ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Its time to move into the 25th century

Report this
Created by: JaydenJaneway

JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 2:31 pm

i want to know what you all think, is it time to move forward and make a series and/or movie about the 25th century. i think theyve covered enough of the 23rd century. its time for something new and fresh


John Woods

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 334

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 2:50 pm

I totally agree,it's time to move forwrd now.You could really open the boundaries of what we already know and have learnt in previous centuries....

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 2:53 pm

To just keep going into
different centuries would
only be to please the hard
core fan base. They can keep
it in the 23rd Century, using
only Kirk and Company, and in
any timeline or universe you please.
As long as the stories are well-written,
the effects are good and the acting is
strong, the rest takes care of itself.

JaydenJaneway

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1140

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 3:22 pm

yeah but theyve covered enough of the 23rd century. and not everyone liked kirk and his timeline. it wasn't until the next generation got famous that it made all of star trek famous again. ive seen it on behind the scenes and polls that tng was the most popular and it made star trek famous again


Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 5:36 pm

JadenJaneway,

Your leaning comes entirely from your personal bias. And, I dare say, the poll itself is worded in a horribly biased way.

The 24th centruy Star Trek stuff was great, but it was run into the frigging ground with series after series. It died out. It killed itself off. A Star Trek story is a Star Trek story. It shouldn't matter what timeframe it takes place in. What matters is what the general public is going to want to see and care about.

You can keep trying to convince yourself that people want to see stories in the 24th/25th century, but THEY DON'T. If they DID, then you'd SEE movies and stories getting made in that era. Paramount doesn't commit to big-budget films without doing market research.

How can you say "they've coverd enough of the 23rd century?" That's ridiculous. There are 3 seasons of the original Star Trek, and 6 motion pictures totalling aproximately 12 hours.

There are 7 seasons of TNG, 7 seasons of DS9, 7 seasons of Voyager, and 4 movies averaging about 8 hours. By my count, that's almost 7 TIMES the amount of material in taking place in the 24th century vs. that in the 23rd.

The reality is this: The Berman-era Trek got stale. It never progressed or evolved beyond the styles and sensibilities that TNG embodied back in the late 1980's. Even ENT failed to be fresh and different. It was "TNG" with "Phase Cannons" and shuttlecraft and a ship that is inferior to everything it encounters.

Wishing for something that will not happen is a waste of time and energy. I loved TNG, liked DS9, tolerated VOY, and disliked ENT. Things just got more and more stale. Faults and all, at least the reboot of the TOS stuff was a fresh and exciting new direction for the franchise.

I'm sorry, but Star Trek- The NEXT Next Generation is TRULY "more of the same."

And you're right, "not everyone liked Kirk and his timeline." Of course, not everyone likes pizza either, but MOST people DO. And MOST people like Kirk and his timeline. So, the minority who don't...well...I guess that's too bad for now.

I didn't like ENT, but I didn't make a stink about it and whine about how they need to "get back to an era that I like." I simply lost interest and stopped watching it.

Imagine that.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 5:43 pm

JadenJaneway, your comments on
NEXT GENERATION appear perfectly
sound, to me. It brought out the very
best of STAR TREK and is my most
favorite of all the series ...

Kevin_Kalonji

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 7:02 pm

vger23
I think it would be nice to move to the 25th Century but regardless the franchise will need to evolve. I think JJ gave us a breath of fresh air and put me in love with our favorite TOS characters all over again. However I think that JJ could have made a great story and not deviated from the prime timeline. Destroying a planet that is a staple of the alpha quadrant is “No Bueno”… JJ Could have used the early days to give us a look into star fleet command and star fleet academy as no series (DS9 in a few episodes) has done prior. Okay #ThatsAll…

Sora

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2606

Report this Nov. 02 2010, 9:15 pm

I agree, I think the 25th Century would be great. Although I'd also like a series based on the Enterprise J, that way it could be like an extension of Enterprise.

Live Long and Prosper

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 4:55 am

As the books have shown, there is a lot to do in the late 24th with the romulans in disarray, the borg gone, and the alpha/beta quadrants in shambles. No need to jump waaaaaaaay forward, can easily pick up where the books stop with good drama and a fresh setting.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 7:19 am

Quote: Kevin_Kalonji @ Nov. 02 2010, 7:02 pm

vger23 I think it would be nice to move to the 25th Century but regardless the franchise will need to evolve. I think JJ gave us a breath of fresh air and put me in love with our favorite TOS characters all over again. However I think that JJ could have made a great story and not deviated from the prime timeline. Destroying a planet that is a staple of the alpha quadrant is “No Bueno”… JJ Could have used the early days to give us a look into star fleet command and star fleet academy as no series (DS9 in a few episodes) has done prior. Okay #ThatsAll…


You can't make a prequel and expect there to be genuine drama if everyone knows that all the characters will live and what their fates are. Look at Lucas's SW prequels for a perfect example.

Nobody from the general viewing audience really cares about a story involving "Starfleet Academy" or "Starfleet Command" as the central focus. Could it be a GREAT story? Yes! Is it going to make over $350 million worldwide? No. It would have been lucky to make $80 million worldwide, which is just about what the hardcore fans would have generated.

Destroying Vulcan...I still don't see why this irks people so badly. Vulcan is "a staple of the Alpha Quadrent?" True. That's exactly right. I dare say (and I say with great respect) that the WTC was "a staple of New York City," but that is also gone. In real life, tragedy happens. I much prefer a Star Trek that is willing to take risks and challenge the fans than the last 15 years of "playing it safe" and "going by the formula," at the risk of reduced drama.

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 7:20 am

Quote: Sora @ Nov. 02 2010, 9:15 pm

I agree, I think the 25th Century would be great. Although I'd also like a series based on the Enterprise J, that way it could be like an extension of Enterprise.


So, essentially "Star Trek- The NEXT Next Generation" is your preference?

I AM KEE-ROCK!!

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 7:31 am

Quote: Matthias Russell @ Nov. 03 2010, 4:55 am

>As the books have shown, there is a lot to do in the late 24th with the romulans in disarray, the borg gone, and the alpha/beta quadrants in shambles. No need to jump waaaaaaaay forward, can easily pick up where the books stop with good drama and a fresh setting.


These types of books are exactly what I want to avoid, and why I grate against the fanwankish Post-Nemesis cliched preferece. I don't care about galactic politics, interspecies relations, war, intrigue, and crap like that. I want to see space adventure, fun and exploration. If I wanted to see intrigue and politics, and international chess I'd watch the frigging news.


I also don't want to see yet another cliched forced-diversity crew slapped together.


We'll have the: Arab Islamic Captain (because, hey...it's a feeble attemt at being "edgy" and breaking down negative American stereotypes)


Horta 1st officer (because, hey...there always has to be some kind of alien or AI to "reflect humanity", right?)


Mexican Engineer (because, hey...we haven't had a hispanic character yet)


Klingon Woman Counselor (because, hey...THAT would be interesting)


Half-Chinese, Half-Ferengi Security Officer (ohhh...I can sense the fascinating drama building)


Young, Eager WASP Male Science Officer (because, hey...we need some comic relief and a younger male to identify with the targeet audience)


ETC ETC ETC ETC


Star Trek, after TNG, basically lost sight of the fact that TRUE diversity is in the ideas and attitudes of the people, NOT in their outer appearance, way they talk or skin color. DS9 did a fairly decent job with Kira's background and Odo, but everyone in VOY and ENT just seemed like a shameless, cliched, "we're trying too hard and it's not coming off naturally" attempt at exploring diversity. It's because they lost the heart of what it really is.


I still say, and I've said 1,000 times before. A new Star Trek series will need to be as boldly different as the re-imagined Battlestar: Galactica was from the original. It will also need to be as unique, cutting edge, and "boldly definant" as TOS was in the 1960's. THAT was one of the biggest problems with the Berman-era Trek. It was good, but it never had that edge. As a result, as time wore on, it became a copy-of-a-copy. If you want this thing to last more than two seasons, it has to be cut from a completely different mold.


I'm not smart enough to know what that is (hence, why I'm not a professional televison writer/producer), but I can tell you it's NOT what any of you are proposing here. That's not personal. That's just reality.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

legendoftrek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 31

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 9:40 am

id skip 25th and go straight to the 26th century

an ode to roddenberry

jamesspock1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 461

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 9:54 am

Back to the future, with ongoing is what they should of done in the first, repeats of what was get dull and unessesary, why go backwards when you can go forwards.

2takesfrakes

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3683

Report this Nov. 03 2010, 11:13 am

"Why go backwards?". That's a legitimate question.
They're going to really explore the universe. So,
it's not like placing it in the year 3,000 is really
moving forward, it's the same trick mirrors at work.

STAR TREK's BRAND is really Kirk and Spock. Phase II
never happened because there wasn't an appetite for
another kind, as long as the original cast was able.
STAR TREK ACADEMY wasn't considered because the Young
Turks of TNG were already onboard. It wasn't necessary.

After TNG, no other STAR TREK really blew us away or took
STAR TREK in a bold new direction. And they had decades to
do it in. It didn't happen then and it's never going to ...

But we have the BRAND back, so don't worry. Kirk and Spock are
back to reclaim their product. And I believe that's how it'll go.
I believe that's the way it should go. They ARE what STAR TREK is.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum