More from Rick Berman: Reflects On TNG Films + Calls Star Trek 2009 “Wonderful” but lacking “Heart of Star Trek” | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

More from Rick Berman: Reflects On TNG Films + Calls Star Trek 2009 “Wonderful” but lacking “Heart of Star Trek” February 10, 2011

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Feature Films (TMP-NEM),Star Trek (2009 film),TNG , trackback

There are now more comments from the official Star Trek site’s interview with former Star Trek producer Rick Berman. The final part of the interview includes Berman opining on the Next Generation films and the 2009 Star Trek movie. Excerpts below.

 

Rick Berman reflects on TNG films + Star Trek 2009

Excerpts from official Star Trek site interview with Star Trek producer Berman on his four TNG movies and on the 2009 Star Trek movie:

Berman on Generations:

It was kind of naïve for myself and Brannon (Braga) and Ron (Moore) to jump into the movie business with really very little experience on how it worked…We got a lot of criticism for the way Kirk was handled, which I felt was unfortunate.

on First Contact

Everything that perhaps went wrong on the first movie went right on the second movie…it just worked on a huge number of levels…and it made a sh-tload of money for the studio, so they were very happy.

on Insurrection

The script ended up having input from Patrick Stewart, from the studio, from me, and slowly the story started changing. I think maybe it’s a little like that old story about a camel being a horse made by committee….it was a less-than-stellar follow-up to First Contact, which had been so up and so exciting.

on Nemesis

The head of the studio had really tried to convince me to do a movie without the TNG cast. The feeling was “These guys have all gotten kind of older. It’s time to introduce some new, fresh blood.” … I felt strongly against that for two reasons. One reason was that when we were developing this movie, the Enterprise series was coming out. So the Star Trek audience was about to get introduced to a whole new cast of young characters on television..The other reason was I felt that after a four-year absence from the screen, the fans really wanted to see Patrick, Brent, Jonathan and company again.

…everyone from the studio to me thought we’d crafted a really good movie. And nobody came to see it. It wasn’t even a question of not getting good reviews. Any Star Trek movie opened and it’d have a huge opening weekend, but this one didn’t. Now, why? I understand and appreciate the criticisms of the production or script, but I, to this day, have some difficulty understanding why it met with such a poor reception.

On Star Trek (2009)

I thought it was a wonderful movie. It was very, very big. You have to remember, I did four movies with incredibly restrictive budgets. The philosophy when I made movies was, “We know we can make X number of dollars off a Star Trek movie, so don’t spend more than Y number of dollars.” The lengths that (Abrams’) film went with its visual effects and production values were so astonishing to me. I thought the story was wonderful and a lot of the acting was terrific. I’ve just gotten to a point where these big action films filled with computer-generated stuff from beginning to end are starting to wear on me a little bit. To me, the movie, like Iron Man or any of these big, incredibly expensive films dealing with tens upon tens of millions of dollars worth of visual effects… it was a very, very exciting movie. In terms of it having the heart of Star Trek, I think it could have perhaps had a little bit more of that. But I liked it very much.

 

For much more read the full interview at StarTrek.com.

Comments

1. captain_neill - February 10, 2011

I agree with Berman that Star Trek XI should have had a bit more of the heart of Star Trek.

It is perhaps the one thing I have been getting at about what was missing when I say that Star Trek XI captured the fun of TOS but not all the ideals of good Star Trek.

One thing he was right about Nemesis was thatafter 4 years I was wanting to see Picard, Data, Riker et all one last time.

My only regret with Star Trek XI being a reboot in a parallel universe is that the TNG crew never got the proper movie send off that the original crew got in Undiscovered Country. They deserved a good send off.

2. R.E.Moore - February 10, 2011

Generations: I agree, First Contact: I totally agree, Insurrection: I see his point, Nemesis: Should’ve been better than it was. Diector had NO feel for Star Trek or sci-fi. He shot it as just another action flick

3. Harry Ballz - February 10, 2011

On how they bungled the use of Kirk in the film, and his senseless, pointless death, all Berman can say is, “We got a lot of criticism for the way Kirk was handled, which I felt was unfortunate”?????

Not exactly owning up to his incompetence, is he? They killed off the best character in Trek history just to prove they could do it! Arrogant bastards!

I saw Generations on opening night, and when Kirk says to Picard (in the house), “something’s missing”…..a member of the theatre audience yelled out, “yeah! it’s called A PLOT!” Everyone roared with laughter because they knew he was right!

Now, where did I put that horse whip?

4. Trekprincess - February 10, 2011

I loved the film anyway :)

5. captain_neill - February 10, 2011

2

Agreed on First Contact, that is an awesome movie.

4

Now I love the new movie, just feel he is right in what I felt was missing in the new movie. It’s still a cool film but I feel it moves a little bit away from the heart of Trek to get mainstream in. But so much to cram in a 2 hour film.

Thing is would Gene have been happy with Star Trek XI?
I heard that Majel said he would have.

6. captain_neill - February 10, 2011

3

I guess that is the one thing that Generaations shares with Star Trek XI. In both films the scripts require contrivances to get the characters together. The nexus to get Kirk and Picard together and Alt Kirk running into Spock Prime in the cave.

Although contrived I understand the necessity of them, they were required to move things along.

I would argue that Generations has a plot but still not the strongest of plots and a tick nox of requirements were needed to be done. Same in Star Trek XI, which to me also has very little plot.

Star Trek XI is the more enjoyable movie as a visual experience. But these two films have troubled stories with many holes.

7. captain_neill - February 10, 2011

Generations was never high on my list.

It has its problems but still enjoyed it.

I have gripes with Star Trek XI but also enjoyed it too.

8. Jonboc - February 10, 2011

“…. it was a very, very exciting movie. In terms of it having the heart of Star Trek, I think it could have perhaps had a little bit more of that. But I liked it very much.”

Are you kidding me? Spock’s inner struggle…losing his mother…his WORLD? There was more real heart and emotion in Kirk’s dad’s sacrifice for his wife and new son in the first few minutes than 7 years of TNG combined! talk about bitter grapes. That just seals what we already know…the man never “got” the original series…which should have been the blueprint for all that followed, and he never will.

9. bluejfk - February 10, 2011

Two points.

If First Contact had the budget of ST 2009, it could have gone down as the best SCI Fi Movie ever.

Nemesis’ problem was two fold. Baird should have never directed the film and the separation of ST Enterprise’s production values vs the movie were not enough to produce a wow in the movie.

10. keachick - February 10, 2011

Why so angry about the treatment of Kirk in Generations? Of course, no one wants their all-time hero to die – “There is no good way to die”, James Kirk from TOS episode, That Which Survives.

I just don’t understand all the aggro.

11. Craiger - February 10, 2011

Kirk should have liived and beamed up to that ship with Picard and Riker from the wrecked Enterprise bridge.

12. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - February 10, 2011

Generations could have been wonderful if they had Kirk Live and join them in the 24th Century. They missed that one big time.
First Contact was an amazing film. It had Action and a great Story to go with it.
Insurrection was a good Tv 2 parter with some good Fx. But they missed the boat on that one because they should have done something with the Enterprise during the Dominion War.Would have loved to have known what the Big E was doing during the War. Missed the Boat on that one.
Nemises was ok. The Fx with the Enterprise Fighting the Semitar was great. But the Clone Story was just to much and the Directer just did not get Star Trek..
Star Trek 09 had everything. A Great plot. Great Acting and it had a lot of Hart of Trek. Not as Much as could have been but it was a recoot of sorts. Getting Nimoy to be in Trek to me was what brought Hart to the Movie.

13. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - February 10, 2011

Oops. I meant Reboot. Harry. Quit Distracting me.

14. Browncoat1984 - February 10, 2011

I agree mostly with what he said. I think Nemesis gets bashed way to much by fans. What makes Nemesis a worse movie than Final Frontier or Insurrection? I think what it comes down to is that there have been 11 (counting Abrams’) Trek films and out of those 11 only a small handful have actually been good (II, IV, VI, First Contact) movies, not just good Trek but good movies. Why is that? I think the problem is that the previous Trek movies were all made for Star Trek audiences. Star Trek 2009 was the first movie that I feel was made to appeal to a non-Trek audience, yet it was made with love and care so most old-time Trek fans could appreciate it.

The only movies I can think of that come close to having a good appeal to a non-Trek audience are IV and First Contact. Yes, we all know Wrath of Khan is a perfect Trek movie but when I talk to casual fans who became re-interested in Trek because of the 2009 film I get one of two responses: Wait, there were HOW many movies before this one? or: “I remember the one with the whales” I sincerely hope that Abrams and whoever follows (because I think we all know that at SOME point in time Abrams is going to step down and someone else will take over for him) continues to make movies with this in mind – a healthy respect for what has come before it but also making it for not just us hardcore fans but so a general audience can follow it too, because if they are made like this then I think that we will have more great Trek films like 2009.

Back to Nemesis – I actually like the film, not the best but its nowhere near as bad as The Final Frontier or Insurrection and I don’t see how anybody can say it is, but that’s just me.

15. James - February 10, 2011

I think the death was poignant – Kirk said he knew he would always die alone (without bones or spock being there) perhaps it was the fact if how he died rather then who he was with that grated people so much?

16. Hat Rick - February 10, 2011

First of all, thanks to Anthony for keeping this site going. I know it can’t be all that easy.

Second, I’m glad Berman likes the new Trek. I wish he would also address, once and for all, comments made in various places that the producing team was running out of ideas. Maybe he has elsewhere.

Now I’m just worried that the new Trek actors aren’t in love with Trek enough to make sure they are available when the new movie shoots.

Also, I’m still getting a bit worried about the lateness of the script.

17. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - February 10, 2011

Bob Orci poster on another Thred that he was working on Trek as we speak.

18. Hat Rick - February 10, 2011

^^ Awesome, 17. Then by all means, we need to speak more!

;-)

19. John - February 10, 2011

I didn’t care much for Nemesis because it was a story retread of The Wrath of Khan! It ended on a downer with the death of Data.

20. Sharra - February 10, 2011

First Contact is mostly just a big sci-fi/action flick. How does it represent the “heart of Trek” more than XI?

21. somethoughts - February 10, 2011

Rick Berman hit it on the head when he said he had restrictive budgets.

If you are going to make a movie get movie people to do it, don’t allow folks who make Television shows to make a Movie.

Nemesis, Insurrection etc. failed because they had the wrong people for the jobs. Ie Berman, Stuart Baird etc.

Failing to invest in special effects for a space movie is a mistake, nobody wants to see college level cgi effects on the big screen, go big or go home, hire ILM.

First Contact worked because they had a new ship, new uniforms and dealth with TNGs baddies, the Borg. Imagine how much better First Contact could have been if they had more money and a better story.

Rick Berman was responsible for some of the most memorable TNG episodes and for that he is a good guy. Leave the movies for James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Spielberg etc.

22. MikeTen - February 10, 2011

@19, even worse, did we really need B4 and Shinzon? The same story could have been told with maybe Sela and Lore. Also, do they even use wheels in the 24th century? Picard driving around on the planet was totally unneeded.

23. Damian - February 10, 2011

I likes all 11 films to varying extents. People are bashing Berman because of a very slight complaint about Star Trek (2011). The man said he thought it was a wonderful movie otherwise. What more do you want. I think that’s a pretty ringing endorsement. Cut the guy a break.

I also think people forget regarding the 4 TNG movies that they were dealing with a studio. They wanted to squeeze every last dollar out of Star Trek without putting up a lot of money.

Re: Generations, I thinks Kirk’s death should have been handled better. More should have been made of the fact that Kirk gave his life to save an entire civilizations. By the end of the film, I had all but forgotten about the civilization on Veridian IV.

First Contact was a great film all around.

I liked Insurrection, though I had a hard time relating to the So’na. I would have preferred a known villain involving the Dominion. I know they wanted to keep the Dominion War mostly relegated to DS9, but having the Enterprise battle a crising involving the Dominion would have been a nice tie in to the period.

I thought Nemesis was a fairly decent film, Good special effects, good music score, I liked that Romulans were the villain, but they should have centered more on the Romulans. I still say Nemesis was a victim of poor timing. It was going against Die Another Day, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. That would have been a tough sell even for TWOK.

24. I'm Dead Jim! - February 10, 2011

@22 Agreed! B-4 was nothing more than a contrivance to resurrect Data after his death.

25. THX-1138 - February 10, 2011

They weren’t ready for the movies. They should have stuck to TV. Like I said in the other Berman thread. And like I said on the day it was announced that TNG was going to end it’s run.

Was TNG like TOS? No, It wasn’t. It was a product of it’s time, just as TOS was. And it wa to be different from it’s predecessor, as per the wishes of Gene Roddenberry. Given that, I think both series did what they were trying go for very well..

But TNG was really cruising along nicely after the third season. If it was allowed to continue without the distraction of a whole other series, or some prospective move to movies, it would have hit a very high quality stride.

Both series had clunkers. But both series had some absolute gems, too. Some of the finest TV moments ever. Give TNG it’s own 10 or 12 year run on it’s own with all of the creative and talented people that worked on it and it would have been interesting to see where it would have gone.

26. Ensign RedShirt - February 10, 2011

Kudos to Rick-

He gets a raw deal in many ways, IMO. While his batting average with the features was spotty at best, he did FAR more good than harm to Trek.

I’m tired of the bashing of he and Braga….enough already.

27. Locke for President - February 10, 2011

Nemesis had little or no buzz before it was released. Friends of mine who didn’t miss any previous Star Trek movie somehow missed Nemesis.

I’d ask them why they didn’t go see it, and they’d say, “Well, I planned on going to see, but just didn’t get around to it.”

To me, that says that the previous movie was the cause for the failure of that one. It left a blah taste in fans’ mouths, and they really weren’t left wanting more. There was little or no anticipation for another movie.

Then four years went by, and people kind of forgot about Star Trek. Plus, too, so many of my friends said that they’d just wait and buy it on video. So again, I blame the failure on Nemesis on Insurrection.

That said, I find myself bored when I watched Nemesis. It doesn’t hold up well, and it doesn’t compel me to pop it in the DVD player for repeat viewing. But I don’t think that impacted the opening weekend at the box office. I think the casual fans just weren’t excited to go see another Star Trek movie — even if it was a 5-star-rated movie.

28. Jeff O'Connor - February 10, 2011

#23

Seriously, I totally agree with you. Berman was singing its praises for the most part. Some people are just going to cling to that man’s every syllable until either he dies or they die.

#25

Without going into my own personal thoughts on the matter, a great many Trek fans tend to think TNG was getting kind of stale in the last couple of years, especially with season seven. So maybe it would have gone on a sudden upswing for them within a couple more years but a lot of people thought the creative juices just weren’t flowing so well anymore.

29. VOODOO - February 10, 2011

There was zero reason for Kirk/Shatner to be in Generations except for Berman and co. to kill him off. Kirk’s death is the worst death of any major fictional character in the history of film.

If they insisted on having Shatner in the film it should have been a big fun adventure that united the two crews. Instead we got a unnecessary funeral and a film that had more plot holes (ex you can think your way out of the nexus) in history.

Generations ranks right up there with the Star Wars prequels as one of the biggest missed opportunities is the history of cinema.

30. VOODOO - February 10, 2011

As for the other films.

Insurrection – In my humble opinion is the worst film in the entire series. There was barely enough here for a TNG tv episode. It did not look cinematic at all…Who thought it was a good idea that Data and Worf sang?

First Contact – Well done all around.

Nemesis – This film was a bore. The whole B4 thing was an insult to the audience as was Picard’s clone who looked nothing like Picard. Did we really need to hear Brent Spiner sing “Blue Eyes”? What were these people thinking? This is the second worst film in the entire series.

I would love to see TNG go out with a better ending. Hopefully a tv film or mini series some day. I’m sure there is a big enough audience that it would recieve very solid ratings.

31. Bob Tompkins - February 10, 2011

I was so excited to hear Nemesis first cut came in at almost 3 hours. Considering the writer and his prior ability to pull off long form drama I was hopeful.
Several mistakes were made, but none fatal.
1. Jonathan Frakes should have directed. They knew it was probably the final film and it was no time to bring in a rookie. But Paramount apparently owed Baird and the suits ruled.
2. Patrick Stewart should have played both roles. The gravitas he would have brought to Shinzon would have made the plotline more palpable.
3. Data’s death scene should have been so much more than “Goodbye”.
That laundry list, plus trying it long form on a bigger budget, an appropriate goodbye, might have made a difference. And if it didn’t it couldn’t have fared any worse in retrospect; it would have set it apart from every other Trek movie.

32. THX-1138 - February 10, 2011

#28

And to counter, I believe the lack of “forward motion” during the last two seasons of TNG can be attributed directly to the “spreading too thin” of the production talents. Producing TNG and DS9 at the same time, while already planning the end of one series and the start of a movie franchise totally took the wind out of TNG’s sails. But years 3, 4, and 5 were getting better and better.

If there were a great many fans that thought it was getting stale the last couple years, I would lay money on it that there were a lot more fans who wanted it to stay on the air.

33. somethoughts - February 10, 2011

I fantasize about how boborci and crew will take on tng and give it the blockbuster ending it deserves.

TNG movies never showed any glorious alien worlds or even future earth or any epic starbases, do they know they were making a movie?

Piss off with the cheap sets and budgets.

34. Jonny Boy - February 10, 2011

I just have to say that I am still very confused when I see people sharing the sentiment that “Star Trek” didn’t have as much of the heart or spirit or whatever of the Original Series. I am an unabashedly huge fan of the film, and I have been a Trekkie/Trekker/Whatever since TNG, when I saw my first episode at age 7. I love every incarnation of Trek (some not quite as much a s others lol) and I like to think I have an excellent idea of what the hear or spirit of Star Trek is.

When I watch the film, I feel as though I am watching TOS, but TOS as though it was created for me, not my parents. Is this bad? Maybe, maybe not, but i can tell you that while so much about the film is new and different, at its core, it really IS Trek. If you let go of the visuals, and the punchier, more modern characterizations and dialogue, the heart of the film is Star Trek: Bold adventure, punctuated with drama, grounded by character. The film is a character film, thru and thru. Is it as deep as, say, Star Trek II? No, but it also can’t rely on a three years of television and one previous film to enrich the characters. We are just meeting them, and though the film pays homage to and originates from the established continuity, it exists in in its own refreshed universe. But Star Trek is there. Its in the Enterprise… some people hate the design, but if you can judge it objectively, there is a ton of love in the ship. There are SO many minute details carried over from the first two incarnations of the ship that it really is hard to say that they changed things “radically”. And the introduction in the film… wonderful. A fine tribute to The introduction to the Enterprise in TMP. Short but sweet

The characters themselves are all pitch-perfect. The journey Kirk and Spock take in the film, while again maybe not as ‘deep’ as some people thought it should be (come on guys, its a two hour movie that is essentially an origin story, and those are usually slightly boring until the last third). And George Kirk’s death… how many times has Star Trek been able to make a grown man cry? By that criteria, this film’s ability to generate drama exceeds that of many of its predecessors :)

The sense of adventure, the humor, the sound effects, the uniforms, the wonder… all Trek. Watch it without the blinders. It really feels like TOS at its core, and even Gene Roddenberry said in his original pitch that Trek shouldn’t be encumbered by long sciency exposition and such, Its supposed to be an adventure! Filled with heart, filled with interesting characters, dangerous situations, humor, drama, and everything in between. Tell me how the new film fails to achieve that.

Ok, sorry, rant complete. Just had tot get that off my chest :)

35. DJT - February 10, 2011

Berman said “And nobody came to see it. It wasn’t even a question of not getting good reviews. Any Star Trek movie opened and it’d have a huge opening weekend, but this one didn’t. Now, why?”

Wasn’t Nemesis released around the same time the Two Towers came out? If I wasn’t a such a die hard Trek fan, I probably would have spent my hard earned cash seeing that movie instead, given the big hype about its release and the awesomeness of the first Lord Of The Rings movie.

I am amazed that Berman is still baffled about how things turned out with Nemesis. I mean, REALLY?

Don’t even get me started on the negative reviews.

36. TJ Trek - February 10, 2011

Thanks to the Trekmovie guys for starting up regular updates once again. I am glad that it looks that nothing serious was going on with Anthony or anyone else on the crew. You guys are awesome. And this Rick Berman interview is very…….Fascinating?! :)

37. John - February 10, 2011

I liked the New Trek but boy was the script a mess. At least some of the older films had coherence to their writing. Here’s some of the moments that bothered me in the 2009 film.

So a black hole can destroy the whole universe? Kirk rigs the Kobayashi Maru test openly as though he did rig it by mocking the whole experience. Wouldn’t you try to cover up something like that instead of looking obvious that you did rig it? Starfleet cadets getting into bloody bar fights and beating a civilian senseless is not very Starfleet behavior and material IMHO. Nero blames Spock for the death of his world because Spock was to late to save it, WTF? If Spock took out the Super Nova everyone on Romulus would then of died anyway from the planet freezing, since life can’t exist on a planet without a sun! So Kirk needed to take over the ship as captain and so he does it by be a jerk to Spock to get him to kick his ass, not very captain behavior! The end justifies the means I guess! Scotty is comedic value for the movie, as J.J says in the new cast behind the scenes featurette on Disc two of the DVD release, I guess Scotty is now a big joke! The tiny amount of Red Matter that was released to absorb Vulcan to the amount used at the end of the film should have created a black hole the size of the solar system. The Super Nova that Prime Spock sent into the black hole that was to destroy the universe, when it finally comes to the new time line will it destroy that universe? Lets just hope it doesn’t return and destroy everything before J.J. and team get to finish their line of films!

38. The Riddler - February 10, 2011

Simply put, Nemesis was not a good movie. 9 years later and this guy is still wondering what went wrong.

39. Baroner - February 10, 2011

Someone has to tell Berman that what he did with Kirk in Generations was a COMPLETE AND INEXCUSABLE ABOMINATION. It’s still an open wound, a pulsating sore on the ass of every Star Trek fan who has ever or will ever live. So there, I told him.

40. Canadianknight - February 10, 2011

As others have said regarding Nemesis…

1. Stewart should have played both roles.
2. Frakes should have directed, not a rookie who had little or no Trek background.

I want to love this film… But… Meh.

CK

41. Cygnus-X1 - February 10, 2011

The whole movie [Generations] was a travesty, not just the death of Kirk.

It’s not even “so bad it’s good,” like Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Generations is just BAD.

42. CaptainJoe - February 10, 2011

21 one problem with what you said though.
Stuart Baird was a film director/Editor.
And had directed/edited some pretty decent movies in his career.
having said that he was the wrong choice for this movie, cause he just didnt get what made star trek work.
and on the other hand saying that television ppl should stick to televison and not direct films is wrong as well.
look at how well First contact turned out directed by Frakes.

43. keachick - February 10, 2011

#39 It would appear that you have lead a very safe and painless existence so far if you still feel this way about a film that came out almost 15 years ago. Grief.

44. John in Canada, eh? - February 10, 2011

I think it’s a little disingenuous of Mr. Berman to point to small budgets as the reason 3 of the 4 TNG films weren’t huge successes. imdb says the budgets were $35 M, $45 M, $58 M, and $60 Million for the 4 TNG films, respectively. A $60 Million film ain’t a indie production, and certainly isn’t “incredibly restrictive”.

The trouble was the script, in each case. First Contact had a great script; it earned its high box office return. Generations and Insurrection were well-intentioned, but flawed in their plots. Nemesis was a half-hearted retread of Wrath of Khan, only it replaced a vengeful adversary with a bizzaro villain, swapped the inspired Genesis Device/weapon for a crummy special effect with double technobabble, then tried to turn the last 4 minutes of the movie into “The Search for Spock”, complete with B4’s resurrection with Data’s Katra.

Nemesis, arguably, looks even better than “First Contact” in terms of effects, but it failed on the story side, and didn’t service the characters well. As Spiner has said many times, “If it ain’t on the page, it ain’t on the stage.”

Had Berman said “we didn’t have the time to get a great script” for Nemesis, I might believe that. But “we didn’t have the money, only $60 Million?” C’mon.

45. Buzz Cagney - February 10, 2011

#3 Ditto what Harry said there!
#8 Ditto was Jonboc said there!

#10 Keachick, perhaps you are a relative newcomer to Trek? That would explain your lack of understanding maybe? Many of us on here grew up on a diet of Star Trek and Captain Kirk and crew. His hideous death pained us greatly.
We get enough pain in real life. Killing Kirk was just senseless and pointless and meaningless and could have been avoided. And it should have been. Certainly in the manner in which it was done.
Still, we have James T. Kirk back now and thank god for it!

46. p.g - February 10, 2011

I think it’s absurd this guy is still mouthing off and defending his “Trek” to this day.

Thank god he never got his paws on getting to bring Trek back to the Silver Screen. Abrams and co. did in one movie what really hadn’t been done in 4 Next Gen movies: He made Trek feel absolutely epic and exciting.

Generations should have been the breaking point to where the studio execs said no more Berman. However, it made enough $$$ to justify not making a change in their eyes.

The TV show was great, but Berman had no idea how to produce good Trek films.

And don’t think Berman wasn’t a primary reason an “Original series” show was never created again, with Captain Sulu, because it was. He stood to make no money off the royalties due the Roddenberry estate for using original series characters.

All in all Berman SUCKS. Voyager sucked, Enterprise sucked (until Manny Coto came along). Not sure why this guy is still getting face time w the media.

47. Thorbury - February 10, 2011

Nemesis just stank. It’s not really the fault of any one person, but rather the failure of a group of people to look at a flawed idea and say “we should not make this movie”.

48. Buzz Cagney - February 10, 2011

#4 Trekprincess – you really don’t have to KEEP telling us you loved the film. We know now. You loved it. We geddit.
Still, at least you’ve given up insisting you were the only one that did, so thats a step forward.

49. boborci - February 10, 2011

everyone is entitled to an opinion,

and if any fan said what he said about the heart of trek, I would say, “much respect to your opinion.” But from a former Court Justice, I can only say:

F#&! you, Berman.

50. boborci - February 10, 2011

and i love you

51. Harry Ballz - February 10, 2011

Wow, Bob! Your two posts add up to quite a “slap and tickle”!!

p.s. I’m sure you’re super busy and haven’t read it yet, but, did you get my script?

52. Rocket Scientist - February 11, 2011

The way I read the quote, this “heart” of Star Trek Mr. Berman refers to goes beyond the emotional dynamics of the character moments. It includes the philosophical underpinnings and the sense of wonder that form the basis of the greatest Treks.

And on that score, I must agree with him. Trek 09 accomplished much in its 2 hour run, but there is so much more to Star Trek. I hope they choose to explore more of it in subsequent movies.

53. Q-pid - February 11, 2011

#44. Thank you…and thank you!!! I don’t buy this budget excuse. I think we all remember Nick Meyer turned pennies into dollars with clever prop use and brilliant writing. (Heck, don”t good Trek films have a history of recycling props and sets?) It was either a piss poor plot or director that ruined 3 TNG movies.

54. MJ - February 11, 2011

Wa Wa Wa Wa Wa Wa….crybaby Berman takes his potshots now in the bad tradition of mean spirited Harve Bennett.

You gotta admire the gull of this guy — this man who gave us the lame series Voyager and Enterprise and almost buried the franchise — to whine about everything like this.

55. boborci - February 11, 2011

52.

much respect for your opinion.

56. boborci - February 11, 2011

56. and i admit that sometimes my passions get the better of me. What I should have said:

You are relieved of your command. Thank you for your service.

57. Harry Ballz - February 11, 2011

55. boborci “much respect for your opinion”

Ah, I notice you didn’t write, “much respect TO your opinion”, like you posted at #49.

“A single word betrays a great design”

58. Harry Ballz - February 11, 2011

56.

Or maybe, “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out!” :>)

59. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

49

That is a bit harsh on Berman,.

He made a few mistakes but still did great Star Trek.

You wrote a good movie but I guess you had to sacrifice a few things for the mainstream audience.

I guess in regards to the characters and fun the movie capture the spirit of TOS but the heart of the fact that we are better people in the future and that we have ended War and embrace differences, that intolerance is a thing of the past.

These ideals along with great characters and great stories is what Star Trek is all about. The hope for the future is another part that makes Star Trek work.

I love loads of action in Star Trek, but Star Trek was always something more than the other sci fi shows. That is why it has lasted.

I just hate it to lose this magic just so that more mainstream audiences can embrace it.

60. SChaos1701 - February 11, 2011

I’ll say this. Berman can talk when he makes a Trek movie that was successful as ST09.

61. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

For God Sakes people Berman said he thought the new movie was “wonderful”.

And yet more bashing, even from one of the writers of the new movie. Which is even more insulting.

What kind of world is it when Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is number 15 in the highest grossing films. That film was crap and the script was a mess.

Sorry for bringing it up.

People say Generations was a mess of a story, it had a servicable plot which had to have contrivances to get Kirk and Picard together. The reason Kirk was there was Berman wanted to pass the torch from TOS to TNG into the movies and its like McCoy appearing in Encounter at Farpoint, Picard in Emissary and so on.

Now Star Trek XI is a good movie but the script is a mess of a plot, its the character moments that make it work.

62. MJ - February 11, 2011

@59. Great speech, but Voyager and Enterprise still sucked.

63. MJ - February 11, 2011

@61 “Sorry for bringing it up.”

You obviously are not one bit sorry you brought it up. LOL

“People say Generations was a mess of a story,”

And people are correct!

64. OtterVomit - February 11, 2011

I have not seen a movie I would describe as having “the heart of Star Trek” since The Undiscovered Country.

65. MJ - February 11, 2011

@64. And you are the first otter vomit I have known since my old otter Fred barfed up some fir balls back in 1997.

66. OtterVomit - February 11, 2011

@65 Nice to know you! <3

67. MJ - February 11, 2011

@66 :-)

68. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

63
I agree that there are problems with Generations and it is low down in my fav Trek movies.

I would place the new movie higher than Generations cause it was a well made film. But I put a lot of great Trek movies above the new one. Doesn’t mean I hate it, just dont think it as the best ever.

But pointing out that although I loved the film I do thinks the film’s problems where in the script.

But still liked the film. Thin plots and a visual experience is more common in mainstream cinema and in these days mainstream is more dumbed down.

69. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 11, 2011

I detested Generations the first time, in the theaters — though, perhaps surprisingly, I wasn’t so distraught by the death of Kirk so much as I just found it unnecessary and anti-climatic for a hero of that stature — however, over the years, I have come to find the value in it. It is definitely not the best film, but it is not the worst (*cough The Final *cough Frontier *cough* Nemesis *clears throat*). What I consider to be the worst aspects are the inane plot device of the Nexus, and the utterly deplorable squandering of Malcolm McDowell’s prodigious acting talent on the totally forgettable, cardboard villain we meet in Soran.

On the other hand, if you look at Generations as simply a high-budget TNG episode, it manages to handle a number of points reasonably well: the opening of the movie, with the christening of the Enterprise-B and the subsequent disaster, the story of Data’s emotion chip, and the destruction of the Enterprise-D. Stewart’s Picard is a good as ever, and Spiner’s Data is at a high point dramatically as well. I’m sure there are plenty of fans who disagree with me about these points, but I nevertheless contend that if Generations had just been a two-part episode of TNG (same budget, same cast) instead of a theatrical release, a lot of fans would consider it to be a strong entry in the TNG line.

70. Christopher_Roberts - February 11, 2011

Disappointed to discovered the bashing extends to a current custodian of the franchise.

What goes around, I guess…

71. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 11, 2011

As to the 2009 Star Trek movie, I don’t agree with Berman. I believe that JJ’s movie may lack a little of the *brains* of Star Trek, and I want to see a more conceptual angle in the next feature, the 2009 movie has *more* heart than most, if not all, of the Star Trek films.

—-

To the studio suits: Let this be the lesson you take home — NEVER AGAIN try to do Star Trek on the cheap!

72. Christopher_Roberts - February 11, 2011

I look at the Star Trek movies and don’t consider any of them to look cheap. Well, okay maybe the FX from The Final Frontier… but that was down to either William Shatner’s Directorial inexperience and not taking the advice I’m sure somebody must have offered.

There’s something to be said for being creative with limited money and guys/girls who work at providing miracles, putting that extra effort in to make it look better, because there’s nothing else they would rather be doing.

Star Trek built a reputation for inventiveness and having to make do. I’d rather have seen three well-told outings that took modest box-office, than a gargantuan spectacle that rushed it.

73. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 11, 2011

Okay, granted, so many factors go into making a great movie, from the script (arguably the most important, and one of the least expensive), to the acting, directing, lighting, editing, post-productions, and so on, but ultimately, if every single Star Trek property from now on gets all that and the kind of budget commitment the studio allotted Star Trek 2009, I don’t think Star Trek, as a franchise, has got it made.

74. 4 8 15 16 23 42 - February 11, 2011

[edit]^ I *do* think Star Trek, as a franchise, has it made.

75. Victor Hugo - February 11, 2011

Hmm? Have you guys watched “Generations” on a decent teather?
The stellar cartography room was amazing, and so was the crash of the Enterprise D. For me the sound effects were the most spectacular since Jurassic Park. I just loved the soundtrack by Dennis McCarthy, which i´ve heard a thousand CDs on CD.

Surely, the VHS doesn´t compare of course.

76. Victor Hugo - February 11, 2011

8. “Are you kidding me? Spock’s inner struggle…losing his mother…his WORLD? There was more real heart and emotion in Kirk’s dad’s sacrifice for his wife and new…”

I love the new movie too, but killing off parents, Disney style, can´t be done all the time. Besides, it´s a dirty trick (i mean, a dirty trope).

Glad we didn´t had 700 episodes with parents getting killed, it would be a slaughter.(like Lost)

77. Chris Pike - February 11, 2011

No question..sometimes Berman just doesn’t get it, sometimes he does. That’s the problem.

78. Star trackie - February 11, 2011

#77 “I love the new movie too, but killing off parents, Disney style, can´t be done all the time. Besides, it´s a dirty trick (i mean, a dirty trope).”

Not all the time, but you can every 2 or 3 years! Although Im sure the writers have enough skills up their collective sleeves to create just as much emotion using other situations. No worries.

79. Christopher_Roberts - February 11, 2011

Yes, but Star Trek is still basically as dead as a door-nail. That’s due to studio indifference, either at CBS or Paramount. Interest tailed off after the film hit home video. Toys didn’t sell particularly well. Books, magazines, comics are a niché market, more so than at any time in the franchise’s history.

Something on TV is needed. They could get writers tomorrow and launch a mini-series set immediately post ENT*, new and interesting for Blu-ray and DVD, liasing with the “Supreme Court” so whatever the story is – it’s tied-into the same direction and acts as a prelude to the new film.

* Heck, if your Star Trek 2012 protagonists are the Romulans again (only proper military types this time) – not being able to show what their beef is with the Federation in 2 hours, opens up the perfect excuse to resurrect ENT in some way for a proper ending – rewriting some of the stuff we didn’t like, keeping what we did and showing what we expected to happen.

80. Pinsent - February 11, 2011

Berman didn’t say it lacked heart – he said it lacked the heart of Star Trek. So all the Spock stuff, Vulcan destroyed, Kirk’s dad dying, saving his wife and child all had heart, but it was some other franchises heart.

81. Norman Bates - February 11, 2011

Star Trek XI had the heart of Star Trek, that’s why it was a HIT !!!

This man is a real sucker! Any one fancy a nice glass of pressed sour grapes?

82. Jonboc - February 11, 2011

You just keep on keepin’ on Bob, if you followed Rick Berman’s advice, your only reward would be a handful of fans who don’t really get TOS, and $40 million at the box office.

..and remember…since you are writing as we speak…Spock needs a viewer on the bridge, splashing blue light all over them pointed ears….just sayin’.

83. KingDaniel - February 11, 2011

Many thanks to Rick Berman for the years and years of Trek that I’ve enjoyed under his watch.

IMO, however, STXI very much carried the heart of Star Trek. Just look at the colourful array of humans in the background (and, obviously, foreground) – that’s the Star Trek message, one of a united, equal Earth being beamed at people subliminally for two hours.

84. Daoud - February 11, 2011

“LOVE THAT BOB!”

:)

I guess we have to refer to the former producer as “Bonnie Prince Rick, the Jacobite False Pretender” now!

And to the other Bob, Mr. Tompkins @31, who nailed what was wrong with Nemesis via script, direction & why Data’s “goodbye” sequence was strange, I can shorten even better: “They Left The Best Ending Scenes On The Cutting Room Floor”:

Data’s memories and programming taking over B4 with the whistling of Blue Skies being the indication he was “back”, the introduction of the new First Officer, Madden (at least the great actor got to be the MACO major on ENT later), and the whole part with Riker and Troi flying off on the USS Titan (okay, that wasn’t filmed, but was in the original ending). Heck, if he’d bothered to have done that, the TNG crew *had* the opportunity to have a great sendoff right there. Should have cut the whole boon-duggy sequence and just found Lore floating in the Romulan Neutral Zone.

Furthermore, had he done it that way, then he could have had the ENT “Valentine to the Fans to Kiss His @ss” been a tad improved, by Riker and Troi being on board the U.S.S. Titan after hours… with Riker instead reviewing Archer because he wanted insight in to taking command later in one’s career. And it could have started with Riker on a beach, watching a holographic boy Archer flying an Enterprise-looking ship on the beach with his father. Did Rick forget that Riker had daddy issues?

Also, if Rick had really understood thing 1 about Star Trek, he’d have been bothered to have learned TOS, ate, slept & breathed TOS somewhere along the way. Because he came to Trek with no real knowledge of Trek, his opinions of Trek have ALWAYS been stuck in the second misfire-y season of TNG — which stunk overall to high heaven. I always said “If Rick Berman had been a Star Trek character, he’d have been the male equivalent of Dr. Pulaski.” He never knew what the heart of Trek is, because to him it was TNG season 2. To “us” fen, it’s TOS, period.

On this, the “Court” being the collective wisdom of writers and producers in their 30’s and 40’s who grew up with Star Trek, and were “all in” whether they were a big fan already like Bob, or grew to become one like JJ…. I’ll take their first and only effort to date, as a major success, which has set the stage for another great movie. Bob, keep up the superb work. I know *you* represent the heart of Star Trek, very very well.

I am pleased.

85. Star trackie - February 11, 2011

…maybe, when Rick Berman is speaking of heart, he isn’t really talking about love, or emotion but, rather, the love of technobabble…because, granted there wasn’t very much about tachyon pulses and delta wave immersion proton bufferwuffers eating up precious dialog in JJ’s Trek. So in that regard, yeah, I’d agree with ya Rick…it was severely lacking.

…thank God.

86. Damian - February 11, 2011

70–Have to agree. Generally Bob Orci and the rest have usually stayed away from criticizing prior regimes. I remember when the new team took over Berman said his involvement was over and Star Trek more or less needed new blood. I mean, guys, the man said he thought it was a “wonderful” movie. This is hardly a Harve Bennett critique of the movie. I certainly do not get any sense that he is sore a new team took over. If anything, he sounded to me like someone who is glad Star Trek has found renewed life. After all, Star Trek was his baby for number of years, he has to be happy that it has lived on.

It’s ironic, back in the 90’s many in Trekdom were singing Berman’s praises. If I were the new regime I’d be a little careful. One mistake and these same fans singing your praises will be crying how you ruined Star Trek. If anything this thread has proved to me is that any perceived slight on Star Trek will earn you years in an agonizer booth.

87. Daoud - February 11, 2011

Yeah, if Berman had done Star Trek 2009, he’d have had acres of script thick with technobabble in place of red matter.

It would have been R.E.D. matter, no, it would have been “relativisitic entropic dark matter”. Okay, well, it could be relativisitc entropic dark matter, but it emits a red/infrared light, so… red matter it is…

I loathe to think how technobabbly it would have been in the Sulu oops sequence. “Parking brake” was a BEAUT! With Berman, we’d have gotten “subspace phasic anisotrpic inertial dampening field reversals”.

Hey, cute concept for future years… “to bermanize (or bragatize)” things K/O and the gang write. It could be like the old TNG drinking game!

88. Damian - February 11, 2011

People are bashing Berman because he did not know the original series before signing on. Do you people not remember, that is the precise REASON Roddenberry wanted him in the first place. Roddenberry did not want a retread of the original series. People in the late 80’s and 90’s were not interested in seeing a redo of a 60’s show. Roddenberry recognized the Next Generation needed to be relevant to to generation (pardon the pun) it was trying to pull in. Berman was chosen specifically for his lack of knowledge of what came before. And generally people consider the Berman led years of TNG (3rd season on) to be it’s best.

In any event, there are a lot of Berman haters. I don’t think our discussion of homosexuality or religion engendered more passion. For me, I thouroughly enjoyed the new movie. And curse me if you want to, I thouroughly enjoyed Nemesis and all that came before. I have no beef with Berman. I enjoyed the shows and movies he was involved with. And I liked what came before and after him.

Re: technobabble, I agree, for movies, it should be toned down a bit. I’m fine with it for TV because you have week in and week out to explore those issues and many others. But a 2 hour movie should not be dominated by it.

89. trekprincess - February 11, 2011

Have you got a problem with other people’s opinions Captain Neill

90. Captain Rickover - February 11, 2011

# 49, 56 boborci

I have to say, I think your comments against poor old Berman are a as rude as they are unfair – not worthy of a man in your position and all the luck you have to be one of the producers of future Star Trek movies!

91. trekprincess - February 11, 2011

I think Boborci is entitled to his opinion just like everyone else on Star Trek

92. Captain Rickover - February 11, 2011

@ trekprincess

Have you?

93. Chain of Command - February 11, 2011

Star Trek 2009 was a fun film

But,

I am forced to agree with what some of the previous people associated with Star Trek have said (Harve Bennett, Rick Berman etc.)

It was super fun, face paced, energetic.

But,

What was it about?

94. trekprincess - February 11, 2011

What do you mean:/

95. trekprincess - February 11, 2011

How this young crew got together to form the famous crew the alternate versions :) I’m sure the guys who worked on the Star Trek 09 film know what they are doing I hate long term fans bashing bob orci and the rest of the supreme court why can’t fans tolerate a young fresh vision and a new formula :/

96. Captain Rickover - February 11, 2011

@ trekprincess

Nothing personel and nothing important. I was just thinking you might bite captain_neill’s leg because he doesn’t agree with all the Berman-haters on this board. Sometimes I type faster than my thoughts. Just forget it.

97. Damian - February 11, 2011

95–

For myself, I have no problems with the new regime and enjoyed Star Trek (2009). Is it perfect, no, but few things in life are.

My issue, personally, is the reverse, the bashing of prior regimes, including Berman’s. My main point was that there was a time when Berman was sitting in Bob Orci’s shoes. After First Contact, Star Trek was riding a high. Generally, I just feel it’s probably not a good idea to get caught up in bashing any Star Trek regime if you part of it.

Now I think Bob Orci is a good guy. I don’t believe he was trying to say all Berman Star Trek sucked. After all, he has said he is an all around Trekkie. It’s just the new regime has tried to bring in new Trek fans while at the same time retaining those who have followed Star Trek through Enterprise and Nemesis. They have done a good job of that thus far and I’d hate to see them risk alienating a group of fans in a moment of being upset.

And again, I feel the need to repeat, Berman’s what I would call slight was hardly the rant of Harve Bennett’s a few months ago. He said it was a “wonderful movie.” Let’s also remember after Harve Bennett’s rant, many of the fans pounced on him too. All of a sudden, Star Trek II: TWOK was suddenly not such a great movie or he had nothing to do with TWOK.

98. Damian - February 11, 2011

Also, I have no beef with people who did not like Berman produced Star Trek. There has been some intelligent debate about set design, music, writing, special effects from the Berman era vs today. That’s fine. It’s the vitriol that comes out. The, I hate Berman, Berman ruined Star Trek, Berman is the anti-Star Trek that comes out that bothers me. As someone who liked all the Star Trek since “The Cage”, it starts to get offensive in the sense that if I liked Star Trek: Voyager, or I liked Insurrection, I must be some kind of idiot. That’s what gets me in the claw, and I think that is what Captain Neill refers to in many of his posts.

99. Tony Todd's Tears - February 11, 2011

What Berman said makes me sad. Snif Snif.

My dishonor as a Klingon is complete.

100. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

I get TOS and just because I also like the spin offs does not mean I don’t get TOS.

It’s a pretty silly notion to suggest that the fans of the spin off shows don’t get what Star Trek is. As silly as saying that only the TNG fans hate the new movie as I have met TOS fans who hated the new movie because they didn’t recognise their characters in the movie.

89

Will you relax, you seem to think everything I say is suggesting I have a problem with an opinion.

I have no problems with other peoples opinion. People are entitled to not like a guy. I just think some comments made against Rick Berman are too cruel and especially when the writer of the new movie is now being rude about Mr Berman then I think that is a bit unprofessional.

Abrams’ Star Trek movie might not be my favourite but I have tried to be civil about my gripes and dislikes about the movie.

96

I do think Berman gets some bad press but I do admit he made a few mistakes. Like I didn’t agree with his sacking of Ron Jones.

Folks Rick Berman said he liked the film.

Geez this site at times confirms that some Star Trek fans don’t embrace the ideals of what Star Trek is about and to me seems byist, Its aok to allow past Treks to get insulted but any negative press towards Orci or Abrams and the cry foul. What about the fans who like the Treks that get bitched about here? Are we not allowed to defend them like the fans of the new movie defend that movie.

Double standards?

101. James T. West (no comma) - February 11, 2011

I’ve said it before, Insurrection’s greatest fault, is that it was released AFTER First Contact. I loved the movie, not as much as the first two, but I think it still holds up well. Goldsmith score…people…
As far as Trek V:The Final Frontier bashing? Look, it has our TOS crew, A Goldsmith score, Kirk-Fu at its finest, and I feel some great character moments! I look fondly on this one!! I love Kirk’s reaction to Bob (“I need Jim Kirk”, “Oh, please…”), “I’ve always known I’ll die alone”, the “Where No Man Has Gone Before” inscription, the Assault phaser, the campfire scenes…BUT I will concede that the SPFX sucked, and the ending was anticlimactic, however, overall, this is still a fun movie to watch.
Nemesis…looked great on paper…
I saw it in the theater, and couldn’t wait for it to end…just awful, and to me, the WORST of all 10 films.

102. Trekprincess - February 11, 2011

How is that being unprofessional as a Star Trek fan boborci is entitled to his opinion :/ anyway Captain Neill no I won’t relax if all people here just bash and bash the new movie countless times over and over again:/

103. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

98
Exactly, some posts seem to imply that if you like the spin offs then you don’t get Star Trek, and if you are criticising that the new movie does not have the hear of what is Star Trek then you are missing the point of Star Trek.

That is what gets to me exactly. Star Trek: Voyager is my least favourite show but I still think there were a lot of good episodes in Voyager, real good Star Trek stories.

104. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

101

Fair enough. I am not a hater of the new movie.

Now turn that understanding around to people who like the Star Trek that is criticised on this site and you might have a better understanding of where I am coming from.

It’s not that people hate the new movie, they don’t like past Star Trek being bashed.

I love all 5 shows.

Now if you were a huge TNG fan, would you like it being criticised? When TNG is criticised I get like you when someone bashes the new movie. Am I suppose to be happy when someone bitches about TNG, a show I love?

I am proud to say I love TNG, I love all of Star Trek.

105. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

101

Am I suppose to be perfectly happy that the Star Trek I grew up loving is also being bashed?

That argument can go both ways.

Now I don’t hate the movie but it’s not perfect to me. Whenever I watch the movie it is good fun. A great blu ray package.

106. Pierss - February 11, 2011

@ 99. captain_neill

“Geez this site at times confirms that some Star Trek fans don’t embrace the ideals of what Star Trek is about and to me seems byist, Its aok to allow past Treks to get insulted but any negative press towards Orci or Abrams and the cry foul. What about the fans who like the Treks that get bitched about here? Are we not allowed to defend them like the fans of the new movie defend that movie.

Double standards?”

when i read comments like that regarding works of fiction, I can see how religious division works.
You previously told another member to “Relax” and then you whine about double standards, and how you favorite fairy tale is persecuted while the latest version is not, my hat is off to you sir, You are a master Troll

107. Libertarian - February 11, 2011

No technobable, great interaction between characters who are like a family, and action.

That’s the definition of TOS and that’s why Berman doesn’t see the new movie as being “Star Trek”.

I’m in my 20’s and grew up watching TNG but reruns of TOS were and always have been my favorite.

Keep up the great work Orci & Co. Don’t give in to the technobabble. Just tell damn good stories about what it is to be human. Star Trek is a story about a family discovering what it is to be human.

108. Damian - February 11, 2011

101–The “unprofessional” people may refer to is when he told Berman what he could go do to himself. I think his revised comment in 56 was much more in line with what I have come to expect from Bob Orci’s posts. Simple, to the point and respectful. “You must learn to govern your passions” ;)

103–I reach brother:) There’s nothing wrong with debate. It just drives me nuts when that debate turns an ugly corner.

109. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

105

I am not a troll.

I was not whining I was just making a comment about the way some opinions seem to be. I was just commenting on what I have observed. It’s like when the fans ganged up on Harve Bennett for saying he did not like the new movie, that’s his opinion. Rick Berman said he thought the new movie was wonderful and still gets bitched about because his comment said it did not have the heart of Star Trek.

Yet if I made a comment defending First Contact then it’s a different kettle of fish.
I was just making a point.

I have no problem with people not liking the spin offs. I just find comments saying that Rick Berman’s memoirs could be used as toilet paper a bit too unkind.

110. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

106

I thought that there was a family feel between the characters in TNG. That was what made TNG work.

IF you actually watch TNG it was not all about the technobabble, we actually had some good stories in there, that are up there with the classics of TOS.

“Yesterday’s Enterprise” “The Best of Both Worlds” “The Inner Light” these are great episodes with great character stuff.

Some claim TNG to be souless but check out these episodes and you will find that TNG had great stuff in it.

111. Damian - February 11, 2011

Star Trek under Berman was at it’s best when they had different writers. There was an underlying canon they had to follow, but otherwise the stories varied from episode to episode. By the time Enterprise came around it was down to mainly Berman and Braga for writing. It was a shame that they did not keep the same formula in effect for Enterprise. As much as I enjoyed Enterprise, there was a lot of potential that was not realized until Manny Coto was brought on board. While TNG, DS9 and Voyager branching in new directions worked for those series, Enterprise needed to bring everything back to the basics. Manny Coto had a great understanding of the original series and his guidance early on would have helped a great deal. What Berman should have done here is take a more background role on Enterprise and let someone like Manny Coto take the reins from the get go. What happened to Berman toward the end is what would happen to anyone. After so many years working on one thing you start to go stale. It was not so much franchise fatigue, but Berman fatigue in the sense that he started burning out. I believe he recognized that after the 2nd season of Enterprise, but by then it was already too late.

112. Star trackie - February 11, 2011

# 99 “Folks Rick Berman said he liked the film. ”

..are you familiar with the term, “backhanded compliment”? Thats what it was, and not a very subtle one at that. Like someone else said…sour grapes.

Also, in risking alienating the followers of modern Trek by returning to the forumla of TOS… yes folks, they are DRASTICALLY different… JJ’s Trek brought in followers of TOS that had long since abandoned the good ship Enterprise as well as mainstream audiences to the tune of over $300 million dollars. Mission accomplished.

I really don’t think Paramount was too concerned about losing the, then-current , modern Trek fanbase, a fanbase that wasn’t supporting modern Trek at the movies or on TV anyway.

113. Damian - February 11, 2011

111–I disagree. I think Paramount, and especially the writers, worked hard to expand the fanbase of Star Trek, not alienate the existing fans. Otherwise they would have done a straight reboot and ignore everything prior. They did not do that. The story proceeds from established Trek. Paramount knows Star Trek is a lucrative franchise in all it’s forms. They are not about the say “screw you” to established fans.

Also, Berman said he thought it was a “wonderful film.” Kind of odd for someone making a backhanded compliment.

Specifically he said–” it was a very, very exciting movie. In terms of it having the heart of Star Trek, I think it could have perhaps had a little bit more of that. But I liked it very much.” –I read that as being more or less an endorsement of the new team. Perhaps at most a minor complaint that can be easily adjusted in the next film.

114. ML31 - February 11, 2011

My take… Generations came out WAY too fast. They ended production on TNG and went straight into ST:G. I think there needed to be a gap. Next, the idea of putting Kirk and Picard together only works if you have them together for much of the movie! Not just a small sequence at the end. Generations failed on many levels. Not the least of which was the Nexus was a VERY lame concept to begin with. They needed to come up with a better way to bring the two together.

ST:FC: He was right. The best of the TNG movies.

ST:I: Perhaps he was right. It was a lame movie possibly because of all the people who had input like he said.

ST:N: This one gets a bad rap from many fans. I agree with him in that I have no idea why it did so lousy. It may have been Trek overload. And contrary to many fans take, it was a decent send off for the TNG crew. Not as good as TUD, but then, TNG wasn’t as good as TOS to begin with.

Also have to disagree with ST:09. I felt it DID have the Trek heart. Yes it was big. Yes it was effects driven. But most sci-fi movies are. This one had it’s genuine moments. Perfect? Not at all. But a good flick in the spirit of TOS.

115. Damian - February 11, 2011

113–Agree about Generations. It did come out too fast. It was much like a souped up episode of the series. Now as a fan of the series that did not bother me so much, but I can understand how the mainstream may have been turned off. Some more time between the end of TNG and Generations could have done a world of good.

116. Star trackie - February 11, 2011

#112 “–I disagree. I think Paramount, and especially the writers, worked hard to expand the fanbase of Star Trek, not alienate the existing fans.”

What I said was, they didn’t mind risking alienating the current fanbase…the fanbase that wasn’t supporting modern Trek anyway. So, they dared to make a movie that was more in line with TOS and was furthest you could get from the Berman era…and in consequence, there are legions of TNG era fans that didn’t like the movie…and that is understandable it is a completely different animal. But studio’s direction did alienate many who wanted more of the same but the consequences were minimal…like I said, they weren’t exaclty burning up ticket sales or bringing up ratings on television either.

“Also, Berman said he thought it was a “wonderful film.” Kind of odd for someone making a backhanded compliment. ”

What he said was:

“…it was a wonderful film!! But…I’ve just gotten to a point where these big action films filled with computer-generated stuff from beginning to end are starting to wear on me a little bit…… it was a very, very exciting movie. In terms of it having the heart of Star Trek, I think it could have perhaps had a little bit more of that. But I liked it very much. ”

Sorry, If that isn’t a classic example of a backhanded compliment, I don’t know what is.

117. Damian - February 11, 2011

115–That is more of a complaint about movie making today, not specifically directed at Star Trek. It’s actually a sentiment I share. I liked the new film for it’s story and it’s acting. But I am not into seizure like camera work or high intensity lens flares. That’s not just Abrams, but many moviemakers today.

I am a huge Hitchcock movie fan. I also liked the Paul Thomas Anderson films (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) and Stanley Kubrick films. These aren’t your run of the mill, “roll em” directors, but directors who were every bit of a part of the movie as the actors and writers. I felt for a number of years that movies today are more boom and bang and less substance.

As much as I liked Star Trek (2009) Abrams is no Hitchcock (he’d probably be the first to admit it). But the same goes for most of the other directors, except for maybe Robert Wise from the Motion Picture.

It is possible to make a great film without all the bang and pomp. Just look at what Casino Royale did for James Bond.

118. Mh - February 11, 2011

Uh…I’m sorry Mr. Berman, but the opening sequence of STAR TREK (2009) had more “heart” than all of the Next Generations films combined.

…Jealously is a terrible thing, just because your Trek prequel movie was ditched by Paramount…

119. 1701A2E - February 11, 2011

I understand the “heart of Star Trek” statement, being a fan of all series and movies. But that “heart” has different meaning for 10% of hard core Trek fans versus the 90% casual. However I think Star Trek XI (or 2009) is spot on with its intended focus to introduce the beloved characters. You can’t just expect them to be as mature since the focus is when they are young and naive. I would question if the story gets too deep with them so young. But each of the next sequence of films can progressively get there.

However, I applaud ST09 writers/producer/director for bring the film to main stream (heart warming, less geekish, and more Star War’ish). I for once like to see Sci-Fi films (Star Trek, Firefly type) gain fan and support through prime time, instead of via late night / off channel showings.

120. Andrews - February 11, 2011

lol, because he knows what that heart ~really~ is, right? Dull stupidity involving phaser rifles and catsuits?

Go back to bed, Rick, we’re done with your nonsense.

121. Damian - February 11, 2011

Wow. Now he is jealous because the prequel idea was ditched. Eric Jendersen has already said that Berman had 0, natta, zilch involvement with the prequel movie concept. Jendersen went on to say Berman was attached in name only.

Sorry guys, I’m just not reading the subliminal Rick Berman really hated Star Trek (2009) and hopes it dies a thousand deaths that you guys are.

Anyway, I’m going to go ahead and continue enjoying Star Trek in all it’s incarnations from 1964 to the present. You wanna crap all over the Rick Berman years, be my guest. It’s really no skin off my nose at the end of the day:]

122. trekprincess - February 11, 2011

In my honest honest opinion it did have heart the new Star Trek film you may argue that :)

123. Vultan - February 11, 2011

#49 Bob Orci

School must be out in Hollywood.
No class.

124. matthias from germany - February 11, 2011

I loved and still love NEMESIS. I know it could have been even better with all the deleted scenes or some scenes from the script that were never filmed. but it is a very good movie that shows how the next gen is changing. i also do not know at all why all the nitpickers decided to enumerate especially this one.

125. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2011

115

…”and in consequence, there are legions of TNG era fans that didn’t like the movie…”

How did you come to that conclusion? I happen to enjoy the vast majority of Trek. TOS, Berman era Trek and the J.J Abrams movie. And as much as I enjoyed most of the modern era Treks, I absolutely agreed with the need to go back to the beginning with the TOS characters. J.J Abrams put out a movie that was quite different from the previous incarnations and that was a good thing.

I’m pretty sure there are many other fans just like me who feel the same way. And there are many TOS-only fans who didn’t care for the new movie.

Being thrirty years old, this new movie gave me the chance to see the TOS characters in their prime in its first run. I didn’t grow up with the TOS characters like many others did. The characters in the first six movies were older and in some ways different from the TOS series.

126. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2011

As for Bob Orci’s comments about Rick Berman, I’m going to assume that he feels that the former executive producer did some good things, especially with TNG and FC, but stayed on way too long and should have handed the reigns to someone else.

And I’m sure that Bob considers the death of Kirk to be the never ending pain that overshadows the good work done during those years.

127. Kev -1 - February 11, 2011

Agree with Mr. Berman on “heart” in Trek 2009, maybe they’ll fix that for the next one. But “Star Trek: the beginning” also sounded as if liberties were taken with “Trek” — I think Trekweb reported the Kirk family ( pre-TOS) were some kind of survivalists — been a long time since I read the Trekweb article. He’s right about the budgets; Paramount took a charge against earnings to pay for promoting Transformers and Star Trek 2009 (reported in the NYT). Nemesis didn’t look very lavish; particularly the ship seemed very underpopulated and unfinished. In hindsight, I give Rick Berman credit for creating more Trek than anybody else. Now, as to “Enterprise” and its time-traveling space Nazis, and Kirk’s death; not gonna go there.

128. jonboc - February 11, 2011

#116 “It is possible to make a great film without all the bang and pomp. Just look at what Casino Royale did for James Bond.”

Agreed…while I rather enjoy the action in movies, as well as my Trek, be it just a dab in the right place or full balls-to-the-wall tetosterone, it isn’t a requirement to make a good film. Just look at True Grit…that’s about as old school filmaking as it gets…steady cameras, linear story…nothing fancy, just good solid acting and interesting character moments…something the Coen brothers are masters at…and it was a huge hit.
But, by and large, my favorite TOS episodes are those that walk the fine line of drama laced with imaginative action adventure and good character moments…add to that some good character/situational humor (not jokes) and you have, for me, the perfect recipe. JJ delivered on all counts what I felt Berman left out. (95% of the time that is..there were shining moments like Yesterday’s Enterprise that worked brilliantly..but sadly they were the exception rather than the rule)

129. rocketscientist - February 11, 2011

Y’know, I find it interesting that Mr. Berman says of ST XI, “In terms of it having the heart of Star Trek, I think it could have perhaps had a little bit more of that.” It had Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and the Enterprise. That IS the heart of “Star Trek.” Mr. Berman just doesn’t realize that because he never ever understood or appreciated “Star Trek” (the original series). To this day, I don’t think he’s even see all the original episodes. His treatment of Kirk in GEN is a perfect example of how he views the original “Star Trek.” Contrast that with the excellent use of Spock in Abrams’ “Star Trek film.”

What Mr. Berman really meant was ST XI could have used a bit more of the heart of TNG, not “Star Trek.” They’re two different shows. I don’t know whether he’s aware of that distinction or thinks that TNG supersedes “Star Trek” because it was later and more in keeping with GR’s “improved” vision or whatever.

BTW, Mr. Orci, I thought your film was wonderful. I’m looking foward to the next one!

130. Libertarian - February 11, 2011

109

You’re correct and I do agree about your comments regarding TNG. I just preferred TOS first with TNG second because of the technobabble. TNG does capture the Star Trek feel. I tried to watch DS9 and Voyager but never enjoyed it. They felt like separate shows placed in the Star Trek universe. And that’s where the technobabble and how things work left me wanting more story and less explanation for every detail.

I never gave Enterprise a chance since the other two offshoots weren’t entertaining. That’s unfortunate because I recently started to watch Enterprise and I think it is my third favorite. Clearly there is a lot wrong with it that has been gone into ad nausea by us fans but it was the closest to getting back to the adventure that TOS always brought. Bakula did one heck of a job as Archer from what I’ve been watching so far. I appreciate the pre-Kirk “Kirk” that he was going for.

131. Will_H - February 11, 2011

These were a good set of interviews from Berman. I agree with him on Star Trek XI, it was a good, action packed, well written, etc. movie but never fully felt like a Star Trek movie, at least for every scene that didn’t involve Mr. Nimoy. Its a hard balance, though. Something that is made with the heart of Star Trek in mind just isn’t going to get the kinds of numbers that XI did. Still, I don’t think it would hurt to maybe bring in a Trek veteran or two to advise on the next film. I vote Ron Moore or Jonathan Frakes.

132. Buzz Cagney - February 11, 2011

I wouldn’t, Will. I want as few people as possible who were previously associated with Trek to have a hand in its future .
The new Trek team know their stuff. Lets let them show us what they’ve got. ;-)

Oh, and I thought Trek ’09 had loads of heart. I’m really not sure why Rick missed that.

133. PaulB. - February 11, 2011

Boborci,

On this “heart of Trek” stuff, I kinda want to side with Berman, but…I can’t. I’ve enjoyed the new Star Trek immensely every time I’ve seen it, and far more than any of the Berman-era Trek shows or films.

My personal favorite film–the most “Trek” of the films, IMHO–is The Motion Picture. (TWOK is tops, of course, but TMP was more “Trek” to me.) TMP was boring, slow, and bland in so many ways, and it was accused of missing “the heart of Trek.” Instead, I think TMP was about one half of what made Star Trek great: insatiable curiosity, as Spock saw in Vejur.

In your first Trek film, the other half of Trek’s heart is alive and well–the unconquerable desire to exist, the will to continue, the urge to mean something.

Many of us would love to see more exploration, more curiosity, in the next Trek film, but at this point I trust your team to find the right Trek story for these characters. For all the naysayers and nitpickers out there, please know that at least one old Trek fan is sitting back and eagerly awaiting whatever you and your cohorts have in store for us.

Thanks,
Paul

134. VZX - February 11, 2011

To Bob Orci: Awesome. I was thinking the same thing. F- you, Berman!

Folks: Yes, Bermen should be complimented on all the amazing Trek we had in the 90s. But that is because he hired great people, not that he was great himself. We were living the dream back then. But, really, Bermen IS dillusional. He is not a good writer and completely misses the point on several key issues surrounding Trek.

First: His complaint about producing movies on “small” budgets. WTF? What about The Wrath of Khan? Cheapest Trek film made but is still considered the best of them all. What a real cry-baby.

Second: Nemesis was a BAD, BAD movie! That is why it failed at the boxoffice. Not because of competition, but beacuse it sucked! From the cheesey synthisizer music to the ridiculous dune-buggy scene to all the actors looking tired to the nosferatu-looking bad guys. Why would anyone beyond the most hard-core fans want to watch that crap?

Third: Trek 09 did have heart. It had more emotion than all the next-gen movies combined. Spock was the heart of the movie. From his inner-struggle between worlds to dealing with racism to losing his mother and entire freakin planet to coming to terms and pushing ahead to forming the beginnings of a friendship with Kirk to risking it all to do the right thing. I mean, what are you, blind? Or just an over-rated hack. I guess Berman was too busy bitching about the budget and action that he never could get in his movies to notice that Trek 09 was really based on Spock and the feeling of optimism not felt in Trek since the 1960s TV show.

Fourth: Berman repeatedly states in interviews how Trek is so iconic in pop-culture. Bullshit. I deal with students everyday, very few are aware of Star Trek (they age range from 16-25) . Also, none the people I know are familiar with it other than maybe the following: William Shatner is Kirk, Leonard Nimoy is “Dr.” Spock, “Beam me up Scotty,” and the Enterprise. That’s it. Berman thinks the general public knows a lot more about it. That’s why his movies never did better than they did. He assume too much.

The reason Trek 09 did so much better than the
TNG movies is not because of all the “CGI action” or whatever he was babbling about, it was because the film-makers did not assume anything! They treated the movie like it was made for people who knew nothing about Trek. And it worked! They also made it accessible for Trek-fans to enjoy with all the hidden nuances, etc.

Whatev. This is the longest post I ever did on this site. It’s just that that Berman d-bag is such a ….d-bag.

135. kmart - February 11, 2011

As much as I detest Berman and most all of ModernTrek outside of DS9, and as much as I think he had little idea at the time what the heart of trek might be, he’s right about in one way about the Abrams. It didn’t have TREK heart — or brains — and the only thing plussing it up from Lil Ent and VOYAGER is that stuff blew up regularly and PARTS of the score were okay.

And that’s not even getting into the visual illiteracy of the lens flares.

I can ALMOST understand the idea behind jerky overcutting, because you don’t really want to spend any time looking at the sets in that glare-y lighting, so better be on to the next.

Shows that throwing money at a TREK problem doesn’t solve it, just makes it easier to shove it down an undiscerning public’s throat.

136. CmdrR - February 11, 2011

Wow. Ya gotta be quick to have your say on a Berman thread.

I took my then young kids to see Nemesis. My daughter turned to me during one of Stuart Baird’s interminable fly-by sequences and said, “This is boring.” I told her she was right. I saw the second half of Nemesis the other night (turning it on after the dune buggy idiocy.) It’s still a dull movie. Ron Perlman in a rubber mask. Endless, repetitive tet-a-tets between Picard and Shinzon. Riker discovering that the Enterprise also has one of those shafts used to throw emperors down. And, for the love of God… B-4, but no mention of Lore. Berman knocks other films for resting on their cgi, but he loaded Nemesis with a plot that wholly turned on cgi-fueled plot points. The E ramming the Scimitar? What a f***ing stupid maneuver for an experienced starship captain to make! The fighter in the corridor sequence? The dune buggy into the shuttle? Which of those things encompasses the “heart” of Trek?

In fact, JJ’s Trek hit the heart parts extremely well. It was Trek’s brain that was on shore leave.

137. MJ - February 11, 2011

@133. VZX, wow, I was going to post again, but you said it all here perfectly. I could not agree more. Berman almost ruined the franchise — who in the hell is he to get off making very public comments like this given the abominations of Voyager and Enterprise, and the last two just awful NG movies?

I’ll say this for Harve Bennett, while I did not like his recent comments on Trek 09, I still respect what he did for Trek and grant him “the standing” to be able to make those comments. I do not grant Berman “the standing” to review Trek 09 at all — I really don’t think he has any business commenting on it.

138. MJ - February 11, 2011

@134 LOL

139. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2011

If CBS does another Trek show, the only people that should be brought back are Ron Moore and Manny Coto. Have them write episodes along with Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci and CBS will have a hit show on it’s hands.

And Rick Berman was wrong about “Star Trek” 09 not having any heart. It had plenty of heart. The Kelvin scene featuring George Kirk’s sacrifice and his son’s birth was pure heart.

I’m divided about this guy personally. On the one hand, he hired some excellent writers, like Ron D. Moore and Ira Steven Behr, but he wasn’t a particularly good writer himself. He came up with some good concepts, like putting a show on a space station, having a female command a starship and doing a prequel. The execution was a bit uneven at times.

Aside from “First Contact”, none of the films managed to break out of the box, in that they were more like extended episodes.

And I appreciate him doing interviews, but I’m perplexed by his explanations about Kirk’s death, “Nemesis” and the new movie having not enough heart.

At the end of the day, Rick Berman will be remembered as a guy who did some great things but also shot himself in the foot many times and should have stepped aside after “Voyager”. And perhaps not been in charge of the films. Unortunately, the fact that he wasn’t familiar with “The Original Series” overshadows a lot of good work that was done by writers like Ron Moore, Ira Steven Behr, Jeri Taylor and Michael Piller, people he hired.

140. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2011

138

That should read “unfortunately”

DAMN TYPOS!!!

141. Denny Brain - February 11, 2011

Bob Orci vs Rick Berman

whod win?

bob of course (Berman never having watched any of TOS so wouldnt know KirkFu)

142. keachick - February 11, 2011

#45 Yes. Kirk’s death was probably preventable. It was senseless. The reality is that a great many deaths today, and no doubt, in the future as well, are also very probably preventable and senseless. That is the poignancy of it. However, his death was not as senseless as many other human deaths appear to be. His efforts did manage to help prevent the destruction of an entire planet with 230million+ beings and that was CLEARLY reiterated in the film. Of course, a viewer needs to be paying attention…

I wish that somehow William Shatner’s story could have been used and Spock had been able resurrect him somehow, but that also feels like a big contrivance. One thing though – I don’t know why Picard left Kirk’s body there on the planet. That never made sense.

As for my “newness” to Star Trek – without giving away my age, I am one of the originals. I was a small girl who saw Star Trek when it first came to NZ screens on a b/w TV set on the only state-owned, taxpayer funded television channel available then, the NZBC, modelled on the BBC. Colour television technology did not come till 1974 to coincide with the 1974 Commonwealth Games held in Christchurch. The NZBC bought and screened all 79 episodes in b/w during the late 60s. I saw most of them. My mother still laughs as she remembers how I and my sister screamed and ran out of the room terrified when we first saw Spock and those EARS and BROWS. One of the first episodes I remember watching was City on the Edge of Forever – the photography was gorgeous and I think it was then that I “fell hopelessly in love” with that captain of the Enterprise. My father was his usual bitchy, critical self, in spite of the fact that he preferred Star Trek to a lot of other programmes on at the time. (Sometimes when I read all the bitchy nitpicking here, I feel like I’m being pulled back into my crappy childhood – sheesh).

It was not until the late 1970s/early 80s when they started to screen re-runs of TOS that I saw it in colour for the first time.

I saw all the first six movies at the cinemas. The one I like least is TUC – I hate all the silly bells and whistles, the “Hear Ye’s”, the militaristic uniforms and protocols, the mean cramped captain’s quarters…UGH! (that feels and looks less Star Trek than almost anything that has gone to screen before or since) but what really gets me is Spock’s character. What an arrogant dipshit – the way he had Kirk dragged into something that Kirk had no knowledge of, let alone given any permission, and continues again to speak for Kirk. Everyone knows that nobody speaks for Kirk – Kirk is his own man and is more than able to speak for himself. Such presumption on Spock’s part just threw me out of it. That is not to say that I did not enjoy many aspects of the film because I did. That’s the thing about Star Trek for me. Even when some episodes or films may not be the best, there is always something worthwhile and enjoyable to be had within the episode or movie.

Just never had access to all that merchandise, thank God, and to some of the trekkie fandom (until recently).

(A member of my family belongs to about 10-15% of any population who suffers from chronic (severe) pain syndrome which is debilitating and prevents the person from holding down a regular job. I think there is a more modern medical term for it now, however nobody knows why it happens to some people and how to cure it. Medical scientists think that they have identified the faulty gene responsible for this, but what to do? I think I know all about senseless pain and suffering.)

Sorry for the long post. Oh well…

143. star trackie - February 11, 2011

#130 said, “Something that is made with the heart of Star Trek in mind just isn’t going to get the kinds of numbers that XI did. Still, I don’t think it would hurt to maybe bring in a Trek veteran or two to advise on the next film. I vote Ron Moore or Jonathan Frakes.”

Just the type of fan I was talking about. He doesn’t want DC Fontana or David Gerold to come in and advise on a TOS movie, he wants Berman era writers to come in and advise on how to bring that Berman style “heart”..aka..more 24th century style Trek to the next movie. Rather than see how the new movie was faithful to TOS, he sees how much different it was from the Berman years and wants to fix what he percieves to be broken. It’s a common attitude from Next Gen fans I see a lot.

144. Harry Ballz - February 11, 2011

I just want to clarify what happened regarding Bob Orci’s post #49.

I was on here at about 2AM Toronto time last night when Bob’s comment first got posted. It was more graphic than what it has been amended to now. It actually spelled out the “F” word. It was quite surprising to see it appear like that (in it’s raw graphic nature) while the rest of the world was sleeping! You can read how I responded to Bob at the time. As of this morning TPTB have cleaned up Bob’s post. So, I just wanted to let other people here (who are commenting on his post) know the original flavor and intent of the message. Mr. Orci never seems to mince his words! :>)

145. SoonerDave (formerly Author of "The Vulcan Neck PInch for Fathers") - February 11, 2011

Here’s one way to condense this entire Berman/Abrams/Roddenberry “heart of Trek” debate is this.

Think of the great Trek TOS episodes had pivotal scenes *in the briefing room*. No phasers. No transporters. No treknobabble. Yet these were where some of the greatest Trek TOS episodes spent their most pivotal scenes – and why? Because the *writing* was good, even great.

“Balance of Terror” exposited the moral virtue of risking war versus attacking the rogue Romulans while outlining their relationship to Vulcans; “Tomorrow is Yesterday”; Spock contemplates how to recover Kirk, trapped in a 20th century air base, while minimizing Cap Christopher’s chance to interfere with history; “Space Seed”; virtually the entire Khan backstory is established in a state dinner; “Wolf in the Fold” ; Trek becomes a media for a simple whodunit, with the reality revealed in the briefing room trial of Scotty.

Now, with that as a base, understand something. Visually, briefing room scenes are flat and boring. They’re people sitting in chairs and talking. Its pretty darned hard to put a thing on the big screen called “Star Trek” in a big space ship adventure format, and make a “briefing room” scene credible or palatable. Who among Trek’s legion “vision leaders” were most likely to have pulled this off in a movie?

Berman? Forget it. As someone else mentioned, he’d never have had “red matter.” He’d have had some polysyllabic nonsense to explain what the red matter did. And that reveals Berman’s true “lack of heart” of Trek, his lack of faith in the underlying concept, and simultaneously reveals how Abrams et al “got it.” In their Trek, “red matter” was there, it was a given, it worked, and it didn’t need explanation. Abrams, lens flares and ugly engine room and all, gets it. Berman never did.

How about Abrams? Believe it or not, he already has pulled this off. No, they didn’t have a literal “briefing room” scene, but the same kind of exposition took place on the bridge as Kirk tried to convince Pike that they were heading for a trap. It put characters at odds with each other; Spock at odds with himself, Kirk at odds with everyone, and on that basis the rest of the story unfolded. That’s Trek. You may not like Abrams lens flares, or his engine room (I don’t), but ultimately he and his writers (thank you boborci) *get* the *essence* of Trek.

The best of Trek happened when the best *writing* took place. Writing, ultimately, trumps all.

146. GaryP - February 11, 2011

The biggest problems with the Next Generation movies was that Picard’s character completely changed. In the show, he was a cerebral diplomat who used violence as a last resort. In the movies, he was a reckless, irrational action-oriented captain who put his crew into needless jeopardy.

Generations: Inside the Nexus why would you tell Guinan you wanted to go back to Veridian 3 to stop Soran? Why not have her take you back to the ship where you met Soran for the first time? He wouldn’t have put anyone in danger.

Not only did the Next Generation Crew not get the proper sendoff; they didn’t get a proper opening either. Darn shame because the potential was there.
First Contact: Why did he insist on killing crew members who turned into Borg? Isn’t that a little selfish? I mean, his own crew saved him and rehabilitated him from the Borg?

Insurrection: Let me get this straight. You want to deprive billions of of people access life saving medical cures in order to protect a few dozen white yuppies and their village? And you go against Starfleet orders to do so? I was rooting for Admiral Dougherty on that one.

147. MJ - February 11, 2011

@130. “Something that is made with the heart of Star Trek in mind just isn’t going to get the kinds of numbers that XI did. Still, I don’t think it would hurt to maybe bring in a Trek veteran or two to advise on the next film. I vote Ron Moore or Jonathan Frakes.”

Why bring in NG-era advisors? What would be the point of that? The new Trek is TOS Trek, so I don’t think we need Moore or Frakes?

148. MJ - February 11, 2011

@145. Agreed, Admiral Dougherty was right on that one!!! That NG episode (whoops, I mean movie) illustrated why Dougherty was Admiral material and why Picard was continually passed over for promotion and remained a Captain through the end of his career.

149. Damian - February 11, 2011

124–With you there, Don’t get me wrong. Star Trek needed new blood. While I enjoyed Star Trek up through Nemesis and Enterprise (esp seasons 3 and 4), it was clear it was time to move on. Rick Berman and his crew were the new blood at one time and brought Star Trek up to the 80’s and 90’s, what Roddenberry intended when he brought Berman on board. Ideally, what should have happened is Berman should have slowly started handing over the reigns when Voyager came on board. He didn’t necessarily have to leave Star Trek, but maybe had he started moving more to the background, newer talent could have brought Star Trek into the 21st century.

I found things to like about Voyager. But I remember someone (was it Braga or Piller) saying they originally wanted conflict between the Starfleet crew and the Maquis, and for Voyager to have more difficulties (a la Year of Hell). Now that would have been interesting. Maybe something like the Equinox without the treason.

Re; Enterprise, Manny Coto should have been there from the beginning. Again, if Berman wanted to stay behind the scenes and out of the writing, it still could have worked. I sometimes think Berman felt he had to maintain control to somehow protect what he perceived as Roddenberry’s vision. I don’t believe he was out to “ruin” Star Trek. He ended up becoming his own worst enemy.

I think the new guys have things on the right track. I would have liked to have had more consistency in set design that has been established since The Motion Picture, but I can live with it (I still don’t understand windows instead of viewscreens–if I were on the bridge at warp I’d think I’d puke). If there is just one lesson for the new Court to learn from Berman’s regime is when the ideas start drying up, bring in new blood. But I think we have a few years before that happens.

150. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

Some really unkind and too be honest very rude comments about Rick Berman.

But God never have I almost been offended.

It seems that the new movie is creating more divisions than I thought.

I like both.

I like TOS, I like Berman’s stuff and I liked the new movie despite what Abrams changed.

But I feel it is really sick and horrifying to see some really nasty stuff come out of Star Trek fans. Star Trek is about an optimistic future where we have put aside our differences. It seems really anti Trek in the vibe here.

I am not a fan of JJ Abrams but I have never used petty vulgar words to say that. I can rant at times but like to think I kept civil in saying this.

I read some comments on this thread and this vibe is not what a Star Trek fan should have.

151. Damian - February 11, 2011

My comment was actuall to 125. Sorry about that (though I was ok with Nemesis too).

152. Damian - February 11, 2011

I also agree that there are fans of the original series that do not like the new movie. A friend of mine basically only likes the original series and Enterprise (believe it or not). He had no interest in DS9 or Voyager and had only a passive interest in TNG. He hated the new movie. Then I have 2 other friends that love Star Trek and TNG, was somewhat ok with DS9 hated Voyager with every fiber of their being, did not watch Enterprise and also hated the new movie. So there are all kinds of fans out there.

153. Captain Rickover - February 11, 2011

# 150 captain-neill

I agree completly, Sir.

I can live with a moment of anger from some fans (even from a writer and producer, but I still think it’s unprofessional).

But give in so much anger and pure hate against one man (Berman) and everyone who don’t bash him is really terrifying. I just hope this is just the allways loud minority of fan(atics) who post all that hatefull crap.

There’s only one thing left I can say to this people:

GET A LIFE!

154. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

152

I like them all, I love all five shows and love watching all the movies.

Just because I had problems with some of the changes JJ Abrams made does not mean I hated the film. It just ain’t a perfect movie to me.

155. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

153

Not happy with Bob Orci over comment 49. Really felt that he was above that.

Boy was I wrong.

156. Damian - February 11, 2011

155–Felt that was a little below the belt too from one of the producers. He did seem to clarify himself better with his 56 comment, which is more in line with his usual comments. Someone noted it was rather late and maybe he was getting punchy.

157. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

156

I hope so, not getting me a good opinion on a guy who is now incharge of writing a Trek movie now.

And I am still trying to wash the pain of Transformers Revenge of the Fallen from my mind. I lost faith in their writing after that movie. I want to be proven wrong in next movie.

158. Kirk, James T. - February 11, 2011

I’ve just seen Boborci’s comments on his first post on this topic and I must say I’m slightly mystified as to why someone in his position would say such a thing? Kind of makes their Star Trek worthless now if he’s going to take that attitude. completely uncalled for and down right unprofessional – and this is the guy writing the next movie… Bit of a downer.

Rick Berman steered the franchise through it’s peak and has 100’s of hours of brilliant TV to his name, He may have stayed on longer than he should of but he also oversaw 18 years worth of Star Trek STILL being shown on TV networks the world over and enjoyed by many.

You’ve written 2 hours of Star Trek that has been successfully made into a movie and already your saying f&*k off Berman? Lets just see what the fans are telling you to do after you’ve finally made the next Trek movie…

For your sake I hope it’s a better attempt at a sequel than your awful Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen story – for Transformers fans around the world I say this; F&%K off Orci.

159. 1701A2E - February 11, 2011

#118 has a great point.

The opening scene of ST09 has the heart that none of any TNG will ever have – or at least manifest with great emotions on the TV/big screen. The only one that matched is Spock’s sacrifice at the end of STII and the loyalty shown in STIII.

160. boborci - February 11, 2011

158. Love Berman’s work.

Pay attention.

161. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

160

Fair enough

I just get annoyed at the Berman bashing as I think some comments have been to unkind. I am a trekkie who loves all 5 shows. TOS and TNG being my top 2 and I think a lot of good Trek was produced by Berman.

I grew up loving them.

162. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

159: “The opening scene of ST09 has the heart that none of any TNG will ever have – or at least manifest with great emotions on the TV/big screen. The only one that matched is Spock’s sacrifice at the end of STII and the loyalty shown in STIII.”

Truly.

163. 1701A2E - February 11, 2011

If reading between the lines, it’s obvious that Berman exhibited bitterness and taking jabs at ST09 and its success. Could be at the studios though. It doesn’t change the fact that he gave a lot of his soul to Trek, but certainly he’s resentful and we should give him credit.

But let there be no doubt the success of ST09 is unprecedented in Trek history.

Bob Orci: best of luck in scripting the next one. Don’t let the feud in Trek family make you lose focus please. Definitely don’t let the 10% hard core fans get to you.

164. Aurore - February 11, 2011

Home 10:04 PM.

Oh my god! I just read something that completely overwhelmed me. I can barely type ; My heart is racing. This is amazing : post 49, very last sentence.

The sequel is going to be so good…

:)

165. Pierss - February 11, 2011

Regarding Bermans point of view of Star Trek (2009)

“We know we can make X number of dollars off a Star Trek movie, so don’t spend more than Y number of dollars.”

Thats pure Suit speak.

166. Vultan - February 11, 2011

#160 boborci

Ah, so you love his work… but you can’t reply to his opinion of your work without resorting to profanity. Nice.

Well, if this whole Hollywood thing doesn’t work out you can always run for president of Egypt!

167. boborci - February 11, 2011

166. I responded both ways. So yes, I can respond without profanity.

168. Aurore - February 11, 2011

So, in 160 Mr Orci says he loves Mr Berman’s work.

Yeah…yeah….that’s why the sequel is going to be good. That’s what I meant. I promise.

169. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

I agree with Rick Berman’s comments on Star Trek 2009. Look he called it “wonderful” and it could have had more of the heart of Star Trek. That’s not a terrible review. Heck, Harry Plinkett liked it too and was more critical. I liked the film also. Saw it three times in the theater and own the DVD. Extemely well made. Was it Star Trek? I say, “sort of.’

Film critic Roger Ebert says it best, “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.” Ebert’s review of Star Trek (2009) And Chris Pine summed up the film this way, “Expolring grand social issues can wait till the next movie. The goal this time was to make a Star Trek that wasn’t alienating to nonfans. WE MAINLY WANTED TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE.” Entertainment Weekly, pg. 32, 5-9-09.

What was missing was Roddenberry’s concept that Star Trek should have questions of ideas in Ebert’s words; science or philosophy. If you watched the Pioneers of Telelvision on PBS, watch the end of the below video clip with Shatner. Listen to Nichelle Nichols comments on how Gene was making morality plays and the comment that Star Trek was the show with “something important to say.”

I am looking forward to Star Trek 2012. And since everybody at Bad Robot has said they plan to go deeper, it could be a great Star Trek film. Now CBS about doing something from the television side….

TrekMovie story about Pioneers of Television with clip, look at the end with Nichols.
http://trekmovie.com/2011/01/18/pioneers-of-television-clip-william-shatner-on-how-he-made-star-trek-more-fun/

170. Vultan - February 11, 2011

#167

Hence my suggestion you go into politics. One answer said in multiple ways—right up your alley, man!

Besides, you did pretty much pull a Cheney:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3699-2004Jun24.html

I dare you to do better.

171. Tracey - February 11, 2011

#167

boborci- I appreciate the fact that you take Star Trek so personally.

172. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

In defense of Star Trek: Generations (1994)

First, I am going to say I liked all the Star Trek movies except for Star Trek V (1989) and even that film had its moments. Did Star Trek: Generations have problems? Yep. The logic of the energy ribbon. I mean how does one leave the Nexus? The darkness of the sets. And of course, killing off Kirk.

When i saw it in the theater, at the end, people applauded. Yes, that’s correct, just like they did when I saw “The King’s Speech.” I admit they could have been all Trekkers. Probably were. But Generations had great moments. The bottle of wine which hits the Enterprise B and Alex Courage’s triumphant fanfare at that moment. Kirk’s sacrifice. Instead of being in nirvana forever , he decides to “make a difference.” Dennis McCarthy’s energetic score drives the movie. And that last scene. In the wreckage of the Enterprise, Picard tosses aside his prized archeological artifact (from “The Chase”) and retrieves his photo album. He says, “What we leave behind is not as important as how we have lived…. Two to beam up.” The starships leave orbit and enter warp with Courages’ fanfare. I still get goose bumps.

173. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

I’m sure he’s a nice enough fellow, but regarding Star Trek, Berman sucked. He Berminated Star Trek. Under his watch Star Trek became an aBermanation.

174. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

I wish somebody had the nads to dare Berman to do better, but he was probably too scared of what you wanker Trekkies would say if he offended you.

175. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

So daring him to do better wouldn’t have accomplished much.

176. Aurore - February 11, 2011

12: 02 PM

@ 167

Next time, use the word “phoque”. It ‘s not a profanity.

:)

177. Aurore - February 11, 2011

28:47 XM

There is so much love going around here!

178. R.E.Moore - February 11, 2011

U know everyone who critized Berman still watches Next-Gen, DS9, Voy and to some extent ENT. So quit bitch’in and MOVE ON!

179. Daoud - February 11, 2011

Neill: I love all of Trek. It started filming, with the Pike/Boyce “I’m tired” sequence in Pike’s quarters on the very day I was born. There’s not a Trek episode, film, comic book, novel, etc. that I haven’t enjoyed. I recognize and value all of Berman’s hard work through the 18 years. I don’t hate the guy. But one specific thing he brings up over and over I find offensive to many of us in fandom.

What offends most long-time fans, is Berman’s continual blaming of “Franchise Fatigue” on the part of *fans* which utterly insults so many of us, especially those of us who held on during the “dark ages” from 1969 to 1979, and through the movies-only era until 1987. Berman and Braga both should have called it “Executive Producer Fatigue”.

To then state that the heart of Trek wasn’t in Trek 2009, is yet another insult to all of the fans who responded with their wallets and bought tickets. Trek 2009 is the first Trek film I saw twice in the theater, and again in an IMAX theater since Wrath of Khan. It was everything Kirk, Spock and McCoy on the Enterprise could be *in a movie*.

The casting was spot on, Giacchino’s music was unique: Enterprising Young Men and the other themes still resonate in my head. The only previous movie music in my head dates back to TMP with a few exceptions. Certainly no theme from a TNG movie resonates.

Chris Hemsworth’s George Kirk, and Faran Tahir’s Robau immediately got to the point of Star Trek. People, like us, but sometime in the future, facing tremendous challenges exploring space, exploring unknowns, and having to make quick decisions.

Anyway, the heart and soul of TNG at its best was the late Michael Piller. God rest his soul, he did well. Ron Moore too. And even Brannon Braga on his good days…. when he was, erm, ‘supervised’.

180. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

178: “U know everyone who critized Berman still watches Next-Gen, DS9, Voy and to some extent ENT. So quit bitch’in and MOVE ON!”

Don’t have ANY Berman Trek TV series in my library. Don’t watch any of ‘em. But did make an honest effort to get through TNG. Failed.

181. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

Yeah, “franchise fatigue” is Latin for “we are sick of what you are doing Berman.”

182. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - February 11, 2011

Kirk Did live in Generations,
right here, see!!
Trust me , watch this!! the payoff is right around 1min 45 sec

http://www.youtube.com/user/blaman327#p/a/u/0/M2JeKeVynbY

24th centtury ain’t so tough!!

And he even took the new E-E for a spin

http://www.youtube.com/user/blaman327#p/a/u/1/hOopmLt3X_U

183. Damian - February 11, 2011

I think the Berman haters and Berman non-haters just need to make peace here. If you like the Star Trek spin-offs (like myself) go ahead and watch what you want. If you hate it, then no one is going to force feed it too you. All I ask is a little respect for each side. There are all kinds of Star Trek fans. There are some who only like one incarnation or another. That’s fine. Can we just be a little more civil. Calling Berman, or anyone else for that matter, names is not intelligent discourse. For me, the original series will always be my favorite (The Doomsday Machine was the best). Favorite movie was Star Trek: The Motion Picture (no yawning please). I also loved the Borg from TNG (Q Who and First Contact still give me goosebumps). I also loved the Dominion War from DS9 and the Hirogen from Voyager. I will always be disappointed we never got to see The Romulan War on Enterprise but am grateful for the novels. And the Narada from Star Trek (2009) was one of the creepiest ships I ever saw (except maybe the Borg cube in Q Who).

Oh, and please, what the hell was the entire Federation fleet doing in the Laurentian system? I mean, really, Starfleet is never there when you need them.

184. captain_neill - February 11, 2011

I think some of the tone of the fans on this site has been lowered in this article.

It’s one thing to not like Berman but to say childish profanities. I almost left in disgust at some of the posts I read.

I have my gripes against JJ Abrams but I like to think I have commented with nasty curse words. I did say that I liked the new movie despite my gripes.

Yes I rant a lot, but I try not to be unkind in foul profanities.

183
Excellent point

185. Damian - February 11, 2011

Look, I’m going to cut Bob Orci a little slack. One thing about this board is you can’t edit something you said earlier. Now I obviously do not know him so I can’t say if he wish he could take it back. But judging from his follow up comment in 56, I get the impression that he wasn’t trying to throw Berman under a bus. He’s also said later he loved Berman’s work, which I believe because Orci has said he is a total Star Trek fan and has even commented on episodes from the spin-offs. He would not have watched had he not liked them.

I think it’s just some of us were shocked that he wrote what he did.

And perhaps if Berman was a little wiser, he would have stopped just before his last line. (though I suspect event that would not satisfy some fans–they probably would have said–“Hey, if Berman loved the movie so much, maybe there was something wrong with it”)

186. Corinthian7 - February 11, 2011

Rick Berman gets far too much stick from the fans, if not for him we would have missed out on some brilliant Trek and I very much doubt that Bob, JJ, Damon et al would have got the opportunity to make Star Trek 09. That being said sometimes I don’t think he helps himself. It’s obvious that both Bob and Damon in particular love Star Trek and that ‘heart’ shone through in many moments in Their movie. Keep your chin up Bob, I hope this hasn’t soured your experience with Trek and I look forward to seeing what the supreme court has cooked up for us next year.

187. sisko1 - February 11, 2011

I saw TOS in its first run on a 13 inch BW, of course I was hooked. I went to the second Star Trek convention and any other con regarding Star Trek after…money permitting. So you can say I am a huge fan. I was the typical Star Trek nerd, you know the type. Kirk this Spock that. When TNG came about I said hell NO… this guy Berman is a complete moron….then I watched it, Hey this isn’t that bad. Well then here comes DS9 i said again Hell NO..Then I watched it. The Same with Voyager and Enterprise. I now own some original props and costumes from each show. Why because I enjoyed each incarnation. DS9 now being my favorite of all even over my hero Kirk…If Berman had just given up after say season two of TNG who is to say that we would have any Trek at all. He gave us or kept Trek alive for 18 years, there would be NO Star Trek experience to attend in Las Vegas and The cons wouldn’t be full of all the stars that attend now. His shows made it fun for alot a people around the globe…is that a bad thing. Is it so bad that people have a choice in what they like and if they do why should they be be belittled for it. There are those who say “well he just did it for the money” ah wouldn’t you??? Did I like any of the TNG flicks..yea just FC but I thought the rest sucked but that doesn’t make Berman a bad guy. When I saw written by Berman and Braga on the credits for writing in an ep of ENT I new it wasn’t going to be great but I still watched it because it was at least Star Trek. To some extent he did follow Genes rules and you will see that in every interview from just about every writer that worked for him. They would say we followed the bible set down by Mr. Roddenberry.
Now I was just as excited about the new movie as the next, hell I wore my TOS uni to the premier and was proud to do so….yes I got a lot of looks from the mainstream movie goer but i also received a lot of good comments from the Trek fans. I enjoyed the movie alot then I got to thinking about it…..this was not any where near Genes Trek or even Bermans, I know this is not your fathers Star Trek….Starfleet cadets rat packing one guy in a bar (think about that THEY are STARFLEET cadets not bums), An acting Starfleet Captain tossing some schmuck overboard as oppose to putting Kirk into the brig “see Court Martial TOS season 1 episode 14 in Genes world you cant do that. I haven’t seen the above in any of Bermans or Genes Trek but i may be wrong. I finally realized that I had already seen JJ’s movie a few years ago…it was called Independence Day or any other action movie just fill in the blanks. I know a lot of people who saw the new movie and thought it was great but they would never wear a shirt that has anything to do with Star Trek (its called mainstream)Thats what Star Trek is now all about. Ask any of those people what the Prime Directive is. If you want to know what Berman is really like watch archive of American Television interview from May 31, 2006 you will be astonished He is not afraid to say he made mistakes he even read all the forums which of course must of hurt and he admitted it did. In closing that movie was not Star Trek except for Mr. Nimoy giving it the nod which is pretty big but Mr. Nimoy also appeared in TNG as did Mr. Doohan and Mr. Kelly. Takei and Whitney appeared on Voyager. So I guess they were good enough for them. Berman kept Trek around for 18 years that’s no small feat. Give Berman a break. Oh by the way Mr. Orci regarding what you said to Berman not very professional and didn’t you mean to say from a former Court JESTER, Grow up sir.

Sisko1

188. Damian - February 11, 2011

186–Interesting point. Where would Star Trek be without the Berman crew. Like them or not, Star Trek went through a high period in the mid 90’s. They were on the cover of TV Guide several times, had a blockbuster in First Contact. Let’s be honest, Berman helped the Next Generation find it’s footing. I have a feeling without Berman and his team, the Next Generation would have ended up a forgettable show and been ended by the 3rd or 4th season. For better or worse, there would have been no DS9, Voyager or Enterprise. Star Trek may have died when Roddenberry died. For all the bashing of Rick Berman, he kept Star Trek active on screen until 2005. It may have gone on life support after 2005, but it was still alive. I agree, without the Berman years, we may not have ever had the opportunity to talk about Star Trek (2009).

When it comes to the entertainment industry, if something is not moving or being produced, it’s dead. Star Trek being on TV as long as it was kept it alive. It needed a fresh infusion of new blood, but at least it was still out there to get an infusion.

189. MJ - February 11, 2011

@150 “But I feel it is really sick and horrifying to see some really nasty stuff come out of Star Trek fans.”

What is so sick and horrifying about me saying that I thought Voyager and Enterprise stunk, and I hold Berman responsible for this.

This is my opinion. I apologize if it offends you. However, I am not going to “drink the Kool-Aid” and ignore the key person responsible for the weakest period of Trek history just because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Again, I ask you, what is “sick and horrifying” about those of us with this opinion. Perhaps you are being just a tad melodramatic here???

190. Rocket Scientist - February 11, 2011

Right on Sisko1! I’m with you on DS9 too. Great show…

191. MJ - February 11, 2011

@153 “But give in so much anger and pure hate against one man (Berman) and everyone who don’t bash him is really terrifying. I just hope this is just the always loud minority of fan(atics) who post all that hateful crap.”

This is getting ridiculous? So those of you who disagree with criticisms of Berman have to keep resorting here to labeling all of us who are critical as hate-mongers???

I smell a group of people who have lost and argument here, and are getting desperate, and resorting to labeling and name-calling.

If you like Berman, fine, please then tell us why and defend your position. The hate monger labeling/name calling just weakens your position and demeans all of us on these boards.

192. Damian - February 11, 2011

187–I felt the same way when each spinoff came out. When TNG came out, I was like no Kirk or Spock, what the hell. By the 2nd season I was hooked. It took a little longer for DS9 but that hooked me too. I did not watch Voyager until the series ended, but it eventually won me over. I did watch Enterprise from the beginning and while I liked it, I wished Manny Coto was involved earlier on. Now, I own all the series on DVD and love the fact that I can watch any one I like whenever. I also have all the movies. I did like the new movie too (thought the writing was good as was the actors). I was ambivalent about a new cast in these roles, but they did a great job (especially Urban and Greenwood). I was also glad the writers did not cast aside all that came before, but built off of it.

193. Damian - February 11, 2011

189–I think the disagreement is more fundamental. You note it as a weak Star Trek period, and those of us who liked those shows disagree. I don’t think there’s really anyway to convince each other otherwise. You hated the Berman years, others did not. It really comes down to tastes. Some people like Lady Gaga, others can’t stand her. It’s as simple as that.

I have no beef with the complaints or those who don’t like Rick Berman, just when they degenerate into name calling.

I don’t feel I lost an argument here or am in danger of losing. Simply put, there is no argument to lose. I like what I like just as you do. As far as Berman Vs Abrams, for me there is not battle. I liked the spinoffs, and I liked the new movie. One simply follows another and I have no problem watching either or.

194. MJ - February 11, 2011

Captain Nell, Damien, Captain James T. Kirk:

How very interesting that you posts from 149 through 159 appear in rapid fire succession, reinforcing each others views…a skeptical person might wonder if you are the same person who is posting under multiple names in an attempt to bring more support to your position.

195. Damian - February 11, 2011

Anyway, Berman’s tenure is done. He’s not coming back. I doubt he would want to.

196. Damian - February 11, 2011

I am only online once or twice a day for a period of time. That is why my posts are clumped together, then you won’t see me for a while. Wow, you talk about getting desperate. You see a few people defend Berman and you see conspiracies.

197. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

@ 174 Dmduncan

As for your phrase “wanker trekkies”, so tell me which of us are “wanker trekkies?” Would that include those of us that liked TNG, Voyager, DS9 or Enterprise? Would “wanker trekkie” include people who liked any of Rick Berman’s work?

198. MJ - February 11, 2011

@185 “Look, I’m going to cut Bob Orci a little slack. One thing about this board is you can’t edit something you said earlier. Now I obviously do not know him so I can’t say if he wish he could take it back.”

I pretty much agree with Bob Orci’s sentiments on Berman and can understand his position. But I will note that perhaps do a being a bit older (and possible a bit wiser with my gray hairs) that in past discussions I have made the point to Bob that what you put on the Internet is NEVER going to go away.

199. MJ - February 11, 2011

@196 “Wow, you talk about getting desperate. You see a few people defend Berman and you see conspiracies.”

What I actually said was that “a skeptical person might wonder if you are the same person who is posting under multiple names in an attempt to bring more support to your position.”

200. Corinthian7 - February 11, 2011

194 – an extremely skeptical person might conclude that you and Damian are the same person and that you are posting conflicting arguments to throw fuel on to the fire…

Just kidding I thought this thread could do with lightening up a little!

201. Jonboc - February 11, 2011

# 178. “U know everyone who critized Berman still watches Next-Gen, DS9, Voy and to some extent ENT…”

…are you kidding…they were hard enough to get through the first time! :)

202. VZX - February 11, 2011

Wow. I just read about half the comments here and I really don’t get why people have their panties in such a bunch about Orci’s response to Berman. Really. I have heard worse talk amongst college professors.

Besides, it’s not like Berman will ever see or hear about it. I doubt he ever goes on the inter-webs. The guy is a true d-bag. Thanks, MJ, for seeing my point.

In the immortal words of Cee Lo Green: Hey Berman: F#$% you!

203. Damian - February 11, 2011

Speaking of signing off, my wife is giving me the old hairy eyeball wondering what I am doing on the computer on a Friday night. I love debating the ins and outs of Star Trek but I must bid adieu. Good night all.

204. MJ - February 11, 2011

@200. Now that is funny!

@202 Good point VZX. My only thing earlier was the Bob is in the public eye and we know who he is, while we are all on her anonymously, so there is a different level of consideration for him in what he would type here versus you or I. Besides, by responding to criticism, it brings Bob to the same level as the public detractors, Bennett and Berman, and in my opinion, they are not worth Bob Orci’s time.

205. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

@ 183 Damian

Your post calling for more civility is absolutely correct. To that I say ‘AMEN.” I also loved “The Doomsday Machine.” One trekker I fought with, called it a story about a giant space blunt. But it was more than that. Science fiction writer Norman Spinrad’s teleplay was about a society that unleashed a weapon of mass destruction. Perhaps it destroyed them. It probably did. That was great Trek. The ideas; arms control, and advanced alien society unleashing weapoon of mass destruction. There was adventure. And of course, I loved the interplay between Spock and McCoy. McCoy tries to have Decker declared unfit. McCoy’s right but Spock sticks to the rules until he finds the logic to convince Decker to change his course of action. Great stuff.

206. somethoughts - February 11, 2011

Star Trek 2009 had the most heart since tuc and twok.

I can watch ST09 over and over and carries the heart of star trek, berman just jealous.

207. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

FYI, I don’t hate Berman. He’s probably a nice stand up guy. I’m just not a fan of his professional WORK. See the diff?

***

201. Jonboc – February 11, 2011

# 178. “U know everyone who critized Berman still watches Next-Gen, DS9, Voy and to some extent ENT…”

…are you kidding…they were hard enough to get through the first time! :)

LOL! And you are more man than I if you were able to do it!

***

197. Basement Blogger – February 11, 2011

The wankers are the ones who take Star Trek WAAAY too seriously. I would never have thought up the MWI angle of ST.09 that allowed Bob to open up the future while respecting canon. I simply would not have cared what fans of canon would have thought. So I give him more credit than his thankless crybaby detractors do for caring enough about canon to do it that way, and I am impressed by the originality of his solution to the problem.

208. MJ - February 11, 2011

@205 My favorite TOS episode of all is “The Doomsday Machine.”

BB, I think a lot of people still are hurt by the perceived weakness of the franchise between the mid-90’s and the cancellation of Enterprise. Rick Berman is still a sore spot for me, but I had largely forgiven him and moved on until I read about this “lack of heart” potshot he took this week. This has frankly opened up old wounds for a lot of us, and Berman would be better off not to have said that if he wanted to have any chance of me buying his book.

209. Corinthian7 - February 11, 2011

201- Your last post reminded me of a story told by Kevin J Anderson at the SFX Weekender in the UK. I’m telling this from memory so I’ll have to paraphrase I’m afraid but basically it was about a letter he received from some dude about one of his novels. The guy apparently went into graphic detail about how terrible his latest book was, that he was disgusted by it etc etc and he finally concluded by saying something to the effect of ‘it was even worse than your previous 12 books which I thoroughly detested’. KJA wrote back to this fan and asked ‘if you hated my first book so much why on earth did you go and read the next 12? There is so much great literature to choose from why willingly subject yourself to something you hate so much?’. The fan wrote back again and said ‘because it’s Star Wars, I had to read it!’.

202 – Your right, it has been blown out of all proportion. Personally I’m glad to see Mr Orci is so passionate about Trek and his work. That one post really does prove Bob Orci really is one of us.

210. "The Captain's Neck Is Broken" - February 11, 2011

I still feel Star Trek was ment for television. Because I don’t know, I would guess that Gene Roddenberry was not given much choice when they (Paramount) told him they wanted to take the new series (Star Trek: Phase II) and make a major motion picture. For me I was just happy to see Star Trek again. I had hoped Star Trek would still return to my TV and tell me a STORY, what I loved about Star Trek, not trying to wow me with a bunch of irrelivant special effects. I have enjoyed James Cawley’s productions because it has the Star Trek “feel” to it. Sometimes I wish he had created his own crew and used a different starship in the same time period. Oh well, I am just one of millions of Star Trek fans with an opinion. The day Gene Roddenberry died, I knew the Star Trek that I loved died with him. Thank you Gene for what you gave me…I will cherish it forever.

211. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2011

I think we should all agree to disagree (politely) and do a big group hug. Yes, Bob, you too! :-)

212. Jonboc - February 11, 2011

…for those who don’t understand why Bob and so many others took offense by Berman’s “glowing” review of JJs Trek, maybe my review of TNG will help illustrate…

I thought TNG was wonderful. What a tremendous effort for what was just a syndicated series. What a shame they couldn’t make it on network television, a larger audience would have served them well. While I found the series could be rather talky and bland at times, to add rousing action adventure would only serve to bring comparisons to the original series…which just wouldn’t be fair. And yes, maybe the characters were a bit lack-luster…they probably needed some stronger dynamics….but not every TV show can be lucky enough to have a character that connects with the masses like Spock did, and I think people realize that. All they could do is try their best….there’s no shame in that! Really a unique and different take on the classic sci-fi franchise! I like it!

213. MC1 Doug - February 11, 2011

re: #22: “Rick Berman was responsible for some of the most memorable TNG episodes and for that he is a good guy. Leave the movies for James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, Spielberg etc.”

I don’t think your comment is valid.

Steven Spielberg got his start doing television. He directed the immensely satisfying TV movie “Duel” starring Dennis Weaver; his directorial debut had him helming the pilot episode of Rod Serling’s “Night Gallery” segment that starred Joan Crawford (in one of her last performances).

214. keachick - February 11, 2011

Rick Berman said: “I thought the story was wonderful and a lot of the acting was terrific. I’ve just gotten to a point where these big action films filled with computer-generated stuff from beginning to end are starting to wear on me a little bit. To me, the movie, like Iron Man or any of these big, incredibly expensive films dealing with tens upon tens of millions of dollars worth of visual effects… it was a very, very exciting movie. In terms of it having the heart of Star Trek, I think it could have perhaps had a little bit more of that. But I liked it very much.”

It was complimentary, in a way, but he also resorted to reducing the efforts of the producers/writers and director to doing not much more than using the latest special effects to get bums on seats. There are a few Trek fans who also have that opinion, but personally I don’t think that is correct. I can’t speak for Bob Orci, but that comment (such a worn out cliche now) may well have pissed him off, hence the profanity. Having read so much “duh” on boards about the latest movie, I find myself suddenly thinking “Oh F&*^ you”. It is really tiresome sometimes. We get it – some people don’t like the tenure of JJ Abrams Star Trek, but it is this apparent desire to repeat their hatred of it that would get up anybody’s nose after a while.

Anyway, I thought that Bob Orci was brought up on ST:TNG and sees it as his favourite series. Was that not one of Rick Berman’s productions? Of course, Bob likes Berman’s work (which he has reiterated here), just not the insinuation that he and his co-authors compromised good script and heart for the latest in special effects blahblah, and Berman constantly bemoaning the fact that he got less money than the present team.

215. boborci - February 11, 2011

198. indeed. Sometimes, you just wanna stir things up a bit. just for fun.

216. keachick - February 11, 2011

Before I realised that I need to bookmark some things, I read an enlightening quote from Chris Pine about how he was not really that interested in doing an audition for Star Trek. One of the reasons he gave was that he thought it was “too mainstream!!!”. LOL Absolutely true. Fortunately, his big sister Katie persuaded him to give it a go and then later another Katie (JJ Abrams’ wife) encouraged him further. I so love those two Katie females – a big hug to each of them!

It’s all a matter of perspective…

217. kmart - February 11, 2011

Stirring things up for fun was probably Shat’s idea when he agreed to do the ‘get a life’ bit on SNL. But trekworshippers clearly didn’t dig it.

218. Red Dead Ryan - February 11, 2011

217

Yeah, a lot of fans went berserk over that!

219. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

ST.09 had two of the best scenes in all of Star Trek. The death of George Kirk/birth of James Kirk. And the Shatner scene at the end.

220. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

Hey Bob Orci,

If you’re still around here. Tonight’s “Fringe” was cool. It was an episode in the parallel universe. The bugs eating through humans was gross but it’s good horror. And the show mixed gorgeous actors and actresses with the bugs. Interesting dichotomy. I also enjoyed the shades of grey. I like Faux Olivia or Alt-Olivia. I thinks she’s a good person. Can’t say I want to live in that universe with the fascist overtones unless… I’m rich and married to Kate Beckinsale. Appreciated the message also. Even in that society, the ends don’t justify the means.

And I’ll say it over and over again. John Noble (Walter) is one of the great actors in the business. He’s a walking acting class. Like Judi Dench, I can read his emotions just by looking at his face. I’m going to reccommend my high school kids I coach in mock trial to watch him.

221. scotty - February 11, 2011

Why does everyone love First Contact? It was a plodding boring dull Next Generation adventure.

The borg where beaten within the first 5 minutes of the movie! The whole deal on the deflector dish had me falling asleep. Picard as a bruce willis action hero…uhm no.

222. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

Now if I was Bob Orci, I believe I’d paraphrase everybody’s favorite movie Marine, Col. Jessup from A Few Good Men:

Bob Orci: “You can’t handle the truth! Fans, we live in a world that has Star Trek. And its stories have to be concocted by the writers on the Supreme Court. Who’s gonna do it? Jeyl? You, capt_neill? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for the destruction of Vulcan and you curse the brewery. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Vulcan’s destruction, while tragic, WAS JUST A SCENE IN A FARGIN MOVIE. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saved Star Trek…You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at Star Trek conventions, you want me on that Court. You need me on that Court.”

“We use words like deadline, canon, lensflares…we use these words as the backbone to a life spent writing something decent. You use ‘em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a bunch of fargin bastages who want me to put their ideas in my fargin movie, then questions the manner in which I implement them! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a envelope and submit a final draft. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”

223. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

Hey Bob Orci,

On the new Star Trek movie, here’s my wish list. It won’t require big changes since you’ve already completed the script. :-)

1. More Dr. McCoy. First, I’m not Karl Urban’s agent. But how about an away mission with Kirk, Spock and McCoy? I miss the banter of the three. The philosphy and the comedy. And he won’t admit it but McCoy does love Spock. (The Empath; ST III: TVH)

2. The United Federation of Planets logo. Yes, this is corny. But when I was watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the decal of the Federation on the Enterprise and at starfleet headquarters gives me goosebumps, especially when mated with the inspiring Trek music. So when J.J. shoots one of the Enterprise’s beauty shots, let’s have that logo in our face in 3D…

3. Film it in native 3D. Of course, Paramount wants to make a profit and that it’s likely that Paramount will release Star Trek 2012 in 3D. But please film it in 3D. No conversions. After eleven films and five televsion series, I think Paramount can give Trek Nation the same quality that Avatar had.

We’ve heard that Olivia Wilde is free. She can be Saavik. Oh, she’s free from that Italian prince. Harry Ballz would like to meet her. Maybe she likes guys named Harry or guys with harry…. um, maybe she likes guys from Canada.

Did I say J.J. was directing? Okay, if not him, how about Quentin Tarantino or Tom Hooper?

224. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

@ 207 Dmduncan

While we disagree on the need to divert from canon, I agree the parallel universe plot device in Star Trek (2009) was a clever way of doing it.

225. MJ - February 11, 2011

@214. “Anyway, I thought that Bob Orci was brought up on ST:TNG and sees it as his favorite series. Was that not one of Rick Berman’s productions?”

Gene Rodenberry created and initially produced NG. Berman took it over after Gene had already set is all up.

I will given Berman some credit for DS9, the only post-TOS Trek series that I really liked. But then he struck out twice with Voyager and Enterprise, as well as those last two very poor movie entries.

226. MJ - February 11, 2011

@221. Well, it was at least watchable, unlike the rest of the NG movies. I agree that the deflector dish sequence was lame, and especially now — it has not held up well over time.

227. MJ - February 11, 2011

@223. BB, please tell me that you were joking when you said Quentin Tarantino, right?

I can see it now in Tarantino’s version of Trek, where Spock give the Vulcan nerve pinch, and he pulls out bloody muscle tissue and nerves from the guys neck he pinches. LOL

228. dmduncan - February 11, 2011

Nemesis and Insurrection were only bad because they were too long. Shave an hour : fifteen off each one and you have a typical TNG episode that most fans would love. That’s been the problem with the TNG movies. The movies expanded in time and budget but the thinking stayed the same.

I did like Shinzon. In the end, when Shinzon gets impaled? I was really rooting for him to finish off Picard. That would have saved the movie for me.

224: “While we disagree on the need to divert from canon, I agree the parallel universe plot device in Star Trek (2009) was a clever way of doing it.”

Yes it was. Never would’ve thunk it, myself. And that’s also a measure of how much concern they had for canon and the fans who want it kept just so. They could’ve just reinvented everything without paying any attention to what came before.

229. Buzz Cagney - February 11, 2011

#142 keachick, I stand corrected. You are very much a veteran. But that leaves me even more perplexed as to why you weren’t bothered by the killing of Kirk.
Or were you and are now over it?
I know I’m over it now. I’ve experienced enough real grief in the inbetween years to put a fictional character dying into proper perspective, but at the time it made me properly depressed!
And as I said before- we have the great Kirk back now, so all is well with the universe. Or it certainly will be with Jim around. :-)

And why are some people getting so worked up about BobO’s comment? I think we know Mr O. well enough by now to have a handle on his sense of humour, and dare I say quirky character. I like it that he has enough about him to dare to be a little ‘dangerous’ from time to time.
Besides, Bob is one of us. I don’t think many could say that about Mr Berman. I know I couldn’t.

230. Basement Blogger - February 11, 2011

@ 227 MJ

I was joking a little bit as Robert De Niro would say. Look, we have no idea if J.J. Abrams is going to direct . And Quentin Tarantino listed Star Trek as his favorite film of 2009. Of course, there is already a J.J. Abrams and Tarantino connection. Remember Tarantino did guess star in “Alias.” Tarantino has excellent directing chops. See “Pulp Fiction.” He could also bring even more people to Star Trek. You talk to people at at a bar and mention Tarantino and a lot of them say they love his films.

Yes, there are negatives. Can you see Spock dropping F-bombs? Okay, that’s not going to be in the script. Or will it? But with Quentin, you will get the Mexican Standoff, except this time it will be with phasers. Yeah, I can see a scene in a Quentin Tarantino Star Trek where a guy rips off the ears of a Vulcan. Ew, how about somebody rips off the antennas of a an Andorian? Or shoves two fingers in the snout of a Tellarite? (That’s the pig guys, for you new Trekkers. TOS “Journey to Babel” )

Tarantino lists Star Trek 2009 as his favoirte film.
http://trekmovie.com/2009/12/14/quentin-tarantino-list-star-trek-as-top-film-of-2009/

231. Devon - February 11, 2011

I am wondering about the decision to edit the title of this article to something that sounds misleading. Berman said that he thought it could have, in paraphrase, “a little more of the heart of Star Trek,” but the recent edit of the article title makes it sound like Berman said something a little more harsh than he really did.

232. Basement Blogger - February 12, 2011

Defending Rick Berman Voyager, DS9 and Enterpirse

First, let me just say Rick Berman wasn’t perfect and neither were any of his productions. I hated his decision to can composer Ron Jones and install musical wallpaper, i.e. scores without themes. I can complain about Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise. But i overall I enjoyed all three series that have been criticized in this thread.

1. Voyager- This show did what it was designed to do. Get back to space exploration. You knew by the opening credits with Voyager flying by strange new worlds. By sending Voyager into the Delta Quadrant, they didn’t have to deal with Klingon or Romulan or Federation politics. We got to learn more about the Borg. First woman captain.

2. DS9- A show that broke away from simple starship missions. There were aliens who were worshiped. Theme was about the definition of religion. Yet with the device of a wormhole, they could explore other planets in th Gamma quadrant. It yielded one of the most beloved shows in “The Visitor” a show that didn’t have big action set pieces. Oh, it had baseball. First African American captain.

3. Enterpirse- The first Enterpirse. Man pushing to get into space and explore the galaxy. The founding of the Federation.

There is one thread in all of Rick Berman’s shows. He knew Gene Roddenberry. He knew his vision. And he kept that vision in all three shows.

233. Basement Blogger - February 12, 2011

@ 232

Sorry for the typos. It’s “Enterprise.”

234. Harry Ballz - February 12, 2011

223.

BB

thanks for the plug regarding Wilde! I certainly would enjoy having a Wilde time!

235. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

221

Because it is an amazing fil, one that is a better movie than Abrams film.

236. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

189

Difference between saying you don’t like a guy and using vulgar websites.

Fair enough to say you don’t like Rick Berman but saying things like using the paper of his memoirs as tilet paper is cruel.

There is a line and I feel some people have stepped over that line.

Hope that makes sense.

I have gripes against JJ Abrams but I am never that cruel in my comments.

237. trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Well why do I accept the new film more :/ is it because I am a new fan who was introduced to Star Trek from the 09 Star Trek film

238. trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Well at least I don’t have gripes against JJ Abrams I don’t feel the need to complain when I enjoyed what they did

239. roy - February 12, 2011

@23, Damien

I think Brent Spiner summed it up quite nicely a few years ago as to why Nemesis failed financially at the box office. At the time he believed that movie going audience sent a message that they were no longer interested in seeing another Star Trek movie with the TNG cast and the box office take was crystal clear on that. Agree or disagree, this was his take on Nemesis a few years back.

240. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

238

Trying to point out that I am more civil with my gripes about JJ Abrams than some fans here are about RIck Berman.

I was just using it to illustrate that some comments against Rick Berman have been to nasty.

Don’t turn this into another argument over the new movie. It’s not about that.

Yes Rick Berman made a few mistakes but I love a lot of Star Trek done under his watch. I am unhappy at the comments made against Berman on this site.

In regards to JJ Abrams, I don’t want to cremate the guy because he changed things. I never said that but I was pointing out that I don’t like the guys work as much as everyone does on here. Doesn’t mean I dislike the new movie, it’s just different and he is clearly attracting the mainstream and not the fans.

I am not going to go into the size changes he made because what’s the point. I didn’t like them but its the way it is.

241. Christopher_Roberts - February 12, 2011

I’ve just got to say, I don’t really understand why so many had a problem with Kirk’s death in Generations. He died two times! One aboard the Enterprise-B and another on Veridian III. Three if you count the alternate version, they rejected after a test screening.

You also have to look at it in the context of when they made the film. TNG was the successor to TOS on the big screen, after being immensely popular on the small. They were going to calling the shots for the foreseeable future. Gene Roddenberry said several times during TNG’s run, that he though Kirk would not have been alive in the 24th Century. William Shatner too was fine with it, right up until the last minute and only started having regrets, once the fan reaction kicked in.

Mind you, I suppose I’ve got my issues with decisions made under a current administration too. Destroying Vulcan – even one where the sky is blue. Amanda too. Why? What have they got against them? Rounding up the TOS crew together and handing them their famous roles far too easily and quickly.

242. ensign joe - February 12, 2011

boborci’s comment reflects berman’s statement..

243. ensign joe - February 12, 2011

You’re doing a fine job captain_neill. Your sentiments are shared..

244. trekprincess - February 12, 2011

I don’t agree with everything you said about Star Trek 09 Captain Neill hope you understand my different views on Star Trek I think you have a very strict view on what Star Trek really and what it should be about ah well:)

245. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

244

No I don’t. God it seems that you are the one who gets angry when someone points out something that they didn’t like in the new movie.

You moan at me for not liking Star Trek XI as the best ever Trek, but you are the exact opposite. I am just defending what came before like you are defending the new movie.

New movie – 2 hours

Rest of Star Trek- 700 +hours

I am happy that you like the new movie, it is a good movie. But if I am going to be penalised for preferring a lot of past Trek over the new movie, then this site is not really getting what StarTrek is about. Star Trek is about overcoming difference and getting rid of intolerence. Yet we go against these ideals on this site regarding Mr Berman.

Yes I will admit that the Abrams movie is NOT my all time fav Star Trek but I never said people were wrong for liking the film. I am not a dictator.

I just feel that Star Trek XI was designed more for the mainstream and newbies than it was for us hard core fans. I am sure Trekprincess will turn this into me hating new movie fans but I am not and never have said that.

I just like the newbies to see the stuff that came before and see the movie as a doorway into the Star Trek universe. I guess that must be a crime to hope for that, new fans liking other Star Trek , the ones we grew up loving.

246. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

243

THanks for the comment.

I don’t mean to spread hate. Just voicing my thoughts on this Berman bashing thing.

The Berman bashing is something I totally disagree with with some Star Trek fans. Fans are just being a little too nasty about it.

I will agree he made some mistakes over the years but I thin a lot of great stuff still came out of his tenre and I am as proud to own the spin offs as I am of the Original Series.

247. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

241

I will never forgive the Abrams regime for destorying Vulcan.

Fortunately as it’s a parallel univers, I treat like the mirror Quark getting killed in “Crossover”, he’s still alive in the Prime Universe.

Vulcan is still there in our Prime universe, but really hated them for destroying Vulcan in that movie. That was always one of my gripes with the new movie.

One of my gripes despite still liking the movie. I love the movie but that scene is always a painful moment in the film.

248. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

and unfortunately because of the mainstream attention I bet you Ponn Farr will not be addressed with Spock or any other Vulcans now.

249. Crusher - February 12, 2011

Abrmas Sucked! STXI Sucked!! Orci And Kurstman Sucked!!!

250. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

247

I guess it was a brave choice and hate is probably too strong a word.

That’s say I hated the decision to do it. I thought it was wrong to destroy Vulcan.

251. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Well I am telling the truth of the situation

252. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

251

What truth?

Neither of our opinions are gospel.

253. ensign joe - February 12, 2011

“I will never forgive the Abrams regime for destorying Vulcan.”

Now that’s a bit much ain’t it?

254. Damian - February 12, 2011

Well, I think there is one thing we can all agree on. All of us here like Star Trek in one form or another. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here and be so passionate about it. Yes we differ on what shows we like, whether we liked one or another more, but by an large there is something in Gene Roddenberry’s creation we all like. And remember, it’s still just a show. Just entertainment. No need to stress out about it.

I agree with Captain Neill about the spinoffs, I loved them too.

I agree with MJ about the new movie, I loved that too.

And the original series will always be my favorite. The Doomsday Machine, Journey to Babel. Assignment: Earth. Space Seed. Balance of Terror. The Enterprise Incident, etc etc etc. You can’t beat that.

Hell, I even liked Spock’s Brain :]

255. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

253

I corrected myself in 250

I hated the decision

256. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

254

Spock’s Brain is actually a really fun episode I think.

TOS is a classic and I have TOS twice, got the 2004 DVDs and the Blu Ray sets, and if that ain’t devotion then I don’t know what is.

257. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

Spock’s Brain is in the so bad its fun category

258. Christopher_Roberts - February 12, 2011

247. You got it right first time.

They did de-story Vulcan!

i.e. they presumably thought the planet was better gone. Presumably that race’s stablising influence on the Federation too.

259. Christopher_Roberts - February 12, 2011

Not really a typo was it? De-story = deny story.

260. somethoughts - February 12, 2011

#242

Actually bermans comments reflects how berman was only riding the success of gr and others. He just doesnt get it.

261. Lt. Dakin - February 12, 2011

Heart of “Star Trek 2009″–

Spock and Amanda before the Vulcan Council scene.

Captain Pike with Kirk in th bar.

The ENTIRE George Kirk / Kelvin / birth sequence– capped later when Jim Kirk says to Spock prime– did I know my father?

262. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Thank you at least there’s other fans on here that loved the new Star Trek film captain neill go and get a hobby or something because your rants about Star Trek 09 are getting old and repitive :)

263. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Thats hugely ironic #244, trekprincess, cos I reckon you have the strictest possible view on what Trek should be.

JJ’s.

If you want me to be honest I think you are so far out of your depth on here its almost embarrassing. Many people on here have a massive knowledge and understanding of Trek and you seem to want to go toe to toe with them with your one same old viewpoint.

Sit back and learn a little. Study Trek. Watch it all (which I understand you are doing) but most of all try to place ’09 in some kind of balance within the history of the show. Its one film. Its certainly not the be all, end all.

264. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

Thanks trekprincess, you make it seem like a crime for liking past Trek.

265. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#262 and that is such a poor post which confirms my feelings that you are out of your depth.

266. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

How can a two hour movie balance out over 700 episodes and 10 previous movies?

267. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

Let me ask you something? You have watched other Trek right? Are you liking the other stuff?

268. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Sure am buddy! (oh sorry, that wasn’t aimed at me, was it? ;-) )

269. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

260. somethoughts – February 12, 2011

Yeah, I get that same feeling from Berman. Star Trek was a career enhancer. Certainly, GR also treated Star Trek the same way as evidenced by the fact that he abandoned the show to others to run in the third season when he realized it was not being renewed and he had to focus on other things to have a career. But it was GRs idea. The stars aligned for him just right with the talent he was able to pool, and the rest was history. Later the stagnation sets in and respect for the attitudes of the fans sort of guided everything, and that was probably the onset of Star Trek’s terminal arthritis. That’s the long goodbye to Star Trek of Berman’s tenure.

270. Daoud - February 12, 2011

@266. Yes. Empire Strikes Back is two hours of Star Wars that if you could only watch one thing, and not the other 7 movies (I include the 2 Ewok adventure films) 1 Christmas special, endless Clone Wars this or that, and countless books…. ESB balances out all the rest.
.
From Russia With Love, two hours, that balances out all the rest of James Bond.
.
And yes, Star Trek 2009 sums up much of Trek in 2 hours.

271. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

And then in the movies Nicholas Meyer resurrected the franchise. It was his strong guiding vision that let it endure in the movies, not Gene Roddenberry’s. And that’s sort of what the franchise lacked in the Berman years. I think the fans really were too much of a concern whereas Nicholas Meyer had the right balance of perspectives and because of that he produced some good material. And THAT is the tradition that Bob and JJ are following, NOT Berman’s. You have to follow your own heart. You can’t put yourself in the shoes of a million fans and do what THEY want because, as evidenced by the posts on this site, we’re all different and we like different things about the franchise.

272. trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Yes I have watched the other Star Trek tv series I have seen them on tv Captain Neill :) let me ask you something is it a crime to love Abrams Star Trek and the other trek’s as well guess people are going to gang up on md me now because what I think about Star Trek personally

273. Dom - February 12, 2011

Funny thing: I always felt Berman’s Treks were Star Trek without the ‘heart’ of Star Trek! Abrams’ film was full of life energy and everything else ‘Star Trek’ that the other spinoffs lacked!

His remarks just go to show that he never understood Star Trek and the few good hours that came from his protracted era in charge were mostly down to good luck and one or two writers, actors and directors. Truth is, once Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner were gone, spaceship-based Trek shows had no one who could truly lift the chilly, cold material Berman preferred to a higher level.

Then again, what would you expect from a man who could never really be bothered to watch the original series! Truly, Berman was the Tin Man of Star Trek!

274. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#270 It may well give you a taste of Star Wars and James Bond, but you cannot say that is all they are about.

275. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Nobody is ganging up on you, TrekPrincess, so spare us that old line.
As I have said, you are out of your depth. If you weren’t you wouldn’t feel ganged up on.

I think its great you have gotten into Trek, but lets see if you can start to expand your conversation of the show.

276. Mike S - February 12, 2011

Berman writes about Nemesis: “Any Star Trek movie opened and it’d have a huge opening weekend, but this one didn’t. Now, why?”

I wasn’t able to attend the opening night. When I got a chance, the movie was already at the discount theater. After I saw it, as we were walking out to the car, I told my wife, “I’m glad I didn’t pay full price for that!”

I enjoyed the first part of the movie, Riker and Troy’s wedding. And the rest of the story is one that was ripe for the telling: The fall of Romulus. It could have been a multi-movie story to tell. But, given that it’s something that the Romulans must do, how can one involve the TNG crew? I know, let’s invent the Remans, a Romulan subgroup that no one has ever heard of. Let’s throw in a clone of Picard, that doesn’t even remotely look like Patrick Streward. If that not exciting enough, let have Picard and Data go bounding over the surface of a planet that should be protected by the Prime Directive, with Worf in the back shooting at the locals. Oh, in the end, we’ll kill off Data and replace him with a prototype called B4.

Arg!

TNG was wonderful about making sure that all the characters got air time. But the TNG movies were all about Picard and Data! This movie would have been much better if, after the wedding, Riker and Troy went off on a honeymoon and got kidnapped (somehow) and taken to Romulus, where there was a revolution brewing. They could have made at least a two story movie of their struggle to survive the events on Romulus and the Enterprise’s efforts to rescue them. And yes, if Brent Spiner is tired of playing Data, then kill Data off.

Now, that’s a movie I would have liked to see.

277. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

Well, I think Berman thinks the heart of Star Trek is what a certain group of fans wanted, which was the sort of replacement religion of secular humanism the show came to represent. And that’s sort of why we use words like “canon” and “apocryphal” today to speak of it’s stories which is something that Roddenberry himself started doing. In the 60’s it had none of that. It was just a cool show breaking all the rules about what was possible to do on TV and then later, like religions tend to do, it stagnated into rules and codes of conduct that typify regimental rather than inspirational behavior and motivations.

In fact, if you look at so many of the criticisms of Star Trek (2009) they seem to be coming from the standpoint of the movie NOT following something called “Gene’s Vision,” which is tantamount to saying that Bob is ignoring the Will of The Creator. Bob is committing sacrilege. He is Not Of The Body. And Trekkies are coming to resemble followers of Landru who do NOT want a fresh take of the roots of the franchise, but want it to be exactly what it was. Ironically, that makes the complainers-about-the-changes progressives who have a profoundly conservative mindset with regard to what Star Trek is and must be.

Which is not TOO unfortunate, I suppose, since progressivism to me just looks like another pseudo-religious political hornswoggle to get people regimented by their position in a global order of ranks and files.

So here’s hoping that Bob doesn’t build on that same attitude in the sequel. We need Firefly now more than TNG.

278. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

And we need Captain James T. Kirk saying screw The Prime Directive instead of Picard presenting the example of obedience.

279. Vultan - February 12, 2011

#270

Well, in many ways Trek ’09 was a greatest hits collection of previous Trek movies and episodes.

“Now That’s What I Call Star Trek! Volume One”

;)

280. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2011

#234

I hear she’s a Wilde ride, Harry! So be careful!

281. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Oh right expand the conversation guess I’m pretty boring

282. Harry Ballz - February 12, 2011

280.

Always, Ryan!

283. Rocket Scientist - February 12, 2011

Captain Neill: You talk a lot of sense sir. Just wanted to voice a vote of support!

284. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#281 Yes.

285. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2011

I agree with what Captain Neill says for the most part (I do like the new movie more than he does though) but I wish he wouldn’t repeat everything. I don’t think he needs ten posts to get his point across.

And it seems that Trekprincess and Captain Neill are two opposites of the same coin. Trekprincess likes all of the previous Treks, but her favorite is the new movie, while the opposite is true for Captain Neill, who likes the new movie but prefers the older stuff. I don’t know why they need to argue about it.

And finally, this topic has sparked many interesting opinions. Both sides make some good points.

286. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2011

If people like Trekprincess became fans because of the new movie, then it says a lot about the new movie and it’s writers. They did their job well, and the movie succeeded in its mission. People don’t have to like what J.J Abrams did, or the kind of movie he made, but must acknowledge that it brought in new fans, (even if the majority of those who saw the film in theatres were old fans) breathing new life into the franchise as a whole.

287. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#285 I can’t say I’ve noticed Neill banging on with his views on one subject ad nauseum for months on end like TP has.
It got very old for me some months ago and while I realise it would have just been best to ignore her i’m afraid I couldn’t! I did try.

And tbh I’m not convinced she has really honestly seen much of the older Trek’s. I just get the feeling she’d be sitting there longing for Chris Pine to walk on set.
If her Trek knowledge has expanded I’ve seen no evidence of it as yet.

288. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2011

#287

Yes, TP does repeat herself. And I do think she should at least be more specific with her posts.

As for her longing for Chris Pine, there’s nothing wrong with that. He’s talented, good looking and a great Kirk. What more could you ask for?

289. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

William Shatner. ;-p

290. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2011

#289

Yeah, but it looks like we’ll never see William Shatner as our favorite captain again, unfortunately. Who knows though, perhaps J.J Abrams will become Scotty and pull off a last-minute miracle?

Chris Pine, though, was a great choice as Kirk and a worthy successor to William Shatner. But no one will ever top “The Shat”!

291. Dom - February 12, 2011

287

So I guess that means Trekprincess isn’t a ‘True Fan’ then! ;)

I reject almost all 1987-2005 Treks, not counting TFF and TUC, because I see them as a different science fiction series with different concepts and philosophies that purloined the Star Trek name, its terminology and designs in order to get sold. For me, the makers of TNG et al did a reasonable job making a sci-fi show, but, Good God! it certainly wasn’t anything to do with Star Trek.

For Berman to say the new film lacked the heart of Star Trek when he couldn’t be bothered to watch Star Trek is a bit rich!

Yet my rejection of TNG and its companion shows as actual Star Trek shows doesn’t make me any less of a fan of Star Trek itself! There must be a lot of new fans brought into Star Trek by Star Trek 2009 who run a mile after looking at a lot of message boards where they’re dismissed as girly Twilight fan-types for liking Chris Pine as Kirk!

And Neill’s banging on about the same point in spamalicious numbers of posts is one of the comedy highlights of the site! It wouldn’t be the same if he wasn’t stressing out about people liking Abrams’ movie every day! Every topic needs a Neill!

292. Captain Rickover - February 12, 2011

Man, I can’t believe it! This is no longer a Star Trek discussion, this turned into a hate-board!

Everyone, calm down! Back to reason and logic!

There is no reason for fans to attack and insult other fans or flame them because they love TNG, DSN, VOY or ENT. There is no reason for so much hate and venom! Or are you all a bunch of angry klingons?

293. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

She is a true fan. Of Trek ’09.
I don’t need 5 pragraphs to explain that.

294. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

292 I don’t hate anybody on here. Why would you interpret it that way?
We are having a discussion.

295. Red Dead Ryan - February 12, 2011

#292

I haven’t seen any uncivil discussions going on this thread. I don’t know how you got the impression that there was a lot of hate and venom being spewed. I think its you who needs to calm down!

296. Chris Fawkes - February 12, 2011

@3 Spot on Harry.

I think Berman is also way off re the new movie not having the heart of Trek. Only two films since the original crew made their exit in Trek 6 had the heart of Star Trek 1. was Galaxy Quest and 2. was the new movie.

Most of the next gen movies lacked heart of any sort, fc excepted.

297. Captain Rickover - February 12, 2011

@ Buzz Cagney

That wasn’t adressed to you (except you can see a reason why I shoud have… Beside that, you are one of the more civilized posters here – as far as I can see). While I was typing this discussion was going on. But I see that trekprincess’ points getting mocked as well as some Trek09-fans here made fun of captain_neill while other’s (and sometimes the same people) flame him as a hater of the new movie (and so force him to repeat his points over and over again).

298. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Can I try to clarify my thoughts..
Berman did some good stuff. Some very good stuff.
I thought Trek ’09 was terrific and had plenty of heart.
TrekPrincess goes on a bit (me too by the looks of this thread lol)
Kennedy was taken out by the Mafia in cahoots with the CIA.
I can’t say I’ve noticed Captain_Neill banging on with his view.
But you just know thats all I’m gona see from now on!
Neil Armstrong didn’t walk on the moon.
It was Mars. Took a wrong turn and was too embarrassed to stop and ask directions.
Star Trek beats Star Wars everytime. Except for box-office. Obviously.
I think that covers things.

If I’ve offended you, Trekprincess, that wasn’t my intention.
But please, if I hear how much you loved ’09 one more time I think I might implode! Can you put some kind of alert at the front of your post if you feel the need to mention it again?
Thanks awfully.

299. Captain Rickover - February 12, 2011

# 297 Chris Fawkes

Depends on what do you consider to be the heart of Star Trek. While Berman was not very specific about the heart of Star Trek, he could have meant everything.

300. trekprincess - February 12, 2011

I love all Star Trek :) not just the new movie

301. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#297 I was typing mine as you posted.
I do try to be civilised. One of the lessons Trek taught me I think! Just occassionally I slip though.
Hopefully I’ve put that right with post 298.

302. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#300 thats great. Just sometimes can you tell us more than just the fact that you love it though, please?
As you are a new fan I think we’d really like to hear your thoughts.

303. trekprincess - February 12, 2011

I’m really into TOS at the minute I watch a couple of episodes every night u think I am obsessed :)

304. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Obsessed is good. You have a favourite ep of TOS yet?

305. Chris Fawkes - February 12, 2011

Of course i would like to thank Rick Berman for Seven of Nine.

Surely we can all agree on that.

306. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#299 yeh, I found that whole ‘heart of Trek’ thing a little vague so I just took the literal meaning. As in ‘the kid showed plenty of heart’.
Taken that way I thought there was plenty of heart to the film.
Can there be another meaning?

307. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Seven of Nine was good, but I couldn’t help but feel cheated. I mean if number 7 was that hot just how tasty must numbers 8 and 9 have been?
;-))
Typical Berman, to hold out on us. ;-))

308. Daoud - February 12, 2011

Obsessed *is* good. Is that your favorite episode too? :D

309. Daoud - February 12, 2011

Well, okay, “OBSESSION”. ;)

310. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

I love all the episodes even the bad ones :)

311. Jonboc - February 12, 2011

#298. “I can’t say I’ve noticed Captain_Neill banging on with his view.”

…are you saying that with a straight face? :) Bless him but he does tend to repeat the same “…is it wrong to not like the new movie??” sentiment over and over….and over in multiple threads and has for months.

Also, excellent post dmduncan #277… So very very true.

and trek princess, Nice to see you indulging in some classic TOS…you just keep on trekking’ girl…you are the future.

In my closing thoughts on this thread, I won’t say that TNG was lacking heart….it was simply lacking. :)

312. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

LOL I was wondering if someone was gona pick that one up.

313. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

311 no, I was saying it in all honesty. I can’t say I read every post though.
Sorry, I didn’t realise there was going to be a test! lol
I will try harder to pay attention in the future.

I’d still like to hear your thoughts, TrekPrincess. What, exactly, did you think were the goodbad episodes?

314. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

I love Obsession just a classic episode :) I think all the Star Trek tv series and movies are all wonderful do you think I am just obsessed with the new movie you will be mistaken I love everything Star Trek not just Abrams Star Trek film

315. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

Sorry sweetheart, I’m just not convinced.
Never mind, i’ll follow your progress with interest.
I’ve enjoyed this thread but thats all for me on this one.
Catcha elsewhere.

316. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

Trekprincess, you just keep on no matter what anybody says. Nobody beats capt_neill for repetition. What’s his opinion on the destruction of Vulcan? Does he think ST.09 is good, but not as good as other Trek? Does he think JJ isn’t the best thing to happen to Trek ever? Does he sometimes feel like it’s a crime to like any Trek but Abrams’ Trek? Does he hate how many Berman bashers there are on this site? If you haven’t read the answers to these penetrating questions already, just wait to his next post when he states them all over. AGAIN.

317. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

316

I am sorry for repeating myself. I really am.

318. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

301

It’s a lesson I have tried my best to do.

319. Harry Ballz - February 12, 2011

296.

Thanks, Chris! I appreciate that!

316.

dmduncan, friggin’ hilarious!!

320. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

Thanks for Mocking me

I am really sorry

321. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Well it’s the truth I am watching TOS why are you not convinced :(

322. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

321

I am glad you are loving TOS, its a great show.

Are you going to watch the other shows as well?

323. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Well I am not a long term fan so that’s why I may have amateur views on Star Trek fan for only 2 years

324. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

323

As long as you are liking Star Trek, then its cool.

Treat it as IDIC, Infinite Diversities in Infinite Combinations.

Star Trek is about embracing differences. Its a future I hope we can achieve.

325. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

Well that’s my decision Captain Neill if I want to watch the other treks as well what is it to you

326. Corinthian7 - February 12, 2011

I think it’s great that the new movie brought in new fans like Trek Princess who are now watching the older shows. We all had to start somewhere. When I was a kid I thought TOS was a joke, it looked cheap and dated and it took a few years of watching TNG before I embraced it.

327. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

325

Geez I was just curious to know if you wanted to try out the spin offs as well.

Why do you make that out as though I asked you a personal question.?

328. Trekprincess - February 12, 2011

I wish the guys would hurry up I really want Trek XII why can’t we talk about what you want for the sequel instead of bickering on the last film

329. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

328

Lot of other Trek you can watch while you wait for Star Trek XII. For you its all new so you get to see a lot of cool stuff first time.

Worth trying out and great to keep you going until new movie comes out.

330. The Lensman - February 12, 2011

“I just feel that Star Trek XI was designed more for the mainstream and newbies than it was for us hard core fans.”

Uh….yeah, it was. I believe Abrams even stated that. I know a guy at work, who is not a Trek fan, who doesn’t even care for Sci-fi. He’s seen the new Trek movie more than anyone I know. He borrowed my DVD so much, I finally gave it to him. That’s who the new movie was for.

So yeah, they weren’t making it for an aging and dwindling fan base who was getting more fractured with every incarnation. The same fan base who was getting more and more unhappy with the same stale and formulaic crap that Berman and Co. had been churning out for ten years or so.

THAT’S why Ent failed, NOT because of “franchise fatigue”. That’s the term Berman uses to avoid taking any responsibility for the fact that his creative well had run dry after 10 years or so. Most people had no problem with a new Trek.

Also, he doesn’t get to lament the budget he had to work with on the movies. While some of us fans were saying THEN that the Trek movies needed a fresh approach and a bigger budget, he was saying that there was no point in a larger budget since it was a “Star Trek” movie and no amount of money was going to change the public’s mind about seeing a “Star Trek” movie. He said that Star Trek would never be a summer blockbuster simply because it had the stigma of being “Star Trek”.

Thankfully someone came along and did the complete opposite of what Berman said and look…..it was a major hit.

I like that we’re in a new universe with a clean slate. The destruction of Vulcan is there to tell us that all bet’s are off and anything can happen. For this Trek fan of 40 years, Star Trek is exciting again.

331. P Technobabble - February 12, 2011

testing 1, 2 , 3

332. P Technobabble - February 12, 2011

Sorry for the test, but I wrote a post that, somehow, refuses to appear. If it shows up multiple times later, I sincerely apologize…

333. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

332. P Technobabble – February 12, 2011

Sorry for the test, but I wrote a post that, somehow, refuses to appear. If it shows up multiple times later, I sincerely apologize…

***

You are probably using a blocked keyword that rubbishes your entire post.

334. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

Haha! For all you fellow Firefly/Serenity fans, had to post this. Capt. Mal Reynolds puts on the browncoat once more in Nathan Fillion’s new series, Castle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3scNxCMNN4c

335. chrisfawkes.com - February 12, 2011

I would also like to thank the current team for actually doing the impossible. That is within the opening sequences of the new movie they repaired the damage that was done to Kirk’s character by Mr B.

As obscene as Kirks demise was in Generations was his birth into the universe the most glorious entrance afforded to any beloved character of fiction anywhere.

What lovers of TOS could have asked for more? what scene could have encapsulated the “heart of Star Trek” better? And did this not set the tone for the whole movie? (and if you say no to any of those perhaps it is you who has not the heart of Star Trek).

As Kirk was despised in his exit he was abundantly honored in his arrival. Of the writers i can only say this, that there is absolutely no question that they nailed it and i for one will be forever grateful.

336. Jonny Boy - February 12, 2011

“What was Star Trek 2009 about?”…

I think it was about acceptance, and making something of yourself. Improving one’s self, and learning to be selfless at the same time. Kirk starts of as a stubborn, selfish, self-loathing person with no direction and no aspirations. He is a raw image on the refined and bold leader that William Shatner portrayed. The only thing he has a is a desire to meet a challenge. He chooses to better himself, to put his past behind him, and to move forward. He is a young man who has had a pretty crappy life, and had no real father-figure to help guide him. With Pike’s encouragement, he becomes a real man, and learns to put others before himself. He makes something if himself! How is that not a good theme for a Star Trek film? Especially in an era when so many (misguided) people think that celebrities and movie characters should be good role modelsfor their kids. Its a stupid idea, but at least Kirk is a character that people can look at and say “He faced challenges, he was a loser, but he turned himself around and became a really good, honorable person.”

Spock is faced with his own internal and external issues: He has to face racism, tolerate bigotry, and deal with his own psychological demons. His story is about standing against the small injustices, and refusing to submit to an establishment that looks down on him. His story is about self-worth, and accepting people who are different. He is challenged by a personal conflict, and he learns to balance his two halves, while also learning to accept the things that make humans illogical. And how about he and Uhura hooking up? Bet Roddenberry would have flipped to find out that Star Trek would go from the first televised interracial kiss, a taboo subject, to depicting an interracial, hell, inter-species relationship in which the most surprising thing in this day and age was that Spock was dating Uhura. Pretty cool.

If you want to pick a “theme” for the new Trek, its staring you right in the face. The film is about learning to put the past in the past, to improve yourself by rising to meet a challenge and helping others, and to be a part of something bigger than yourself. It is also about acceptance of the things that make us different, and allowing those differences to enhance and enrich our lives and our relationships. Its about teamwork, and loyalty, and friendship. All good messages.

337. somethoughts - February 12, 2011

#336

Exactly. This is why boborci and team is in charge and berman is on the outside looking in.

338. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

330

Yes it is an exciting time and an exciting movie.

Doesn’t mean I have to like everthing they did. Vulcan’s destruction was a decision that was risky and bally but Iguess I was not happy they did that.

339. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

So IDIC is not applicable on this site

Infinite Diversities in Inifinite Combinations is not allowed anymore.

IDIC can explain different fans liking different eras of Star Trek.

My favs are TOS and TNG.

With Bob Orci I think that I hope that the awful script for Transformers 2 was down to Michael Bay rather than him. Because that movie made me lose faith.

Also if you want to go into bigotry with Vulcans, then that seems more a trait of 22nd Century vulans and I believe that the Vulcans in the new movie are more to the Vulcans we know and love after the Kir’shara was returned.

Well the one thing I wonder is, will the Ponn Farr be addressed or will that be abandoned as too confusing for the mainstream audience?

340. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

The thing is I understand things had to change to make it more appealling to the mainstream, who are the real bums on seats that Paramount want, not us ‘old fogies’. God I am only 27 and I fell old.

Perhaps I need to spend time on Genesis to feel young again. LOL.

But the scary thing is, if JJ Abrams did alienate ALL Star Trek fans it would not matter. Because it will still be a smash hit movie and Paramount would be happy with the millisons that it will make.

Might be very cynical of me to say that but its true.

I won’t boycott the film as I am eager to see the next movie.

I just like to see Abrams movie as part of the legacy of Trek, a link in the chain, so to speak.

JJ Abrams is just one chain. Rick Berman is another, Nick Meyer another and Harve Bennett and Gene Coon. All chains that follow on from Gene Roddenberry.

There is one thing I agree with in Rick Berman’s interviews. Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision, it was his baby. If it strays away from that then it’s not Star Trek.

That is why I don’t like the terma Abramsverse because it is saying that it’s his vision. I won’t be surprised if a generation of kids will think that Abrams created Star Trek.

I flipped when a tabloid newspaper credited Russell T Davies as the creator of Doctor Who. He is not the creator, that was Sydney Newman. Russell successfully brought Doctor Who back.

Russell honoured Sydney and the first producer, Verity Lambert, by referencing them in Human Nature.

JJ honoured Gene with his dedication at the end.

Star Trek will always be Gene’s vision. Star Trek has the best characters ever as well as being a positive look for the future, hope that all our wars will be over and we can embrace differences.

Now if Starfleet officers started acting like some of the characters on new Battlestar Galactic then it will be going too far away from Star Trek but I doubt that will happen.

341. Capitán Mexico - February 12, 2011

Roberto Orci:
http://www.mundostartrek.com es el foro de ST más importante en lengua española, por cantidad y calidad de opiniones. Quedas cordialmente invitado a visitarnos. Te aseguro que te vas a sorprender.
Muchas gracias.

342. MJ - February 12, 2011

@340. Capt Neil, I don’t think that posting every 10 minutes and posting multiple page messages, and also (i suspect, but can’t provide) posting under other names to support your arguments, is really helping you much to make progress in your position here. Sorry, but I don’t see anyone buying into what you are selling, my friend.

343. captain_neill - February 12, 2011

342

I only use the one name

I was just pointing out that no matter what Star Trek is always about Gene’s vision.

And my my last post was not a rant, just posting a statement.

344. Rocket Scientist - February 12, 2011

As I said before, Captain_Neill: “We reach”. I totally get what you’re saying. NuTrek is entertaining and interesting, but the Prime Universe will always be MY Trek.

345. MJ - February 12, 2011

@343. OK, well please see Anthony’s well thought advice to you on the other board today about not thinking you need to go nuts when people don’t agree with your position. It is OK for us all to disagree, my friend.

346. Basement Blogger - February 12, 2011

@ 343 In defense of Captain_Neill

It’s okay to repeat criticisms. I’ve said this before. Not everyone who reads the comments has read everything that Captain Neill has written. What I don’t like is the ad hominem attacks. And what I mean by that, instead of debating the opinion, other writers attack the speaker. Calling others “wanker trekkies” is an example on this thread. It’s okay to have strong opinions. Let’ agree to disagree but not deride the other speaker.

And the Captain is correct. Star Trek is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. Paraphrasing film critic Roger Ebert, that vision was about ideas, philosophical or scientific. It has inspired Americans to join NASA. Watch the PBS show Pioneers of Television on Science Fiction. Gene resisted attempts to make Star Trek more accessible. I’ll use the quote from the clip I’ve posted before. It was the show ” with something important to say.’ There. I’ve repeated myself again. That doesn’t mean Star Trek didn’t have adventure but it had intelligence to go along with the adventure. If it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s vision, it’s not Star Trek.

http://trekmovie.com/2011/01/18/pioneers-of-television-clip-william-shatner-on-how-he-made-star-trek-more-fun/

347. The Lensman - February 12, 2011

“Doesn’t mean I have to like everthing they did. Vulcan’s destruction was a decision that was risky and bally but I guess I was not happy they did that.”

Nobody’s saying you have to like everything they did. Hell, I don’t like everything they did, but in the end, we got a movie that had the kind of fun and excitement we hadn’t seen since the original. Now that everything’s been set in motion, I hope the second movie has all that excitement with a bit more brains.

Vulcan’s destruction was risky and ballsy….when it happened, I was sure they were going to undo it before the movie ended. And yeah, a part of me was like “How could they do that to Vulcan?”…..but then I was “Wow…they really did it…they offed a major world of the Federation and a big part of Star Trek.” That told me they were serious about bringing excitement back to Trek, and the feeling that ANYTHING could happen.

Ditto for Spock / Uhura. Felt a little weird at first, but then I was like “Yeah, I didn’t see that coming.” And I liked being surprised for the first time in I don’t know how long by a Trek production.

348. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

346: “If it’s not Gene Roddenberry’s vision, it’s not Star Trek.”

It sounds to me like you haven’t read a whole lot of UNLINKABLE material on the history of Star Trek, and are thus unaware of exactly how much Star Trek was NOT due to Gene Roddenberry but the genius of the people working for him. So this is just more of the same myth that Gene Roddenberry was the solitary creator of all these great ideas. So get the facts straight. Matt Jefferies was Star Trek. Alexander Courage was Star Trek (a man whom GR alienated by an underhanded contractual clause that effectively stole half of Courage’s royalties, caused him to sever his ties with Star Trek, and for which he refused to deal with GR again). William Ware Theiss was Star Trek. My Lord. GENE L. COON was so MUCH a part of Star Trek the show would be unrecognizable without his contributions. DC Fontana was Star Trek. William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, DeForest Kelley, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei, Walter Koenig were Star Trek.

So you are wrong. It was NOT Gene’s vision alone, but truth be told, he DID have a well known habit of taking credit for other people’s ideas. That was just one of the ways he had of promoting himself and his career, much like the whole IDIC pendant which was concocted as a sales item for Lincoln Enterprises.

Star Trek was the vision of a solid core of creative personnel with talent to spare and sorry, but you can’t credit their talent to Gene Roddenberry. Hell, Gene Coon probably shaped Star Trek as much as Gene Roddenberry, but all fans mostly repeat is the mythology of the solitary creator Gene Roddenberry saying Let there be LIGHT! Really? He did it all by himself, did he? And the remarkable similarities between Forbidden Planet and Star Trek are what? Amazing coincidences? Or is it more likely that Gene Roddenberry got the very core idea of the show from that movie?

And to suggest that ST.09 is NOT Star Trek? Well that’s just a circular argument. Please review the No True Scotsman fallacy.

349. keachick - February 12, 2011

#346 – “Gene resisted attempts to make Star Trek more accessible. I’ll use the quote from the clip I’ve posted before. It was the show ” with something important to say.’ ”

If you have “something important to say”, why would you not want to make Star Trek more accessible? Not make it more accessible to whom? Did not Gene Roddenberry start the whole merchandising business? If that is not making the programme more accessible to the masses, I don’t know what is.

I know this will sound a bit snotty intellectually, I think Gene R’s mistake was to overestimate the general intelligence of the networks and the majority of the American population. I’m not sure how successful Star Trek was on its first run outside the USA, like Canada, UK, Australia and NZ, but since they have smaller population bases and don’t see advertisements for a lot of American consumer goods, people from outside the USA count for squat as far as US studios and networks are concerned.

Geez, I much prefer the traditional BBC way of making a television programme. Even that is becoming too commercialised nowadays unfortunately.

350. dmduncan - February 12, 2011

Hey, check this out. The name of the commander (played by Leslie Nielsen) of the C57D from Forbidden Planet? JJ Adams! Is that not too close to JJ Abrams?

Fantastic planet! That’s what THIS is.

http://news.discovery.com/space/leslie-nielsens-bold-trek-to-a-forbidden-world.html

351. Buzz Cagney - February 12, 2011

#321 I was going to give this thread a miss from here on- i’m truly not interested in arguing the toss about Trek or anything really (despite evidence to the contrary lol) but as you asked me a direct question I will do you the courtesy of answering.
No, I’m not convinced you have watched much other Trek nor do I believe you even really want to.
I asked you directly which Trek’s you have enjoyed. Now most enthusiastic viewers would have rattled of quite a number. You managed one- Obsession. Which was an episode mentioned above! Its almost as if you could think of no others. Can you see it hardly inspires me to believe you.
Its entirely your prerogative to want to watch and digest as much or as little Trek as you wish. But as it stands I maintain you are only really interested in nuTrek. As I say, its your choice, but it does rather limit your conversation on here. Which is why we are having this particular conversation.
Perhaps you should find a nuTrek forum to hang out on?

I’ll give it another shot, as you insist you are watching ToS.
Do you think nuTrek is faithful to ToS?

And Neill, as its ok for TP to carry on posting (which of course it is) then it must follow its ok for you as well.

352. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

And hey, I loved Gene Roddenberry and what he did by creating Star Trek, but there’s no need to generate this mythology about who he was. I loved the guy anyway, faults and all. You can’t love somebody unless they’re perfect and that’s just a character flaw in you. And I’ve got plenty of flaws, but at least I don’t have to worry about getting rid of that one.

353. Harry Ballz - February 13, 2011

348.

dmduncan, I am so glad to see you write this post. Over the last few years I’ve alluded to some of these points about Roddenberry, but you really nailed it in this one nicely constructed overview. Personally, I think Roddenberry was a hack who stole the entire concept for Star Trek from Forbidden Planet. All he did was change the shape of the ship and give the first officer pointed ears. Not much of an accomplishment to hang a legacy on, is it?

354. trekprincess - February 13, 2011

No I meant I am obsessed with all the TOS episodes and I have watched the other series I watch them when they are on tv well I used to watch the episodes on Channel One because that channel got axed I may confess I haven’t watched Star Trek 09 in a while

355. trekprincess - February 13, 2011

You think I am only obsessed with Nutrek but I love everything Star Trek :( I haven’t watched Star Trek 09 in a while you are thinking that I watch it everyday no I don’t I have only seen it about 10 times but I think broaden your experience of how you watch Star Trek would be a great idea for me yes I do think it is faithful to TOS but it is a new twist and new things can happen now :)

356. Trekprincess - February 13, 2011

Off course I am interested in watching the other trek it would be pretty boring if all I did every day is watch Star Trek 09 and not love the other Star Trek movies and tv series :)

357. Trekprincess - February 13, 2011

Well Neill I am 23 is there any fans like me that love nutrek but is a newbie and understands how I feel about Star Trek :)

358. captain_neill - February 13, 2011

348

You can argue the same about Bob Kane as well. Bill Finger helped in the development of batman but Bob Kane gets all the credit.

Of course I know it was a team effort, different people brought different elements but Star Trek started with an idea in Gene Roddenberry’s head.

Even Bob Justman said that because Gene left on the third season of TOS that the ‘magic’ of Star Ttrek was lost.

Star Trek is not just something you can slap a name onto and say this is Star Trek. I know some people think about that with the spin offs but a lot of them do hold true to the ideals started out in the 60s with TOS.

359. Basement Blogger - February 13, 2011

@ 348 dmduncan; on your view of Gene Roddenberry, his vision and that he stole Star Trek from Forbidden Planet.

I agree that there were many talented people that worked for Star Trek and its many television shows and films. Gene Roddenberry was not a perfect man. So, if you want to say he stole from Alexander Courage, you maybe right. If you say he stole the idea of Star Trek from Forbidden Planet, then that’s your right to say it. On that I will disagree with you. There were many things in Forbidden Planet that were not in Star Trek. I will say something we might agree on. IF THERE WAS NO GENE RODDENBERRY, THERE IS NO STAR TREK. .

One thing you didn’t comment on is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. I will use TOS as an example. He saw the arrogance of American foreign policy in the sixties. Hence his shows on the Viet Nam war and the idea of the prime directive. See “A Private Little War.” He wanted to end racism and sexism. That’s why he had Uhura, black and a woman. That’s why he had Sule to represent Asians. He hated war and the futility of war. See “A Taste of Armageddon.” He saw the problems with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. “The Doomsday Machine.” There were problems with race in American and there still are. “Let That Be your Last Battlfield.” Yes, he didn’t write all these shows. But he could have stopped them from being produced.

If you watched the documentary “Pioneers of Televsion: Science Fiction”, the network tried to force Roddenberry to make his show more popular or accessible by getting him to add more monsters. He resisted. This website posted a letter detailing his feeling for the show that it would be accessible but be of substance. (Link below.) Gene was an optimist. We are not going to blow ourselves up. Mankind will make it. Even the filmmakers of Star Trek 2009 acknowledge Gene’s optimism. Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 29. And since you love Star Trek (2009) so much, please note they dedicate the movie to Gene. Rather remarkable considering you think Roddenberry is a plagiarist.

I’m sorry that Captain Neill, myself and others are not up to your intelligence. For that, I guess you should continue to write angry and derisive posts.

Sincerely,
“Wanker Trekkie” (your phrase)

http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

360. captain_neill - February 13, 2011

357

I didn’t realise you where in the UK.

It was a shame that Channel One got axed.

I think Voyager is on the new Sky channel Atlantic.

Listen I am sorry if I seem a bit ranty. I love Star Trek a lot, it is my favourite show.

361. P Technobabble - February 13, 2011

333. dm

Thanks. I’ve been lookin for the 7 words you can’t say on tv, but it’s gotta be something else… oh well…

362. Christopher_Roberts - February 13, 2011

360. I wish the BBC or another of the main UK channels would show Star Trek. Either ENTERPRISE (that show used to be on T4, which didn’t suit it) or the Remastered ORIGINAL SERIES would be my picks.

363. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

359: “IF THERE WAS NO GENE RODDENBERRY, THERE IS NO STAR TREK. .”

Come on, man. If there was no Herb Solow there is no Star Trek. If there was no Lucille Ball there is no Star Trek. If there was no Bob Justman, there is no Star Trek; the guy RAN the show in the 3rd season while GR collected his paycheck for the show but was on the other side of the lot doing his own thing. So your bold type hardly cinches any arguments here. That could be said about SO MANY people involved in the show. What’s Star Trek without it’s Scottish Chief Engineer? That was James Doohan in that role, not Gene Roddenberry. And I’ve seen enough of Jack Lord to know that he would have been another dud Captain like Jeffrey Hunter, both of which were Gene’s choices. The actor he settled for, William Shatner? He turned the Captain of the Enterprise into a cultural ICON.

You mentioned A Taste of Armageddon. Yeah, one of Star Trek’s best. But you didn’t mention that it was written by Hamner and GENE L. COON, who also created KHAN, the KLINGONS, and THE PRIME DIRECTIVE.

What would Star Trek be without THOSE?

“Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 29. And since you love Star Trek (2009) so much, please note they dedicate the movie to Gene. Rather remarkable considering you think Roddenberry is a plagiarist.”

Just the facts, which you are apparently having a hard time swallowing. What I DID was counteract the mythology that fans like you continue to falsely propagate so that you can continue to justify your untrue assertion that Gene Roddenberry was the father of all that is good in Star Trek.

I, like all who love TOS, owe Gene Roddenberry a debt of gratitude for getting the show together, for running it in its first two seasons, and for orchestrating (with the notable help of Harlan Ellison who was at that time a FAN of Star Trek) the demonstrations and letter writing campaigns that helped keep the show on the air.

He was the Big Man, the Boss who ensured a measure of quality that it would not have had without his guidance, but it is simply a mistatement of history, and an injustice to those who contributed so much of their own talent, to give credit entirely to Gene Roddenberry. Give it where it’s due. That’s fair and decent.

“I’m sorry that Captain Neill, myself and others are not up to your intelligence. For that, I guess you should continue to write angry and derisive posts.”

Get the adjectives correct. Not angry. Passionate. HUGE difference.

358: “Of course I know it was a team effort, different people brought different elements but Star Trek started with an idea in Gene Roddenberry’s head.”

A so called “teachable moment.” Star Trek’s connection to Shakespeare can be traced straight through Forbiddden Planet, which was a SF version of The Tempest. So I guess you could say that Star Trek started with an idea in the collective heads of William Shakespeare, Irving Block, Allen Adler, and Cyril Hume — before Gene Roddenberry got hold of and put his personal stamp on it.

353. Harry Ballz – February 13, 2011

Thanks, Harry. It does need to be said from time to time, for fairness’ sake. But I do credit Star Trek’s optimistic view of the future and the wise move to diversify the makeup of the crew to Gene Roddenberry, which was a HUGE improvement from the all white male crew of the Bellerephon. Without those, it wouldn’t be what we’ve come to know as “Star Trek” either.

364. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

361: “Thanks. I’ve been lookin for the 7 words you can’t say on tv, but it’s gotta be something else… oh well…”

We’ve discovered that “po_rn” and “ins_urance” will vaporize your whole post. Maybe you’ve hit on another?

365. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

And if Gene Roddenberry hadn’t been the inspiring figure behind the scenes, it’s quite possible that we just wouldn’t have gotten the best work out of the people who helped to craft Star Trek’s look and feel. When you compare Star Trek to that other series of the time, Lost in Space, which was an idiotic show (man in a CARROT SUIT!?!?), then you can see the importance of having a single intelligent guiding vision behind it all.

But no matter what, there’s a long list of credits after each episode, and they are there for a good reason. TOS was a blessed production, and the facts show that two people in particular were mistreated, Alexander Courage being one (after all, he COULD HAVE been involved in the show throughout the entire SERIES if he hadn’t been so offended), and Matt Jefferies being another, although Jefferies soldiered on without complaint.

366. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

Bottom line: Nobody does anything alone. We are influenced by so many different sources that have bubbled up through vast regions of time into our conscious awareness that it is often difficult, if not just plain impossible, to figure out where our ideas truly originate.

367. Dom - February 13, 2011

I don’t believe in ‘Gene’s Vision’ where the original Star Trek is concerned: read Inside Star Trek by Robert Justman and Herbert Solow to understand how much of Star Trek was the result of other people’s abilities.

‘Gene’s Vision’ is a myth perpetuated from the TNG era onwards where, for many reasons, including legal ones, it was perpetuated that Star Trek was a quasi-religious text revealed to the Gene Roddenberry in a vision that would create a utopia on planet Earth! The whole thing was overblown and silly. Ron Moore’s talked about it at length elsewhere!

‘Gene’s Vision’ also got up my nose and the noses of just about anyone who knew anything about the original Star Trek and had grown up associating names like Herbert F Solow, Robert Justman, DC Fontana, Gene Coon and John Meredyth Lucas with the creation and development of Star Trek.

Gene Roddenberry had a basic idea for a TV show, not a vision. He worked with talented people to shape the idea into something workable and after a shaky start where the female ‘third lead’ was written out, Gene Coon worked out the dynamics of the main characters which included a new third lead: Dr McCoy, who didn’t even exist in the original ‘vision.’

‘Gene’s Vision’ certainly shaped TNG with its cold ‘perfected’ humans, who have assumed the position of gods themselves. Indeed, the humans of TNG are worshipped in scripts in a manner not dissimilar to the way Nazis and Stalinists worshipped the human form. And that’s the problem with utopias: they can only exist if you kill everyone who doesn’t fit in!

As I’ve said before, Berman’s slavish devotion to ‘Gene’s Vision’ points to one of two things: either Berman lacked the creativity and ability to delegate allowing showrunners the freedom to take the show in their own direction . . . or there’s no such thing as ‘Gene’s Vision’ and the whole thing was cooked up in order for Berman to make Star Trek his way and get it past the fans!

368. Daoud - February 13, 2011

@359: In retrospect, it’s just as easy to note he wanted to have Number One, because he had a casting couch and needed a role for his gf, Majel. It’s easy to note he wanted Uhura, because he still had a casting couch, and needed a role for his new gf, Nichelle. After all, the pilot WNMHGB had Alden, a black *man*, at the comm post.

369. Harry Ballz - February 13, 2011

363.

dmduncan, I agree with your last paragraph in this post, as well! Cheers!

370. Maria - February 13, 2011

I think Nemesis got a pretty bad rap after the fact because Admiral Janeway was in it. I mean the hate that people spread around about Voyager sounds more mean-spirited and vitriolic than what I’d expect to hear at a Klan rally.

Voyager haters are some f the most immature and vile-minded people I’ve ever had the misfortune to come across on line. Not only did someone post on iMDB that Robert Beltran should have been drowned at birth to “save us from Chakotay”, but I’ve actually been threatened as a fan of B’Elanna Torres.

I’m sure there was a bit of advance-buzz that Janeway was in the film, and I think this was enough to keep people out of the theaters.

I love Voyager, and especially Paris & Torres.

But, I think they should have left Janeway out of Nemesis. That way the V’Ger haters would still have been willing to plunk down the $9 for a movie ticket. And Nemesis would have been the hit movie they wanted. And maybe they wouldn’t have had to totally skewer the timeline and blow up Vulcan in XI – which keeps me from being able to enjoy the film until they come out with a new film set in the normal timeline, with an intact Vulcan, and an intact canon Trek history.

371. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

And right now, more than anyone else involved with the production, I think it’s fair to say that Bob Orci is the one who sits in the chair once held by Berman, Bennett, and Gene Roddenberry. He is the one who engages with the fans, who wants to know what they’re thinking, as Roddenberry did. He’s the one involved who knows Star Trek best and cares about its future most, and I don’t think some of the complainers really understand what a tragedy we could have had if somebody like Bob was NOT guiding the project.

Berman is OUT. The crash of the saucer section in Generations is a good metaphor for what he did to the franchise.

And I think it was very fortuitous that in looking for new talent to take over they got JJ and Bob, instead of folks who were just looking for a blockbuster paycheck and career enhancer OR folks who just imitated Berman and Braga.

So put things in perspective. Complaining that ST.09 didn’t do what three seasons of TOS accomplished is ludicrous. It wasn’t SUPPOSED to. It wasn’t DESIGNED to. It was designed to jumpstart a flatlined franchise which it did in spectacular form by telling an ORIGINS story that respected canon while breaking free of most of it so that it’s future stories would be unpredictable.

Get it? It was a 2 hour REintroduction. A laying down of a solid foundation for future stories to be told. Complaining about ST.09 because it wasn’t deep enough is like closing a book after the first chapter and making the same complaint. Story ain’t over yet, peeps. It just started. We got a kick ass first chapter and a stated interest by Bob to go deeper, so how about putting away your rolling papers and let the paranoia fade?

Y’know, cultivate some patience and see how chapter TWO turns out before making summary judgments that Star Trek as we know it is over. Because that is as severe a case of premature exclamation as I’ve ever heard.

372. keachick - February 13, 2011

#229 I was bothered by the death of Kirk. I guess it comes down to what was happening in my life at the time. I think Generations screened in 1994. I had one baby (born 1993) and another on the way. You could say my main focus was elsewhere.

What bothers me here is how many people are pouring vitriol over Rick Berman’s treatment of Kirk in Generations. It wasn’t just Rick Berman who dropped the ball, it was Paramount and William Shatner as well. They all have to take a share in the blame. Of course, a minor change in the script would have been so easily managed as in Picard finding Kirk badly injured, however instead of Kirk dying, he hung on and was taken away in a medical transport, fate unknown at that point.
(That would have given Paramount, Shatner et al time to sort their “shit” out. Shatner clearly regrets that he agreed to the death of his character).

Audiences would have found out the fate of Kirk in the opening scenes of First Contact, with a simple question coming from Riker and Picard answering just as simply and eloquently.

Everyone dropped the ball on this one. You can’t place all the blame for this cock-up on Berman alone. Paramount seems to have a knack of dropping the ball on its golden goose…the studio’s 1990s PR sucked!

#368 What has Gene R’s private life got to do with the acting abilities and characters that Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols played in TOS? I’ll answer the question for you – NOTHING. This is just a form of denegration of both actresses. They were both very good and they certainly did not have to sleep with Gene R in order to get their respective parts. All I know about Gene R, Majel Barrett and Nichelle Nichols is that they were all single adults and that none of them were bad looking in the least. The 1960’s was also the time of the Sexual Revolution. Do not judge the supposed actions of people living in those times with those of today, especially since it is not anyone’s call to make in the first place.

373. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

372: “They were both very good and they certainly did not have to sleep with Gene R in order to get their respective parts.”

That may have been more true of Nichelle Nichols than Majel Barrett. It wasn’t a question of talent. Gene did NOT have a role for her and he fretted about it because she was pressuring him to put her in Star Trek after CBS had her axed because they didn’t like her in The Cage. Nurse Chapel was not in the original cast of characters. So based on all that we know it is difficult to imagine how she would have gotten onboard the Enterprise had she NOT been GR’s girlfriend and had she NOT been pressuring him for a role which he then created, which became the role of Nurse Chapel, specifically for her and in response to her pressure which she would not have been able to exert had she not been having an affair (extramarital; Gene WAS married at the time, NOT single) with Roddenberry.

374. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

But all this is academic with regard to how we respond to the actual show and its new incarnation. If to love Star Trek you NEED a Creation Myth where Gene Roddenberry is The Perfect Creator, then that’s a sign you’re taking the show TOO seriously.

375. dmduncan - February 13, 2011

Indeed, one of the reasons Roddenberry gave for creating the character of Spock is because he wanted a character who was largely free of the emotional turbulence he had to contend with in his own life.

376. keachick - February 13, 2011

I for one don’t need a Creation Myth. I didn’t know about Gene R until long after I had watched and enjoyed Star Trek the first time it appeared on TV here. Anyway, it is all water under the bridge now.

377. Meteo Archon - February 13, 2011

I would not buy a Rick Berman Memoir unless I had Downs Syndrome.

378. Meteo Archon - February 13, 2011

#330:, It also isn’t “convuluted continuity”, like what Orci and Kurtzman are saying, it’s shitty writing. The solution there is obvious, don’t be stupid.

379. keachick - February 13, 2011

#377 Are you familiar with Downs Syndrome?
A member of my extended family had Downs Syndrome (d. 6 Sept. ’96 on his father’s birthday). He could read quite well, however writing and speaking were always problems for him. He was a big Dr Who, Star Trek and Star Wars fan. His family still have most of the novels coming from all three franchises and the videos we watch of classic Dr Who were his. He even got to meet his favourite Dr Who actor, Jon Pertwee, in England just before the actor passed away. It was difficult sometimes to access just how much he understood because of his writing and speech disabilities, but most people, within the family and outside, thought that he was pretty clued up most of the time.

380. Basement Blogger - February 13, 2011

@ 353 Harry Ballz

Harry says, “Personally, I think Roddenberry was a hack who stole the entire concept for Star Trek from Forbidden Planet. All he did was change the shape of the ship and give the first officer pointed ears. Not much of an accomplishment to hang a legacy on, is it?”

Harry, were you being sarcastic? Because if you weren’t , we’ll agree to disagree.

381. Rocket Scientist - February 13, 2011

Here’s something for all TNG’ers to enjoy. It looks amazing!

Enterprise D RC Airplane:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6STlxPrwJE&feature=email

382. Harry Ballz - February 13, 2011

@380.

BB, I’m afraid I meant every word, but if you feel differently about Roddenberry, I understand. dmduncan explained it perfectly in one of the above posts.

383. MJ - February 14, 2011

@382. Well I personally met the guy and didn’t judge him to be a hack at all. Did you ever personally meet Roddenberry, Harry?

Again, as I’ve said before, take potshots if you must as his lack of a creative role in defining Trek, but don’t deny the man his legacy as the guy who put it all together, assembled the team, and had an overall vision that he found people more creative than him to implement.

And I don’t really buy the Forbidden Planet deal, because I could just as easily argue that Forbidden planet stole their star journey concept from several works of Robert Heinlein.

384. Basement Blogger - February 14, 2011

ON RICK BERMAN AND GENE RODDENBERRY’S VISION FOR STAR TREK

Rick Berman said, “I learned Gene’s vision directly from Gene. It wasn’t my vision of the future, but it was at the foundation of Star Trek. It was like learning a foreign language. I studied it.” Star Trek Voyager-A Vision of the Future, pg. 3 from Memory Alpha. Here’s more on how Rick cared about Gene’s visioon of Star Trek. “Keeping a small bust of Roddenberry on his desk, Berman often referred to what Roddenberry would have done had he survived to continue running TNG. When any one of the writers would propose an idea that Berman felt was explicitly contrary to that edict, Berman would “blindfold” the bust.” (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion) Link from Memory Alpha below.

Some guy name Brent Spiner also defended Berman and his respect for Gene’s Vision for Star Trek.

Spiner, said, “Rick more than anybody else protected Gene Roddenberry’s vision. There were times we wanted to do things in an episode, and Rick would be, ‘No, no, no. Gene wouldn’t want that and that’s not what Star Trek is about.’ From TrekMovie.com 12-10-08.

1) Memory Alpha article on Rick Berman
http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Rick_Berman

2) TrekMovie article: Spiner defends Berman and J.J. Abrams
http://trekmovie.com/2008/12/10/spiner-comes-to-the-defense-of-rick-berman-and-jj-abrams/

385. P Technobabble - February 14, 2011

I’ve been re-reading Shatner/Kreski”s “Movie Memories,” and it sounds like Gene Roddenberry was his own worst enemy. It seems he had a tendency to do things that would really go up someone’s a**. For example, he utterly alienated Harold Livingston during the making of TMP by constantly re-writing whatever Livingston wrote. Leonard Nimoy wasn’t a fan of his either — when Nimoy was suing Paramount over merchandising royalties, Roddenberry took sides with the studio. There are other examples, but you’ll have to read the book, if you haven’t already. The bottom line is that, apparently, Roddenberry didn’t always play nice with some people. It seems he argued a lot, often to the point where they would quit. It’s ironic that by the time TWOK was being put together, Paramount “kicked” Roddenberry “up” to Executive Consultant, essentially taking Star Trek away from him.

386. Astroman77 - February 14, 2011

My biggest gripe with Nemesis was that they never explained how Wesley and Worf ended up back in Starfleet. Those are huge things. Wesley was last seen going off with the Traveler (TNG, S7) and Worf was the Klingon Ambassador (end of DS9). Also Deanna’s ability seemed much stronger than it had ever been before. But I *can* chalk that up to emotions and the psychic bond the Viceroy created.

387. Damian - February 14, 2011

386–the A time too… novels did address that.

Basically Worf rejoined Star Fleet when he decided diplomacy was not his strength (Alexander found a gift with diplomacy and took his place.

Wesly was still a Traveler. He showed up for the wedding naked because something about they don’t require clothes while travelling. They needed something in a pinch and they had an extra uniform given to Wesley for the occassion).

388. Harry Ballz - February 14, 2011

383.

I don’t have to personally meet someone to form an opinion of them. I trust all the anecdotal information I’ve read over the years from the MANY people who DID know Roddenberry. The majority of people all had a similar opinion. It was consistent. Sounds accurate to me.

389. Dom - February 14, 2011

384: ‘Spiner, said, “Rick more than anybody else protected Gene Roddenberry’s vision. There were times we wanted to do things in an episode, and Rick would be, ‘No, no, no. Gene wouldn’t want that and that’s not what Star Trek is about.’ From TrekMovie.com 12-10-08.’

And there stands the true condemnation of Berman’s gutless, spineless approach to Star Trek: to trap Trek in a 1980s TV timewarp by claiming to follow what were the ideas of an ageing producer who had died years before! TV moves on. Had Roddenberry come forward with a show like TNG now, he’d have been treated to a few patronising smiles before being put in a straitjacket and carted off to a padded cell!

In fact, given Berman has little else on his CV beyond Trek and has done nothing since, it makes me wonder if Berman only knew how to run an 80s TV show and used the myth of ‘Gene’s Vision’ as a way to cover up the fact a he had no idea of what he was doing!

390. keachick - February 14, 2011

“Harry says, “Personally, I think Roddenberry was a hack who stole the entire concept for Star Trek from Forbidden Planet. All he did was change the shape of the ship and give the first officer pointed ears. Not much of an accomplishment to hang a legacy on, is it?”

Somebody mentioned that the Forbidden Planet had been originally taken from an idea in one of Shakespeare’s plays, and even later from one or two of Robert Heinlein’s ideas. So, I guess what you are saying is that it is alright for the person who wrote the Forbidden Planet to plagiarise other people’s works, including that of the Bard himself, but not OK for that “hack” Gene Roddenberry? Just loving the double standard here!

391. Chang - February 14, 2011

I want Trek back on the TV. Reading all the threads on Berman just reminds me of how epic that would be. It is truely a shame that the movie they wanted to do set during Enterprise never came out. It sounded bold and what you would want from a proper Sci Fi movie. I don’t get how a man who came up with that movie as a concept could not find away to stop Star Trek as a tv show from stagnating.

392. Dom - February 14, 2011

390

In fairness, Forbidden Planet took the novel approach of presenting a Shakespearian drama in a sci-fi setting. But the characters, particularly the Captain and the ship’s doctor are pure Kirk and McCoy.

I’ve always seen FP as a huge inspiration for Star Trek (I mean what people call TOS obviously as TNG and so on owe more to Dynasty, Dallas, Triumph of the Will and Olympia than to Shakespeare no matter how often they got Patrick Stewart to crank up the ‘acTOR’ bit!) It doesn’t take anything away from Star Trek to say that it drew heavily on Forbidden Planet. But no one should pretend it was that original and certainly not the product of a visionary.

Gene Roddenberry was a Hollywood producer who needed to put food on his family’s table, not a prophet. There’s no shame in that.

393. MJ - February 14, 2011

@388. I’ve learned over the years that there are typically many more people who will speak out negatively against a famous person that those who thought positive of him, becuase the negative ones typically have a axe to grind, a book to sell, or some motive/agenda to push, while a much larger majority who liked the individual don’t really have an agenda, and so they don’t speak up nearly as often.

Lesson learned — take anecdotal information with a grain of salt, and don’t assume that it represents anything close to a statistically valid sample that points to anything true in reality.

I met the guy and judged him to be legit. Was he the creative genius behind Trek — no. But he was the founder, the maestro and the glue that started this grand franchaise, and nobody can take that legacy away from him.

394. MJ - February 14, 2011

@390. “Somebody mentioned that the Forbidden Planet had been originally taken from an idea in one of Shakespeare’s plays, and even later from one or two of Robert Heinlein’s ideas. So, I guess what you are saying is that it is alright for the person who wrote the Forbidden Planet to plagiarise other people’s works, including that of the Bard himself, but not OK for that “hack” Gene Roddenberry? Just loving the double standard here!”

Exactly!

395. dmduncan - February 14, 2011

“Leslie Nielsen, Walter Pidgeon, Earl Holliman, Anne Francis and mechanical thespian Robby The Robot round out the cast in this classic tale of sci-fi adventure. The story is based on William Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” and in Roddenberry’s biography, he states how the movie influenced Star Trek’s creation. The TV show’s episode Requiem for Methuselah is also inspired by Forbidden Planet.”

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1651535/gene_roddenberry_tv_movie_influences.html

“The biography of Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek Creator, notes that Forbidden Planet was one of the inspirations for the series Star Trek.[12]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet

With regard to Star Trek, it doesn’t matter who came up with what idea first, Heinlein or the writers of Forbidden Planet. If YOU see Forbidden Planet and then come up with the idea for Star Trek, then Forbidden Planet is the direct inspiration to YOU, not Heinlein. And the similarities between Star Trek and Forbidden Planet are in fact not coincidental; The Cage is quite a similar story to Forbidden Planet, such that Forbidden Planet deserves to be recognized as The Cage’s preboot.

Roddenberry gets credit for being The Maestro. He orchestrated everything and he did put his stamp of optimism and diversity on Star Trek which it retains in its present incarnation.

My problem is the Creation Myth of Star Trek which fans continue to propagate. To say that Star Trek is ONLY “Gene’s Vision” is just nonsense. Totally untrue, and unfair to all the enormous talent that contributed so much to help make Star Trek what it became.

And that INCLUDES one of Star Trek’s earliest supporters: Harlan Ellison.

396. chrisfawkes.com - February 14, 2011

^ i don’t think anyone was saying it was wrong. Just putting forward that it was not original. How is that a double standard?

397. MJ - February 14, 2011

@394. Yea, DM, I pretty much entirely agree with your post here — you hit the key themes better than I did.

398. dmduncan - February 14, 2011

392: “I’ve learned over the years that there are typically many more people who will speak out negatively against a famous person that those who thought positive of him, becuase the negative ones typically have a axe to grind, a book to sell, or some motive/agenda to push, while a much larger majority who liked the individual don’t really have an agenda, and so they don’t speak up nearly as often.”

The picture of Roddenberry that emerges from those that worked with him is pretty derned consistent, even when it comes from people who loved him despite knowing exactly how he was. Like Bob Justman.

And Susan Sackett may have made some cash with her books, though I suspect many Trekkies refuse to read in advance any book that details scandalous behavior on Roddenberry’s part, but that does not necessarily mean she isn’t telling the truth, either. Indeed, her writing a book of her own experiences is a far more honest way of making a living than screwing your composer with a sneaky legal clause that enabled GR, to Alexander Courage’s surprise, steal half his royalties even though GR didn’t write a note of the music.

Now, since I am also a DUNE series fan, I learned early the dangers of heroes with feet of clay, which those books were based on. And I carry that perspective with me today. The same abstract thinking that creates bigotry that can be used to judge an entire group of people because of some shared but irrelevant characteristic can show up as intentional ignorance of a person’s flaws in order to mythologize them, or make them more than they are, gods among men. And that might even be more dangerous than bigotry.

399. dmduncan - February 14, 2011

396: ” @394. Yea, DM, I pretty much entirely agree with your post here — you hit the key themes better than I did.”

Hey, I just don’t think it’s necessary to turn someone into more than they are in order to love and appreciate them, you know? We are all human, which means we all have faults to spare. Hopefully we learn and get better as we go.

400. dmduncan - February 14, 2011

GR did good with Star Trek. It was one of those things that changed my life for the better. Will always be grateful for that.

401. MJ - February 14, 2011

Well GR wouldn’t be the first great person who did some petty things and was an a-hole at times. So yea, we are all human, but fortunately no one is writing books on us yet.

402. MJ - February 14, 2011

@398. Sackett, who was basically a glorified secretary, has been “gravy-training” a second career her whole life on Star Trek and her access to Gene. She has an agenda — to make money.

I don’t approve of how Gene ripped off Alexander Courage, but I don’t imagine that such financial terms in favor of a producer in those days were just limited to the production of Star Trek.

403. dmduncan - February 14, 2011

402: “I don’t approve of how Gene ripped off Alexander Courage, but I don’t imagine that such financial terms in favor of a producer in those days were just limited to the production of Star Trek.”

Probably not, but having become known as the optimistic seer of a better future for mankind I think fans expected more from him.

But I love Star Trek history. These people are all fascinating characters. His relationship with Nichelle Nichols was particularly interesting. I wonder if he ever considered asking her to marry him? If I could time travel as an invisible person, well first I’d get the dinosaurs out of the way, but then, freak that I am, it’d be straight to the sixties and Desilu, where I’d take up residence following all these amazing Star Trek people around.

404. keachick - February 15, 2011

#396 – “^ i don’t think anyone was saying it was wrong. Just putting forward that it was not original. How is that a double standard?”

I am not saying it is wrong to point out what Gene R wrote was not original and that was based on the Forbidden Planet. However, when some posters here call Gene R a “hack” etc, because of this, but does not call out the writer of Forbidden Planet, when this was not his original idea either – that is the double standard.

The fact is that we are inspired by a great many things, not to mention film and written works and this can often translate into writing something that turns out to be similar, even the same, as what has gone before. However, it is the *original* way a particular person brings together unoriginal themes and ideas, which can sometimes make the outcome a little unexpected, even *original*.

405. Willard Decker - February 15, 2011

I have nothing against Berman or his regime when they were doing Trek. But it felt like it was missing something to me. My first exposure to Trek was the original series as a child particularly: The Motion Picture, The Wrath of Khan, and Search for Spock. Then I saw the original series when I was five (three years before TNG aired) There was something about Kirk and Spock and the crew I always loved. TNG was good, but I felt like something was missing. DS9 I thought had some of the feel of TOS when the Dominion showed up. VOY….I dunno what to think but there were somethings I like (Goldsmith’s theme and Sulu’s return) Enterprise was at its best when they tried to tie it in to the TOS universe. Though I was totally put off by the finale. The TNG Movies….I could not believe what Generations did, I wish they went with their original idea of both crews working together to stop a big threat. First Contact, I liked but I thought the Enterprise E looked a little like her famous namesake from the 23rd (which I thought rocked) Nemesis and Insurrection could have been a lot better.

As for Star Trek (2009) I loved the movie, it was a return of the crew that first captivated my imagination. I liked the look and the feel and even the ship. TOS was just a fun ride, sure some of the plots sucked some succeeded. Yet at the heart of it, it felt like Trek to me. I will give Berman some of his credit that he is due, but I thought that the new court did a damn good job with the heart of it. And I think Majel was right when she said Gene would have liked it.

406. captain_neill - February 15, 2011

405

I think out of all the spin offs, Enterprise was the one that tried to go back to the TOS style.

Archer, T’Pol and Trip were the main three in a similar vain that Kirk, Spock and McCoy were in the Original Series. Archer, I think, in a way harkens back to the more impulsive and man of heavy decision that Kirk was and Trip is the most human of the three.

dmduncan- Star Trek will always be Gene’s no matter how much it is changed.

405
I agree that the new movie succeeded in creating the fun of TOS, just to me some of the plot points made no sense.

407. trekprincess - February 15, 2011

I don’t care if the plot points made no sense

408. ernest_borg_of_9 - February 15, 2011

ha, ha, ha, ha…..this from one of the team that made the “brilliant” Trek series….V’ger errrr voyager…..errr crappppp…….that show was like dog shite that Captain Kirk might have stepped in, in the brilliant movie that Berman didn’t make…..fockin hypocrit

409. Rocket Scientist - February 15, 2011

For me, PineKirk’s “Rebel Without A Cause” arc will always be a sticking point. ShatKirk had swagger and confidence but it was borne of achievement and experience. ShatKirk’s rise to command came as a result of his graduation from the academy, junior officer experience in the fleet, instructor duty at the academy, and then presumably department head and XO tours back in the fleet before fast tracking to command. That’s how it’s done.

PineKirk’s implausible series of instant promotions almost ruined the movie for me, more than the destruction of Vulcan, the brewery set, or Spock’s flagrant emotionalism.

I say “almost” because it’s so much damn fun to watch. What’s done is done. Bring on the sequel!!

410. ernest_borg_of_9 - February 15, 2011

“That’s how it’s done.”…..um Star Trek real…..sorry to break the news

411. ernest_borg_of_9 - February 15, 2011

“That’s how it’s done.”…..um Star Trek isn’t real…..sorry to break the news

412. sisko1 - February 15, 2011

Just a question? Who dubbed Orci and his cronies as the Supreme Court. This team of individuals gave the people a 2 hour movie based on Star Trek, Roddenberry and Berman gave us over 40 years of Trek, whether you or I liked it or not a fact is a fact and that is not going to change. I saw TOS when it first premiered on a Bx W tv, I went to the second convention in the early 70’s and have lived with Trek at my side for all those years. I am a retired cop of 25 years and I must say that Roddenberry and Bermans trek saved my life in some f%^*ed up situations and I for one am glad that Berman continued to keep Trek on the air for 18 years. Berman and company thanks for the last 18 to bad it had to end. I did learn one thing from Abrams and Orci Trek…how to be so called Starfleet cadets and RAT PACK some guy in a bar…Is that what the New Trek has come to….That is exactly what this world needs..Right.

413. Rocket Scientist - February 15, 2011

410. ernest_borg_of_9. Thanks for the snarky reminder, but TOS at its best made a good effort to extrapolate a *realistic and believable* vision of the future. As a military man himself, Roddenberry knew what it takes to rise to positions of leadership.

Any kind of fiction isn’t real. Good fiction doesn’t ask its audience to make wild leaps of logic. Sorry, but above all else, this breaks the suspension of disbelief for me. Then again, I’ve served in the officer corps of the USN (an organization around which Starfleet was modeled), so I know firsthand what a more probable chain of events would be. This is a plot shortcut , plain and simple. A very clumsy and implausible one at that.

414. keachick - February 15, 2011

#412 – “I did learn one thing from Abrams and Orci Trek…how to be so called Starfleet cadets and RAT PACK some guy in a bar…Is that what the New Trek has come to….That is exactly what this world needs..Right.”

I agree with you. I still cannot watch that bar scene with all that bullying and violence without cringing and feeling a bit sick. Just a little too real perhaps.

However, what shocked me even more than the scene, was the reaction of many posters on other boards to that scene. Sadly, unfortunately, that scene may have captured the basic thinking and sentiments of a lot of people today. So many thought that the young Kirk was an a-hole who deserved to be punched out like that – seriously, I am not kidding. I had to point out several times that what those cadets did was to interfere and bully Kirk in a mean and violent way. Kirk may have annoyed “Cupcake” but what happened next – well, there is no excuse. Perhaps this scene was actually demonstrating the truth of bullying and violence.

I have to wonder if some people are devoid of any sense of fair play and the most basic tenets of morality, put simply – Do no harm. I was totally gobsmacked. People scare the hell out of me sometimes.

I came onto the internet “properly” on 16 September 2009. It has certainly been an eye-opener and sometimes not at all nice or pleasant. Sad but true.

415. kmart - February 15, 2011

358 Basement Blogger, the following ‘graph (with quote marks around it) is yours. My reply follows.
“One thing you didn’t comment on is Gene Roddenberry’s vision. I will use TOS as an example. He saw the arrogance of American foreign policy in the sixties. Hence his shows on the Viet Nam war and the idea of the prime directive. See “A Private Little War.” He wanted to end racism and sexism. That’s why he had Uhura, black and a woman. That’s why he had Sule to represent Asians. He hated war and the futility of war. See “A Taste of Armageddon.” He saw the problems with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. “The Doomsday Machine.” There were problems with race in American and there still are. “Let That Be your Last Battlfield.” Yes, he didn’t write all these shows. But he could have stopped them from being produced.”

PRIVATE LITTLE WAR is seen in most circles as being IN FAVOR of involvement, in spite of the effective lost cause ending (which I’d guess was Coon’s work.) TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON is Gene Coon spicing up another writer’s (a decent writer too) work with his own passion about war (if you ever see Coon’s BONANZA ep PAIUTTE WAR, you’ll see a better hour about racism and genocide than Trek has ever managed … and that aired in 1959!!)
He MAY have helped keep LET THAT LAST from being produced earlier … Coon’s original take on it was not the half-black bit, but that one alien looked like an angel and the other looked like a devil, and that either didn’t fly with the network censors or with GR (maybe he was wanting to use that one himself later on, or thought of it as a way to play himself one way to fans while acting like the other guy in real life?)
If you have to point to one guy, Coon is the guy who made Trek memorable. And in large part, distinctive as well. Not saying the first dozen eps didn’t have good stuff, but Coon is the one who can create great character moments in turd shows as well as great character moments in good ones … and I find that is what kept me coming back to the show, because I liked these characters (and I don’t think I actually liked them all that much in the first dozen — though Kirk had some moments, McCoy really doesn’t work well till Coon starts rewriting for him.)

416. Basement Blogger - February 15, 2011

@ 415 KMART

I did acknowledge that Gene Roddenberry did not write all the episodes listed. But as creator and producer, he directed the way the show was going to go. Gene Coon had a large influence on Star Trek, no doubt. The whole point was that Gene Roddenberry wanted a show that was more than just accessible but had in his own words, ‘substance.” Or as film critic Roger Ebert said in his review of Star Trek (2009) that Roddenberry’s Star Trek dealt with ideas of science and philosophy.

1) Lettter by Roddenberry, defending “The Cage” and note he wanted a show with substance.
http://trekmovie.com/2010/11/30/letter-of-note-gene-roddenberry-defends-star-trek-the-cage-pilot/

2) Nichelle Nichols confronts Roddenberry and gets him to admit he’s writing morality plays (at the end of the video)
http://trekmovie.com/2011/01/18/pioneers-of-television-clip-william-shatner-on-how-he-made-star-trek-more-fun/

417. Basement Blogger - February 15, 2011

@ 415 KMART

I cannot agree with other critics that say ” A Private Little War” is a statement in favor of involvement in the Viet Nam War. I just watched it. And it can be somewhat complex. Half way during the episode, during a Kirk-McCoy debate, you do get the feeling that it is right to arm Tyree’s Hill People. And I cannot disagree with Kirk eventually arming them.

But you cannot ignore the results of Kirk’s actions. Tyree is a friendly and peaceful man. At the end, he’s gained the emotion needed to kill. Anger and a lust to kill. After his wife is murdered by Villagers, he demands of Kirk, more rifles. Tyree announces with vengeful heart,”I will kill them.” There is no triumph of the Federation arming the Hill people. The flintlocks as Kirk describes them are serpents in the Garden of Eden. Tyree has learned to kill his fellow man. And war will go on for bloody year after bloody year as McCoy would say. (I love Dr. McCoy’s bleeding heart idealism. )

Couple that with the concept of the Prime Directive, this episode is still an anti-Viet Nam War allegory. Yeah, it does seem fair to arm the Hill people. But the result will be war after war. The Americans (Federation) and the Soviets (Klingons) would engage in their war by proxy. Viet Nam. Afghanistan. And who suffers? Thousands of innocent lives in those countries, not to mention the deaths of soldiers on both sides.

418. kkmart - February 16, 2011

But the end product of all that anglo/soviet antagonism in the GR universe is … somehow … the GR universe. So one notion is that you go through hell to get to heaven (hinted at in FC, where you have the PHOENIX rising from the ashes of post WW3 earth, though they kind of blew it by not showing just how wrecked everything was. As Verhoeven said on ROBOCOP, you can’t do the resurrection without showing the crucifixtion first (an excuse for the long maiming of Murphy before he beomes Robo.)

Kirk can say they don’t want other races to go through what they went through, but that is part of the problem I always have with the PD — that is an abdication of ethics to let a race perish rather than help … like say, in a nuke war.

419. dmduncan - February 16, 2011

Well the Prime Directive is interesting. Sort of like filming lion cubs starving to death without helping them, for a movie about “the wild kingdom.”

Raises interesting questions about whether it is better to let things take their natural course — or interfere.

420. kmart - February 16, 2011

you just succinctly dealt with stuff i was going to put in my previous post, but erased because I thought I’d stir up too much trouble.

There was a Bantam Trek novel, THE FATE OF THE PHOENIX, in which Kirk has to get into a debate over the prime directive, and he is required to take the position that it is a policy of mass murder. it is interesting stuff, even though most other folks hate the writers of the PHOENIX novels.

I think the idea of the prime directive is so totally unenforceable it is ludicrous … the resources Starfleet would expend blockading systems with people who weren’t ready to find out about the rest of the galaxy from folks who would want to exploit them, wouldn’t leave the Feds with anybody to go do real Starfleet stuff, like exploring and deterring agressors. By Picard’s time, they’d be forever trying to keep Ferengi out of these systems … well, there’s the catch, isn’t it? The PD just says WE won’t interfere. So it is okay if other folks — even folks that have more questionable ethical systems — interfere, or if we LET other folks interfere, but WE can’t? That’s a seriously indefensible argument too.

I got to get back to doing real work now, but this is fun.

421. dmduncan - February 16, 2011

Well, I would be awful at letting the lion cubs starve to death. There’s a certain logic to letting things be and not being the ones to interfere, but that would be so hard to practice. But the Prime Directive is such an excellent way to generate the drama that raises those questions and debates.

Ha! What IF aliens are visiting earth and the reason why they hide and do not interfere is because they actually HAVE a Prime Directive? If we blow ourselves up and find out later that they could’ve stopped us, would we hate them?

422. Red Dead Ryan - February 16, 2011

421

“If we blow ourselves up and find out later that they could’ve stopped us, would we hate them?”

We could very well end up hating them even if they do save us. Even good intentions can do damage. Especially when it comes to helping a paranoid race such as ours. The line between between hero and villain can be a thin one, and good intentions can backfire into percieved lies, conspiracies and ulterior motives.

The CIA armed the mujahedeen to fight against the Soviets during the 80’s in Afghanistan. A lot of those “freedom fighters” became the Taliban and Al Queda, vowing to destroy Israel and the U.S, despite America’s assistance in freeing Afghanistan from Soviet occupation and subjegation.

423. kmart - February 16, 2011

We’d probably be too busy glowing and decomposing to care.

The point should probably be if we blew ourselves up, why didn’t we stop us?

This reminds me of one of my thinner TNG pitches (none of them sold, don’t get excited.) It was a planet at roughly our level of tech, which had the problem we’re developing of having so much junk in orbit you practically can’t have a space program because you keep bumping into stuff at 18,000 miles an hour. The -D winds up just leaving them to it, because these people just had to learn to clean up after their own messes. Story didn’t have a strong personal hook, so it was an easy one to get turned down, but I really do wonder if Arthur Clarke was right and we’ll wind up with a ring like Saturn, but ours will all be fuel tanks and lost gloves.

424. dmduncan - February 16, 2011

422: “We could very well end up hating them even if they do save us.”

Well then. Perhaps there’s the rationale for a non interference principle.

425. dmduncan - February 16, 2011

423: “but I really do wonder if Arthur Clarke was right and we’ll wind up with a ring like Saturn, but ours will all be fuel tanks and lost gloves.”

It only makes sense that we first create the problem before spending billions to fix it.

Perhaps, if the Lawrence Livermore fusion laser doesn’t work, we can turn that puppy skyward and rent fun time to citizens for zapping space junk.

426. Damian - February 17, 2011

420–Most of the planets protected by the Prime Directive in the Star Trek universe are generally those within Federation space. Obviously, the Federation would have very little control over those planets outside the Federation (such as when the Cardassians occupied Bajor).

There was an episode of Voyager that touched on this a bit when Voyager encountered 2 Ferengi lost in the Delta Quadrant from and episode of TNG. The Ferengi had set themselves up almost as gods using their replicator to make the populace think they were magic.

427. dmduncan - February 17, 2011

@423: Like the story premise for the show, BTW.

428. Daoud - February 17, 2011

OMG, O MJ. Roddenberry stole from Courage’s plate thusly:

Alexander Courage wrote the lilting theme for Star Trek. It’s an instrumental piece. As such, he receives the credit “Written by:” which since it was an instrumental piece, he would have received 100% royalty.

HOWEVER, Roddenberry proceeded to write lyrics, which are unsingable, and were NOT part of Courage’s efforts. As such, the music also includes a credit of “Lyrics by:” Thus, as music WITH lyrics royalties go, Courage got only 50% because Roddenberry got an equal 50%.

Even though NO ONE sings the lyrics. Even when only the instrumental version is played, or used, etc., in a royalty-generating situation, Courage got only 50%, Roddenberry got 50%.

It was a cheap shot to Courage, and an insult. Consider all the times TOS has been replayed. Courage for his hard work thus got 1/2 of what he should have. He wrote the music WITHOUT lyrics on purpose!

That is the height of scamminess. Sorry, that you don’t realize that the Emperor has no clothes, or that Majel was NOT Roddenberry’s wife at the time, but his mistress. Roddenberry’s wife was left in the dust, along with their children.

429. Basement Blogger - February 20, 2011

@ 428

What Gene did to Alex Courage was wrong. He’s not a perfect man. Neither is Rick Berman. J.J. Abrams is not a perfect man. I will continue to be grateful for his creation, Star Trek and his vision.

By the way, Chicago jazz singer Judy Roberts did a version of the original series theme with lyrics by Gene Roddenberry years ago. It looks to be still available on a compiliation. It’s a cool jazz fussion version of the song. Link to the compilation album below.

http://www.judyroberts.com/cdshop/watercolors.html

430. Trevor John - February 22, 2011

My limited two cents:

If you’re a true Star Trek fan, you will find something to like about each and every Star Trek film, and yes, that includes Nemesis and Star Trek V.

-Trev

431. Olson - February 25, 2011

DJT – February 10, 2011
Wasn’t Nemesis released around the same time the Two Towers came out?

Yes, December 9, 2002. In fact I intended to see Nemesis, went to the theatre, but as I was about to buy the ticket I decided I’d rather see The Two Towers — again! Didn’t see Nemesis until hit came out on video.

True story.

432. langlang33 - September 10, 2011

Im speechless. It’s a excellent blog and very attractive too. Good paintings! Thats now not in point of reality a lot coming from an amateur publisher like me, but its all I could say following diving into your posts. Fantastic grammar and vocabulary. Now not like different blogs. You in point of reality understand what you?re talking about too. So much which you just made me need to explore more. Your weblog has create into a stepping stone for me, my friend.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.