Oct 9 2013 4:00pm

What to Do with the Future of Star Trek

When a recent Star Trek Creation convention voted J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek Into Darkness the worst film in the franchise, some industry people (including the film’s screenwriter) shook their heads. The movie made good money (though not the breakaway box office that some predicted) and notched generally favorable reviews. So what’s the problem? Is this just a case of some Trekkers and fanboys being overly critical? Or does it point to larger, long term problems? After all, while the new Trek films have been built to be general audience pleasers, they still rely on the fanboys to be their backbone. What happens to Star Trek if the Trekkers start to abandon it?

Maybe the best way to answer that is to look at ways the franchise could right itself. Here then are some suggestions...

Have Kirk Grow Up Already
The biggest change in the new series of films has been to make  James T. Kirk an emotional hothead. That worked fine in the first movie, with young Kirk becoming a kind of early career Tom Cruise character—the Maverick of Starfleet, if you will. But in STID Kirk is still a screw up, still a hothead, and still the kind of a dumbass who needs to be reminded, yet again, that the rules apply to him. But a movie story has to work within the logic that it constructs, and it’s getting really hard to buy that this guy is a commander of anything. If you're going to shoot a bazillion-dollar piece of technology into the farthest reaches of space with hundreds of human beings inside it, you don't put a horny frat boy in charge.  (If this was a war movie, say, you would never believe this callow youngster would be placed in charge of a submarine.) Chris Pine is a charismatic actor, but his Kirk is in danger of becoming a dramatic redundancy. Maybe next time around he will have learned his lesson and finally gotten his shit together? Let's hope so. 


Quit Trying So Hard To Be Sexy
Let’s talk about the three-way with the cat girls. Hey, we all know Captain Kirk loves the ladies. [ girls...I get it...] But here's a study in contrast. The original Kirk was a James Bond-type ladies man. He was a charmer. He was smooth, damn it. This Kirk acts a little too much like a dude who just attended a Frank TJ Mackey seminar on how to pick up insecure sorority girls. I mean, this Kirk harasses random women on the street... Not too smooth. Ditto the widely mocked scene where Kirk ogles Carol Marcus—a scene that is neither sexy nor funny, and does nothing to establish their eventual love story. It’s just a particularly ham-fisted attempt to sex up Star Trek. The filmmakers should just relax, develop the characters, and let the talented and attractive young cast deliver the erotic charge.  

Come Up With A Plot That Isn’t About Some Guy Seeking Revenge
Here’s an interesting point to ponder: all four of the last four Star Trek movies (Insurrection, Nemesis, Star Trek, and STID) have been about revenge. The reason for this, I think, is that everyone wants to recapture the Khan magic. Here’s the problem: in and of themselves, revenge plots suck. They’re simplistic and derivative. That’s not to say that they can’t be the springboard for greatness (see everything from Hamlet to Kill Bill), but revenge itself is just a lazy trope. Take, once again, STID: one of the key weaknesses of the film is the shift in the motivation for Khan's revenge. In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan he's out to kill Captain Kirk because he blames Kirk for the death of his wife. The simple genius of that plot line is that, at least on one level, we're sorta on Khan's side. He's motivated by a rage that in some contexts would cast him as the protagonist. In the new film, Khan's wrath is based on...what again? He's insulted by something the evil Admiral did back when he thawed out Khan and put him to work developing weapons to battle Klingons in case there's a war with Klingons...I think. That long, winding explanation doesn't exactly have the cold fire of “You killed my wife” does it? After flubbing a recreation of Khan in this film (despite Cumberbatch’s fierce efforts to breath fire into the character) and giving us the instantly forgettable Romulan played by Eric Bana in the first film, perhaps the filmmakers could try something beyond “I’m-gonna-get-you” as a motivation of the next film’s antagonist?

Try Something New
Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan is one of the greatest pop sci-fi movies ever made. It’s exciting, it’s funny, and it’s unexpectedly moving. But we have it already. It’s here. I own it. Let’s move on. In fact, I hope the new Trek team is done directly quoting the first films. Take for instance the death of Kirk in STID, which of course is a reworking of the death of Spock in Wrath Of Khan. I guess this scene is supposed to show us some kind of growth in Kirk's character—although, since his bravery was never in doubt, I'm not sure how it actually does this. Still, to be fair, the scene is well done; Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are good actors. The dialog at the end, where Kirk admits to be being afraid to die, is moving. But then he dies...and Spock screams “Khan!!!” as a direct quote from Shatner's screamed “Khan!!!” in the earlier film, and the whole thing (the pivotal point of the movie) stops working as a dramatic scene and just becomes about the reference. And that, my friends, is when you know a piece of pop culture has turned around on itself and started to devour its own tail.

Discover Strange New Worlds
Somewhere along the way with the new Trek films, someone fixed on the idea that Star Trek is an action franchise. It’s not. It never was. It’s a science-fiction franchise. While action has always been an essential element of the series—Shatner spent half his time on TOS punching guys in the face—it wasn’t the element that predominated. Star Trek hasn’t lasted fifty years because of action scenes. It lasted fifty years because it created a universe of wonder and intrigue. It mixed fun pulpy elements (fist fights and laser guns and make-out sessions with green slave girls) with fascinating ideas and flights of fancy. If the special effects and stunt work from the 60s looked dated today, we can be sure that future generations will say same the same thing about our CGI. The stuff that will last is the intellectual and emotional architecture of the universe and its characters.


Despite all I’ve said so far, Abrams actually did a lot of good work with his Trek films. He established a great creative team, assembled a talented cast, and he set some interesting plates spinning. Now that he's moved on to Star Wars, I guess someone new will be —ahem—taking the helm. Hopefully, that person will build on all the good work here and take us into something fresh, something that is truly inventing new Trek material, rather than just reheating the old.

Jake Hinkson is the author of the novels Hell On Church Street and The Posthumous Man. He blogs at The Night Editor.

Uncle Mikey
1. Uncle Mikey
The best thing that could happen to Star Trek right now would be for someone to bring a new series to television. I don't even care that much which timeline it's set in, although I'll admit to a slight preference for the "original" timeline, and something far in the future relative to TNG/DS9/VOY. But I'd settle for something set aboard another starship contemporary with the Trek Babies timeline.
Raymond Seavey
2. RaySea
The point about revenge stories is interesting. Oddly enough, we go one film further and you get First Contact, which actually deals with the lead character motivated by revenge until the futility of the effort is pointed out to him.
Uncle Mikey
3. Alduc
Instead of "Discover Strange New Worlds", I'd go a bit broader with "Do some world-building". After two movies, we really know very little about this universe of Star Trek 2.0. Vulcan got some attention - but then went *boom*. What we saw of the Klingon homeworld was a wasteland. Ice planet? *Yawn*.

Dido with the aliens. Many new races can be seen just inside the Enterprise, but we know nothing about them.
Uncle Mikey
4. Fr Shane Tharp
I have to agree with Uncle Mikey. It's time to go back to TV with Star Trek. The movies began as a way to jump on to the Star Wars bandwagon. TV audiences are ready, I think, for thoughtful sci-fi and for complicated story lines. Breaking Bad and others show how a great TV show can do more for an audience than a great film. Bring Star Trek back to TV, please. (And Paramount if you are reading this, there are some really good ideas out there already. I've thought of three while typing this.)
Uncle Mikey
5. The_Red_Fleece
Anyone notice that the guy on Khan's left looks a lot like Cumberbatch in a blonde wig? Another sign they focused on the wrong member of Khan's crew in STID.
Mouldy Squid
6. Mouldy_Squid
I grew up with Star Trek OS. There wasn't much else on CBC back then that would interest an imaginative young squid. I suffered through the first three years of ST:TNG in high school until it finally decided to take chances and make interesting science fiction. I stuck with DS9 when it was clearly an inferior show to Babylon 5. Voyager jumped the shark after 10 episodes and outside of a handful of very good episodes it stank. Enterprise was interesting despite how poorly received it was and I genuinely enjoyed it's run. I am the fan that Abrams tried so desperately to attract to his ham-handed attempt at reviving Star Trek.

Now that I have established my bona fides, here is what I think should be done with Star Trek: let it die. It's time to let it go.

Abrams has done what seven years of Voyager could not do; make me not care about Star Trek. He did such a horrible job, made so many compromises and idiotic choices, in a vain attempt to attract twenty somethings to his shiny lens flare laden vision of not-Star-Trek. He would have been more successful if he had put two bullets into the back of the head of the franchise.

I know that it is hard to let go of something so beloved, so adored, but it is time. Star Trek should, must, die. It is time for something new and original.
Evan Langlinais
7. Skwid
I keep telling people: give us a new series with Captain Sulu on the Excelsior. I think Cho has been horribly underutilized and it could be a great way to actually explore New Trek.
Charles Foster
8. FossMaNo1
I vote for a new television show way ahead of the rest of the series...another 75-100 year leap would be just about right.
Uncle Mikey
9. vjj
The Abrams movies were horrible and stupid as hell. I'd completely dump them into the trash and start over again. JJ Abrams has got to be the most overrated director/scriptwriter/executive producer in Hollywood.

Startover with a new cast and a new director. Hire some scientist consultants who actually like science fiction and have some big ideas of their own.

Don't annihilate Vulcan. Ever. I know - why don't they do some worldbuilding of Vulcan culture itself instead of destroying it outright.
Uncle Mikey
10. Tesh
There's a lot of potential in the Trek IP. It's not going to be mined with "darker, edgier, sexier, blingier". There's plenty of that tripe in the entertainment world already. Trek needs to be better than that.
Juan Pazos
11. seanamber
Yep: new TV show, somewhere around 75-150 after Voyager's (or the Literary Universe, or whatever) latest date. The possibility of calling back to everything we already know with the freedom to be anything: action, philosophy, exploration, war....
John C. Bunnell
12. JohnCBunnell
I echo the idea that a new TV series is in order.

The problem with Star Trek as a feature film franchise is that the Star Trek universe -- as a dramatic setting -- has been developed over decades as a milieu for character-driven stories and extended story arcs, and Hollywood feature film franchises are very badly equipped these days to tell those kinds of stories. (The Marvel Cinematic Universe movies may work out to be an exception to that rule -- but if that proves to be the case, it will be because that film franchise was aimed in that direction very early in its history.)
Uncle Mikey
13. RobertX
You know, Kirk in TOS did not really sleep with a lot of ladies.
Uncle Mikey
14. vampiredoctor
The Trekkies are not going to abandon anything. This last movie has a 87% rating with critics on rottentomatoes and 90% with audiences. Much much higher than most summer blockbusters. It's mostly the trekkies who hated it for their trekkie reasons
Uncle Mikey
15. Kevin Lindgren
I think you hit it that part of the problem here is Kirk. Kirk's character has altered over the years due to the overarching personality of William Shatner, whose presence in our culture--since the Golden Age of Television, when he starred in live broadcasts in the late 50's!---has been vast.
Shatner is a brilliant actor, despite what some people may have intimated over the years, but Shatner's self-depricating, self-parodying image as a public figure has slowly influenced and altered the character of Kirk. Also, due to the poor quality of the writing in season three of the original series, Kirk wound up with a reputation as a hormone-driven, I believe one word is "lady's man," but where I come from, that's just a slut!! Of course, Shatner being Shatner, God love him, he was all over that image of the Captain.
But that's just not the original interpretation of Kirk. Yes, he has a past, but he's an essentially lonely figure, whose family are his shipmates.
Besides, Captain Kirk has such a fascinating past history that the Abrams reboot just chucked: As a child he witnessed the horror of the genocidal dictator Kodos the Executioner while off-earth on a colony planet. He served on two starships, Farrugut and Republic, I believe, andthere is much else to explore in the rich background of this character.
So, I say: Reboot the reboot: Let Abrams round out his trilogy, then go back to the original "timeline," but with new actors, a new set design, and a new series of adventures, loosely based on the first season of the old show. It seems so obvious, but when has hollywood ever done what seems right?
Uncle Mikey
16. rtms
The biggest mistake was to make Kirk captian of a huge starship with no training etc before hand. They just threw the character at us and didn't build him up or explore why he became the youngest captain in Starfleet. I mean he doesn't even graduate and he's made a captain of a fleet vessel? Way too fast and completely unbelieveable. Kirk had experience before he was a captain, he made his mistakes and his triupmhs on other ships before getting the Enterprise. I think that's one of the reasons the new films don't work especially with old fans. It just goes against all logic and believeablity.
Uncle Mikey
17. drc413
Quick reminder for the JJ Abrams haters - STID made $230M domestic and is currently #7 for the year. Trekkies dissing the movie sound like the hipsters who are mad "their" spot is popular - "No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

Agree with the suggestions, though - lose the frat boy Kirk, check the "homage to the original" box and move on, and refocus on exploring the universe instead of blowing up Earth.
Uncle Mikey
18. mirana
We finally watched this when my parents rented it. My brother, husband and I sat on one side of the room and endlessly called plot "twists" (and GASP we have not seen the original Khan or much of classic Trek), mocked horrenous plot holes, sexism and beyond bad science. The acting was also (I hate to say) way over the top. Like watching theatre or TV. It was embarassing. It was just plain awful. And I LIKE Zachary, Zoe, and Benedict!

I say that as someone who IS a fan of (later) Trek, but who doesn't care if it was rebooted. It could just be a fun action flick for all I care. I'm really not that picky. It was still terrible on all other levels. The first one was utterly forgetable. JJ needs to PUSH more and be less cliche.
Uncle Mikey
19. Action Kate
Cumberbatch's Khan wanted revenge because Marcus held his entire crew/family as hostages against his behavior ("you will do whatever I tell you to do, or I kill everyone"), and then when Khan tried to free them and failed, he thought Marcus had killed all of them.

So Khan's motive isn't "You killed my wife" but "You killed 72 members of my family." That's insufficient for revenge?
Publius 75
20. publius75
They just need to get back to exploring new and exciting worlds instead of always rushing back and saving the Earth. Also the hattips to the original series was cool in the first movie, but have become distracting so it is time to drop those too.
Uncle Mikey
21. RedMaigo
I totally agree with Mouldy_Squid. They need to mothball this franchise. Maybe, in about 20 years, they can resurrect Star Trek (ala Battlestar Galactica) and let a later generation remake it with a fresh perspective and different sensibilities.

The reason why there is so much dissatisfaction with the Star Trek movies is that they're trying to get blood from a stone (movies) and the wrong stone at that.

Truth be told the entire Star Trek movie experience has been, at best, mediocre. All of them, TOS, TNG and JJ Abrams Star Trek movies are glistening, wobbling, towers of wank and frustration.

And yes, I include Wrath of Khan in there too.

The best Star Trek movie ever made was Galaxy Quest. Give me that next time JJ Abrams and I'll take back everything I've ever said about you.
Andrew Gray
22. madogvelkor
Action Kate -- I agree, I didn't find Khan's motivation confusing or weak. If anything, it was better than in Wrath of Khan. He was angry at the Admiral for basically enslaving him and holding everyone he cared about hostage. And under that was his engineered superiority and desire to rule.

It was also seeing him in comparison to Spock. The two were actually fairly evenly matched, Khan was what Spock could be if he let his human side dominate.
Mike Kelmachter
23. MikeKelm
I'm with RTMS- the biggest issue is that you have a screwup who apparently gets to go to Starfleet Academy because a random captain invites him, who as a cadet gets put on the shiniest new ship that is crewed entirely by other cadets (and said random captain), who suddenly becomes captain of said shiniest new ship, having never actually bothered to say, graduate from Starfleet Academy. The issue with the series is that it's implausible. It's nerd wet-dream instead, where any Tom Dick or Harry is as good as anyone else and just needs to be given the opportunity despite lack of training, education, drive, experience, etc.

I could get that Kirk goes to the Academy as a legacy, but his heart isn't in it. He's the George Pickett of Starfleet- graduating dead last in his class. He rises up to some insignificant posting- say second officer of a scout ship, where he finally does something heroic (that ties back into Nero showing up) and gets to be captain of the Enterprise as a result. At least with that scenario he's a college graduate. That would be a plausible scenario.

The series is ripe for a reboot, or if you don't want to do that, then find a new ship and set it in whatever time period you like. Are you telling me that USS Hood or USS Yorktown or whatever had no adventures? You couldn't create a new hero who happens to serve alongside Kirk? If you want to set it in the alternate timeline, get one of the movie actors to give it a rub (a la Chrristopher Lambert and the Highlander TV Show). But please, stop with the any idiot can captain the Enterprise series.
Nick Hlavacek
24. Nick31
@16, @15, and @23 - that's EXACTLY why I haven't cared for the reboot. They took a complex and interesting character and turned him into a parody. Fix the horny frat boy Kirk with no right to be in command and maybe I'll get interested in this again.
j p
25. sps49
For anyone who justifies Abrams!Trek with "but it made money!"- how much money could be made if you had everything in the last two movies and fixed the stupid?

Star Trek 1.1 has an audience almost forty years later because it is a well made classic. Take a lesson from Marvel's movies- well-made cinema that respects your source material will last longer.
Mouldy Squid
26. Mouldy_Squid
@24: It also shows that Abrams and his writers have a profound lack of understanding of Star Trek, its characters, its themes and its in-universe history. Either that or they understood these things and decided to throw it all away in an attempt to be "original" (an attempt they failed at so completely). Kirk had a career before becoming captain of the Enterprise (and the Enterprise itself had a career before Kirk).

The angst laden, university party cast might appeal to 20-somethings (thus the reboots' popularity with the younger audiences), but it simply has no place or resonance with the key fans. Both movies are puerile. That scene where Spock and Uhura bicker about their relationship while on a black-op insertion onto the Klingon homeworld simply epitomises the sophmoric writing, direction and acting.
Uncle Mikey
27. B. Squier
These first two entries were entertaining and fun. I've been a trek fan since I was an early age introduced to the series by my Mom who was a fan during the original airing. It's not the worst entry by far and it is Trek. That vote should be totally disregarded. That being said. I would like to see two things. A third original movie with little to no refrences to past villans. Something new. I like Into Darkness, but think it would have actually been stronger as a story about a rouge agent angry that the federation was abandoning it's exploration mission in response to the attack by the Romulan vessel in the previous movie. A lot of potential themes could have been explored while still preserving the action that would attract a wide audience. Something original. Second, I believe Trek thrives on television. I think it would be fun if it existed in this new universe. But the new movies have reintroduced the universe, some of the characters and new series is totally appropriate.
Uncle Mikey
28. AlexG
I agree with those saying it's time to let go of Star Trek. Surely we've come to a place where we can imagine and portray ideas that the original writers of STTOS would never have dreamed of.

Why not start a new franchise that captures the spirit and aspirations of our times, like Star Trek did with the 60s? Racial integration was a theme of Star Trek; now we can deal with gender and sexuality issues. We basically have communicators now (bluetooth headsets), so what's the next wave of tech we can try to anticipate? Integrate the Internet, or whatever it will become in the future. What sort of post-scarcity cultures can we imagine, and how can we flesh out their politics? (Heck, why not create a universe like the one in Ian Bank's Culture novels?)

There's a lot of space for new creative visions with the same optimistic and humanist spirit as Star Trek but none of the baggage and weight of expectation...
Alan Brown
29. AlanBrown
The problem with the reboot is that the new Trek will always be overshadowed by the old. Even when they are not rubbing our nose in it with moments where a different guy is yelling, "Kahn!!!", you are always going to be looking for an alien world or race, or plot, that looks familiar from the old days.
I definitely agree with Kirk needing to grow up a bit, and also the fact that Star Trek does not need the villian of the week in each movie. Lets have a movie about exploring, finding new things, solving mysteries.
John C. Bunnell
30. JohnCBunnell
#28: Why must starting a new franchise require abandoning an existing milieu? Star Trek -- and specifically, the pre-reboot incarnation of the setting -- has become nearly as much a fixture of folklore as the legend of King Arthur and the character of Sherlock Holmes. Even if the corporate copyright-holders shut down the entire commercial franchise, fanwriters will go right on producing new content for decades to come.

The Abrams version of the Trek universe may not suit everyone's tastes, but then again there are a good many fans of the original Conan Doyle stories who disapprove of the BBC's Sherlock -- and even those who like Sherlock aren't burning or selling off their copies of the canonical books.

There's room on my shelves of Arthuriana for Malory and T. H. White, for Monty Python and Camelot and the BBC's Merlin. There's room on my Sherlock Holmes shelf for the Conan Doyle stories, Laurie King's pastiches featuring Mary Russell, August Derleth's "Solar Pons" series, and the DVDs of Without a Clue, Murder By Decree, and the first season of Elementary. I'm perfectly open to just as much diversity in the evolving world(s) of Star Trek.
Uncle Mikey
31. verisp
Worst film in the franchise? Did someone go back in time and prevent Insurrection from being made?
Uncle Mikey
32. Eric Tan
Space exploration and discovery is all good when it comes to episodic TV Star Trek. None of the Star Trek feature films does that, except maybe for the first one which was pretty to look at but immensely boring. Back in the day, it was beset with cost overruns and had trouble making money. The feature films need to reach out to an international audience with thrilling action and suspense, not space exploration facts. I like to remind the hardcore fans (I'm more of a regular fan) that the better Trek films were produced and directed by people who were not fans of the franchise, who went for "plot matters" rather than "TV Trek on the big screen" approach, and succeeded quite well too. When they took TV Trek for the big screen, the producers and writers of the four TNG films literally did than, with disastrous, boring results. Abrams' Trek is not perfect. It's pretty to look at and has nice action scenes, but it's way better than the TNG movies, and let's not forget the bean counters at Paramount aren't going back.
Uncle Mikey
33. Eric Tan
Putting feature films aside, if a new Star Trek TV series were to be about space exploration, alien cultures, and discovery, would CBS air it? I mean, Voyager was on UPN or whatever, and it lasted seven seasons (I think), but nobody watched? I barely watched Enterprise, and that died an early death, with one of the most hated series finale ever. If a new series just takes old plots and updates them with different aliens but sitll the same old stories, will people really watch or only fans of Trek? Because the moment ratings start to dip, it's goodbye all over again.
Let's not forget it's going to be expensive, and it won't be able to
recoup its budget for years because airing it in the USA and Canada does not meanit's being shown in other countries at the same time. Movies do that budget recouping better and faster even if they cost a hundred times more.
Uncle Mikey
34. roger lord zeck
Honest Trailers got it right.
That, and Mr Pine is far too baby faced for the role. In fact the only characters with any screen presence, Uhura aside, were Peter Weller and Sherlock. It's like ST got invaded by the cast of Twilight.
Uncle Mikey
35. DIDI
Please God no, NEVER allow the Trek franchise to continue in the JJ universe.... Rather get star trej renegades going, it will mean every episode will be action packed & will be a legitimate sequel to the 24th century trek we love so much (TNG - Voyager (although voyager was not great).
Uncle Mikey
36. Jim in NYC
I disapprove of reboots in general, largely because the rights owners (I will *not* call them creators) have adopted them as the go-to strategy whenever the series writes itself into a corner and can't get out. We've destroyed the Borg (Voyager), defeated the Dominion (DS9), made peace with the Klingons (TNG) and the Romulans (the last TNG movie)--what else is there? Oh, I know, let's go back to the beginning again.
Of course, there's always the route of creating a new series (and, to be fair, Abrams has done that), the way Gene Roddenberry did in the first place. There wasn't a Star Trek before Roddenberry had his "Wagon-Train-to-the-stars" idea. But, of course, there's the risk that the public won't cotton to your new series, so you simply reboot the cash cow.
Uncle Mikey
37. Jim in NYC
Even then, I could grudgingly accept the Trek reboot--if it had even remotely tried to live up to its promise of telling new stories. But it hasn't. Bad-Boy Kirk was explored by Diane Carey almost twenty years ago, and Into Darkness was just a rehash of the Khan story. Mix that with the over-the-top body counts that modern moviegoers seem to demand, and the result is something I don't need to spend money or more especially time on.
At this point, I'm fine with Trek lying fallow until they have new ideas and genuinely new stories to tell.
Uncle Mikey
38. cka2nd
I loved Abrams' first movie but the only thing I remember about Into Darkness is the hats that some of the officers at Star Fleet Headquarters were wearing. Hopefully, if Abrams is committed to a third film, the "Curse" will have been reversed and the odd-numbered movies will be the good ones.

I do agree with those who think TV is the right medium for Star Trek, the occasional feature film notwithstanding. I personally would prefer an extension of the Classic & Next Gen universe, but it's really a matter of finding a producer with a smart and original take on the material, be it the original universe, mirror universe or re-boot universe. It would also help if fans and critics would keep an open mind and not rush to judgement: Enterprise was crippled, it seemed to me, by the critical response to the first season, which meant that many people would not give it a second chance as the show steadily improved tpo the point that Seasons Three and Four could stand along side anything previously aired in the whole franchise.
Uncle Mikey
39. f_farraday
I automatically assumed there would be a TV series again, probably after VOY. I hope there is, and that the other eras have their own films, like TOS and TNG do. The next TV series should be serial, not episodic. I find it extremely annoying that they are basically forced to make the series episodic and only with arcs rather than actual serial storylines. I can't describe how frustrating it is that things happen to be perfectly fine by the end of the episode - or double episode at most. "Everything will be alright by the end." That's worse that crap, and most annoying. Make it serial, and give me a proper sense and understanding of an actual storyline, rather than "the adventures of a few idiots in space" as if it were a Captain Proton simulation, where Tom Paris would not be harmed at all. I want proper storylines and action, not having the safety protocols turned on in the episodes.
Uncle Mikey
40. f_farraday
rtms said they threw Captain Kirk at us without any history. That's american "story" for you; they don't do anything proper. They make it up as they go along, which is RUBBISH. I wonder why we enjoy the later episodes, eras, and films that look back to the earlier ones - because what we are looking back to is the story that has been laid out for us, not some contrived sewage intended to have quick, cheap, and easy ratings.
Uncle Mikey
41. SarahEB
This may be a bit of a necropost, but I wanted to chip in, especially with the section in the article about the movies trying way too hard to be 'sexy.'

One of the things that the Star Trek series did right was that it's sci-fi that appeals to BOTH genders. It isn't your standard 'blow it up' action sci-fi and they never bought into any of that 'let's be dark, edgy, and over-sexy' nonsense that has corrupted modern sci-fi. Every series (but ESPECIALLY TNG) managed to deal with an awful lot of sexuality without even once resorting to showing a down-and-dirty scene or casting rediculously hypersexualized actors (you know them -- photoshopped perfection).

Every single iteration of Star Trek had something that was a strong draw to the show for female viewers, and I just don't feel that the new Star Trek movies does that. When producers say they want a 'more general audience', I take that to mean they want to go back to pandering to the 15-to-30 male demographic. Unfortunately for Star Trek, the same qualities that make it so great for this demographic (explosions, high-energy action, cutting out story buildup) are the same things that make them soon forgotten.

People are still watching the original ST and all the series, plus all of the movies -- including the 'bad' ones. Will they still be scouring the internet in 20 to 25 years looking for an Abram Adams version of Star Trek?

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment