The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > My Thoughts on the Future of Trek
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-19-2008, 06:50 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Smile My Thoughts on the Future of Trek

I actually posted this originally as a heartfelt plea to be understood in another thread, then I realised that this post deserves a thread of it's own.

I really put a lot of effort and heart into what I had to say and I hope the admin doesn't consider this as spamming the forum.

A little bit of context is neccessary.

The following is my post from a discussion in another thread "Mistake in Movie". We're having a argument about the seemingly ridiculous notion that the gear shift in the red Corvette matters at all in the grand scheme of things.

Below is my attempt to understand die-hard canon purists and to ask them if they can understand where the rest of us are coming from.

I hope we all learn something new from each other.

The original post begins...
...
...
...
...
...
NOW!




Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
"It's just I can't believe that something so pointless as a gear transmission(even if it is canon) even bothers people at all, compared to all the other canon discrepancies being discussed and dealt with.

Does this manual gear shift bother you that much dude?"


Actually, and I mean no offense by this, yeah, the manual gear shift does bother me that much...

I replied to another post about this same point. In the grand scheme of all the other gripes and complaints being thrown around about this movie, no it doesn't matter much at all.

Thanks for meeting me halfway at least.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
But to me it stood out, because I've been an "old school" Trekkie (yeah, I know, don't even start on the Trekkie vs. Trekker crap!) since I was a little kid. I'm 42 now and watched the first syndicated reruns when I was about 8 or so. I grew up with Trek and have been a fan my whole life.
That's cool that you were here from the beginning of Trek.

But I'm only 20 and it saddens me that older Trek fans seem to think they own the very essense of the series itself.

It is quite alienating to younger Trek fans when it feels like we're being thrown scraps of Trek rather than being able to sit at the same table with the seniors and sharing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
The fun of Star Trek has always been these stupid little things that I watched over and over, grew up with, remember and enjoy. It's familiar and fun. And I guess part of being a diehard lifelong fan is that you get a little bit protective of something you grew up with and enjoyed so much.

Trek has always been a part of my life. I went to the first convention in New York City with my dad. At about 12, I met Gene Roddenberry, got a handshake and a real autograph (I still have it - he even personalized it!). I remember saving my allowance to buy Starlog magazine as a kid just to grab the latest news about the first new movie - STMP.

I cut out of school early to get in line for the first showing of TWOK (and got grounded for a week when my mom found out). I watched the premier episode of TNG in the dorm lounge in college on a big screen tv. I didn't even give up after I saw Star Trek V!
My dad introduced me to Star Trek(and he doesn't even care about Star Trek that much), so I know what you're talking about here. We used to watch TNG episodes together when I was a kid, one time he rented all of the first 6 movies on VHS for me to watch. He carried our entire family to the movie theater to see the the rest of the movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
It's always been a part of my life, so yeah, something dumb like seeing a young Kirk tear around in a Corvette bothers me.
I don't see why that is so bad. Kirk's always been a rebel of sorts and he does like antiques, seems fairly true to character to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
And so does a totally different looking Enterprise being built on the ground in Iowa.
I had a little trouble getting used to it being built on the ground too. I got over it, as for it being built in Iowa I still say that the clips that were shown were being ambiguous and weren't telling the whole story, not to mention that some of the reporters that documented the clips didn't have any idea about the real canon and had no idea how to fill in the blanks and create an accurate report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
And so do Romulans being seen before Balance of Terror.
Time travel changes many things. Lily(21st century) knows what The Borg(24th century) look like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
And yes, it scares me to hear somebody say they never really understood Star Trek, preferred Star Wars, and wants to make a movie for new fans. And, well, you get the idea.
Well Trek isn't just for current Trek fans. At least I don't think it should be.(my dad is a good example of this potential new fan base)

A non-Trek fan(who IS now a Trek fan) making a Trek movie seems like a good test to see if non-Trekkies will finally get it and realise what they've been missing out on.

This movie needs to be made if you believe that Star Trek should evolve and live on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
I just feel a bit protective of something I grew up with. Something that's been a part of my life for well over 30 years.
I'm guilty of being a bit protective and irrational about it as well. I've shown the trailer to a lot of my friends and their first response after watching the trailer has almost unanimously been "I'm not a fan but, I want to see this movie."(sound familiar?)

This movie has me optimistic that I wont be too lonely in my love of Trek for much longer.

It's nice to know you're not alone, it's even nicer to know that there's a chance that there's more people out there that will potentially join you in something that you love.(Humanity's and Star Trek's quest for intelligent life is a nice parallel here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjh1701 View Post
I was just expecting a little more loyalty to the original legend that started it all, built four series, ten movies, and all the fun I've enjoyed my whole life.

That's all.
I hate to quote something from Star Wars(I'm a fan of both ) but, "Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose." - Master Yoda

I'm not saying that I'm not guilty of flying off the handle about canon, but I do recognise that this nitpicking is destructive and hampering in the grand scheme of things.

I believe that everything can be better than it already is.(this is also what Star Trek has led me to believe)

Sometimes to make something better overall you have to make some sacrifices.

For now, I'm asking that we give up the gear transmission thing, I don't think that's too much to ask.

We Trekkies often dream about living in the future, yet we seem so intent on having a death grip on the past.

It can't be the way it is now forever, it just can't be.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-19-2008, 07:00 PM
Ferrous's Avatar
Ferrous Ferrous is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 181
Default

Great post. It is true. The purists alone cannot lay claim to Star Trek. Since TNG, Star Trek has evolved to include many different types of fan. I think the problem many die-hards have is that their vision of Star Trek isn't being created. Some want an exact recreation of TOS on the big screen. Others want a continuation of the same old TNG we have had for the past 20 years.

This is a new beginning for Star Trek that frees it from everything that has made it stale. It allows new adventures with the crew that started it all and opens the door to a new generation of fans while still allowing, I think, a large majority of previous fans to still remain connected to it.

again, great post.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-19-2008, 08:20 PM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

We should remember that canon purists know Trek the best from a story standpoint.

That demands a lot of my respect from me.

But stories also have meanings and underlying themes and parallels in real life that I think are just as important, if not more important than the story itself.

You can use the same underlying themes of the old stories to tell new stories and create new themes.

A lot of times, you can tell the same story in a new way and that works well too.

I care more about the ideals, and lessons learned, and moral conundrums of the human condition that Star Trek portrays so well than I do about a gear shift mechanism, and I make no apologies for that.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-20-2008, 06:38 AM
thypentacle's Avatar
thypentacle thypentacle is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Eastern U.S.
Posts: 369
Default

I think at this moment in time Star Trek is on the way up to a fork in the road... my take on Trek's future is thus...

1. New movie does well, bringing in more fans and hopefully not making many of the older ones too angry for too long and driving them away... with sequels following or a new TV series being created.

2. New movie tanks, bringing forth what I feel will be a huge delay in next Trek creation... as happened after the original series got the boot... then in about 10 years they will try something else.


Seems the two most logical paths to me, at least for the short term 'Trek Future'. I do know this much for certain, this next movie.... much is riding on it indeed!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-20-2008, 06:41 AM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

See this is why I created a new thread for this topic.

In the original thread "Mistake in Movie", just one person commented on my long, heartfelt post and everyone else either (a) went on discussing the damn manual transmission, (b) started insulting each other left and right, or (c) both.

You guys really know how to depress other fans, you truly do.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-20-2008, 08:05 AM
kjh1701 kjh1701 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Default Great Idea to Start a New Thread!

I feel for you - it's frustrating to try discussing something serious and get bombarded with obnoxious replies...!

I'm the 40-year fan who was complaining about the new movie. But I'm still looking forward to seeing some new Trwk, if that makes any sense. I'm just getting a little frustrated about some of what I see happening to my sacred original series Trek that I grew up with.

The analogy I made on the other post is listed below:

"If you grew up knowing and loving the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears, and suddenly someone decides to 'reboot' it by changing Goldilocks to a 40-year-old, tatooed sailor who goes through a grass hut on a tropic beach that was built by three little pigs who ate Pop Tarts instead of porridge, you might get a tad unnerved and upset...! Yeah, the basic message might be the same, but if you're expecting blonds, bears, and porridge but find yourself looking at Popeye, pigs, and Pop Tarts, well, you get the idea..."

I'm all for new Trek - and seeing a new, younger generation of fans joining in on the fun of Trek is really cool for me too. I'm 42, so I was too young to really remember the original episodes when they first aired. But I did see the first syndicated reruns and that's where I began loving Trek.

I've met people who watched it originally and were involved in the original Save Star Trek campaigns and it's cool to hear their stories. They were always supportive of me as a kid, so I guess us old-heads need to pass on the torch.

It always amazes me to meet people who love TNG, DS9, VOY (and even more amazing if they loved ENT!) but never saw TOS. I always tell them they have no idea what they are missing!

I'm complaining about the new movie based on 40+ years of growing up with something I knew very well. And it scares me to think I'm sounding like a grumpy old man. I'm looking forward to the new movie, really! I just don't want to see it changed so damn much...!

Last edited by kjh1701 : 11-20-2008 at 08:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-20-2008, 08:31 AM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

The best episode I can think of that best illustrates the disparity between the old Trekkies and the young new Trekkies is the TNG episode "Relics" guest starring James Doohan as Scotty.

The Enterprise D comes across an abandoned Dyson Sphere after coming across a 75 year old distress beacon from the USS Jenolan.

Upon activating the transporter onboard they reanimate Captain Scotty.(a genius move suspending himself inside the buffer to keep himself alive).

Geordi is immediately enthralled with Scotty for this amazing feat. The admiration for one of the best engineers Starfleet has ever had doesn't last long though.

Over the course of the episode, Scotty suffers from technology-shock, culture-shock and maybe the worst shock of all, synthehol shock.

The saddest but most nostalgic thing happens when a tipsy Scotty asks the Holodeck to recreate the bridge of the original Enterprise 1701, "no bloody A, B, C, or D".

It was one my favorite Trek scenes of all time from all the series to watch Picard and Scotty talk on the Holodeck and just about everything in that episode can be used as a parallel for old Trek fans and New Trek fans.

Constantly Geordi and Scotty fight about the way things were in the 22nd-23rd century and the way the are in the 24th century.

Thankfully a mutual understanding is reached by the end of the episode.

I'm not sure what the motivation behind this story of this episode was, but Scotty does sound and act like an original TOS fan almost the entire step of the way and Geordi ends up acting like a newer Trekkie with a reasonable amount of respect for the past, but he regonizes that things are better now, technologically and morally.

I think everyone who has been involved in the Canon Wars in this forum should watch that episode again, and if you are not humbled by it, whether you be purist or revisionist, then there's something wrong with you.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-20-2008, 09:22 AM
kjh1701 kjh1701 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Default

That's probably the best analogy I've seen on here...!

Well done.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-20-2008, 10:42 AM
RedShirtsRuS's Avatar
RedShirtsRuS RedShirtsRuS is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 754
Default

Thanks.

Now I have a question for you.

If I watched the same episode, and all I did was focus on the little things and enjoy the ride, would I still be able to find the deep metaphorical meaning that is arguably even more useful and fun than the literal story itself?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-20-2008, 12:06 PM
kjh1701 kjh1701 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 29
Default

Well...you can absolutely appreciate the "Relics" episode and its message entirely - even if you knew nothing much about any of the Star Trek universes. The concept of somebody old, from an earlier time and generation, lost in a new world of technology, discarded or discounted by youth. And the ultimate lesson of each era learning to appreciate the other. A total stranger could appreciate this. And you did hit the nail on the head in both your description and your analogy. That epsidoe describes some of these debates perfectly!

But as for the little things...

Scotty and Data refer to the Aldebaran whiskey as "it is...it is...it is green," which refers to the original series episode "By Any Other Name" where Scotty tries to get one of the Kelvans drunk and says the exact same line.

Scotty talks to Geordi about multiplying his repair estimates by a factor of four in order to earn a reputaion as a "miracle worker," referring to the comment he made to Kirk about repairing the Enterprise in Star Trek III.

There are also references to the Elaan of Troyius from the episode of the same name, and "The Naked Time," and "Wolf in Fold." And for TNG fans, you get to hear the last part of Geordi telling Scotty about Leah Brahms and "souring the milk" for the creature attached to their hull in "Galaxy's Child."

Now do you need to know all of these pointless, trivial references to get the message of "Relics?" No, you don't. It's still a good story for anyone who watches it.

But it's all of these little tidbits and details - the references to the past stories, the respect for what came before, the way it makes you remember the fun of what you used to and still enjoy - that really provide the icing on the cake in this episode. And the thousands of little details and trivia are what have always set Star Trek apart and made it so damn much fun!

You could have a different actor portray Scotty in "Relics" and the episode would have worked. You could have put Scotty in different clothing instead of his old uniform and it would have worked. You could have even dropped out the old stories and references to TOS and just made up totally new or different stories for Scotty to tell and it would have worked.

But if Scotty told a story that you already knew, and just decided to change the events, it would have felt like a lie, or a cheat.

If you heard Geordi tell the story of "Galaxy's Child," Leah Brahms and "souring the milk" for the leech on the side of the ship, but have him refer to Aquiel as the person he worked with instead of Leah Brahms, you would have felt cheated. Because you're a fan - you watched the show, it was fun, you remember it. The change would not feel right to you. Or if Geordi told the same story, but in the end told Scotty that they had to kill the creature, it would have felt like a lie. You would resent the changes made to something you already watched, enjoyed, knew and respected.

That's the problem I'm having right now. Do a reboot, that's fine. You can tell a million really great stories without changing what already has been established. If you're a good storyteller, you don't need to change what has already been established in order to drive a truly creative plot.

Like the message in "Relics," just have a little respect for the past.

Last edited by kjh1701 : 11-20-2008 at 12:29 PM. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.