Star Trek

I love Star Terk Academy special if cedit learning about UFP history in holodeck. So we get see all best of TNG ,DS9,Voy , TOS and everthing else view lowest ranking person starship. Another interest series base on MACO happen short after Spock dispeared issues younger offices and older officers with fact oldest office fought Cardasson Wars.  three main star rest be replace each season at least. 

three main star rest be replace each season at least.

What if we like one of those three characters. You don't wanna have a Power rangers scenario where several teenagers with attitudes get replaced next season by more generic teenagers with attitudes. None of the new show compare the the originals because we had time to learn about the guys and become invested in them. I was pissed when Jason (Red Ranger) left.

Look at the Maquis, though -- their defection from the Federation is totally breaking that rule. I still would think that a conflict between humans would be possible, but their motivation would have to be based either on political ideals or conflicting loyalties. In Paradise Lost, we can only speculate about how far that conflict might have gone, but I would guess that Sisko was certainly willing to go to war in order to protect the Federation from Leyton's coup, if his hand had been forced.

If the Abram's line is to be a TV series - fine, just don't call it Star Trek - cause it isn't.  It's more Star Wars than Star Trek.

Change the names and races and species, use all the non-science non-fact you want, keep the comic relief pets/puppets and make a neat science fiction series.  No problem.  Just don't try to make it into Star Trek - because that's not what it has been about for the past 40+ years.

Science non-fact: You can get yourself out of just about any jam by reconfiguring Geordi's visor.

Comic relief puppets: Um... Gorn fights anyone??

Don't get me wrong. I love the cheesiness of Star Trek. But it is cheesy!

So as most of you know by now, I am one of the dreaded Abrams Star Trek fans, but I am confused on why people continue to say it is more Star Wars than Star Trek. Can those that feel this way, in a respectful manner, please list everything they feel is not based on science. Thanks!

Fools. You will need a future trek with Klingons from other shades of Klingon, this racism must stop, set in the future of the TNG universe, in a collected galaxy. A galaxy is a big place, and the future holds brand new ship designs, but the original Gene Roddenberry Star Trekness. There is always room for the old races somewhere on a new Enterprise. There is plenty to do with a new crew and always lots of planets etc. to visit and species to see too.

I never understood that comparrison either - Star Wars was a multi-generational fantasy epic.  What about Trek09 had to do with Star Wars?

Now, it's still not Star Trek, but it's not Star Wars.  It's more Speed Racer meets Transmorphers if designed by Apple.

I like my idea of Star Trek Recon. I would like to see more of our allies in the Federation having major roles. It looks as the Federation is 99% human!

It seems that Trekies are not paying attention to my proposal, The United Federation of Planets; most of what you guys are saying is what it is all about. Because nobody cares of this idea, I am writing a short novel that is an alternative to ST. Instead of using warp as locomotion, I have introduced a more likely propulsion, using an  antimatter reactor of course but that is all I'll say.

Interesting. When it came down to it, nobody really could explain. As for things looking more futuristic, that is because the new Star Trek was made 46 years after TOS. I'm not trying to be rude, but would you guys be happier if they used models on sticks for the space combat, and boards with blinking lights, beeps and chirps just to keep it in line? Roddenberry is not Lucas, but what he was doing back in the day was pretty good FX, pretty sure he would use what is available today. I mean, everything in the movie seemed to be inspired by thew series and/or movies. They just made it look more futuristic, you know, since it's the future. Are you guys also mad that Scotty gave up the formula to Transparent Aluminum, I mean, that changes things in the timeline too.

I think you're missing the point - The new ship and bridge were abysmal - The ship itself looked like something that came out of the 60's, not the elegant lines of the ship that actually did come out of the 60's and was centuries ahead of its time.  The bridge was just an iPod on steroids.  They didn't look like the future, they looked like a sci-fi movie.  Not Star Trek as much as Sky Captain.  Honestly, I would have prefered to see the old Connie on screen.  She looks good even to this day, and would give that feeling of nostalgia that no one got from anything in that movie.

But looks aren't the biggest problems we had with that movie (hell, I liked the movie, so if I have a few hundred problems with it, just imagine what the detractors had).  I think the total mis-handeling of the characters, the formulaic storyline and the loud and bright visual themes were far larger problems.  It also doesn't help that rebooting wasn't enough for Abrams, he had to wipe the entire Trek timeline out of existance.

I guess I am missing the point. I liked the new ship, the new bridge and the new cast. How did they mishandle the characters? And I have to disagree with your ipod on steroids comment, cause that is the future.