The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Star Trek XI: The Movie > Will the 'Final Frontier' come to an end here?
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-12-2008, 02:09 PM
John_Sullivan John_Sullivan is offline
Midshipman
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6
Default Will the 'Final Frontier' come to an end here?

I have long said that what Star Trek needs most is a boost forward ... something so revolutionary that it would indeed be "the next generation" on the Final Frontier. From ENT to VOY ... we all had relatively fixed technologies ... acloves that could transport people from a disco floor to an underside planet surface ... all of the weapons looked like matter-antimatter capsules surrounded by a deteriorating photon field (photon torpedoes) or phased lasers (phasers) ... and people got around by Warp Drive powered by bottled matter and antimatter tanks that could at best be called the #1 reason no starship could be allowed into orbit, because they are nothing more than "the China Syndrome" on steroids ... massive planet-killing photon torpedoes in slow motion.

Star Trek died (and will die in this endeavor, for sure) because of a total lack of original thought. By now, we should have a 27th century technology that has something of mankind's advances from the chariot and wheels, or the invention of steam locomatives, and yes ... even the transporter and warp drive. We have a "genre" that has indeed saturated world thought of fiction by the impossible possible already superceded by technolgoies that have overcome tricorders, communicators and phaser beams ... proving already obscenely irrelevant and outdated the very generation on which this movie is to be based.

So who really cares that Chekov doesn't appear until the 27th Century, or that Nichelle's character should appear on screen to show that Condi Rice aside, she is the first Black Woman to ever make a difference in world history ...

... the real point is Star Trek is trying to reinvent the wheel, in a world where Star Trek should instead be trying to reinvent Star Trek - but in a way that does not (as it inevitably will in most arguments) try to pretend that ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, and VOY never existed. I refuse to get heavily embroiled into these CANON arguments because the fact is, there are plenty of epiodes that have already proven CANON to be a foolish argument of post 1996 world history.

Star Trek - this movie - will fail miserably, and that's fine with me. After all, fools tried to recreate the magic of Alexander's Greece even as Rome came into town with something better, and even as Rome tried to hold on to irrelevance, Catholicism came in to fill the void of the falling Roman empire. All of these efforts ultimately were based on human and technological progress, and this effort does little but try to make Alexandar a converted Christian.

Where "the powers that be," and I have said this to them all before, no matter who "the powers" are now," need to hear is that Star Trek is about the future ... not the past. Put us into a setting to tell the story where no one in the common culture knows the difference between Kirk and Janeway, just as many today don't know the difference between St. Francis of Asisi and Joan of Arc - about the same spread in time.

Put Star Trek so far into the future that ships themselves become self-contained transporters, able to leap between galaxies because of well-mapped stable wormholes, and able to leap between star systems instaneously because of self-contained whole-transportation transporters, where the whole ship is transported across vast distances instaneously.

There, Star Trek has a future. As box-office receipts come in from this movie, don't be fooled by idle interest of those sold on the false branding of something new .. give us something new - and this won't be it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-12-2008, 03:38 PM
Ready Room's Avatar
Ready Room Ready Room is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 200
Default

Why, the negativity dude? I can see your point on the matter, but the franchise is in a damned-if-we do-damned-if-we-don't dilemma. I don't envy JJ's task to hold up against those of your concerns, but we as a community of Trekkers/Trekkies have to show our support for this if we want Star Trek back.

I personally do NOT care for canon, make it recoginzable.
You also have to realize that this film isn't trying to win back old fans, but rather create new ones. It's them who will ultimately determine the box-office hit or miss come Xmas

The final frontier hasn't ended, it's in motion. Gotta believe, man.
__________________
BOLDLY WAITING...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2008, 03:51 PM
jla1987's Avatar
jla1987 jla1987 is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,483
Default

Look, I think this movie will be a new beginning for Star Trek in general. Whether it adheres to canon religiously or not, I simply don't care anymore. I just want a good Star Trek movie that is recognizably "Star Trek," and it wouldn't have mattered what time they set it in...I'd still go see it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-12-2008, 04:44 PM
The Doctor's Avatar
The Doctor The Doctor is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jla1987 View Post
Look, I think this movie will be a new beginning for Star Trek in general. Whether it adheres to canon religiously or not, I simply don't care anymore. I just want a good Star Trek movie that is recognizably "Star Trek," and it wouldn't have mattered what time they set it in...I'd still go see it.
Wow, a mature and reasonable reply. Well done. I feel the same way.

As much as I'd like to see another Star Trek far in the future, with new technology and totally unpredictable, I also think it would be jumping the shark and probably shouldn't be done.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-12-2008, 05:05 PM
delliott101 delliott101 is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 74
Default

You know, in a way I feel the same as the original poster. The reason why Next Gen worked so well (I think) was because it was removed from TOS, PLUS the fact that Trek was a phenomenom that grew during it's own abscence.

We've been so SATURATED with Trek since '87 that it needs time off to recoup. That's not saying I don't love the fact that JJ and Paramount are going back to TOS with a new cast, it's just that Trek had been on the air continuously (or almost) for almost 20 years on TV (plus films)

The Great Bird struck gold in '66 and he amazingly did it again in '87 with TNG. The TNG cast was on par with the TOS crew and they themselves became legends. I never felt that way with the casts of the other 3 shows.

Anyway, in all, I think to jump the Trek Universe to the 27th Century would be forced, like another gimmick, whereas TNG was shifted 100 years after TOS with a feel of naturalness about it.

This new movie may be a good move all around...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-12-2008, 06:09 PM
kicktrick's Avatar
kicktrick kicktrick is offline
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: mass
Posts: 223
Default

i shure hope not
__________________
Damn you three red lights of death
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-12-2008, 09:53 PM
Oregon_Coast_Trekkie's Avatar
Oregon_Coast_Trekkie Oregon_Coast_Trekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,271
Default

I'm not a stickler for canon either. In fact, I find some of the mistakes rather humorous (General Order 7 or 4, what the... a phaser?, is Spot a "he" or a "she?" when the f did Klingons start haivng horns? I never forget a face Checkov, I bet ol' Jim Kirk himself, need I go on?)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-13-2008, 04:32 AM
Indiana Jones's Avatar
Indiana Jones Indiana Jones is offline
Ensign
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 82
Default

I think this is a very sad thread. Star Trek was never about future technology, it was about people and giving you the chance to consider difficult situations of morality in your head. It promoted the human experience, the expansion of our knowledge and the principle of tolerance. Ships and technology were a secondary consideration.

Star Trek will be successful again when, and only when, it focuses on the strength of its characters, tells stories that are relevant to the modern age and focus the audience's mind on the difficult challenges we face in the world today.
__________________
"Come on, if you do well you can at least put me in the sequel right?"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-13-2008, 05:15 AM
jtrek79's Avatar
jtrek79 jtrek79 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Athens,Greece
Posts: 3,330
Default

With star trek legend leonard nimoy in it, what can possibly go wrong, i think we have a
winner here.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-13-2008, 05:30 AM
starbase63's Avatar
starbase63 starbase63 is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 1,727
Default

Oh Great Ghu, Sullivan, did you HAVE to inflict your diatribes here at the new site???
__________________
Never keep a Vulcan waiting...
Admin, sb63's Star Trek Logs, member of the Trek Webmaster Program
STL is now also on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/StarTrekLogs
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 06:14 PM.


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.