Star Trek Returns to TV

Not entirely a fan of Kurtzman. I think he's owes a lot of his success to Abrams.

It hasn't been policed within this thread

Good lord El Chup. You of all people I wouldn't expect to bend over and ask for more from a "moderator".

I think Angela Basset is great, but she's been getting steady work in American Horror Story. I could see Rosario Dawson as Captain though. What I don't want to see is something like Ghostbusters where it's all female or all gay or all black or whatever. Can't we just have what we see in every day life, a diverse crew? If we must have a gay couple, I don't want to see the stereotypical flamboyant gay guy running around the ship and doing gay antics or gantics (TM). Here's a very simple way to deal with it. Have a female crew member or alien hit on the guy and the guy simply says, "I'm flattered, but I'm gay." that's it, it doesn't need to be this huge deal with celebrations and fireworks. Then we can finally move on from this conversation. I have a feeling though it's going to be this big in your face special event and I can even see CBS promoting it as such an event to pander to gay people.

Not good given that Abrams is a hack.

We were told "take it to the Red Room", which we did, as you should right now.

Heavens. You'll never learn.

Abrams has been mediocre for Trek and his other films have sucked, but what he did for Star Wars was fantastic. I can no longer call him a hack.

Yep... helming two of the most successful sci-fi movies of all time (one of which is outright the most successful movie of the 21st century) and creating several smash-hit television series certainly makes him a hack.

A flamboyant gay character would likely not really be in tune with Gene's vision. Rather someone who just happens to be gay. The whole idea was that by that far in the future we would not longer care about issues like race and sexuality. SO I think "just another crew member who happens to be gay" would an ideal way of expressing that and doing what Trek did so well in the sixties, namely breaking down the barriers of fear and difference.

I dunno. I still think TFA was highly derivative and was essentially a bit lazy in that it was a retelling of New Hope. I think Abrams' talent lies in the easy entertainment factor, but I think he comes up a little short when it comes to true creativity. I personally would've liked TFA to have been just that little bit less slavish to the original trilogy than it was, which is ironic when you consider how far his Trek departed from the source. Perfect demonstration of him being a fan of one and not the other.

Who gives a damn about "Gene's vision". The man died nearly 30 years ago and was barely lucid for a few of those years before he died.

And even at his best he was hardly an upper tier writer or producer.

I've read Gene Roddenberry's official biography forward and back.

I can tell you what "Gene's vision" was

"more money, more sex, for me".

A porn series on CBS would be the closest thing to any vision of Gene Roddenberry's.

I do. Or more accurately, the vision created by him, Gene Coon and Bob Justman. The idea of a hopeful future where we have gotten beyond bigotry appeals to me.

Who claimed he was?

So have I. I have a copy personally dedicated to me by Majel.

There is no question that he wanted to earn out of Star Trek, and he got shafted out of a lot of the income. But that doesn't mean that his view of the Enterprise as "starship Earth" was not nonetheless something he believed in. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

That's just dumb....and frankly I'd much rather see any Trek inspired by Gene than I would the bigoted, war mongering version of Trek that you want to see, complete with a space Hitler as captain no less.

I just did a quick google search. Star Trek 09 is number 47 on the list.
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?ge...feature&num_votes=1000,&sort=user_rating,desc

As for top grossing, if you want to use that to measure success, Star Trek is at 30 on the list.
http://www.imdb.com/search/title?genres=sci_fi&sort=boxoffice_gross_us,desc

Based on this list, which is more about opinion, the only Star Trek movie that makes the list is TWOK.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/09/14/top-25-sci-fi-movies-of-all-time?page=5

So far the only movie JJ has made that really measures up to being a great success would be TFA, and not Star Trek. Don't get me wrong, I like what he did. I think they are good movies and I love that they revisited TOS, but there's a lot I don't like. Yes, JJ brought Star Trek back and that's great, but who's to say he's the only one who could do it and who's to say someone else couldn't have done it better? Your obsession with shoving all these numbers in our face is ridiculous. I'm forced to agree with @El Chup that these movies most likely won't have the staying power that the series has had. I re-watch episodes from all five series more than I re-watch these movies. Your obsession is misguided.

I totally agree, I just hope that's how they handle it.

So you're good with a gay character, so long as he generally represses that aspect of his personality?

I've never advocated that.

You can't help lying can you?

Typical "lawyer".

You'd both be wrong, but thanks for playing.

There is an entire generation that was raised on Star Trek (2009) and another generation that will experience Star Wars for the first time through The Force Awakens.

As much as it pains me, there's even a generation that was raised on the Star Wars prequels. They're the fuckers now who keep those films alive and also watch shit like The Clone Wars and Star Wars Rebels.

We're just cynical old farts who weren't raised on those movies so we compare them to our original experiences. Some of us embrace the change while others (like yourself) can't get past it.

Why is it ok to have an all guy team, but not an all chick team?
Howcome you can have an all girl gang in a rom-rom, but hand them rayguns, and suddenly it's scary?

This thread sucks now. Thanks a lot.

Some perfectly normal hetereosexual guys simply do not like hanging around with a bunch of women.

You've specifically said:-

1) Trek should be more militaristic;

2) Should be much more about conflict and space battles;

3) Should be entirely male dominated; and

4) If you were writing it it would feature a leader named Carson Tower who ignores his superiors, does whatever he likes on his ship and laments that fact that the Federation can't occupy and control all planets.

Which of these is untrue? It's all on this board in black and white.

Personally, I love hanging around women.......

I don't mind change, I just don't want change for the sake of change. I'm not a huge fan of the prequels, but I don't hate them. I love Clone Wars and Rebels, both shows show us what the prequels could have been.

An entire generation raised on JJ Trek? I highly doubt it. I highly doubt the kids that went and saw that movie were instantly turned into Trekies. I'm sure some of them did, but a vast majority probably went and saw a cool action space movie and then went on to see the next cool movie of the summer without putting much thought into it.

Good.

We need less Trekkies.

The paradox of Trek fandom is that, while they certainly helped sustain the franchise, they're also the reason why it's become such a clusterfuck.

It's not scary to have an all female team, it's a gimmick and it's pandering. It's also not reality, other than sports. Do you want Star Trek to represent humanities future where there is diversity or do you want Star Trek to pander to a specific group of people and exclude certain genders? In other words, should Star Trek be inclusive or exclusive?

1) I would like more space battles in Star Trek. For one I would like 6-8 episodes out of a 26 episode season have some kind of space battle.

That by the way was the number in the Second Season of the Original Series. So technically I am the one arguing for a return to "Gene's vision".

2) The original Star Trek had few regular female characters and they very seldom played a major role in any of the stories.

So I'm closer to "Gene's vision" than you are.

You suggested my character of Carson Tower was a "space Nazi". How? Do you have any evidence that he or I have advocated Star Trek episodes endorsing or promoting genocide.

You do know I assume that Hitler is most well known for the Holocaust?

The Holocaust was the Nazi effort to exterminate Jews in Europe (5.7 million of them in real life just about) and other "undesirables" (about 6 million in real life).

Just thought I would let you know.

I'll have to see the flick.

The reason it became such a clusterfuck is the terrible writing and rehash and rehash and rehash of the same ideas, episodes and concepts.

Lawyers tend to prefer women for a number of insulting and degrading womens.

You're gay.

Yeah, because Roddenberry said "space battles are what Trek is all about".

It had female officers FFS......fifty years ago.

What do you mean "than I am"? What is my vision for Trek?

No, but I do have evidence that your character Tower was designed to want to be a space dictator. You said it yourself.

Space dictator.

Yes I know. My grandfather's family died in it, or have you been oblivious to the previous times I've told you that when you said "I don't like Jews"?[/quote]