Why are Star Trek fans so bitter about the reboot?

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

Realistically, what would the audience be for a new series? Would it be large enough to justify that sort of expense?

Probably not on network TV. Space operas tend to survive only on cable now.

[mrr1]

I liked the 2009 movie.


'Into Darkness' was decent, but it felt stale to me because like the first movie it was just another revenge plot on Earth. They really needed to explore space in that one.

[i007spectre]

Originally Posted by mrr1

They really needed to explore space in that one.

Like I said before I have high hopes now that they are on the "five year mission"

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Probably not on network TV. Space operas tend to survive only on cable now.

agreed. Even with the 4 sequel shows, Voyager and Enterprise were on network and listen to the issues they had compared to DS9 and TNG. I think they need to either stay syndicated or find a cable channel that can support them and not interfer too much. Plus cut back to 15-18 episodes a year(13 is just too few). 26 a year would kill them now and gives up episodes like Spock's Brain and Shades of Grey. But the catch is they can't just start doing more and more series as that is what eventually killed them on tv. I love Enterprise but really Voyager and Enterprise should never have been done.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I love Enterprise but really Voyager and Enterprise should never have been done.

Every show (not just Star Trek) has growing pains, but Voyager was really hurt by not knowing what to do with Harry Kim and Kes for so long.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by mrr1

I liked the 2009 movie.


'Into Darkness' was decent, but it felt stale to me because like the first movie it was just another revenge plot on Earth. They really needed to explore space in that one.

I don't really think you can just "explore" in a $190 million-dollar Star Trek movie.

That's really what a Star Trek television show would be for. It's more possible to just explore if an episode costs $3-5 million.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

Realistically, what would the audience be for a new series? Would it be large enough to justify that sort of expense?

I think there's a large audience out there for intelligent action-adventure science fiction.

Most sci fi shows on TV in the last ten years have been brain-dead, zany, sort of Twilight Zone-y, etc., but since Star Trek went off the air I'd say that the intelligent action-adventure market had been neglected.

Shows like Terra Nova, The Event, Fringe, etc., have largely been disappointments.

There is a market for the higher-quality science fiction that Star Trek is at its best.

Netflix or Amazon Prime seem to be two possibilities.

[Iron-Fisted Punk]

Originally Posted by benbess

I don't really think you can just "explore" in a $190 million-dollar Star Trek movie.

That's really what a Star Trek television show would be for. It's more possible to just explore if an episode costs $3-5 million.

I think that's why ST should be on TV again. And I need to be head writer.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by jscoggins

Every show (not just Star Trek) has growing pains, but Voyager was really hurt by not knowing what to do with Harry Kim and Kes for so long.

I think it went beyond that though - they lost focus on what the show was about. The concept was interesting but look at the ship after 7 years - looked like it was still brand new. They were trying to get home with limited resources, the ship should have reflected it and slowly started to fall apart. Not that it needed to be a mess but we should have seen the results of not having starbases and such around to keep it ship-shape. In the end, there was nothing really unique about Voyager as the ship seemed like every other starship you have ever seen despite them being 70 years from home.

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I think it went beyond that though - they lost focus on what the show was about. The concept was interesting but look at the ship after 7 years - looked like it was still brand new. They were trying to get home with limited resources, the ship should have reflected it and slowly started to fall apart. Not that it needed to be a mess but we should have seen the results of not having starbases and such around to keep it ship-shape. In the end, there was nothing really unique about Voyager as the ship seemed like every other starship you have ever seen despite them being 70 years from home.

Ronald D. Moore, ladies and gentleman, Ronald D. Moore.

[Packerfan75]

It's time to start a new series. Reboots will only get them so far. Without new blood for a new generation, it's bound to go stale again. They can use the movies to jump start it by introducing some new characters but sooner or later, they'll have to do something new. Might as well use the newfound interest to get something going now before it runs out of steam.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I think it went beyond that though - they lost focus on what the show was about. The concept was interesting but look at the ship after 7 years - looked like it was still brand new. They were trying to get home with limited resources, the ship should have reflected it and slowly started to fall apart. Not that it needed to be a mess but we should have seen the results of not having starbases and such around to keep it ship-shape. In the end, there was nothing really unique about Voyager as the ship seemed like every other starship you have ever seen despite them being 70 years from home.

Oh, the Kes time paradox episode revealed so much, Voyager had it's hull torn to shreds by a Vidiian clamp, next episode shes brand nu again. infact voyager got pummeled twice in that episode by Kes herself. I couldn't stomach that the voyager of season 6? had to relive everything the same for 3-4 years as if nothing had changed, The Vidiian encounter alone should have caused a significant butterfly effect.

but anyway. Voyager arriving back to Earth with technology 26 years of the future should have advanced starfleet significantly, another one of those little points that get shelved when their use is up haha (superblood maybe). much as I loved the show.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

Ronald D. Moore, ladies and gentleman, Ronald D. Moore.

If there is a new Trek show, I sure hope they bring Ronald Moore (and others) in to develop it and write it.

I've read Moore's critique of Voyager, and he makes some good points, but I still think even with its flaws Voyager is an entertaining and high-quality sci fi show.

Kate Mulgrew's Janeway is a strong and compelling Captain, Robert Picardo's Doctor is a favorite, and Seven, Torres, Chakotay, and Tuvok are also good characters.

The two-parters Voyager did are good little Star Trek movies that my family has watched multiple times (Future's End, Scorpion, Year of Hell, Equinox, etc.), and many of the single episodes (Tuvix, Parallax, The Gift, etc., etc.) are also strong.

[benbess]

Originally Posted by Packerfan75

It's time to start a new series. Reboots will only get them so far. Without new blood for a new generation, it's bound to go stale again. They can use the movies to jump start it by introducing some new characters but sooner or later, they'll have to do something new. Might as well use the newfound interest to get something going now before it runs out of steam.

Yes. A new Star Trek show is what's needed. Not a reboot.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by peckinpah

The idea that humanity will one day join hands and perform a mass rendition of "Kumbaya" strikes me as extremely naive. It's one thing to hope it will happen, but it's quite another to say that we'll magically (and inexplicably) be there in a couple hundred years. Roddenberry's future works only if humanity has been able to toss aside human nature, and that moves past optimism into straight-up silly.

TNG tried introducing the Ferengi as a greedy pirate-like enemy midways through the series, which, they later realized, turned out to be just plain silly:
In a technology where replicators are common, the commerce system has practically disappeared, and the Root of All Evil with it, to the point that good ol' fashioned greed just didn't have the pull it used to...Why should they be threatened by an enemy looking for gold, when you could download it with a few buttons and send them on their way?
Some might seem frustrated by a change, but it at least narrowed man's evils down to just fear, prejudice, weakness and war-pride. And the Roddenberry series hadn't escaped THAT.

(The Ferengi didn't catch on until DS9, where they could operate on the fringes outside of nice utopian Federation trade, and satirize our own innate dreams of swindling a buck the easy way.
As they humorously point out in one episode: "You hate us, because we represent what you used to be...Only WE do it better.")

[peckinpah]

Originally Posted by EricJ

TNG tried introducing the Ferengi as a greedy pirate-like enemy midways through the series, which, they later realized, turned out to be just plain silly:
In a technology where replicators are common, the commerce system has practically disappeared, and the Root of All Evil with it, to the point that good ol' fashioned greed just didn't have the pull it used to...Why should they be threatened by an enemy looking for gold, when you could download it with a few buttons and send them on their way?
Some might seem frustrated by a change, but it at least narrowed man's evils down to just fear, prejudice, weakness and war-pride. And the Roddenberry series hadn't escaped THAT.

(The Ferengi didn't catch on until DS9, where they could operate on the fringes outside of nice utopian Federation trade, and satirize our own innate dreams of swindling a buck the easy way.
As they humorously point out in one episode: "You hate us, because we represent what you used to be...Only WE do it better.")

Yes, the various alien species were evil when need be, but humanity--the population of Earth--was one big happy family, and that's something I just can't buy (particularly in a piece of fiction that's trying to make a point). Hell, Roddenberry himself is a good example of what's wrong (and likely always will be wrong) with humanity, what with all his lying, stealing, and infidelities. He couldn't overcome human nature, and to think that we can do so en masse is a pipe dream of the highest order.

I think Roddenberry's decision to make Starfleet a collection of spotless Boy Scouts robbed the show of quite a bit of drama. If the characters are going to make the journey from A to A, what's the point? And a lot of illogical plotting was required to make sure no one ever stepped out of line. Look at all the revisions made to "The City on the Edge of Forever." There's tension in the version where the lieutenant is the one who jumps back in time, but Ellison is absolutely right when he says it's stupid for McCoy to accidentally inject himself and go nuts.

[Lord Method Man]

Originally Posted by i007spectre

Like I said before I have high hopes now that they are on the "five year mission"

Oh I'm sure in the third film we'll be right back at Earth again, with the Enterprise yet yet yet again being the only starship in the vicinity despite being in orbit of the main headquarters of Starfleet.

[Samus Aran]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I think it went beyond that though - they lost focus on what the show was about. The concept was interesting but look at the ship after 7 years - looked like it was still brand new. They were trying to get home with limited resources, the ship should have reflected it and slowly started to fall apart. Not that it needed to be a mess but we should have seen the results of not having starbases and such around to keep it ship-shape. In the end, there was nothing really unique about Voyager as the ship seemed like every other starship you have ever seen despite them being 70 years from home.

The concept of a divided crew was one of the selling points, but by the end of the pilot they were unified and the Maquis were neutered. That right there should've been my first warning sign.

[jscoggins]

Originally Posted by Samus Aran

The concept of a divided crew was one of the selling points, but by the end of the pilot they were unified and the Maquis were neutered. That right there should've been my first warning sign.

That's what people frequently say, but subsequent episodes still show the Maquis having difficulty adjusting to life aboard a Starfleet vessel.

They need to move away from the idea that a Star Trek show needs to have 7 or 8 main characters. A core of 4 or 5 can suffice, with recurring characters popping up from time to time.

[i007spectre]

The Ferengi were introduced in season one.