In fact, the outdated nature of Star Trek becomes glaringly apparent whenever it declares itself “edgy.” When Enterprise finally did an AIDS episode in 2003 (Stigma), I distinctly remember Rick Berman and Brannon Braga referring to it as “groundbreaking” television. Initially, I laughed at this unintentionally humorous statement. And then, like most of the audience, I simply yawned.

Stigma might’ve been a provocative and innovative episode for TNG in the 1980s. But to call it “groundbreaking” in the age of Reality TV and HBO belies the incredible ignorance of TPTB.

You’re right, Star Trek needs to be missed for a long time.

Star Trek is dead unfortunately. They need to do something huge in the future to get it going…like when TNG came out…new technology and ships….that’s really what we need…

This movie is likely to flop and it makes me sad.

Sorry, but Kirk is the “Chuck Norris” of the Star Trek universe. I just don’t see this movie cutting it…there’s canon issues and if it makes money, it’ll be b/c it’s a special effects light show. It won’t honor the vision of Star Trek nor give us old fans a “warm fuzzy” Star Trek feeling in the gut…*tear*

RIP Star Trek…you’ve boldy went….

I For One am looking foreward to a NEW trek, It’s time has come. Paramount had NEVER opened the purse strings to let the Special effects be given there due..( Look at ST5 and what Shatner had WANTED to do…) I still think of all the movies The Wrath of Khan was the best followed by The Undiscovered Country. The stories are there..let them be told. Roddenberry’s universe has different Ideals than ours. It makes for good story telling points. Mankind has matured and gone into the universe seeking out new life..ect…I hope the stories go on with the new crew.

Boldly GO!
Zajbo

Great post – and though you are unsure about the new flick its nice to see that you are open minded about it.

To be honest when this project was first announced last year – I myself was a tad concerned about the affect new poeple coming in to play Kirk and so forth would have on Star Trek.

I was never a huge Kirk fan – so we shall get that one out the way from the get go. My favorite TOS characters were Spock and McCoy – to me Kirk was the idiot who picked their brains lol – then balanced their advice with his own instincts and got the job done.

I think we have some pretty good choices in the new cast – the only one I’m unsure of is Chris Pine who plays the new Kirk – but that’s because I haven’t seen him in that much in order to make any real judgement.

I do not think that this movie will be detrimental to the Iconic nature of the original nor the original actors.

Fact is one of the first people to play Tarzan in the speaking Tarzan movies was Johnny Weissmuller – who today is somewhat of an iconic name when it comes to the movie history of Tarzan.

When you look at William Shatner he in many ways has transended Captain Kirk – yet Kirk will always be linked primarily with him.

Fact remains any reboot or reimagining to coin a phrase I really hate – has a big job to live up to in regards to the expectations of the established fan base – trouble is how is Abrams going to draw those new fans in.

Fact is even today if your a Trek fan that does conventions and goes as far as the sterotype as depicted in trekkies – it is still stared down upon by the mainstream – yet the cold harsh irony is that Star Trek now needs the mainstream in order to try and win over a few million new fans to secure its financial and commercial future.

TOS and TNG was really good for the fan base – at DS9 the fans started to fetter off – by Voyager they started to dwindle more. By time Enterprise came along the audience dwindle more.

In answer to your question – I think this movie is coming out way too soon. I’d have been happier if Star Trek had took a longer break of 10 years before coming back.

To give a point of refference. Here in the UK we have a show called Doctor Who. The original show of Doctor Who ran from 1963 until 1989 with only a 18 month break – over this time the show constantly reinvented itself – and survived due to this. What killed it was one man – the BBC head of programming Sir Michael Grade who in 1989 put Doctor Who up again the UKs most popular soap opera – the show was axed.

17 years went by – the books, toys and all the merchandise thrived – we had radio plays and the fans kept the spirit of Doctor Who alive.

In 2005 the show returned reinvigorated and won over new fans while retaining a fairly large percentage of the older fans who grew up watching the originals.

I guess what am trying to say if that – perhaps Star Trek needs to be missed for awhile longer – so that when it does come back the fans can appreciate it more – after all absence does make the heart grow fonder.

What is definitely a concern for me is that Abrams’ previous work (whether we’re talking writer or director) hasn’t really given me any pleasure. “Lost”, “Felicity”, “Alias” all left me cold. In fact I’d have to go back to “Regarding Henry” as the last Abram’s efoort I enjoyed.

When it does get released (here in Australia) I will probably go and see it which is ultimately the goal of the film makers and the studio. But whether I will be reinvigorated or fall in love anew with Trek because of this film…nah, I don’t think so. And whilst a core fan like me is important to the progression of Trek as a cultural phenomenon, what is arguably more important is Trek is brought a new audience that may not have the same preconceptions as us devotees.

The next question then would be…should Star Trek even be rebooted or continued. I’m sure several fans would have said no before TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise…

Shinobe, it does indeed and from what have been hearing they have taken steps to respect cannon – and have scattered refferences throughout their movie. I was told just this last week by someone more in the loop than I am that both Orci and Kurtzman our life long fans of Star Trek and have been for some time – one is more a TNG fan while the other is a TOS fan – so that kind of bodes well for the production.

Furthermore both also read the various Star Trek novels.

BTW have read Christie Golden, Peter David and Diane Carey. All were favourites of mine when I read the Trek novels. I haven’t read a Star Trek book in a year and a half because have moved onto reading other things.

Am also working on a few none trek related stories of my own between working on the site.

As to directors – well am more a fan of writing, and tbh the lack of shakespearian refferences in dilogue was sadly missed during Voyager and Enterprise.

I loved many of the threeway conversations between kirk, spock and McCoy where you’d get refferences to classic lit thrown in. For example the part in Star Trek 6 where McCoy quotes ‘Hamlet’.

I’m a lover of language.

I personally feel that Nick Meyer saved Star Trek – don’t get me wrong I loved the motion picture – but can see why it would not appeal to the broader audience given that it had a quite cerebral plot – but Wrath Of Khan to this day remains my favourite of the movie series – it had everything in it that I love in a good Trek story.

Christie Golden, whose works I have often enjoyed, thanks her editors and research staff on many occasions; who provided her with the necessary series episodes, technical manuals, chronological summaries, and of course, previous novels involving her choice of established characters, antagonists, or settings.

The idea of that much comphehensive work entailed in “getting it right” must have been both exhausting and daunting. And all this for the purposes of maintaining accuracy and comphrensive depth. She, and many other authors, manage to do so in a manner that pays homage to previous contributers and still creates something new and exciting. It’s worth reading.

If authors must combine substantive collections of story arcs and character data, necessarily, into their finished product, doesn’t it reason that J.J. Abrams and fellow co-writers did much of the same? Fan or not? You are in a unique position to answer such a question so I thought I’d pose it.

In the dialogue between you and Scorned, Ian, I was facsincated to read your opinions about particular ST writers and directors.

You can stick around. You less passionate view is appreciated and well thought.

I initially wasn’t that enthused about the new movie – more a case of oh crap not another battlestar galactica which will be loved by the critics and a small 2 million strong audience and not so much loved by the vast majority out there.

I was also a tad dissapointed in that they were not going to do one more TNG movie as well – Nemesis was a massive let down – but it was all to do with Stuart Baird not knowing or appreciated Trek or respecting the actors and their takes on the characters.

I’ve personally spoke to both Nichelle Nichols and LeVar Burton. Nichelle really appreciates how J.J. Abrams is going about rebooting trek. As in he has literally gone round the original series cast asking for their ideas and advice on how they think he should move foreword. Hardly the method that a careless 90210 spotty wet behing the ears type of producer would go about things – further more he is not obligated to do that – it is something he chose to do out of respect for Star Trek and the original series actors. So that in and of its self is a reason to be somewhat more optimistic.

Anyway thanks for your input and feel free to post on any number of the other stories that I run around here. I appreciated you balanced view and well consider response.

I happen to get scorns concerns to a point – but I feel he is letting his passion rule him a little too much. I will answer his 15 hour post now – because he missed my point entirely.