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

Will future movies go away from Roddenberry's ideals or stay with them?

Report this
Created by: picard_2305

picard_2305

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 168

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 1:11 am

Rick Berman always did his best to mainstain Roddenberry's vision, do you think JJ Abrams has done the same or does the pressure of making it more accessible mean that it will go away from his ideals.

WkdYngMan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3951

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 2:31 am

"Rick Berman always did his best to mainstain Roddenberry's vision,"


Freudean slip?  Either way, "Roddenberry's vision," as some fans perceive it, was really nothing more than something to feed to the press.

picard_2305

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 168

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 3:24 am

I meant maintain

Matthias Russell

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 7705

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 5:05 am

Roddenberry himself changed his vision between tos and tng. Numerous producers and writers have complained that roddenberry was too narrow in vision in guys tng days.

Since I read most of the books, I can say they still feel like the trek from the 80s and 90s. ST09 was true to its roots but wasn't cerebral enough for me.

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 5:07 am

I think the whole concept of "Roddenberry's VISION" is out-of-whack.


Roddenberry's "vision" was to have a space action / adventure show with a crew that demonstrated the idea that humanity had survived destroying itself and had learned to work together to accomplish great things.


After that, it's all BS if you want my humble opinion. All the utopian "evolved sensibility" of humanity crap came later when Gene decided he needed to live-up to the label of "visionary" and started peddling that philosophy.


The ORIGINAL (and by far BEST) philosophy and vision of Star Trek CELEBRTATED humanity, warts and all, and illustrated that we are special and have strengths despite our flaws. That was a brilliant, simple message to be embraced, and it drove character and story well. Everything, in terms of "philosophy," that followed was bunk. Even DS9, which was awesome, required more of the alien characters and the spectre of war to change that "perfect, evolved" image.


So, if you're saying "Will the movies follow Gene's ORIGINAL vision," I'd say you can count on it. If you're saying "will the movies follow the post-TOS vision of political correctness and perfect humanity" I'd say you're $#!t out of luck...and I'm greatful for it.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 7:34 am

Quote: Vger23 @ Mar. 03 2011, 5:07 am

>

>I think the whole concept of "Roddenberry's VISION" is out-of-whack.

>Roddenberry's "vision" was to have a space action / adventure show with a crew that demonstrated the idea that humanity had survived destroying itself and had learned to work together to accomplish great things.

>After that, it's all BS if you want my humble opinion. All the utopian "evolved sensibility" of humanity crap came later when Gene decided he needed to live-up to the label of "visionary" and started peddling that philosophy.

>The ORIGINAL (and by far BEST) philosophy and vision of Star Trek CELEBRTATED humanity, warts and all, and illustrated that we are special and have strengths despite our flaws. That was a brilliant, simple message to be embraced, and it drove character and story well. Everything, in terms of "philosophy," that followed was bunk. Even DS9, which was awesome, required more of the alien characters and the spectre of war to change that "perfect, evolved" image.

>So, if you're saying "Will the movies follow Gene's ORIGINAL vision," I'd say you can count on it. If you're saying "will the movies follow the post-TOS vision of political correctness and perfect humanity" I'd say you're $#!t out of luck...and I'm greatful for it.

>


Amen. 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 3:25 pm

If they make the next movie like Wagon Train to the Stars and use both women and men as sex syblos, then I'd have to say they are staying with Roddenberry's Ideals about the future.


If they turn Kirk into a tea drinker, then they are moving away from Roddenberry's ideals.

coastcityo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 601

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 8:06 pm

if they make Kirk baldheaded it would be going away from Gene's vision.


The commercial success of that POS from 2009 indicates they will continue on the course they were on to make that film, if you feel it moves away from Gene's Trek, then it will, and it will also be true if you believe it remained true to his ideals.


All I really care about is will make something that I can enjoy again, or will they make something like 2009 again and convince me to never watch any new Trek ever again.

Lieutenant_Jedi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1728

Report this Mar. 03 2011, 9:23 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Mar. 03 2011, 5:07 am

>

>I think the whole concept of "Roddenberry's VISION" is out-of-whack.

>Roddenberry's "vision" was to have a space action / adventure show with a crew that demonstrated the idea that humanity had survived destroying itself and had learned to work together to accomplish great things.

>After that, it's all BS if you want my humble opinion. All the utopian "evolved sensibility" of humanity crap came later when Gene decided he needed to live-up to the label of "visionary" and started peddling that philosophy.

>The ORIGINAL (and by far BEST) philosophy and vision of Star Trek CELEBRTATED humanity, warts and all, and illustrated that we are special and have strengths despite our flaws. That was a brilliant, simple message to be embraced, and it drove character and story well. Everything, in terms of "philosophy," that followed was bunk. Even DS9, which was awesome, required more of the alien characters and the spectre of war to change that "perfect, evolved" image.

>So, if you're saying "Will the movies follow Gene's ORIGINAL vision," I'd say you can count on it. If you're saying "will the movies follow the post-TOS vision of political correctness and perfect humanity" I'd say you're $#!t out of luck...and I'm greatful for it.

>


I guarantee you that GR's vision was to make a successful TV show that was different and unique and would be noticed and remembered. That was a successful vision that will survive. And is followed today. 


When it comes to all that other "humanism" stuff that GR started spewing, that was the downfall of the franchise. The writers and producers actually started believing that their show had to be held to some higher creative standard and that they had to be visionary teachers. Garbage. 


The great part of the TOS was that it made a statement without making a statement. Black people were in a position of skill and power. Nothing more needed to be said. Asian people spoke clearly and were responsible. There was no need to lay on the "message"


If the modern Trek were to follow Gene's vision - there would simply be a homosexual CO or senior officer. They would not need to have a "special message" they just would exist. 


There are a hundred examples of this kind of thing. People want to be entertained, and not taught. We as fans need to not take this thing so seriously and worry about what a man who has been dead for a while would think. Hundreds of people brought this show to life, and they are putting out a pretty good product today. 


"Can you detect midi - chlorians with a tricorder?"

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 04 2011, 6:20 am

Quote: coastcityo @ Mar. 03 2011, 8:06 pm

>

>if they make Kirk baldheaded it would be going away from Gene's vision.

>The commercial success of that POS from 2009 indicates they will continue on the course they were on to make that film, if you feel it moves away from Gene's Trek, then it will, and it will also be true if you believe it remained true to his ideals.

>All I really care about is will make something that I can enjoy again, or will they make something like 2009 again and convince me to never watch any new Trek ever again.

>


 


The new movie achieved commercial success AND success with the majority of the fanbase. Despite your leanings, this is an undeniable truth...and a fact that 3-out-of-4 of the TNG films failed to achieve.


I AM KEE-ROCK!!

AtoZ2

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1297

Report this Mar. 04 2011, 6:30 am

Quote: /view_profile/ @

>

>??

>How so? Jean-Luc Picard, a known tea drinker, was created by Gene Roddenberry.

>Perhaps another example?

>


No, that one works just fine.


You see Picard was created for TNG which just carried the Star Trek name, but not the characters of TOS. To turn Kirk into such a Picard would go ageist Roddenberry's vision of Star Trek. Same as if you turned Picard into Kirk, that goes ageist what Roddenberry created for TNG.


The style and flavor of TOS is completely different in tone and texture to that of TNG.


TOS characters are more dynamic, emotional, and human where TNG characters of much too bland for my taste.


TOS characters are perfectly suited for big sceen motion picture adventures having just the right amount of humor, action and drama.


Something lacking by TNG crew as created. That's why they seem so out of place on the big screen. Their characters all changed and didn't translate well. Perhaps with different actor playing those roles...but we alredy know how such concepts are recieved by die hard fans.


"Thank Pitch Forks and Pointed Ears"

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Mar. 04 2011, 8:13 am

Quote: Lieutenant_Jedi @ Mar. 03 2011, 9:23 pm

Quote: Vger23 @ Mar. 03 2011, 5:07 am

>

I guarantee you that GR's vision was to make a successful TV show that was different and unique and would be noticed and remembered. That was a successful vision that will survive. And is followed today. 

When it comes to all that other "humanism" stuff that GR started spewing, that was the downfall of the franchise. The writers and producers actually started believing that their show had to be held to some higher creative standard and that they had to be visionary teachers. Garbage. 

The great part of the TOS was that it made a statement without making a statement. Black people were in a position of skill and power. Nothing more needed to be said. Asian people spoke clearly and were responsible. There was no need to lay on the "message"

If the modern Trek were to follow Gene's vision - there would simply be a homosexual CO or senior officer. They would not need to have a "special message" they just would exist. 

There are a hundred examples of this kind of thing. People want to be entertained, and not taught. We as fans need to not take this thing so seriously and worry about what a man who has been dead for a while would think. Hundreds of people brought this show to life, and they are putting out a pretty good product today. 


Amen again! It's refreshing to see folks who get it without getting caught up in BS.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam

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