I’d suggest a Titan movie, with the gang back on Frakes’s ship, or a movie about Captain LaForge.

That should read Databrain said… not Dom said. DL

Well, I think they failed because they were simply bad. IMHO.

Regarding Galactica’s success overseas, I can’t really speak to that. But I still think my point stands. I guess I’d be curious to know how it does overthere as well.

Regarding “I want to believe” – I simply never made it out to see it when it was at the theater. My interest waned considerably when I heard largely mediocre reviews from friends and critics. I also was never a fan of the Scully/ Religion arc which is apparently explored here. But I still plan to rent it eventually.

BTW… I feel like you’re defending TNG for some reason. I’m a huge TNG fan. No bashing here.

Doug L.

Are you sure the new Galactica is connecting with foreign audiences as much as with american ones? Just curious, I haven’t checked the stats on that yet. The next generation garnered a lot more viewership than the original trek did during its original run. And it did so being a lot more geeky and ’socially relevant’ than anything on television in the late 80s/early 90s.

‘Ultimately Enterprise was a weak show that didn’t bring in a new audience.’

Because it basically stomped on canon and turned trek into everything else.

‘I didn’t see “I want to believe” but based on your comments, I’m hoping it will be better than I had heard.’

Well you know you live in a country (presumably america) where the average movie goer wants everything up front and not too difficult to grasp. So why base your assumption of good-bad on what anyone, let alone the majority of people, especially americans, think about it? It’s like basing what your diet should be on what a 400 pound guy who eats at mcdonalds twice a day thinks. And we all know how ‘popular’ the typical american fast-food diet is. Most action films are fast food for the brain. That is why they are not remembered.

‘Similarly, I expect Star Trek to be a mix of action, adventure, sex, violence and philosophy.’

The fact that you placed ‘action’ first and ‘philosophy’ last, shows me who you work for.

‘For a movie, though, I expect action, adventure, sex and violence upfront.’

Star Trek never provided this, why did you not flock to myriad other film genres to get these qualities? There are hundreds, probably thousands of films out there that provide just these elements and in this specific order. Why do you want them from star trek when you can get them from so many other places already?

‘The philosophy should be kept to a theme and a couple of discussions.’

No it shouldn’t. And that is why enterprise and nemesis both failed. The philosophy took a back seat to the ‘action’ element.

‘TNG got away with more talk on television, but I actually felt they spent far too much time on the very boringly-designed and -lit Enterprise-D having philosophical debates when they could have been visiting exotic planets, having a couple of fistfights and bonking some green-skinned lovelies as well.’

And yet it still garnered more viewer-ship than all trek before or since. Despite your predilection for ‘action adventure’ infantility . Why? because the non-american foreign trek fandom supported this extension of the roddenberry vision of our potential future as much as, if not more, than american audiences did. Again, trek needs a global appeal more than an american appeal to get through to people. Kill the trendy elements and bring back the cerebral ones, period. Otherwise it’s just an american copy of a generic action film with treks label arbitrarily stamped on it.

Yeah it’s the difference between making a Star Trek movie and making a movie about Star Trek, if you get my meaning!

Yes, I agree with you. As for Galactica, I think they went a little too far in one direction, and the show lacks a sense of fun. The characters are so dark and tormented that it’s hard to like them. But I’m still a fan.

Enterprise seemed to try to hard to be something, though it didn’t know what that something was, and it showed. As most seem to agree it started to develop in it’s 4th season, but like I mentioned it’s relevance was in being nostalgic and digging through Trek Lore as much as anything else. I enjoyed the 4th season generally, but still found it to be a pretty mediocre show.

As much as I’m a fan of Trek and Canon and nostalgia, they seem to be approaching the movie with the right blend of all you mention in your post, and a healthy nod to what’s gone on before.

I’m excited to see it.

Doug L.

It depends on what you expect from a film. The X-Files was always a heady blend of schlock, humour, paranoia and intelligent discussion. The X-Files: I Want to believe is a great little film, although, unfortunately I can understand why people were disappointed. Moives carry different expectations from TV shows, especially when TV shows are already so cinematic!

Similarly, I expect Star Trek to be a mix of action, adventure, sex, violence and philosophy. For a movie, though, I expect action, adventure, sex and violence upfront. The philosophy should be kept to a theme and a couple of discussions.

TNG got away with more talk on television, but I actually felt they spent far too much time on the very boringly-designed and -lit Enterprise-D having philosophical debates when they could have been visiting exotic planets, having a couple of fistfights and bonking some green-skinned lovelies as well.