Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rant: Star Trek movie 11, Trek is dead.

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 11

An early Star Trek movie? Well, Star Trek has lost me.

An early Star Trek movie? Well, Star Trek has lost me.

TOS and TNG are far apart, yet both are real Star Trek that the audience enjoyed. Then came DS-9. Obviously not for everyone. It separated from Trek by being a soap opera while Berman was there, but then became a decent show with a slow moving story line. In that aspect, it wasn't standard Trek. Yet, it had tie-ins with TNG, with characters moving over, and advanced the Trek story line, albeit in the Delta quandrant.

Then came Voyager, with it's Feminist in-your-face agenda, and all together stupidity. Anyone i asked that watched it seemed to watch it because it was the only Trek availible. And here's the dfference, people who watched Voyager watched it mostly because it was there. They didn't watch DS-9, because it watch to drama-ish. The inverse however, is that people who watched DS-9 became enthralled with real character development (in some cases giving TNG charactyers some depth) and slower, powerful story lines. Yet they disliked Voyager, simply because it wasn't Trek.

Then came Enterprise, and to call it Trek is simply a disgrace to Roddenberry's name.

As far as i'm concerned, there are three Trek shows, TOS, TNG, and DS-9, and two officially sanctioned knock-offs, unfortunately diluiting the Trek name.

As if that wan't enough, the movies came along. Trek 1 was an attempt to keep people going, ending in Trek 2 that had a very nice story, picking up from an old episode. Kudos to them for that. Three, four, five, and six were mostly silly, yet it was Trek in that the comradery and humor of the characters was there. They could have done a play and people would enjoy the characters. 7 and 8 were mostly TNG and played into the neat ideas and gadgetry of TNG. Eye candy, Trek style. OK, not bad. 9 and 10 just plain were horrible. They asked Frakes why he butchered 9, and he responded that he was ust having fun. Therein lies the problem. I could never stand Riker anyway. And 10, i could hardly follow the story. I still don't know what the point was.

Is this all Berman's fault? Can't somebody just stun him or keep him in stasis for a few years while Trek recovers from it's terminal grafting?

And now 11. Nothing to do with TNG, not even DS-9. But, they'll go backwards to rewrite history. Who cares anyway? Does anybody really care that the Star Wars "prequels" were made? Sure it's a nice attempt and tell the story, but it's not like people had to know and are now satisfied. Trek needs to move forward. Play with more ideas, rather than rehash old ones and try to keep in a story line.

Bah! They don't care about Trek. And neither do i. I have no desire to watch a Trek 11. The series is mostly dead for all i care.

cancel ×

11 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9664524)

At least you're not bitter about it.

Well (1)

Neop2Lemus (683727) | more than 10 years ago | (#9664750)

Unless there are rave reviews for ST11 I'm not seeing it. I feel ripped off enough from 10 (9 I got from the library so I was safe there, still want back my 1.5 hours though).

I always felt that a Klingon miniseries, perhaps on a part of their history or their mythological past would be fascinating. I don't understand why its never been made.

DS9 and Voyager I could never get into, ST for me is TOS (when it was good) and TNG. Haven't seen TAS yet.

Re:Well (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#9664856)

I always felt that a Klingon miniseries, perhaps on a part of their history or their mythological past would be fascinating. I don't understand why its never been made.

Neat idea. It'd be a nice idea to show a non-Earth centric show.

And TAS is cute if you want to see it. Nothing to go crazy over.

Trek (1)

mfh (56) | more than 10 years ago | (#9666049)

> An early Star Trek movie? Well, Star Trek has lost me.

Me too. But sadly, the days when Trek was aimed at nerds like me, are long gone. They are going for the hick audience and if you need proof, then you'd have to look at the fact that Paramount signed the TNN deal, and that TNN is the The Nashville Network. The cowboys like Trek, as a kind of space cowboy appeal. And if you need a reason to watch Voyager, just take a look at Jeri Ryan for five seconds.

> TOS and TNG are far apart, yet both are real Star Trek that the audience enjoyed.

I think the reason for this is that TNG offered something TOS couldn't; current graphics and realism... or at least a higher grade of realism than TOS.

> Then came DS-9. Obviously not for everyone. It separated from Trek by being a soap opera while Berman was there, but then became a decent show with a slow moving story line.

Agreed. This was intended. Paramount was going for the soap opera crowd, with love plots and the cheesy dialogue. Alien sex grew into a bunch of lame plots that all lead back to that conclusion... DS9 was a soap.

> In that aspect, it wasn't standard Trek. Yet, it had tie-ins with TNG, with characters moving over, and advanced the Trek story line, albeit in the Delta quandrant.

They picked the worst characters to move over, sadly. I would have loved to see Patrick Stuart reassigned to DS9. That would have been good. "The Boy" Crusher would have been better, too. But they failed to get there. They wanted to break with tradition, but all they ended up doing was following the cookie cutter. They placed a bald Patrick Stuart in charge of Enterprise... a thinking man, a brainiac. That was a break from TOS, and then they broke from TNG by placing a black captain in charge of DS9, who worked with others much like Stuart, but then they went one further with DS9 by making the captain a divine entity, in storylines thick with religion, and the science of it. Then with Voyager, they broke with tradition again by making the captain female. Obviously, I'm not against any of these developments. What's bothering is that these developments only overshadowed the true nature of Trek, which was to bold go where no one has gone before. How can you do that in stories thick with political correctness? Political correctness overshadows the call to explore the universe. TOS was not politicaly correct; it was a man's show, really. Kirk was a man's man... and I mean that as a kind of Hestonian cry for more beer, guns and nachoes. The rest of Trek has abandoned that.

> Then came Voyager, with it's Feminist in-your-face agenda, and all together stupidity. Anyone i asked that watched it seemed to watch it because it was the only Trek availible.

Ryan, Jeri Ryan. :-)

> And here's the dfference, people who watched Voyager watched it mostly because it was there. They didn't watch DS-9, because it watch to drama-ish.

Everyone on DS9 was ugly. That's why. The sexism was pulled from it, and even though TNG was a thinking-man's Trek, it was still ripe with sexism, and sexual inuendoes. That's part of what makes Trek fun, chauvanism or not.

> The inverse however, is that people who watched DS-9 became enthralled with real character development (in some cases giving TNG charactyers some depth) and slower, powerful story lines. Yet they disliked Voyager, simply because it wasn't Trek.

Well, DS9 had character development, but that's only because there's not much else you can do when you've got this shiny object floating in space, not going anywhere. There's no new adventure, only new drama. It bored me to tears, but today I would rather watch DS9 than any other Trek because there are still episodes I haven't seen yet! Now that's not even sarcasm.

> Then came Enterprise, and to call it Trek is simply a disgrace to Roddenberry's name.

I don't think it's Trek at all. It's more like Tek Wars than Trek. Plus, it's like the level of technology in Voyager, but reduced on a universal level. Scott Bakula would be much better under different direction. He's actually a great actor. But he's being misled by the B&B team of bafoons.

> As far as i'm concerned, there are three Trek shows, TOS, TNG, and DS-9, and two officially sanctioned knock-offs, unfortunately diluiting the Trek name.

Not true for me. For me, there's only one Trek and that's TOS. The others are franchises. Much like how McDonald's evolved, really. There's that original store, somewhere in the USA, and there's every other McDonald's in the world. They will keep cranking out Treks until they go broke. Paramount is a Trek machine.

> As if that wan't enough, the movies came along. Trek 1 was an attempt to keep people going, ending in Trek 2 that had a very nice story, picking up from an old episode.

Khan was the apex of Trek. It has never been better and it never will be. Not unless they figure out how to bottle that and resell it. You can't do better than that. Look at the calibre of actor in Ricardo Montalban. Maybe if some of the Hollywood A-List were interested in getting back to basics they would want to have significant roles in Trek. But today, we just don't have that. There's not the support for Trek there was back when ST2 was made. And because of the track record, there never will be.

> Is this all Berman's fault? Can't somebody just stun him or keep him in stasis for a few years while Trek recovers from it's terminal grafting?

Trek can't recover. That's why they are holding the line with Berman. They've decided that there is a core of viewers who will watch any Trek, just because it's Trek branded, and that's not enough to save the franchise, but it's enough to make a bit of profit. Budgets will decrease and the audience will decrease, but they will still make money on it, so they don't care.

> And now 11. Nothing to do with TNG, not even DS-9. But, they'll go backwards to rewrite history. Who cares anyway? Does anybody really care that the Star Wars "prequels" were made?

I agree. It's only about money now, and nothing else. I won't spend anything on it, and I won't watch it anymore. They would have to produce Porno Trek for me to regain any interest, whatsoever, and at that it would only be a slightly novel interest, and nothing like the interest I had when the Borg were rising stars of TNG.

> Sure it's a nice attempt and tell the story, but it's not like people had to know and are now satisfied. Trek needs to move forward. Play with more ideas, rather than rehash old ones and try to keep in a story line.

They need to develop more science and ideas. That hasn't happened since TNG. So that's the answer, I think. And you can't do that by doing prequels.

> Bah! They don't care about Trek. And neither do i. I have no desire to watch a Trek 11. The series is mostly dead for all i care.

It's dead as a doornail, and there's no way to breathe life back into it, save for a series starring Paris Hilton as a sex-crazed captain.

Re:Trek (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#9667552)

Mostly agreed. Thanx for the reply.

---

DS9 was a soap...There's no new adventure, only new drama.

Well, the fiorst two seasons were. After that a decent story line moved in. Similar to DBZ where stories take many episodes to unfold. It can be a very fulfilling experience to those willing to wait.

And there was action. Just only when the story allowed for it. Ever watch Lois and Clark? The focus was on the story, making the action sequences infrequent, but a treat when they did happen.

Scott Bakula would be much better under different direction. He's actually a great actor

As far as him being a great actor, i am a fan of Quantum Leap. Though, as for another director being better, it could be, but not neccesarily. I'm just not sure he is ST captain material.

They picked the worst characters to move over

Disagreed, Dorn was of the best actors on TNG, and did fine in the episodes dealing with his conflicts. DS-9 was wonderful for both him and his character.

Moving O'Brien was OK, he wasn't bad, and it was fun to actually give him more than two lines to speak at a time. And who doesn't like Smiley? :)

I would have loved to see Patrick Stuart reassigned to DS9. That would have been good.

Noooooooooooooooo!

"The Boy" Crusher would have been better, too.

Perhaps. If they actually stopped butchering the character.

They wanted to break with tradition,

No, it wasn't Voyager. They wanted all the tradition, but actually give it some depth.

They placed a bald Patrick Stuart in charge of Enterprise... a thinking man, a brainiac.

No. He was an ISTJ, an organizer. A Guardian hardly suited for the job. but by no means a "braniac".

That was a break from TOS

True, TOS was tactical, making the extraverted Artisan captain a wonderful choice.

and then they broke from TNG by placing a black captain in charge of DS9,

I don't they made issue of his color.

who worked with others much like Stuart,

Actualy, as an Artisan, he was more like Kirk. Unless you'e atalking about the actor, whom i know nothing about.

but then they went one further with DS9 by making the captain a divine entity, in storylines thick with religion, and the science of it.

Perhaps that is why you didn't like it.

The story was that he rejected the idea of being divine, though he accepted a scientific foray into the idea, until he became entangled and started to believe it. Then he fought back out, and finally accepted it. This is basically the same story line as Mulder on the X-files.

Then with Voyager, they broke with tradition again by making the captain female.

The writers were feminist, so it was a break, or more an in-your-face thing.

They need to develop more science and ideas. That hasn't happened since TNG.

True. Though having a nice story is good too. I'd love both, but if there was only one, Trek is about tech.

It's dead as a doornail, and there's no way to breathe life back into it,

Well, unless they get some people who care in charge.

---

Again, thanx for the post.

MST3K (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 10 years ago | (#9669478)

If you're wondering how he eats and breathes And other science facts,
Just repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax"


I think someone takes Star Trek far too seriously...

Stopped watching TV altogether (1)

yuri benjamin (222127) | more than 10 years ago | (#9670211)

I stopped watching TV altogether years ago. I've only seen a few episodes of anything other than the ones with Shatner et al.
What I've seen seemed silly. The last Star Trek movie I saw was the "Save The Whales" movie. I enjoyed the early ones with Khan etc.

Re:Stopped watching TV altogether (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#9671157)

Good for you!

So did i. :)

Except that i still watch things on the computer.

Re:Stopped watching TV altogether (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#9682825)

Are you sure you aren't that guy that the Onion reported about who doesn't own a TV and likes to state that fact to anyone who happens to be around? ;P

Re:Stopped watching TV altogether (1)

yuri benjamin (222127) | more than 10 years ago | (#9683291)

Damn! You've blown my cover.

Voyager (1)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9670806)

Voyager (or was it the other shitty one) did have the hot vulcan chick who regularly got scrubbed down in the "decontamination" chamber.

That was kinda cool.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?