Star Trek......

[Steve James]

The Star Trek franchise is looking to the future, income-wise, and will tailor its works to appeal to the sensibilities of the younger generation opening its wallet.

What made ST special for me was that it was totally relevant to the times, which were a-changing, yet futuristic at the same time. Imo, the generation that watched it after the show's syndication saw it (maybe even see it) as campy. I have to admit that I stopped watching the original episodes because they started to seem old-fashioned. The new shows/movies certainly bring the effects and look of the show up to date. But, they may have made ST too escapist for it to be relevant in the same way the old show was. After all, none of the actors on the first series were superstars; none of the characters they played (with the exception of Spock) was unconventional (for any WW2 bomber movie, for ex). The differences were the composition of the crew and the perception of "aliens" and other worlds. That's why there are even Trekkies in Russia and other parts of the old CCCP.

Anyway, if there were a show that did what ST did in terms of originality and relevance, it'd probably be popular across generations. I guess it takes more imagination (or insight) than special effects. "In the old days", the picture (that we could see) was in black and white --but was great for the imagination. I can't believe that I took the alligator-head warrior seriously ... ah, those were the days.

[Interloper]

The "alligator-head warrior"? You mean the Gorn???
How could you not take seriously a guy in a rubber suit, who sssspeaks in a reptilian hisssss. Godzilla wasn't good enough for you?

Seriously, good post and good points, Steve. The old Star Trek was written more like a stage play (given that television wasn't all that old yet in the 60s, and many of the actors had made a transition from the stage to TV), with the theatricality that comes from the physical challenges of stage performance (diction for the acoustics, "presence" so you can be seen from a distance, etc.). Born-into-TV actors have an entirely different set of requirements and adaptations.

And, those stage-play-like episodes were also vehicles for a morality play or at least some kind of lesson in ethics. But that was more the sensibility of the creator and producer. Inheritors of a franchise -- like CEOs who take over for a company's visionary founder, seldom have the same sensibilities, vision or genius of the originator. So, the entire program morphs into something quite different.

[Steve James]

Yeah, the Gorn. I loved that episode, even learned something about explosives. What more could a teen want in a show? And, in the end, there's even a lesson a teen could understand.

You're right that the present producers might not have Roddenberry's sensibilities, or guts.

[qiphlow]

Go see "Up"

+1

for a kid's movie, that one was kind of depressing.

i enjoyed it nonetheless.

[pujimeng]

He didn't have sex with the green girl.

[zenshiite]

I thought it was the best Star Trek movie out of the entire 11 film franchise. You gotta remember that Trek has been pretty much dead for the last decade.

As for the gripes regarding differences between this movie and the original series... the story is the entire timeline is changed completely. I think it works, and gives them reason to use the original characters while doing something different than has been done. The real question is, from this point forward... what can they do that will be different and how will it be different? Will they rehash favorite plots and will the franchise jump the shark when they do a 90 minute Trouble with Tribbles?

[redmund2905]

He didn't have sex with the green girl.

Trivia questions: Who played the green girl? What other famous character did she play?

[Steve James]

She was Batgirl ... Yvonne Craig. But, she plays a girl from the pleasure planet, but this wasn't the episode where there were lots of them.

[Interloper]

I thought it was the best Star Trek movie out of the entire 11 film franchise. You gotta remember that Trek has been pretty much dead for the last decade.

As for the gripes regarding differences between this movie and the original series... the story is the entire timeline is changed completely. I think it works, and gives them reason to use the original characters while doing something different than has been done. The real question is, from this point forward... what can they do that will be different and how will it be different? Will they rehash favorite plots and will the franchise jump the shark when they do a 90 minute Trouble with Tribbles?

Hey, that was the very thing I was griping about in my rant - that the writers fell back on the ol' "Alternative Reality due to Meddling With the Space-Time Continuum" trick. It's the cheap, easy way out.

[Bär]

[Interloper]

Good one, Bar.

[zenshiite]

I thought it was the best Star Trek movie out of the entire 11 film franchise. You gotta remember that Trek has been pretty much dead for the last decade.

As for the gripes regarding differences between this movie and the original series... the story is the entire timeline is changed completely. I think it works, and gives them reason to use the original characters while doing something different than has been done. The real question is, from this point forward... what can they do that will be different and how will it be different? Will they rehash favorite plots and will the franchise jump the shark when they do a 90 minute Trouble with Tribbles?

Hey, that was the very thing I was griping about in my rant - that the writers fell back on the ol' "Alternative Reality due to Meddling With the Space-Time Continuum" trick. It's the cheap, easy way out.

You've gotta admit... it's the only thing they could've done short of saying that they were re-booting the franchise and that everything that Roddenberry did was totally out the window.