Star Trek: Reloaded?

[Stofsk]

I'd like to tune in an watch a space exploration/adventure show, but the actual universe of Trek has grown completely stale and uninteresting.

I guess I want Trek, but without all the crap and baggage that makes it Trek, to the point where the only similarity might just be the 'small team of explorers' and 'their ship'. Anything else is variable.

As for fans, they've invested too much into the show to let go of it. The obsessive nature of Trek fans is self-evident, and a desire for the same-old formula, with the same cookie-cutter characters ad infinitum, is just another aspect of that.

[Darth Servo]

Why this constant impulse to keep producing more Trek?

Didn't I already ask that twice in this very thread?

[brianeyci]

It is pretty strange. You have Wars fans scream about Greedo shooting first, and name a dozen other classic franchises, not necessarily space opera and real hardcore fans of those franchises absolutely hate remakes and reimaginations, for good reasons.

I used to think that purists like Degan were "closed-minded" and "fanatical", but its not that at all. Remakes are like crossing a highway blindfolded--sometimes you might make it like the guy in Gattica but most of the time you're roadkill. It's not really the purists who are closed-minded and fanatical, it's the people who want to keep pumping out stuff that has no relation to the original at all except for the name.

[montypython]

Straczynski did propose something regarding alternate continuities for Trek, just like how Gundam has UC and CE, of which Gundam has the mechs to tie the different series together, Trek can use the starships similarly, even with different plotlines et al. My personal preference would be more like Star Fleet Battles/Star Fleet Command in nature, however.

[Mobird53]

The reason y they want more is b/c ST is a HUGE!!!!! cult. once u become a trekkie u are one for life. And as far as the over haul goes, it does need it. the last series "enterprise" sucked!. They need to go forward, to like the 28th or 29th century, when they have different tech. Including Time travel. IE they could do a series about a timeship, and connect it to all the other ST's, as well as have it in it's own problems. plus the idea of star trek isn't confined to one story line and one set of characters. ST is about the UFP and what ever the hell ship they wana make it about. Heck they could do a ST about a Klingon ship. or a Romulan ship, and people would stil watch, b/c it's ST. Plus people like to fantasize(spelled wrong).

[Batman]

Time travel episodes suck almost by definition. If there HAS to be more Trek in the future, either make it far enough in the future so people forgot about the TNG+ trash, or outright declare that never actually happened in the first place and reset to just after TUC and start fresh from there.
TNG could have been an interesting enough universe if it hadn't been for first Roddenberry's ideology and later Beavis & Butthead's outright idiocy, DS9 had its moments and if it wasn't for B&B again, VOY and ENT might have never happened.

[Uraniun235]

Why this constant impulse to keep producing more Trek?

Didn't I already ask that twice in this very thread?

You didn't like my "slot machine gambler" analogy?

[Patrick Degan]

The reason y they want more is b/c ST is a HUGE!!!!! cult. once u become a trekkie u are one for life. And as far as the over haul goes, it does need it. the last series "enterprise" sucked!. They need to go forward, to like the 28th or 29th century, when they have different tech. Including Time travel. IE they could do a series about a timeship, and connect it to all the other ST's, as well as have it in it's own problems. plus the idea of star trek isn't confined to one story line and one set of characters. ST is about the UFP and what ever the hell ship they wana make it about. Heck they could do a ST about a Klingon ship. or a Romulan ship, and people would stil watch, b/c it's ST. Plus people like to fantasize(spelled wrong).

Uh huh. If that theory were even remotely true, what explains the shrinking fanbase and viewership then? While there are indeed Trekkies who've developed a cultist-like obsession and keep screaming out their idiotic ideas for a reboot, they're down to a very tiny minority these days. So they can keep on screaming and stamping their little feet for Trek's return and it will get them exactly nowhere.

The best thing now is just to let it die.

[Darth Servo]

Why this constant impulse to keep producing more Trek?

Didn't I already ask that twice in this very thread?

You didn't like my "slot machine gambler" analogy?

Not really. With slot machines, the gambler is hoping for a big payoff. With trek, the fanatics are just looking for something to masturbate to. You can do that just as easily with Voyager re-runs as with a new series.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, but the answers that have been given in this thread don't cut it. They apply just as easily to other fiction franchises, yet as I pointed out earlier, you don't see fans of those franchises clamouring and pleading for an endless stream of new material.

[brianeyci]

Sorry, but the answers that have been given in this thread don't cut it. They apply just as easily to other fiction franchises, yet as I pointed out earlier, you don't see fans of those franchises clamouring and pleading for an endless stream of new material.

Maybe it's one of your ideas, the loser finds social acceptance idea that's making people horny for more Trek.

If the ideas apply just as easily to other franchises, you'd have to look at the material itself and I don't see anything particularly addicting. Except for "explore strange new worlds," I can see that being sexy, but everything's known already so that's not it. It could be the messages in Trek itself, maybe social outcast = cool, or something else. Maybe the utopian message.

[Bounty]

With trek, the fanatics are just looking for something to masturbate to. You can do that just as easily with Voyager re-runs as with a new series.

Wow. Impressive. You know exactly what I think.

No, Servo, I don't want more Trek "to masturbate to". I don't want more Trek just because it's Trek. If the new movie gets anything but decent reviews I'm going to skip it, like any sane person would do. If you prefer your version of reality, fine, but don't pretend you speak for me and the majority of Trek fans, casual or otherwise, becuase you don't.

Sorry, but the answers that have been given in this thread don't cut it. They apply just as easily to other fiction franchises, yet as I pointed out earlier, you don't see fans of those franchises clamouring and pleading for an endless stream of new material.

Traviss books. Just that, Traviss books. The SW EU gets dumped on by pretty much everyone on this board in some degree, yet people still want more of it (in fact, some of the most well-regarded members of the board are the ones who follow the EU most closely). Why? Because for all the shit authors that contribute to it, for all the poor novels and continuity-breaking concepts, once in a while there's a gem like Labyrinth of Evil. They clamour for a new Clone Wars TV series even though the last movies didn't live up to the originals, because they like Star Wars and hope it'll be good. They stick with it because it's a continuation of a universe they like and if that explanation doesn't cut it for you, I don't know what will.

Believe it or not, if they could make the fourth season of a show good, they could have made the three seasons before it worth watching. What's their excuse?

Their excuse? The people who made the first seasons are not the same as those who made the last. You can't exactly be held accountable for something you didn't make, now can you?

[CDiehl]

Their excuse? The people who made the first seasons are not the same as those who made the last. You can't exactly be held accountable for something you didn't make, now can you?

Unless they suddenly replaced the cast and crew between seasons 3 and 4, mostly the same people made the whole series. Did a miracle take place, and the people who got replaced all happen to be the ones who sucked? If they were capable of making a good show, they should have done it from the start. Now, which is it? Laziness or incompetence?

[Bounty]

Unless they suddenly replaced the cast and crew between seasons 3 and 4, mostly the same people made the whole series.

The cast stayed. Many of the writers and producers were replaced.

Did a miracle take place, and the people who got replaced all happen to be the ones who sucked?

Yes. In short, that's what happened. The producers were replaced by a man who had a far better vision of what the show should be and he brought in different writers.

Now, which is it? Laziness or incompetence?

Probably both, on the part of Paramount, Berman and Braga.

[Darth Wong]

Sorry, but the answers that have been given in this thread don't cut it. They apply just as easily to other fiction franchises, yet as I pointed out earlier, you don't see fans of those franchises clamouring and pleading for an endless stream of new material.

Traviss books. Just that, Traviss books. The SW EU gets dumped on by pretty much everyone on this board in some degree, yet people still want more of it (in fact, some of the most well-regarded members of the board are the ones who follow the EU most closely).

Nope, the vast majority of SW fans have never heard of the books and are not interested in reading them. That's one of the reasons that their defenders are so fanatical; they are a vocal minority. SW fandom is full of people who bash the books and the EU in general. Hell, a lot of SW fans didn't even think the prequels should have been made. Most Trekkies, on the other hand, still keep trying to figure out how they can get more Trek. They may not like the quality of the recent stuff, but you rarely meet a Trekkie who says "let it die and never bring it back".

[Darth Wong]

The reason y they want more is b/c ST is a HUGE!!!!! cult. once u become a trekkie u are one for life. And as far as the over haul goes, it does need it. the last series "enterprise" sucked!. They need to go forward, to like the 28th or 29th century, when they have different tech. Including Time travel. IE they could do a series about a timeship, and connect it to all the other ST's, as well as have it in it's own problems. plus the idea of star trek isn't confined to one story line and one set of characters. ST is about the UFP and what ever the hell ship they wana make it about. Heck they could do a ST about a Klingon ship. or a Romulan ship, and people would stil watch, b/c it's ST. Plus people like to fantasize(spelled wrong).

Learn to use proper English.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can understand why the money-grubbers at Paramount would keep flogging this dead horse, but seriously, why are the fans so keen on it? What particular psychological feature of Star Trek fandom leads its members to believe that they must always have a constant stream of new material? Roddenberry is dead. New Star Trek bears very little resemblance to his original idea, and his original ideas were getting pretty screwy by the end anyway. Let it die.

I think it's because the fans haven't seen Star Trek live up to their opinion of its potential.

They keep thinking that this one will do it right, and so they're excited for another movie because this movie will be it. It will be the next Wrath of Khan, except better.

[Patrick Degan]

TNG could have been an interesting enough universe if it hadn't been for first Roddenberry's ideology.

What exactly is it about Roddenberry that you didn't like?

I think the concept of basically a city in space peacefully exploring into the unknown (which I think Gene was going for) may have been a great show, with competent writers.

Unfortunately, trying to have that city in space aboard what is essentially a warship which gets sent out on dangerous missions on occasion and is carrying a lot of useless passengers around at all times is utterly implausible no matter how you slice it. You could have a workable story around this basic concept, but it would by definition be something very different from Star Trek.

[Stofsk]

TNG could have been an interesting enough universe if it hadn't been for first Roddenberry's ideology.

What exactly is it about Roddenberry that you didn't like?

I think the concept of basically a city in space peacefully exploring into the unknown (which I think Gene was going for) may have been a great show, with competent writers.

Unfortunately, trying to have that city in space aboard what is essentially a warship which gets sent out on dangerous missions on occasion and is carrying a lot of useless passengers around at all times is utterly implausible no matter how you slice it.

TNG's implementation of the 'city in a ship' concept was flawed. It has often been said that an Aircraft Carrier is a floating city (not literally, but you get where I'm going with this I trust), and it never ceases being a warship.

[Stofsk]

Unfortunately, trying to have that city in space aboard what is essentially a warship which gets sent out on dangerous missions on occasion and is carrying a lot of useless passengers around at all times is utterly implausible no matter how you slice it.

Why must the Enterprise be a warship?

It doesn't have to be at all. The military wasn't the only organisation that was involved in exploration (and colonisation) throughout history, so why would the military be in the future?

In fact, too often the terms Starfleet and Federation are interchangeable to the point where they're one and the same. DS9 was the one and only chance for Star Trek to break out of this mold that a Trek show must be told through a starfleet crew, and even then they packed the show in and brought in the Defiant. Voyager was simply recycled TNG in another galaxy. Enterprise was the lo-tek version. (We have phase pistols instead of phasers lol)

[Uraniun235]

Maybe the die-hard Trekkies are analogous to meth addicts; they're always wanting more, trying to get that ecstatic high they once got, and even though no matter how much they get it never quite does the trick for them they still crave it badly.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe the die-hard Trekkies are analogous to meth addicts; they're always wanting more, trying to get that ecstatic high they once got, and even though no matter how much they get it never quite does the trick for them they still crave it badly.

What makes it so good for them? I mean seriously, I consider myself a Trekkie in the sense that I was a big fan of the original series, but it doesn't personally bother me that the series has gone to hell. I comment on its decline, but it's in more of a "point and laugh" kind of way than a regretful kind of way. It must not have as much significance for me as it does for the die-hards, most of whom (I suspect) are actually bigger fans of the new series than the original series anyway.

[Sam Or I]

I for one am glad Trek is dead. I loved the show all the way upto Star Trek 6, after that it was down hill. The original cast made the franchise, and kept it alive.

As for Star Trek reloaded, why? There is no point to it. That universe has been explored.

Personally I would not mind seeing another space exploration show that is not limited to the "Trek" mind set. When ever you see Trek now you are expecting to see one of the major races, in a new show they would not be defined.

Why this constant impulse to keep producing more Trek? You don't see LOTR fans sitting around scheming of ways that new LOTR books and movies could be made. You don't see Shakespeare fans asking if sequels are coming out, or asking if the series has been given a sufficiently long "rest". For that matter, most Star Wars fans are blase at best about the idea of more Star Wars material. The story is complete, as far as most SW fans are concerned. Hell, a lot of fans wish they'd stopped at ROTJ.

Hmmm, Romeo and Juliet II: The Revenge. Romeo's body is taken to an old wizard where life is pumped into him. He vows revenge on everyone involved and plans to take down both houses. After he completes his task he discovers Juliet actually did not die, and goes into grief and commits suicide. As does Juliet feeling her guilt...... Maybe not.

Seriously though, how many times has Shakespeare been reimagined? The 1996 Romeo and Juilet is a good example of this. How many times has Shakespeare been retold with a new spin? I think it is human nature thinking they can do better than with the originators idea than the originator himself/herself. People want to explore more of that universe. There are tons of EU books for Star Wars, Wizard of Oz has spin off books. And the big one, how many different ways can people tell pieces of the bible? People just want to know more about a known universe.

I think it comes down to people are used to getting a set of rules and building on them instead of creating something original. Everyone falls into this trap (I know I do) because the original story sparked something inside of the person, and they are not 100% satisfied with the original, and they want to know more. I have wrote, or thought about writing fan fics from time to time.

[Uraniun235]

Maybe the die-hard Trekkies are analogous to meth addicts; they're always wanting more, trying to get that ecstatic high they once got, and even though no matter how much they get it never quite does the trick for them they still crave it badly.

What makes it so good for them? I mean seriously, I consider myself a Trekkie in the sense that I was a big fan of the original series, but it doesn't personally bother me that the series has gone to hell. I comment on its decline, but it's in more of a "point and laugh" kind of way than a regretful kind of way. It must not have as much significance for me as it does for the die-hards, most of whom (I suspect) are actually bigger fans of the new series than the original series anyway.

But think of how many of those people are only really familiar with Trek and don't know much else. I suspect that the conventions of ST are so familiar to them that even when it's crap, it's comforting on some perverse level.

[Dendrobius]

Sorry, but the answers that have been given in this thread don't cut it. They apply just as easily to other fiction franchises, yet as I pointed out earlier, you don't see fans of those franchises clamouring and pleading for an endless stream of new material.

I'm not sure how much it applies, but the Gundam series in Japan and Asia in general is a bloody institution. You're talking about an anime that originally came out in 1979 which has continued literally to this day on pretty much a regular basis on TV, as movies/OVAs, novels, games, the whole works.

Gundam is scary. For the main storyline alone you're talking about 4 full seasons of 52 eps each, 4 to 5 OVAs of 6 episodes each, 2 full length movies, and 6 "movie remakes" theatre release of 2 of the full seasons. Then on top of that you've got 7~8 full season's worth of alternate timeline TV series, another few OVAs, and I think another few movies as well. This is only counting stuff that's animated, I haven't started to go on about the mangas, the novels, and the video games.

Counting only the TV series, a new Gundam series ran on TV on
1979, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006

So why should Star Trek go the way of the dodo when there are successful examples of how a franchise can just go on and on and on like an Energizer Bunny? I mean, the content for Star Trek simply pales in comparison to Gundam. I blame bad writers, but I don't think it's an impossible task for a franchise to just keep going.