne the marketing of showing how Kirk and Spock became legends.Now I also
hope the writers are paying closer attention to history.Sulu was first the
ship’s phycist not helmsman(of course they could just not Include him) as for Mccoy there are over 400 people on the ship they could say when he started on The Enterprise he was not the Chief Medical offiver but a docton under Dr Piper(the chief medical Officer In Where No One Man Has Gone Before) and If they want to Include Uhura they can use the Chekov Explantion she was on the ship but In a different department at the time.I am thankfully this Isn’t a Galactica take by throwing out all history and changing character enterily(Including race and sex)

]]> By: Eric A.D. http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-9904 Eric A.D. Thu, 14 Dec 2006 09:00:59 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-9904 #136 hehe....now that you re-worded it, I agree with you totally. Everything about Voyager and Enterprise was done ( with the exception of effects ) exactly like TNG. Television evolved, but Trek did not. Berman and company did everything possible to copy the success of TNG ( something DS9 never really had because it had the audacity to try to be a different show from TNG ) IMHO, Voyager and Enterprise were desperate attempts to re-capture the mainstream appeal of TNG, and neither really worked for me, although Voyager did have some measure of success with certain fans obviously. The style of TNG got very old, very fast. Voyager needed to be as different from TNG as TNG was from the old show...and it wasn't. It was TNG scripts re-worked without that great ensemble of Patrick Stewert, Brent Spiner, Michael Dorn, etc. That is why Voyager to me is the weaker sister of TNG, and Enterprise is even worse. I look forward to JJ Abram's new Trek for the same reasons you do. I just think TNG was a brilliant show in it's heyday ( 3rd to 6th Seasons ) and just cuz it was miked to death doesn't mean it was a bad show. #136

hehe….now that you re-worded it, I agree with you totally. Everything about Voyager and Enterprise was done ( with the exception of effects ) exactly like TNG. Television evolved, but Trek did not. Berman and company did everything possible to copy the success of TNG ( something DS9 never really had because it had the audacity to try to be a different show from TNG ) IMHO, Voyager and Enterprise were desperate attempts to re-capture the mainstream appeal of TNG, and neither really worked for me, although Voyager did have some measure of success with certain fans obviously. The style of TNG got very old, very fast. Voyager needed to be as different from TNG as TNG was from the old show…and it wasn’t. It was TNG scripts re-worked without that great ensemble of Patrick Stewert, Brent Spiner, Michael Dorn, etc. That is why Voyager to me is the weaker sister of TNG, and Enterprise is even worse. I look forward to JJ Abram’s new Trek for the same reasons you do. I just think TNG was a brilliant show in it’s heyday ( 3rd to 6th Seasons ) and just cuz it was miked to death doesn’t mean it was a bad show.

]]> By: jonboc http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-9831 jonboc Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:54:37 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-9831 #135, Your right, "failed" was a poor choice of wording. I think "stagnated" is more appropriate. The stagnated formula, which was almost identical in all the spin-offs, seemed to weigh down the series over the years and I think, ultimately, it was Enterprise's familiar 24th century style, set in the 22nd century that led to it's demise. It was just too much of the "same o same o". After 15 years the whole franchise seemed all too similar, the same beep and bloops for sound FX, the same bland incidental music could be swapped about all the spin-offs and no one would notice....the same "TV Production" sensibilities prevailed on all the spin-offs and while some, like yourself, loved it, others tired of it. I think the old saying "Familiarity breeds contempt" is more than aplicable in this instance. As is "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." The style and storytelling sensibilities of 23rd century Trek has been absent for so long that many of today's audience equates "Star Trek" with the "same o same o" 24th century Trek that they seen here and there, on cable, for the past 20 years. I think a bright, colorful, loud, fun, imaginative, in your face, adventurous tale, laced with the perils and dangers and awe of the unknown, TOS style, is coming our way. For the few that want more of the "Same o same o", there will be dissappointment, for die hard original fans, there will be apprehension and cautious optimism...for the new audience that Paramount wants to tap...this will shake the familiarity of Berman's 24th century like a dog playing with a rag doll. Whatever we end up, we can bet the rent that it won't be "more of the same". And that's a good thing. #135, Your right, “failed” was a poor choice of wording. I think “stagnated” is more appropriate. The stagnated formula, which was almost identical in all the spin-offs, seemed to weigh down the series over the years and I think, ultimately, it was Enterprise’s familiar 24th century style, set in the 22nd century that led to it’s demise. It was just too much of the “same o same o”. After 15 years the whole franchise seemed all too similar, the same beep and bloops for sound FX, the same bland incidental music could be swapped about all the spin-offs and no one would notice….the same “TV Production” sensibilities prevailed on all the spin-offs and while some, like yourself, loved it, others tired of it. I think the old saying “Familiarity breeds contempt” is more than aplicable in this instance. As is “Absence makes the heart grow fonder.” The style and storytelling sensibilities of 23rd century Trek has been absent for so long that many of today’s audience equates “Star Trek” with the “same o same o” 24th century Trek that they seen here and there, on cable, for the past 20 years. I think a bright, colorful, loud, fun, imaginative, in your face, adventurous tale, laced with the perils and dangers and awe of the unknown, TOS style, is coming our way.
For the few that want more of the “Same o same o”, there will be dissappointment, for die hard original fans, there will be apprehension and cautious optimism…for the new audience that Paramount wants to tap…this will shake the familiarity of Berman’s 24th century like a dog playing with a rag doll. Whatever we end up, we can bet the rent that it won’t be “more of the same”. And that’s a good thing.

]]> By: Eric A.D. http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-9818 Eric A.D. Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:44:55 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-9818 #134 jonboc I wouldn't exactly call the TNG 24th Century "failed"; it sustained 3 series over 7 seasons. It was Enterprise that really struggled and finally failed, and that was a 22nd century themed show. You may not like them ( And personally, I don't really like Voyager ) but none of the 24th Century shows were commercial failures. #134 jonboc

I wouldn’t exactly call the TNG 24th Century “failed”; it sustained 3 series over 7 seasons. It was Enterprise that really struggled and finally failed, and that was a 22nd century themed show. You may not like them ( And personally, I don’t really like Voyager ) but none of the 24th Century shows were commercial failures.

]]> By: jonboc http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-9807 jonboc Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:50:48 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-9807 Sorry, don't agree with any of the above. In a world filled to the brim with doom and gloom, I think people still like to feel good. Just look at "Happy Feet" or "Cars" or any Pixar movie over the last ten years. And who has been a close runner up at the box office, just slightly trailing "Happy Feet"? Eough and tumble James Bond, that's who. People still love escapism....a LOT..... and they like heros....and yes, I think there is plenty of room to have both of those elements along with a little, as you call it, "silly optimism", thrown in for good measure. Trek is a vehicle that CAN, under the right management, rise to the occasion and deliver the goods on all fronts. Trying to be a bleak BSG clone, or expansion of the failed TNG 24th century will kill it and Abrahms knows it. He's going back to the roots and with the right mix of adventure, optimism, old school heroics and FUN (TNG was way too pretentious), I think this new "old" Trek will do just fine. What's old is new again, and it's about time. Sorry, don’t agree with any of the above. In a world filled to the brim with doom and gloom, I think people still like to feel good. Just look at “Happy Feet” or “Cars” or any Pixar movie over the last ten years. And who has been a close runner up at the box office, just slightly trailing “Happy Feet”? Eough and tumble James Bond, that’s who. People still love escapism….a LOT….. and they like heros….and yes, I think there is plenty of room to have both of those elements along with a little, as you call it, “silly optimism”, thrown in for good measure. Trek is a vehicle that CAN, under the right management, rise to the occasion and deliver the goods on all fronts. Trying to be a bleak BSG clone, or expansion of the failed TNG 24th century will kill it and Abrahms knows it. He’s going back to the roots and with the right mix of adventure, optimism, old school heroics and FUN (TNG was way too pretentious), I think this new “old” Trek will do just fine. What’s old is new again, and it’s about time.

]]> By: Mike http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/comment-page-3/#comment-9740 Mike Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:59:30 +0000 http://trekmovie.com/2006/12/10/editorial-star-trek-lives/#comment-9740 A few points: Why criticize TNG and DS9 for being too 90s and not TOS for being too 60s? If the 90s represent the banal, the 60s represent simple mindedness tackiness. Why is one criticism better than another? The first two seasons of DS9 may have been TNG-bland, but DS9 turned away from that by the third season when Ira Stephen Behr took over. The slightly questionable nature of DS9s characters, the dark cinematography, the unanswered questions of DS9 stories are not 90s bland at all! Though I liked TOS the best (I grew up with it, and as has been mentioned above, you tend to favor things in your youth)--I find it just as hard to watch, with it's 60s pulpiness and silly optimism as I do the 90s look and feel of TNG. In a time when "serious-minded", near cynical sci-fi and comic movies are the rave, BSG, BATMAN BEGINS, etc., how can he say TOS is relevant today? I don't see any new TOS movie turning the tide of the direction of more realistic, and perhaps, more cynical stories and characters being done today in genre TV and movies--and thank god for that! I will say here that if this new film attempts to return to the simple, silly heroics of TOS, it will fail miserably. (I doubt very seriously that the film Abrams is planning is going to be the simple minded heroics like the 60s TOS.) Of course, it is obvious that you can incorporate a little realism and cynicism into the new TOS film but that won't make it any different that the characters and stories in DS9. And, if you go as far as say, BSG, it won't be TREK. So where does that get you? Been done already. What is this nonsense about TREK going down hill when the ship started to be referred to as ENTERPRISE? TREK started going downhill when it started tell bland, boring and terrible stories. How can Altman criticize THE SOPRANOS for cynicism and not BSG, which reeks with it? Can Abrams make TREK relevant again? Not if it returns to the long-departed New Frontier (meaning expansionists and imperialistic attitude), space cowboy, mentality of TOS 60's. To my mind it has to mesh the heroics of classic storytelling--something TNG and DS9 did quite well, Mr. Altman, with the realistic, sarcasm of the present day. This is the world we live in. For any art to ignore it's present, is not wise. A few points:

Why criticize TNG and DS9 for being too 90s and not TOS for being too 60s? If the 90s represent the banal, the 60s represent simple mindedness tackiness. Why is one criticism better than another?

The first two seasons of DS9 may have been TNG-bland, but DS9 turned away from that by the third season when Ira Stephen Behr took over. The slightly questionable nature of DS9s characters, the dark cinematography, the unanswered questions of DS9 stories are not 90s bland at all!

Though I liked TOS the best (I grew up with it, and as has been mentioned above, you tend to favor things in your youth)–I find it just as hard to watch, with it’s 60s pulpiness and silly optimism as I do the 90s look and feel of TNG.

In a time when “serious-minded”, near cynical sci-fi and comic movies are the rave, BSG, BATMAN BEGINS, etc., how can he say TOS is relevant today? I don’t see any new TOS movie turning the tide of the direction of more realistic, and perhaps, more cynical stories and characters being done today in genre TV and movies–and thank god for that! I will say here that if this new film attempts to return to the simple, silly heroics of TOS, it will fail miserably. (I doubt very seriously that the film Abrams is planning is going to be the simple minded heroics like the 60s TOS.) Of course, it is obvious that you can incorporate a little realism and cynicism into the new TOS film but that won’t make it any different that the characters and stories in DS9. And, if you go as far as say, BSG, it won’t be TREK. So where does that get you? Been done already.

What is this nonsense about TREK going down hill when the ship started to be referred to as ENTERPRISE? TREK started going downhill when it started tell bland, boring and terrible stories.

How can Altman criticize THE SOPRANOS for cynicism and not BSG, which reeks with it?

Can Abrams make TREK relevant again?
Not if it returns to the long-departed New Frontier (meaning expansionists and imperialistic attitude), space cowboy, mentality of TOS 60’s. To my mind it has to mesh the heroics of classic storytelling–something TNG and DS9 did quite well, Mr. Altman, with the realistic, sarcasm of the present day. This is the world we live in. For any art to ignore it’s present, is not wise.

]]>