Bryan Fuller Hopes Star Trek TV Series Can Follow 2013 Sequel | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Bryan Fuller Hopes Star Trek TV Series Can Follow 2013 Sequel April 20, 2012

by Anthony Pascale , Filed under: Celebrity,Trek on TV , trackback

Once again Bryan Fuller is talking about his goal of bringing Star Trek back to the small screen. The Star Trek writing and producing vet is currently busy launching two other TV series, but in a new interview he expressed his hopes that after the 2013 Star Trek sequel he could work with JJ Abrams on a new Trek TV series.  

 

Fuller talks Trek and Abrams

Bryan Fuller is currently developing two new TV series for NBC: a reboot of the Munsters (called Mockingbird Lane), and a drama called Hannibal about the famed psychiatrist serial-killer Hannibal Lector. Speaking to EW about the latter, the conversation turned to Fuller’s often talked about goal of returning to Star Trek and bringing it back to TV.  

Fuller talked about how he and director Bryan Singer are hoping to collaborate with JJ Abrams, saying:

"Bryan and I are big fans of Trek and have discussed a take on what we would do, and we would love to do it,” Fuller says. “I don’t think anything is going to happen in any official capacity until after the next movie comes out. And I’m sure it would be wisely under J.J. Abrams’ purview of what happens. He’s the guardian of Trek right now.”

With regards to Fuller’s Mockingbird Lane, EW has a first look at the Munster’s new spooky house.


Bryan Fuller is currently bringing the Munsters back to TV – he wants to do the same for Star Trek

 

Thanks to Stelios for tip

Comments

1. MikeTen - April 20, 2012

I have to say I’m ready for any new Trek on tv. Can’t even find a space show of crappy SyFy.

2. Sebastian S. - April 20, 2012

Bryan Fuller is one of the guys that worked on Voyager, right?
Uh…. that’s OK, man. Really; you don’t have to.

I think JJ Abrams and co are doing just fine, thanks. ;-D

As for the Munsters reboot?
While I don’t see any necessity for it whatsoever (they’ve tried several times in the ’80s and ’90s to resurrect this show; it’s never really succeeded), I’m still curious to see what new stuff they are bringing to it….

3. Soonerdew - April 20, 2012

Well, makes me wonder how much behind the scenes discussion may have gone on for him to be so frank about timing…

4. danielh - April 20, 2012

good on him

5. NuFan - April 20, 2012

No one from the bad old days, please.

6. MikeTen - April 20, 2012

Meant to say” Can’t find a space show on crappy SyFy”. Anthony you really need a edit button or set up your comment section with Disqus.

7. TomR - April 20, 2012

I’d rather Fuller to Abrams working on TV trek to be honest!

8. Anthony Pascale - April 20, 2012

Bryan Fuller did indeed work on Voyager, but remember it was his first big job as a writer. He was such a big Trek fan he really wanted to work on Trek and in the late 90s VOY was all the Trek there was. He wrote some good episodes, got frustrated and left to go on to create some very imaginative shows like Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls and Pushing Daisies.

Bryan is very much not someone who was part of the problem. People like him and Ron Moore and Rene Eschevaria were part of the solution that Rick Berman squandered by dismissing their ideas and letting them leave to go on to great success outside of Star Trek.

9. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

8: “Bryan Fuller…wrote some good episodes,”

On Voyager? I must have missed those.

“got frustrated and left to go on to create some very imaginative shows like Dead Like Me, Wonderfalls and Pushing Daisies.”

And now he’s rebooting The Munsters and trying to get in the Dexter game by having a serial killer piece of his own.

I am serially underthrilled.

I would rather see Bob involved if it had to be a choice between Abrams/Fuller and Abrams/Orci.

And I would like to see a return to the 60′s practice of SF writers coming up with episodes.

10. Christopher Roberts - April 20, 2012

I didn’t reckon much to their Federation 6th live-action series idea.

I would hope for a 22nd or 23rd Century setting, whether Abramsverse or not.

11. Chain of Command - April 20, 2012

@ #4 LOL Amen!

On to my comment:
If it’s not about Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, Chekov, Sulu, Uhura and THE Enterprise I’m not watching.

There is a reason that the new Star Trek movie did so well: It brought back the LEGENDARY characters that made Star Trek a phenomenon in the first place.

Sorry, I know that offends some, but that’s my opinion. Take with a grain of salt.

12. Legend of Link - April 20, 2012

I don’t want to open a can of worms here, but I’ve always wanted to ask this question and I think this place would be a great place to do so. I grew up in the 90′s (I’m 22) and watched all of VOY and tons of TNG re-runs and I loved both shows dearly. TNG was my first taste of Trek and I grew to love VOY, too. I thought both shows were thought provoking and dealt well with real world issues and were both an overall joy to watch. So here’s the question: why does VOY have such a bad reputation? Is it my age? haha Just curious.

13. William Kirk - April 20, 2012

TV serie from JJ-verse? Please no.

14. NCM - April 20, 2012

Much as I want new Trek on TV, Mr. Fuller’s comments don’t inspire my confidence. My impression is that Paramount and CBS, not Abrams, are keepers of Trek. JJ doesn’t seem easily sold on projects, or emotionally vested in the future of Trek. Even if Fuller could bring him on board, Abrams might then have the first meaningful word on the project, but both Paramount and CBS would tangle for the last word. Add to that entanglement the costs of such a production, the ratings game, and the lure of easy, sleazy reality TV dough, and I think the hurdles to Trek being on TV are overwhelming. Still, I hope it’s worth a try…

15. KHAN 2.0 - April 20, 2012

id say a firm ‘NO!’ followed by a sharp and painful slap on the wrist to anyone who attempts a trek tv show in the next couple of years.

let Trek BREATHE as movie series I-IV style before turning it back into McDonalds and milking the cow dry once again with spin offs of spin offs of spins offs, treknobabble, bumpy headed aliens of the week, recycled plots, bland characters and themeparks in Vegas etc etc

id like another tv show at somepoint (notice i said TV SHOW not TV SHOWS) so id have to say DO NOT attempt a tv show until 2016 at the earliest (following Trek 3)

16. none - April 20, 2012

but if there is a new tv series it wont be chris pine, zacahary quinto, zoe saldana, karl urban, alice eve, john cho and simon pegg that will be on the show…they are all huge movie stars now especially chris , zoe, simon and zachary.

You have to get a whole bunch of new young fresh faces again.

THAT IS WORK.

17. VulcanFilmCritic - April 20, 2012

@ 9 dmduncan. You said it: “And I would like to see a return to the 60’s practice of SF writers coming up with episodes.”

That’s what made the old Star Trek so imaginative. Many of the writers who wrote for Star Trek were established Sci-Fi writers who had proven their mettle elsewhere. They wrote stuff that people would actually pay money for. The same group of Southern California writers also wrote for Twilight Zone and the Outer Limits.

I’m all for a new Star Trek as long as:

1. It doesn’t look like fan-based entertainment.
2. It is not so slavishly devoted to “canon” that we end up with a wax museum of a show.
3. There are not too many “fanciful creatures,” which Pocket Books seems to think is very, very important.
4. It doesn’t degenerate into simply a Spock/Uhura soap opera. (A little mint-chocolate chip from time to time is OK, but not as the main event.)
5. It’s not written with 8 year olds and the potential toy market in mind.

If there are great sci-fi writers out there, somebody please use them.
And if there are none, then Harlan Eillison is still alive, no?

18. Thorny - April 20, 2012

9. dmduncan… “On Voyager? I must have missed those.”

“Living Witness” was one of the best episodes of “Voyager”. “The Raven”, “Course: Oblivion”, and “Relativity” were very good, too.

Of course, Mr. Fuller also inflicted “Bride of Chaotica” and “Spirit Folk” on us, and he blatantly ripped off Stargate SG-1 with “Workforce”

I honestly don’t expect to ever see another Star Trek live action series, but if there is one, I think we could do a lot worse than Mr. Fuller.

19. AJ - April 20, 2012

Talking to JJ is obviously crucial, as cost will be a huge issue, and any sets, ship shots, extra Pepsi, or anything he’s got left from his shoots, would be necessary to re-use and recycle in a new version of Trek.

I remember the days when they said CGI brought costs way down. Nowadays ‘they’ say the exact opposite. However, when you look at anything from ST Phase 2 even to ‘Cats in Space,’ you see what kind of quality work can be done on the cheap.

Of course, good ‘Trek’ thrives even without space battles. The best ‘Trek’ has taken place in courtrooms, briefing rooms, planetside, and on the Bridge. Intellectualizing the series back up to its TOS roots with the help of real SF authors as suggested above in #9 by dmduncan would be extra special.

20. n1701ncc - April 20, 2012

How about a series that never was but could have been. The Pike years. After Archer and before Kirk. Lets get into Klingons who look like humans, Andorians , Orions, the forming of the federation. Some interesting shows can be done…why not..

21. claypool2011 - April 20, 2012

I want Trek on the small screen. 1 movie every 4 years or so isn’t nearly enough.

We’re not getting “Kirk and company” on TV at all, without another reboot/recasting.

I’m not interested in waiting until after 2020 to see trek on TV again.

That’s where it belongs.

22. Craiger - April 20, 2012

I think until the economy improves no TV network or cable channel will want to take a chance on a new Trek TV series because of how much it will cost per episode. Wouldn’t it be something like $2- $3 Million an episode? If so a new Trek series would have to keep at least 11 Million or more viewers a week to justify keeping it on the air? NYC 22 series premiered with 8.9 million viewers and that was considered a low ratings number.

23. claypool2011 - April 20, 2012

And @17, Ellison wouldn’t “lower” himself to do Trek again, I’m quite certain. The disdain he’s shown for the show and the genre is pretty clear (Babylon 5 nothwithstanding). I’d prefer to keep him far away from Trek in the future.

You don’t think that his version of City on the Edge of Forever actually aired, do you?

The only reason he wasn’t credited there as “Cordwainer Bird” (his code for “this is crap and I won’t put my name on it) is because Roddenberry refused to change the credit line.

24. VulcanFilmCritic - April 20, 2012

@15 KHAN 2.0
I’m going to get on my knees every night and pray for an early Federation/ Earth/Romulan War era story.

TOS R.I.P.

25. Craiger - April 20, 2012

Also does Fuller’s statement confirm that Abrams is also incharge of TV Trek?

26. Craiger - April 20, 2012

#24, I am for that also. They could do something like the new BSG or that old show Space Above and Beyond. To appeal to the teeanagers they could have Starfleet Cadets fresh out of the Academy and thrust into War and see how they culp with it but not have it be like a Soap Opera. However a Romulan War series could be expensive also.

27. captain_neill - April 20, 2012

Does that mean if he is working with Abrams that a new show would be in the new universe rather than the prime universe. I always wanted Star Trek to return to its proper prime universe if it was to return to TV.

Also I remain adament that although Voyager was not the best show that it still have great episodes. Yes things could have been done better and with Enterprise I really wish the fans gave it a chance.

I know you all think I am a hater of JJ Abrams take on Star Trek, But I am not and look forward to next movie. But my heart wil always belong to the prime universe and I still remain adament that a lot of stuff produced in the Berman era is still stronger than the Abrams movie.

What Abrams suceeded in brilliantly is making Trek appeal to the mainstream but I think its unfair how Berman gets treated, yes he made mistakes but he kept Trek alive and he did work with Gene Roddenberry and had his input.

I hate the bashing that other Treks get on this site.

28. Orb of the Emissary - April 20, 2012

I would take Trek TV right now, whether JJverse or not. But I do agree with Anthony that Bryan Fuller was one of the more better contributors to Trek. And while I would love a new show in the TNG era, I am not opposed to his and Bryan Singer’s “Federation” idea either. Just my two-cents :-)

#12- I’m not sure why VOY gets a bad rap either! I think it was a very entertaining and worthwhile show and wish we would have seen more of the VOY characters in TNG movies after the show ended too. But then we didn’t know that the next post-VOY movie would also be the last TNG-era movie either! At least we got a Janeway cameo!! :-)

29. VulcanFilmCritic - April 20, 2012

@23 claypool2011. I’ve read both teleplays. The one he wrote and the one that aired. I really don’t care whether it was his original story or not. The point is, he at least had some imagination.
And I suspect, if the paycheck were big enough, he’d hold his nose and type ’til his fingers bled.
I seem to remember another veteran of Star Trek who said he’d never put on those bleeping ears again. Never say never seems to be the order of the day when it comes to Star Trek.

30. jas_montreal - April 20, 2012

Star Trek should not come back to TV in a long time. Its too soon still. The time difference between TOS and TNG is best.

31. captain_neill - April 20, 2012

28

Agreed, Voyager had its flaws but still great stories in that show.

The new movie has it flaws but still entertaining.

32. Captain_Conrad - April 20, 2012

Overall, I can’t say that I care about what the show is as long as it’s Star Trek, but my preference is something not related to the new series simply for the fear of not being able to keep the same actors. But I guess we’ll see what happens

33. raffie - April 20, 2012

You know, I would love Trek to be back on TV, but… When I say Trek, I mean the kind of Start Trek that I actually enjoyed, that is, the intelligent, adventurous kind of Trek that tickles the imagination. TOS, TNG and DS9 fit that description. If it’s going to be more 2D characters and dumbed down ‘entertainment’, please go right ahead, but it won’t be Star Trek in my book and i’ll ignore it like I did the last so-called Trek TV-series.

34. captain_neill - April 20, 2012

34

As long as the TV series regained what was on the previous shows and regain the heart of Trek which has been sacrificed for the mainstream then I am up for a new show.

35. MJ - April 20, 2012

@34. Ah, Captain, there you go again, just like in your prime in the good ole days on this sites. Cap, you are getting me all misty-eyed again….

“Memories, light the corners of my mind
Misty watercolor memories of the way we were.

Scattered pictures of the smiles we left behind
smiles we give to one another
for the way we were.

If we had the chance to do it all again
tell me would we? Could we?”

36. MJ - April 20, 2012

Seriously folks, I don’t want ANYONE WHO WORKED ON VOYAGER to come with 1000 miles of production on a new Trek series.

37. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

23. claypool2011 – April 20, 2012

And @17, Ellison wouldn’t “lower” himself to do Trek again, I’m quite certain.

***

I don’t think you know Ellison as well as you think.

Ellison actually reached out to JJ Abrams to work on Trek again. There’s a post on it, this site.

38. Bucky - April 20, 2012

Fuller co-wrote “Bride of Chaotica!” on Voyager which is in my top 3 Voyager episodes of all time. Yeah, it’s not as if every ep he wrote was like THAT but I still loved it tons.

But movies are fun and all but Star Trek is an inherently TV-ish idea. Needs to be back on the tube. Not on network TV, I’d be happy with only 13 ep runs on a cablenet somewhere. And I’d love to see the “Supreme Court” involved somehow. And set it in the JJ-verse, lots of areas to explore.

Of course, it’d probably be a non-Enterprise show which may be a tad dicey but I can live with it.

39. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - April 20, 2012

I would love to have Singer and J.J and maybe even get Bob Orci to come on board to do a Trek T.V Series. I think with these guy’s doing it it would be a fantastic series. Here’s Hoping.

40. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

Seriously. Are people really clamoring for a MUNSTERS reboot?

41. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - April 20, 2012

I think a Trek Series that start’s right before the Romulan War and the founding of the Federation would be a good thing. Have The New Constitition Class Enterprise just being launched and have have a few other ship’s as well. Someone could play a young Sarek and maybe have a Kirk in the series and a young Chris Pike and of course Admiral Archer come in. I think this would work really well.

42. Craiger - April 20, 2012

Mike don’t you mean Dadelous Class Enterprise? The Constitution Class ships were after the Romulan War. I wonder with Abrams new Universe would the number of Enterprise’s matter? In the Prime Universe having a Dadelous Class Enterprise in the Romulan War would go against cannon, not sure about Abrams Universe.

43. Red Dead Ryan - April 20, 2012

No to Bryan Fuller. I’d take Manny Coto and Ronald D. Moore, though.

But, I have to say that the guy who I think would spice up tv Trek is Duncan Jones, the director of great recent (and criminally underrated) sci-fi flicks “Moon” and “Source Code”. His abities to combine cgi and physical models in a space environment as well as his skill at crafting an emotionally resonant time-travel story would serve “Star Trek” really well. Not sure if he wrote any television scripts, but even if he didn’t, or doesn’t want to, he’d make a great producer.

44. Craiger - April 20, 2012

What about, Abrams. Orci and Lindelof incharge of a new Trek TV Show?

45. TF - April 20, 2012

All this Voyager and Enterprise hate really needs to stop. If you think they are such horrendous series, go back and watch every episode with an open mind and then come back and say what you think.

It’d be just as easy for a brand new viewer to watch a few random TOS episodes and declare the whole series cheesy crap television.

46. MJ - April 20, 2012

@45. It is what it is.

47. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - April 20, 2012

Well Craiger. it was never said in the Tos what Ship was in the Romulan War. Just the mention of A Captian Styles and a few other officer’s. So I don’t think it would be against canon to have one. Or a eariler design.

48. Craiger - April 20, 2012

And also add Kurtzman incharge of a new Trek TV Series

49. Commodore Mike of the Terran Empire - April 20, 2012

Get the whole court to do the Trek T.V Series and have Singer in charge

50. Craiger - April 20, 2012

Mike, I guess it could be another non Federation ship named Enterprise like the NX-01 but would you want controversy right out of the gate like their was the last time with the Trek fans complaining about NX-01 Enterprise being before Kirk’s. I accepted the non Federation explaination. Unless they also say forget the fans kind of like how they did with the ST 2009 and just payed homage to them with the new series if their is one.

51. Craiger - April 20, 2012

I got it, Abrams. Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof, Coto, Fuller, Singer and maybe Moore incharge of the next Trek TV series?

Then Sternbach and Eaves, for spaceship design.

52. Barb - April 20, 2012

12 — I love Voyager, it’s my second favorite after TNG, tied with TOS. I do think that those who love TOS for it’s “Mad Men” era sexism (which was imposed on Roddenbury by the network) are bound to ate Voy precisely because of it’s treatment of women.

53. Basement Blogger - April 20, 2012

@ 9

He co-wrote the fan favorite Voyager episode “Drone.” It was included on the Borg DVD collection. It was an emotional episode for Seven. And Captain Janeway had to face a difficult question as to whether to let the upgraded Borg fetus live.

I do agree with you that it would be good to let science fiction writers compose episodes for a new series.

54. Andy Patterson - April 20, 2012

They probably feel compelled by the current environment to work in the JJ verse. I hope not. It’s never felt like Star Trek to me. Seems there’s a good blueprint in place that never was fully explored after the original series. Not what Abrams did with it. TOS had a singular feel and philosophy to me. If they not going to do that then do something entirely new. My opinion.

55. Basement Blogger - April 20, 2012

@ 19

AJ, I read in EW that CGI does bring down production costs. The two TV shows it cited were Pan-Am and the silly fantasy show “Once Upon a Time.”

56. Red Dead Ryan - April 20, 2012

Apparently, “Battlestar Galactica: Blood And Chrome” was to feature all-cgi sets and visual effects, but that show still hasn’t made it to air due to the expense. At least when it comes to convincing, realistic, and movie quality cgi, which requires numerous talented people, time, and the highest-quality software that can be continually updated to keep up with the ever-increasingly scrutiny that today’s effects face. That costs a lot of money. Even cheap-looking, “Terra Nova” type cgi is still really expensive. It’s part of the reason why sci-fi is struggling on television right now.

57. Craiger - April 20, 2012

Good point RDR, if Blood and Chrome costs too much with CGI just imagine how much a prime time Trek TV series would cost. RDR I wonder if they would only do a new Trek TV series if the economy was great or would it still be too expensive if the economy was great? I guess the true test will be that new spaceship series that the Syfy Channel wants to do that is kind of like Star Trek I forgot the name.

58. Red Dead Ryan - April 20, 2012

#57.

That is why I suggested Duncan Jones. He could make a great Trek series that combines physical sets, props, models with cgi. He did that with “Moon”, which looked great. I believe “Moon” was a relatively low budget film.

59. Craiger - April 20, 2012

Moon, didn’t do that great at the Box Offiice.

60. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

testing digital

61. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

testing HD_TV

62. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

H50 Fringe channels TV

63. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

Sorry. I’m not going nuts. Anthony’s wonderful site is refusing to post my post and I’m trying to figure out which word is getting my post auto-blacklisted.

64. Sebastian S. - April 20, 2012

# 8.
Anthony~

You’re right; I shouldn’t impugn the works of Bryan Fuller (as I did in post #2) for his work on VGR as it’s not really fair. As you say, he was a staff writer on the show and not an executive producer.
My apologies…

I only remember about a dozen or so decent-to-good episodes out of the full run of VGR and I guess I was just blaming anyone associated with the show for what, for me, were largely 7 seasons of mind-numbing mediocrity.

But in truth, I also really don’t think the time is right for ST to return to TV just yet. Let the full cycle of movies finish their run. Hopefully the third new ST movie will come a wee bit sooner than part 2 has. I’m also concerned with the potential for ST saturation (as happened in the early 2000s).

ST movie producer Harve Bennett once said about having ST movies and TV overlap (and I’m paraphrasing), “A turkey dinner with all the trimmings is not so special when people eat a turkey sandwich every week…”

65. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

Will try again later. Maybe the software is just being wonky.

66. Red Dead Ryan - April 20, 2012

This website is powered by HAL.

67. Craiger - April 20, 2012

#64, If that’s the case we wont see any new Trek TV series until the third movie, if the sequel is successful. Is the ST movie reboot suppsosed to be a trilogy? If so, figure another 3 to 4 years for the thrid and another year to get a new Trek TV series up and running you would be talking 2018 by the time we get a new Trek TV series. The TV model could be completly changed by then. Maybe Video On Demand would replace live TV? Or the Internet would have replaced TV?

68. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

Well what good is being a staff writer if people above you shoot down your best ideas?

On the other hand — Fuller wants to do a Munsters reboot and follow Dexter.

69. Rick Sternbach - April 20, 2012

#51 – Anywhere, anytime. :)

70. MJ - April 20, 2012

@52 “12 — I love Voyager, it’s my second favorite after TNG, tied with TOS. I do think that those who love TOS for it’s “Mad Men” era sexism (which was imposed on Roddenbury by the network) are bound to ate Voy precisely because of it’s treatment of women.”

WTF?

71. Craiger - April 20, 2012

Mr. Sternbach what era do you think the next Trek TV series should be in? The Romulan War?

72. MJ - April 20, 2012

@64 “I only remember about a dozen or so decent-to-good episodes out of the full run of VGR and I guess I was just blaming anyone associated with the show for what, for me, were largely 7 seasons of mind-numbing mediocrity.”

Agreed, that is about where I come in on Voyager as well. It just wasn’t that good of show, either entertainment-wise or science fiction-wise. Deep Space by contrast, was exciting, had good sci-fi, much better writing, and the best Trek cast since TOS.

73. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 20, 2012

#12: It’s a number of factors. Voyager had several very weak links in its cast (Mulgrew, Beltran and Wang) and some very boring characters (Janeway, Chakotay, Neelix, Kim, Paris and Torres), leaving, basically, only the Doctor, Tuvok, Kes and Seven to interest viewers. Sure, each of the characters I deem boring had their fans, and sure, each of the actors I consider weak had their fans as well, but the general consensus was that other than Tuvok, Kes, Seven and the Doctor, most of the characters were either bland and under-developed (Kim, Paris and Torres), poorly written and acted (Chakotay and Mulgrew) or annoying as hell despite being played by a decent actor (Neelix). Then there’s the fact that the show started off being about a schism between Starfleet and the Maquis, and yet within only a couple of episodes, all of the Maquis are fitting in fine with the Starfleet crew, who have NO problem taking orders from criminals. Then there’s the fact that despite the crew’s being desperate for resources, they have all the energy they need to constantly hang out on the holodeck. Then there’s the fact that they kept finding ways to get home but screwing it up, like some sort of Space Gilligan. Then there’s the fact that Janeway turned into a criminal in the finale and yet was rewarded with the admiralty. Then there’s the time Janeway and Paris turned into salamanders and had babies. Then there’s the time the show had a tie-in to Star Trek VI that got the continuity of that film all wrong. Then there’s the fact that B’elanna was basically a far less interesting version of K’Ehleyr. Then there’s the fact that they hired to same guy to play Paris who had previously played Nick Locarno, and even made him pretty much the same character, but gave him a different name instead of the much more inspired concept of having him BE Locarno. Then there’s the fact that as villains, the Kazon were ridiculous and disappointing. Then there’s the fact that Mulgrew sounds like she’s imitating a sheep whenever she talks. Then there’s… oh, the list goes on and on and on. Sure, it had some good points, primarily involving Six, Tuvok, Kes and the Doctor. But for the most part, the show, in my opinion, was badly made.

74. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 20, 2012

Er… obviously, I meant to say Seven, not Six.

75. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 20, 2012

#45–you wrote:
“All this Voyager and Enterprise hate really needs to stop.”

No, it doesn’t. This is a discussion board. People are discussing things here. It’s not a place for people to only say why they love everything about Trek. Voyager and Enterprise had their moments, but the general consensus is that they were far inferior to the previous shows, and there’s a reason–they were.

76. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 20, 2012

#52–you are way off the mark. The general dislike for Voyager has NOTHING to do with the fact that the captain was a female. Heck, she wasn’t even the first female captain to be seen on Star Trek. It’s not remotely the issue some people try to make it out to be. People disliked the show due to its poor writing, poor acting and poor concept. Mulgrew was a horrid actor playing a badly written character. The fact that she was female had nothing to do with it for the vast majority of fans.

77. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

So, unless it’s on Netflix — like Transformers — or a few over the air channels, I don’t watch it.

78. Red Dead Ryan - April 20, 2012

Yeah, I agree that “Voyager” had the weakest cast of characters. I do think “Deep Space Nine” had the best. The DS9 characters had more depth to them, and most of them had flaws of some sort. “The Original Series” is mainly Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Scotty, with Chekov, Sulu and Uhura more like secondary characters. The top four were very well established, but the bottom three were only sporadically touched upon, in terms of background development and canon.

79. Sebastian S. - April 20, 2012

# 69

Rick Sternbach~

I just found (buried in my storage space) my old copy of “The Star Trek Spaceflight Chronology” (from 1980). Still in good condition, too.

In rereading it (after many years), I remembered how much that book really fired up my imagination when I was a kid. There’s quite a few interesting ideas I wish they could’ve taken from it when ST: ENT was on the air (the Venus terraforming, the Alpha Centaurians, etc. I loved the various captain’s logs, the future news reports and (of course) your paintings.

So, thanks once again for those gorgeous illustrations (for a fun book)! From now on, I will keep it (proudly and prominently) on my big bookshelf!

Live long and prosper!

;-)

80. dmduncan - April 20, 2012

And by the way. I found the culprit word that was blacklisting my post.
Apparently, trying to say Ka_te Mulgrew without the underscore in Ka_te is not permitted!

Ironic for a Star Trek site that you can’t post the full name of one of it’s actresses! What’s up with that?

81. Basement Blogger - April 20, 2012

@ 63

I feel like we’re reenacting that Furturama episode where Bender tries to figure out what word will set off the bomb in his body. You have to watch the episode. Okay we know these words are filtered out.

po_n

heal_h insu_ance

82. Basement Blogger - April 20, 2012

81

Holy Neelix. You’re right. Just tried to type her name. Got deleted. Maybe too many people like the Comic Guy from the Simpsons (“Da Bus”) were trying to get nude pictures of her.

83. rm10019 - April 20, 2012

I vote for Ron Moore for a new Trek TV show.

84. Basement Blogger - April 20, 2012

I hope the two Bryans “make it so.” Anthony Pasquale has always said Star Trek belongs on TV. where more complex stories can be told. Hey, we should have the “best of both worlds.” Have Bob Orci, the two Bryans and great science fiction writers compose episodes.

By the way tonight’s “Fringe” episode “Letters of Transit” was cool and wild. Only problem was I can’t tell if there is going to be a part two. I hope so, because they left the ending dangling. Ahhhh!!!!!. Bob Orci, what the……. . AND THERE WAS A “GUEST” APPEARANCE OF A VULCAN THAT WE ALL LOVE. Don’t know if he will get a speaking part in any upcoming shows.

85. NeoFromTheMatrix - April 20, 2012

I am 1000% sick of everything being rebooted. Somebody come up with an original idea, and continue Star Trek where it left off…

86. VulcanFilmCritic - April 20, 2012

Dear Paramount,

Why do we have to wait until the movies are over for a TV series? I don’t think it would be a good idea to have a series that takes place in either the TOS or ST09 universes as that might be confusing, but either the past or the future would be welcome.

Come on Paramount. Invite a couple of Sci-fi writers to submit a few scripts as part of a brainstorming session and let’s see what we get. Even the losing scripts might be salvaged for some other project.

As for Sci-fi being dead, we’ll see whether it’s dead or not after “Prometheus” opens this summer. If it’s a hit then all of a sudden everyone will be playing catch up and rushing sci-fi into production.

I think what we’ve gotten in the recent past has been: space opera, action films in futuristic settings, fantasy and comic book super heroes. Frankly I’m sick to death of the whole men in tights scene. There’s only so much depth you can get out of an American comic book hero and the cynical, ironic detachment of Robert Downey, Jr, does not count as depth.

Please give us honest to goodness science fiction.

87. DeShonn Steinblatt - April 20, 2012

85.

Oh, that’s original.

88. Larry Lugnuts - April 20, 2012

TV as we know it will likely be GONE by the time a new Trek series would be born. And there have been SO MANY Trek series that the need for a new one isn’t a desirable as we fans seem to think.

What is needed is something many Hollywood egos can’t handle — something BETWEEN a series and features. Instead of 22 episodes a year, or a Mad Menish 13 episodes a year, how about — BRACE YOURSELF –

– one FEATURE every 7 months?

What if Paramount wrote a big contract for the current cast and said, look, you give us a month every seven months and you do whatever films you want in between.

As James T. Kirk once said, “It’s good for you, it’s good for me, it’s good for them.”

89. DeShonn Steinblatt - April 20, 2012

Sounds like Fuller doesn’t have much faith in either Hannibal or Mockingbird Lane if he’s already trying to line up another job.

Not sure how I’d take that if I were his boss.

90. weyoun_9 - April 20, 2012

My two cents: (Or $1.25)

#73 – I thought the “good” characters were Janeway, Torres, EMH, and Seven and I ranked Tuvok, Kes, and Kim as the three least interesting characters. I guess it just shows that everyone gets something different.

I think the idea of waiting until 2016 to launch the next TV series makes the most sense for the following reasons:

1) 50th Anniversary…that should guarantee the show at least two seasons even if it’s on a network no matter what the quality is…although…
2) The more time they have to develop it, the better it will be.
3) It gives the current movies a chance to get three solid films in and then the TV show can either build on that universe or launch in another direction without there being too much in the market.

Oh…and someone mentioned not pandering to 8 year olds…I was 10 when TNG debuted, and Wesley was there to help me relate…and I sure did. I like to think having access to that show through him (and on DS9 through Jake) were ways to elevate me to the understanding of the show without dumbing it down to market to just me. You can make a show accessible without sacrificing intelligence, scope, and story.

91. VulcanFilmCritic - April 20, 2012

@90 weyoun_9 I think I mentioned pandering to 8 year olds. I was 10 years old when TOS debuted, and I was enchanted. But the show wasn’t written for 8 or 10 year olds. That would be “Lost in Space.”
“Star Trek” was written with adults in mind, and certain concepts went over my head, like the concept of pimps, casual sex, puberty, virtual reality, middle-aged regret, leaps of faith, death camps, etc. But that didn’t stop my enjoyment of the show. As I aged, I discovered more to like about the show. It is the adult themes of the show which make it interesting to watch even now in my autumnal years.
It’s one thing for a show to be accessible to kids, it’s another to lower your standards and write for such an immature audience. That’s what pandering is.

92. Response to Vulcan Film Critic - April 20, 2012

Dear Vulcan Film Critic,

Thank your for your letter. We have stored it for safekeeping in our very large warehouse….you know, the one where we are keeping the Ark of the Covenant.

Best Regards,

Paramount Studios

93. Vultan - April 20, 2012

#89

He’s a producer, like Abrams and Orci, etc. They all seem to have multiple projects going at once.

Not sure if that’s particularly a good thing, but there you have it.

94. sanjay - April 20, 2012

I just miss star trek on tv.

95. Chrisdude - April 20, 2012

One of the things I love about Star Trek is its deep, rich canon. The history, the politics, periods of peace and war between species. Think about the history of Klingon relations, it goes all the way back to the “Enterprise” pilot. And that’s not even mentioning the personal relationships we watch for years.

Mostly abandoned in the name of a reboot. Every other Trek movie was like one more adventure of an established crew that we had watched for seasons.
As much as I despise the fact that something like 20 seasons of history got dumped for the alternate timeline, I know that the new universe can’t hope to have that kind of depth without TV. With a movie series (especially one that kicked off like Star Trek 2009) everyone will expect an exciting, action-packed adventure, not senior officers discussing the ramifications of delivering medicine, or an android learning to dance. But what good is watching Rocky fight Apollo without the rest of the movie?

I’d much rather see a new series in the original timeline. A show that embraces what exists, and takes place even farther in the future, with  new species and new technology. You know, imaginative things. But if we can ONLY continue in the alternate timeline, I would rather it be on television. Without a series, the new universe will be nothing but a string of big budget action movies. And there’s nothing special about those, we get three or four of them every summer.

96. John - April 20, 2012

I couldn’t read past the first ten or so comments… Come on guys why is everyone so negitive?

97. MJ - April 20, 2012

@95. If Voyager and Enterprise are supposed to make me be happy to like Trek canon and hate reboots, well, I got news for your: it is not working!!!

In fact, I would have preferred that they shot Berman and Bragga out of a “cannon” versus calling what they came up with in those two mediocre series as canon.

Thank God JJ and company came along to save and renew Star Trek! We wouldn’t be here on this site today having this discussion if they hadn’t — consider that next time you feel ungrateful to them.

98. John - April 20, 2012

#45. – I agree

All this Voyager and Enterprise hate really needs to stop. It really really does…

If you think they are such horrendous series, go back and watch every episode with an open mind and then come back and say what you think.

It’d be just as easy for a brand new viewer to watch a few random TOS (or TNG or DS9) episodes and declare the whole series cheesy crap television.

99. kmart - April 20, 2012

Fuller’s thing would only be worth considering if it were a renegade anti-Abrams show, to offset the STARWARSIFICATION — and a lousy job of it as well — of TREK.

And that ain’t in the cards, so guess I’m stuck watching TOS and DS9 disks.

100. =A= - April 20, 2012

pls pls pls do not cancelled every again understood!

101. danielcraigsmywookiebitchnow - April 20, 2012

25
God i hope not the last thing i want to see is “LOST” in space, and I dont mean Will robinson and Dr Smith lol

102. Commodore Adams - April 20, 2012

I just want a new weekly Star Trek series, darker and edgier. And with the right creative minds there is no reason why a darker and edgier Star Trek could not follow the same ethical and moral dilemmas that Star Trek is known for.

103. Jim Nightshade - April 20, 2012

Basement blogger…..nooooo on reviving bell from the amber unless walter wants to reattch bells hand that he took off him..ekkkkkk…
MAN any trek fans not watcbing cringe are crazy…best show on tv…cant believe it..show should be more popular than xfiles….tonites episode was incredible…

SO cool to have mr sternb…commenting here
Id like to see trek back on tv…i trust jj n co..n.nas they are doing fringe…i always liked voyager…it wasnt perfect but i totally disagree about acting n characters being bad n boring…no way..also thought janeway was a great female capt n a good step up for portrayal of strong women characters..rare on tv

104. Jim Nightshade - April 20, 2012

Damn virtual tablet keyboard typos…n u guys knew i meant fringe the tv show not cringe.ha

105. Craig - April 20, 2012

You all are a bunch of Trek haters! You call yourselves Trekkers but by the comments I have read… I feel sick! No wonder we dont have a tv show, none of you would watch. Your to damned picky. How about take what you get and love it! I loved Voyager, one of my favorites. I connected with the characters a lot more than those of TNG and I grew up watching TNG.
I feel so sad, I almost want to cry when I think about how there is not even 1 space based tv show on tv and none even in the works. BSG: Blood and Crome was even bumped to a single movie that SyFy wont even say when they will burn it off. This is a terrible time to be a true Sci-Fi fan and you posers are to blame!

106. MJ - April 20, 2012

@105 “How about take what you get and love it!”

Sheesh, this isn’t Nazi Germany in the 1930′s dude???

“This is a terrible time to be a true Sci-Fi fan and you posers are to blame!”

Posers? Dude, did you just timewarp in from Hot Tub Time Machine? Posers? God, hearing that word again after all these years reminds me why nobody uses it anymore.

Lighten up!

107. MJ - April 20, 2012

@98 “It’d be just as easy for a brand new viewer to watch a few random TOS (or TNG or DS9) episodes and declare the whole series cheesy crap television.”

Nope, my 11 and 15 years recently watched just about everything Trek over a two-year period, and DS9 was their favorite show, followed by TOS, and TNG. Both did not like Voyager, and only one of them liked Enterprise.

Quality stands the test of time. Poorly done TV shows are poorly done for any generation of viewers.

108. what?! - April 20, 2012

keep hopin’

109. Kevin Marshall - April 20, 2012

I’m disappointed at all of the hate that seems to go around for VOY and ENT (and has anyone mentioned DS9?)

I’ve gone through every episode of every series a couple times for the past couple years…so I think I have a pretty good feel,

TOS and TNG are great shows, for sure, but I think a lot of people are looking back with slightly rose-tinted glasses. It’s still pretty rough for me to watch a lot of the first two seasons of *any* of the 90s Trek (give or take a few awesome episodes). Seasons 3-4 were always pretty good, and Season 5 was always kind of the turning point – where I feel TNG leveled off, DS9 got really good, and VOY petered off a little.

But they all had their problems, not just VOY and ENT.

110. Jason - April 20, 2012

Voyager and Enterprise are more “Star Trek” then JJ Trek will ever hope to be! ‘Nuff said!

111. Gorn Born - April 20, 2012

What do people think that realistically a new television series would be?

It seems likely that it would be set in the new timeline given that this is what the public at large will now be familiar with presumably due to the new movies.

It seems extremely unlikely that it would involve the classic characters or the Enterprise, other than maybe guest appearances.

A different ship and crew set in the same era as the new movie universe Enterprise would be my guess.

112. Greenberg - April 20, 2012

Yes to TV, no to JJ.

113. Greenberg - April 20, 2012

#90,
nah. Using Wesley to relate to kids never worked for me when I was a child. I always wanted to be Riker. He got to kiss Troi, play trombone, and punch people. That was cool, in my opinion. I never wanted to be Wesley.

114. MJ - April 20, 2012

Speaking for myself, I don’t hate either Voyager or Enterprise. How is calling them mediocre hating them? TOS, DS9 and TNG (in that order) are a level of quality above Voyager and Enterprise.

People are really stretching it when they call critics “haters”. I simply rate Enterprise and Voyager as lesser entries in Trek. I don’t hate them though by any stretch of the imagination.

I hate American Idol and Desperate Housewives…does that help? :-)

115. Basement Blogger - April 21, 2012

I think we all like Bad Robot. So here’s a memo to Bob Orci about tonight’s Fringe. First, don’t tease us with a possible appearance of a certain Vulcan that we all love. Okay, I”ll let you all know since it’s not really a spoiler. Last night, on the episdoe of “Letters of Transit” we saw Leonard Nimoy frozen in amber. Coming on the show in the future? Don’t know but that’s torture for us since we don’t know if Bad Robot will resolve this episode.

And don’t leave a strong episode with no ending. (The main characters mission is never resolved.) Next week’s show has nothing to do with this week’s show. (Everybody on the web says the episode did not resolve.) I mean it could but the promo for next week’s show doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “Letters of Transit.” It’s like if Star Trek decided to leave Picard assimilated and skip to the second episode of season four.

116. Carlos Teran - April 21, 2012

I honestly think that Star Trek is dead as a franchise on television. Just take a look at the fate of most Sci-Fi or Fantasy related shows in recent years. I rather prefer some good movies and the BR remasters, than a series that most likely will be cancelled after the first season, if not before.

117. La Reyne d'Epee - April 21, 2012

Be still my beating heart…I for one would love to see what he’d do with it. Yes to having, good, established SF writers create episodes. And yes to taking it forward, developing the mythology, not remaining in a time warp…

118. Admiral Stewie - April 21, 2012

Some posters on this board need either a lap dance from an Orion (your choice whether man or woman) or a Vulcan nerve pinch.

119. Jim Nightshade - April 21, 2012

Basement Blogger did u read my posts above 103 n 104? I thought that on fringe walter cut bells hand off and brought it with him to use some device on it leaving bell in the amber minus his hand…if thats what i saw it would be tough to restore bell unless he can put his hand back on right away gah…if thats not what happened let me know what it was….
i agree with you i wanna see an ending to this great episode…i have a feeling they will continue the episode soon….hope so its a great episode…loved walters star wars references….maybe a trek reference in the future episode…

120. Biggs Nokson - April 21, 2012

If anyone at Paramount is interested, I still have franchise fatigue. One excellent movie every four years is enough… Seriously. No more tv.

121. phil - April 21, 2012

star trek as a series is all spent, they did 800 episodes for gosh sakes!
all they can do now to bring freshness to it is shakey cam, lens flares, and star wars.

122. Kirk, James T. - April 21, 2012

The only people who should be involved in a new Star Trek TV series are JJ Abrams, Bryan Burk, Damon Lindeloff, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.

Whilst I’d love a new Star Trek TV series, I still think we need to wait until a THIRD movie has launched.

Here’s how I’d play it out:

2012 – SDCC, teaser trailer and new Star Trek movie title launched along with a host of other news including that of a new animated Star Trek series set within the alternate universe to bridge the gap between movies and beyond.

2013 – New Star Trek game released

2013 – New movie released

2013 – 2014 – Star Trek Animated series continues to develop adding new characters seen in the 2013 movie

Hasbro continue doing Star Trek toys based on Abrams Star Trek as well as TOS and TNG

DST pick up a license to do a Star Trek select line based on classic and Abrams Star Trek

2014 – SDCC new Star Trek movie launched

2015 – Third JJ Abrams Star Trek movie released

2016 – New Star Trek TV series launched with JJ Abrams/Bad Robot producing. Could be based on alternate Picard/TNG era including alternate DS9

123. Tomi_SI - April 21, 2012

@boborci i hope you are here.
After writing Trek featur films are you and Alex interested in developing a pitch of a trek TV series? Or to be show runner’s of a trek tv series?

i dont know how mutch desire a writer has for a tv series or time for that mater after writing featur films.

124. phil - April 21, 2012

i would like to see a darker star trek in the 25th century aboard the enterprise f. thank you.

125. VulcanFilmCritic - April 21, 2012

@92 LOLFOFL !

Yeah, you can archive my letter right next to the memo from the studio executive who said that Star Trek was “too cerebral.”

126. Lostrod - April 21, 2012

Anyon catch this article about movie location filming in LA this weekend?

http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2012/04/21/weekend-filming-locations-including-star-trek-kill-your-darlings-californication/

Regards

127. Slornie - April 21, 2012

You know what, i think there may be opportunity for Star Trek to return after JJ’s trilogy is finished (assuming it gets that far, maybe 2018?). Enterprise is still valid canon in this new alternate universe (based on the happened-before-Nero-incursion theory), but anything future-wise is new.

Assuming the alternate universe matches the general flow of the original, why not take the USS Enterprise C (or -B if -A never happened in this timeline) under Captain Rachel Garret? After recently watching Voyager, i feel another leading female captain would be a nice change and show off the egalitarian nature of the Federation. It also avoids the sensitivity of “remaking” another cherished crew (e.g TNG).

Set some 60 years after TOS (prime and alternate) and 40 before TNG (prime) it would make for an interesting foray into the “new” Federation. How things have evolved with the loss of Vulcan (maybe peace with the Romulans instead of the Klingons?), maybe the Borg arrived early?

128. Davexbit - April 21, 2012

I’m up for Star Trek in any universe with any characters with any writers, designers or whatever. Just as long as it’s good, creative storytelling that captures the imagination. The essence is more important then the specific.

I hope we as “Fans” don’t paint the creatives in a box that is to tight. We seem to be living in a time of creative “rehash”. Is that the way to go so that you get more detail on a place you’ve been or is it better to expand the verse and Trek forward. Maybe this site could arrange a vote. Pre-Kirk, Kirk and friends or post Voyager. Let’s start with that.

129. VulcanFilmCritic - April 21, 2012

@ 128 Pre-Kirk (with sly references to TOS from time to time).
Some of the Vulcans, Andorians and almost-immortal beings that we met in TOS might be alive and youthful during this time frame.

130. VulcanFilmCritic - April 21, 2012

@126 Lostrod. I’m not familiar with LA. Does anyone know what those locations look like?
And what do you suppose “HH” project stands for Hush-Hush?

131. Nick Cook - April 21, 2012

Personally I’d like to see the movie universe and team stay away from any TV series. If we’re going to have a new TV series, I’d much prefer to see it go back to the Prime universe.

Of course, the chances of me getting what I want probably aren’t that great. :)

132. Andy Patterson - April 21, 2012

As to what is on TV,….Munsters which we don’t need. And Star Trek which probably won’t happen. My question is, what ever happened to Ron Moore’s “Wild Wild West”? what’s the news on that? I’d like to see that,….done well.

133. Sebastian S. - April 21, 2012

# 130. VFC

It’s a few tall buildings and parking lots, right in downtown L.A. I’m assuming it might be an interior location; can’t imagine they’d shoot any exteriors there (unless there’s a 21st century time travel twist somehow).

And the HH for hush hush is perfect! Good one… ;-D

# 126 Lostrod

Thanks for that cool link!

As for a new ST series (hopefully post new movie trilogy), a nagging question remains; prime or new universe? If it weren’t too expensive an idea, I’d love to see a ST anthology show. With different corners of the ST universe explored every week (one week a starbase, next an alien planet, next a starship, etc).

Or for a different kind of show, a ST time travel series chronicling the adventures of a team of Dept. of Temporal Investigations agents. Some episodes could even take place in the present day every now and then to save on budget….

134. Crazy Guy - April 21, 2012

How about bringing the Enterprise back to the small screen set in the J.J.-verse but done in CGI like they’re doing the Clone Wars?

135. Sebastian S. - April 21, 2012

# 134.

Not a bad idea, Crazy Guy (you’re not so crazy after all… ha ha).
It could be kind of a “Star Trek: The JJ Verse Animated Series.” As one of the few who’d LOVE to see the 1973 animated series given a CGI makeover someday, I think your idea is even better….

;-)

136. CmdrR - April 21, 2012

#8 –
Anthony vents a little Berman sturm und drang. Cool.

Loved Pushing Daisies. Would love Bryan Fuller to take a shot.

137. sassy - April 21, 2012

J.J Abrams pathetic little laughable wanna-be Star Trek crap was such a joke! anyone who wants to take that piece of garbage and turn it into a series should expect a big failure!
Most of the REAL STAR TREK fans are disgusted by this farce of a movie
It didn’t even come close to being as good as the original. It reeked to high heaven.
That pathetic travesty was a Star Wars film with Star Trek characters thrown into the mix. And while non-Star Trek fans who will never be considered trekkies, may accept this superficial tripe, those of us with taste, standards, and loyalty to Roddenberry will never stab him in the back the way so many have.
A trekkie is loyal, honest, decent and enjoys using their God-given brains.
that is why this parody of Star Trek will never be accepted.
Paramount may see nothing wrong with stabbing Roddenberry in the back and spitting on HIS franchise, but his real fans won’t ever bother to waste a dime or a minute on this half-witted comedy.

138. Christopher Roberts - April 21, 2012

134. Funny, Crazy Guy. I read that as: “How about bringing Enterprise back to the small screen set in the J.J.-verse…”

139. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

#105–Craig melodramatically wrote:
“You all are a bunch of Trek haters!”

Haters? Really? How old are you… 12? “Haters” is a term teenagers use.

“You call yourselves Trekkers but by the comments I have read… I feel sick!”

LOL. What’s with the melodrama, dude? It’s just fiction. You’re being ridiculous.

“No wonder we dont have a tv show, none of you would watch. Your to damned picky. How about take what you get and love it!”

That’s an absurd stance. If a person doesn’t like what’s being offered, they have every right to say so, and to be discerning about what they do and don’t love. Not everyone is a blind lapdog.

“I loved Voyager, one of my favorites.”

That’s good. But most people don’t feel that way, so you’ll have to deal with it.

“I connected with the characters a lot more than those of TNG and I grew up watching TNG.”

That’s good. But most people don’t feel that way, so you’ll have to deal with it.

“I feel so sad, I almost want to cry”

What??? Dude… really. Go outside. Take a walk. Breathe some fresh air. You’re taking this WAAAY too seriously.

“when I think about how there is not even 1 space based tv show on tv and none even in the works. BSG: Blood and Crome was even bumped to a single movie that SyFy wont even say when they will burn it off.”

Sure, it’s unfortunate, I agree. But you’re turning this into a big soap opera, and you come off as laughable as a result.

“This is a terrible time to be a true Sci-Fi fan and you posers are to blame!”

Oh, cut the “true fan” crap. No one is a “true” fan or a “false” fan. That’s elitist B.S. And “posers?” Really? “Posers?” :::facepalm:::

140. Christopher Roberts - April 21, 2012

So when are The Munsters going to do battle with The Addams Family? ;)

141. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

#137 wrote:
“Most of the REAL STAR TREK fans are disgusted by this farce of a movie”

First of all, there’s no such thing as a “real” fan of anything–that’s elitist bullcrap. Second, the majority of fans LOVED the film. You’re way off-base in claiming most fans were disgusted with it. It’s a HUGE success–financially, critically and among the fan base.

142. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

#137 also wrote:
“And while non-Star Trek fans who will never be considered trekkies, may accept this superficial tripe, those of us with taste, standards, and loyalty to Roddenberry will never stab him in the back the way so many have.”

More elitist bullcrap–and you really don’t know your Trek history, for someone so elitist. Roddenberry is on record as saying he hoped someone would eventually re-cast and reboot the original series. And whether or not someone is considered a “Trekkie” is irrelevant. Being called a “Trekkie” is not a badge of honor–it’s just a word. What matters is if someone enjoys Trek. If they do, they’re a fan. You’re no better a fan than they are, just because your snobbery prevents you from enjoying the film. And the concepts of loyalty and “stabbing Roddenberry in the back” are so laughably absurd that they don’t require a response.

“A trekkie is loyal, honest, decent and enjoys using their God-given brains.”

1) Loyalty is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s not disloyal to enjoy a film. 2) Honesty is irrelevant to this discussion. It’s not dishonest to enjoy a film. 3) Brains are irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn’t require brains to enjoy a film. 4) God is irrelevant to this discussion. For many people, God is as fictional as Star Trek.

“that is why this parody of Star Trek will never be accepted.”

Non sequitur. It already IS accepted. It’s HUGELY successful, and the majority of fans have embraced it. You don’t like it–and that’s fine. But you’re a socially inept jackass if you’re going to insult everyone who does.

“Paramount may see nothing wrong with stabbing Roddenberry in the back and spitting on HIS franchise, but his real fans won’t ever bother to waste a dime or a minute on this half-witted comedy.”

It’s not HIS franchise. Roddenberry came up with the idea for the show, but many of his stories and concepts were just plain bad. It took MANY people to bring Star Trek to life, and Roddenberry wasn’t even involved with it for the past 20 years.

And the idea of “real fans” is just stupid. If you think that your bad attitude actually makes you better or smarter than other people, then you keep thinking that–but the truth is, it just makes you look like an arrogant, narrow-minded, dysfunctional obsessive-compulsive with series social issues.

143. sassy - April 21, 2012

And while I liked SOME Voyager episodes most of them were too awful for words.
So this guy sounds like he isn’t better then that disaster of a executive producer Rick Berman. And using J.J Abrams star wars parody as a basis?
Uh, are some big shots in Hollywood NOT getting enough oxygen? Not enough sleep?
That is the dumbest idea ever. If those morons have so much money to burn why they donate it charity? At least then the money will be put to good use instead of being flushed down the toilet.
And we fairly normal fans don’t consider the opinions of the psychotic fans to be valid seeing as they would attend a so-called “Star Trek” movie if all the actors did was sit around for 2 hrs and make shadow puppets and sing show tunes. In other words, they will buy ANYTHING that says Star Trek. No matter how badly and cheap looking the product is.
No we REAL STAR TREK fans will wait until they tire of making a mockery of a franchise that STILL has life in it. Sorry if some are too stupid in the industry to figure out that it was the BAD STORIES that turned Star Trek fans away from the last 2 movies of STNG! NOT because they no longer liked Star Trek! But typical pinheads. Once they get a narrative into their thick-pea-brained-skulls, HEAVEN HELP anyone who dares to argue with them using FACTS! I’ve talked to tens of thousand of Trekkies around the world! They have almost unanimously said that they would happily go see another REAL STAR TREK OR STNG movi, PROVIDED it had a solid intelligent well-thought out storyline!!! But no! Paramount producers don’t want to hear THAT! Oh no! That’s too factual! That’s too realistic! That requires listening to what the real fans want and heaven forbid that!
Better to make these pathetic laughable watered down comical versions that have turned off at least 30% of the last audience. Bet those morons will be just as surprised as they were when Nemesis did badly. Never mind if they had asked those of us with good taste and a real finger on the pulse of the Star Trek universe that Nemesis was a STUPID IDEA!
Never mind that I could write a 3 part STNG that would blow whatever this next little sequel right out of the water! The first one would probably bring in about 20 million more then his pathetic joke of a movie. and part 2 of my movie would probably bring in 40 million more then that imbeciles crappy little wanna-be star trek movies.
Real Star Trek fans want intelligent well-thought out plots, 3 dimensional characters, layered stories, believable twists and turns that the CHARACTERS THEMSELVES work themselves out of!
NOT THAT LAUGHABLE ENDING WHERE SPOCK SHOWS UP AND JUST HANDS HIM ALL THE ANSWERS ON A SILVER PLATTER!!!!
ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
That whole scenario was such a joke! That sounds just like those old Greek plays where the writers would back their characters into a corner with no way out ONLY to have the gods of Mt Olympus descend down the mountain to SAVE THE DAY! Uh, Screenplay writing 101! DON’T DO THAT! It screams AMATEUR and unoriginal thinker who is not COMPETENT enough to figure out an intelligent manner for their characters to escape! This is why all real writers are warned NEVER TO DO THIS! NO EXCEPTIONS!
Of course seeing how many are so easily impressed by this childish drivel, I guess none of the writers involved figured they need to exert much effort. And I guess sadly…….They were right!
But like I said. Many Trekkies who GAVE abrams little parody a chance walked away disgusted and feeling betrayed so there will be millions less wasting time and money on this joke.
if others are so easily amused then so be it.
There is an ancient Chinese Proverb that goes something like : He who is easily amused by simple things; lengthens his life.
Well I guess there will be a lot of people adding many years to their lives. LOL

144. sassy - April 21, 2012

And if Roddenberry were still alive he would not have allowed a NON STAR TREK FAN TO REBOOT THE WHOLE THING!
How stupid would someone have to be to hire a NON STAR TREK FAN!!!
Those are some of the dumbest “come-back” statements I have ever read!
Let me guess your someone who either doesn’t like to use their brain while watching a movie or your one of those idiots who work for the movie studio whose job it is to attack any and all who stand up for GOOD TASTE AND INTELLIGENT WELL-THOUGHT OUT MOVIES!
Not this crap Abrams pulled out of his rear-end. But I guess some people are so easily impressed with garbage, I bet you spend most of your nights sitting in front of your garbage cans for entertainment. after all they are every bit as entertaining as Abrams laughable little parody.
Again, fools can call themselves whatever they want, they can call themselves a panda bear, still won’t make it true! lol
The next movie will bomb! And they will be blaming the REAL STAR TREK FANS! GOOD!
Then maybe Paramount will pull their heads out of their rear-ends stop behaving like a bunch of tools, and hire a group of people who ACTUALLY ARE STAR TREK FANS! And will treat this laughable joke of a movie or movies as just existing in some lonely deserted alternate universe where all such worthless drivel belongs.
And all you little whiners, attack ALL YOU WANT!
That’s not going to make any of the REAL STAR TREK fans want to see this embarrassing little parody. LMAO!!

145. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

Sassy, you need medication. It’s embarrassing to have you among the fanbase–people like you give the rest of us (the normal majority) a bad name with your elitist b.s. and your over-the-top ranting.

146. spock - April 21, 2012

It would be interesting if this Star Trek 2 launches a rebirth of Star Trek on TV just like the first Star Trek 2 did. I just hope it goes to a cable network, and not some lame ass LSM channel.

147. Ziro - April 21, 2012

how crazy would that be if Lucasfilm Animation were producing that new Trek show for Paramount ? :D afterall ILM worked on the films etc

148. captain_neill - April 21, 2012

146

I thought it was Star Trek IV that helped get Trek back to TV.

149. dmduncan - April 21, 2012

“Trekmovie Unhinged.”

Let’s make a movie out of this thread!

Fun!

150. captain_neill - April 21, 2012

Hey, I might have my gripes with the new movie but I can still say I enjoyed it even though I prefer what came before.

Its just the way the movie industry is going I guess, rebots and remakes.

Just don’t get me going about the RoboCop remake. Bad enough they are remaking one of my all time favourite movies but to change his entire look. That is just wrong.

Despite Abrams changing things at least it looked like Trek for the most part. And he made a film that although I don’t think is true Star Trek, it stil honoured Trek. If that makes sense.

151. Craiger - April 21, 2012

Sassy, in the Treknation documentary Roddenberry said he hoped someone would reboot TOS in the future. He would have been all for it.

152. Craiger - April 21, 2012

Also, Orci and the writers of Star Trek are Star Trek fans.

153. dmduncan - April 21, 2012

Posts 144 and 145 should be read to background music.

I suggest the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jTHNBKjMBU

154. Phil - April 21, 2012

@12. Yeah, it’s your age. All the Trek series produced great episodes, and some real stinkers as well. You hear some squaking because the ethic of TOS was different then the post TOS shows, that doesn’t make one better then the other, just different. Nothing wrong with that at all.

155. Freddie - April 21, 2012

Just say yes, we need more Trek TV! I can’t imagine a better team than Bryan Fuller, Bryan Singer and JJ (hopefully Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof too!) House MD (Singer) is one of my favorite shows ever, and I thought Pushing Daisies (Fuller) was creative to say the least.

156. Someone - April 21, 2012

We don’t want a Star Trek TV series based on reboot fake trek. We want one where the Trek universe we know left off.

157. Freddie - April 21, 2012

Now if only we could get Joss Whedon and Ron Moore involved too!

158. Craiger - April 21, 2012

I don’t think CBS will care what fans want they will want a Trek TV series that brings in the most ratings. A Trek TV series based on what Trek fans want wouldn’t bring in great ratings.

159. DeShonn Steinblatt - April 21, 2012

111. What do people think that realistically a new television series would be?

Thinking realistically is not a skill trekkies are familiar with.

160. Thomas - April 21, 2012

I’d love to see Star Trek return to television at some point, but I confess to having trouble visualizing what such a new series should be. Creatively speaking, any new producer faces a conundrum; namely, if a new series is too similar to what’s happened before, he’ll be berated for rehashing old material and labelled uncreative. Conversely, if he tries to do things too differently, he’s labelled disrespectful (to fans, canon, etc.) and his work is “not Trek”. At least any new producer can be secure in the knowledge that a new Trek series will assuredly have its’ detractors in the fandom.

161. Phil - April 21, 2012

@159. Oh come on now, same scripts, interchangable bad guys, new crew has worked well to this point :-)

162. Sebastian S. - April 21, 2012

I’m dipping my head in shame as I read ‘sassy’s’ posts. These are the kinds of fans that set Star Trek back to the “get a life” days. Ouch….

It’s ironic that Star Trek fans were (in theory, if not in practice) supposed to be accepting of other’s ‘strange, new’ opinions; a fairly enlightened bunch. And you’d think that those of us Trekkies (Trekkers, whatever) who dream of a united earth working in harmony with other species would be able to rise above bullying and name-calling and acting like 12 yr olds in an Team Edward vs Team Jacob screaming match….

Say what you will about the JJ Abramserve (I for one, enjoyed it immensely), but one would be foolish to argue the point that it was a failure. It made more money (even adjusted for inflation) than any other previous ST movie (yes, even “The Voyage Home”). It brought MANY new fans into ST fandom (including two members of my own family). How is this a problem, again? A whole new generation of fans, a hell of a lot more money and a generally well-liked-by-most movie is hardly what I’d call an utter failure, by any stretch….

If one doesn’t like ST09? Fine. I’ve no problem with that. My universe won’t crumble to dust for it. And by all means, I’d like to hear one’s reasons WHY they don’t like it (intelligently and calmly, if possible). But if one is just trolling to be a troll? That’s unfortunate, as it makes ALL of us ST fans look bad…

And yes, I still think Crazy Guys’ idea of a CG animated JJ verse series would be pretty cool. It’d be cost-effective (you wouldn’t really need the movie actors; you could follow the Clone Wars’ example and hire soundalikes). And without the need to construct sets and uniforms and aliens for the physical world, your imagination could run wild! If this idea for a series became reality, it would have the potential to be everything the 1973 animated series wasn’t.

163. Phil - April 21, 2012

It’s a shame the direction this thread has taken, there are many talented producer/directors/writers out there that would like a shot at Trek on TV, and the fan base here is being really dismissive for fairly petty reasons. I’m reading that the reviews for Joss Whedon’s The Avengers are really, really, good….and I’d be willing to bet that if he showed an interest in this project there would be more then a few people commenting “Whedon, Buffy….ewwwww, no thanks”.

164. Red Dead Ryan - April 21, 2012

I find it hypocritical of people to call others “haters”, especially as those anti-JJ folks have displayed some hate themeselves. Where do they get off thinking they have the right to be so condescending and asinine?

As for “sassy”, I feel that name is quite appropriate as it includes the letters a-s-s. That is right. Ass. As in sassy making a total ass of him/her/it self!

165. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

#156 wrote:
“We don’t want a Star Trek TV series based on reboot fake trek. We want one where the Trek universe we know left off.”

I don’t know who “We” is supposed to be, as your sentiment is not one shared by the majority of fans. You most certainly do NOT speak for Trek fandom.

166. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations

Nome

Live long and Prosper

Peace and long life

I suggest that sassy, Craig and anyone else determined to come here and bash all who feel differently than they feel look up the above terms. Clearly, those individuals don’t understand the meaning behind those phrases and philosophies.

167. Craiger - April 21, 2012

#166, Those phrases makeTrek seem to nerdy and intellectual for the general audience. They want a good story, action and explosions. They really don’t want to have to think about a show. How many Trek fans are out their now? I doubt enough their are enough Trekkies to support a new Trek TV show to justify it staying on the air. I like Trek and I am not trying to bash it. I am just being realistic.

168. Craiger - April 21, 2012

Sorry, I meant to say Trek fans alone to support a new Trek TV series.

169. petrichor - April 21, 2012

implying “Course: Oblivion”, “Living Witness” and “Drone” aren’t some of the best episodes of Voyager

170. trekprincess - April 21, 2012

who is this Sassy there’s no need for her to hop on trekmovie and bash Abrams Trek in my honest opinion I think fans should accept other’s opinions on new Trek etc.

171. dmduncan - April 21, 2012

Love Joss Whedon’s work. Firefly was one of the best TV shows ever.

But getting all your favorite writers/directors/producers together to work on a ST TV series is not like pulling all your superheroes together to fight a world menace.

Somebody has to be in charge of the direction of the show. There has to be a sheriff who yays and nays according to specified guidelines, and who would, hopefully, attract a diverse pool of SF writers who would then be given the creative freedom to work within those guidelines without being hamstrung by canon. That is, the new show has to at least be internally consistent which is what the guidelines are there to establish, and which function is what GR himself performed in sketching out the Star Trek universe for other writers to play within. But a good SF writer needs broad latitude to create from their own imaginations rather then being walled in by all the bricks that others have laid before so that he has no freedom to move, to use his or her talents.

I think Bob has done an excellent job — an amazing job, really, which I did not think was possible prior to ST.09 — of rebooting the franchise WITHIN canon. But not every writer is Bob Orci. And there are a lot of good SF writers who WOULD be attracted to doing ST TV series episodes if they were allowed the freedom to do what they do best, which is to come up with interesting SF stories.

I would much rather see Bob Orci running the show, i.e., doing Gene Roddenberry’s function, rather than anyone else. I think he could attract talent and I think he would give his people freedom to move.

172. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

#167: Sorry, I was referring to Craig, not you. There’s a Craig here, as well as a Craiger. :)

173. Flake - April 21, 2012

If the next movie builds a ton of standing sets that can be redressed easily for a TV show then maybe they will make a pilot episode and offer it to the highest bidder? I understand the main thing preventing scifi TV shows getting on the air is the massive cost to make them, a cost that goes down the drain when it doesnt work. Well the movie can soak up that expense!

174. Sebastian S. - April 21, 2012

# 173.

Good point, Flake.
Star Trek has a long history of recycling sets, props, etc.
Kind of like what happened when the aborted 1976 ST phase 2 series (not to be confused with the same name fan films) was abandoned in favor of the first ST movie. They used the partially completed (and ultimately reworked) sets for the movie. And those sets were used in the sequels, and the Next Generation, the engine room of Voyager, etc. Pieces of them (doorways, I believe) were even used in the bridge of the Enterprise E. I also believe that tiny pieces of them were even used in the new ST Enterprise bridge as well (at least that’s what I read somewhere).

I’d call that one hell of a recycling program! ;-D

175. ST fan - April 21, 2012

Hmmmmmm…a new Star Trek TV show series? Nah, I think they should keep on making the movies.

176. ST fan - April 21, 2012

The movies really capture the emotion and world of star trek, if they turned it into a tv show, none of the actors/actresses would be playing in it. It would be just so lame. I had read somewhere that they already signed contracts for a third film(I’m not sure if that’s true or not) but even if they haven’t, they will most likely make a few more Star Trek films. Star Trek has been refreshed, even sort of remade. The new Star Trek films are sort of an entire new story, so they have tons of room to make sequels. My guess is that J.J. will make at least one more after this sequel; but he will probably;y make more. A TV show right now would bog Star Trek down back to where it was before the 2009 movie was made. PLEASE NO TV SHOW!

177. Sebastian S. - April 21, 2012

# 176, ST fan

I heard the cast is onboard for three movies, too. While I think a new animated series could be interesting I would like them to finish up this cycle of movies first.

And to paraphrase Kirk (in Trouble with Tribbles), “Too much of ANYTHING… even (Star Trek) isn’t necessarily a good thing.”

178. MJ - April 21, 2012

@171. DM, I think the best way to bring Trek to TV would be to wait until the 3rd movie is done, and then start a new limited Trek series on HBO or Showtime, where you have 10 near-movie quality episodes per year. Look at how well HBO has done Game of Thrones….that shows shows how you can do epic quality genre work on TV. And you could then do a story arc every season as well.

This would be so preferable to me then going the network 24-episode on-the-cheap standard tv route and turning the show over to some Berman era retreads (no offense meant to B. Fuller).

179. xhoan - April 21, 2012

I would love to see what’s going to happen after the last episode in the star trek future that is voyager coming home with all the new borg technology especially weapon, shield and transwarp. Of course the federadion would be the major power in it’s all four quadrants, so we could see a bit more further in the universe discovering new territory, new worlds. EXITING.

That’s what Star Trek is all about.
For me at least

180. captain_neill - April 21, 2012

MJ

I would welcome anyone who worked on the Berman era. A lot of great talent worked on those shows.

JJ Abrams is not the ‘only’ person who can make Trek successful. He is NOT some messiah who must be seen as the only guy who can steer Trek.

181. Jamziz - April 21, 2012

To me this sounds like nothing more than open speculation.

Here’s what I think and why:

• Although JJ Abrams reboot has served to repopularize Star Trek in the main stream – it is nothing more than a cash grab by the studio as evidenced by the direction they pursued with the reboot. They chose iconic characters with the largest marketing potential, the film is no more than an action movie benefiting from the marketing potential of being a trek flick. As such this film’s style, nor the “universe” it appears in should be brought to television. Trek TV has been markedly different than the films – it should remain this way.

• Based on the track records of television shows such as Fringe, Lost, Alcatraz and other JJ abrams produced shows – a Star Trek series under their helm would almost certainly fail. The caliber of television among those efforts does not inspire any confidence in me that they would be up to the task of creating another iconic star trek television series.

• This brings me to my next point. Who ever helms the next series NEEDS to be operating under goal of creating an ICONIC television series. There were a variety of factors that guaranteed TNG / DS9 success. Some of those factors were: Paramounts expert strategy on guaranteeing TNG 210 stations covering 90% of the US securing a large audience, paramount / roddenberry assembling star trek veteran production staff, writers, and technical talent to make the series, a significant budget per episode, and an unrelenting commitment to the roddenberry vision of star trek which had captivated the imagination of millions and inspired millions more.

• The impact Star Trek had on American cultural was significant, it should be the aim of whomever the new show runners are to follow in this tradition. As such the next series needs to be set in a post TNG/DS9/VOY era and not before. It should not depict a dark / stagnating future but instead return to the idealism that helped seal its success. Audiences should once again be whisked into a future that sits on the edges of their imagination, exposed to technology and imagery that can once again inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists.

• Every attempt previously to move away from this formula, to forget about these elements that made Trek so great has ended in failure. If the next show runners refuse to set their bar so high, if they refuse to be as ambitious as required to make it work then they have no business piloting this iconic series.

182. Thomas - April 21, 2012

177. Sebastian S.
“And to paraphrase Kirk (in Trouble with Tribbles), ‘Too much of ANYTHING… even (Star Trek) isn’t necessarily a good thing.’ ”

Personally, I think that’s where Trek went bad. Too many series, running for too long with fairly little creative turnover in that time, with stories growing repetitive and monotonous.

It might be worth comparing to another long-running franchise: the original run of Doctor Who on the BBC. It began in 1963 and ran, almost continuously (minus a couple of yearlong-or-so hiatuses), for 26 years. In that time, seven actors played the title role, the series had nine different producers, Lord knows how many writers, and an innate ability to take the characters (and viewers) anywhere and anytime they conceived. A big part of that longevity has to be that the series could uniquely renew itself periodically. New actors, new writers, new producers, each one putting their own stamp on the product while adding to what had come before.

Star Trek didn’t have that. The only solution was simply to “press on”, as it were. Meanwhile, stories were growing repetitive, characters were becoming increasingly unremarkable, and the franchise was languishing rather than thriving, with many of the same people running things behind the scenes for all that time. Whether you agree with it or not, the reboot was necessary simply because it forced Star Trek to be revitalized, while simultaneously bringing things back to where the greatest number of people would have a sense of familiarity.

183. Phil Collins - April 21, 2012

They’re only making these things so some rich guys can get richer, they’re not doing anything new, exciting or remotely thought provoking and since this formula works by appealing to both easily-impressed fanboys and oblivious lowest common denominator moviegoers, it’s not going to change for the forseeable future.

I’d rather not see another Trek TV series produced under these circumstances, thanks.

184. dmduncan - April 21, 2012

182: “the next series needs to be set in a post TNG/DS9/VOY era and not before. It should not depict a dark / stagnating future but instead return to the idealism that helped seal its success. Audiences should once again be whisked into a future that sits on the edges of their imagination, exposed to technology and imagery that can once again inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists. .”

Star Trek — The Generation After Next.

That’s what you are advocating. Keep stretching out the Star Trek universe of canon. I don’t want to see that. That’s the problem not the solution.

And if it were that easy to make characters ICONIC, then every TV show producer would have the recipe and would be doing it.

“Based on the track records of television shows such as Fringe, Lost, Alcatraz and other JJ abrams produced shows – a Star Trek series under their helm would almost certainly fail.”

What? Fringe is in its FOURTH season. H50 is in its THIRD. Lost was enormously popular and went SIX seasons. Alias went FIVE seasons. Transformers Prime is going into its THIRD season to critical acclaim. I’m not sure what the fate of Alcatraz is right now, but altogether I’d say their track record suggests the exact opposite.

185. dmduncan - April 21, 2012

179. MJ – April 21, 2012

@171. DM, I think the best way to bring Trek to TV would be to wait until the 3rd movie is done, and then start a new limited Trek series on HBO or Showtime, where you have 10 near-movie quality episodes per year.

***

I am a huge proponent of less is more. I would much rather have fewer episodes of much higher quality than a lot more episodes that are all meh.

186. Red Dead Ryan - April 21, 2012

#181.

Dude, J.J Abrams has a proven track record on television. “Alias”, “Lost”, “Fringe”, “Felicity” have all lasted at least four seasons, garnering (no pun intended, at least in regards to the non-”Alias” shows, wink) good to great reviews. “Alcatraz” might not have succeeded, but overall, Abrams is one of the best creative minds in Hollywood today. Get your facts straight before you rail against the Supreme Court guys.

187. Trekboi - April 21, 2012

heres a way to do the movies & tv series with the original series cast at the same time…
Keep the JJ movies in the original 5 year mission & base the tv series on the years between end of the 5 year mission & the weath of khan, there was a second 5 year mission & a lot of other missions that were never covered on film- outside of fan films

188. P Technobabble - April 21, 2012

I think there are a bunch of people who are just stuck in the past.

189. Vultan - April 21, 2012

#183

Agreed.

I remember seeing David Hyde Pierce (Niles on “Frasier”) receive an Emmy the last season the show was on the air. In his acceptance speech he said that television was changing (referring to reality TV taking place of scripted television) and when it changed back they could give him a call.

I think of Trek (and sci-fi) much the same. When people are ready for it again, and hopefully that will be sooner rather than later, it will be out there “waiting for the call.”

190. Craiger - April 21, 2012

Any new Trek on TV has to be in Abrams Trek Universe since that was proven sucessfull with the general audience. The Prime Universe is burnt out isn’t it?

191. Red Dead Ryan - April 21, 2012

Television has changed forever. Reality shows are here to stay. There’s no going back. Sci-Fi is going to have to adapt to the new world order. Either on a specialty channel like HBO or on the internet. And it’s going to require studio honchos and producers with a grand vision.

192. MJ - April 21, 2012

@186 “Dude, J.J Abrams has a proven track record on television. “Alias”, “Lost”, “Fringe”, “Felicity” have all lasted at least four seasons, garnering (no pun intended, at least in regards to the non-”Alias” shows, wink) good to great reviews. “Alcatraz” might not have succeeded, but overall, Abrams is one of the best creative minds in Hollywood today. Get your facts straight before you rail against the Supreme Court guys.”

Agreed! Duh! Kind of makes me wonder if Jamziz was in the process of downing a six-pack as he posted here. LOL

193. Red Dead Ryan - April 21, 2012

#192.

“Agreed! Duh! Kind of makes me wonder if Jamziz was in the process of downing a six-pack as he posted here. LOL”

I get the feeling that it’s not beer that is being guzzled here. More like Kool-Aid. Spiked Kool-Aid. And it’s made some people on this thread crazy, irrational, and delusional.

194. Craiger - April 21, 2012

RDR are Scifi spaceship shows on TV and cable gone forever?

195. DeShonn Steinblatt - April 21, 2012

184.

He’s well aware that nothing in his post is true.

Just a fanboy crybaby that thinks his starship blueprints don’t count anymore.

196. Vultan - April 21, 2012

#191

You’re right.

The internet is probably the most likely place sci-fi TV will reemerge, like in those little pulp magazines in the ’50s. It’s now a limited, fractured market, for better or worse. And grand visions will most likely come from independent producers, not studio honchos.

197. Red Dead Ryan - April 21, 2012

#194.

I hope not. But I think most network bigwigs aren’t interested in doing things that might go against the flow of formulaic, stale, and ho-hum programming that is considered entertainment.

198. Red Dead Ryan - April 21, 2012

#196.

Yeah, I agree. That’s another reason why I suggested Duncan Jones. He seems like an independent creator who would do wonders for sci-fi on the internet. He’s relatively new to the scene which is a good thing because it means he isn’t going to be beholden to the studios. I think both “Moon” and “Source Code” are independent movies. Not entirely sure though.

199. Craiger - April 21, 2012

RDR, aren’t Scifi spaceship shows part of a niche market mainly nerds? Not trying to be mean their. That the general audience aren’t really interested in those shows at all even if they had action and explosions in them? Then I could see why Network and Cable Execs would not want to take a chance on them they would think those type of shows would not get great ratings. I wonder if today’s audience has changed since the TNG days?

200. Vultan - April 21, 2012

#198

Yeah, Duncan Jones would be great, I agree. He seems to be sticking with movies so far, but who knows? He may branch out into television producing some day. Maybe his shape-shifting stepmother can talk him into doing Trek.

201. dmduncan - April 21, 2012

197. Vultan – April 21, 2012

#191

You’re right.

The internet is probably the most likely place sci-fi TV will reemerge,

***

I hope that happens.

But I LIKE getting out of my house and going to the theater and seeing movies in a big room with a bunch of strangers.

The internet breaks the distribution bottleneck, but you still have the financial problem to solve of funding movies that are more expensive because they are SF…

…and of course even with a giant screen TV in your home, you don’t get the primal watching-the-shadows-of-the-flames-on-the-cavewall-with-your-tribe experience that movie theaters give you.

Crowdfunding sites like Kickstarter and Indiegogo may be the prototype of a thing that eventually solves the funding problem for even big budget SF epics…

But that still seems to leave the traditional Hollywood distribution bottleneck intact, forcing content independently produced through that means onto the internet as the only viable route of distribution, which may hurt the theater business even more, and Hollywood with it.

The world is changing fast.

202. Ahmed Abdo - April 21, 2012

With all due respect to Abrams & his team, I’d rather that CBS pick a new team for the revival of Star Trek on TV.

Someone like J. Michael Straczynski, the creator of Babylon 5, would bring a fresh insight to Star Trek

203. Vultan - April 21, 2012

#201

“you don’t get the primal watching-the-shadows-of-the-flames-on-the-cavewall-with-your-tribe experience that movie theaters give you.”

Wow, I’ve never looked at the movie theater experience like that before. Very interesting perspective. I only wish the tribes at my local cave walls were a little more… evolved.

Talking on little chirpy machine during shadow play makes Grog mad.

204. Daoud - April 21, 2012

Wish they’d just do it like the old NBC Mystery Movie series (Colombo, McMillan and Wife, etc.)…
.
Have alternating episodes of NX-02 Columbia in the Romulan War, The Adventures of the USS Kelvin (starring Faran Tahir), USS Exeter (in the era of 2266-2269) in the nuUniverse, and something post Voyager.
.
It needs to be something creative like that. With less episodes per season, bigger name actors would be willing to commit and appear.

205. MJ - April 21, 2012

I wonder if part of the problem in the lack of new space-related scifi shows is associated with the downfall of our space program. I mean, today, I would say it looks more likely that the Chinese will be the ones landing on Mars in 2030; certainly not us or the Europeans. I think this does create a general malaise in the public. This I think is one of the reasons why fantasy is so dominant these days over science fiction.

206. spooky - April 21, 2012

If they ever do another Trek series, I would prefer a forward progression with the Prime Universe. A couple of ways to go about it;

1. A story based around a ship/Alien Captain or crew with some human stragglers.

2. Mirror Universe

3. Far distant universe, 1000 years from now.

4. Or an anthology series, each season deals with a different era with different characters, all leading up to a big conclusion ad end of series. Kinda of like this..

s1 – 33rd century, Federation Captain and Ship
s2 – 11th century, Bajoran explorer ship
s3 – 16th century, Cardassian science ship
s4 – 19th century, Romulan explorer ship
s5 – 25th century, mirror universe crew
s6 – 9th century, some other alien species, Nacene…
s7 – How they all fit together, some kind of gee whiz bang temporal thingy as a result of something to do with the Beta universe red matter crap…
Something different and fun… the main story

207. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 21, 2012

#202: JMS has already written Star Trek, for DC Comics. The story was neither insightful nor fresh–it was standard-fare Star Trek, and one of DC’s weakest stories.

208. Ahmed Abdo - April 21, 2012

#207. I didn’t read the comic, but given JMS record with Babylon 5, I believe he is one of the best guys out there who can bring Trek back to TV.

He wrote an outline to reboot Star Trek back in 2004

Star Trek: Re-Boot the Universe

http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

209. Thomas - April 21, 2012

You guys may remember that Trekmovie did an article about how Straczynski wrote a treatment for what would’ve been a TOS reboot series. As I recall, that article came out before ST09 was released; it might’ve even been before we knew it was a reboot.

On a different subject, does anyone know what was the last anthology series to succeed on American television (I realize that CBS Paramount will try to sell a new series overseas, but America would remain the key market)? Was it the syndicated version of The Outer Limits? The market for first-run syndicated drama is dead in America.

204. Daoud
I can see two problems with the “Mystery Movie” format:

1. It’s essentially asking a network to commit to multiple Trek series at once. Nobody’s even sure if we’ll get one.

2. The rotating schedule would severely limit continuity from one episode to the next. If a particular rotating element aired only once a month or so, every episode would have to be self-contained almost by default; it would be difficult if not impossible to have any ongoing plotlines.

210. Jim Nightshade - April 22, 2012

Weve got some trek fans that only like tos or tos characters…weve got some trek fans who only like some tng,ds9…weve got some trek fans who hate berman…some who hate tng etc…(thereby hating roddenberry) how is that possible…as others mentioned we are fans of a diverse future tolerant n caring..yet we cant even agree on what trek is or should be….star wars fandom doesnt have this problem…if we are smarter..more tolerant why the divisive differences….my feeling roddenberry n berman made tng n spinoffs popular and intelligent….cant blame berman cuz he kept his job too long….blame paramount…jjs reboot works—its visually stunning action filled fun n thanx to our friend robert n jjs co it is our trek as well…theres no going back to tng…too many seem to hate that era despite its many successes…jjs treks young hip n exciting..enjoy it while we got it…scifi on tv…if tera nova couldnt stay on..no scifi at this time will…tn had a family…dinos…political/social intrigue..kinda a recipe to attract families and action fans..wasnt perfect but it deserved a 2nd season to improve more.,sorry we and scifi on tv didnt git that chance..
those mentioning animated trek..disney is doing a similar thing this june with tron uprising on disney xd—hope us scifi fans wtch n support it…if a success it may lead to more tron movies n more scifi on tv..

211. Shilliam Watner - April 22, 2012

I’m not sure who I’d trust more with Trek between JMS and Singer/Fuller. They have all delighted and disappointed me. I am a huge fan of B5 seasons two, three and four. The Molari/G’Kar story arc was downright Shakespearean in scope. Some truly transcendent character development. Something you never saw much of in Trek. But seasons one and five were not that great, and Crusade and Rangers were, in my opinion, not very good at all.

Fuller and Singer have similar track records with me. They’ve both done things I’ve really liked and things I’ve really not liked. Either way, though, I want Star Trek back on TV, and I want it to have characters that evolve, and drama that isn’t tepid, and stories that take chances. I don’t want safe Trek, with is what they did after DS9, in my opinion.

212. pauln6 - April 22, 2012

Clone Wars did a prequel set in between movies 2 and 3 and it seems to have been quite successful. I’d be quite happy to see an animated series set between TMP and TWoK. However, I suspect that they will want to plug the new timeline and its merchandising prospects. Something like expanding on the ongoing IDW series seems most likely to me.

213. Kirk, James T. - April 22, 2012

Bad Robot and CBS Television present….

Star Trek: The Next Generation

Based in the new timeline onboard the USS Enterprise NCC 1701 – D and the Space Station Deep Space Nine.

Loosley retelling the epic story of the Cardassian occupation of Bajor and ultmatey the Dominion invasion of the Alpha Quadrant but in an entirely new way.

This time the Next Generation is set 5 years after Kirk with Picard graduating from the academy during the third JJ Abrams movie.

Characters involved would be: Picard, Riker, Data, Worf, Odo, Kira, Sisko, O’Brian, Quark, Rom, Nog, LaForge, Wesley Crusher, Beverly Crusher, Troi, Gul Dukat, Gowron, Kor, The Borg, Weyoon, The Founders.

214. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 201.

dmduncan.

A very interesting post.
I really liked your comparisons to movies with ‘shadows-on-the-cave-wall’. Very astute, and very primal. I’d never thought of it that way before in 40 odd years of attending movies (think I saw my first one when I was 3 or so). It IS a kind of primal experience. Video (no matter how big the screen) will never compare to the shared (tribal?) experience of the movies….

I like what film critic Roger Ebert called movies; the “democracy in the dark.” He mentioned seeing “Singing in the Rain” when he was in college, and hearing the audiences laughs and cheers helped to bolster his own reactions to what he was seeing. It’s a shared, communal experience (at least for those who aren’t too busy talking or texting on their stupid phones).

Thanks dmduncan, for sharing such a cool insight…. ;-)

215. Kirk, James T. - April 22, 2012

I wouldn’t return Star Trek to the prime timeline. Any new Star Trek TV series should be set in the alternate universe with perhaps the Mirror Universe playing a role in bringing all the universes together… Anything is possible but by and large a new series should be primarily set in the universe Abrams has created. The Prime Timeline has gone as far as it could have gone without it becoming irrelevant and unrelatable.

As for Singer and Fuller – Fuller is the only one I’d bring onboard.

Regardless of whether or not you agree or like what JJ Abrams has done to Star Trek, he has undoubtably made Star Trek relevant again.

The trouble I see with Bryan Singer and Bryan Fuller is that however well they’ve done on other projects – they are essentially fanboys trying to make their Star Trek and whilst Bob Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindeloff are Star Trek fans, they are balanced with people who had never seen or only seen parts of the show.

I wouldn’t want James Crawley from Phase II to make mainstream Star Trek and the same goes for Fuller and Singer – to make a good Star Trek show you have to have a team of people who are not entirely made up of fanboys.

I’d say let Abrams produce, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci work with Bryan Fuller and Bryan Burk in creating something and with perhaps Ron Moore coming onboard with some fresh talent and up and coming Science Fiction writers.

You cant just return Star Trek back to only appealing to the fans, any new TV series has to keep itself open to a mainstream audience.What we have now is a team of people who are ideal for Star Trek going forward – each of the Supreme Court bring different levels of fandom to the Star Trek and that should be replicated if a TV series is to be produced.

216. La Reyne d'Epee - April 22, 2012

201: An insightful image. However, I’m all for barricading the doors against the natives & having that giant screen & a quality sound system all to myself with no distractions. Which one can achieve in one’s own home nowadays. I was last in the cinema for The Woman In Black & had some difficulty concentrating on the feature over the racket of chatting, phones, munching and even a baby someone decided to bring along, in an uncomfortable seat trying to look around someone’s head.

Think I’d rather watch in the superior comfort of my own home…

217. Dom - April 22, 2012

I’d rather Trek stay off TV for a good few years yet. The 20-year Berman cycle is still too fresh in the memory.

Paramount will want to keep Trek as a movie series and, I suspect, now that the series has successfully recast the classic characters once, they’ll likely do so again in a few years.

CBS would be facing ‘lawyers at dawn with guns drawn’ if they tried to make any kind of Trek show.

It’s openly acknowledged that Trek had reached saturation point by the early 2000s and the constant stream of TNG/TOS/DS9/VOY reruns alongside ENT had muddied the water with the public. I remember my brother, a casual viewer (ie would probably see a Trek movie at the cinema and catch the odd TV ep) commenting when I mentioned the ST09 announcement that he’d lost track of Star Trek and had no idea which series was which and what they were about.

The reboot is a big relief for me too, clearing the decks for new stories. Throwing a TV show into the mix, either featuring a non-KSM crew or yet another recasting could lead to ‘brand confusion’ among the public and could harm movie revenue.

I would love to see a cartoon series based on the new movies. That could help bring in the kids and a cartoon can exist in that flexible continuity area where its link to the movies can be more optional. And there’s nothing to say strong writing can’t make it a damn fine series.

Also, for all the criticism that the new film was too ‘mainstream,’ remember Gene Roddenberry didn’t create Trek to be a niche series: it was meant to be for the mainstream and make money. It’s sad that so many fans have developed a possessive attitude since the later Berman era and seem to feel that the shows and films should be aimed solely at them.

So while I appreciate Mr Fuller’s keenness to make a Trek show, for me it’s a case of ‘Thanks for the offer, but no.’ I wish someone had said the same where The Munsters is concerned to…

218. Ted A - April 22, 2012

Trek writers and producers use limited budgets as an excuse for wirting supposedly “thought provoking” episodes with limited action and quite honestly, boring storylines. The three or four great episodes per year from VOY was simply not enough. The sad part is, that one can make very good, intriguing episodes with some inspirational writing – see Fringe. For example, it was not necessary for VOY to turn into a Kumbaya love-in following the third ever episode. They abandoned the friction and tension that existed between the Federation adn the Maquis, in an attempt to “work together” to get home. We were left with the Kazon. It wasn’t until the re-introduction of the Borg that VOY got half interesting. its not always easy to come up with intriguing villains such as those constituting the three pronged Dominion on DS9, yet the producers and writers of VOY condemned themselves to a fruitless effort to find such villains by abandoning an interesting premise of internal conflict and hatred, and how that would unfold over the course of the journey in the Delta Quadrant. Instead we got a poor copy of another TNG series.

219. Flake - April 22, 2012

I think Paramount would veto any new Trek series as they are probably still licking their lips at the prospect of 2 more nuTOS movies and potentially 3 more nuTNG movies that are undoubtedly being thought about.

The only thing that could derail this is if one of the movies bombs or performs badly and Paramount shelve any further movies.

This is assuming Paramount have a say in anything CBS does with Trek. I am assuming that as long as there are movies in development Paramount are able to have a say in what CBS wants to do with Trek.

220. Dom - April 22, 2012

219

CBS and Paramount are separate and ***technically*** can make any TV show they want, but, because Paramount owns the movie rights, Paramount would insist a show doesn’t affect their film series, which means no TV show…

And Fuller saying he wants to make a TV show for CBS with Abrams is making a big assumption that CBS would want to work with Abrams and that CBS is even interested in new Trek while they’re upgrading their existing shows to HD….

221. simon - April 22, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxEl_fBlXWU

this is the spirit of trek to just give you thrills after all these years ..
but unfortunatelly jj trek cant give that except some moments with carl urban.

222. Landru's cousin, Dandru - April 22, 2012

#213: That doesn’t make sense. None of those characters would even exist yet.

223. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

I’d be OK with ST off the air for awhile. Even when the new movie cycle is completed. It shouldn’t come back just to cash in on the new movie’s thunder, it should come back when they really have something really NEW to add to the Star Trek brand.

Obviously a live-action continuation of the movies with the 2009 cast is out (WAY too expensive, obviously). And even though I and Crazy Guy like a CGI animated version, I could tell that the idea probably wouldn’t go over very well with a lot of ST fans.

So, the third alternative? Let the idea of a new ST series float around. Someday it’ll find the right team to bring it back…. ;-)

224. T'Cal - April 22, 2012

Some of the best Trek ever IMHO was the Dominion War arc on DS9. That show excelled in character development as well as relationships between the ensamble cast. The war brought in many moral issues, the damned-if-you-do-or-don’t kind that make for great story telling. I would love a show about the Romulan War of the 22nd century or similar. Please, no silly alien characters like Quark or Neelix. Phlox had me worried but he was one of the few bright spots on ENT.

225. Red Dead Ryan - April 22, 2012

Yeah, I like seeing movies at the theatre, but really, its starting to feel like a chore just to put up with the yakking, the texting, and sometimes the screaming, which happened once when I went to see “Star Trek” a couple of years ago. There was this girl who sat next to me who screamed at some points during the movie, such as when the ice monster suddenly burst out of the ice.

I can deal with the munching, since I myself like to eat popcorn, but I can’t understand why some folks need to talk or text during the movie.

226. Trekboi - April 22, 2012

Fuller & Singer’s deas for a new Trek show were wrong.
Didn’t JJ’s Trek make it clear that they need to keep to the original show & ideas instead of going further & further away from Gene Roddenbery’s Star Trek- thats what went wrong with Star Trek on tv in the past.

227. dmduncan - April 22, 2012

217: “I’m all for barricading the doors against the natives & having that giant screen & a quality sound system all to myself with no distractions.”

And that is what a lot of people are electing to do.

Which is not a good sign for Hollywood.

Even if to adapt Hollywood starts sending premiere movies directly to your living room — I watched Monsters that way — they are now competing in an entirely different arena which allows more web savvy producers to take advantage of the benefits the online medium has to offer which more traditional minded producers won’t wrap their heads around.

Theater viewed movies are an isolated experience. A trip to the wilderness for a few hours.

Home based internet delivered content offers ways to change the relationship viewers have to their content. Traditional notions of TV / movie-content-on-TV may start to seem old fashioned. And with web content easier to produce and Hollywood not controlling the talent bottleneck (Fresh Hell is an example of this), then a series of monolithic viewerships may fracture into a much more diverse and freethinking crowds who flashmob independent productions with their loyalty. There being only so many hours in the day — that will siphon off attention Hollywood needs to stay relevant to people, forcing Hollywood to change to stay in business.

That could also effect the kinds of movies we see. If crowdfunding does NOT pick up the load we’ll see smaller SF movies until production techniques evolve to make them cost effective for the independents who have less money to work with.

Or maybe the production process will be more interactive between fans and producers. For example, fans may subscribe to (pay fees to view the) work of producers of certain genres in exchange not only for product but also maybe to be heard during the process of making it, pretty much the way Bob listens to us here.

Point is this: A couple of short years ago the Blackberry WAS the smartphone. Now they’re struggling to keep their nostrils above the waves. In another year “Blackberry” may sound as archaic as “Palm Pilot.”

If you don’t stay on the edge — at least know where the edge is and always keep it within reach — you could get Netscaped.

The pace of future change is unlikely to be as slow as the reaction time we are all accustomed to.

228. dmduncan - April 22, 2012

226. Red Dead Ryan – April 22, 2012

Yeah, there’s always SOMEbody at the movie theater who disrupts the experience.

But even with those disruptions which I am by now good at ignoring (except for the phones lighting up), it is on balance to me worth the experience.

There is always friction where you make contact with the world. Personally, I think there’s more to lose by withdrawal. YMMV.

My way is not the only way, but from a strictly $$$ standpoint I am sure Hollywood wishes all viewers were like me.

229. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 225

RDR

Talking and texting. Ouch!
That’s a major pet peeve of mine as well. These days it seems people can’t even go two bloody hours without seeing how everything is on the domestic front. And even though most theatre chains tell you (well in advance of the movie) to please be quiet and courteous and silence your cell phones, many just treat it as a suggestion to be devoutly ignored (the utter death of courtesy in modern society is near epidemic, IMO).

Or the people who think texting isn’t ‘obtrusive’ somehow. Newsflash; a swarm of glowing screens in the dark DOES tend to distract. Looks like an invasion of 3 inch fireflies everywhere….

These days (sadly) my wife and I usually only go to movies that we think will (otherwise) lose something on the smaller screen (“Avatar” “John Carter”, big, epic science fiction movies generally) or a sequel we’ve waited a really LONG time for (“Wall Street 2″, “Star Trek” were a couple of recent examples for me).

But for most everything else? Netflix or Red Box it. Most times (for most movies) it’s not worth the aggravation of putting up with people’s innumerable and rude intrusions into our collective (and increasingly expensive) experience…

But sometimes, on rare occasions, you have a time when the audience is so caught up in the movie that they also ‘lose themselves’ in it. Such as the case when we saw “The Artist” in January. Saw it at a small, university theatre and the audience was thoroughly into it. No cell phones, no texting and no talking (ironic, as it was a silent movie… ha ha). It was slightly surreal… like we’d gone back in time to the pre-cell phone era as well as the era of silent movies. ;-D

THOSE are the times when the movie theatre experience really is rewarding; unfortunately, those times are getting fewer and fewer in number.

230. Robert H. - April 22, 2012

I wouldn’t mind a Star Trek: Titan animated series featuring the adventures of Captain William T. Riker

231. Craiger - April 22, 2012

RDR, I like watching movies on my 55″ LED HDTV better than the theater but I sometimes I wonder if I would miss the audience reactions to the movie. Especially when they laugh or go ohh at a certain scenes. I remember when they laughed at the Kirk, Spock and Uhura Transporter scene. Or when Scotty said “I Like This Ship.”

232. Craiger - April 22, 2012

Also I say watching movies on my HDTV because I like the convience of VOD instead of the theater and Redbox. I wonder if that is how Network and Cable shows will move to VOD and live TV would be a thing of the past? However I still like watching live TV. I don’t know if I could ever get used to TV and Movies only available on VOD and not having a live TV Schedule to watch.

233. Mark - April 22, 2012

I would like a new Animated Series. As for live action, I’d start a third universe. Make it Kirk and crew in the 25th Century. That way you push things further in the future and can update things with events that have occurred over the last 46 years. No 1990s WWIII and such.

234. MJ - April 22, 2012

DM, RDR, the best hybrid experience for movies you love is seeing them once for the first time in the theater, and then repeat viewings on blu-ra in your home theater for years afterwards.

235. LizardGirl - April 22, 2012

What can I say that hasn’t been said here. Just more of the same I guess. I would love a TV Trek series. I think with the right team, trek knowledge, and financial backing this could work. I wouldn’t bet on it though, not with the death grip Paramount holds Star Trek.

As far as what the face of this series would look like remains a point of contention. I see some who want reboots but I myself am a firm believer in a completely NEW series with new characters. At the most, descendants of famous characters but that’s it.

I’d prefer a more darker and grittier overtone but with the heartbeat of Trek. I don’t want to see a rehash of old stuff. There’s plenty of that already. Not saying that there’s anything wrong with that but they have to consider that the taste of most of their audience has changed since the 80′s and 90′s. Also their expectations are higher.

Just give me contemporary and engaging story lines, tons of action, novel characters played by refreshing actors, fantastic graphics and that cinematic quality. It needs to reflect the care that went into it, which is a lot I’d hope.

To snag a following it needs to be sensational. And for it to be sensational it needs to appeal to many even ones outside the fan base.

236. Vultan - April 22, 2012

I saw a news story not long ago about a chain of theaters (can’t remember where) bringing back ushers. If you talk or text during the movie, they give you a warning to knock it off, and if you keep it up—they escort you out of the theater!

Of course, to pay for the ushers these theaters have to raise their prices to compensate. But according to the customers in the interview, they said they were willing to pay more to keep people from acting like idiots for two or three hours.

I agree. A few extra bucks would be well worth it.

237. denny cranium - April 22, 2012

For Trek to migrate back to TV the movies will have to run their course.
There really isn’t much in the way of good SF on TV now anyways.
See Trek has the history to contend with- meteoric popularity in the 90s and it fizzled out in 2005.
A Trek TV series will be crazy expensive to produce and the suits will be crazily involved in its creative process because of the big bucks being spent.
I’d rather see Trek return like Dexter and Madmen.
A short 12 episode season. Gives enough time to write compelling stories and more importantly filmed and produced.

238. Damian - April 22, 2012

Unfortunately I don’t see Star Trek coming back to live TV anytime in the near future. The powers that be at CBS don’t seem interested in investing in it at this point and seem happy to defer the live action to Paramount and the movies. Star Trek has a very high production cost and right now, the networks are more interested in squeezing out every dollar for as minimum cost as possible. Star Trek is not cheap. And there does not seem to be a high interest out there for space based science fiction. For CBS to go for it, it will have to have a high probability of ratings success across the board, not just from Star Trek fans.

Re: Abrams involvement in a weekly TV series, I have to agree with another poster that his heart does not seem into that sort of commitment. Oh, he certainly seems happy to invest a year or two into making a great movie, but the week to week involvement that a TV series requires, no, I’d be very surprised. At best, with everything he has on his plate movie and TV-wise, the best you could hope for would be as some sort of consultant who peeks his head in once in a while to see what’s going on.

239. Jack - April 22, 2012

12. Uh, for me it was mostly that it (Voyager) was redoing a lot of stuff Trek, and, heck, Voyager itself, had done before (stories, costumes, makeup) the frequent use of the reset button at the end of an episode, and the characters being pretty dull (except those whi were dull and grating)inconsistent and pretty much just doing whatever the plot needed them to do. When it started TNG had just finished, the TNG movie series had just started and DS9 was well underway — and Trek was spread pretty thin.

I could see feeling differently had I grown up with Voyager. Or if a coupke hundred Trek/TNG/DS9 episodes hadn’t come before it. Heck, I grew up with reruns of TOS and sometimes I let nostalgia fool me into remembering some episodes as better than they really were. And the concept (Gilligan’s Island in space) probably led to a lot of the story ruts.

240. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 236, Vultan~

I read the article too; I think it was the Alamo Drafthouse theatre in Austin, TX. They’re also branching out to L.A and N.Y, I think.

I would more than GLADLY drive 45 min. to L.A (or catch the Metrolink) to see a movie surrounded by courteous, quiet folks who are all there to enjoy the movie as I am (quiet except for normal clapping and laughter of course; that’s part of the communal experience). ;-)

Courtesy and respect for others is rapidly fading in this increasingly rude world of ours. It’s sad really, that even catching a movie is rapidly degenerating into a tense negotiation with rude, insensitive clods who exist only in their own space with NO regard for others.

I can understand (and certainly sympathize with) the people who built optimal home theatres in their homes to avoid that situation. If I could afford it, or had the space? I would as well…

241. P Technobabble - April 22, 2012

I’m sure the problem with bringing Trek back to tv is less about Trek than tv, itself. Network execs are busy keeping old models of “business as usual” going, which is why there’s (relatively) so much blah on tv.
And I agree, I think the future of finding what we want to watch lies in the future of the internet. I’m not quite sure what that will look like, but the internet is pretty much an open door to anyone who can produce a show. You may not like Cawley’s Phase II, but as far as I’m concerned the man is a pioneer, showing what can be done.

242. Vultan - April 22, 2012

#240

Yeah, I think Alamo Drafthouse was the one. I checked out their website and found this irate voice mail from someone who was removed from one of their theaters for texting. Take a listen. It’s funny. It’s sad. And it says a lot of our current “society”—and I use that term loosely.

(Oh, and hide the kids. There’s quite a bit of profanity in this.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1L3eeC2lJZs

243. dmduncan - April 22, 2012

237. Vultan – April 22, 2012

You have to shop around for the right theater. You can’t just decide by chain either because it often comes down to the manager of the theater and what kind of operation they run.

If I find the viewing experience consistently bad at one place (e.g., the screens are dirty or patched, the sound is wonky, the picture is soft) I go to another theater.

If the picture is the least bit soft to me, I get up and complain. Bad theaters are ones where I keep having to do that.

And you’ll even find that the behavior of audiences can be different in different theaters, and it also varies by showtime, and even from movie to movie within a theater. E.g., if you are going to a late night screening of The Rocky Horror Picture Show in NYC, audience interruption is required!

244. dmduncan - April 22, 2012

243. Vultan – April 22, 2012

HIlarious. If they bleep that it would make a great TV commercial.

245. Vultan - April 22, 2012

#244

Agreed! They’re my new heroes!

Remember the Alamo!

246. Vultan - April 22, 2012

Actually, I do like the “audience experience,” like in a comedy when everyone is laughing or a horror movie when everyone is jumping and screaming. I remember seeing “Batman Begins” and the guy in front of me jumped up and cheered at the end (after “Batman & Robin,” weren’t we all cheering for Nolan?)

That sort of stuff is great. It’s like being at a ball game and your team makes the winning goal at the buzzer. You can feel the spirit in the room.

The magic of movies.

247. Mel - April 22, 2012

I want a series with Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the others on the Enterprise.

They have to cast new actors for this (as I don’t think the movie actors would do it), but that wouldn’t be a problem for me.

248. Red Dead Ryan - April 22, 2012

#234.

Agreed! I also think that Hollywood would help itself more by re-releasing the classics on the big screen. Back in 1997, I finally got the opportunity to see the “Star Wars” Special Edition movies on the silver screen. Before that, I was only able to watch those classics on a 24 inch tube television in “pan and scan” 4:3 format VHS. Big difference.

I own the “Alien” movies on Blu Ray, but if the first two are ever re-released again on the big screen in my city, I’ll gladly pay the dozen bucks to have the chance to experience it on the big screen, alongside an audience who’d clearly be there for the same reasons I would be. Which is to enjoy a classic sci-fi movie the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

249. Craiger - April 22, 2012

What about the ancesters of ST 2009′s Enterprise crew set 100 years or more after that and on another Enterprise?

250. Jonboc - April 22, 2012

#242. ” It’s funny. It’s sad. And it says a lot of our current “society”—and I use that term loosely.”

…doesn’t it though. From texting in theaters to texting in a gathering of people or at the dinner table, rude behavior has been adopted by so many that, what used to be considered rude and uncourteous, as a society, is now slowly becoming the norm… and therefore, due to its widespread practice and percieved acceptance, the offenders, view it as perfectly acceptable behavior and are dumbstruck that anyone would take issue with it. Many adults aren’t teaching their kids otherwise because they are guilty of it as well and also see the landscape changing. As this attitude prevails, generation to generation, common courtesy will be lost to the self indulgent wants of the individual. And sadly, when that time comes, no one will even realize that it happened…much less care.

251. Jonboc - April 22, 2012

#242. ” It’s funny. It’s sad. And it says a lot of our current “society”—and I use that term loosely.”

…doesn’t it though. From texting in theaters to texting in a gathering of people or at the dinner table, rude behavior has been adopted by so many that, what used to be considered rude and uncourteous, as a society, is now slowly becoming the norm… and therefore, due to its widespread practice and percieved acceptance, the offenders, view it as perfectly acceptable behavior and are dumbstruck that anyone would take issue with it. Many adults aren’t teaching their kids otherwise because they are guilty of it as well and also see the landscape changing. As this attitude prevails, generation to generation, common courtesy will be lost to the self indulgent wants of the individual. And sadly, when that time comes, no one will even realize that it happened…much less care.

252. Red Shirt Diaries - April 22, 2012

People need to read more history. Try living in the sweat shops of the early 1900′s, or as a serf in Russia in the 18th century. Those people faced really RUDE treatment by others

It would be good to keep some historical perspective in mind the next time we start whining about somebody texting…like that is realy something major to get up in arms about. The fact that people seem so fracking irritated about that shows me that things are really going pretty good today…people in the past face magnitudes more of RUDE behavior that us overprivledged folks posting here today. And people in places today like central and eastern Africa would just love it if all the RUDEness they had to worry about was somebody texting in public.

253. MJ - April 22, 2012

@252. Not only that, what about being a slave in the pre-Civil war U.S. south where you master whips you and sells your kids to others. Talk about rude behavior! Yea, we are really spoiled here today — good point!!!

254. MJ - April 22, 2012

@248 “Agreed! I also think that Hollywood would help itself more by re-releasing the classics on the big screen. Back in 1997, I finally got the opportunity to see the “Star Wars” Special Edition movies on the silver screen. Before that, I was only able to watch those classics on a 24 inch tube television in “pan and scan” 4:3 format VHS. Big difference.I own the “Alien” movies on Blu Ray, but if the first two are ever re-released again on the big screen in my city, I’ll gladly pay the dozen bucks to have the chance to experience it on the big screen, alongside an audience who’d clearly be there for the same reasons I would be. Which is to enjoy a classic sci-fi movie the way it was meant to be enjoyed.”

Well said. Lawrence of Arabia, Forbidden Planet, Ben Hur — I have paid out dollars to see those in the past on re-releases or special showings. There should be more of that!

255. Vultan - April 22, 2012

#252, 253

Oh please, we’re talking about manners, not atrocities. Two different issues. Might as well compare a paper cut to a gunshot wound to prove your point. “Yeah, huh-huh, they both hurt, don’t they?”

Whatever injustices happened throughout history still do not excuse the immature actions of people TODAY. Most people know better, but they choose not to. It’s common sense to be courteous to others while in public… though sadly it doesn’t seem to be that common anymore.

256. dmduncan - April 22, 2012

253. Red Shirt Diaries – April 22, 2012

That’s inhumanity, not rudeness.

It’s hard to defend rude behavior without sounding like that poor little idiot in the Alamo Drafthouse link, who thinks she has a constitutional right to disrupt other people’s moviegoing experiences.

257. Vultan - April 22, 2012

“You know, we’re living in a SOCIETY!”
—George Costanza

258. Red Shirt Diaries - April 22, 2012

Nevertheless, it is interesting to consider that today in an Atlanta movie theater someone may be disturbing someone else in a movie theater by texting, whereas a few decades ago a whole class of people would not have been allowed into that movie theater in the first place. Today’s problems of rudeness seem rather trivial when you consider the broader perspective. Our society is as much spoiled on trivial mattters like this, as it is rude.

259. Vultan - April 22, 2012

#258

Interesting… but completely outside the issue.

Look, if you were in a car accident—and I sincerely hope you never are—but if you were in a car accident, would you say to the other driver: “Okay, ma’am, I know your neck is hurting. I know I wasn’t paying attention because I was texting. I know I drove your rear bumper into your headrest…. But look at it this way, a hundred years ago there were some places where women weren’t even allowed to drive. In some places it’s still that way. Saudi Arabia for instance…”

Yeah, see how well your historical knowledge is received then.

260. spooky - April 22, 2012

Wow!… there is so much heated opinions being thrown around the discussion. It gets too a point where most of it comes across as little more than text polution that acumulates across the internet on many forums, blogs, and websitest. Rendering said websites as unreadable after awhile with all the bitching and whining and flame baiting. Watching Trek has obviously not elevated anyone to accept people’s differing tastes. Do we need to have similar likes, and the same notions of what is Trek and what isn’t?!

Anyway, I’m fine with the movies being what they are now… “pop corn” movies. I don’t think a TV series would infringe on film Trek in anyway. So bring on the TV series.

Trek TV should be adventurous, exciting, exploratory, and strive to show humanity being complex and interesting. Not cliched or filled with overly heroic exploits where they humans are portrayed merely as good guys and everyone one else as bad guys or humble carecases in need of humane adjustments. I think sci-fi has moved well beyond that point to exhaustion. I also think that 26 odd episodes a season are too much for viewing audiences to keep up. Hell, 20 episodes is a luxury, the basic number is now 13 episodes on TV series with a big or comfortable budget. I don’t know how well a story could be cobbled together in 13 episodes especially with Trek. I would think that it would have to be heavily serialized with little episodes thrown away for pointless one off calamity of the week stories. If each episode is a stand alone, then it would pretty much be like the original series Trek. I hope its serialized, 16 to 18 episodes would be forgiving and a good middle ground for Trek. The number would be figuratively good when breaking during mid-season.

As for series show runners, I don’t want JJ and his crew running the Trek Tv series. I just feel that they have very little in the way of original ideas to bring on a running series and doing movies at the same time. So I would say, bring in someone new to Trek. As long as the story or stories have something to do with the Prime Universe. They could continue a hundred or a thousand years after the last known story in the prime storyline. Or fill in the stories of the unfamiliar, examine humanity from an alien perspective. That could be the next Trek, the aliens don’t have to fit into Star Fleet. How does the audience relate to the alien characters then you may ask. Well, that would be the challenge for the writers. I want to see Gorn, Tholians, Andorians, Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Bajorans, Nacene, and ancient humanity explored, their historical stories and how the connected in the past. Thrown in a thorough story that connects all of them through time and history. Okay, it does sound a little too fanboyish… but is it too much to ask to see the Tholians homeworld, their society and how they evolved. This new Trek shouldn’t be too simple in how they portray alien societies. In reality, there would be multiple governments of an alien society, not just one defining society. There could be hundreds of Tholian goverments, a monarchy even or a primative society of Tholians. Or Gorn could have an avian variety as well… Wouldn’t that be cool too see and have the characters explore? The planets need to be varied as well… most of the planets in Trek have been barren… very little to no vegetation, or even water. Most planets have no air, some have multiple suns or deadly stars in the sky. Neutron Stars! Okay… this is getting over long, suffice to say. I love Trek in all its forms in one way or another… I’m excited for the movie and the Blu-Ray release of TNG. So, if a movie is happening… I look forward to seeing strange new worlds, and strange new life forms.

261. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 245 Vultan~

“Remember the Alamo.”
I love that!

You should do their advert copy… ;-D

And yes, I agree; more people need to see (even if bleeped out for swearing) that Alamo Drafthouse video. I saw it on Youtube when I first read the story and I totally agree with the intent of the management there. Again, if they open one in LA? I’m there. Hell, I’d even want to see the new Star Trek there if I can (even though it’ll probably be playing in the 187 multiplexes within spitting distance of me).

If I could see it in a nice, quiet, well-behaved crowd of fellow cinema lovers? It’d be MORE than worth it…. ;-)

262. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 256 and # 257.

Agreed…. and agreed.

Who cares if manners are better or worse than they were 100 or 200 years ago? If one is aware that they’re committing bad behavior (historical precedent or not), one should cut it out. Period.

And the question of manners in society 100 years ago also largely depended on what strata of society you occupied. The wealthier, more educated folks tended to stand on ceremony and be more genteel with one another (the gilded age) whereas the under classes were simply not expected to behave above their station, so their rudeness was often overlooked as such. They wouldn’t have been expected to act any differently…

We don’t live in that separated caste system anymore (at least in north America). Today, rich and poor don’t necessarily have to act a certain way or not. There really aren’t as many ‘acceptable rules’ of conduct for the classes as there used to be. Behavior is much more democratized than it ever used to be. So rudeness really comes down not to breeding, education or lot in life; it is (IMO) how do you want (or choose) to be perceived in this world? That option is for YOU to decide.

Or to put it more succinctly, “Do unto others as you would have done to you.” Pretty simple logic, that is.

Texting and talking infringe upon the moviegoing experience of other moviegoing patrons. Hence, it’s bad behavior. Granted, it’s not a grievous offense, but it’s an offense nevertheless. ;-)

263. Red Dead Ryan - April 22, 2012

Listen, when I want to go see a movie, that is what I want to see. Not a bunch of lit up cell phones, iPads, iPhones, etc. Sure there are worse things in life than some jerk texting on his phone or talking to his buddy, but at the same time, the point of a movie theatre is to allow people to get away from the stresses of life for at least a couple of hours without any other distractions.

There is also the business aspect to consider. People choose to pay to be entertained for a couple of hours. Add in the popcorn and drinks, it starts to get pricey, especially for families of four or more. If these people decide that it isn’t worth going to the theatre because of all the distractions, then they will spend their hard earned money elsewhere or just stay home altogether. These folks will either wait until the movies are released on home video, or download them legally or even illegally.

Therefore it is in the best interest of those attending a movie to be courteous to others, while the theatre itself enforces strict rules of conduct, otherwise, the cinema loses business, and eventually Hollywood studios will start noticing a drop in revenue.

264. Red Dead Ryan - April 22, 2012

#262.

I’m not so sure that you could say that wealthy people used to be more polite than everybody else. I don’t think rudeness chooses class. I’ll bet there were a lot of snobby, arrogant, entitled rich people, and a lot of honest, courteous poor people. And vice versa as well. Same holds true today. Actually, some of the kindest people in the world are dirt poor. Because they don’t have a lot of money, they cannot take others for granted, or take advantage of their neighbors. They tend to be grateful for whatever they have, however little that may be. Conversely, there are SOME rich and privilaged folks who feel that the world revolves around them and that they are above the very same rules they impose on others, especially the less fortunate.

Rudeness, arrogance, and general bad behaviour has been displayed by people of different classes, ages, genders, races, and eras. Unfortunately, it continues today.

265. MJ - April 22, 2012

Here is the Alamo Drafthouse video. This chick sounds both spoiled and drunk. What a foul mouth as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3eeC2lJZs

266. MJ - April 22, 2012

@264. Agree completely that it is unfair to give the wealthy a free pass. Some of the most spoiled entitled people around are very wealthy. Sweeping generalizations targeted at the expense of the “lower classes” are a bit out of bounds here in my humble opinion.

267. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 264.

True (your last point); all too true, in fact (sadly).

But my point was (perhaps I stated it incorrectly) was that among each other, there were more ‘rules of conduct and etiquette’ , etc. Not that everyone followed them (for sure), but if you were a young lady or gentlemen bred into that caste, you were generally expected to behave a certain way (among your ‘own kind’ at least).

But yes, we are MUCH more democratized in our behavior today than we ever were (for better and for worse). I’ve met rich people who behave like hot garbage, and I’ve met homeless people who have the manners and kindness of saints (in fact, there was one guy I met a couple of weeks ago; I gave him a bit of money for food, and he and I talked for a half hour. He was a very gentle soul). He didn’t beg from me. His face told the story (he lost all his money caring for his dying wife); he was a very intelligent man, too.

Like I said, it’s a conscious choice of each of us (especially today) to be the kind of person we are. Behavior is largely up to us, not our birth.

268. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 257.

George Constanza (George “Can’t-Stand-Ya”) is hilarious.
The ugly inside of so many of us. We all have our George Constanza moments…

They could’ve done MANY episodes of “Seinfeld” on modern movie theatre etiquette, if the show were still running today (cell phones weren’t quite as common then; and texting didn’t even exist yet…).

;-D

269. Vultan - April 22, 2012

#268

Did you see the Seinfeld reunion episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm? Jerry made some funny comments about cell phones and texting.

I think the reunion segments are up on youtube (if you haven’t seen it).
Anyway…. [sigh]… I miss that show.

270. Ahmed Abdo - April 22, 2012

What I never understood is why people go to movie theaters, pay the tickets & then instead of watching the movie and enjoying it, they begin texting, talking on the phone & distracting others !!

When I went to see The Matrix, a guy behind me, was not only talking loudly to his friend during the movie, but the damn fool was describing every major scene in the movie, “oh, look, now Neo is going to kick Morpheus’s ass !”, ” watch out, now they are going to jump over the building” apparently this guy saw the movie before & just couldn’t shut his mouth & let others enjoy it.

After 20 min of that crap, I left my seat and went to the other side, where the view wasn’t great. I was mad as hell.

271. Vultan - April 22, 2012

I remember seeing “Alien vs. Predator” in a theater and the redneck woman behind me shouting: “Aww, look out… that thing’s gonna pop outa her chest—don’t look, sugar.”

Thankfully, the movie was so bad I didn’t care. The rednecks were more entertaining.

272. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

# 269 Vultan~

Yes I did (see the reunion; I usually don’t catch Larry David, but I made an effort to see that one online) and yes I do (miss “Seinfeld”). The ultimate comedy about modern human behavior… ;-D

# 270

I hear you, Ahmed! ;-)

Nobody wants a free audio commentary.
I saw “War Horse” that way (two women behind me having a very LOUD talk about everything BUT the movie). All my wife and I could think was, ‘why the hell didn’t those two just Red Box or Netflix this one?’

I sincerely hope that when I see new Star Trek next year, I see it in a theatre where the patrons actually WANT to see the movie onscreen….

273. Vultan - April 22, 2012

Oh, and the “Watchmen” experience! At my theater there were parents running their kids like mad to the exits during the grinding sex scene. Apparently the youngsters had convinced them it was just another comic book movie. Never mind the R rating, parents!

Huh, I should collect these and write a book.

274. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

271. Vultan~

Oh holy cow, that same thing happened when I first saw ST-TMP when I was about 12 or so. When Kirk and the others were walking towards the V’ger epicenter and about to see V’ger for the first time, some thick-brained tool yelled out, “It’s the Voyager probe from NASA!”

You could feel the dagger stares and hatred that was heaped upon that jackass. Honestly, if we (the audience) could’ve collectively force-choked him? He’d have passed out in his seat that minute….

;-D

275. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

273. Vultan~

I’d read it. It’d be great! I could add a few chapters myself… ;-D

276. Ahmed Abdo - April 22, 2012

#272 Sebastian S.

“I sincerely hope that when I see new Star Trek next year, I see it in a theatre where the patrons actually WANT to see the movie onscreen….”

Me too

277. Vultan - April 22, 2012

#275

How about this for a title: “Horrors in the Dark: Sticky-Floored True Stories from a Theater Near You.”

There can be an entire chapter about idiots yelling out plot points/spoilers:
–Soylent Green: “It’s PEOPLE!”
–Citizen Kane: “It’s his SLED!”
–The Crying Game: “She’s a DUDE!”

278. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

277. Vultan

THAT is completely AWESOME!! Is it too early to pre-order my copy?
Hee hee….

;-D

PS: And don’t forget…

– The Empire Strikes Back: “Vader’s his dad!” ;-P

279. Ahmed Abdo - April 22, 2012

#277. Vultan

I loved it, I bet that everyone here can provide more than one story about these “theater horrors”.

Hell, someone could put it in a pitch for a new sitcom ;)

280. Vultan - April 22, 2012

Thanks, guys.
Keep watching Amazon for it. ;)

281. MJ - April 22, 2012

@270 “When I went to see The Matrix, a guy behind me, was not only talking loudly to his friend during the movie, but the damn fool was describing every major scene in the movie, “oh, look, now Neo is going to kick Morpheus’s ass !”, ” watch out, now they are going to jump over the building” apparently this guy saw the movie before & just couldn’t shut his mouth & let others enjoy it.”

You should have:

(1) Give the guy a chance to be quiet by turning around and saying: “Please be quiet”

(2) Failing #1, you go out to the Lobby, ask for the Manager, and have them come into the theater to shut the guy up.

I have used these steps three times over the past few years and they work. Yea, it requires you to be a bit confrontational, but in the end, we all need to “self-police” these idiots.

282. MJ - April 22, 2012

I remember going to the bathroom in the movie theater to see Gladiator opening weekend. Next to me in the urinals, this guy asks if I just saw Gladiator, and I told him no, that I was just about to see it. The guy then says to me, “its a great movie, but it really sucks when he dies at the end.”

Arghhhh!!! LOL

283. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

280. Vultan~

Will do… ;-D

Seriously, I think that’d make a great read.

284. Ahmed Abdo - April 22, 2012

#281 MJ

I did step 1 & asked him politely to be quiet & he said ok, one minute later, he started it again !!

Maybe I should have gone to the Manager, but I didn’t want to miss more of the movie, this was The Matrix & I was waiting to see it long before it came out.

In all my experiences with people who act this way, just few did stopped what they were doing, but the majority unfortunately didn’t.

285. MJ - April 22, 2012

@284. I hear you, bro!

286. Ahmed Abdo - April 22, 2012

#282. MJ
oh man, that guy deserve to be thrown to the lions !!

287. MJ - April 22, 2012

I do think sometimes these people are high on drugs. When you consider 200+ people are in a theater, there are bound to be a couple of users watching the movie. That chic on the Alamo Drafthouse web site, she was at least drunk when she called.

288. Sebastian S. - April 22, 2012

284 Ahmed

Me, too. I’ve tried shushing people, and they’re usually quiet for a minute or so before they go at it again soon afterward (rather like my neighbor’s stupid dogs). Inconsiderate people just seem to lack the empathy to understand that their behavior is infringing on someone else’s enjoyment; simple as that…

As for getting management involved? I’m the same way; I pay to see the whole movie. I try not to miss even a moment of it. With my luck? I’d miss the ‘big reveal’ or some other key bit of information.

Besides, who wants to go to the movies just to have to play “Kindergarten Cop”? My wife’s a teacher; she doesn’t want to have to do that in her off-time.

289. MJ - April 22, 2012

But if “we” don’t try to police the theater, who will? I don’t have an Alamo Cinema anywhere me.

To me, it is a matter of principle. If you are disrupting the movie that I have paid for, I am going to politely confront you, and failing that working, I am going to get the theater involved.

If we all did this, then guess what — we’d have quiet theaters where people obeyed the rules.

290. Red Shirt Diaries - April 22, 2012

“Oh, and the “Watchmen” experience! At my theater there were parents running their kids like mad to the exits during the grinding sex scene. Apparently the youngsters had convinced them it was just another comic book movie. Never mind the R rating, parents!”

Vultan, that is hilarious, as that was about the only interesting scene in that awful mess of a movie.

291. Sailor83 - April 22, 2012

For me, what makes Star Trek great is the fact that it is a character driven show. When I think of Star Trek, it’s the shows that deal with “people issues” that I love the most. That as well as writing/stories that are thought provoking and insightful have made Star Trek what it is and is the reason why it hits so many chords with so many people.

The new star trek film was an entertaining couple of hours but for me it bore no resemblance to Star Trek at all. This doesn’t mean it’s bad, it just means it’s not Star Trek. (Or at least not as we no it Captain ;-)) The characters were really lacking any kind of real depth which just made them seem like dumb action figures. They may well have had the same names as the original characters but for me, they may as well have been different people.

If there is to be a new TV series I hope that the makers are brave enough to forget about canon and focus on what makes star trek really great; the characters and the relationships between them and the quality of the writing.

292. MJ - April 23, 2012

@291. It’s too bad you didn’t like the movie. Most other sailors I have talked to, including Sailor 34, Sailor 57, and Sailors 69 through 72 — they all liked the movie. However, Sailor 14 agreed with you.

:-)

293. dscott - April 23, 2012

I’ve been a fan since the 70′s syndication of TOS and the only time trek has really disappointed me is when each new series stopped running or when a movie ended. I’ve seen some stinker episodes and didn’t care for a couple movies, but I’ll never complain as long as it keeps coming back. That’s all I care about in this franchise, and hope it does make it back to TV soon. It’s hard to see so many take this so seriously. It doesn’t make those on the “outside” look at us favorably. Shame on you.

294. Perry - April 23, 2012

I don’t really see ST coming back to TV any time soon, but if it did, I would love to see a live-action series set between the TOS movies and TNG. There is what, 70 years in between there? A lot of good stuff could happen in that time. The series could feature the Enterprise B or C and you wouldn’t have to use the characters on those ships that we’ve seen before; it could be on the B after Harriman or on the C before Garret. Or set it in the new universe and just re-cast the characters as with the JJ movies.

#134 I love the idea of creating all new CGI animation (and new music) for the old Animated Series episodes, keeping the original voice tracks. Wouldn’t that be fun to see?

295. Dave in RI - April 23, 2012

People bother you during a movie with texting and phoning?

Do like I do and bring a water pistol!

Nah, I’m just kidding….

or am I?

Yes…I am.

296. Sebastian S. - April 23, 2012

# 294.

For me (a longtime TAS fan) I think it’d be a nice way to honor that series much in the same way the remastered TOS and upcoming TNG sets honor those series. I admit TAS has plenty of issues, but some of the stories were really compelling. A nice CGI makeover (and maybe the addition of some ‘real’ Star Trek music cues instead of stock Filmation music would be a nice touch as well).

# 295

I had a friend of mine who went to see Lord of the Rings (“Fellowship”) a long time go, and there were a group of hecklers in about 2 rows ahead of him. He shushed and asked them to please be quiet many times. Finally, during a key scene, he pitched the rest of his 32 oz. monster sized drink at them and managed to douse all three of them! The audience gasped… then applauded. My sister sat nearby in stunned silence. I wished I had his chutzpah…

I think that’d make a good entry for Vultan’s book (see posts 273, 277)….

;-D

297. martin - April 23, 2012

I doubt that Paramount/CBS is even considering this. Why would they? The absence of Trek on TV contributed to the success of the reboot, and that has probably generated 300-400 million in profit from the box-office + retail sales? Why would they want to do a show which will diminish that profit, and at the same time cost probably $100 million a season? No network is wanting any sort of expensive series, they would be much happier putting on another news, weight loss, dance, or Donald Trump show.

Further, I am not excited at all about Singer & Fuller doing a project. Abrahms? maybe, but I don’t think he wants to do a weekly. Or if Orci, Kurtzman, ISB, or RDM want to do a series, lets hear about that. Those would be exciting possibilities.

298. THX-1138 - April 23, 2012

No offense, but let’s leave JJ’s version of Trek on the big screen. I hope that once we get the requisite 3 movies this AU stuff will be finished and Star Trek can get back to the Prime (ugh, I hate calling it that) universe. I just have no attachment to the “new” universe that JJ has created. It feels fake and I actually hope that they kill off some characters so that I can feel even further removed from it.

It’s like popcorn movie fun. I like to sit in the theater and watch big ‘splosions as much as the next guy. But say if Kirk or Spock get blown up in one of them ‘splosions I don’t think I’ll shed a tear. Because it isn’t the “real” Star Trek (and THAT is a weird thing to say).

299. Vultan - April 23, 2012

#290

Yeah, I agree.

I ended up walking out, too (the only movie I’ve ever walked out on). Not really from disgust but from sheer boredom.

300. me - April 23, 2012

I don’t want ST to come back so soon.

Nowadays the competition ist Games of Thrones, Dexter, Rome,….
An “Alien of the Week” StarTrek can’t compete with pay-tv and pay-tv won’t produce a ST TV show.

Nowadays ST would be just average.
But I don’t want it to be just average. ST should be the best of all the shows in the TV or not being produced.

301. David S - April 23, 2012

I don’t know much about this guy, but a Trek co-executive produced by Manny Coto (Enterprise season 4 and 24) and Eric Kripke (Supernatural) might be pretty danged good. Coto can bring the action and drama, Kripke can bring the conflict and humor.

302. 790 - April 23, 2012

Anybody else but abrams. He’s ruined trek.

Let’s see what HBO can do with trek.

303. MJ - April 23, 2012

@296

“I had a friend of mine who went to see Lord of the Rings (”Fellowship”) a long time go, and there were a group of hecklers in about 2 rows ahead of him. He shushed and asked them to please be quiet many times. Finally, during a key scene, he pitched the rest of his 32 oz. monster sized drink at them and managed to douse all three of them! The audience gasped… then applauded. My sister sat nearby in stunned silence. I wished I had his chutzpah…”

I LOVE THIS GUY !!!!

304. lord of the rings, star wars, star trek, x men, harry potter buffy fan - April 23, 2012

ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww…..HBO?

YUCK

All we will ever see in spock and uhura have sex or worse spock and kirk have gay sex

sorry I love trek in JJ arms and it should stay that way

305. Jay - April 23, 2012

It has to be JJ’s universe or it won’t work.

JJ has brought Star Trek back from the dead and done an absolutely amazing job. I don’t see why some people just can’t appreciate that and the great movie he made (easily the best Star Trek movie with only possible exception being Wrath of Khan).

And those that say it’s not Star Trek… please..absolute rubish. It is Star Trek as much as any of the previous movies or spin off TV shows was.

If a new TV show was to be done, you can’t go back to the “prime” universe unless you go past TNG into the future. I would hate that only because I’m tired of them pushing further and further out into the future. The ships started getting rediculous looking near the end of TNG (movies included). They were looking more and more cartoonish with racing car like aerodynamics. This is space, people. Space ships should be aerodynamic.

I agreed with Abrams in that the original characters were the best, and the only way to write new adventures for those characters was in an alternate time line. So I’m glad he did that, instead of jumping further into the furture past TNG.

So any TV show, IMO, would need to stay with that formula. Keep the original characters in the JJ universe. The only difficultly would be doing it with the movies still being made. I’m not sure how you would do that.

306. Jay - April 23, 2012

EDIT: Space ships should not be aerodynamic. :)

307. Shannon Nutt - April 23, 2012

I’m assuming any new TREK would go to CBS, right? Don’t they have first right of refusal on any new series?

I’d actually wish they’d wait just a BIT longer for a new Trek TV series…maybe one that came out the fall following the third STAR TREK flick (and presumingly the last) with the new cast.

Also, I’d prefer to see a TV series set in the new universe, rather than one that took place, say 100 years after Picard, Sisko, Janeway, etc. Not really sure why…I just like the idea of continuing the new storyline as opposed to the one one (which almost feels complete at this point).

308. Jay - April 23, 2012

#307 I agree. I think CBS does own the TV rights to Star Trek.

I think they would need to wait until the movies series is over, unless they were to jump to the future after TNG.

I think the problem with going further out in the furture (aside from the crazy looking ships), is that they start trying to out-do previous series when it comes to special effects, gadgets, new technology, etc.

309. Hugh Hoyland - April 23, 2012

Any new series will almost have to be set in JJ’s universe IMO. Its the new thing right?

Like it or not Star Trek 09 changed the official Star Trek Franchise, most likely for good and I dont see them trying to go back. So chill out and enjoy the ride. I have a feeling its going to be dang fun! :]

P.S. You also have an evolving fan made product like “Star Trek Phase 2″ who do a great job telling stories set in the TOS era. And I think theres another one set in the future TNG universe Star Trek Pheonix. And most likely others as well.

310. MJ - April 23, 2012

@304. Nope, you don’t understand HBO. They give the producers and directors the most creative control of anyone. And if you had bothered to read Game of Thrones and its sequels as I have, you would see that the sex, etc., in the show, were in the books. Sorry, but you don’t know what you are talking about, dude — they would not make Trek into Dexter or Game of Thrones.

311. THX-1138 - April 23, 2012

#309

It’s the new thing? I seem to remember them saying that about New Coke. That didn’t work out so well. Also, I’m not really sure that subsequent Star Trek movies will get made in anything resembling a timely fashion.

Try a little experiment: Go and ask a fair sampling of people about the new Star Trek movie being made and see what sort of a response you get. I assert that most responders will need to be reminded of 2009′s movie, at least in some capacity. JJ isn’t exactly keeping the franchise at the front of popular culture.

And #305

What? It has to be JJ or it won’t work? I got news for you: It worked for quite a while without JJ. It will work great without him. And don’t for one minute think that JJ won’t move on from Star Trek. He’s a hot young director. That’s like asking Spielberg to have made E.T. and then keep on making E.T. movies.

I know it’s “Oh so trendy” bash the Berman era of Trek and granted, toward the end you could tell that it wasn’t the franchise that was fatigued, it was the producers. But let’s not overlook the fact that Berman and company oversaw the great surgence of popularity that Star Trek has ever seen. And that’s counting NuTrek. Perhaps some are too young to remember, or maybe some just have selective memory, but during the 90′s Star Trek was part of EVERYONE”S vocabulary. It wasn’t consigned to the fringes. Berman and his co-horts had quite a bit to do with that. But just like any job that you hold for 15 to 16+ years, you make mistakes. Gene Roddenberry tuned almost completely out of TOS during it’s third season.

Look, it’s great that people love the NuTrek. Good for them. But my love is the Prime universe. Truly, I am sticking with JJ’s Trek in hopes that I can see the universe re-align itself. And if it doesn’t I have all my Prime universe Trek on DVD. But if we never revisit the Prime universe again then Star Trek (at least new stuff, produced as part of the official canon) will be dead for me. And I suspect it will be like that for many others.

312. T'Cal - April 23, 2012

I’m not liking the idea of putting the next Trek series on a premium cable channel because then the producers will feel like they have to add foul language and explicit sex. That will detract from what Trek is supposed to be: intelligent story telling about the human condition. I like that I could always share TV-Trek with my kids. The occasional “damn” and “hell” are mostly used for dramatic effect, and the odd “shit” and “ass” in the movies have been used mainly for comedic effect. Going any harsher than that will be crass and base, hardly what Trek has always been to most of us. As for the sex scenes, I’m not suggesting that the characters are to be written as asexual. I’m just saying I want to be able to share the watching experience with my kids, which won’t be possible if it’s explicit. I was really disappointed at Uhura’s line in the last film about Kirk having sex with farm animals. It was completely unnecessary and embarrassing. So many other insults could’ve been written that would’ve been much funnier and far more intelligent.

313. lord of the rings, star wars, star trek, x men, harry potter buffy fan - April 23, 2012

#310

I know enough, Yes under HBO producers have no limits which is what makes it suck at times. HBO will force Trek producers to make the new trek very racy like true blood and sex and the city to attract more viewers.

HBO is not just good for trek….I will personally say FOX is better.

FOX with the exception of American Idol tend to bring in moderate ratings. there shows are not as high a CBS,ABC or NBC shows however they are not as low as the CW.

FOX will be the perfect place of a new trek tv series or may be ABC as shows like Alias and LOST were on ABC and JJ Abrams served as creator and producer of both show.

JJ has a good history with the ABC but please no HBO.

Believe me you would not want to watch A Vulcan go into pon farr on HBO .

314. MJ - April 23, 2012

@314

“HBO will force Trek producers….”

They don’t do that….period! There would be no F-bombs, frontal nudity or other things you are talking about if Trek were done on HBO. That is ridiculous.

I get that you don’t like shows on pay cable…that is fine. I don’t like crap like Dexter or Trueblood myself. But shows like Game of Thrones, Homeland, Curb Your Entusisams, Band of Brothers/The Pacific…dude, that is some of the best TV ever done.

315. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

305

It was there 43 years before JJ Abrams did his film. JJ Abrams took e franchise and made it appealing to the mainstream again and he made a good entertaining and well made film but his movie is NOT Star Trek in my opinion.

It is a film that captures the fun aspect of TOS but I think it lost a lot of the ideals and heart of what is unique to Trek to get that mainstream audience. So to say that only JJ Abrams can do Trek is a load of bull.

A lot of great Trek came from writers under Berman, such as Michael Pillar, Ron Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr, Jeri Taylor, Rene Echivarria. All great writers.

Dont forget the great stuff that came from the Berman era just because its cool to bash him and love Abrams.

316. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

sorry if it seems I go on but JJ Abrams only directed the latest chapter of the franchise, he is not the messiah. His take on Trek works for the audience but I still prefer my prime universe.

317. Red Dead Ryan - April 23, 2012

Honestly, Neill, can’t you come up with something NEW to post just ONCE? Yeah, we get it. You don’t like J.J Abrams. But his “Star Trek” IS just as “Star Trek” as all of the previous incarnations of “Star Trek” are “Star Trek”. Just different, that’s all.

318. LizardGirl - April 23, 2012

Vultan
Okay I want to share my recent movie experience as well! I recently saw the Hunger Games with a friend as of this past Thursday. There were these three dimwits who talked through the WHOLE MOVIE. What were they talking about? About 2 seconds before stuff would happen they’d say “Oh you know what’s gonna happen right? Blah Blah Blah”. They were literally commentating the whole movie (I’m assuming they read the book or watched it already).

I “shushed” them and others “shushed” them. It’s like they truly didn’t know that they were annoying. I guessed their ages between 15-19. This is why I try to watch movies before schools out. Teenagers are some of the most annoying people to watch movies with! It’s a social event and you’ll usually see them running up and down the auditorium, on their phones or gabbing. I know not all teens are like this but this has been my personal experience.

319. Craiger - April 23, 2012

Can we all agree that Abrams would be incharge of both Trek on TV and the Movies and anything Trek will be set in Abrams Trek Universe?

320. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

319

While I enjoyed the Abrams movie, I would prefer it to return to prime universe when back on TV

317
I am beginning to warm to Abrams, I actually like Alcatraz but he is only producing that. It’s just his vision of Trek is different.

321. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

maybe under TV maybe the new universe won’t seem as dumbed down, which is probably a necessity for the mainstream blockbuster these days.

322. NuFan - April 23, 2012

311

You need to go back to your Mongo persona. You’re less cranky that way.

323. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

I like Abrams movie but it is far from the best ever Trek product.

But I am looking forward to Star Trek XII (not Star Trek 2 as the mainstream like to call it), also hoping that it will be more Trek. I think Bendict Cumberbatch wil a great villain. I am just glad that the team aren’t trying to redo Khan. No matter how well they did it ia redo of Khan would be inferior to what came before.

324. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

I guess my hope is that JJ Abrams will make a Star Trek film with Star Trek XII.

325. Sebastian S. - April 23, 2012

I love JJ’s Trek movie, but I don’t think a new series (presumably years after the current film cycle is completed) needs to be exclusively overseen by just JJ Abrams’ crew. Abrams has made some great TV (and movies), but it doesn’t necessarily follow that he is the ONLY one who could usher in a new TV series. JJ and his team are very talented, but if they passed on a new ST TV series, then there are plenty of varied and talented people who could conceivably do very well at the helm.

For a new TV run? I’d be curious to give Manny Coto another shot. He was a writer/producer on ENT, and only at the end of the show he was given the job of showrunner. His season of ENT (the 4th), where he was given free reign was (IMO) easily the best of that series’ run. It’s the only season of the show I own on DVD, in fact. It’s just too bad he wasn’t given the chance to produce any more. A new series could give him that chance….

326. MJ - April 23, 2012

@317 / Captain Neil: “sorry if it seems I go on but JJ Abrams only directed the latest chapter of the franchise, he is not the messiah. His take on Trek works for the audience but I still prefer my prime universe.”

Ah Cap, there you again, with your repeat of your posts of days gone be. It brings back such fond memories to me of when you posted about this topic more often…you got me teary-eyed here Cap…

“Memories,
Light the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were

Scattered pictures,
Of the smiles we left behind
Smiles we gave to one another
For the way we were

Can it be that it was all so simple then?
Or has time re-written every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me, would we? Could we?”

327. LizardGirl - April 23, 2012

Okay back on topic.

New Trek is awesome! I can’t remember who said it but someone said that the acting was off in ST 2009. It’s so not off. They did a superb job! Zach was amazing as Spock and I love this Kirk he has the spirit of the original but more laid back I think.

Also, I’ve said this before and I will repeat, doing reboots lay the grounds for making errors with pre-established Trek. This seems to be what people are complaining about in the new movies. My opinion is that if you avoid reboots and prequels (after this trilogy of course) then you avoid these specific complaints.

Someone mentioned doing a series based on the time period between TOS and TNG which I think is a novel idea the only problem with that is you have to tone down the techno advancements, you have to keep the series realistic to the time period, no creative license and more risks because you have to keep strictly to the timeline and if you mess up you’ll never hear the end of it.

This is the main reason why I think a new series should be set in the future. Full creative license. When TNG was introduced people complained but it turned out very well, why can’t the same be true today? If the series is phenomenal then you don’t need to keep leaning on the past timeline(s).

I do think that while the series should be set in the future it should have a simple elegance to it. Someone else said that the further Star Trek got away from the original, the more “cartoonish” it became. I like the maturity of TNG, DS9, VOY, yet I will admit there was a sort of rigidity to the characters that seemed unnatural or forced at times. Also some of the graphics were too…heavy handed, cumbersome, “cartoonish” at times.

TOS was more laid back. I think this should be incorporated into any new series. I will also agree that maybe 12 episode seasons would work better. That way more focus can be put on the quality rather than quantity. I just want to be utterly and completely wowed, like with ST 2009.

328. captain_neill - April 23, 2012

I am sorry MJ
I did not mean to repeat and go on, I still get fed up with the Rick Berman bashing and the Phase 2 bashing on this site.

You know if fans had given Enterrpise a chance the woukd have realised how good it got at the end.

329. Red Dead Ryan - April 23, 2012

#328.

Even when you apologize you still rehash old complaints!

330. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

#261 Spooky + #292 Sailor83 + #299 / 312 THX-1138

I just wanted to begin by thanking you three for speaking reason in and amongst the “fans” here who are quick to dismiss or ignore a little reason.

I am consistently shocked by the faith placed by the majority of folks posting here that a JJ Abrams backed show is the right decision to go. For the exception of Lost (which he ceased having impact on half way through the first season) none of his shows have been particularly successful. Both Felicity and Alias had to fight to get to 4 / 5 seasons respectively with dismal ratings – a similar situation to which Fringe is struggling with currently (I find it unlikely that fringe will return for a 5th season).

Despite these HARD facts regarding his television performance some “fans” here seem perfectly comfortable with the idea of entrusting him with a Trek television series… do we really want a repeat of Enterprise on our hands? Because that’s exactly what would happen if Bad Robot productions got its hands on it.

Someone also suggested that since Terra Nova didn’t succeed on television that this isn’t the right time for sci-fi. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. Terra Nova embodies the kind of show a JJ team would turn Star Trek into – a mis-mash of recycled thematic content, thrown together and poorly produced. Terra Nova is yet another example of unimaginative sci-fi borrowing elements from wherever it can while being consistently poorly written. Most sci-fi shows I’ve seen pop up as of late have shared this assessment.

Should Trek return to the small screen, with the right talent behind it, continuing in the legacy of the trek greats before it (TNG/DS9) we’d have a successful show. However, as most people have indicated, television has changed dramatically since the ‘good old days’. What seems likely to me is that Trek would never again be able to enjoy the television success it once did.

Since the 2000′s the top rated shows have been CSI, Survivor and American Idol. It’s become pretty clear that a television show like Star Trek would have a difficult time being maintained beyond 4 or 5 seasons on television. I feel personally that Trek would maintain the most critical and thematic integrity if it was presented in the same was as shows such as Game of Thrones, with 10 episode seasons, with a running time of 60 minutes per episode. Much like GOT, a $60 million budget per season would equate to $6 million per episode (TNG for instance enjoyed $2 million per episode at its peak).

Problem is that since CBS owns the rights of Star Trek for television, an HBO style series run would be highly unlikely. Currently CBS broadcasts the following dramas: CSI + Miami / NY, NCIS + LA, the mentalist, hawaii Five-0, Person of Interest, Unforgettable, etc.. As you can see by that list, the longest running shows are the CSI / NCIS series the rest are fairly recent, and will more than likely not have very long runs. Also, it’s my personal opinion that most of CBS drama programming is complete garbage and its not unreasonable to expect that same “quality of entertainment” should they pursue a Trek television series.

Honestly I suspect they’ll take the paramount direction with the television show and try and turn into a cash cow. God help us if they do.

331. spooky - April 23, 2012

I would rather continue with the original universe, beyond the familiar characters and situations. Or examine the inbetween timelines or a new alie perspective. If they go with the new universe, how far along is it going to be before they start replaying the greatest hits compilations? Not long I would imagine… they would take classic storylines and remix them with super bad ass characters, situations, and side trips until the original starts to look pale in comparison. Does this make any sense to anyone?

Anyway, bring back the universe the world fell in love with. This new universe may have the current adoration of fans, but it fails in comparison to what came before, especially on substance. I applaud its style and the gee whiz cliches… but as a TV series. I would hate to watch Uhura and Spock lovefest played out over several seasons. Would any of you?

332. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

#332

I completely agree. This “new universe” that they’re playing around with in the films is nothing more than a get out of jail free card for them to tell these “trek” stories.

I’m surprised that most people missed this / zero f*cks were given when this bullshit line was delivered by Pike to describe the Federation, “You understand what the Federation is don’t you? It’s important. It’s a peace keeping and humanitarian armada..” What the hell is that bs? He goes from talking about Starfleet to name dropping the federation, then provides that BS definition all in one breath.

I actually found it criminal that the only time they allotted to explaining arguably the most important aspect of the Trek universe was that garbage 10 second line.

Is that the sort of writing, the sort “vision of trek” they want transferred to the small screen?

333. MJ - April 23, 2012

@333. And I suppose you were fine with Kirk, Spock and McCoy singing Row Your Boat in STV. Every Trek movie has a couple of things we’d do differently. BFD.

334. MJ - April 23, 2012

@330. Yes, actually, I’d respect the Captain a lot more if he just lived up to the fact that his schitk is to continually trash nuTrek and defend Berman. His pretend niceties about nuTrek are just not believable. Be direct and be be proud of your positions, whether they are populate are not!

335. MJ - April 23, 2012

“popular”

336. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

@334

You can’t honestly be comparing a melancholy scene meant to showcase the relationship / commodore of those three iconic characters in what is surely (to me at least) the worst star trek film to what should have been a far more pivotal scene in a franchise reboot that claims to be star trek…

Yea can’t honestly chalk up that line about the federation being an armada (which is totally factually incorrect) to being a moment “we’d do differently” !!

The writers had an opportunity there to explain such a critical component to Trek lore but consciously decided to go with an incorrect line. To me that demonstrates how little they / the studio cared about presenting Trek.

337. Sebastian S. - April 23, 2012

# 332.

I don’t think anyone missed it, it was a simple goof that’s all. It didn’t mean the writing of the movie was bad. There are clunker/mistaken lines here and there in ALL movies. Some work, some don’t.

The “Federation/Starfleet/armada” gaffe was probably not fixed as the script was locked before production began due to a writers’ strike at the time (which meant the writers could not fix it once the strike began). Besides, I remember early episodes of TOS where Starfleet was referred to as “The United Earth Space Probe Agency” and Starfleet HQ was referred to as “Earth Command” and Vulcans were Vulcanians (that last one continued deep into the first season of TOS, in fact).

The Federation armada thing is a minor flub. Not really indicative of the otherwise solid writing on the ST09 movie (IMO, anyway)….

338. MJ - April 23, 2012

It was a brainfart in the screenplay. BFD. That, Budgeneering, and the Nova threatinging the galaxy were the only 3 issues I had with the movie. I have similar sets of issues with pretty much every Trek movie ever made, and some, like V and X, I have tons of issues with. Star Trek 2009 is one of the that I have the fewest isues with, along with TMP and Trek II.

So yea, I honestly am making that comparison, and I am still trying to figure out: what is your point?

339. MJ - April 23, 2012

@338. Agreed, Sebastian!!!

340. nerd - April 23, 2012

heated star trek debates: first world problems

341. Platos's Stepchild's Sister's Best Friend's Roomate - April 23, 2012

Jamjism, they had a writers strike before they shot Star Trek, and they were not allowed to make any changes to the screenplay during shooting. Considering that, it is amazing what a great piece of work it is and how few problems like the one you have identified show up in the final product. “I challenge you to do better.”

342. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

#342 would gladly take up the opportunity to “do better’ haha, just toss me the budget JJ had and we’ll see what I come up with.

@339

My points simple, you may chalk it up to a writers strike gaffe, but i’m saying its indicative of the direction the movie took to ditch Trek substance and go with a money making action film dressed in Trek clothes. Get it now?

343. The Observer - April 23, 2012

I would be astonished if they made a new series geared toward middle aged men who love memorizing the trivia and won’t let go of it.

How could they possibly justify the expense?

344. dmduncan - April 23, 2012

I think the Federation line was probably something they would have fixed but couldn’t due to the strike.

It should have read Starfleet for Federation. Starfleet is the armada. Federation is the alliance of worlds.

But it’s nothing to get your skidmarks sideways over.

345. MJ - April 23, 2012

@342. You keep picking at the one gaff in the screenplay? Is that all you got?

346. Sebastian S. - April 23, 2012

# 342

No, I don’t.
You’re equating a minor gaffe (easily explained by the writers’ strike at the time) with a total disregard for Star Trek ‘substance.’ I really DON’T see how they’re equal.

As for your observation of ST09 being an ‘action film dressed in Trek clothes’? That is your interpretation, and not entirely invalid; as I do agree that the upped action quota was no doubt designed to spice up the franchise, but frankly after the relative failures of both the boring TNG movies “Insurrection” and “Nemesis”? I’d say the franchise really NEEDED a shot of action and energy into it’s at-the-time stale formula. It was the exact approach they took with “The Wrath of Khan” after the disappointing reviews of ST-TMP (which I also enjoyed, but for different reasons); you kick up the action a bit, and it brings more people into the fold….

ST09 made the franchise viable for a new generation of Trek fans and it still had (IMO anyway) plenty of good ‘Trek stuff’ for us older ST fans to chew on. I thought they walked a tight rope with ST09 (had to please older fans while making the movie fresh for non-fans as well to justify it’s much bigger budget). The alternate reality concept was really the only way for the franchise to have elbow room to start fresh without stepping on any TOS/TNG toes. The ‘prime’ timeline is still there; but now we also have a new ST sandbox to play in as well. I think it’s truly ‘the best of both worlds.’

Seems we CAN have our cake and eat it too. ;-)

347. DeShonn Steinblatt - April 23, 2012

343. I would be astonished if they made a new series geared toward middle aged men who love memorizing the trivia and won’t let go of it.

I’d be astonished if they make one at all.

330. continuing in the legacy of the trek greats before it (TNG/DS9)

You left one out there, fella. Which, you know, kinda reveals your entire agenda.

348. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

@344 incredible addition to this discussion, absolutely and utterly essential.

@345 What makes you so sure? And it doesn’t bother you that there was absolutely no lines / reference to what the federation / starfleet was about throughout the entire film? I guess most of you were more interested in watching an action film then a star trek film.

349. Jonboc - April 23, 2012

The plain simple fact is Star Trek…in all it’s Bermafied glory DIED. it withered away on the vine because NO ONE WAS WATCHING. On TV with Enterprise and on the silver screen in Nemesis…a film that didn’t die from bad word of mouth…it came right out of the gate with the lowest numbers ever. NO ONE was interested to see it on its opening weekend.

Sorry to be so direct…but those fans who think there is some magical way to return to that style of Trek…the style that only 7 years ago, drove the final nail in the franchise’s coffin are suffering from a severe case of wishful thinking. IF…and it’s a big if, considering the state of the television industry these days…but IF Trek returns, you can bet the rent that it will NOT be aboard the Titan…it wont be about TNG, the dominion or anything remotely related to the 24th century era of Trek. The fans that failed to show up to support Enterprise or Nemesis in numbers are not the fans CBS or Paramount want to court anyway.

If Trek is to ever grace the small screen again, it will most certainly be something based off the very well received Abrahms Trekverse, or something completely and totally fresh…but good business points totally to something in the new Trek alternate timeline. And I don’t see that happening until the movies run their course…if it happens at all.

But if we are going to have wishful thinking, I’d love a cool, gritty retro look at the pioneering days of the Federation…edgier…less comfy…where the ship and crew are truly on the dangerous edge of exploring the final frontier. With April or Pike or someone completely new at the helm, I dont care. But yeah, that won’t happen either…but I love JJ’s Trek, so I’m cool with that. :)

350. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

@348 Well was TNG / DS9 not the natural culmination of the efforts of TOS? I left TOS out of that cause at 3 seasons and produced in the late 60′s its not the most robust reference for what a modern television should attempt to emulate within the Trek franchise…

351. MJ - April 23, 2012

Jamjiz, in my post @346, I asked you a simple question:

“You keep picking at the one gaff in the screenplay? Is that all you got?”

Then I see what you provided in post @349 and @351:

“And it doesn’t bother you that there was absolutely no lines / reference to what the federation / starfleet was about throughout the entire film?”

– Here, you are repeating the same thing we’ve already covered in detail with you.

“Well was TNG / DS9 not the natural culmination of the efforts of TOS? I left TOS out of that cause at 3 seasons and produced in the late 60’s its not the most robust reference for what a modern television should attempt to emulate within the Trek franchise”

– Is it just me, or does anyone else not understand this point???

Dude, what you got here one minor point that you keep repeating over and over in such a way that I’m going to have to call you Captain Neil Jr. here soon. That just ain’t good enough. Have you got anything else?

352. MJ - April 23, 2012

@350. “But if we are going to have wishful thinking, I’d love a cool, gritty retro look at the pioneering days of the Federation…edgier…less comfy…where the ship and crew are truly on the dangerous edge of exploring the final frontier.”

Agreed. This is what Enterprise should have been, but they screwed the pooch.

353. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

@352 If you’re going to dive into childishness by renaming my handle to “Jamjiz” then you’re grasping for straws here.

You keep calling on me to point out other flaws with the 2009 film, let me put your mind at rest and assure you that I have quite a number of problems with the film. Many times I’ve listed them in the threads here at Trekmovie.com to have them embraced by likeminded fans and in other instances have to wrangle with folks like you who can’t even muster the respect / maturity to avoid making a childish joke in relation to my handle.

So far the only point I’ve heard from the JJ abrams fanboy crowd is that “he made a great movie, it was awesome and he would make a sick TV show” – beyond that I’ve read nothing remotely academic backing that up. Best attempt at backing that up I’ve read thus far is, “it made money, it was popular and its time we “modernize” trek”. Sounds pretty weak to me.

Anyways, get back to me when you’ve got something legitimate to contribute to this discussion.

354. MJ - April 23, 2012

@354. Sheesh, it was a fracking typo. Nnow you are treating my like I made a minor mistake in a screenplay. Dude, how do you make it through a single day being such a nitpicker/complainer?

“Many times I’ve listed them in the threads here at Trekmovie.com to have them embraced by likeminded fans and in other instances have to wrangle with folks like you who can’t even muster the respect / maturity to avoid making a childish joke in relation to my handle.”

That is interesting, because I have been on this site for 3 years and don’t recall any of these other posts of yours?

“Anyways, get back to me when you’ve got something legitimate to contribute to this discussion.”

I agree, please get back to me when you have this.

355. Jamziz - April 23, 2012

@355 Heck of a typo there.

And further testament to how useless discussing this with you would be: “That is interesting, because I have been on this site for 3 years and don’t recall any of these other posts of yours?”

You’re honestly thought typing out that little line was supposed to make you sound reputable / discredit the fact that i’ve made previous comments on this site? hahahah. Stop while you’re ahead eh.

356. Azrael - April 23, 2012

@354. MJ, I know we have our differences but you made me laugh with this post.

You know I have a few things that didn’t quite fit right with JJ’s Trek, but not enough to impede my enjoyment of the film in the least, and I have watched every single episode of previous Trek, and all the movies, and have been watching ST my entire life. I could list the many things I liked or loved about ST09, and compare to the few things I had an issue with, but I don’t feel like wasting my time on Jamziz (btw Jam, you attack MJ for his typo but you ignore the obviously intentional insult from Plato’s etc., etc., etc. above, illogical).

357. dmduncan - April 23, 2012

349. Jamziz – April 23, 2012

@345 What makes you so sure? And it doesn’t bother you that there was absolutely no lines / reference to what the federation / starfleet was about throughout the entire film? I guess most of you were more interested in watching an action film then a star trek film.

***

I’m not sure. But it’s true they couldn’t make changes because of the strike, and Bob is a big enough fan of Star Trek that it seems to me he would have caught that in rewrites if those were available to make.

And no, it doesn’t bother me that they didn’t go into detail about what the federation and starfleet were about. That wasn’t the story they were telling. There were lots of stories they did not tell in ST.09. Most stories, in fact, were neglected in favor of telling the story they actually did tell.

Why would I be bothered by the fact that they told a story they wanted to which, as the writers, I expected them to do, as opposed to telling some other story?

Makes no sense to me either to expect otherwise or to get upset about it.

As far as it being an action film. That’s not an insult. If a “Star Trek film” is one that has no action, no big ideas, and almost puts me to sleep, then I’m glad they made something else.

358. Captain Ransom - April 23, 2012

Dear god no. a new tv series yes. with abrams behind it? i’d rather watch jersey shore.

i can’t see abrams capable of developing any sort of long-term character arc. remember kirk went from ensign to captain in the span of two hours in trek xi. that’s not storytelling.

anytime characters get in a bind it will be ‘let’s get some of that red-matter koolaid in there.’

359. MJ - April 23, 2012

@356 “You’re honestly thought typing out that little line was supposed to make you sound reputable / discredit the fact that i’ve made previous comments on this site?”

Exactly — you broke the code!

360. MJ - April 23, 2012

Azreal — thanks! :-)

361. Sebastian S. - April 23, 2012

It’s kind of scary; all this fuss over a JJ Abrams produced Star Trek show… and the article is about a potential Bryan Fuller Star Trek show. Wow.

Personally, I’d rather the movies finish their run before there’s even talk of a new series. Too soon for all this….

I believe in doing one thing at a time, but doing that one thing very well.

;-)

362. Platos's Stepchild's Sister's Best Friend's Roomate - April 23, 2012

Jamziz,

As someone new to this site, I would be curious to hear your other objections to Trek 2009? You seem reticent to provide any other criticisms beyond sweeping general statements? From my POV, you don’t have much here to say beyond your one comment on the screenplay, which was easily responded by Sebastian, MJ,and DM Duncan.

Seems like you just like messing with people to get reactions out of them? Is that your real goal here?

If not, then “where’s the beef” concerning your other issues with Trek 2009?

363. Platos's Stepchild's Sister's Best Friend's Roomate - April 23, 2012

Also, I find it ironic that you seem so concerned that the message of the purpose of the Federation wasn’t made clear enough in the movie, but here you behave like such a jackass towards others in contrast to the lofty purpose and meaning of the United Federation of Planets.

364. spooky - April 23, 2012

Well, I think we can all agree that JJ simply does not have the time to make more TV shows. The other writers involved are heading off into bigger and better things from the sounds of things. As for Bryan Singer and Bryan Fuller coming aboard for a new series, sure why not. I just hope that they can bring something new to the fold. I also note that there must be something in place contractually that prevents anyone from working on Trek unless JJ and his co-horts are involved in some way. Either way, I hope a JJ series never happens to be quite honest. I enjoy the movie he made as a big blockbuster event and that is about it pretty much. I really don’t have a strong connection to any of the characters or feel interested too much about the exploration aspect since that has largely been abandoned in favour of escapist fun. I also have to agree on the assessment that the characters come across as fake. I mean I could care less about the new Kirk, Spock, Uhura and so on. I really don’t care about their relationships or how they will develop because they will not be the characters we all know and love. That much was made very much aware to us by the new Trek producers. That does not mean that I cannot enjoy the movie on a superficial level. But to me, these characters have had their moment and the realization of who they were/are has been fulfilled. So, I hope that they don’t expect me to care about these characters who look, and sound like characters I already know and care about. So bring on TREK TV!!! In about 5 years time, plan and shape the series beforehand. I like the idea of Staz or HBO taking a chance on Star Trek. I think that would be an interesting experiment. As for people complaining that STARZ or HBO would bring sex or gay characters to the forefront. Then you really shouldn’t be watching Star Trek. Its about humans evolving beyond stupidity!

365. Azrael - April 23, 2012

Apparently Nolan North has a small role in the Star Trek sequel.

Check this out.

http://www.nolannorthfan.com/?p=602

Found it through random web search for Star Trek news.

366. 790 - April 23, 2012

In the hands of jj?, he was only ripping off Star Wars,,, hello short memories.

What we have with abram is Kirk and Spock as action heroes.

How could he even possiby come up with a new series, he’s stuck in the past!
Hello!!??

367. MJ - April 23, 2012

@366. Jamziz, you are back!

Whoops, I mean “790″ of course

LOL

368. captain_neill - April 24, 2012

What I think we have with the JJ Abrams movie is a more easily digestible Trek for the mainstream audience. I understand that this was required to make Trek popular again as Star Trek needed to be refreshed and revitalised so I respect the task that Abrams did to make Trek big again.

It was the hard core trekkie in me that has the gripes. It is that hard core trekkie in me when I watch that movie that goes thatat is wrong and I don’t like the lok of that simply because it is not consistant with what came before.

Jamirz I admit the line from Pike was an error in my opinion as it seemed they got Starfleet and the Federation confused. Does it ruin the film? No.

Regardless of what some people think I think I am beginning to warm to JJ Abrams, I am not his biggest fan as although i love his movie, his take on Star Trek wil not be my favourite, but I look at the set pics from Star Trek XII and I can still say I am looking forward to the next film.

I don’t think any fan liked the Budgineering and I think that leads to something that probably makes more sense in a realistic sense but as a Trekkie because it was different than before I was not a fan. That being I was not keen on the dang and dirty look in the lower decks and in the launchbay. Trek always had a clean and prestige look and it was Star Wars which had the used and dirty look. As I said prob makes more sense but as a Trek fan I preferred the clean look as it was the Trek look.

I will say this about JJ Abrams, he knows what the mainstream audience wants and at least he doesn’t forget the characters, even though it tweaked things.

I was man enough to admit I enjoyed the film despite these changes but I guess I just have to admit that the Trek I grew up with is not coming back.

369. MJ - April 24, 2012

@369. Well said, Captain. You do make some good points there. I think you and I are not as far apart as perhaps either of us would have believed.

370. captain_neill - April 24, 2012

Although my preference wil be to the Prime Universe I will still watch the Abrams’ movies.

371. Jim Nightshade - April 24, 2012

Ya know i kinda liked the peacekeeping armada line in trek09 even tho i knew it wasnt quite right…in all our decades of trek its never really been explained what starfleet/federation were…yeh starfleet is the armada backing up the planetary alliances of the federation…..what i liked about the line was a bit tongue in cheek typical military intelligence…peacekeeping army….yes…americas army crams peace n freedom down the throats of the world…then the world is shocked that some of our troops go nuts defiling enemy corpses etc yet how else can they kill other than dehumanizing the enemy…equally crazy is those who think we can have humane wars..so our killing the enemies is less bad more humane if we respect their dead bodies?…also shades of orwells brilliant 1984 war is peace etc….wheres some synth gin when we want some..starfleet has plenty of that also…

372. Jonathan - April 24, 2012

@368
Don’t give up hope entirely. Seth McFarlane seems to be on the same page in terms of the writing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqC5FkKwLjQ

I miss the Star Trek that was more theatrical and cerebral (i.e. TOS, TOS movies and TNG). I just don’t think you can sell that to a mainstream audience right now.

373. Sebastian S. - April 24, 2012

Every ST film so far has had it’s issues; from pacing, FX, dialogue, etc.
What I think it boils down to is people remembering the earlier films as being perhaps a bit more than what they actually were.

ST09 is a lot of fun. It’s fast-paced, colorful and (IMO) does a marvelous job at using it’s well-acted ensemble. Is it perfect Star Trek? No. Was ANY ST movie perfect? Another no. Doesn’t mean they are not great movies, but each of them has issues if you look close enough. IMO, I think the movie franchise had been in drydock for such a long while (7 years), that people’s memories of the earlier films got a bit rose-tinted and perhaps a bit deified as well in the intervening years.

So, along comes JJ Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman, Lindelof and company to revitalize the franchise. They take the exact same approach Bennett and Meyer took with “Wrath of Khan”; action and character over more heavy, ponderous, traditional ‘sci-fi.’ And it was a tremendous success! It helped revitalize an ailing franchise (and let’s face it; with ENT’s cancelation, and Nemesis’ poor box office? It was in bad shape then).

So, does ST09 have some flaws? Sure. Budgineering, plot-holes (ALL movies have those if you look for them, by the way) and other nits. But (and this is always my first criteria) is it also a fun, entertaining movie that I enjoyed?
A resounding YES.

And to those who say it wasn’t as ‘cerebral’ as some ST; that’s a fair point (the science was dicey, at best; the black hole usage and red matter were not good science). But then again, it’s no less cerebral or scientifically sound than the Genesis device of “Wrath of Khan” , or the Guardian of Forever, or the time travel of “The Voyage Home” or the Triliithium of “Generations.”

ST is not “Stephen Hawkings Universe” TV show (it never was, really). It’s an adventure series that uses science fiction/futurism as a lens through which to tell it’s stories (even Roddenberry called it “Horatio Hornblower in Space”). And I very much enjoy it for what it is. Occasionally, you’ll get a deep science-fiction high concept (V’ger, The Talosians, Operation: Annihilate, Immunity Syndrome, etc), but evaluated as a whole? It’s really not that deeply cerebral or scientifically sound. It’s an adventure show, first and foremost.

The makers of ST09 weren’t setting out to make “2001″ or “Solaris” (both of which I also enjoy but for very different reasons). They were making a solid, fun, action-filled space adventure designed to both honor TOS and bring new fans to the fold. And judging from the movie’s runaway success? I’d say they accomplished that. It doesn’t mean ST09 is a ‘dumb’ movie, it simply made the conscious choice to tell an action-packed character movie and not a high-concept science fiction one (TOS did the same on MANY occasions).

374. Scioto - April 24, 2012

Please No annoying Abrams Lens flares

375. Thomas - April 24, 2012

373. Sebastian S.

I agree with you completely. Star Trek is not hard sci-fi and, with a few exceptions, hasn’t been as a rule. With Trek, the sci-fi was the stage, not the premise. The problem is that eventually the “science” part took over (read: Treknobabble) and suddenly it seemed like every episode (of Voyager in particular) was resolved by remodulating the shield frequency or the manipulation of Borg nanoprobes. DS9 at least worked in familiar tropes about warfare and its effects on people as individuals and as a society. I know some people didn’t like it (especially the idea of a black-ops organization like Section 31), but it’s a good reminder while the Federation was theoretically a more advanced society than ours, it wasn’t perfect at all.

376. THX-1138 - April 24, 2012

Personally, I don’t have any problem with anyone who prefers JJ’s take on Star Trek to what came during the “Berman” years.

But if I take up the cause of TNG or Berman I get labeled “grumpy”. Amongst those of us who prefer the Prime universe most are dismissed as living in the past. Some allege that the Trek we love is what killed Trek and that nobody was watching it anymore.

I’ve got news for you:

Nobody is watching it now. Nobody has been watching for 3 years. And nobody will be watching it for another year.

And if you would like to start comparing the quality of the Star Trek that I prefer to the quality of Star Trek you prefer you go right ahead and bring it. I have 7 TV series and 10 movies to choose from. I can name single episodes in each of those series that surpass NuTrek. The 2009 movie is only 2 hours long. Not even a fair fight.

I’m done qualifying my statements with “Look, I enjoyed the 2009 film……” only to be called a name and told that me and others like me are haters. You want a hater, I can give you one.

377. T'Cal - April 24, 2012

How about a series that is in the JJ-verse yet in a different era? From the start, such a show’s producer should have a 5-year plan – a beginning, middle, and end that unfolds in 5 seasons. Around the second or third season, Star Trek XIII is released on the big screen and it’s tied directly to the series’ plot. Movie goers would lose nothing if they didn’t watch the series but they would gain much if they did.

378. Vultan - April 24, 2012

I’d like to see a Star Trek series that explores strange new worlds. That’s it.

I don’t care what universe, what characters, what species, or what ship is involved. Abrams, Fuller, Singer, Berman, Kirk, Spock, Picard, Data, or something entirely new—it doesn’t matter as long the show does what it originally set out to do, which is…? Anybody? Anybody?

Trek’s (on TV) success is in the writing. Always has been.

379. Red Dead Ryan - April 24, 2012

I think, despite all of our differences on what the next “Star Trek” should be, we can all agree that the next production crew will need to go with their own instincts and experiences and not listen to us key-punching, mouse-clicking, glasses-wearing, sweatpants-clad, Coke-guzzling, potato-chip eating, basement-dwelling nerd-do-well armchair directing populace who can’t even agree to disagree. :-)

380. Vultan - April 24, 2012

Correction: “as long AS the show does what it originally set out to do,”

Darn typos.

381. T'Cal - April 24, 2012

I agree with you, Sebastian in post #373. I have to add, tho, that I hate it when movies include huge, gaping holes. If the writers, producers, and directors missed big flaws, then shame on them. There is so much info available especially for Trek, not to mention millions of fans who would leap at the chance to help with continuity, that pesky little mistakes and big plot holes should be caught and fixed before the films are released. Yes, we watch it for the adventure, action, and meaning, but it’s hard to get past stupid stuff that is left in due to apathy, ignorance, laziness, miscommunication, whatever. I’m not talking about questionable writing such as a cadet who still hasn’t graduated to be made captain of the flagship, or Data having ANOTHER “brother,” Kirk wanting to leave his slice of Heaven (the nexus) but Picard wanting to stay, the nexus coming through our solar system every 39.1 years but no one knows about it (even Kirk and Picard who were apparently around for its previous visit) except Guinan who is from a planet far away, Spock having a half-brother, etc. I’m referring to the Enterprise-E having 24, 26, AND 29 decks, that the trip to the Great Barrier takes hours rather than taking decades, that Vulcan is only minutes from Earth, that it takes moments for a trilithium-laden rocket to be fired at a sun and destroy it rather than several minutes, that only a tiny drop of volatile red matter is needed to destroy a supernova but Nero instead decides to carry a gallons of it, etc. Maddening stuff for OCD fans like me…

382. THX-1138 - April 24, 2012

Red Dead Ryan

It’s those types of accusations that really set me off!

I sip my Coke, thank you very much.

383. Jorg Sacul - April 24, 2012

New Star Trek series idea: Star Trek: The Voyage of Khan. Nothing but Khan & pals in suspended animation, week after week. Good for 200 years of stories!

Hey– it has Khan, and it’s old-universe canon. What more could you want?

384. Thomas - April 24, 2012

News on the Orci/Kurtzman front:
Apparently, they’re tapped to write The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Is anyone that interested in the one coming out this summer? There doesn’t seem to be much buzz for it. Anyway, you can read about it here:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55205

385. Symar - April 24, 2012

One question – Does he have stories? If you look at the roots of ST:TOS, Roddenberry had stories that he wanted to tell. The future was a setting in which to tell those stories. Without good stories as a foundation, you don’t have much.

386. Azrael - April 24, 2012

@381. You carry a large amount of Red Matter because, like Omega molecules, it is only stable in certain amounts. Or at least that is my “no-prize” explanation.

387. Phil - April 24, 2012

@381. I tend to feel the same way when ethics is absent from the science then the plot requires some device with universe altering abilities. Picking on Red matter (again), when it was proposed to create/collect the Red Matter, a substance where the smallest amount could create black holes, no one, I mean no one, proposed to argue the ethics of possesing a material that could wipe out planets immediately? Only Dr. McCoy saw the problems in TWOK, and his concerns were all most casually dismissed.

388. VulcanFilmCritic - April 24, 2012

Why does a new Star Trek series have to be called “Star Trek” or even have those words in its title?
While we true believers have a very warm space in our hearts for Star Trek, to most outworlders, the term has become associated with a certain type of geekiness. In the past when the Star Trek franchise was money in the bank, you had to associate the new franchises with the old. It sold tickets and guaranteed eyeballs.
Now, I don’t know, it might turn off a certain segment of the audience.
If you really wanted to start with a clean slate, why not come out with something completely different, maybe told from an alien point of view.
Or maybe something so mind-blowingly disorienting, that you wouldn’t at first know what you’re watching.
It would take place in the Trek universe, but would be as different from all that has gone before it, as different from “2001: A Space Odyssey” was from “Forbidden Planet.”
Television has had iconoclastic shows in the past like “Laugh-In” and “All in the Family,” and new types of shows like the music video. Why not think outside the box with science fiction?

389. LizardGirl - April 24, 2012

Red Dead Ryan– That’s hilarious!! I actually take those words as a compliment.

But yeah I agree with one of your posts THX. Who was actually watching Star Trek before the new movie, besides trekkies? Why start complaining now? I hate it when people are like “JJ Ruined Trek”…really? What around 40 years of history completely ruined. It’s so over dramatic, get over it seriously!

I’m on this very site today because of that new movie. I can tell you that it does appeal to a wider audience and most people who wouldn’t even dream of watching anything related to Trek have seen the new movie. My mom loves it and the old school Trekkers that I’ve personally spoke to say that they enjoyed it as well. If everyone even the complainers enjoyed it then why so much flak? And I don’t mean the nitpicking that Jamziz does, but actually legitimate reasons for the hate?

390. Sebastian S. - April 24, 2012

376. THX~

“And if you would like to start comparing the quality of the Star Trek that I prefer to the quality of Star Trek you prefer you go right ahead and bring it. I have 7 TV series and 10 movies to choose from. I can name single episodes in each of those series that surpass NuTrek. The 2009 movie is only 2 hours long. Not even a fair fight.”

That’s true! ;-D
I like your healthy attitude about it all. Even if one doesn’t like New Trek, there’s still about 700 hours of TV and ten movies to enjoy while one commits to avoiding the new films completely. And I also agree that there are individual episodes of TOS (and for me, DS9) that equal or surpass the ST09 movie, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like or enjoy the ST09 movie (far from it… I loved it!). It’s the most FUN Star Trek movie I’ve seen since “First Contact.” But sometimes I want something a bit more contemplative or thought-provoking, and for those occasions? I can always pop in “City on the Edge of Forever” or “In The Pale Moonlight” (or a dozen others or so) into my dvd player.

The ‘prime’ universe still exists; no one is kicking in doors and confiscating all of our DVDs and Blu-rays of prime Star Trek. It’s still there (at least my collection was, last time I checked). The most vehement ‘haters’ of ST09 should really just take a deep breath and relax. It’s not that big a deal…

391. Sebastian S. - April 24, 2012

# 383. Jorg.

ROTFLMAO!!!

That should please the Khan-o-philes. An hour a week of watching a CGI Montalban and his crew in deep sleep…..

;-D

392. Red Dead Ryan - April 24, 2012

#384.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” goes in as an underdog to the heavyweights “The Avengers” and of course, “The Dark Knight Rises”.

But I do think once we get closer to the release of TASM, the buzz will build. Spider-Man has always been popular with the kids, and seeing as how its a Marvel-licensed movie, its guaranteed to do well at the box office.

I believe that it has the power to surprise. It could do as well, or even better than, TDKR. “The Avengers” will be the summer box office champ.

393. Vultan - April 24, 2012

I can’t say I care which superhero movie is the number one at the box office, but all three of them look pretty good to me. And I like that each seems to have a different tone. Batman is dark and moody (as expected). The Avengers is more witty and lighthearted. Whereas Spidey looks to be something in between.

Good stuff all around!

394. Red Dead Ryan - April 24, 2012

Yeah, I’m looking forward to all three, but since TDKR doesn’t have the Heath Ledger aspect this time, I doubt as many people will go to see it. “The Avengers” and “The Amazing Spider-Man” have a much broader appeal too. “The Dark Knight” movies have been more “adult” oriented, while the Marvel films manage to appeal to different age groups and demographics.

I really like the first-person view of Spider-Man swinging through New York in the promos. Pretty cool.

395. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 24, 2012

I have been busy so I have not had a chance to read all the posts on the various threads.

I have to say that I do not recall the name Jamziz, but that is not to say that you have not posted here before. I was also a bit amazed to hear Pike say the word “armada” as in “peacekeeping, humanitarian armada”. I first heard it said on 8 May 2009 and I thought I hadn’t heard it correctly, but I had. If ever there was a contradiction in terminology, this was it. Anyway, I do recall having a discussion about this particular wording when Bob Orci was here, maybe a year or so back. Hopefully, the new script won’t have to anyone giving any similar description of Starfleet or the UFP. Very, very bad! Goes TOTALLY against the original premise of Star Trek.

I feel lucky that I have not had the awful experiences that some people have described here and elsewhere when they have gone to watch a movie. This is just not right – very inconsiderate. I would go to the manager and make sure he kicks out the movie wreckers and then I would demand another ticket free of charge or all the money back because of the disruption to the viewing opportunity that I had paid for. It should be up to cinema management to ensure that noisy, inconsiderate patrons get removed from the cinemas. Their job is to provide a service – that is, the opportunity for a person to watch a movie in peace and quiet and uninterrupted by other inconsiderate patrons.

396. Vultan - April 24, 2012

#394

I thought last year’s superhero movies were pretty good, too, though so far I’ve only seen two of them: X-Men and Captain America. Still haven’t gotten around to Thor yet. Green Lantern looks too silly to bother.

397. MJ - April 24, 2012

@380 “I think, despite all of our differences on what the next “Star Trek” should be, we can all agree that the next production crew will need to go with their own instincts and experiences and not listen to us key-punching, mouse-clicking, glasses-wearing, sweatpants-clad, Coke-guzzling, potato-chip eating, basement-dwelling nerd-do-well armchair directing populace who can’t even agree to disagree. :-) ”

Wow, the truth hurts some time — good call, RDR!

398. MJ - April 24, 2012

All, it is interesting when we kept pressing Jamziz to explain additional reasons beyond that one nitpick about why he hated Trek 2009, and also me exposing his sockpuppeting lame attempt as “790,” how he disappeared and stop posting.

Maybe he is on the streets today trying to make some cash for his next fix? :-))

399. Red Dead Ryan - April 24, 2012

#396.

“Thor” was good, except for Chris Hemsworth’s lunkheaded acting. Tom Hiddleston, who played Loki, looks so much like a young Brent Spiner, its eerie. “X-Men: First Class” was great, though the cgi battle looked like it came from a video game. “Captain America” was great too, but sticking Chris Evan’s head on a ten year old’s body was just ridiculous. Only part of the movie I didn’t like.

Both XFC and CA both took place decades ago, which allowed for a different look and feel, especially the former, which evoked a bit of a James Bond atmosphere. Plus, Hugh Jackman’s “Go f@ck yourself” cameo was classic.

#397.

Thanks! But I was also poking some fun at myself, as I happen to be a classic geek of the highest order!

400. spooky - April 24, 2012

388. Why does a new Star Trek series have to be called “Star Trek” or even have those words in its title?

That’s what Rick Berman and Brannon Braga thought so too! Do you remember that show called Enterprise?

Considering the current trend with sci-fi on tv, I don’t think its such a good idea to bring Trek to TV then. Maybe in about 10 to 15 years, these things come in cycles I suppose. I still stand by what I’ve said previously, not that anyone was paying attention… oh and I don’t guzzle coke. I drink Tea thank you very much.

As for current movie trends, I’m hoping Prometheus turns out to be a wonderful return for sci-fi genre on the big screen at least. Although I have some concerns of it being compared too much to the Alien Versus Predator movies with the ancient aliens story line. Still, I can’t wait until June 8 as I’ll be at an IMAX 3D Theatre. :D

401. Vultan - April 24, 2012

#399

Ha ha. Yeah, I’ve heard some people had issues with the CG Steve Rogers bobble head. Not so much for me. I had a friend in high school who looked a lot like that. He’d lower his chin and just about tip over.

“Someone get that kid a sandwich.”

Yeah, the James Bond stuff in X-Men FC was great. I also liked the pace of the movie. Very fast and snappy. Reminded me of GoodFellas and Ocean’s 11 in that way.

402. Vultan - April 24, 2012

As for Hemsworth’s acting in Thor—well, I’m not all that familiar with the character, but isn’t he supposed to be an arrogant, supernatural lunkhead?

403. MJ - April 24, 2012

@388. Why does a new Star Trek series have to be called “Star Trek” or even have those words in its title?

It’s called Branding. It would be ignoring nearly fifty years of brand name recognition to give it a different name. Look how Enterprise didn’t pan out so well if you doubt this. This is Marketing 101.

404. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - April 24, 2012

371. Jim Nightshade

“Quark: I want you to try something. It’s an Earth drink. Root beer.
“I couldn’t…”
“Go on.”
“It’s vile!”
“It’s so happy and bubbly and cloy.”
“Just like the Federation.”
“You know what’s worse? If you drink enough of it, you start to like it.”
“It’s insidious.”
“Just like the Federation.”

405. Azrael - April 24, 2012

@404. That happens to be one of my favorite conversations from DS9, :)

@399 & 401. They didn’t actually map Evans face to another actor, they digitally shrank his body in post, there was a piece about that done some time back (not here of course). They discussed how many different angles they had to film from in order to be able to fill in the things blocked by Chris’s body that would be visible beyond the smaller version. They also talked about how they did attempt at first to film another actor and digitally replace his face with Chris’s, but they decided it did not work the way they wanted it to, and they came up with the other idea. Just fyi, and cause I liked the movie, later.

406. Jim Nightshade - April 25, 2012

404…hhah u got it bud..so did quark….drink the coolaid….yah mysef i thought the armada line was intentional bs n a bit of a editorial coment..kinda…
re evans body in cap—405 is right they also had chris wearing oversized clothing n loose areas to hide make his body look smaller weaker..i thought they did a great job.,,,now if only disney would give a couple million to jack kirbys family—it is way overdue since he co crested almost evry hero in movies the last couple years…easiy the single most imaginative n creative comic artist ever…lets see..hulk..captain america…thor..avengers…fantastic four,x-men….andeven a hand in creating spiderman…many classic villains….and while stan lee gets all the accolades they hardly even mention kirby…sigh…

407. La Reyne d'Epee - April 25, 2012

379. Red Dead Ryan. Speak for yourself, sunshine! I am always perfectly refined and stylish, apart from when doing the gardening or the diy.

Humph!

;}

408. La Reyne d'Epee - April 25, 2012

388. Re thinking out of the box…that’s what I love best about SF, to take you places and show you wonders you could never imagine or experience otherwise. It’s the thing I got from TOS when I was very young and which I continue to pursue in life.

I was thoroughly against the idea of ST09, especially with the relentless emphasis during promotion of the film on how they were trying to aim it at the Star Wars generation. I was of the Star Wars generation, and I thought, thoughthat was fun, it was essentially bollocks! Cowboys in Space, not anything resembling SF. Huge misgivings.

But ultimately I don’t hate ST09, though there are various things I don’t like about it. They had a monumental task to reinvigorate it and they did this exceptionally well within the constraints of a two hour film. My hope for the next one is that they’ve created a jumping off point where they can bring back a lot of those elements that many of us liked about the original.

409. Christopher Roberts - April 25, 2012

Star Trek’s future on TV depends more on it becoming everyday drama set five minutes into the future, about people in casual wear and the space navy stuff toned down, made more primitive, or possibly removed entirely.

To this day, I swear that’s what the producers of ENTERPRISE wanted. But Paramount and UPN, continually worried over removing too much that would alienate fans of a certain age. They wanted to set the whole of Season 1 on Earth, with the crew trainingfor their mission into the unknown. TPTB answered, NO. That’s not FUTURISTIC enough! So they had to add the Temporal Cold War seemingly to appese. They wanted to rely on spacesuits and airlocks. Be armed with weaponary not far off our own. TPTB insisted that the transporter and phasers be added, and be recognisable as such. Well they ended up upsetting fans who couldn’t accept change arguably throughout, if not for 3 out of those 4 years… myself excluded ’cause there was much I liked about ENT, enough for me to still mourn its absence.

410. Christopher Roberts - April 25, 2012

I know what I’d make the next series. 22nd Century. Romulan War. Coalition (proto-Federation) breaks down, a bit like the League of Nations after WW2. Former Starfleet officers go rogue… maybe even guys like Archer and those on the NX-01. There are Romulans influencing the Vulcan government, and even Earth Starfleet. Archer would have no choice. The rest of the series would a journey from being criminals, wanted by TPTB, to be responsible for forming the Federation itself. In that light, events seen in “These are the Voyages…” become a deliberate forgery and attempt to smooth an ugly truth from history.

411. Christopher Roberts - April 25, 2012

I always found the coolest moments from ENT to be when lead characters were shown in casual clothing, particularly on the bridge. Throwing away the uniform, suddenly removes an obsticle for a wider audience. A stupid reason for a hardcore Trekker like me, but one I bet you exists. Characters in sneakers and T-shirts, leather jackets, more anti-authority. It’s what Star Trek hasn’t done. Firefly did. Babylon 5 came close, but still clung to a rebel uniform of sorts – the Rangers. British series like Blakes 7 and Red Dwarf, and Doctor Who have done space-age casual.

412. Christopher Roberts - April 25, 2012

[laughs] Aside from the Star Trek III The Search for Spock & Star Trek IV The Voyage Home. Oh and Star Trek Insurrection! :-}

But never for a prolonged run, like a series. More fugitives from justice, still somehow upholding what Starfleet and the Federation *should* be doing, but somehow isn’t. Because it’s gone, or in Enterprise’s case – doesn’t exist yet.

413. phil - April 25, 2012

bring back rick berman! come on guys, roddenberry trusted him the most with the series, doesn’t that mean anything?!

414. Christopher Roberts - April 25, 2012

Rick Berman’s retired and done with Star Trek forever, I’d say. The most that will ever happen, is for his name to appear as being the “creator” or “co-creator” should any characters or situations he was responsible for, resurface.

415. Christopher Roberts - April 25, 2012

A bit like Glen Larson (Battlestar Galactica) or Russell T. Davies (who’s name appears as having created certain post 2005 aliens/characters on Doctor Who).

416. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - April 25, 2012

405. Me too. Interesting view of our beloved Federation. Especially after seven seasons of TNG.

406. Hadn’t viewed it like that, but now that you’ve pointed it out… it does add a different perspective. Fascinating. That line, for many, demonstrated poor and lazy attention to detail, and a basic lack of understanding of the franchise.

417. Gary Graham's mailman - April 25, 2012

They should do an animated series based on the original series. The ideas are limitless since in animation anything is possible. Budget is less of an issue. The stories could remain adult oriented and the animation style could be as well (i.e. Aeon Flux, The Animatrix, even Clone Wars). I would be thrilled to see it done with the original versions of the characters (not from the JJ movie) and maybe even some, if not all, of the original actors voicing the parts.

418. LizardGirl - April 25, 2012

@417
There’s already an animated series based in TOS and it’s pretty good. It has all the original actors, except for Walter, voicing their characters. Yeah it’s old but it’s still awesome. Are you talking about updating the look? It would seem like a moot point to do something that’s already been done and done very well I may add.

Not saying that an animated series wouldn’t be grand. It’s a very good idea. It was done once with good feedback so I don’t see why it wouldn’t receive the same response today. And it would open Trek up to a much, much younger audience which would be very good indeed.

But as to what the series would be about? I actually have no idea as to what I’d really want to see. It could take place in just about any franchise, even Enterprise.

It would definitely have to be more family oriented because it’s a cartoon. Most people feel that a cartoon’s primary audience should be children. I know that’s not really the case but I think that the western audience is just getting used to more mature (as in humor, and sexual content) themes in cartoons.

But I don’t know they’d be able to wrap their heads a round, as someone put it, a more cerebral or intellectual maturity that you find in Trek. Like politics, morals, ethics, the dynamics of relationships and alliances, the prime directive. Putting that into a cartoon may be difficult. It would have to dumbed down for sure.

419. Buzz Cagney - April 25, 2012

#358 actually Kirk went from being a newborn to Captain in 2 hours. Just thought i’d point that out!
That is storytelling, just at an incredibly accelerated pace!

420. DS9 IN PRIME TIME - April 25, 2012

I am all for new star trek on the small screenas long as it is….

1. NOT A PREQUAL

2. SET IN THE PRIME TIMELINE

3. TAKES PLACE YEARS AFTER VOYAGER AT LEAST 10 YEARS AFTER.

4. DOES NOT DISSAPOINT

421. Vultan - April 25, 2012

#419

SPOILER ALERT

In the next one, Kirk goes from Captain to Savior of the Universe.
Move over, Flash Gordon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVnpKuaLHVM

422. Buzz Cagney - April 25, 2012

I can see the mantle Saviour Of The Universe sitting quite comfortably with Kirk actually.
When it comes to that particular movie i only have two words. Dalton and Timothy! Oh, and i guess Brian Blessed too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_dWpCy8rdc

(btw Micah, success. I’m a car salesman again! Hopefully for more than 2 weeks this time. A big independent used car dealership. I start Saturday but very much like what i’ve seen and heard so far. oh, and keep an eye on your postbox ;) )

423. Vultan - April 25, 2012

#422

Cool! Best of luck with the new job. You see! I told you something would come up. Always does.

And yeah, Timothy Dalton pretty much stole that movie, along with BRIAN BLESSED. (Sorry, but when I write BRIAN BLESSED I feel the need to capitalize it. He is the human air raid siren).

424. Xplodin_Nacelle - April 25, 2012

1st choice:
It’d be fun to do a JJ Abrams take on years 4 & % of the original 5 year mission, sorta like the New Voyages/Phase II gang have started.

2nd choice:
a new series set in the TOS movie era

However I agree with some of you that any Trek TV should wait till after JJ movie III comes out.

425. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 25, 2012

I have read a comment on another site which states that they will be filming some of the new Star Trek movie at the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, Los Angeles. I don’t know how true this is, but it is possible. This is a picture of the cathedral’s interior – whoa!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CrystalCathedral.jpg

It looks very futuristic from the outside as well…

426. Thomas - April 25, 2012

425. Keachick-rose pinenut

I seem to recall a story that came out just before filming commenced, saying that some shooting was to be done at an unnamed Southern California landmark; the Crystal Cathedral is definitely a landmark to be sure. For many years, the church famously staged an enormous holiday pageant called The Glory of Christmas, and would run commercials for it throughout the holiday season.

However, in the last couple of years, the church has fallen on hard times. The ministry that built & ran the Cathredal for decades went bankrupt and was forced to sell it to the local Roman Catholic diocese. The family of the man who founded the church, Rev. Robert Schuller, is now mired in a lawsuit with other family members over using the likeness of his image in the selling of ministry materials.

I realize this is a lot a information about a building with which you’re otherwise unfamiliar; it’s just that two hours ago, I was at a church discussion group where the issue of the Cathredal came up. That’s all.

427. Rick Sternbach - April 25, 2012

#71 – Honestly, while I’d love to see the Romulan War ~2156, we know how it ends, so my vote would be to see a slightly more seriously toned show dealing with a new crew maybe 10-15 years after the events of Voyager. Time enough to develop new ship classes but still keep things within a recognizable design evolution. And this could apply to just about everybody in the Milky Way. And all in the Prime Universe.

428. Rick Sternbach - April 25, 2012

#79 – Thanks for the nice words. Even though a lot of my color art was rushed (scheduling problems, crazy requests from the authors, etc.), the book turned out pretty okay for an almost completely non-canon work of Trek history. No matter, it still has a number of rather interesting ideas packed in there.

429. avengers vs the dark knight vs amaing spiderman - April 25, 2012

no more prime universe…dont you guys get it?

they have tried the prime universe and it has failed (star trek nemesis and enterprise) which was why jj had to create an alternate universe.

the prime universe has had its chance and it is now legendary.

if star trek is to have a broader appeal they need a new universe that everyone can enjoy.

if you want the prime universe watch TOS and TNG. which are now classic shows.

430. Jim Nightshade - April 25, 2012

423 vultan…yes brian blessed was great..dalton i thought less so…for me…max von sydows ming the merciless and the incredible music by queen that made it fer me…visual effx very fun too…

431. MJ - April 25, 2012

@426 “I have read a comment on another site which states that they will be filming some of the new Star Trek movie at the Crystal Cathedral in Orange County, Los Angeles.”

This would explain that comment a long time ago that a major architecural site in LA woud be using in filming.

Good catch, Keachick. This must be that place!

432. MJ - April 25, 2012

Buzz, congrats on the new job!

433. MJ - April 25, 2012

@141 “bring back rick berman! come on guys, roddenberry trusted him the most with the series, doesn’t that mean anything?”

Whoops, I should not have read this post on a full stomach. Does anyone have some Spot Shot to help me clean up the barf stains on my carpet?

434. MJ - April 25, 2012

FTY All. Just got back from a business trip to DC tonight. At Dulles airport, our plan taxied right next to the 747 with the Space Shuttle Enterprise on top of it….VERY COOL !!!

435. MJ - April 25, 2012

@412 “I always found the coolest moments from ENT to be when lead characters were shown in casual clothing, particularly on the bridge. Throwing away the uniform, suddenly removes an obsticle for a wider audience.”

Huh???

436. MJ - April 25, 2012

@410 “Star Trek’s future on TV depends more on it becoming everyday drama set five minutes into the future, about people in casual wear and the space navy stuff toned down, made more primitive, or possibly removed entirely.”

Pass that toke over to me. Whatever you are smoking here, I want to give it a try!

437. chrisfawkes.com - April 26, 2012

I would love to see a new tv show.

For now i’m surviving on trek references and cameos on big bang theory. Starting to feel a little desperate.

438. Christopher Roberts - April 26, 2012

435. It’s not a fusion of astrophysics and aeronautics. You’ll figure it out eventually.

436. Being a plain speaking, non drug taker… I can’t help you.

439. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

# 411. Christopher

I’m also a big fan of ‘plain clothes’ sci fi. It’s one of the things I love so much about “Firefly” and “Doctor Who.” They bring the fantastic universes of these shows right to our front door. It’s also nice to know that in the future (or on alien planets), not everyone will be wearing Spandex Doctor Dentons…

;-D

440. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

# 411

Continuing that thought…

IMO, seeing sci fi heroes (and heroines) in regular street clothing or doing something very ‘normal’ (Kirk reading a book with glasses in “Wrath of Khan”) gives these ‘larger than life’ space operas a very real, human focus. It reminds us, the audience, that these characters are still very much human. One of the reasons “Doctor Who” usually travels with a human companion; it’s an audience surrogate. Our eyes and ears into the adventure…

I could imagine a show about future space tourism or colonization someday. Everyday folks into space, as it were. Arguing, bickering, flawed people; just like us. But going out into the unknown reaches of space. It’s something I think Terra Nova attempted, but fell very short on (I know TN wasn’t set in outer space, it was time travel; but it’s just an example). I think, as scifi fans, we all kind of want to see ourselves (or people like us) living the dream someday….

441. nerd - April 26, 2012

Remember when people hated Rick Berman for trivial issues the way they currently hate Abrams?

I can’t wait until the next person takes charge of the franchise. That’ll be a sure-fire way for everyone to love Abrams.

442. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

#428. Rick Sternbach~

Your very welcome.
That book was a staple of my childhood! I was nearly doing cartwheels when I found it again; my wife must’ve thought I’d lost my marbles. ;-)

As for the non-canon aspect of the book? I prefer to think of it as just another ‘alternate timeline’ in the ST multiverse ….. ;-D

443. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

# 441 nerd

As a Doctor Who fan, I can relate; I see this every time they ‘regenerate’ the Doctor and a new actor takes over. Suddenly the last guy walks on water…

444. La Reyne d'Epee - April 26, 2012

443. Personally I never got over Tom Baker leaving…

445. Christopher Roberts - April 26, 2012

440. That’s it exactly! I don’t think general audiences can get past the uniform, even when it’s a series set in the real world. All those shows about criminal investigation, no matter in which force they serve, they’re in plain clothes. I think characters struggle to breakout, as far as non-fans are concerned. In rank, spouting regulations and complex language referring to tech.

The Maquis on Voyager didn’t make it past the Pilot for the most part, and only a handful of Deep Space Nine episodes featured them. But they were a step in the right direction. Just not explored properly, and quickly swallowed up into being your average Starfleet crew.

A freewheelin’ renegage crew, on the run from authority, like what happened to Kirk et all in Star Trek III & IV is something the franchise could develop into a series. Either people who aren’t Starfleet or the Federation, or once were. I mean… all it would take is for some Goverment to make a questionable decision and the next cast of character might find themselves not in favour of the status quo. To such an extend, they throw away their uniforms on principle.

446. MJ - April 26, 2012

Yea, Dr. Who, now theres a realistic near future sci-fi show with believable science and characters. LOL

447. MJ - April 26, 2012

@446 “That’s it exactly! I don’t think general audiences can get past the uniform, even when it’s a series set in the real world.”

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Many of the biggest movie and tv series in history involved people in uniforns.

I get it that you don’t like that — fine. But I see no evidence in movies and TV that support at all what you are saying. The idea that if if we put Kirk and Spock in Izod shirts, and had them wearing North Face jackets on away teams, that all of a sudden the franchise would be more successful, is just ridiculous. And the only Trek example we have of your idea, is Enterprise, which was the only one of the new Trek series to get cancelled prematurely.

448. MJ - April 26, 2012

“A freewheelin’ renegage crew, on the run from authority, like what happened to Kirk et all in Star Trek III & IV is something the franchise could develop into a series. Either people who aren’t Starfleet or the Federation, or once were. I mean… all it would take is for some Goverment to make a questionable decision and the next cast of character might find themselves not in favour of the status quo. To such an extend, they throw away their uniforms on principle.”

That is not Star Trek — that is Bourne and Mission Impossible. Sure, it would be cool and fun, but it would NOT be Star Trek.

I want Star Trek.

449. MJ - April 26, 2012

@441 “IMO, seeing sci fi heroes (and heroines) in regular street clothing or doing something very ‘normal’ (Kirk reading a book with glasses in “Wrath of Khan”) gives these ‘larger than life’ space operas a very real, human focus. It reminds us, the audience, that these characters are still very much human.”

Sure, showing them out of uniform in their quarters, on Earth, on leave, with family — of course that is the proper place to show them out of uniform and humanize them. I am all for this in Trek, and Trek has done that in about the right level, excepting for Enterprise, where the overly-casual aproach on the bridge, etc, was silly…and in Star Trek V, where they overly casual with the Row Your Boat song in a civilian camping trip….that was ridiculous.

450. Spock/Uhura Admirer - April 26, 2012

@ #8. Anthony P
“… in the late 90s VOY was all the Trek there was”.

Hopefully this will post, but Anthony, and please don’t call me a troll for this, but you do know that the MAGNIFICENT Deep Space 9 ran until 1999, right?

:-/

451. Jamziz - April 26, 2012

I’ve been “accused” of only providing “sweeping” criticism of this new Trek movie, just nitpicking, and as THX pointed out in #377 this attempt at chastising folks like me to defend the quality of Star Trek that you prefer is pretty weak.

#399 MJ

My disappearance is attributed to me going to sleep at a reasonable hour and getting to work – if that concept seams foreign to you.. my sympathies.

To address this burning request for me to air all my grievances here you, a concise list of what I found wrong with this Trek instalment.

• Star Trek has always been centred around believable science and scientific accuracy. JJ Abrams in one sweep did away with this tradition in favour of speeding his way through a weak story and achieving cheap dramatic points. Their decision to destroy Romulus with a supernova that “threatened to destroy the galaxy” was a joke. To make it better the audience has red matter thrown in their face, with Spocks vessel carrying an obscene amount of that substance if only a molecule was enough to dissipate the “shock wave”.

• Next we’re treated to some ridiculous Romulan mining vessel with shit loads of tentacles which are given no on screen purpose other than to look cool. Next they go around putting the red matter in the middle of the planet? Absolutely no reason for that. Guess you don’t have much of movie if they created a black hole next to the planet.. Nero’s character is a blatant rip off of Khan, complete with the same screams, torturing insects.. his motivation for committing genocide on that scale is tenuous at best. Don’t forget the ridiculousness of Spock piloting this vessel built by the Vulcan Science academy.. I know there’s some comic out there with an explanation but as far as I’m concerned it wasn’t on the screen so the majority of the audience is never given a justification.

• Garbage sets, lens flares, and Apple store inspired finishes.. Budweiser factories for engine rooms, no warp core, a cheesy, shameless rip off the Apple Store as a bridge, barcode scanners littered on every console. The set designs were unimaginative, they looked fake, and for god sakes the transporter pads were curved which made standing on them extremely awkward for the actors. Abrams had a rare opportunity here but failed to deliver.

• The future that is depicted. No reason to kill off Kirks father other than to brand him as a “rebel without a cause”. This rebel without a cause comes about because of what is suggested is an abusive father. Really? An abusive father in the 23rd century utopian earth society? Kirk is described as a genius level repeat offender. Weak again. Next we’re treated to useless bar fights, derogatory remarks from Uhura and her male cadet friends like, hick, towney, farm boy who only has sex with farm animals.. The original star trek television show was no stranger to bar fights, but the most memorable one was between starfleet officers and klingons, not against each other..

• Going from cadets to bridge officers.. the DS9 episode Valiant pulled this off in a far more believable manner.

• The main characters. McCoy is almost totally absent from this film, Spock is needlessly aggressive and given a romance with Uhura to satisfy some sexual element to the film. Scotty’s traditional character is traded for what comes across as a foolish, cheap humoured, one liner Simon pegg who’s presence there is to garner cheap laughs? Pegg’s a stronger actor than that..

• Soundtrack was mediocre and the main title theme was under whelming.

• JJ abrams has openly stated that he drew his inspiration from Star Wars and its extremely evident here that most of the thematic elements in this film are borrowed heavily from other work, cheaply imitated, and anything resembling Gene Roddenberrys vision is ditched.

• Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times stated that “the Gene Roddenberry years, when stories might play with questions of science, ideals or philosophy, have been replaced by stories reduced to loud and colorful action.”

452. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 26, 2012

#449 – The camping scenes in Star Trek V are some of the best ever, because we did meet our characters in a different and more relaxed setting. Perhaps the singing left a little something to be desired, but then again, who among us would sound particularly great after downing copious quantities of bourbon…oh, and, not to mention, the beans…:) Then there are those lines (paraphrasing) -

Spock – “Are we having fun?”
mcCoy – “Oh, God, I liked him better before he died”.

LOL! (I still get the giggles just recalling those lines after all this time).

#426 – Yes, I had read a little about the financial problems of the previous owners of the Cathedral. Apparently they were bankrupt – owed $50million. The Catholic Diocese offered $57.7million and the bankrupt owners were ordered to take the deal. The Catholic Church’s offer now means that all debts can be paid, with some loose change left over for them as well. The Catholic Church says that any alterations/additions would be minor in order to allow for normally accepted worship by Catholic parishioners (an altar for Eucharist, a crucifix containing the body of Jesus statue and statue of Mary, Mother of Jesus…). I doubt that the new owner, Catholic Church, has formally consecrated the premises yet…

It could be that having a (ST) film crew paying for the privilege of filming on these premises might pay for any of these alterations. It seems to be a real win-win scenario here. Nice one!

453. Red Shirt Diaries - April 26, 2012

@453. Ms. Keachick, while I am OK with the camping scenes in and of themseleves in Star Trek V (yes, I agree that those showed more of the relaxed side of the crew), the “Row Your Boat” sing along was the most embarassing scene in Trek since “Spocks Brain.” It is very nearly physically painful for me to watch that scene.

I like those lines from the camping scene you mentioned above as well. Again, it is that song that makes me cringe, especialy when Spock joins in.

I just watched V again last week by the way. I think I appreciate it more than I used to. But one thing that did strike me was that the special effects look even worse than I remember.

454. Red Shirt Diaries - April 26, 2012

Sorry, Jamziz, we’ve moved onto new topics since last week. Give it a rest.

“This isn’t the argument you’e looking for. Move along.”

455. Jamziz - April 26, 2012

@455

I wasn’t aware that a discussion on April 24th (2 days ago in case you need me to spell that out) constitutes “last week”.

Sorry, Red Shirt Diaries, move along.

456. Red Dead Ryan - April 26, 2012

MJ, I absolutely agree with you on the uniforms. That is part of the reason why “Star Trek” has stood out. The producers willing to be creative, and unique in depicting the future fashions. When people are on duty in the armed forces, or on patrol as police officers, uniforms are part of the job. Why should it be any different on a starship, or space station unless they are off duty?

You can criticise some of the Trek uniform designs that have come and gone over the years, but to suggest that the next series should abandon that aspect is about as asinine as when George Costanza suggested to George Wendt that episodes of “Cheers” should take place in pool halls instead of the bar just because people like to hang out in different places in real life.

457. Buzz Cagney - April 26, 2012

#451 that really is quite a list and its all hard to argue with. Still, i bloody really enjoyed the movie though!

458. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 26, 2012

Jamziz – you have stated opinions as if they are actual facts. Many disagree with much of you have written, including me. For example, what you think of the look of the bridge of this Enterprise is matter of personal taste – nothing more.

There is also a level of inaccuracy and not a particularly good understanding of chemistry, for example, as in how certain materials may be best contained safely, eg red matter.

“Next they go around putting the red matter in the middle of the planet? Absolutely no reason for that”
Yes, there was a very good reason for that. This, among other topics, has been discussed in depth on IMDb Star Trek 2009 message board and reasons for why they did certain things have been explained using our current understanding of this real-world science.

Where do you get the idea that James Kirk had an abusive father? His father died on the day of his birth. The person who had little patience for the young James Kirk was his maternal uncle.

Perhaps the society of the 23rd century may appear utopian compared to what we have here on earth at present, where, eg. half the world’s human population is undernourished, even starving, where millions of people do not have access to good basic affordable medical care, education or housing, not to mention shocking environmental degradation in many areas of the world. In Gene Roddenberry’s view, these gross problems would have been pretty much eliminated, however, people are still people and I suspect there will be still be a few schmucks around in the 23rd century, but there would be none of the terrible poverty and injustices that we see today. That was/is the great hope!

Have to go for now…

459. Red Dead Ryan - April 26, 2012

Also, the TOS uniforms might look like pajamas, but damn, are they ever unique. Helped set the show apart. Timeless.

460. Red Dead Ryan - April 26, 2012

My few problems with J.J Abrams’ “Star Trek” mostly revolved around the silly slap-stick humor (eg, the expanding hands–cringeworthy), the brewery, and the Spock/Uhura romance. Apart from those things, the movie is great. Didn’t have any problems with the overall story.

Still, the sequel has to improve on it though. But I have faith in the guys.

461. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

Watched third season episode of TOS, That Which Survives. My lord I just love that series. I love the soft lenses of the period, the 35mm filmstock look.

I love how they used LIGHT. Whether it was the magenta skies, blue tipped bushes, or Lee Meriwether’s wild makeup.

It’s so visually striking.

462. Azrael - April 26, 2012

Sorry to burst your bubble Jamstik, but there was never any insistence on realistic science in Star Trek, if there had been there would have been no Warp Drive, Transporters, Replicators, Holodecks, etc, etc, ad nausem. As for anything relating to Ebert, let me just paraphrase Weird Al. “Those Ebert, and Roper bums, aught to go home and just sit on their thumbs.

463. Azrael - April 26, 2012

Oh and you comment that you did not respond due to working doesn’t hold up either. I work full time and I am a single parent yet I have no difficulty finding time to comment, or to respond to other peoples comments.

464. Jamziz - April 26, 2012

#462 Thanks for the “Jamstik” insert – these name-change games were supposed to have been left behind in the playground.. along with immaturity.

Sorry to correct you Azrael but that one of the central tenants to Star Trek is its “insistence on realistic science” to borrow your phrasing. I believe you’re mistaking Star Wars for doing away with sound science. Having trouble accepting the truth? Google it.

@458

You’re absolutely right about my critiques of the set design being one of personal taste – however the issue regarding set design choices / locations (bud factory) has been a central complaint most fans / film critics have voiced.

Also I’d like to clarify “abusive father” was a typo – I meant to say “abusive step-father”. It was never clarified that the voice heard in the car was the maternal uncle. The audience was led to believe this was a substitute “father figure”. Perhaps people will still be people, but the depiction of 23rd century, relationships, behaviour and language (the slurs) were completely off the mark. The fact that the filmmakers / writers thought the best way to show Kirks ascension was by killing off his father, giving him an abusive father figure, suggesting he had become a crude “repeat offender” is just plain lazy and unimaginative.

465. Jamziz - April 26, 2012

@464 you’re so desperate to pick a fight with me on these message boards that you’re going to claim that me “going to sleep and going to work” doesn’t hold up.. come on pal.

466. JP Saylor - April 26, 2012

“JJ is the guardian of Trek right now.”

And it really sucks. I prefer my Star Trek to not be made by Star Wars fans. Grr. It’s like they passed a law allowing people to rape beloved franchises.

467. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

Hard SF is science fiction where the story is built around and within the KNOWN “laws” of how the universe works — and it more or less stays within those boundaries.

That is most definitely NOT Star Trek.

Though it’s always a refreshing thing to see a story constructed within a framework that accurately represents scientific reality, Star Trek has always gone beyond what we know to be possible. It has more in common with comic books and scientific sounding fantasy.

Gene Roddenberry, who created the premise of the show, was not a SF writer, and he did not develop the show from a set of concerns that occupy the thoughts of a hard SF writer.

And none of that is a mark against the show.

468. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

465. Jamziz – April 26, 2012

#462 Thanks for the “Jamstik” insert – these name-change games were supposed to have been left behind in the playground.. along with immaturity.

***

I am 462. You meant that for 463.

And I agree with you there. Making fun of your name is pointless.

469. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

Sorry fans. Star Trek IS the original Star Wars where at least aliens all have their own languages. Unlike in Star Trek where when a starship gets whisked to the other side of the galaxy, the captain finds a never before encountered humanoid alien jealously guarding a space junkyard, and speaking to Captain Janeway in ENGLISH!!!!

470. Azrael - April 26, 2012

Hey, its about as mature as any of your posts, so I felt justified to respond in kind. If you don’t like it I do not care. Besides my Grandfather would have made the same joke and he is in his 80s so once again you have no point.

471. Jamziz - April 26, 2012

@470 Sorry for the post number typo. And you’re right, they did take some liberties with the universal translator.

472. Azrael - April 26, 2012

@469. The caretaker wasn’t humanoid, he just projected a hologram that made him appear so. Also he wasn’t actually speaking English, they just heard English due to their Universal Translators, which are built into their comm-badges. Additionally Voyager was not even the first Starfleet vessel the caretaker had abducted so it is possible he obtained the knowledge of English from one of the previous crews.

Not trying to fight with ya duncan, I actually had to think to answer that one and that is a rare thing around here.

473. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

473. Azrael – April 26, 2012

Well that’s the sort of explanation that a fan comes up with. In hard SF you don’t have to do that.

Somebody who tunes in for the first time isn’t going to come up with that explanation, either. Mostly because you just made it up…and they won’t do that. Nor should they have to.

If they are thinking they will be like, “Hey, why is that alien they just found on the other side of the galaxy speaking English? And how come he looks so HUMAN?”

Hard SF doesn’t require you to do that.

But even worse doom awaits because Neelix is actually SPEAKING English, and the lip movement he makes necessary to speak the words, matches the sound of the English he is really speaking. Come on. That’s what he’s doing. He’s SPEAKING ENGLISH. There’s no universal translator nothing.

Now if you wanted to show a universal translator in action, you would HEAR Neelix speaking in his alien tongue and then we would also HEAR OVER that a translation in English as Neelix is speaking.

And, of course, he would actually have to learn to speak English during the course of the show. Not be fluent in it since the first frame in which he appears.

So that’s awful as hard SF. That is pure Star Wars territory, and it always happened in TOS, before Star Wars ever mapped out a single offense to scientific sense.

474. Vultan - April 26, 2012

Trek is neither hard SF nor fantasy. It’s something in between. But it does definitely fall into the category of science fiction.

475. Azrael - April 26, 2012

@473. Wow dude, like I said I wasn’t trying to argue, and I wasn’t calling ST hard SF either. I also did not make up any of that explanation, that is the “in show” explanation, I had nothing to do with that. I also don’t disagree with you about the examples you give involving Neelix, you are right, I wasn’t arguing that point. I was just stating the in show explanation as I said.

476. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 26, 2012

#464 – There was no suggestion that Frank was Jim’s step-father either. In the Online comic series authorised by Roberto Orci and part of that series being published here on its site, there is a specific reference to Frank being Uncle Frank, Winona Kirk’s older brother. I take this as close to *canon* as you will find, other what might be confirmed or discounted in a Star Trek film (not deleted scenes).

Why is it lazy, unimaginative writing to suggest that this nuKirk did not have quite the same secure upbringing as his prime counterpart? You are not the only one to make these criticisms, but they don’t make any sense to me. Why is it assumed that the young Jim Kirk’s behaviour, as seen in the bar, has anything much to do with his upbringing. Young guys in bars coming from what would be considered very good two parent homes can behave like asses away from home and with a little alcohol in them. The movie only showed the young Jimmy taking the antique Corvette for a spin and being told off roughly by his guardian for doing so. Later we meet the same Jim, now all grown up, commenting on the large number of drinks a young Starfleet female cadet is ordering and introducing himself. The redshirts started the fight by interfering in a private conversation between Kirk and Uhura.

Apart from Pike’s summation of Kirk, which did not actually explain much at all, interpretations made about Kirk’s behaviour and motivations have been due to various audience members’ own projections.

I can recall almost three years making comments on another site about the bitchy words spoken by Uhura re having sex with farm animals. I received a lot of scorn from other posters (lots of them) for having spoken against that reference. Many saw nothing wrong with what she said; they thought that Kirk deserved it (personally I don’t see why/how); and that I was stupid to object. When I watch that scene, Uhura’s comments still bother me but I think the most IMPORTANT factor that (almost) everyone may be overlooking is how James Kirk responded to her below-the-belt insult – with a quick, gentle HUMOUR! It was the young James’ RESPONSE which helped define the kind of person he was and could be. I have got the impression that he had little time for the four big burly humourless cadets who could not appreciate a silly little joke and proceeded to beat him up.

I agree it was not very civilized behaviour, however 80 or so years later, Picard also had similar problems in bars in his heady youth. The rough housing he engaged in ended up with him having to get an artificial heart. Boys will be boys…

477. LizardGirl - April 26, 2012

Gene Roddenberry was a humanist not a scientist.

There’s plenty of science in Star Trek that’s borrowed from real science, or made up science that, with further research, could be theorized (which is pretty awesome). But none of that’s the point!

All the franchises have some science elements that are believable and some that are not. Really that’s nothing new. So to get caught up on…every….little…thing…is ridiculous.

Star Trek was a great platform to express his (Gene) ideals while entertaining and inspiring others with, at the time, state of the art visuals and graphics, set designs, unique cultures, handsome actors, etc.

After a while you just have to call it quits. Yeah the new movie has mistakes, I love it and I know that I’m not stupid. But all you can do is hope that JJ and his crew and writers learned from them and make a better movie this time around. ST09 has been out…since 09. They can’t go back and change any mistakes.

To keep gnawing it is useless!

478. LizardGirl - April 26, 2012

Correction: gnawing on it is useless!

479. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

476. Azrael – April 26, 2012

@473. Wow dude, like I said I wasn’t trying to argue,

***

I’m not arguing, and I’m not un-relaxed.

480. dmduncan - April 26, 2012

Also, I’m talking about Neelix, not the caretaker.

481. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

# 446 MJ

“Yea, Dr. Who, now theres a realistic near future sci-fi show with believable science and characters. LOL”

So spaceships that disintegrate and reintegrate people at will, violate the laws of physics left and right and have half-alien guys with pointed ears onboard are MUCH more realistic then, right? Oh, I forgot; it’s because they all wear nice, pretty UNIFORMS…. ;-D

First off (and I know you were just trolling to see yourself troll, but hear me out), DW never tried to be ‘realistic’ (it’s science fantasy; just like Star Trek, which is not particularly ‘realistic’ either), and it doesn’t just take place in the near future; the Doctor travels throughout ALL of time (one week he’s in the future, the next he’s at the last days of Earth). It’s about time travel…

HG Wells’ had a similar idea and it was also VERY popular with both ST and non-ST fans (still is); maybe you’ve heard of it. You can like both DW and ST without any conflict of interest.

Besides, as you’ve said before in other threads; Empire magazine LOVES Doctor Who… so it can’t be bad television, right? ;-D

http://www.empireonline.com/empireblogs/words-from-the-wise/post/p1073

482. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

#445. Christopher~

“That’s it exactly! I don’t think general audiences can get past the uniform, even when it’s a series set in the real world. All those shows about criminal investigation, no matter in which force they serve, they’re in plain clothes. I think characters struggle to breakout, as far as non-fans are concerned. In rank, spouting regulations and complex language referring to tech.”

I just think plain-clothes shows have a broader appeal. The only ‘uniformed’ shows I can think that have gone on longer (or as long) as Star Trek are Stargate and MASH. And those people are much closer to ‘average’ people than the less realistic, stoic, more ‘perfect people’ of say, ST-TNG.

I’m not necessarily advocating a ‘non-uniformed’ ST series, but it would be interesting (maybe for just Christopher and myself, I suppose) to perhaps see a civilian corner of the ST universe. Maybe that’s why I liked DS9 best of all the post-TOS series; it was the closest we ever saw to a non-Starfleet corner of the ST universe (Starfleet officers were just ‘caretakers’ of DS9, and not always welcome either). I liked seeing some of the more average folks living on the Bajoran-built, formerly Cardassian occupied station (the shopkeepers, the bartenders, the waiters, the Dabo girls, etc).
It was refreshing…

483. ST fan - April 26, 2012

Found this!

484. ST fan - April 26, 2012

Whoops forgot the link! http://www.treknews.net/2012/04/26/benedict-cumberbatch-star-trek-2-role-shooting-locations/

485. Vultan - April 26, 2012

“Uniformed shows” that last long…? Do cop shows count? Because there have been quite a few of those that have lasted.

As for sci-fi, I think both uniformed and civilian clothed characters can work depending on the setting. The latter worked for “Alien,” but somehow I can’t picture Captain Kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise wearing a Hawaiian shirt and ball cap.

“Right, Brett?”
“Right.”

486. Jamziz - April 26, 2012

@485 Looks like the Bud factory is the engine room again.. perfect.

487. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 26, 2012

#485 – I already posted Benedict Cumberbatch’s comments on post #481 (trebweb). It is good that Trek actors, Chris and Ben? (does he like being called Ben for short?) are getting noticed and their comments are being published on different sites.

488. spooky - April 26, 2012

The discussion has now turned to Uniforms and appeal. I thought everyone loved a man/woman in uniform! :D

489. Daoud - April 26, 2012

@486 Jamziz, look on the bright side… it probably means the story of HH Project starts up fairly quickly after the end of the previous movie. There wouldn’t have been time to rebuild engineering.
.
I just wish they’d not call it “main” engineering, but something like the “coolant room”.

490. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

# 485

“Right?”
“Right.”

Love it! Good quote. I love ALIEN (one of the reasons I can’t wait for “Prometheus”) ;-D

What I meant was, I think the average person tends to relate better to someone who is more like themselves onscreen that’s all; I personally have nothing against a show where people are in uniform (come on; I love MASH and Star Trek!). But occasionally, it’s nice to see a sci-fi show where the people look more average and real. Makes it more relatable. But I like my fantasy ‘unrealistic’ shows, too. No reason you can’t have both in this life.

And I think a show dealing with a civilian corner of the ST universe would be very interesting. Of course, I doubt it would ever come to fruition, but I think it’d be interesting nevertheless….

491. Thomas - April 26, 2012

490. Sebastian S.

I also love Doctor Who, and I do love my “uniformed” shows. That does include Star Trek, M*A*S*H, and Adam-12.

492. Vultan - April 26, 2012

#490

Agreed.

Apart from Star Trek, I’d like to see a futuristic show designed as if the ’60s never ended—colorful civilian clothing, silver Mercury 7 suits, and with astronaut Roger Sterling sitting in an orbiting conversation pit and drinking from a musical bottle. All episodes will be directed by “Dr. Leary.”

(Please note: only Mad Men fans will get that loony reference.)

493. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - April 26, 2012

490. Sebastian S.

When you began presenting your views about uniforms I thought they were crazy. But the more you present your arguments, the more sense it’s beginning to make to me. Mind you, that doesn’t make your points any less crazy… not in the least…in fact, just the opposite.

494. Sebastian S. - April 26, 2012

Vultan # 492

As a Mad Men fan, I think a ’60s retro-scifi show would be a gas!
;-D

If you’ve ever seen “That Thing You Do” (the Tom Hanks ’60s rock band movie), you could already imagine the ‘retro-flavor’ of it (there was a rock band in that movie called “The Saturn Fives”, and all the band members of ‘The Wonders’ had mix-and-match names of Apollo astronauts). I can see a bit of “UFO” and other Gerry Anderson styles mixed in there as well…

Sadly, two other shows attempting to emulate Mad Men last year (Playboy Club, Pan-Am) weren’t so lucky. I doubt other networks will be in such a rush to try to recapture ‘lightning in a bottle’ like that again. Some TV successes just can’t be repeated by simply re-mixing the same ingredients that worked the first time…

# 493.

Thanks….. I think (?!?)

495. moauvian waoul - aka: seymour hiney - April 26, 2012

:)

496. Buzz Cagney - April 26, 2012

#476 the more i read your arguments the more i agree with Jamziz!
I’m starting to hate ’09!

497. Buzz Cagney - April 26, 2012

#463 pmsl. Between updating our Facebook status (just going for a slash) and Tweeting (just back from having a slash).
How dare somebody actually tear themself away from their computer to go to work and sleep.

498. K-7 - April 26, 2012

So Jumanji finally posted back on Trek 2009?

499. K-7 - April 26, 2012

Wonder how long before Jasmine pulls out his “709″ sock-puppet for backup on his Trek 2009 hateathon? He He He

500. Red Shirt Diaries - April 27, 2012

Sebastian S., yes, Star Trek is more credible as “science fiction” than Dr. Who. It is not even close. Sure, Trek is not “hard sf”, but it is definitely harder than Dr. Who. Dr. Who I would put a lower level of serious; let’s say about the level of Star Wars.

Dr. Who though, especially in the Baker days, has always been a favorite entertainment show of mine. It is charming and a lot of fun to watch. But I don’t take it too seriously. I’d place it in the Buffy and Vampire Slayer or Zena Warior Princess territory of fun b-level genre tv. Star Trek is in a different class; comparing Who it Trek isn’t far to Who, as Trek is on a different and much larger playing field.

501. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 27, 2012

I don’t know who all has said what because I’m still reading along, but, here’s my response to this one:

@Jamziz #451

“Spock is needlessly aggressive and given a romance with Uhura to satisfy some sexual element to the film…”

While I appreciate you having your own views (and I could not agree with you more about DS9′s Valiant; it’s one of the series best episodes to me, and one of the best Star Trek episodes I’ve seen – period), I do have to disagree with you on what I quoted above.

First, Spock was not “needlessly aggressive.” Even the calmest person/Vulcan in the world would be mad if they had just lost their mother and home world to some crazed tyrant. Yes, Vulcans are all about logic and control, but even Spock Prime said that Spock was emotionally compromised (and Vulcans DO have emotions). Then you have Kirk purposefully taunting and disrespecting him to get the very reaction that he got. It was enough to drive anyone over the edge in that state. It wasn’t needless, it was natural – even for a Vulcan in this situation.

The Spock and Uhura love-story is not just a “sexual element” of the film. They didn’t even have sex in the film (that we know of). What it satisfied for me was a love element of the film, much like the opening scenes with Kirk’s parents, but these are 2 characters with a story that I can follow along from film to film. When Uhura was there for Spock while he was obviously hurting very badly, sex was the last thing in the world that those moments were about. It was about love, and the power of their connection to each other. Even though Spock had lost so much, he still had her – his love. I thought it was beautiful, and I cannot wait to see where the rest of their story goes. Personally, I’m still hearing wedding bells for them. They deserve some happiness, especially Spock after all that he’s been through.

That makes me wonder if there’s ever even been a Vulcan wedding filmed. What does it look like, and what does it entail? I think that Uhura would probably agree to a Vulcan wedding, considering, but the marriage would be a reasonable and “logical” compromise between both cultures.

I could keep going, but needless to say, I really disagree with you on Spock/Uhura just being about sex. It’s so much more than that, and that’s why I love it and them too. It really gives the writers the opportunity to delve into the characters in ways that simple exploration and teamwork does not… Anyway, that’s how I feel about it, but I still can appreciate that you don’t.

502. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 27, 2012

@#487

Wow, Keachick, or should I say “Oh, dear.” So, it’s okay for Cumberbach to talk about the length of the filming process as “It’s very, very long hours,” but Zachary had better keep quiet??? You are too much for me. Really. So, he’s not giving up to many details along with Chris, then, eh?

Why, oh why, am I not surprised. :-/

503. captain_neill - April 27, 2012

Bad news folks.

Read an interview with Benedict Cumberbatch and has confirmed that the Budweiser brewery is being used again for the Engine Room.

Does Abrams not realise that not many fans liked that.

504. jonboc - April 27, 2012

The brewery WAS the engine room…or at least the deep down, ugly, behind the scenes workings of the ship in the last movie, of course its going to be in the sequel…assuming the sequel takes us into that section of the ship. It’s already been established, nothing you can do about that. Thats not to say a new set doesnt exist that is more of a control room setting for all those pipes and valves. I hope there is a new sleeker room for Scotty to hang out in, but the inclusion of the brewery shouldn’t surprise anyone.

505. Chap - April 27, 2012

Keep Trek off TV for a while.

Having is not so pleasing as wanting. It is not logical but is often ture.

506. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

# 503 captain neill

I’m not a big fan of the Budweiser engine room (in fact, I kind of hated it), but honestly? It won’t destroy the movie for me (just as it didn’t for ST09). With ANY movie, the director will make some aesthetic choices that may or may not agree with his target audience. It’s the nature of popular art (or ANY art form, really).

Besides, I’m sure if he changed it there’d be people complaining that it’s not consistent with what we saw in ST09 anymore…

# 505. Chap

Brilliantly apt quote from “Amok Time.” ;-D

507. Norman Bates - April 27, 2012

It’s time Star Trek was AXED for good, they ran out of ideas 20 years ago!

508. MJ - April 27, 2012

Jamjiz, thanks for meeting my challenge to provide your full critique of Trek 09. Seriously, I challenged you to do that, and you pulled it together!

I will have a detailed response to your post within the next day.

509. Phil - April 27, 2012

@503. That’s great news, actually. A realistic looking engineering room, and production continuity, something that was sorely lacking in previous Trek flicks…

510. MJ - April 27, 2012

For all of you cracking on the Budgeneering Room (FYI — that was my #1 issue with Trek 09 as well), Bob Orci is on record saying that we would have substantial improvements to the Engine Room to make it more futuristic. So I would take B/C’s comments as simply that they are filming live action scenes again at the Bud Plant. I am therefore assuming, that either through changes to the set, new sets attached to the Bud set, or through CGI mods/additions to the Bud set — or through all of these steps — that we are going to get a much improved Engine Room.

I’ve had my disagreements with Bob Orci as you all know, but Bob is not a liar, and so I would urge folks to not panic about this — I am confident that Bob is going deliver on his promise of a much more futuristic Trek-like engine room.

For you Trek 2009 haters, continue if you must to use BC’s comment to backup your stale retread arguments, but note that this is likely not to be an issue once we all see the sequel.

511. captain_neill - April 27, 2012

509 – There is realism and something that looks out of place.

512. MJ - April 27, 2012

@508 Norman Bates: “It’s time Star Trek was AXED for good, they ran out of ideas 20 years ago!”

This from a guy that uses as his name a character from 50 years ago.

LOL

513. MJ - April 27, 2012

Captain, please see my post above. The Engine Room will be upgraded for this film.

514. MJ - April 27, 2012

@482/Sebastian: “So spaceships that disintegrate and reintegrate people at will, violate the laws of physics left and right and have half-alien guys with pointed ears onboard are MUCH more realistic then, right? Oh, I forgot; it’s because they all wear nice, pretty UNIFORMS…. ;-D”

Yes, despite this Star Trek has more science elements than Dr. Who by a long shot. As Red Shirt Diaries posted above, “Sure, Trek is not “hard sf”, but it is definitely harder than Dr. Who…Dr. Who I would put a lower level of serious; let’s say about the level of Star Wars.”

And I am certain that if you had impartial observers from the public who had not seen much of either series assess episodes of each, I bet you the majority would label Trek science fiction and Dr. Who as fantasy. Again, from Redshirt: “I’d place it in the Buffy and Vampire Slayer or Zena Warior Princess territory of fun b-level genre tv. Star Trek is in a different class; comparing Who it Trek isn’t far to Who, as Trek is on a different and much larger playing field.”

“First off (and I know you were just trolling to see yourself troll…”

Ah, anotter one of your supposedly cleverly-veiled insults I see (i.e. “MJ is a troll”). So you are now resorting to childish actions like name-calling?. It is what it is, but I had I guess a false impression that you above that sort of thing? IDIC, remember? ;-)

“but hear me out), DW never tried to be ‘realistic’ (it’s science fantasy; just like Star Trek, which is not particularly ‘realistic’ either), and it doesn’t just take place in the near future; the Doctor travels throughout ALL of time (one week he’s in the future, the next he’s at the last days of Earth). It’s about time travel…HG Wells’ had a similar idea and it was also VERY popular with both ST and non-ST fans (still is); maybe you’ve heard of it. You can like both DW and ST without any conflict of interest.”

I agree. You can certainly like both shows without any conflict. Who is/has been an entertaining show that a lot of people who like Trek also like. My comments though were about the level of science-fiction in Trek versus Who, so you are introducing a new topic here — and yes, I agree with you on this new topic.

“Besides, as you’ve said before in other threads; Empire magazine LOVES Doctor Who… so it can’t be bad television, right? ;-D”

I agree with you. I just only barely classify it as science fiction — that was the topic I was addressing.

515. MJ - April 27, 2012

Hot off the press:

http://now.msn.com/now/0426-real-life-phaser.aspx

516. ME!! - April 27, 2012

@12

Have you ever watched DS9?

Voyager compared to The Original Series, TNG, DS9 and even some Enterprise (specifically season 4 when Berman actually allowed others to supervise the stories) is quite disappointing. The acting is questionable by many including some of the regular cast (I won’t name names), the stories (not all of them) for the most part sucked and bore the heck out of me even today. The actors remind me of TNG casting call rejects and in one case is exactly that. Ironically, that one individual…Tim Russ who played Tuvok…is actually one of the only two really strong actors. Both he and Robert Picardo consistently, despite weak scripting, delivered powerful performances. Each could easily hold his own on screen against any of the TNG or Original Series cast. Almost everyone else in Voyager’s cast would fade into the background in the same scene with any of them.

Out of each season, I can pick MAYBE 2 to 3 really good episodes, 2 to 3 fair episodes and the rest are forgettable garbage.

Watch DS9 seasons 1 & 2 (if you can stomach them) and then move on into seasons 3 through 7 and see if you can tell the difference. 1 & 2 were overseen by Berman. 3 through 7 were overseen by Ira Steven Behr. Unlike Voyager (and Enterprise) where Berman kept a tight reign over the show, DS9 was allowed to flourish under Behr with little to no interference. The quality improvement shows clearly. Had Voyager had someone like Behr running the show (no pun intended) it would have been far better.

517. ME!! - April 27, 2012

@12

Tim Russ, by the way, tried out for the part of Geordi LaForge on TNG.

He would have done a competent job, but he shines as the ONLY other actor to play a Vulcan besides the actors on the Original Series who actually comprehends HOW to play a Vulcan. Unlike what’s her name on Enterprise who acts like she’s in a perpetual state of PMS with a side order of attitude.

518. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 27, 2012

“Why, oh why, am I not surprised. :-/” Touche.

Zachary Quinto was giving SPECIFIC details about SPECIFIC scenes he had been working on, as in how many days etc, – scenes leaked onto the worldwide web. BC just noted the long hours he worked – anyone could say that about any project they were working and it might even be totally unrelated to film making. He just noted the effort and attention it was taking to do his part on the project, in this case, being part of the cast of the Star Trek sequel.

Chris Pine confirmed what people had suspected – that JJ Abrams was having the cast do much the same as he insisted they did while making the first Star Trek in this film series – you know Star Trek (1). As far as I know, color coding of scripts was new information, however he didn’t tell us what each colour meant or how many were used or whether one particular color dominated… you know, no specifics.

Clearly, you are not able to discern the difference – a difference that is glaringly obvious to me. In fact, I think I really need to invest in a pair of shades.

The other difference is that these two actors are talking about their actual experiences of working on a project right now and giving actual facts, ie filming at the Budweiser plant but not going into any specifics of what part of the story is being played out there. Lots of things can happen in Enterprise engineering… It really should come as no surprise to anyone, who knows anything about Star Trek, that an actor may mention filming at what was a previous location for the same film series or that we read that filming in San Francisco has occurred… These are not spoilers.

519. Daoud - April 27, 2012

@517. But T’Pol is suffering from a disease, you see. They covered their tracks well. And her father was probably a Romulan disguising himself as a Vulcan it seems…. But it took Manny Coto to make sense of Enterprise.
.
Meanwhile, some of us were talking on the latest thread, the Chapter 2 of Outer Beltway, about the tremendous news out there on Trek, but not showing up here. Get a “load” of this “load” out with K/O commenting about taking over Spiderman:
Kurtzman and Orci issued a joint statement, saying “We grew up as huge Spider-Man fans so, to us, the opportunity to work on this film is akin to being handed the Holy Grail. We love the direction Sony and the filmmakers are taking the Peter Parker/Spider-Man mythology.”
.
I swear, I think these two plankers just edited their previous statement:
Kurtzman and Orci issued a joint statement, saying “We grew up as huge Star Trek fans so, to us, the opportunity to work on this film is akin to being handed the Holy Grail. We love the direction Paramount and JJ Abrams are taking the James T. Kirk/Star Trek mythology.”

520. MJ - April 27, 2012

ME!!

You are 100% correct in your critiques of Voyager and DS9. I could not agree more. Voyager pales in comparison to DS9. Well said!!!

521. MJ - April 27, 2012

Getting sick of the hearing about the supposed “Trek genius” Manny Coto. Coto was a good workmanlike TV guy who later worked reasonably successfully on 24, and who did help out enough on Enterprise to at least take it from “horrid” to “somewhat watchable”. But Coto was never going to save Enterprise — the show was a clusterfu*k in miscasting, bad stories, Vulcan’s with huge tatas, casual attire on the bridge, horrible music, not much of exploring new worlds or civilzations, etc. etc. etx. They should have pulled the plug half way through Season 1 and done all of us a favor.

Coto did his best given a no-win scenario, but Coto did not have a unique solution for the Kobayashi Muru.

522. MJ - April 27, 2012

By the way, did you all see in the interview with BC saying that his character is “very strong” and that he has had to put on muscle and workout daily to support this role.

As I predicted…it’s going to be Khan or a facsimile/Botany bay figure at least.

It is interesting that the more litle tidbits we hear, the more my prediction is reinforced. Notice that non of the tidbits we are hearing are pointing away from Khan. Very interesting.

523. Azrael - April 27, 2012

@519. No, no, they are just following the example of the US president, who’s last 2 state of the union speeches are almost completely word for word identical.

@521. I agree with you here too MJ, weird, but hey I don’t agree about Voyager/DS9 comparisons so I guess we are even. :)

524. boborci - April 27, 2012

And I’m actually hoping to do a Pushing Daisies movie. I’ve already talked to some other people about it.

525. dmduncan - April 27, 2012

Hahaha!

Man, I hope you get to be CEO of CBS someday.

526. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

# 521. MJ

No one is saying Manny Coto is a ST ‘genius’. But I think he took a series with a lot of flaws (I was never much of an ENT fan) and made it into something pretty good (season 4 is easily the best of the 4 seasons, and stands above the tired quality of the rest of the show). He developed some of the characters very nicely (while admittedly, some still got the shaft). But the show was definitely on an upswing during his tenure as showrunner.

Season 4 is the only season of the show that actually feels like a genuine prequel to TOS (it’s also the only one I own on dvd). I think the potential for season 5 (which was supposed to have Jeffrey Comb’s Shran as a regular) was definitely there, it just never got the chance because of the general decline of ST at that time….

527. MJ - April 27, 2012

Bob, when can we expect your reboot of “The Courtship of Eddies’s Father?”

528. MJ - April 27, 2012

@527. OK Sebatian, I’ll meet you half-way on that one. I did like Coto’s work on 24 as well.

“See! We are getting to know each other.”

529. The Original Spock's Brain - April 27, 2012

@516 ME!!!

Perfect summary on the good (DS9), the bad (ENT), and the ugly (VOY).

530. MJ - April 27, 2012

@530

“Perfect summary on the good (DS9), the bad (ENT), and the ugly (VOY).”

Fracking brilliant, dude! I agree 100% Fracking brilliant!

531. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

#527.

Perhaps a spinoff of the new Munsters reboot; they could call it,
“The Courtship of Eddie Munster…”

;-)

And Bob Orci? Good luck with Pushing Daisies. That was a clever show…

;-)

532. Red Dead Ryan - April 27, 2012

“Deep Space Nine” is my favorite series. I do think it’s the best one, even better than TNG, and TOS. It was the most consistently well-written (minus season one) of the entire franchise.

533. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

# 532.

I love DS9 very much. I’d say it’s my favorite of the post-TOS series. But I freely admit; TOS (for me) is largely a sentimental favorite. Yes, there are many clunkers (particularly in season 3; no argument there), but those first two seasons (for me) really set the pattern for so much that followed; TNG, VGR and ENT all followed its’ formula. DS9 (wisely, IMO) did NOT.

Perhaps what I love so much about DS9 is that it wasn’t a follower; it took the ST universe into newer, darker, more morally ambiguous places. And that’s why I really love it best of all the post TOS ST shows. It was certainly the most daring. It also did something I’d long wanted to see in a ST series; a series based in one, interesting corner of the ST universe. And by ‘staying put’ it was able to offer richer stories about the characters, their families, their relations with the locals (in this case, the Bajorans and Cardassians). If the original series was a “Wagon Train” to the stars, then DS9 was “Gunsmoke.”

Even now, many ideas for a new ST series that I’ve read elsewhere in other forums seem to involve the familiar single starship exploring space formula. DS9 dared to be different, and I really love and admire it for that. It was the dark horse of the ST universe, and sadly, it is only now getting the fan recognition it deserved in its lifetime.

534. dmduncan - April 27, 2012

What are DS9′s best episodes?

I asked that about Enterprise once and when I went back and started watching episodes that I was told were the best, I lost interest within 10 minutes.

I have watched DS9, but I guess the fact that I never stuck with it after watching it pretty much sums up my opinion.

535. Jonathan - April 27, 2012

The VIsitor

536. Vultan - April 27, 2012

Off the top of my head, best DS9 episodes:

“In the Pale Moonlight”
“Far Beyond the Stars”
“The Way of the Warrior”
“Call to Arms”
“Little Green Men”
“Valiant”

And my personal favorite: “Captive Pursuit”

Anyway, there are lots more. But keep in mind many of DS9 episodes are part of a larger storyline, so you may have to watch an entire season through to enjoy them—particularly the later seasons.

537. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 27, 2012

” #476 the more i read your arguments the more i agree with Jamziz!
I’m starting to hate ‘09!”

That does not make sense. Why are starting to hate Star Trek 09? Do you also hate TNG when it dealt with Picard’s youthful exuberance which included getting into a bar fight or two? Since people like to blame Kirk for all that happened to him in the bar scene, then surely Picard is even more to blame because he ended up needing a heart transplant (received an artificial heart) resulting from his boorish behaviour. How is the movie any different from TNG? Both characters were young!

Apart from the very short scene between Gaila and Kirk, where Kirk never got to “touch base”, there was no sex in the movie. It was about how a couple get to give and receive comfort, consolation through physical affection. What is the matter with people that they can’t see that?

538. Jonathan - April 27, 2012

“Rapture”

539. Jonathan - April 27, 2012

#537
The tone of Trek ’09 is completely different from the episode you reference. That is how they are different.

540. Vultan - April 27, 2012

#539

Bingo. Different tones. And different mediums. And a different targeted audience, i.e., younger for Trek ’09.

541. dmduncan - April 27, 2012

537: “But keep in mind many of DS9 episodes are part of a larger storyline, so you may have to watch an entire season through to enjoy them—particularly the later seasons.”

See but that’s what I don’t like.

When I watch TOS episodes — even the third season “clunkers” — they each stand on their own. I think there’s a craftsmanship to TOS storytelling, even when the episodes themselves are not as good as previous ones, that later series often lacked.

Even with “That Which Survives,” there’s an esthetic in the way that Kirk summarizes the story at the end, in disagreement with Spock, using just two words to defend Losira: “Beauty…survives.”

So I guess it’s truth that I so often find at the end of a TOS episode, whereas whenever I tuned in to the other ST series, I found story arcs and meaningless minutiae, all of which required me to stick around for a few months to find out where it was all going.

Maybe it was the time of my life. But when I tried out of loyalty to Star Trek to get into DS9, I didn’t see enough there to warrant an investment in my time.

On the other hand, I was totally blown away by the BSG reboot and stayed home to watch it every week.

I’m going to grab something to eat and watch a few of the recommended episodes. At least that’s my plan.

542. dmduncan - April 27, 2012

So I guess the moral is, if the story arc is irresistible, I’ll watch it!

543. Vultan - April 27, 2012

#541

Then… I don’t know what to tell you. DS9 didn’t stick with the TOS planet-of-the-week anthology-like formula, for the most part.

Good luck with the episodes.

544. Vultan - April 27, 2012

#542

Pretty much.

545. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

# 541

I too, LOVE the BSG reboot. I’ll admit, I was a TOS BSG fan and when the 2003 miniseries aired I was ready to pitch tomatoes at the screen; but by the time Caprica was nuked? I was hooked. Loved the entire run of that show; even the worst were better than many series’ best episodes.

Perhaps that’s why I’m a bit puzzled to hear you didn’t like DS9; the later seasons (from 4 on) had a heavy Ron Moore influence on them. Ron Moore, of course, being one of the biggest influences on New BSG. Not challenging you on your view (we all like what we like; simple as that), but I think if you stuck with DS9′s later seasons (4-up), you’d see a lot of the early seeds for BSG (especially the Dominion War arc; which lasted over 2 seasons).

# 536 Vultan~

My list of DS9 favorites would pretty much mirror yours (half of it, at least):

“In the Pale Moonlight”
“Far Beyond the Stars”
“The Way of the Warrior”
“Call to Arms”
“Little Green Men”
“Valiant”

But with these additions;

“Trials and Tribble-ations” (ridiculously fun; a TOS/DS9 romp!)
“Rejoined”
“Whispers” (creepy as hell)
“What You Leave Behind” (IMO, the most emotional ST finale ever)
“In Purgatory’s Shadow”
“By Inferno’s Light” (Garak rocks!)

If I had to pick an all-time favorite DS9? I suppose it’d be “In the Pale Moonlight” precisely because it’s the kind of ST episode the other ST shows (including TOS) would’ve NEVER done. It was bold. It was ballsy.
It didn’t have a reset button to make it all right in the end; Sisko crossed a moral line, and he had to live with it.
It was brilliant!

546. MJ - April 27, 2012

DS9 is my favorit of the new Trek series. The only Trek I like better was TOS. DS9 has the best ensemble cast, by far of all the Trek series. DS9, had the best writing of all of the new Trek series by far. Seasons 3 through 7 of DS9 buiilt consistent tension with overarching story arcs, had both action and moral commentary, and looked great.

It was the best Trek series of my adult life. I was only 3 years old then TOS started.

547. MJ - April 27, 2012

@546. Jesus Sebastian, I am agreeing with you 100% here. I loved the new BSG, although the final season was kind of weak — like Lost, I don’t think Moore really knew how to end it well when he startet.

Next thing you know, we will be singing Kumbaya together and having laughs over “the old Space Seed bitch session days.” :-)

548. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

# 547. MJ~

But I liked ALL of BSG; especially the finale. I thought it lagged a bit in the middle of the season, but the Gaeta mutiny arc really picked things up considerably! And I thought “Daybreak” was a damn near perfect final episode. It ended better than I’d hoped; no scenario in my imagination was better than what I ultimately saw on screen.

And hey, as far as “Space Seed” goes? I’m willing to let bygones be bygones. But in the future? Let’s all just agree to disagree, OK? Honest debates are great; insults are not (and I’m guilty of that, too; I’ll freely admit that). ;-D

549. MJ - April 27, 2012

Sounds good! Agreed!

550. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

# 550 MJ~

Very good then!
This is the most surprising plot twist since Vulcan blew up…. ;-D

551. Sebastian S. - April 27, 2012

Whoops. I meant # 549. I was so stunned I mixed the post #’s up…. ;-D

552. The Younger & Hotter Zefram Cochrane - April 27, 2012

So now what?
So now what?

We already had…

STAR TREK: THE 1960′S WESTERN
STAR TREK: THE 1970′S KIDS CARTOON
STAR TREK: THE 1980′S SCI-FI SHOW
STAR TREK: STUCK ON A SPACE STATION
STAR TREK: LOST IN SPACE
&
STAR TREK: THE NEW MILLENIUM

Now what?

STAR TREK: STUCK ON A DESERTED PLANET AND THE NEIGHBORING PLANET BLOWS UP?

553. Closettrekker - April 27, 2012

Although I would be thrilled to see new live action Trek on television (especially set in the 23rd Century), I will not hold my breath. I expect at least a third film out of Bad Robot first, and I have to believe it would be difficult to go from feature film to television series with thise set of classic characters.

Still, the alternate timeline leaves open the possibility of adventures set aboard another starship, perhaps with even the occasional appearance of a familiar character.

I have nothing at all against Fuller, or even Manny Coto for that matter.There was alot of talent involved (even within the Berman regime) in those 24th Century spinoffs and on ENT as well. It is just that far too often the “talent” is held back by the powers that be. I think that was the case with some of the Berman-era writers like Fuller, Coto, and even Moore.

554. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 27, 2012

@#518

Okay, Keachick, it is apparent that you are blinded by your own preferences and double standards. That’s the light that you need “shades” for, but it is so bright that I doubt that shades would help.

Keep believing that your favorites aren’t doing the same things as everyone else, while the rest of us will continue to live in reality.

Really, I don’t even know why I bothered… :-/

Thanks.

555. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 27, 2012

@#516 ME!!

:-D, That’s also the first thing I thought when I read #12′s post, “Uh, have you watched DS9?”

I liked the first 2 seasons, but I have to admit that they aren’t the best part of the show. I view them as a good foundation for seasons 3-7, with 3-6 as my favorites.

556. Thomas - April 27, 2012

Ain’t It Cool News is saying that Nimoy hinted at a possible involvement in the new Trek movie during a CNN appearance about the Enterprise flyover in New York. Make of it what you will:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55314

557. MJ - April 28, 2012

Yea, Keachick invented the double standard. I hear she gets paid consulting jobs on implementing double standards!

558. MJ - April 28, 2012

@551 @552

Perhaps your future self visited me visted me be time travel last week and insisted that I elicit emotional responses from you on these boards? :-)

559. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 28, 2012

RE: The best DS9 episodes.

@535 Jonathan
“The Visitor”

I’d have to say that this is my favorite episode of them all. Jake constantly trying to save his father through the years, and the love that he had for him, and the sacrifices he was willing to make all made me cry. Beautiful episode.

In addition to what Vultan listed, I’d like to point out that one thing that made DS9 great was that it had something for everybody. There are going to be a handful of episodes that are almost guaranteed to be on everyone’s list, but tastes vary, and so did the storytelling within the series – but it all worked very well. Out of the seasons, here are the ones that I’d watch alone as opposed to watching them as a part of the season/series again.

Season One

I’d simply watch this season over again because there isn’t too much that really stands out on its own. Still, if I had to pick:

Dax – I just like her story and the character. If you don’t care for Dax very much (the lady with the spots), then skip it.
The Emissary – It’s the set-up for the series, and for me it works. It’s much better than the Farpoint setup on TNG to me, but I still really like TNG.
The Nagus – Some people don’t like this episode, but I thought it was funny.
Battle Lines – It has a good moral point and is fairly TOS-like in that sense. Out o/if all of the episodes this season, it’s the one I think TOS fans might like the most.
Vortex – I like it for the prisoner’s interactions with Odo.
The Passenger – It’s a constant chase for a bad guy that may or may not be dead. For season one, it’s good to me.
That’s about all I can think of for season one.

Season Two

Necessary Evil
Whispers
Blood Oath
The Maquis 1&2
The Wire
Tribunal – This is another one I think a TOS fan might like a lot. It’s pretty one-off, but has a good point and plotline.
The Jem’Hadar Season finale, and a pretty good one.

Season Three

The Search 1&2
The House of Quark I think Grilka is great. :-)
Second Skin
The Abandoned
Past Tense 1&2
Life Support Beautiful episode. It’s about the sacrifices people make for love, without giving it away. Vedek Bareil loves Bajor, and Kira loves him…
Heart of Stone I like it, but if you’re not into love-stories that slowly unfold, then you might want to skip this one (and the ones that follow this particular arc).
Through the Looking Glass – I always get a kick out of Mirror Bashir and that hair! He looks like a 1980’s Price wannabe. Now, I’ve seen the episode a few times, but it always seems like at any moment he’s going to burst out with “Ain’t no particular sign I’m more compatible with…” :-D
Facets Once again, if you’re not interested in Dax much, skip it.
The Adversary

Season Four

The Way of the Warrior 1&2
Hippocratic Oath It’s a good Bashir episode, and it explores what it means for him to be a doctor. If you don’t care for Bashir, skip it. I liked learning more about the Jem’Hadar and the differences in how Bashir and O’Brien think.

The Visitor Love it!

The Sword of Kahless
Indescretion Bajoran and Cardassian values clash when Kira and Gul Dukat rescue Bajoran prisoners. It’s kind of a side-episode, so watching it depends on how much you care for Bajoran vs. Cardassian ways of thinking, but I liked it.
Homefront
Crossfire This also has to do with the previously mentioned slowly unfolding love-story. Skip it if you like.
The Sons of Mogh Very touching. It delves into Worf’s relationship with his brother.
Rules of Engagement
Hard Time
A notable mention is Muse. I really liked the Odo/Lwaxana Troi part of the story. It was ultimately sad but sweet. Again, if you’re not interested in love, then skip it.
To the Death
Shattered Mirror
Broken Link

Season Five

Apocalypse Rising
The Ship Another fairly one-offish episode.
Looking for Par’Mach in All the Wrong Places Grilka’s back, and it’s a nice story. :-)
Nor the Battle to the Strong – Oh, this was really good. I love the focus on Jake’s development and introspection. I think this is one of the series’ best episodes.
Things Past It was interesting, and it’s fairly one-offish.
The Ascent
The Begotten I love Odo and the baby changeling. I also like that through being a substitute father to the child, he learns to forgive his own “father” and realizes that he was in fact loved even though he didn’t feel it. Skip this one if you don’t like love or family based stories.
A notable mention is The Rapture. Good episode, but I wish they’d have followed along with it and the Emissary arc more.
For the Uniform
By Inferno’s Light
In Purgatory’s Shadow Another favorite. Members of the crew and others are held prisoner by the Jem’Hadar and they have to break free.
A Simple Investigation
Ties of Blood and Water
Notable mention: Dr. Bashir, I presume.
Soldiers of the Empire
Blaze of Glory
A Call to Arms

Season Six

A Time to Stand
Rocks and Shoals – I like that it (and a few other episodes) shows that the Jem’Hadar are much smarter than the Vorta give them credit for.
Sons and Daughters
Behind the Lines
Favor the Bold & Sacrifice of Angels A nice two-parter.
You are Cordially Invited – Skip if you don’t like weddings. Great episode. :-)
Ressurection – A nice episode about what could have been only if… Skip if you’re not interested in love.
Honor Among Thieves
Change of Heart
Wrongs Darker than Death or Night
Inquisition

In the Pale Moonlight – This is one of the series’ best episodes. I don’t know of anyone that doesn’t like this episode no matter what parts/aspects of the show they like more or less. It’s about the good guys having to be the bad guys in order to do good. It’s very layered and beautifully written and acted out. Sisko has the best monologue at the end of the episode:

“I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But the most damning thing of all… I think I can live with it. And if I had to do it all over again, I would. Garak was right about one thing: A guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant.” – Captain Sisko

It doesn’t matter what message board or forum you go to about DS9, when this episode comes up, it all comes down to those powerful ending words. Great stuff!

The Reckoning
Valiant Love it!
The Sound of Her Voice – Beautiful episode. Ultimately sad, but very nice.
Tears of the Prophets So sad, and such an unnecessary loss when the crew loses one of its own. :-(

Season Seven

Treachery, Faith, and the Great River
Once More into the Breach
The Siege of AR-558 – Very good.
It’s Only a Paper Moon I like how this episode deals with war related psychological issues and how one might cope. Very nice.
Field of Fire
Chimera
Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges
Notable Mention: Penumbra.

Aaaand pretty much the rest of the season as it leads to the series finale.

It’s true that a lot of episodes, especially in the latter seasons, are a part of larger story arcs, but they are all good individually nonetheless. Interestingly enough, it’s funny that BSG’s reboot gets mentioned. I liked that series as well. Mr. Moore took the original and had it grow up a bit – no robot puppy dog held together by duct tape there! And I’m not being insulting. I liked what I saw of the original too, just for mostly different reasons. I liked that they gave the original Apollo a role to play and the fact that he’s the one that perfectly sums up what the new Apollo’s role is going to need to be (although you can tell that’s where things were headed) in the series.

Anyway, my point is that NuBSG was very serialized as well. After about the first season, you really kind of need to know what’s happened to get the full bang for your buck out of the series. Deep Space Nine is no different in that sense, and in other ways too. There are a lot of episodes that you can just watch all by themselves, like Trials and Tribble-ations (which pays homage the original series and cleverly places the DS9 crew on the original Enterprise with its original crew), but there are also other episodes that can be watched separately, you just won’t get as much bang for your buck not knowing the full story that led up to them. I think that’s all Vultan was saying, and I’d agree with that.

I’m with Sebastian S. on being puzzled by someone that loves NuBSG, but couldn’t take DS9. Maybe it’s because DS9 had more build up in it and BSG just hit the ground running with its story arcs – but still they were story arcs. Both series are great shows to watch alongside each other. Since DS9 ran longer (and the Dominion arc fits really well with the whole Cylon war), I’d start watching BSG with it during season 3 and carry on through 6. That would be one heck of a ride! As a matter of fact, I think I might do just that myself. ;-)


@#557 MJ

I am learning, sensei, and I have learned that it’s likely not going to stop. :-/

560. Jonathan - April 28, 2012

#559
As a guy who was raised by a single father and was a single father myself for 7 years, “The Visitor” never fails to make me cry.

Even if I had not been raised by a single father, I would still be moved by that episode.

561. Spock/Uhura Admirer - April 28, 2012

Thank you, Jonathan. It’s nice to have your perspective. While I had my mother as well growing up, I was still Papa’s girl. He passed away and so I could really understamd Jake and relate to him wanting to be with his dad again. The episode is just beautiful and emotional.

562. Jamziz - April 28, 2012

@MJ 509

Can’t wait to read what you come up with! My guess is there’s gong to be a “jamijiz” drop, absolutely nothing intelligent beyond you saying “you’re wrong! You’re a cry baby! Nitpicker!”

I dare you to surprise me with something intelligent.

563. Jamziz - April 28, 2012

Interesting article.. with an interesting conclusion.

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/scifi/enterprise-failed-star-trek.html

564. K-7 - April 28, 2012

#562 What was that, Jumanji?

565. Azrael - April 28, 2012

@562. MJ could respond while sleeping and come up with better material than that, heck so could I, maybe even K-7 (who gave a very funny response to me once upon a time).

566. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 28, 2012

No, you’re right, Spock/Uhura Admirer – I am also beginning to wonder why I bother.

MJ – when you constantly refer to someone as having double-standards, you are implying that they are being a bit dishonest, deceitful and/or stupid. I don’t believe I am any of these.

I have decided that both of you can be silly and rude on some occasions. Not edifying.

567. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 28, 2012

@#566

“MJ – when you constantly refer to someone as having double-standards, you are implying that they are being a bit dishonest, deceitful and/or stupid. I don’t believe I am any of these.”

But see, that’s the issue. Your “beliefs” tend not to line up with reality very often. That’s all… It’s not my intention to offend you by saying this, but that’s how I’ve got to say it.

“I have decided that both of you can be silly and rude on some occasions. Not edifying.”

You mean we have your permission!? Gee, thanks. :-/

568. MJ - April 28, 2012

“MJ – when you constantly refer to someone as having double-standards, you are implying that they are being a bit dishonest, deceitful and/or stupid. I don’t believe I am any of these.”

Not at all. Your are a very nice person who has a weakness for double-standards. Just like I have a weakness for cheeseburgers and popcorn. :-)

569. MJ - April 28, 2012

“MJ could respond while sleeping and come up with better material than that, heck so could I, maybe even K-7 (who gave a very funny response to me once upon a time).”

Thanks Azrael. Will be responding to that clown tomorrow night while in an induced coma!

570. Keachick - rose pinenut - April 28, 2012

“Your “beliefs” tend not to line up with reality very often.”
Is that so? What reality? Whose reality? Don’t you mean your version of reality?

Thanks for nothing…:(

571. Spock/Uhura Admirer ;-) - April 29, 2012

Okay, Keachick. How about a semi-truce. You have your reality, and that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not in line with everybody or anybody else’s. That’s the best I can do.

From now on, I’ll just try to avoid you as much as possible.

572. DaveO - April 29, 2012

@claypool2011:

“…The only reason he wasn’t credited there as “Cordwainer Bird” (his code for “this is crap and I won’t put my name on it) is because Roddenberry refused to change the credit line.”

Actually, the only reason he wasn’t credited as “Cordwainer Bird” is that the name “Harlan Ellison” was on the submitted work. (If he wanted to type a pseudonym onto the cover page, he could have done that).

After it’s been produced, writers can’t decide credits. Credits are decided by the Writer’s Guild of America.

I’m all for writers from other media contributing to Star Trek. I loved Neil Gaiman’s episode of Doctor Who.

573. Whitley Tittle - May 29, 2012

I am continually invstigating online for ideas that can benefit me. Thx!

574. Barrie Pandya - June 10, 2012

Hello, i think that i saw you visited my blog thus i came to “return the favor”.I’m trying to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.