NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, as most of you probably know, their will be a new Star Trek film (the eleventh, for those keeping count) out this summer. Its a sort-of reboot of the original series, in which time travle during the post-TNG era leads to an alternate timeline.

Given the failings of recent Star Trek, if this movie flops, we probably won't see much Trek for a while. Their's some grounds for hope, in that the film seems to be making some attempt at following continuity and other recent reboots have been successful (Batman, Bond, Galactica), but the last few years of Trek plus the thought of recasting such iconic roles makes me nervous.

So my question is, will you be seeing the new Trek film or not, and why? Also, what would it take to convince you that this movie, or Trek as a whole, does not now suck beyond watchability?

Why is following continuity a plus? Star Treks is shit, always has been. At least give the film a chance of being something better!

Probably not no. Voyager and Enterprise proved that written by committee is the direction Trek was going. The last several movies have been garbage or forgettable, so why encourage it? Last decent movie they put out was First Contact.

I don't count it as a reboot because they will have the original cast playing themselves in cameo shots.

if they will reboot the series, they shouldn't have the original cast appearing as their characters.

Why is following continuity a plus? Star Treks is shit, always has been. At least give the film a chance of being something better!
I don't think that turning the entire cast into whiny/"rebellious" teenagers is really the best way to go about making anything "better."
It would be much better just to let Star Trek die. The idea had a good run (40+ years), but isn't it about time to find a new scifi vehicle with less baggage?

I couldn't care less, to be honest..

I'd watch any Star Trek. Even an Enterprise movie would be welcomed (by me) with an open arm.

Besides, I like the idea of a fresh TOS crew.

I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt, since a lot of the rot in the franchise can probably be attributed to the old Berman/Braga manegement. And continuity as always been a problem in recent Trek, so if they can respect it while still making use of alternate universes to give us a reboot that purges the recent crap, it might be good.

If they screw up though, It'll merely be one more nail in the coffin of Trek's quality and credibillity.

I don't count it as a reboot because they will have the original cast playing themselves in cameo shots.

if they will reboot the series, they shouldn't have the original cast appearing as their characters.

Nimoy is playing future Spock, otherwise there are no original cast members appearing as their characters.

Hell no, I would never willingly pay to go and see a Star Trek or a Star Wars film.

I'll watch it, but not in theaters. But I don't think it'll be very good.

Meh. I might be interested to see a ST series or film set in the distant future, chronicling the fall of the United Federation of Planets, or something, but even then, meh.

Nimoy is playing future Spock, otherwise there are no original cast members appearing as their characters.

that still counts.

I would've done a new crew, new ship, new stories. The Enterprise wasn't the only Federation ship...

I don't think that turning the entire cast into whiny/"rebellious" teenagers is really the best way to go about making anything "better."
It would be much better just to let Star Trek die. The idea had a good run (40+ years), but isn't it about time to find a new scifi vehicle with less baggage?

Merely being old doesn't mean it can't keep going. Take Bond, for example. Or Batman (or any big superhero). Or why not the old Arthurian legends, for that matter?

People will probably be retelling some version of Trek in 100 years. The only question is weather any given adaptation or sequel is any good.

You may be right about the characterizations in this film, though. That's my biggest concern. That, or that they'll drop characterization altogeather in exchange for flashier CGI. But as long as they are not just one-note characters, and grow out of their immaturities by the end, it may be alright.

I don't think that turning the entire cast into whiny/"rebellious" teenagers is really the best way to go about making anything "better."
It would be much better just to let Star Trek die. The idea had a good run (40+ years), but isn't it about time to find a new scifi vehicle with less baggage?

Bring Back Firefly dammit!

People will probably be retelling some version of Trek in 100 years.

I strongly doubt it.

I don't think that turning the entire cast into whiny/"rebellious" teenagers is really the best way to go about making anything "better."
It would be much better just to let Star Trek die. The idea had a good run (40+ years), but isn't it about time to find a new scifi vehicle with less baggage?

I have to agree to a point, the command crew is way way way too fucking young...who are the ensigns, middle graders?

that still counts.

I would've done a new crew, new ship, new stories. The Enterprise wasn't the only Federation ship...

yeah, I know.... ST seems to have a pretty small universe. And even if they had a new ship and crew, it would still be the same general mold of "people traveling around on a spaceship" (apart from DS9, which was -- shock! how original! -- "people sitting around in a space station") which can only go so far.

ST either needs to die out, or create a new and more original entry, preferably one without any holodecks, and with a much less rigid status quo.

I strongly doubt it.

Why not? Sherlock Holmes is still around. Shakespere (who was popular entertainment in his day) is still being retold and readapted.

Bring Back Firefly dammit!

nobody's ever explained to me what made Firefly such a great series, btw.

Why not? Sherlock Holmes is still around. Shakespere (who was popular entertainment in his day) is still being retold and readapted.

Because it is nowhere near as good as Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes.

Star Trek will be retold in a century. Right now the franchise carries too much of the nerd/sci-fi stereotype, but in time people will discover the philosophical insights of Star Trek worthy of 20-th century Shakespeare. [/goonspeak]

nobody's ever explained to me what made Firefly such a great series, btw.

Secon'ed.

yes i will see the new movie. i expect it to be good.

I have to agree to a point, the command crew is way way way too fucking young...who are the ensigns, middle graders?

I think maybe they're going with some sort of disaster that kills off the bridge crew, forcing the cadets to take over or something like that. Didn't something similar happen with a ship full of cadets caught behind lines in the Dominion War?

Of course, something like that can come off as really contrived, if you're not careful.

I have to agree to a point, the command crew is way way way too fucking young...who are the ensigns, middle graders?

To my knowledge, they don't start as the command crew...

yeah, I know.... ST seems to have a pretty small universe. And even if they had a new ship and crew, it would still be the same general mold of "people traveling around on a spaceship" (apart from DS9, which was -- shock! how original! -- "people sitting around in a space station") which can only go so far.

ST either needs to die out, or create a new and more original entry, preferably one without any holodecks, and with a much less rigid status quo.

true, say... the fall of the federation. internal strife, etc...

true, say... the fall of the federation. internal strife, etc...

that's what I (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14565871&postcount=12) said! >_<

Because it is nowhere near as good as Shakespeare or Sherlock Holmes.

Shakespeare no. Holmes, might depend on the episode. Their are some very good Trek episodes out their. And their are no doubt some crappy Holmes adaptations too.

They don't start as commanding crew, but becoming an officer takes a decade worth of training/Starship experience.

Oh fuck yes I will. The previews look fucking sweet.

nobody's ever explained to me what made Firefly such a great series, btw.

Star Trek will be retold in a century. Right now the franchise carries too much of the nerd/sci-fi stereotype, but in time people will discover the philosophical insights of Star Trek worthy of 20-th century Shakespeare. [/goonspeak]



Secon'ed.

It's like a Western in Space! If you can't get hold of the series on DVD then at least try to watch movie Serenity if you haven't already.

that's what I (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14565871&postcount=12) said! >_<

and I'm agreeing with you. :p

Andromeda would've made a better reboot vehicle for star trek than Enterprise.

change the republic to federation, add an NCC infront of Andromeda...

I'll probably see it at some point. I'll have a hard time not expecting Spock to slice peoples heads open with his finger though.

I'll probably see it at some point. I'll have a hard time not expecting Spock to slice peoples heads open with his finger though.

:confused:

They don't start as commanding crew, but becoming an officer takes a decade worth of training/Starship experience.

Has it ever been canonically stated how much time the typical cadet spends in Starfleet Academy, or what the minimum recruiting age is?

I'll probably see it at some point. I'll have a hard time not expecting Spock to slice peoples heads open with his finger though.

Heroes reference FTW!

:confused:

The actor's character on Heroes does that. Weirdest power the have, "Scalpel finger"!

It's like a Western in Space! If you can't get hold of the series on DVD then at least try to watch movie Serenity if you haven't already.

well yeah. it's like a western in space. So's Star Trek, for that matter -- replace the Enterprise with a covered wagon and the aliens with Indian tribes and what do you have? and westerns don't really interest me as much as stories about science, politics, strategy, moral dilemmas -- the kind of things a science-fictional setting should explore, rather than "the wandering lonesome cowboy IN SPACE shows up at the tough frontier town IN SPACE and shoots the other bad guy IN SPACE with his revolver IN SPACE."

:confused:

the actor playing spock plays Sylar in Heroes.

i love Star Trek so i will definetley watch the new film!

:confused:

The same actor they have playing Spock plays Sylar on Heroes. Sylar is known to use his telekinesis to slice peoples heads open so he can examine their brains and steal their power. He does this by gesturing with his forefinger like a scalpel.

<edit: Multi-ninjaed. But, the most complete explanation of the bunch.>

well yeah. it's like a western in space. So's Star Trek, for that matter -- replace the Enterprise with a covered wagon and the aliens with Indian tribes and what do you have? and westerns don't really interest me as much as stories about science, politics, strategy, moral dilemmas -- the kind of things a science-fictional setting should explore, rather than "the wandering lonesome cowboy IN SPACE shows up at the tough frontier town IN SPACE and shoots the other bad guy IN SPACE with his revolver IN SPACE."

The original Star Trek explored all of those things. Perhaps they did it at times in a cliche, corny, or simple fasion, but it was a lot more than you make it out to be.

Well, not much strategy, really. Strategy deals with large-scale planning, and would probably be more the area of an admiral or polititian than a starship captain.

I don't count it as a reboot because they will have the original cast playing themselves in cameo shots.

if they will reboot the series, they shouldn't have the original cast appearing as their characters.

Why not?

Shatner as Kirk the Priceline Negotiator - half off on starship fares.
Nimoy as Spock doing "In Search of..." voiceovers while the Enterprise wanders around in search of it's integrity.
Takei as Sulu trying (in the 23d century) to get California to get rid of Prop. 8.
Nichols as Uhura possibly touting Nutri-System or Jenny Craig on the Enterprise Bridge.

It has a wealth of possibilities.

well yeah. it's like a western in space. So's Star Trek, for that matter -- replace the Enterprise with a covered wagon and the aliens with Indian tribes and what do you have? and westerns don't really interest me as much as stories about science, politics, strategy, moral dilemmas -- the kind of things a science-fictional setting should explore, rather than "the wandering lonesome cowboy IN SPACE shows up at the tough frontier town IN SPACE and shoots the other bad guy IN SPACE with his revolver IN SPACE."

Well there are a lot of politics. The main "cowboy"/renegade/crew are former soldiers known as Browncoats. They fought against the Alliance and lost which brought the planets of the Firefly galaxy under the jurisdiction of the Alliance. I'll admit calling it a space western is an oversimplification.

Mal is the owner of the ship Serenity and has since the war picked up a crew, one of them was a soldier in his regiment, Zoe. The crew go around trying to avoid the Alliance wherever possible.

However the Alliance is not the only problem. Enter the Reavers. A bunch of mad, cannibalistic, merciless crazies that roam the galaxy doing whatever damage, razing towns to the ground, killing and raping and eating their victims, sometimes at the same time. No one knows where they came from unless you've seen Serenity...

There are a lot of moral complications as well as personal dilemmas on both sides. It is actually a very deep show with quite a few messages.

Firefly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)#Main_characters)

Read up on it and watch at least one episode.

well yeah. it's like a western in space. So's Star Trek, for that matter -- replace the Enterprise with a covered wagon and the aliens with Indian tribes and what do you have? and westerns don't really interest me as much as stories about science, politics, strategy, moral dilemmas -- the kind of things a science-fictional setting should explore, rather than "the wandering lonesome cowboy IN SPACE shows up at the tough frontier town IN SPACE and shoots the other bad guy IN SPACE with his revolver IN SPACE."

for me, the Firefly characters are the draw.

The original Star Trek explored all of those things. Perhaps they did it at times in a cliche, corny, or simple fasion, but it was a lot more than you make it out to be.

I never said I didn't like Star Trek, or that (at least in TOS) it didn't explore those things. I'm just saying that I don't really consider "space westerns" a justifiable subgenre of sci-fi, anymore than "space fantasy" (like Star Wars or 40K) is, and that I generally define them as not focusing on certain topics which I enjoy watching movies about, such as science or sociology or whatever.

Well there are a lot of politics. The main "cowboy"/renegade/crew are former soldiers known as Browncoats. They fought against the Alliance and lost which brought the planets of the Firefly galaxy under the jurisdiction of the Alliance. I'll admit calling it a space western is an oversimplification.

Mal is the owner of the ship Serenity and has since the war picked up a crew, one of them was a soldier in his regiment, Zoe. The crew go around trying to avoid the Alliance wherever possible.

However the Alliance is not the only problem. Enter the Reavers. A bunch of mad, cannibalistic, merciless crazies that roam the galaxy doing whatever damage, razing towns to the ground, killing and raping and eating their victims, sometimes at the same time. No one knows where they came from unless you've seen Serenity...

There are a lot of moral complications as well as personal dilemmas on both sides. It is actually a very deep show with quite a few messages.

Firefly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_(TV_series)#Main_characters)

Read up on it and watch at least one episode.

I know a bit about the setting. Politically it's just a rehash of the situations that gave rise to the Standard Western Setting -- replace Browncoats with Confederates and go from there. It may well be an interesting and thought-provoking series despite the used furniture; I don't know. I've just never had it explained to me why exactly it's so much better than insert other sci-fi series here.

I never said I didn't like Star Trek, or that (at least in TOS) it didn't explore those things. I'm just saying that I don't really consider "space westerns" a justifiable subgenre of sci-fi, anymore than "space fantasy" (like Star Wars or 40K) is, and that I generally define them as not focusing on certain topics which I enjoy watching movies about, such as science or sociology or whatever.

Well, I don't think you can say Star Trek isn't sci-fi, though it is most definitely not hard sci-fi, and indeed is arguably about as far as one can get from hard sci-fi without going into outright fantasy (despite those who think that its more scientifically accurate than Star Wars).

I know a bit about the setting. Politically it's just a rehash of the situations that gave rise to the Standard Western Setting -- replace Browncoats with Confederates and go from there. It may well be an interesting and thought-provoking series despite the used furniture; I don't know. I've just never had it explained to me why exactly it's so much better than insert other sci-fi series here.

Usually other Sci Fi shows give the point of view of the victors. This doesn't. it gives the view of 9 people brought together after losing so much and trying to survive however they can while trying to avoid detection. These 9 core characters are so different from one another yet the chemistry they have between them means its more than a typical western of shoot the bad guy, save the girl/town and leave. Afterall these 9 are portrayed as the bad guys by the Alliance.

The whole show is a grey area.

Well, I don't think you can say Star Trek isn't sci-fi, though it is most definitely not hard sci-fi, and indeed is arguably about as far as one can get from hard sci-fi without going into outright fantasy (despite those who think that its more scientifically accurate than Star Wars).

It depends. Some episodes of Star Trek are genuine sci-fi -- that is, they pose sociological questions about how society would be different if X happened, or how Y would work in Z years -- while others are not. The ones that are not fall most closely into categories like "space western" or "space cop show".

I never said I didn't like Star Trek, or that (at least in TOS) it didn't explore those things. I'm just saying that I don't really consider "space westerns" a justifiable subgenre of sci-fi, anymore than "space fantasy" (like Star Wars or 40K) is, and that I generally define them as not focusing on certain topics which I enjoy watching movies about, such as science or sociology or whatever.

Somebody once said that there are only nine basic plots (don't ask me for a source, I don't have one) for fiction. This applies to sci fi as much as to any other genre. That's why it's easy to use storylines interchangeably between genres. In fact, one of the best Star Trek: TOS episodes was a rewrite of The Tempest by William Shakespeare (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Requiem_for_Methuselah_%28episode%29).

Argueably, westerns, detective stories, sci fi are all just vehicles for stories and characterization. When the emphasis ceases to be the story and is on procedure or technology (or lack thereof) it ceases to have any real meaning as fiction or drama.

At best, technology/procedure/setting provides a context for story, the story shouldn't really provide a context for whatever academic interest you have.

Has it ever been canonically stated how much time the typical cadet spends in Starfleet Academy, or what the minimum recruiting age is?

On TNG: Datalore, I think Lore asks Data if he could wear the officer uniform, to which Data replied that officers must go through this and this training and so many years of experience.

I have to dig out the DVD again to be sure.


Why not?

Shatner as Kirk the Priceline Negotiator - half off on starship fares.
Nimoy as Spock doing "In Search of..." voiceovers while the Enterprise wanders around in search of it's integrity.
Takei as Sulu trying (in the 23d century) to get California to get rid of Prop. 8.
Nichols as Uhura possibly touting Nutri-System or Jenny Craig on the Enterprise Bridge.

It has a wealth of possibilities.

And you are a wealth of comedy.

I was going to, but then I saw the trailer.
This'll sound remarkably sterotypical but...
Moar lazars, less secks plz. kthxbi.

I never said I didn't like Star Trek, or that (at least in TOS) it didn't explore those things. I'm just saying that I don't really consider "space westerns" a justifiable subgenre of sci-fi, anymore than "space fantasy" (like Star Wars or 40K) is, and that I generally define them as not focusing on certain topics which I enjoy watching movies about, such as science or sociology or whatever.

when they say western, they mean more gritty. most of the action takes place on 'fringe' worlds so you will be hard pressed to see well manicured lawns with clean buildings and people wearing freshly pressed clothes. also they don't have the magical phaser nor tricorder and definately no replicators or "Beaming"

It depends. Some episodes of Star Trek are genuine sci-fi -- that is, they pose sociological questions about how society would be different if X happened, or how Y would work in Z years -- while others are not. The ones that are not fall most closely into categories like "space western" or "space cop show".

Then it comes down to how you define sci-fi. Is it a question of setting, for example, or are their certain themes something must deal with to be considered sci-fi regardless of the trappings of the setting?

I'll frankly admit that I don't have a clear answer to that question.

One completely sci-fi related theme that is explored on Star Trek is the study of consciousness in AI life forms (re: famous Data episode).

Otherwise, intra-wars episodes, inter-species sex, inter-civilization diplomacy, critical choices, and interference vs proliferation are largely generic plotlines that doesn't necessarily have to be sci-fi based.

yeah, i'll see it. i just wish they'd kept the direction they had been going in with TNG/DS9/VOY before all that prequel/reaching-out-to-a-new-audience Enterprise crap happened. just wind back the clock a few years and do something to follow VOY in a similar TNG/DS9/VOY vein, and i'd be happy. but i'll still see this, as i'll be a trekkie for life

Why is following continuity a plus? Star Treks is shit, always has been. At least give the film a chance of being something better!

*smacks*

Usually other Sci Fi shows give the point of view of the victors. This doesn't. it gives the view of 9 people brought together after losing so much and trying to survive however they can while trying to avoid detection. These 9 core characters are so different from one another yet the chemistry they have between them means its more than a typical western of shoot the bad guy, save the girl/town and leave. Afterall these 9 are portrayed as the bad guys by the Alliance.

The whole show is a grey area.

Sounds like it's mostly character-focused. Which is fine, I guess. Although that makes it less "space western" and more "space ensemble drama".

Somebody once said that there are only nine basic plots (don't ask me for a source, I don't have one) for fiction. This applies to sci fi as much as to any other genre. That's why it's easy to use storylines interchangeably between genres. In fact, one of the best Star Trek: TOS episodes was a rewrite of The Tempest by William Shakespeare (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Requiem_for_Methuselah_%28episode%29).

Argueably, westerns, detective stories, sci fi are all just vehicles for stories and characterization. When the emphasis ceases to be the story and is on procedure or technology (or lack thereof) it ceases to have any real meaning as fiction or drama.

At best, technology/procedure/setting provides a context for story, the story shouldn't really provide a context for whatever academic interest you have.

Arguably, yes. I define science fiction rather narrowly:

it is fiction that explores the ramifications and limits of a speculative world wider or more advanced than ours, and poses sociological questions about how life in that world would be different.

I consider it one of the basic plot types along with swordplay-and-sorcery, detective stories, thrillers, et cetera. All of these invariably overlap in some way, sometimes to the point that something can be considered to be multiple genres in one.

Science fiction is not a "setting" or a "genre". The Moon, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, or the Babylon Five Space Station are settings. Tragedy, comedy, and history are genres. (Science fiction need not be set in space, nor does setting a plot in space make it science fiction. "Requiem for Methuselah" can be a very good TOS episode without strictly being science fiction.)

yeah, i'll see it. i just wish they'd kept the direction they had been going in with TNG/DS9/VOY before all that prequel/reaching-out-to-a-new-audience Enterprise crap happened. just wind back the clock a few years and do something to follow VOY in a similar TNG/DS9/VOY vein, and i'd be happy. but i'll still see this, as i'll be a trekkie for life

I think part of the film will be set post-Nemesis, and will involve Romulans and an old Spock. It'll be interesting to see this, since it may well be the last canon glimpse of the original timeline.

Enterprise had many memorable episodes. I personally don't like the WW2 cliche story archs, but the Temporal Cold War from the pre-Federation perspective was quite interesting.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy the Enterprise = crap mentality. There were some boring filler episodes, but I think everybody just wants to get on the bandwagon in bashing it :( I proudly own all 4 ENT seasons and watch it repeatedly to this day.

Probably not no. Voyager and Enterprise proved that written by committee is the direction Trek was going. The last several movies have been garbage or forgettable, so why encourage it? Last decent movie they put out was First Contact.

Nah. Generations.

Anyway, since DS9 Star Trek has gone downhill. Some bits of Voyager were decent... but Enterprise has been the coup de grace. Let the souls of Kirk and Picard rest in peace, the times of Star Trek are over. :(

Anyway, the best Star Trek movie ever is Galaxy Quest, followed closely by Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning.

Enterprise should have been a reboot. It messed with plausible continuity beyond the point of tollerance for a true prequel. And rehashed old ideas.

I did, however, like their Borg episode. It should have made no sense in that time period, but somehow (at least at the time), I felt they made it work.

Bring Back Firefly dammit!
Most of it was utter pish, so no. Space : Above and Beyond is more worthy of being done properly again.

And yes I'll see it, although I reckon May 8th is a date that will live in infamy, judging by the trailer on the film's site.

never seen any star trek, but the new movie looks okay.

The old Trek won viewers on the chemistry and charisma of its characters, and just the general way it can be simultaneously so corny and so utterly badass.

Kirk in particular is hard to describe. The best parallel I can think of is Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Carribean, in that he is able to be both over the top and pure, distilled badass at the same time. Of course, Rush is a really good actor. How Shatner pulled it off I have no idea.;)

I think that if this movie is to be really great, as opposed to simply good entertainment, they would have to find some way to approach the level of charisma that the original cast had. And I just don't think they can do it. Without that, it can still be good, but it won't be great.

Sounds like it's mostly character-focused. Which is fine, I guess. Although that makes it less "space western" and more "space ensemble drama".



Arguably, yes. I define science fiction rather narrowly:

it is fiction that explores the ramifications and limits of a speculative world wider or more advanced than ours, and poses sociological questions about how life in that world would be different.

I consider it one of the basic plot types along with swordplay-and-sorcery, detective stories, thrillers, et cetera. All of these invariably overlap in some way, sometimes to the point that something can be considered to be multiple genres in one.

Science fiction is not a "setting" or a "genre". The Moon, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, or the Babylon Five Space Station are settings. Tragedy, comedy, and history are genres. (Science fiction need not be set in space, nor does setting a plot in space make it science fiction. "Requiem for Methuselah" can be a very good TOS episode without strictly being science fiction.)

In response to your statement about genres - a list of what are considered to be fiction genres. (from wiki under genre)

[edit] List of genres
Main article: Literary genre


Historical: - snip-
Biography: -snip-
Autobiography: -snip-
Memoir: -snip-
Historical Fiction: -snip-
Period Piece: -snip-
Costume drama: -snip-
Jidaigeki: -snip-
Adventure: -snip-
Action: -snip-
Superhero: -snip-
Military: -snip-
Spy fiction: -snip-
Swashbuckler: -snip-
Martial arts film: -snip-
Kung Fu: -snip-
Science Fiction: A story about technology or the future. It generally includes or is centered on the presumed effects or ramifications of computers or machines, travel through space, time or alternate universes, alien life-forms, genetic engineering, or other such things. The science or technology used may or may not be very thoroughly elaborated on; stories whose scientific elements are reasonably detailed, well-researched and considered to be relatively plausible given current knowledge and technology are often referred to as hard science fiction. Owing to the wide breadth of the genre, it very commonly has elements from other genres, such as action, comedy, alternate history, military or spy fiction, and fantasy mixed in, with such combinations often forming new major subgenres in their own right (see below).
Military Science Fiction: A story about a war or battle against aliens, monsters or other nations. It usually has technology far superior to today's, but not necessarily implausible. Military Science Fiction essentially is the addition of science fiction elements into a military fiction story.
Space Opera: A story characterized by the extent of space travel and distinguished by the amount of time that protagonists spend in an active, spacefaring lifestyle. Star Trek, Star Blazers and Star Wars have often been categorized as such.
Punk: An umbrella term, and suffix, for several Science Fiction subgenres, normally categorized by distinct technologies and sciences. The themes tend to be cynical or dystopian, and a person, or group of people, fighting the corruption of the government.
Cyberpunk: A futuristic storyline dealing with people who have been physically or mentally enhanced with cybernetic components, often featuring cyborgs or the singularity as a major theme, and generally somewhat cynical or dystopian (hence the "punk" portion of the name). This is often confused or placed with Techno-thriller, which is actually a separate and less specialized genre.
Postcyberpunk describes a subgenre of science fiction which some critics suggest has evolved from cyberpunk. Like its predecessor, postcyberpunk focuses on technological developments in near-future societies, typically examining the social effects of a ubiquitous datasphere of computerized information, genetic engineering, modification of the human body, and the continued impact of perpetual technological change. Unlike "pure" cyberpunk, however, the works in this category feature characters who act to improve social conditions or at least protect the status quo from further decay.
Dieselpunk: Initially proposed as a genre by the creators of the role-playing game Children of the Sun,[12] dieselpunk refers to fiction inspired by mid-century pulp stories and set in a world similar to steampunk though specifically characterized by the rise of petroleum power and technocratic perception, incorporating neo-noir elements and sharing themes more clearly with cyberpunk than steampunk. Though the notability of dieselpunk as a genre is not entirely uncontested, installments ranging from the retro-futuristic film Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow to the 2001 Activision video game Return to Castle Wolfenstein have been suggested as quintessential dieselpunk works of fiction.
Steampunk: A story that takes place around the time steam power was first coming into use. The industrial revolution is a common time frame which steam punk stories take place in, and the steam technology is often actually more advanced than the real technology of time (for instance, Steam Detectives features steam-powered robots).
Clockpunk: It has been occasionally used to refer to a subgenre of speculative fiction which is similar to steampunk, but deviates in its technology. As with steampunk, it portrays advanced technology based on pre-modern designs, but rather than the steam power of the Industrial Age, the technology used is based on springs, clockwork and similar. Clockpunk is based very intensively on the works of Leonardo da Vinci and as such, it is typically set during the Renaissance. It is regarded as being a type of Steampunk.
Biopunk: A story that is about genetics and biological research (often falling under the horror category). It focuses on some harmful effects characters have created when they change an animal's code to (unintentionally) create a violent monster.
Fantasy: A story about magic and supernatural forces, rather than technology, though it often is made to include elements of other genres, such as science fiction elements, for instance computers or DNA, if it happens to take place in a modern or future era. Depending on the extent of these other elements, the story may or may not be considered to be a "hybrid genre" series; for instance, even though the Harry Potter series canon includes the requirement of a particular gene to be a wizard, it is referred to only as a fantasy series.
Science Fantasy: A story with mystical elements that are scientifically explainable, or which combines science fiction elements with fantasy elements. It should be noted that science fiction was once actually referred to under this name, but that it is no longer used to denote that genre, and has somewhat fallen out of favor as a genre descriptor.
High Fantasy: A story that takes place in a completely different world or universe, having different races, traditions and even religions. Often, there aren't any real world events that tie into the story. The best known example of high fantasy is probably The Lord of the Rings.
Wuxia: -snip-
Romance: -snip-
Crime Fiction: -snip-
Mystery: -snip-.
Murder Mystery: -snip-
Comedy: -snip-
Comedy of manners: -snip-
Parody: -snip-
Black comedy: -snip-
Romantic comedy: -snip-
Comedic Science Fiction: A comedy that uses science fiction elements or settings, often as a light-hearted (or occasionally vicious) parody of the latter genre.
Documentary: -snip-
Mockumentary: -snip-
Horror: -snip-
Monster: -snip-
Giant Monster: -snip-
Slasher: -snip-
Survival Horror: -snip-
Thriller: -snip-
Disaster-Thriller:-snip-
Psychological-Thriller: -snip-
Crime-Thriller: -snip-
Techno-Thriller: -snip
Western: -snip-

In modern terms, sci fi is, indeed considered a genre.

The story may be driven by technology but, if you remove the technology, the story should be able to stand on it's own. For instance, in Heinlein's Door Into Summer, while one would think that without the technology there wouldn't be a story, what it boils down to is this - boy has idea, boy meets girl, girl betrays boy for the money from the idea, boy, through his wits and good luck, gets justice, meets another girl and lives happily ever after. The technology is window dressing, the story's the main thing. The technology (robots, time travel, suspended animation) without the story, is nothing. The story, without the technology, is still a good story.

Star Trek is sci fi, and, for the most part, good sci fi - the technology supports the stories but doesn't (until idiocies like "Spock's Brain") get in the way of the stories.

Major star trek fan here, but probably wont see it in theatres. Maybe on dvd.

It's like a Western in Space! If you can't get hold of the series on DVD then at least try to watch movie Serenity if you haven't already.

www.hulu.com/firefly

...you can watch the whole series for free, though I do on buying the series eventually.

I know a bit about the setting. Politically it's just a rehash of the situations that gave rise to the Standard Western Setting -- replace Browncoats with Confederates and go from there.

That was kinda the point...looking at what happens after a war to some of the soldiers who fought on the losing side.

It may well be an interesting and thought-provoking series despite the used furniture; I don't know. I've just never had it explained to me why exactly it's so much better than insert other sci-fi series here.

Well written characters, excellent dialogue (especially the humor), and a captivating plot arc that left the door open for all sorts of possibilities had the show continued it's run.

It's a shame there are only 14 episodes, but they're worth it.

i just wish they'd kept the direction they had been going in with TNG/DS9/VOY before all that prequel/reaching-out-to-a-new-audience Enterprise crap happened. just wind back the clock a few years and do something to follow VOY in a similar TNG/DS9/VOY vein, and i'd be happy.

This...but I won't be going to see the new film.

ST won't be any good until they bring back some decent writers like Robert Hewitt Wolfe, Ronald Moore, René Echevarria, and Ira Steven Behr. Keeping the producers out of their creative process wouldn't hurt either

...until then, ST is crap, and will continue to be crap.

I haven't seen any of the others, so I don't imagine I'll see this one either.

Of course I am. I'm looking forward to it, I'm not too sure how much frothing at the mouth I'll be doing AFTER it's all done, but I will go see it in the theaters.

Well, as most of you probably know, their will be a new Star Trek film (the eleventh, for those keeping count) out this summer. Their's some grounds for hope, in that the film seems to be making some attempt at following continuity and other recent reboots have been successful (Batman, Bond, Galactica), but the last few years of Trek plus the thought of recasting such iconic roles makes me nervous.


'There', not 'their', godammit. Pay attention to what you're doing, it's not that hard. Plus, who gets nervous over movie castings?

Anyway, the best Star Trek movie ever is Galaxy Quest, followed closely by Star Wreck: In The Pirkinning.

This. At least Galaxy Quest was intentionally funny.

'There', not 'their', godammit. Pay attention to what you're doing, it's not that hard. Plus, who gets nervous over movie castings?

Proper spelling is nice, but maybe you shouldn't care so much about minor spelling errors.

As for the casting issue, a Star Trek fan has reason to be worried, given how the last couple movies went and how crippled the franchise may be if this one sucks too.

Space Opera: A story characterized by the extent of space travel and distinguished by the amount of time that protagonists spend in an active, spacefaring lifestyle. Star Trek, Star Blazers and Star Wars have often been categorized as such.

Meh. I don't agree with this definition of Space Opera centered in "spacefaring lifestyle".
I think that Space Opera is more of a "fantasy with starships / adventure within space setting".

Why is following continuity a plus? Star Treks is shit, always has been. At least give the film a chance of being something better!

this, just how damn predictable is star trek?

don't get me started with the ridicules characters and need for you to switch your brain off to make it not give you high blood pressure

true, say... the fall of the federation. internal strife, etc...

how about how horrible it would really be to live in such a dystopian sociaty?

how about how horrible it would really be to live in such a dystopian sociaty?

the Federation has been portrayed as the ultimate society. surviving dispite an alliance between Klingon and Romulan and other threats.

should the Federation fracture and fall, how would each race cope? who would try to unite the planets again, who would become xenophobic... a series like that would re-explore races we took for granted or only seen once.

bring in a symbol of a time when the federation was actually trying to do some good (the Andromeda storyline) and you can also ask, who would rejoin and rebuild this star spanning empire?

The old Trek won viewers on the chemistry and charisma of its characters, and just the general way it can be simultaneously so corny and so utterly badass.

Kirk in particular is hard to describe. The best parallel I can think of is Captain Barbossa in Pirates of the Carribean, in that he is able to be both over the top and pure, distilled badass at the same time. Of course, Rush is a really good actor. How Shatner pulled it off I have no idea.;)

I think that if this movie is to be really great, as opposed to simply good entertainment, they would have to find some way to approach the level of charisma that the original cast had. And I just don't think they can do it. Without that, it can still be good, but it won't be great.

what TOS did, and what this movie doesn't look like it will do, is focus on the three main characters. Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Everyone else was secondary and thus were built up slowly. heck, Uhura rarely had her first name spoken (at least less often than Pavel.) yet because they were familiar people, they each built up their own fans (like Norm from Cheers! and Morn from DS9).

Probably not no. Voyager and Enterprise proved that written by committee is the direction Trek was going. The last several movies have been garbage or forgettable, so why encourage it? Last decent movie they put out was First Contact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCKXTOaZmx0&feature=channel_page

He's talking about the episode "Threshold" but it really applies to all Trek.

The most I'd do is find a way to watch it that does not involve going to the theatre, and only to see if there's anything worthwhile in it at all. If not, I believe it will create a schism in the Trekkie population. Old Trekkies versus New Trekkies, probably.

The most I'd do is find a way to watch it that does not involve going to the theatre, and only to see if there's anything worthwhile in it at all. If not, I believe it will create a schism in the Trekkie population. Old Trekkies versus New Trekkies, probably.

*imagines new debate thread.*

"Who is better, old Kirk, Picard or new Kirk"

I guess I will probably take a bit of time getting used to the new cast, but hopefully I wont get too much of a "thats not how the character is supposed to be" feeling about it

I don't watch a lot of live TV, so I only encountered the trailer last night

uhh.. LOLWUT. Did Uhura just take off her shirt! srsly moar klingons less secks plox kthx.

*imagines new debate thread.*

"Who is better, old Kirk, Picard or new Kirk"
Sisko, and you knows it.

*runs*

I think a reboot is a pretty damn good idea.

My reasoning:

-There is no continuity. There doesn't need to be, but people whine about it anyway. Star Trek wasn't meant to be a continuous story. The Enterprise and its crew were the cast and setting for generic sci fi stories that comprised the episodes. That's perfectly fine. That's what it was for. Some of the spinoffs have flirted with long term story arcs, like the Dominion War in DS9 or the smaller arcs in Enterprise. Overall, the Trek universe is a place to take a sci fi story and set it using established characters and background. A reboot isn't a threat to that in any way. Who cares if it has continuity or not? At worst we'd only have to look forward for continuity. Seriously. When you saw the new tank-like Batmobile, you either liked it or hated it but nobody was griping because it didn't look like the one Adam West drove.

-Why should it be a bad thing to recast characters? Because they're iconic? So what? You're telling me the only way I can EVER experience new stories about the original crew is through comic books and novels? That's stupid. Captain Kirk is arguably the coolest of the Trek captains and yet he has the least screentime. Shatner defined the role yes, and thats' great, but nowhere is it written that only Shatner could play Kirk. Hell, I'd like to see more Star Wars movies featuring Han Solo and our dear Mr. Ford is a bit long in the tooth to play him. So what? I'd be glad to have someone else fill the role if it meant more movies.

-Let's face it... The Enterprise in the original series is kinda silly. It just doesn't look so cool like it once did. If you line up the various starships Enterprise and compare them, that one kinda stands out. Even the NX-01 looks more at home next to subsequent classes. I think this redesign captured the spirit of the old ship while still making it more like the others.

-I LOVE the old Trek. I really do, but I'm excited to see what the original crew and setting would be like in the hands of someone new. Gene Roddenberry was a great imaginative mind with great ideas but his story writing didn't match it. Star Trek the Motion Picture was weak because he dictated too much of the story (such as it was). Star Trek II rocked because they took him out of the script writing process.

-The actors who worked on the original Star Trek did a great job defining the characters and getting them going, but now there's too much behind the scenes baggage that I sometimes find distracting. Shatner and Takei feuding, Nimoy first distancing himself from Spock then embracing him, Nichols having an affair with Roddenberry... It's just too much. Too much of that stuff. The personalities and issues involving the actors sometimes seem to overshadow the characters. Give us a new set and a fresh start.

-No Harve Bennett. That ALONE justifies practically anything.

I can't wait to see this one.

I guess I will probably take a bit of time getting used to the new cast, but hopefully I wont get too much of a "thats not how the character is supposed to be" feeling about it

You know when I had that feeling the most? Watching Star Trek:The Motion Picture. Even the actors felt they weren't being allowed to play the characters the way they knew how.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCKXTOaZmx0&feature=channel_page

He's talking about the episode "Threshold" but it really applies to all Trek.

The most I'd do is find a way to watch it that does not involve going to the theatre, and only to see if there's anything worthwhile in it at all. If not, I believe it will create a schism in the Trekkie population. Old Trekkies versus New Trekkies, probably.

Not unlike when TNG came out. My older sister was a die hard Trekkie but flat refused to watch anything that didn't have the original cast in it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCKXTOaZmx0&feature=channel_page

He's talking about the episode "Threshold" but it really applies to all Trek.

The most I'd do is find a way to watch it that does not involve going to the theatre, and only to see if there's anything worthwhile in it at all. If not, I believe it will create a schism in the Trekkie population. Old Trekkies versus New Trekkies, probably.

B&B are the ones who killed Trek far as I'm concerned. I think the franchise got better after Roddenberry died. He had arbitrary restrictions on what kind of stories they could and couldn't run, and an episode like In the Pale Moonlight would of never flown with him.

what TOS did, and what this movie doesn't look like it will do, is focus on the three main characters. Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Everyone else was secondary and thus were built up slowly. heck, Uhura rarely had her first name spoken (at least less often than Pavel.) yet because they were familiar people, they each built up their own fans (like Norm from Cheers! and Morn from DS9).

What is Uhura's first name anyway?

What is Uhura's first name anyway?

Nyota.

Nyota.

It used to be Samara, but somewhere along the line the canon changed.

Try and contain your shock and amazement that Star Trek had a canon change... ;)

what TOS did, and what this movie doesn't look like it will do, is focus on the three main characters. Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Everyone else was secondary and thus were built up slowly. heck, Uhura rarely had her first name spoken (at least less often than Pavel.) yet because they were familiar people, they each built up their own fans (like Norm from Cheers! and Morn from DS9).

Yeah that's the thing... They never established Sulu's first name as Hikaru onscreeen until the beginning of Star Trek 6. Checkov's first name of Pavel wasn't spoken onscreen until Star Trek 3, and this new one is the first one to officially establish Uhura's. I think Scotty's was spoken once MAYBE in the original series, if not then we heard it for the first time in Star Trek 3.

It used to be Samara, but somewhere along the line the canon changed.

Try and contain your shock and amazement that Star Trek had a canon change... ;)

I think I prefer Samara, but I guess Nyota has a more ethnic feel.

I think I prefer Samara, but I guess Nyota has a more ethnic feel.

Agreed. But I shouldn't have said "canon change" because I don't believe it was ever said onscreen, which relegates it to secondary canon status at best. As I recall, I first read it in a FASA Star Trek game source manual, in which a starship had been named after each of the original crewmembers, and it put her name as Samara there.

I've never seen Star Trek, is it any good?

I've never seen Star Trek, is it any good?

Depends.

Depends.

Varies wildly I'd say.

Varies wildly I'd say.

Some of it is pretty bad. Most of it is good. Some of it is excellent.

Averages out to about a B.

Varies wildly I'd say.

And I'd agree with you.

Anyone who's seen both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek:Nemesis can attest to that.

Yeah that's the thing... They never established Sulu's first name as Hikaru onscreeen until the beginning of Star Trek 6. Checkov's first name of Pavel wasn't spoken onscreen until Star Trek 3, and this new one is the first one to officially establish Uhura's. I think Scotty's was spoken once MAYBE in the original series, if not then we heard it for the first time in Star Trek 3.

I know Montgomery Scott mentioned his name when he did the 'Captain's log'. Pavel I believe was mentioned maybe once in the series...

Nurse Christine Chapel was mentioned many times.

but because they were always there, they became fan favorites. TNG and the shows afterwards, i
introduced too many people too soon.

And I'd agree with you.

Anyone who's seen both Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek:Nemesis can attest to that.

hehehe... I would call Star Trek II and Star Trek V the extreme ends. II = good, V = avoid

Sisko, and you knows it.

*runs*

:eek: "you... you hit me... Picard never hit me!" Q's encounter with Cmd Sisko.

I've never seen Star Trek, is it any good?

That varies a great deal from series to series, film to film, even episode to episode. Also, their is a huge split among fans over weather the original series is better than newer Trek. To summerize breifly however (and keeping in mind that this is somewhat biased):

The Original Series:

Basic premise: The crew of the Enterprise is on a five year (ended up only being 3) mission to explore space. They travle to various planets and end up in various bizzare situations (which often blatently obvious analogies for historical events and political issues on Earth. Their are a lot of Cold War and Civil Rights era messages).

Distinguishng features

The charisma of the actors and the chemistry between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy especially.

The awesome music, though I suspect others would disagree.

A bit dated in some of its social and political commentary (remember, when this show first came out, its having an interracial kiss, even compelled by alien mind control, was a huge deal). But very progressive in its time (see afformentioned kiss as an example).

Some people will doubtlessly be put off by the corny special effects, acting, and fight scenes. Others will love the cheesyness.

May come off as somewhat preachy.

No real multi-episode stories.


The Next Generation:

Basic premise: Similar to TOS, except that the Federation is more explicitely in line with Roddenberry's communistic view of Utopia. Introduces more multi-episode story arcs.

Distinguishing features:

More modern and "realistic" special effects.

More conventional musical score.

Arguably better acting.

Though not the only offender, it is perhaps the most notable example of a Trek show turning alien races into one-note steriotypes of aspects of human society.

Can come off as very preachy. The Federation may be Roddenberry's vision of Utopia, but to those who don't share his views, things like having families on a flagship, or the communistic nature of the Federation, may seem rather odd or offensive.


Deep Space 9:

Basic premise: A crew on a space station near a strategically important wormhole. The captain becomes the emissary for the local religion's "Profits", leading to certain conflicts of interest and religious conflicts. Later, a major war breaks out with a power on the far side of the wormhole.

Distinguishing features:

A lot of religious conflict and political intrigue.

Seen as darker than earlier Trek.

A lot of "nessissary evils" in the name of the greater good.

Big battles that may come off as ripping off Star Wars.

Generally fairly well-written compared to more recent Trek, and probably TNG as well.

Lots of character development

Multi-episode and even multi-season story arcs abound.


Voyager:

Basic Premise: Same as TOS and TNG, except that this time the ship is stuck in the middle of unknown space away from the Federation, and the goal is not simply to explore but to get back home.

Distinguishing features:

Lots of continuity issues with previous Trek, and within the show.

Blatent use of sex appeal

Downgrading of the Borg as a villain through overexposure.

Lots of rehashing of plots.

Lots of contrived technobable solutions to problems.

I would say that Voyager had great potential to be something new and innovative, but taking a crew away from the support of the Federation and casting them into the unknown with only eachother to count on. Unfortuantely, however, they largely botched it, with Voyager basically having a lot of TNG's flaws but worse.


Enterprise:

Basic Premise: Much like TOS and TNG, but with longer story arcs and set as a prequel to TOS.

Distinguishing features:

Pretty much a continuation of Voyager's problems, but widely thought to have gotten better in its fourth season. By then, however, the damage was done. The end of Enterprise marked the first time in 18 years that their had been no new Trek on television.


If you want to know more about Star Trek, I would suggest watching a few episodes on the internet. Don't just turn on the TV at random, because you might turn on season two of Enterprise, for example, and be so put off you never watch another episode. Recommended episodes, including both fan and personal favorites, are as follows:

TOS:

Amok Time
The Doomsday Machine (if that's the title).
City on the Edge of Forever

TNG:

Encounter at Farpoint parts one and two (just for introducing Q).
Q Who
Yesterday's Enterprise (the first TNG episdoe I watched, and widely considered one of the best).
The Best of Both Worlds part one and two.

DS9:

Way of the Warrior.
In the Pale Moonlight.
The Die is cast.

Also, any of the episodes with Eddington as a bad guy.

Voyager:
Caretaker parts one and two (the start of the show).
Scorpion parts one and two.
Dark Fronteir parts one and two.

Their are some others, but I can't recall the titles now.

Enterprise: very little, though I liked their Borg episode.

Movies:

The Wrath of Kahn(TOS)
The Search for Spock(TOS)
The Voyage Home(TOS)
The Undiscovered Country(TOS)

Generations(TNG)
First Contact(TNG)

That was a pretty good write up, Romulan Republic, but I'd advise a newcomer to Trek to avoid Encounter at Farpoint like the plague. While it does introduce Q, it was so corny and goofy (being the show's pilot) that it amazes me the show ever got picked up.

B&B are the ones who killed Trek far as I'm concerned. I think the franchise got better after Roddenberry died. He had arbitrary restrictions on what kind of stories they could and couldn't run, and an episode like In the Pale Moonlight would of never flown with him.

There was plenty about the Roddenbarry times that were great, like the way music was used in Trek before Berman stamped all over it. (The person in that video rants about Berman and Braga a bunch in some of his other stuff. Seriously, watch his stuff. It's freaking hilarious. I was laughing my ASS off at the Neutral Zone review.

"So, basically, the Romulans show up, tell Picard to fuck off, then leave!")

That varies a great deal from series to series, film to film, even episode to episode. Also, their is a huge split among fans over weather the original series is better than newer Trek. To summerize breifly however (and keeping in mind that this is somewhat biased):

The Original Series:

Basic premise: The crew of the Enterprise is on a five year (ended up only being 3) mission to explore space. They travle to various planets and end up in various bizzare situations (which often blatently obvious analogies for historical events and political issues on Earth. Their are a lot of Cold War and Civil Rights era messages).

Distinguishng features

The charisma of the actors and the chemistry between Kirk, Spock, and McCoy especially.

The awesome music, though I suspect others would disagree.

A bit dated in some of its social and political commentary (remember, when this show first came out, its having an interracial kiss, even compelled by alien mind control, was a huge deal). But very progressive in its time (see afformentioned kiss as an example).

Some people will doubtlessly be put off by the corny special effects, acting, and fight scenes. Others will love the cheesyness.

May come off as somewhat preachy.

No real multi-episode stories.


The Next Generation:

Basic premise: Similar to TOS, except that the Federation is more explicitely in line with Roddenberry's communistic view of Utopia. Introduces more multi-episode story arcs.

Distinguishing features:

More modern and "realistic" special effects.

More conventional musical score.

Arguably better acting.

Though not the only offender, it is perhaps the most notable example of a Trek show turning alien races into one-note steriotypes of aspects of human society.

Can come off as very preachy. The Federation may be Roddenberry's vision of Utopia, but to those who don't share his views, things like having families on a flagship, or the communistic nature of the Federation, may seem rather odd or offensive.


Deep Space 9:

Basic premise: A crew on a space station near a strategically important wormhole. The captain becomes the emissary for the local religion's "Profits", leading to certain conflicts of interest and religious conflicts. Later, a major war breaks out with a power on the far side of the wormhole.

Distinguishing features:

A lot of religious conflict and political intrigue.

Seen as darker than earlier Trek.

A lot of "nessissary evils" in the name of the greater good.

Big battles that may come off as ripping off Star Wars.

Generally fairly well-written compared to more recent Trek, and probably TNG as well.

Lots of character development

Multi-episode and even multi-season story arcs abound.


Voyager:

Basic Premise: Same as TOS and TNG, except that this time the ship is stuck in the middle of unknown space away from the Federation, and the goal is not simply to explore but to get back home.

Distinguishing features:

Lots of continuity issues with previous Trek, and within the show.

Blatent use of sex appeal

Downgrading of the Borg as a villain through overexposure.

Lots of rehashing of plots.

Lots of contrived technobable solutions to problems.

I would say that Voyager had great potential to be something new and innovative, but taking a crew away from the support of the Federation and casting them into the unknown with only eachother to count on. Unfortuantely, however, they largely botched it, with Voyager basically having a lot of TNG's flaws but worse.


Enterprise:

Basic Premise: Much like TOS and TNG, but with longer story arcs and set as a prequel to TOS.

Distinguishing features:

Pretty much a continuation of Voyager's problems, but widely thought to have gotten better in its fourth season. By then, however, the damage was done. The end of Enterprise marked the first time in 18 years that their had been no new Trek on television.


If you want to know more about Star Trek, I would suggest watching a few episodes on the internet. Don't just turn on the TV at random, because you might turn on season two of Enterprise, for example, and be so put off you never watch another episode. Recommended episodes, including both fan and personal favorites, are as follows:

TOS:

Amok Time
The Doomsday Machine (if that's the title).
City on the Edge of Forever

TNG:

Encounter at Farpoint parts one and two (just for introducing Q).
Q Who
Yesterday's Enterprise (the first TNG episdoe I watched, and widely considered one of the best).
The Best of Both Worlds part one and two.

DS9:

Way of the Warrior.
In the Pale Moonlight.
The Die is cast.

Also, any of the episodes with Eddington as a bad guy.

Voyager:
Caretaker parts one and two (the start of the show).
Scorpion parts one and two.
Dark Fronteir parts one and two.

Their are some others, but I can't recall the titles now.

Enterprise: very little, though I liked their Borg episode.

Movies:

The Wrath of Kahn(TOS)
The Search for Spock(TOS)
The Voyage Home(TOS)
The Undiscovered Country(TOS)

Generations(TNG)
First Contact(TNG)
Encounter at Farpoint was NOT Q or TNG's highlight. Not even close. You'd want to look at stuff like Tapestry or Deja Q for Q moments, and The Inner Light and similar episodes for general TNG.

:eek: "you... you hit me... Picard never hit me!" Q's encounter with Cmd Sisko.

"I'm not Picard! :D"

Encounter at Farpoint was NOT Q or TNG's highlight. Not even close. You'd want to look at stuff like Tapestry or Deja Q for Q moments, and The Inner Light and similar episodes for general TNG.

He says the pilot was a good introduction to Q. I remember being batshit confused when I watched a Q episode before watching TNG in a chronological order.

You know what, impart from enterprise, DS9 was actually my least favourite Star Trek series. It was just... different, the plots and dialogue were a little more 'sophisticated', but that in turn made the characters incredibly dull. I also never got much of a sense of adventure, it was set always in the same place, not in a travelling spaceship, so the adventure had to come to them, rather than the other way round.

He says the pilot was a good introduction to Q. I remember being batshit confused when I watched a Q episode before watching TNG in a chronological order.

Well, if you don't know who Q is, then yeah, you're going to be confused as hell.

Q episodes--Encounter at Farpoint aside--are generally some of the best episodes in the series.

Except for perhaps that one with Vash where they all had an adventure in some Robin Hood fantasy land. That was dumb. (Although it contains some hilarity. "Captain, I must protest! I am not a merry man![/i]"

i loved The Original Series, The Next Generation, Deep Space 9 and Voyager but i was dissapointed by Enterprise, as for the films, 2,4,6 and 8 are my personal faves (Wrath Of Kahn, Voyage Home, Undiscoverd Country and First Contact

You know what, impart from enterprise, DS9 was actually my least favourite Star Trek series. It was just... different, the plots and dialogue were a little more 'sophisticated', but that in turn made the characters incredibly dull. I also never got much of a sense of adventure, it was set always in the same place, not in a travelling spaceship, so the adventure had to come to them, rather than the other way round.

If you think DS9's characters were dull, you obviously weren't paying attention to any of it, at any time, at ALL. Period.

Deep Space Nine, along with TNG, are Trek at its highlights. (For the most part. Both series's first couple of seasons were mostly rather worthless. I say mostly because there are gems in them, like TNG's "Measure of a Man.")

If you think DS9's characters were dull, you obviously weren't paying attention to any of it, at any time, at ALL. Period.


I find it difficult to pay attention the characters, perhaps because they're so boring. :p

Encounter at Farpoint was NOT Q or TNG's highlight. Not even close. You'd want to look at stuff like Tapestry or Deja Q for Q moments, and The Inner Light and similar episodes for general TNG.

I included it because it introduces the Q character, and I thought Q Who might not make sense without an introduction.

I included it because it introduces the Q character, and I thought Q Who might not make sense without an introduction.

Well, yeah...I just would have included a warning that it's not exactly great. (Or perhaps just telling them who Q is...)

Maybe. It would have added considerably to the length of that post to attempt a full explanation of Q, but the short version would be:

Q is a very powerful and mysterious alien that the Next Generation crew encounter on their first mission. His powers apparently include sending the ship suddenly across light years, freezing people, time travel, destroying planets, etc. He first appears to place humanity on trial, using the TNG crew as humanity's representatives (though they aren't actually all human), but later he also appears as a trickster (I seem to recall one species referring to him as the God of Lies). Q sounds like something that would seem absurd, but as far as I'm concerned he's a brilliant character, probably due largely to the skills of the actor playing him (what's his name?)

Regardless, though, the warning's out their now.;)

My addition: Think of Q as a recurring plot device who basically exists to fuck with the Enterprise crew in ways that would otherwise be impossible, and is extremely well developed as a character in his own right thanks to the wonderful acting talents of John de Lancie.

Honestly, just watch him in almost any Q episode. He's just delicious.

Honestly, just watch him in almost any Q episode. He's just delicious.

So that's why Guinan used a fork instead of a knife! :tongue:

*snip*

hmm, i disagree in some areas

TOS
Premise: explore space, etc, etc
Good bits: Characters
Bad bits: cheesy, too much use of fistycuffs to solve problems, awful music


TNG
Premise: explore space, but more of it
Good bits: most episodes are a morality play; characters (apart from Wesley Crusher, the nob); Picard and his use of diplomacy to solve problems; the Federation's ideals; continuing to explore humanity with Data; Q
Bad bits: series 1; anything with Lore


DS9
Premise: old Cardassian space station now run by Federation finds supercool wormhole and largely stay put for 176 episodes
Good bits: Odo; Worf coming back; the Jem’Hadar and the Dominion; the Cardassion offensive; Garak; Dukat; Quark
Bad bits: the more 'gritty' feel; Sisko; the Prophets and all that wank; changing Dax; the 'space soap-opera' feel


VOY
Premise: hurled 70,000 light years from home, the crew have to limp back with only themselves to count on
Good bits: the premise is endearing; not using status quo ante to reset things at the end of episodes (i'm looking at you DS9); characters, especially the Doctor; the technobabble; more of the Borg; continuing to explore humanity with 7of9; more Q; dealing with alien species while still retaining Federation principles
Bad bits: Borg made less scary;


ENT
Premise: the first deep space/long range ship of the to-be Federation
Good bits: ?
Bad bits: most of it; dropping the Star Trek name



i could go on, but you can probably tell from that my favourites are TNG and VOY :p (then DS9, then TOS, then ENT)

I hated the fact that Star trek went from Voyager to pre-TOS. THEY SHOULD GONE ALONG WITH THE TECH! Transphasic torpedoes FTW!

Well, if you don't know who Q is, then yeah, you're going to be confused as hell.

Q episodes--Encounter at Farpoint aside--are generally some of the best episodes in the series.

Except for perhaps that one with Vash where they all had an adventure in some Robin Hood fantasy land. That was dumb. (Although it contains some hilarity. "Captain, I must protest! I am not a merry man![/i]"

I dunno... the Q episode where he wants to have a child with Janeway on Voyager is my favorite.

*2 Q's touch fingers*
Q - "Admit it. I was good"
*Female Q looks flushed*
Janeway - "wait.... wait... that's it?!?"
Q - "you had your chance Katheryn..."

:p

I hated the fact that Star trek went from Voyager to pre-TOS. THEY SHOULD GONE ALONG WITH THE TECH! Transphasic torpedoes FTW!

QFT. but more than that, they should have gone along with the overaching plot lines we all knew, the species we all knew, and built on years and hundereds of episodes of stories, backstories, viewer understanding and depth. i really don't understand why they did what they did... to me, it was almost like a death of the Trek i loved :(
i hope this film will rekindle something lost by at least going back to TOS (kinda)

edit: and why they don't seem willing to continue with the fanchise is something else i don't understand. of all the programmes out there on TV, Star Trek must have one of the most devoted and loyal, not to mention large, fanbases around. surely that near-guaranteed viewership alone is enough to warrant continuing to make series (and not just movies)?

I dunno... the Q episode where he wants to have a child with Janeway on Voyager is my favorite.

*2 Q's touch fingers*
Q - "Admit it. I was good"
*Female Q looks flushed*
Janeway - "wait.... wait... that's it?!?"
Q - "you had your chance Katheryn..."

:p

its the way John de Lancie delivers it that makes it epic :P

hmm, i disagree in some areas

TOS
Premise: explore space, etc, etc
Good bits: Characters
Bad bits: cheesy, too much use of fistycuffs to solve problems, awful music

Personally I like the music. It sounds silly and over the top, but it fits the tone and the nature of the series.

VOY
Premise: hurled 70,000 light years from home, the crew have to limp back with only themselves to count on
Good bits: the premise is endearing; not using status quo ante to reset things at the end of episodes (i'm looking at you DS9);

I'm sorry, but I think you mixed up the two shows there.:D Voyager routinely resets things at the end of the episode, never takes major damage that lasts beyond and episode, and generally ignores the implications of being stranded in the unknown for much of the series run. DS9 had numerous changes to the status quo throughout its run, including the Dominion War, the hostilities with the Klingons, the Marquis (?), Dax dying, and probably others I'm forgetting. Hell, the whole premise was a change from the status quo.

characters, especially the Doctor; the technobabble;

Wait, you think the technobabble was a good thing?

more of the Borg; continuing to explore humanity with 7of9;

I imagine more than a few viewers wanted to "explore" humanity with 7 of 9.;)

more Q; dealing with alien species while still retaining Federation principles

Actually Janeway has her share of violations of Federation law. Though its not like other captains didn't.

Bad bits: Borg made less scary;

You've got that right. I hesitantly listed Dark Frontier as a good episode thanks largely to part one, but part two was arguably the end of the Borg as a credible threat.

I would've done a new crew, new ship, new stories. The Enterprise wasn't the only Federation ship...

Nor the only power. Why no series told from the Klingon/Romulan/Borg/Changeling/whatever race you fancy point of view ? Yes, it will be harder for people to "identify" with the main characters (can anyone think of a succesful scifi franchise that does not revolve around humans or extraordinary human like creatures ? )

A series based around the mirror universe would also be more interesting than a reboot. Who knows - goatees may become fashionable again.

Anybody who says John DeLancie made the character of Q work is absolutely right. From what I've read, he has control over his own lines per the contract. I guess he gets to ignore any bad or cheese lines they might try to get him to say.

The greatest line in any SciFi show ever was delivered by Q:

(Picard berates Q for getting 11 of his crew killed in introducing the Federation to the Borg*)

"You should crawl back under your rock if you can't take a little bloody nose. It's not safe out here. There are treasures to sate appetites both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid!"

And the second best:

"May whetever god you believe in have mercy on your souls!"

*Oh yes, it was Q that made the Borg aware of the Federation in an effort to humble Picard, who was boasting about how they could deal with whatever challenges lay ahead. Q flung them to the opposite end of the galaxy to encounter the Borg, a relentless unstoppable enemy from which there was no escape. Ultimately Picard was forced to admit they needed help and Q returned them to their own region of space. The side effect: The Borg, now aware of the Federation, moved in.

Anybody who says John DeLancie made the character of Q work is absolutely right. From what I've read, he has control over his own lines per the contract. I guess he gets to ignore any bad or cheese lines they might try to get him to say.

The greatest line in any SciFi show ever was delivered by Q:

(Picard berates Q for getting 11 of his crew killed in introducing the Federation to the Borg*)

"You should crawl back under your rock if you can't take a little bloody nose. It's not safe out here. There are treasures to sate appetites both subtle and gross, but it's not for the timid!"

And the second best:

"May whetever god you believe in have mercy on your souls!"

*Oh yes, it was Q that made the Borg aware of the Federation in an effort to humble Picard, who was boasting about how they could deal with whatever challenges lay ahead. Q flung them to the opposite end of the galaxy to encounter the Borg, a relentless unstoppable enemy from which there was no escape. Ultimately Picard was forced to admit they needed help and Q returned them to their own region of space. The side effect: The Borg, now aware of the Federation, moved in.

However, it also had the benefit of making the Federation aware of the Borg, so it didn't come as a TOTAL surprise. Which, in the long run, probably helped more than it hurt.

And no, the best line ever delivered in a scifi show was delivered by Garak:

That's why you came to me, isn't it, Captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want: a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.

Yeah what is this 'Star Trek' stuff anyways? Is it like Star Wars or something? I think I heard some nerdo guys talk about it once.

Yeah what is this 'Star Trek' stuff anyways? Is it like Star Wars or something? I think I heard some nerdo guys talk about it once.

Yeah, Star Trek is just a cheap Star Wars knock off that was created 11 years prior to the first Star Wars movie.

Nor the only power. Why no series told from the Klingon/Romulan/Borg/Changeling/whatever race you fancy point of view ? Yes, it will be harder for people to "identify" with the main characters (can anyone think of a succesful scifi franchise that does not revolve around humans or extraordinary human like creatures ? )

A series based around the mirror universe would also be more interesting than a reboot. Who knows - goatees may become fashionable again.

That would actually be pretty awesome. Mirror Hoshi was pretty damned incredible.

And no, the best line ever delivered in a scifi show was delivered by Garak:

That's why you came to me, isn't it, Captain? Because you knew I could do those things that you weren't capable of doing? Well, it worked. And you'll get what you want: a war between the Romulans and the Dominion. And if your conscience is bothering you, you should soothe it with the knowledge that you may have just saved the entire Alpha Quadrant. And all it cost was the life of one Romulan senator, one criminal, and the self-respect of one Starfleet officer. I don't know about you, but I'd call that a bargain.

I won't argue. That was pretty good.

That would actually be pretty awesome. Mirror Hoshi was pretty damned incredible.

Agreed. That episode was one of the ones that, had the rest of the series been like it, would have made Enterprise epic.

Bashir: So of the stories you told me, which ones were true?
Garak: My dear doctor, all of them were true.
Bashir: What about the lies?
Garak: Especially the lies.

Bashir: So of the stories you told me, which ones were true?
Garak: My dear doctor, all of them were true.
Bashir: What about the lies?
Garak: Especially the lies.

Garak is probably the singularly best character in star trek. But I still think it was "In the Pale Moonlight" that really solidified his character as something more than a "maybe he is, maybe he isn't" and into what he was.

It was the definitive "not in self defense, not in a story he might be lying about, not in his tricky, obscure Garak way, he just flat out admitted to murdering two people" moment. And, god damn it, he's RIGHT.

New Trailer:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/star-trek-xi/feature-trailer

I... have no words...

I have Godzilla worries.

Godzilla has always suffered from a limited budget and limited special effects. They've always made the absolute most of what they had, but there were always limitations. Eventually, these limitations started to form the aesthetic of the films and started to shape the character of the franchise. Always, there was the coveting of the 'big American budget,' and Toho had been eager for an American production. But when if finally happened, the release of the restrictions that the initial productions had let go of some of the core aesthetic that had been making the Godzilla movies work for the last thirty years. It's not as if Toho wanted to be as limited as they were, but the limitations shaped what the films had become.

Likewise, Star Trek had its limitations. It's not as if they wouldn't have liked Star Wars effects and less cheesy sets. Carved foam is not an essential element of the series, but the limitations that he resources provided have in fact shaped the character of the show. So now that they have that over the top budget we get extrodaniarly busy shots of Star Trek ships surrounded by all manner of nonsense spinning towards the screen, shots loaded down with effects and action. Without the limitations it seems that they are wallowing in what they couldn't do before, but if it's at the expense of what the show had become when they couldn't, how much of it really is 'Star Trek?'

The question, I guess, will be individually decided. What makes it Star Trek to you? Is it just the names? The setting? Have you always hoped the show would be faster and louder?

I'm not precondeming it, it might be fantastic. It's just what comes to mind the more I see of it.

I have Godzilla worries.

Godzilla has always suffered from a limited budget and limited special effects. They've always made the absolute most of what they had, but there were always limitations. Eventually, these limitations started to form the aesthetic of the films and started to shape the character of the franchise. Always, there was the coveting of the 'big American budget,' and Toho had been eager for an American production. But when if finally happened, the release of the restrictions that the initial productions had let go of some of the core aesthetic that had been making the Godzilla movies work for the last thirty years. It's not as if Toho wanted to be as limited as they were, but the limitations shaped what the films had become.

Likewise, Star Trek had its limitations. It's not as if they wouldn't have liked Star Wars effects and less cheesy sets. Carved foam is not an essential element of the series, but the limitations that he resources provided have in fact shaped the character of the show. So now that they have that over the top budget we get extrodaniarly busy shots of Star Trek ships surrounded by all manner of nonsense spinning towards the screen, shots loaded down with effects and action. Without the limitations it seems that they are wallowing in what they couldn't do before, but if it's at the expense of what the show had become when they couldn't, how much of it really is 'Star Trek?'

The question, I guess, will be individually decided. What makes it Star Trek to you? Is it just the names? The setting? Have you always hoped the show would be faster and louder?

I'm not precondeming it, it might be fantastic. It's just what comes to mind the more I see of it.

The setting.

I think a difference exists because Star Trek already made a transition to "big-budget" motion picture. This isn't the first attempt to remake Trek with a big Hollywood budget, and the previous attempts succeeded or failed based on their own merits, not due to any lingering nostalgia for the campiness of the television series. Some of the movies may have sucked, but they didn't suck because they were too flashy and expensive. To me, Star Trek has already gotten past the fear that the camp defined the experience.

I think you make a pretty good point, but in a way Star Trek has cushioned itself against that, by accident, over the last 25 years or so.

When TNG was introduced it sort of spawned a new phase of Star Trek where it sought to outdo itself over the course of the 4 new series and slew of movies. The Aesthetic of the original show had already been put aside to create the first movie (an orgy of special effects at the expense of plot) but the result was a very clear progression as each new iteration of Trek tried to make the most of the current technology. By the end of the Enterprise run, they were using full CGI.

So in a way, even though this is going back to the original crew pre-TOS, they've already created a situation where it's impossible to go back to the true look and feel of the old series, however endearing it may be, because Trek has conditioned us to expect new and bigger over the years. To be honest, I'd be very disappointed now if the new movie had retained the exact design of the original ship, including the interiors.

Both times a television version of the Starship Enterprise transitioned to the main screen it underwent changes (although much more subtle in the case of Enterprise-D) and we were told that this was meant to be what the ship ALWAYS looked like, but didn't because of production limitations. Of course, that doesn't really fly and the drastic changes to the original Enterprise were later explained away as a refit. (Helluva refit... would have been easier to build a whole new vessel from the keel up.)

So yah that's my long-winded way of saying I embrace the changes, and that the old aesthetic being dropped won't be, I think, as jarring as with other examples like Godzilla.

The setting.

I think a difference exists because Star Trek already made a transition to "big-budget" motion picture. This isn't the first attempt to remake Trek with a big Hollywood budget, and the previous attempts succeeded or failed based on their own merits, not due to any lingering nostalgia for the campiness of the television series. Some of the movies may have sucked, but they didn't suck because they were too flashy and expensive. To me, Star Trek has already gotten past the fear that the camp defined the experience.

^Yeah this, only said more efficiently.

Although I'd argue that Star Trek 5 suffered from, among other things, too many constraints to the budget. The effects were so horrible they were almost back to the level of the original series.

And I don't feel I'm exaggerating here.

And no, the best line ever delivered in a scifi show was delivered by Garak:

nope, the Doctor, speaking to another EMH

"You know, you should really keep a personal log. Why bore others needlessly?"

and from the same episode

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5f/Mark2%26Mark1.jpg

Doctor: "Stop breathing down my neck."
EMH Mk2: "But my breathing is merely a simulation"
Doctor: "So is my neck; stop it anyway." :hail:

VOY: Message In A Bottle (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Message_in_a_Bottle_(episode))

To me, each series has a different feel. My favourite has been DS9, because of the politics and the Cardassians, but I'm enjoyed most of what I've seen of each series (including, yes, eye candy).

I'll watch this new movie in theatres, and I'll probably love it.

nope, the Doctor, speaking to another EMH

"You know, you should really keep a personal log. Why bore others needlessly?"

and from the same episode

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5f/Mark2%26Mark1.jpg

Doctor: "Stop breathing down my neck."
EMH Mk2: "But my breathing is merely a simulation"
Doctor: "So is my neck; stop it anyway." :hail:

VOY: Message In A Bottle (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Message_in_a_Bottle_(episode))

Nope. Andy Dick. Disqualified.

nope, the Doctor, speaking to another EMH

"You know, you should really keep a personal log. Why bore others needlessly?"

and from the same episode

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/5/5f/Mark2%26Mark1.jpg

Doctor: "Stop breathing down my neck."
EMH Mk2: "But my breathing is merely a simulation"
Doctor: "So is my neck; stop it anyway." :hail:

VOY: Message In A Bottle (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Message_in_a_Bottle_(episode))

isn't that the episode with the line
"I even had sex."
"... you did? how was it?"

I
So in a way, even though this is going back to the original crew pre-TOS, they've already created a situation where it's impossible to go back to the true look and feel of the old series, however endearing it may be, because Trek has conditioned us to expect new and bigger over the years. To be honest, I'd be very disappointed now if the new movie had retained the exact design of the original ship, including the interiors.

to me, that would be awful. one of the reasons i don't watch TOS is because it looks so dated (and is dated in a number of ways). for me, Trek is all about the world, the setting and the characters. the way in which that's told and put on screen evolves over time, and i'm quite glad that it does. i love to learn - and see - more intricacies about things on screen (probably why i like the technobabble, it makes me feel more involved, even if it is BS), so CGI and modern production techniques are a good thing for me.

isn't that the episode with the line
"I even had sex."
"... you did? how was it?"

yup :) i love the episode for parodying itself and the stereotypically nerdy fans of ST (omg you had sex!11!)

parody the fans:
"I am as close to a sentient lifeform as any hologram could hope to be. I socialize with the crew, fraternize with aliens, I've even had sexual relations."
"SEX? How is that possible? We are not - equipped..."
"...let's just say: I made an addition to my program..."
"Before you leave, maybe you could download those subroutines into my database?"
"We'll see..."
- The Doctor and EMH Mark II


parody itself
"What are you waiting for? Shoot! Shoot!"
"There are so many controls..."
"Find the one that says 'fire' and push it!"
"It's not working. It says here the phasers are off-line."
"Well, then fire a torpedo! (the Prometheus fires a torpedo that hits a Defiant-class ship) You hit the wrong ship!"
"It wasn't my fault!"
"Well then whose fault was it, the torpedo's? You're supposed to tell it what to do!"
- The Doctor and EMH Mark II


"Beep beep beep, beep beep beep? I've never heard that one before."
- EMH Mark II

I have Godzilla worries.

Godzilla has always suffered from a limited budget and limited special effects. They've always made the absolute most of what they had, but there were always limitations. Eventually, these limitations started to form the aesthetic of the films and started to shape the character of the franchise. Always, there was the coveting of the 'big American budget,' and Toho had been eager for an American production. But when if finally happened, the release of the restrictions that the initial productions had let go of some of the core aesthetic that had been making the Godzilla movies work for the last thirty years. It's not as if Toho wanted to be as limited as they were, but the limitations shaped what the films had become.

Likewise, Star Trek had its limitations. It's not as if they wouldn't have liked Star Wars effects and less cheesy sets. Carved foam is not an essential element of the series, but the limitations that he resources provided have in fact shaped the character of the show. So now that they have that over the top budget we get extrodaniarly busy shots of Star Trek ships surrounded by all manner of nonsense spinning towards the screen, shots loaded down with effects and action. Without the limitations it seems that they are wallowing in what they couldn't do before, but if it's at the expense of what the show had become when they couldn't, how much of it really is 'Star Trek?'

The question, I guess, will be individually decided. What makes it Star Trek to you? Is it just the names? The setting? Have you always hoped the show would be faster and louder?

I'm not precondeming it, it might be fantastic. It's just what comes to mind the more I see of it.

It comes down to weather they can capture the dynamic of the character's interactions, and stay faithful to the fundimentals of the setting. If the effects come at the expense of either, they have a problem.

Also, which one of you clowns voted for "what's this 'Star Trek?";)

New Trailer:

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/star-trek-xi/feature-trailer

I... have no words...

Oh my goodness...this has Independence Day/Armageddon/The Day After Tomorrow vibes all over it...a piece of drek disguised as something really, really good.

I think I'm going to be sick...

Oh my goodness...this has Independence Day/Armageddon/The Day After Tomorrow vibes all over it...a piece of drek disguised as something really, really good.

I think I'm going to be sick...

I have faith in J.J.

I'm not going to judge the movie from its trailers. If it sucks it sucks, but that's no change from the statues quo when it comes to recent Trek. Its hard to see the franchise going anywhere but up now.

Geeezus that trailer's sick!

Geeezus that trailer's sick!

I'm so jazzed right now...

Geeezus that trailer's sick!

I know...from the music that was practically lifted from Armageddon, to the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes, to the overused special effects, the once-again-too-much-focus on pure brainless action...it was sick alright. Sick enough that I already filled the toilet.

I know...from the music that was practically lifted from Armageddon, to the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes,

Please enlighten me as to how you can possibly tell weather a sex scene is "nessissary" based soley on one brief trailer.

to the overused special effects, the once-again-too-much-focus on pure brainless action...it was sick alright. Sick enough that I already filled the toilet.

Again, how do you know the action is "brainless" without seeing it in the context of the full story?

Please enlighten me as to how you can possibly tell weather a sex scene is "nessissary" based soley on one brief trailer.



Again, how do you know the action is "brainless" without seeing it in the context of the full story?

You ask these questions of a person who uses Brainy Smurf as his personal avatar? :p

I agree the trailer is all hype no real substance, at least nothing a genuine Trekkie would want to see the movie over solely for its own sake. But as someone else also said I won't judge it by its trailer. I'm a fan of the series in most of its incarnations (sans Enterprise really; TOS and TNG were amazing, DS9 was too, and Voyager was OK) and am curious about this movie.

If it sucks, I'll simply stick to my seasons of the show on DVD and hope that eventually people will either let the series go because they can't get it out of their heads that trekkies aren't (I hope not at least...) satisfied with mindless violence and sex, or they come up with a reboot worthy or the series. Though I DO think the new Enterprise is pretty sweet looking, I fear it might be the movie's only redeeming quality.

Please enlighten me as to how you can possibly tell weather a sex scene is "nessissary" based soley on one brief trailer.

I can't.


Again, how do you know the action is "brainless" without seeing it in the context of the full story?
I don't.

I'm making predictions based on what we've seen in the past, and my own personal feelings from what I saw, and to me, it feels like drek.

That's really all there is to it. That, and I like playing up my reactions. :)
You ask these questions of a person who uses Brainy Smurf as his personal avatar? :p

Hey! Poliwanacraca was the one who gave me this avatar!

Its not like Star Trek's never done big battles before (though probably on a much more limited budget with DS9), or sexuality, even gratuitously. Its a question of the manner in which its done, not weather its their or not.

This movie will probably ultimately succede or fail on the same things stories generally succede or fail on: does it make sense, is it compelling, and are the characters people you can empathize with or be entertained by? Special effects are a plus if they're done well, but they probably won't decide the success of this movie alone.

Hey! Poliwanacraca was the one who gave me this avatar!

hehe ;)

"I had the shot, I saw no danger, so I took it!"
/Tom Cruise voice

The thing is, there's no such thing as too much action/violence IF it supports the story. I watch this trailer and frankly what I see is a lot of clips from what appear to be a very limited number of actual battles in the movie. There's obviously got to be room for the development of the other stuff, and THAT is what will decide it.

I mean damn... Who DOESN'T want to see the Enterprise go in guns blazing and kicking ass?

Hence why I used brainless action and unnecessary sex scenes. Obviously, sexuality and violence, when used appropriately in a story, are quite good. I simply question, based on prior experience with the way Star Trek has been descending ever since DS9 ended, the idea that they will somehow manage to use them appropriately.

I'd attack J.J. Abrahms, but in truth I've seen none of his work in anything.

Hence why I used brainless action and unnecessary sex scenes. Obviously, sexuality and violence, when used appropriately in a story, are quite good. I simply question, based on prior experience with the way Star Trek has been descending ever since DS9 ended, the idea that they will somehow manage to use them appropriately.

I'd attack J.J. Abrahms, but in truth I've seen none of his work in anything.

I think the thing that makes me the most optimistic about this is I'm getting a strong sense that they really are taking a new approach altogether with Trek, and that, being a departure from the previous status quo, can ONLY be a good thing, as awful as it was getting there...

Hence why I used brainless action and unnecessary sex scenes. Obviously, sexuality and violence, when used appropriately in a story, are quite good. I simply question, based on prior experience with the way Star Trek has been descending ever since DS9 ended, the idea that they will somehow manage to use them appropriately.

I'd attack J.J. Abrahms, but in truth I've seen none of his work in anything.

Honestly, does pessimism get you off sexually? It's a trailer for god's sake. It's supposed to highlight all the visceral moments of a movie to entice viewers. Showing character development in 3 second blips would be boring, and people would rightly not attend the movie.

Hence why I used brainless action and unnecessary sex scenes. Obviously, sexuality and violence, when used appropriately in a story, are quite good. I simply question, based on prior experience with the way Star Trek has been descending ever since DS9 ended, the idea that they will somehow manage to use them appropriately.

I'd attack J.J. Abrahms, but in truth I've seen none of his work in anything.

He's not Berman or Braga. That much is good news, at least. Much as with Obama threads, don't you think we should at least give the new administration a chance?

He's not Berman or Braga. That much is good news, at least. Much as with Obama threads, don't you think we should at least give the new administration a chance?

Oh, very well. I shall give this new administration a chance.

I know...from the music that was practically lifted from Armageddon, to the absolutely unnecessary sex scenes, to the overused special effects, the once-again-too-much-focus on pure brainless action...it was sick alright. Sick enough that I already filled the toilet.

well they kinda did the same with the last one, Nemesis.

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS TO DATA!!!!! :mad:
(ok, i can guess B-4 effectively becomes Data, but still...)

Its not like Star Trek's never done big battles before (though probably on a much more limited budget with DS9), or sexuality, even gratuitously. Its a question of the manner in which its done, not weather its their or not.


indeed not. in fact, one of my favourite moments in First Contact (my favourite Trek movie, btw) is when the Enterprise swoops in to protect the Defiant during the Battle of Sector 001. not only is it an uber-cool moment, having the Enterprise-E come to the rescue like that, but seeing a decent scale battle like that is always cool.

this thread has made me want to buy the rest of DS9 to complete my (decent Trek) collection

"Main power is off-line, we've lost shields and our weapons are gone!"
(hits a console) "Perhaps today is a good day to die! Prepare for ramming speed!"
"Sir, there's another ship coming in. It's the Enterprise!"
- Helm officer and Worf, on the Defiant

You ask these questions of a person who uses Brainy Smurf as his personal avatar? :p

So that's why no one takes me seriously...

The setting.

I think a difference exists because Star Trek already made a transition to "big-budget" motion picture. This isn't the first attempt to remake Trek with a big Hollywood budget, and the previous attempts succeeded or failed based on their own merits, not due to any lingering nostalgia for the campiness of the television series. Some of the movies may have sucked, but they didn't suck because they were too flashy and expensive. To me, Star Trek has already gotten past the fear that the camp defined the experience.

If it seemed I was implying that the camp was essential, I'm sorry, that was not my intent. The camp was as much a by-product of their limitations as the character of the story that evolved from those limitations. Take transporters. The show created them because they didn't have the resources to depict ships landing on the surface all of the time. From that 'short cut' a distinct characteristic of the show was born. Again, this is not to say that, "If it doesn't have transporters, this movie is a failure!!!" (though if it doesn't one would have to wonder why they would do that...)

But over the top space battles and huge stunt pieces, while inevitable in some degree when making a big screen version (after all, I don't expect them to use a major motion picture to tell a 'Lower Decks' story), the show has never relied on them, they were punctuation rather than the sentence. If it relies on these huge set pieces strung together by half handed references to the source material, is it just Star Wars without the Force?

Now, we're only seeing what the guy assembling the trailers is showing us. These might actually be the punctuations. Just that sometimes you get a producer or the like who thinks that the reason Batman worked was because they had real swordsmen in the stunt sequences.

After seeing the new trailer my opinion has gone from "No, not worth seeing' to 'OMFG MUST SEE IMPLODING PLANET!11!!11!'.

And space explosions.