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

When did Star Trek die for you?

Report this
Created by: Ali88

Ali88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 889

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 5:11 am

I know the majority of people will vote for "Star trek is not dead" but Star Trek is over for me- Star Trek is gone, or at least the spirit of star trek is gone


Star Trek XI, Insurrection, Nemesis, Voyager and Enterprise only showed me that star trek is out of ideas and the magic and spirit that was once there in TOS, TNG, DS9 was now gone


Shatner himself said that Star Trek died when Gene Roddenberry died in 1991 with the release of Star Trek VI which would make sense but I disagree, I think star trek probably died when DS9 finished in 1999


 

sweatervested1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 147

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 5:30 am

Star Trek is not dead, thats how I voted. The next series needs to push further into the Universe. Introducing new species (the Borg is old news,) ships (tell me thats not the best you can do,) philosophies (most people seen ST as too left-wing, this coming from a moderate,) etc.  I think what turned most people off was Enterprise, btw I liked it. People want a look into the future, not past.

Ali88

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 889

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 5:38 am

Quote: sweatervested1 @ Mar. 25 2011, 5:30 am

>

>Star Trek is not dead(thats how I voted), the next series needs to push further into the Universe. Introducing new species, etc.. I think what turned most people off was Enterprise. I liked it, but people want a look into the future, not past.

>


Yeah it's possible that a new series will be made in the future that will turn out to be awesome, like a huge improvement over VOY and ENT and it'll take us back to the feeling we had when we watched TNG and DS9 but is that going to happen?


To be honest, I think we have ran out of ideas for star trek now

sweatervested1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 147

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 5:51 am

"To be honest, I think we have ran out of ideas for star trek now."


Are you kidding? New ideas are created everyday. Its going to take new blood to direct it, and JJ Abrams is not the answer!

Trekwolf164

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 32043

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 5:57 am

Trek does not die it lives in the DVD's and books


 

Vger23

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 6799

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 7:55 am

I haven't seen Trek more alive than it is right now 2 in decades.


I (still) think it's funny how people are in denial about JJ Abrams' direct contribution to that. Just becuase THEY didn't like the new direction doesn't mean Trek is dead. It may be dead to YOU, but thankfully, it's now very much alive to way more people than it ever would have been.

Lieutenant_Jedi

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1728

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 8:05 am

Star Trek is far from dead. The franchise is alive and kicking. And the fact that we are all here talking about it is proof. 


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

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 8:54 am


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

coastcityo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 601

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 8:54 am

it died for me when that lame pile of poo was served up in 2009, and I realized that JJ's Trek is all I will be seeing for the foreseeable future.

konarciq

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 930

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 9:16 am

If it is dead, how come so many people ar populating and writing on these boards?


If there is nothing wrong with me, then maybe there´s something wrong with the universe? -Dr. Crusher

Hawklord

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1432

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 3:34 pm

'In CBS/Viacom/Paramount dead Star Trek lies dreaming'


I'll half agree with 'out of ideas for now' and fully agree that New Blood is needed.

Camorite

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 5510

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 3:51 pm

star trek will never die, so long as there are fans that enjoy watching it.

iBorg13

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1944

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 4:09 pm

Quote: konarciq @ Mar. 25 2011, 9:16 am

>

>If it is dead, how come so many people ar populating and writing on these boards?

>
Precisely! It don't take a genius!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46309

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 6:07 pm

While I won't say that Star Trek is dead, I think it's on life support.  ENT was terrible and ST11 was almost as bad.  The only life right now is in the books and in the fans.

ColPeg

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 911

Report this Mar. 25 2011, 6:18 pm

I voted that Star Trek is not dead.  The latest movie wasn't Star Trek - it was more like Star Wars (eeesh!).  Please review my review - Trek Wars.


Trek Wars


If you haven't seen the movie, you might not want to.


            This review on Star Trek XI is not one I wanted to write, but I must do so to take a stand for what Gene Roddenberry taught everyone who has watched Star Trek since the original series in the 1960's.


            We knew there was trouble when Star Wars came out, but Star Trek still could hold its own especially when it came to filling conventions.  Then when Gene died it's been a struggle and quite painful at times when we see and hear what Paramount and the producers were doing by not paying attention to the ground work that Gene had laid for his creative tool into the hope and future of mankind.  The producers were also not listening to the fans who knew what was happening and were prophetic in the events to come.


            I did greatly enjoy Galaxy Quest.  But it was a spoof.  It was meant to be funny and much of the essence of Star Trek and any other Science Fiction movie was exaggerated to be funny - yet true at times.  This new Star Trek movie was not meant to be funny, they're dead serious.


            Now Star Trek XI goes the route of Star Wars by bringing out a prequel.  If it's Star Trek XI, it cannot be a prequel.  It's after I - X so it cannot be a prequel.  It probably should have been titled Star Trek: Beginnings - but that might have been too close to a Batman title.  Anyway, it needs to be titled something else.


            As of late (since ST:TNG) it seems the only way to start or solve a plot/story line is with a time warp (sometimes the story had the transporter go out to make the story more challenging by not being able to beam out of trouble - that was good - the characters had to get out on their own wits and creativity).  We're tired of these time warps.  And even if a time warp would change events from the time Kirk is born forward, not absolutely everything would change.  Many events would stay the same.  Let's take a look.


* When did Kirk's Dad join Star Fleet?  Let me know if you find it somewhere - I cannot - and the books don't count.  It would not happen for the rift in time happens after anything George Kirk would have done.  Are we trying for a view of Martha and Jonathan Kent?


* Kirk's eyes are a different color.  What?  The rift happened after everything that would have been developed in Kirk as a baby including eye color.  The rift would not have changed that.


* The view cuts to Spock being tormented by his peers in Vulcan school right after Kirk drives a car off a cliff in Iowa at age 10.  Where are there cliffs in Iowa?  Spock would have been 13.  Even if there is a change of events due to a rift in the space/time continuum at the time of Kirk's birth, Spock's birth wouldn't change and they are 3 years apart.  The movie has the audience assuming certain events happened to each of the boys at the same age (Spock's age was not mentioned in the scene).  Spock's events wouldn't change on a world far from earth.


* Mallory helped Kirk get into the Academy @ age 17.  While on the transport Kirk admits to the age of being 17 (or was it in the bar).  Nothing changed there.  Spock would have been there a year already.


* According to Finnegan (Shore Leave), Kirk was serious and bookish at the academy.


* The Kobayashi Maru was not designed by Spock.  He went through it as well.


* The Kobayashi Maru would not be tested on cadets until at the earliest their junior year.  Since Kirk tried three times - he might have started the simulation in 2253


* Kirk wasn't criticized on his actions w/the Kobayashi Maru - he was commended.  Where was Capt./Adm. April in all this?  He should have been at least on the board when Kirk was 'reprimanded' for changing the parameters of the Kobayashi Maru.


* You cannot change the policies, procedures, or protocols of Star Fleet since they began before Kirk was born.


* Therefore Spock's rise to rank was not Commander till 2267 and on the Enterprise NCC-1701 (with no bloody A, B, C, D, or E).


* Spock was with Capt. Pike for 11 years while waiting for Kirk to rise to the rank of Capt and stayed on board when Kirk took command 2263.


* Kirk cannot rise to Capt. from Cadet in one swoop.  The most he could go would be two ranks and that would be Lt. Junior grade, and he'd still probably be assigned to the USS Republic.


* Team work - In our military today and like in Starfleet Academy of the future, team work would have been drilled into the cadets and not the individualism as seen in the new movie.  For example - Chekov "I can do it!  I can do it!" as he runs through the corridors wasting time to complete the energizing of the transporter to get the remaining Vulcans on board ship.  A time rift would not change the heart of Terrans to work together as a team.


* At the bar in Iowa, Uhura lists one of the drinks as a "Cardassian" some-thing-or-other.  No matter how the time line gets interrupted, it would still be way in the future to meet up w/Bajorans and Cardassians.


* The logical side of Vulcans was ensconced for centuries before meeting up with humans and they do not like to be touched.  This is due to mind melding at touch as probably other personal reasons.  So Spock would have stopped Uhura from touching him when she wanted to console him at his time of loosing his mother.


* Golly, where is Nurse Chapel in all this?  She had the unrequited love for Spock, not Uhura.


Star Trek has always been known to utilize science fact to bring about a science fiction that could possibly happen in the future.


* Vulcan orbits around a binary star and is very hot.  Supposedly the 'ice planet' can be seen from Vulcan because Spock 'Prime' saw his home world destroyed by Nero.  For science fact, a planet next to another planet could not have extreme differences in weather.  The computer in the life pod told Kirk it was a Class 'M' planet - much like earth - livable for humans (with the right environmental clothing and equipment etc.) so it has breathable air and has weather.  If it's in the same orbit or just not too far away from Vulcan, it may be a bit cooler - maybe like earth but not a frozen wasteland.


* And where did the life form with a 3-jawed mouth come from?  Talk about non-science fact!


This has been more about Star Wars than Star Trek.  Star Trek doesn't need a character in the script/plot for comic relief - our own characters, especially the actors themselves, can accomplish it quite well.  Get the bloody Ewok/Sand person out of there.


This story line could have been done with any of the future cast of the other Star Trek Series.  No original cast members from Deep Space 9 have been in a major Star Trek movie.  It could have been done so that Sisko, Kyra and others fight to make the time line right and get it back in place.  But - oh wait that's been done before with the whales and other story lines.  See?  No resolution.  No fight for life.  Don't worry about other lives that might not ever exist - like Picard?  Who would Q match wits with now?


            A good follower of the Prime Directive would not change a thing even if everything is wrong.  But who ever really followed the Prime Directive in the original series?  The only one from the original team is Spock Prime and to write it in that he puts up with the loss of Vulcan is incomprehensible!  He didn't leave things as they were for Captain Pike and he would take steps to the next episode - rightly called "Star Trek XII: Relativity" to join up with Capt Braxton of Voyager and invoke the Temporal Prime Directive.


            On Saturday, January 9th, 2010 we had a discussion at the sandwich shop "Which Wich:The Most Dangerous Sandwich in the World" from Noon to 2:00pm in Albuquerque, NM where the owner placed the event on his Face Book page and Twitter.  Anyone could come and discuss "Star Trek: It Isn't" during that time period.  There was also an incentive to the attendees if they purchased a sandwich, they would receive a free small drink or a free warm cookie.  We came to our consensus that the new movie is not Star Trek.  About a third of the group tried to be the Devil's advocate for the movie, but even they thought those scenarios were ridiculous.  The major part of the consensus was that this movie didn’t pass on to the viewer that there is hope.  No matter what Star Trek did under Gene, it always gave the message of hope for the human race.  As quoted from a Star Trek Movie – There are always possibilities!


            I will agree - It is "A" good movie, but it is not Star Trek - It's more like Star Wars so I call it Trek Wars.


            Now it's time to get to the truth of it.  They're in it just for the money.  Gene paid no never mind to the financial side of his storytelling.  Once the people could relate to the human issues, the characters, or even the philosophy - the money followed along with them.  It looks like when the only interest is in the money, the people will leave just as fast at their money leaves their pockets.


I've got a headache.


Truly,


Col. Margaret (Peggy) Stevens


CO, USS Code Talker


NCC-1195

And now, a word from our Commodore:


To the entire quadrant:  In the submission of this opinion counterbalancing the half-assed pandering reviews of the ignorant and those that have never had any idea of what Star Trek was...IS...about, and those within the community who have been led astray by the glitz of the special effects laden, deliberately derivative script - let them have it.  It was a lovely motion picture for a Star Wars movie....nothing more.  I leave it to all of us who know better than to accept this crap as Star Trek. 


Jolan T'ru...


Cmdr. Kristopher S. Morgan, UFP/SFC


* Deputy for the President of the UFP


and the Federation Council


* Commanding Officer, Vestavian System


New Mexico Quadrant


* Federation Governmental Representative


 

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