TV: The All - Encompassing Star Trek Thread. Debate Long + Prosper

[Jussi]

Since it's First Contact Day, we're 41 years from the Vulcans contacting the human race. Still time to get that WWIII out of the way too...

 

[Big Z Man 1990]

As we all know, the Star Trek franchise was for many years the property of Paramount Television. The PTV logos from 1987-2006 used a jingle that ironically sounded like the theme to rival franchise Star Wars.

 

[Blender]

Looks so much fun.

The heavy emphasis on action set pieces and one-liners is very disappointing.

 

[Jussi]

The heavy emphasis on action set pieces and one-liners is very disappointing.

What the hell did you expect from a trailer? Long philosophical discussions?

 

[Blender]

What the hell did you expect from a trailer? Long philosophical discussions?

They heavily marketed the "we're going back to classic Trek" in their earlier promotions, so something in line with that is what I expected.

It will probably just end up being Discovery 2.0.

 

[Osprey]

They heavily marketed the "we're going back to classic Trek" in their earlier promotions, so something in line with that is what I expected.

It will probably just end up being Discovery 2.0.

To them, "classic Trek" is the reboot trilogy. This series does look a lot like those movies, doesn't it? I think that something like them is the best that we can hope for.

 

[johnjm22]

The thing is, I don't want classic Trek.

I want Star Trek to push forward and do new and inventive things while maintaining the continuity, canon, and ethos of the franchise.

Star Trek today strip-mines every little memberberry it can from its classic Trek shows/movies, while simultaneously trend-chasing whatever's popular at the moment. It's a failing formula.

 

[Osprey]

The thing is, I don't want classic Trek.

I want Star Trek to push forward and do new and inventive things while maintaining the continuity, canon, and ethos of the franchise.

Star Trek today strip-mines every little memberberry it can from its classic Trek shows/movies, while simultaneously trend-chasing whatever's popular at the moment. It's a failing formula.

What I think that Blender meant, and what I meant, is a return to Trek being intelligent drama with good stories, characters and dialogue, rather than the glitzy action and one-liners that we've mostly gotten with "nuTrek." I think that it's possible to maintain what we like about Trek and what feels like Trek while still pushing the franchise forward in new and inventive ways. TNG and DS9 both did that. They were different in some ways than what came before, but still felt like Trek.

If I were in charge, I'd start with a clean slate and set a new series 30 years after TNG, with a new Enterprise and a new crew that has no relation to any previous crew. That may not sound very inventive, but that's what Roddenberry did with TNG, and it allowed him to be as imaginative and inventive as he wanted. Look at what that did for the franchise. Start with a familiar premise and once you establish what the universe of the future is like, you can consider building outward upon that base with more inventive and experimental projects, like DS9 and Voyager were. Part of Trek's current problem is that it stopped moving forward 20 years ago and Paramount has been happy with that and being stuck in the past. That said, even if Paramount were to announce just such a series tomorrow, I'd have no hope for it with Kurtzman and his writers behind it.

 

[Lshap]

What I think that Blender meant, and what I meant, is a return to Trek being intelligent drama with good stories, characters and dialogue, rather than the glitzy action and one-liners that we've mostly gotten with "nuTrek." I think that it's possible to maintain what we like about Trek and what feels like Trek while still pushing the franchise forward in new and inventive ways. TNG and DS9 both did that. They were different in some ways than what came before, but still felt like Trek.

If I were in charge, I'd start with a clean slate and set a new series 30 years after TNG, with a new Enterprise and a new crew that has no relation to any previous crew. That may not sound very inventive, but that's what Roddenberry did with TNG, and it allowed him to be as imaginative and inventive as he wanted. Look at what that did for the franchise. Start with a familiar premise and once you establish what the universe of the future is like, you can consider building outward upon that base with more inventive and experimental projects, like DS9 and Voyager were. Part of Trek's current problem is that it stopped moving forward 20 years ago and Paramount has been happy with that and being stuck in the past. That said, even if Paramount were to announce just such a series tomorrow, I'd have no hope for it with Kurtzman and his writers behind it.

Agree completely. How many reboots of Spock can we have? I'm waiting for every Spock actor to show up together in Star Trek: No Way Home...

No reason we can't have the best of both worlds. I would have no problem with a Trek continuation that maintains its threads to the past – a TNG character's son/daughter, a TNG cast member cameo, etc. – as long as it's done organically as part of fresh storylines. Referencing its magnificent history is part of the franchise's charm. But wouldn't it be amazing to finally 'boldly go' somewhere new, with characters that carry the torch forward, instead of simply re-inventing the old torch?

No one imagined a different captain other than Kirk, until they created Jean Luc Picard.

 

[johnjm22]

What I think that Blender meant, and what I meant, is a return to Trek being intelligent drama with good stories, characters and dialogue, rather than the glitzy action and one-liners that we've mostly gotten with "nuTrek." I think that it's possible to maintain what we like about Trek and what feels like Trek while still pushing the franchise forward in new and inventive ways. TNG and DS9 both did that. They were different in some ways than what came before, but still felt like Trek.

If I were in charge, I'd start with a clean slate and set a new series 30 years after TNG, with a new Enterprise and a new crew that has no relation to any previous crew. That may not sound very inventive, but that's what Roddenberry did with TNG, and it allowed him to be as imaginative and inventive as he wanted. Look at what that did for the franchise. Start with a familiar premise and once you establish what the universe of the future is like, you can consider building outward upon that base with more inventive and experimental projects, like DS9 and Voyager were. Part of Trek's current problem is that it stopped moving forward 20 years ago and Paramount has been happy with that and being stuck in the past. That said, even if Paramount were to announce just such a series tomorrow, I'd have no hope for it with Kurtzman and his writers behind it.

If I were in charge of Star Trek, production on all current shows and movies would cease immediately. Kurztmen & Co. would be bought out / fired.

I would de-canonize EVERYTHING except: TOS, TNG, DS9, and the first 6 movies.

Not sure what I would want the next iteration of the franchise to be. I'd just want really talented writers working on it who are passionate about trying to make something good and aren't interested in trend-chasing.

 

[Tawnos]

Agree completely. How many reboots of Spock can we have? I'm waiting for every Spock actor to show up together in Star Trek: No Way Home...

No reason we can't have the best of both worlds. I would have no problem with a Trek continuation that maintains its threads to the past – a TNG character's son/daughter, a TNG cast member cameo, etc. – as long as it's done organically as part of fresh storylines. Referencing its magnificent history is part of the franchise's charm. But wouldn't it be amazing to finally 'boldly go' somewhere new, with characters that carry the torch forward, instead of simply re-inventing the old torch?

No one imagined a different captain other than Kirk, until they created Jean Luc Picard.

I don't disagree with this, but to be clear, this is not another reboot of Spock. It's the same actor continuing on the same arc he started in Discovery.

 

[johnjm22]

I'm really looking forward to watching Star Trek The Motion Picture in the theater next month.

This is the definitive version as Robert Wise intended it.

If any one is interested, here's a podcast discussing it. It includes Daren Dochterman who worked on the project: The Inglorious Treksperts Podcast

It's on Paramount+ right now, but I'd rather wait to see it in the theater.

 

[Osprey]

I'm really looking forward to watching Star Trek The Motion Picture in the theater next month.

This is the definitive version as Robert Wise intended it.

If any one is interested, here's a podcast discussing it. It includes Daren Dochterman who worked on the project: The Inglorious Treksperts Podcast

It's on Paramount+ right now, but I'd rather wait to see it in the theater.

I envy you. It looks like the nearest theater to me that will be playing it is further away than I'd like to drive. Maybe I'll change my mind, if anything because it's the only ST movie of the first 10 that I didn't see on the big screen and probably needs it.

I do have the same Director's Cut on DVD, though, and was impressed by how much better paced and enjoyable it was. Wise did a good job turning a pretty plodding movie into a pretty decent one. I recommend it to those who haven't seen it.

 

[johnjm22]

I envy you. It looks like the nearest theater to me that will be playing it is further away than I'd like to drive. Maybe I'll change my mind, if anything because it's the only ST movie of the first 10 that I didn't seen on the big screen and probably needs it.

I do have the same Director's Cut on DVD, though, and was impressed by how much better paced and enjoyable it was. Wise did a good job turning a pretty plodding movie into a pretty decent one. I recommend it to those who haven't seen it.

It's like an hour and 15 minutes away for me.

I only go to the theater these days if it's something special, or if a director I really like is putting out a new movie. It amounts to like 1 or 2 theater trips per year so I don't mind driving a long ways for an IMAX screen. I make a day of it.

The first real movie I ever saw in a theater was Star Trek 6: TUC. I've seen every ST movie since, but I missed the first 5. I don't know if I'll ever get a chance to see 3, 4 or 5 on the big screen, but every few years it seems like the Wrath of Khan gets a limited theatrical release.

If JJ Abrams, Kurtzman, or any other affiliated yahoos are involved with with next ST film, that will be the end of my patronage streak for ST films. It was really hard to get me back to the theater after the atrocious Into Darkness.

 

[johnjm22]

 

[johnjm22]

S'Chn T'Gai Spock

This poster was released at the Mission Chicago Star Trek Convention. Apparently Spock's first name will be used in the SNW series. There was a novel in the 1980's that used 'S'Chn T'Gai' so that's where they got the name.

Star Trek officially retracted the above poster after it leaked online. So who knows now.

I believe there was a TOS episode where Spock may have mentioned he had a full name.

 

[Osprey]

If JJ Abrams, Kurtzman, or any other affiliated yahoos are involved with with next ST film, that will be the end of my patronage streak for ST films. It was really hard to get me back to the theater after the atrocious Into Darkness.

My streak ended with the 2009 reboot. I had no interest in seeing that or its sequels in the theater, though I did end up seeing Into Darkness only because I was visiting my brother, we needed something to do, he was given two tickets and he wanted to see it.

Star Trek officially retracted the above poster after it leaked online. So who knows now.

I'd take it down, too. That thing is goofy.

 

[Jussi]

S'Chn T'Gai Spock

This poster was released at the Mission Chicago Star Trek Convention. Apparently Spock's first name will be used in the SNW series. There was a novel in the 1980's that used 'S'Chn T'Gai' so that's where they got the name.

Star Trek officially retracted the above poster after it leaked online. So who knows now.

I believe there was a TOS episode where Spock may have mentioned he had a full name.

UPDATE: M'Benga and Spock Full Names "Incorrect" on Mission Chicago STRANGE NEW WORLDS Posters

UPDATE: Paramount+ says M'Benga and Spock full names "incorrect" on Chicago STAR TREK: STRANGE NEW WORLDS posters

blog.trekcore.com

APRIL 9 UPDATE: CBS/Paramount+ reached out to our team this morning to “clarify” that these updated character posters were “inadvertently displayed with Spock and M’Benga’s names that were incorrect.”

The posters were removed from the Mission Chicago Strange New Worlds costume and prop exhibit; the statement continues: “Sometimes when you work at warp speed, mistakes are made. While Spock and M’Benga do indeed have first names, they have yet to be revealed.”

 

[Jussi]

Side note on Picard, Orla Brady(Watcher/Laris) is 61?!

Also, Allison Pill actually sang in last week's episode:

Alison Pill reveals how 'Picard' redefined Star Trek’s scariest villain [Exclusive]

Alison Pill star of 'Star Trek: Picard' explores the “new vibe” of her character, Anges Jurati, and reveals the secrets of how and why she sang that Pat Bentar song.

www.inverse.com

Just in case anyone is confused, yes that is Alison Pill actually singing “Shadows of the Night” in Star Trek: Picard. Pill is a multitalented performer and has plenty of experience singing as well as playing musical instruments. She even taught herself drums for 2010’s Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and sings on that movie’s soundtrack, too. For Picard, she confirms she recorded the song before filming.

 

[Blender]

My streak ended with the 2009 reboot. I had no interest in seeing that or its sequels in the theater, though I did end up seeing Into Darkness only because I was visiting my brother, we needed something to do, he was given two tickets and he wanted to see it.



I'd take it down, too. That thing is goofy.

I saw 2009 in theatres and hated it. Didn't go see Into Darkness but saw it later, and still think it's the worst Star Trek film in the franchise.

Beyond is the only one of the new 3 films I enjoyed, and it still has plenty of flaws.

 

[Jussi]

Last week's episode of Picard showcased depression and how people handle it really well. The line by Picard: "Sometimes those who shine the brightest feel the sting of fear and melancholy in ways that others can never understand." Brilliant.

 

[Osprey]

APRIL 9 UPDATE: CBS/Paramount+ reached out to our team this morning to “clarify” that these updated character posters were “inadvertently displayed with Spock and M’Benga’s names that were incorrect.”

The posters were removed from the Mission Chicago Strange New Worlds costume and prop exhibit; the statement continues: “Sometimes when you work at warp speed, mistakes are made. While Spock and M’Benga do indeed have first names, they have yet to be revealed.”

It seems sad when "find out what Spock's first name is" is a reason to tune into the new show, to the point that, even after the cat is out of the bag, they're scrambling to put it back in. Is this what Trek has come to? Will the big tease for Season 2 be the reveal of Christopher Pike's middle name?

 

[Guardian17]

It seems sad when "find out what Spock's first name is" is a reason to tune into the new show, to the point that, even after the cat is out of the bag, they're scrambling to put it back in. Is this what Trek has come to? Will the big tease for Season 2 be the reveal of Christopher Pike's middle name?

I think they leaked it on purpose to see how the fandom would react.

Clearly, it was not positive.

 

[Osprey]

I think they leaked it on purpose to see how the fandom would react.

I think that they're just disorganized. Remember when, during Discovery Season 1, they created a fake IMDb profile that spoiled the season's big twist, then denied it and even got the actors to lie and say nice things about the imaginary actor? The same marketing department is now scrambling to preserve a reveal in this season.

 

[Guardian17]

I think that they're just disorganized. Remember when, during Discovery Season 1, they created a fake IMDb profile that spoiled the season's big twist, then denied it and even got the actors to lie and say nice things about the imaginary actor? The same marketing department is now scrambling to preserve a reveal in this season.

If you're right, someone needs to get fired.