Star Trek - where next?

[Famine]

1) He doesn't like JJ Abrams
2) He doesn't like what he did to the Trek Universe
3) He doesn't like that films he detests were so successful

Pick one. Or two, or all three.

Or none. I have explained it a few times now.

The principle behind 2009's Star Trek is one I'm wholly fine with. It's not like Trek never time-travelled before (City on the Edge of Forever, The Voyage Home, Yesterday's Enterprise, All Good Things, Generations, literally all of First Contact, Trials and Tribble-ations, all of those Voyager episodes with Braxton, an Enterprise episode I don't recall well) and the Mirror Universe episodes across TOS, DS9 and Enterprise are based on alternate timelines. And it's not like they haven't remade the Wrath of Khan already - that's what Nemesis was.


The thing is that Star Trek almost never contradicted itself. The nearest you got, really, was the radical change in the appearance of the Klingons in the gap between TOS and TNG's eras - which Worf explained with "We don't talk about it." - though that was addressed, in part, later on.

For the largest part, Trek has a coherent narrative that you can follow from The Cage (or at least The Man Trap) through to Nemesis without any major questions of how or why. Trek XI does not and generates very many questions of how and why - many of which are hinged on how and why the major plot drivers behave in different manners depending on what the plot needs at that point in time. I went through what they are and the different manners in which they behave in an earlier post - garnished with a bit of what's apparently "complicated science stuff" that previous Trek wouldn't have got wrong.


So to reiterate, the reason I don't like Trek XI as a Trek film is that it no longer sticks to the internally consistent narrative that has been the core of the name since episode 1 of TOS (or the pilot if you prefer) in favour of being a more generic sci-fi film - and the reason I don't like it as a generic sci-fi film is that it isn't very good, because it's entirely reliant on the charm of "Hahaha, Kobayashi Maru!", "Oh look, it's McCoy!" and "I wonder when Scotty's going to turn up... there he is!".

I'm just surprised there wasn't a Summon Bigger Fish in there.

Oh, wait.

...You say plenty of top rated films and top grossing films don't fit "my rule", I'd say the lists (especially the 2nd one) actually are a good demonstrator of my points.

Almost all the films that dominate the top rankings (ones adored by the critics and the audiences alike) put a priority on telling a compelling narrative even at the expense of certain leap in logic.

Even if that were true - which it isn't - find the ones that contradict themselves within their own narrative.

I think I've pointed out enough times now that the problem is that the new films are not internally consistent. Not that they're unscientific (though they are) or require ignorance of certain principles (they do) but that they contradict themselves within their own narrative.

Somehow, I feel that we're going astray from the Abram's Star Trek movies and its positive/negative points. Of course I respect your reasoning of why Abrams can go take a dive in a lake; I'm saying you're looking too hard for a diamond in this particular rough, because of the owner's name on the playground.

Then you're confusing me both with someone who hates JJ Abrams and with someone incapable of rational thought.

Oh and, can you say with a straight face, that you are unhappy his films, flawed as they may be, brought in new generations of fans (or wallets) that can keep the franchise trucking into the future?

Yes. Completely.

By abandoning what the franchise was built on, it isn't "trucking into the future". Something else is - and that something else is generic sci-fi pap with a Star Trek badge on it. I'd rather a Star Trek film was a Star Trek film, not a sci-fi film called Star Trek.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Trek XI does not and generates very many questions of how and why - many of which are hinged on how and why the major plot drivers behave in different manners depending on what the plot needs at that point in time. I went through what they are and the different manners in which they behave in an earlier post - garnished with a bit of what's apparently "complicated science stuff" that previous Trek wouldn't have got wrong.

As you admitted yourself, Nemesis was basically a Wrath of Kahn remake, and it bombed compared to Trek standards.

I'll grant you that Trek XI and XII were not that good as Trek films, and Abrams was lured away to make his dream project coming out in a little over a month, but the next one will have a new director, so maybe we will get the AOS film that we deserve?

 

[Famine]

As you admitted yourself, Nemesis was basically a Wrath of Kahn remake, and it bombed compared to Trek standards.

It did, but it still stuck to Trek principles. I think that the only film that forgot them and created a narrative that was in any way inconsistent was The Final Frontier - though the core driver for the Search for Spock was a little hinky. It's not surprising that they are the two worst-rated Trek films!

The only real problem with Nemesis is Brent Spiner's age and Data's lack of it.

I'll grant you that Trek XI and XII were not that good as Trek films, and Abrams was lured away to make his dream project coming out in a little over a month, but the next one will have a new director, so maybe we will get the AOS film that we deserve?

I'm not sure that all blame can be aimed at Abrams. He's only the director and producer... Orci and Kurtzmann wrote it and someone at Paramount had to sign off on it.

 

[daan]

The only real problem with Nemesis is Brent Spiner's age and Data's lack of it.

The other thing I found slightly odd was the fact that, when they were finding parts of a Data-like android, no one asked if it could have been Lore.

 

[Famine]

The other thing I found slightly odd was the fact that, when they were finding parts of a Data-like android, no one asked if it could have been Lore.

I'd assume that even though we can't, Data could tell the difference. Maybe the positronic signature was different from the other three (Lal) on record?

Also Data had deactivated and disassembled Lore at the end of the two-part Borg episode. I think the bits were at Star Fleet.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Rumor Patrol: Star Trek Beyond will get its first look attached to Star Wars: The Force awakens. Other films attached to the movie, in case you want to know are "Batman v Superman" from Warners, Universal's The Huntsman: Winter War,” and Fox’s “X-Men: Apocalypse” and “Independence Day: Resurgence."

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...er-to-debut-with-star-wars-the-force-awakens/

 

[CodeRedR51]

Patiently waiting for Independence Day, hopefully that's true.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Basically, Episode VII will have the entire trailer lineup of the most-anticipated 2016 blockbusters, together.

Star Trek XII was not good. I enjoyed certain aspects of it, but I'll admit it's far removed from what ST was. The main aspect I'm excited about with the new one is Idris Elba as the villain, because he's always entertaining. Having Justin Lin direct means it'll undoubtedly have some solid action, but I don't see him bringing it back to the series' roots either.

 

[ECGadget]

Personally, I am just looking forward to the new series. I just hope it continues on the fight Star Trek traditions of the prime timeline (hopefully a few cast cameos too!)

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Alright, I'll say it first: it doesn't look good.

It looks entertaining, but it could be a new franchise with a new name if it weren't for the ship and the Federation insignias. Oh, and the character names.

Oh well. At least the female assassin from Kingsmen is there, even if you'd never know it.

 

[FoolKiller]

My reaction:

"Sabotage" starts playing. "Huh?"
Tons of action shown on screen. "That looks almost over-the-top. Who's making this one?"
From the director of Fast and Furious. "Oh. Hahahahahahaha!"

Basically, I agree with @SlipZtrEm

 

[Sanji Himura]

My reaction:

"Sabotage" starts playing. "Huh?"
Tons of action shown on screen. "That looks almost over-the-top. Who's making this one?"
From the director of Fast and Furious. "Oh. Hahahahahahaha!"

Basically, I agree with @SlipZtrEm

I blame the writing. It was written by Simon Pegg.

 

[amarynceos]

Ugh. From that trailer, it looks like they took everything that was awful about the last two pieces of trash, rolled it all together, and made it even worse -- which took some doing. Looks like a giant bag of sick with 'Star Trek' stamped on it. I gave the last two a shot, but it sure looks like this definitely is not worth my (or in my opinion, anyone's) time.

If Roddenberry had left a corpse in the ground and someone used it as the heart of an electric plant, its spinning would be enough to power a mid-sized town at this point. :x

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I blame the writing.

Blame the production - the film might look terrible, but it's consistent with the previous ones. You can thank JJ Abrams for that.

 

[Terronium-12]

Well that's just...

I mean...

No.

 

[Robin]

Man that trailer was atrocious, for the start to music was totally wrong for Trek and fits in about as much as the track that played in the first film when kid Kirk drove off a cliff! Where's the orchestral score?! Secondly it looks like something Michael Bay would do which is kinda expected of Justin Lin, it's F&F with a ST skin.

And there was me thinking we would get something deep and serious for what will probably be the last outing in the alternate universe. I hope the film after this links back into the prime universe so we can continue the story there. I had a great idea for the plot of the next one but unfortunately I'm not connected in Hollywood!

 

[Sanji Himura]

Blame the production - the film might look terrible, but it's consistent with the previous ones. You can thank JJ Abrams for that.

Actually, I'm not convinced. Read something interesting about the 2017 Star Trek series from a Trek forum that may deflect some of the blame OFF Abrams. Here is the post in full:

From what I've read today on TBBS and other blogs and Facebook comments, the general consensus is that a post-Star Trek Beyond tv show executive produced by Kurtzman will most likely be set in JJ-Verse.

Allow me to let the hot air out of that theory for just a moment wont you?

This show will be produced by CBS. When Viacom and CBS divorced in 2005, the Star Trek franchise was unknowingly split up between the reformed companies. Viacom and it's subsidiary Paramount retained ownership of the movie franchise both past and future, whereas CBS held the rights to the television franchise, past, present and future.

This is one of the reasons for the existence of the JJ-verse, an alternate timeline wholly-owned by Paramount that wouldn't require licensing of the Prime-Universe television franchise timeline.

Which is to say that CBS will most likely set this show in the CBS-owned Prime timeline or perhaps (likely?) we will get another spin-off universe from the Prime universe, that CBS will own separate from the JJ-Verse.

But, regardless of anything, whatever Star Trek 2017 turns out to be, rest ye weary JJ haters, Nu-Trek this will not be.


What are your thoughts on the matter?

Yes, Abrams may claim credit for revitalizing Star Trek as a brand, for good or ill has yet to be decided, but all of the decisions that have resulted in the 2011 film may have come from Paramount's desire to divorce itself from the prime universe that is largely based on TV.

If anything the films prove that there is a need for a prime Star Trek series, and CBS is in the perfect position to deliver, if they are willing to pull the trigger on it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

In that case, it's like the Yas Marina Circuit: they literally had a blank canvas to work with, and decided to make dross.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Seems like they are going pretty below with Star Trek Beyond. I enjoyed Into Darkness, First Contact, The Wrath of Khan and the Reboot one, but F and F is the last place I expected the series to go. Space motorcycles? No thanks!

 

[Sanji Himura]

Rod Roddenberry to serve as Executive producer in the new CBS Star Trek series

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.c...-gene-roddenberrys-son-as-executive-producer/

 

[Robin]

Slightly off topic but I love the fact that from the air it looks like China is building a Federation starship

 

[Robin]

It's going to be set in the Prime Universe (YAY!) but might be set between TOS and TNG (BOOO!). I wanted it set after Nemesis in a new future to continue the story.

Also Nicholas Mayer, director of the Wrath of Khan has involvement which sounds good.

 

[MisterWaffles]

It's going to be set in the Prime Universe (YAY!) but might be set between TOS and TNG (BOOO!). I wanted it set after Nemesis in a new future to continue the story.

Also Nicholas Mayer, director of the Wrath of Khan has involvement which sounds good.

I'd love a series either based off the Enterprise B or C, those two are woefully underdeveloped. Also a series with the NX refit (secondary hull) in the books would be nice too.

 

[Robin]

I'd love a series either based off the Enterprise B or C, those two are woefully underdeveloped. Also a series with the NX refit (secondary hull) in the books would be nice too.

Yeah the 5th season of Enterprise was going to feature the refit, frankly that should have been the design from the start to alleviate the 'Akiraprise' criticism. I don't think they would revisit that era again because it's too much of a risk.

Although there were areas of Trek history which were underdeveloped I wish series' would stop 'going back' with the story telling, it's happening so much in TV these days with these origin stories and reboots, particularly the super hero franchises, and others covering era's in-between things etc. It seems studios are too scared to do something new, they want audiences to instantly relate to what they are viewing or know what comes in the future.

 

[TheCracker]

That's the great thing with Sci-Fi - the ability to keep going forward because the technology progresses and you can always keep ahead of real-time technological progression. When you start with prequels or regressing over already trod timelines, especially when they take place in our galaxy, that's when things unravel. I can get, to an extent, why they re-booted the original Star Trek, the characters were great, but there's so much scope for going beyond the DS9/Voyager era that's just been left untapped.

 

[MisterWaffles]

Although there were areas of Trek history which were underdeveloped I wish series' would stop 'going back' with the story telling, it's happening so much in TV these days with these origin stories and reboots, particularly the super hero franchises, and others covering era's in-between things etc.

Fair enough, I find popular culture has become oversaturated with reboots

 

[Sanji Himura]

CBS All-Access to air the new Star Trek series (not a big surprise), but what is a big surprise is that they are airing one episode a week.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...cbs-star-trek-netflix/481170/?utm_source=SFFB

 

[Robin]

Jeez how many are they intending to make!? They are going to burn through a season pretty quickly at that rate. That or it's going to suck like some daytime soap opera.

 

[FoolKiller]

CBS All-Access to air the new Star Trek series (not a big surprise), but what is a big surprise is that they are airing one episode a week.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai...cbs-star-trek-netflix/481170/?utm_source=SFFB

If this weren't something as big as Star Trek I'd think this was a huge mistake. CBS All-Access has a bigger hill to climb than Netflix or Hulu. They will now have one original show and then a fraction of the content available on dedicated online services. Yeah, people will sign up for Netflix to watch House of Cards or Daredevil or sign up for Huku to watch The Path, but then they also have unlimited access stuff from dozens of other networks dating back to pre-color television. That doesn't even include all the movies. With CBS you have CBS properties only. Hulu can release an episode a week and viewers have many other things to watch between them. On CBS it is a whole lot of stuff you can get with streaming. There's more value for your dollar on dedicated streaming services.

Then there is the aspect of paying for this to allow dinosaurs of the industry drags streaming back down to their level. I am refusing to support services that are owned by a single network. I won't support having streaming go in a direction where I pay for each network separately and wind up paying $80+ so I can see a handful of shows buried in a schedule full of stuff I don't care about.

Jeez how many are they intending to make!? They are going to burn through a season pretty quickly at that rate. That or it's going to suck like some daytime soap opera.

I don't understand what you're getting at. An episode a week is normal for the US. A season typically runs around 24 episodes and stretches from September to May, with breaks for certain holidays and major sports events. Some are doing 10-12 episodes per season that runs in just the spring or fall.

This is CBS running a broadcast TV schedule on a streaming service. It's no different than if it were broadcast over-the air.