Slashdot Mirror


New, Canon-Faithful Star Trek Series Is In Pre-Production

An anonymous reader writes "Star Trek veterans such as Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov), Tim Russ (Tuvok), Robert Picardo (the Doctor) and others are busy in pre-production of a professionally produced pilot episode for a suggested new online Star Trek series named Star Trek: Renegades, which will be faithful to the original Star Trek canon. The events of the series are placed a decade after Voyager's return from Delta Quadrant. When the pilot is complete, they'll present it to CBS in the hopes that it'll be picked up. They have also opened an Indiegogo campaign, seeking more funds from Star Trek fans to help make the production even more professional. They've already reached their primary funding goal."

401 comments

  1. Shades of Blake's 7 by fredrated · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sigh me up.

    1. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don’t sign me up.

      Star Trek for me always had a certain ethos. Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy. There were a few phaser blasts, but it always ended on a positive optimistic note about the future. Yes, Kirk was a big Boy Scout.

      “This necessitates more drastic measures, some of which are outside the Federation’s jurisdiction.”

      This is not Star Trek. This is not optimism in human (and alien) nature. I could be a fine show – it just not going to be good Star Trek. It would be like the Doctor running around with a Sonic Blaster instead of a Sonic Screwdriver. Just the wrong vibe.

    2. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Nutria · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not only that, but rogues, renegades, edginess and fast pace just screams, "We don't know how to write interesting conversations!"

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Sometimes violence is the rational solution, as with the Borg. /vulcanlogic

    4. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer – erase that entire personal log.

    5. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by jythie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While optimism was always a major part of Star Trek, the franchise has shown over the years it can explore darker themes and still be intellectually interesting. If it is all phasers and boob shots I agree it is not really 'Trek and would (for me at least) be painfully boring,.. but there is a lot of potential in exploring a weak federation that has to make (and live with) more complex moral choices.

      I imagine the devil will be in the details, and being good or bad will come down to what they actually do with this situation.

    6. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I prefer my science fiction to not be all sunshine, rainbows, and utopias.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      The Doctor is a Medical Hologram, He would normally have medical tricorder.

      (I am kidding, I am a big fan do Dr. Who)

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    8. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the original was based on an imaginary la la land where humans had imaginary things called souls and human behavior was based on beliefs often termed morality - basically, you prefer the imaginary la la land to reality then. Got it.

    9. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, I haven't seen much utopian science fiction at all.

    10. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So then DS9 was not Star Trek?

      Because it was the best series they ever made.

    11. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by khasim · · Score: 1

      The question I have is why the "renegades" need their own uniforms. From TFA:

      Any science fiction fan knows you canâ(TM)t just go to a thrift shop and get your costumes. In Renegades, we will have Starfleet uniforms of course, but our crew, not being Starfleet, will have all new designs.

      So they're not Starfleet and it appears that it will just be one ship (at the moment). So why the uniforms? Why not just "casual"?

      NO MORE PAJAMAS IN SPACE!

    12. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree - if the next Star Trek can't be perfect according to some past rules, I don't want it to exist.

    13. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 2

      So then DS9 was not Star Trek?

      Because it was the best series they ever made.

      Agree 100%, but Roddenberry would have been aghast at how it portrayed his rosy view of the future.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    14. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      I guess I don’t see a conflict between optimism and weighty, darker issues. I am not sure which episodes you are thinking about but I am thinking about DS9 where there was a conflict on what to do and how to react to the Dominion’s shapshifters, which has echoes in today’s “war on terror”.

      But I felt that the show always tugged the viewer towards the higher moral ground of hope and optimism over fear and xenophobia.

      As for a weak Federation – in my mind the way the Federation binds dozen of races and hundreds of worlds together is that everybody is highly committed to a set of core values of openness, equality, justice, etc. Something that would not erode in 10 years.

      A weakened but proud Federation yes – but not a weak Federation.

      I am not saying it is going to be a bad show. I am o.k. with dark and gritty. I am o.k. with ST maturing over the years. This just seems to be a unnatural mutation. Launch the show as something else.

    15. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by sdnoob · · Score: 1

      you won't have anything to worry about then, there's no way in hell cbs will pick up a new series based on "old" star trek. they have already chosen the direction of the star trek franchise with the release of the last star trek movie (i.e. the fucked-up reboot).

    16. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I think more than the darkness it was good because it did not forget everything going from episode to episode. It had actual story arcs and history.

    17. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Nutria · · Score: 2

      So why the uniforms? Why not just "casual"?

      Esprit de Corps.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    18. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Sometimes violence is the rational solution, as with the Borg. /vulcanlogic

      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"

      So... you're saying that violence is the first refuge of the competent? But remember, when the Borg captured Picard, it wasn't violence that got him back, and it was turning the Borg's violence against themselves that destroyed the Borg, after trying to use violence against the Borg destroyed the entire fleet.

    19. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Given the trend during that last Star Trek series you have to wonder whether it will end up being 50 shades of Blake's 7.

    20. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The Doctor will have a sonic tricorder!

    21. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but rogues, renegades, edginess and fast pace just screams, "We don't know how to write interesting conversations!"

      I don't know about that. Babylon 5 pulled it off.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    22. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My two favorite ST episodes were DS9. Far Beyond the Stars and In the Pale Moonlight. Both were kinda dark, but you're right...the power that they had was being a culminating part of a larger story. The writing was also great, unlike any other Trek series, the characters had depth and moral ambiguity. Much more like people I'd actually meet than one-dimensional paragons of virtue.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    23. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      So basically ... you're ignoring the Maqui completely, even though this is set after Voyager ...

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    24. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by newcastlejon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Peaceful exploration, conflict could be solved with enlightened rational diplomacy.

      I must have missed that one. For the life of me, I can't imagine any episode where Kirk didn't shoot, punch or screw at least one of the guest stars.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    25. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Teamwork. Uniforms are a mental exercise more than identification in battle. They provide a sense of team membership one would not get any other way.

      Basic military tradition here, for a reason.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    26. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. It appears as if you are trying to be condescending, but I fail to see why there is anything wrong with preferring "the imaginary la la land to reality". Is there something wrong with liking other things? Does the knowledge that other people may like things that you do not like cause you discomfort?

    27. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      That is something I did not think of, but you are totally correct. Media is improved when we no longer have characters out of some morality play, but actual flawed people who could exist.

    28. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      How is DS9 not optimistic? Was the war end with genocide of the Founders or with a just treaty that implied ongoing peace? In DS9, the rouge Section 31 – doing extreme things that the Federation can’t do – is portrayed as the villain, not the hero.

      Being optimistic is not the same as being naïve. One can be in dark places and dream of a better tomorrow.

    29. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, the Army of Light uniforms on Babylon 5 seemed to work just fine.

      I'd say a few reasons
      - esprit de corps, pride in your efforts and a feeling of inclusion between yourself and your fellow peers.
      - To maintain discipline and structure. They may not wear the same uniform, but they still think of themselves as Starfleet officers and present themselves in the same way.
      - To distinguish themselves from other renegades, mark themselves as something other than a disorganized group.

      Now, I wouldn't mind seeing them return to something similar to The Wrath of Khan uniforms (so much detail!) but lets wait until we see them before we criticize.

    30. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Nutria · · Score: 1

      To Americans, a British accent makes anything more sophisticated (otherwise there wouldn't be so many posh British voices in US commercials).

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    31. Re: Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an ideal to aspire to and to aim towards attaining. Sure it's too perfect and we'll never actually achieve it, but if we even get part way there then it's progress.

    32. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Sure, but when your typical oldster starts talking about how optimistic TOS was he really means naive.

    33. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Balthrop · · Score: 2

      seeing as all of it comes out of the replicator would not a new design take but 2 seconds of cut and paste? So this new kickstarted crew could whip up new uniforms for their rebel ship before the warp engines are warmed up.

    34. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonviolence is a good policy when the conditions permit. - Nelson Mandela.
      It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence - Mahatma Ghandi

      Violence is simply a tool in one's toolkit. It isn't the first choice of any Starfleet officer, but they are ready to fight, to the cost of their lives if necessary, if the issue is large enough. Violence, however, is not a universal weapon, it must be wielded with care, precision.

      I enjoy the story of the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The initial target for one of those two was Kyoto, home of the Japanese Emperor. The American Ambassador argued against that as he had spent time there and admired the amount of history and culture present in Kyoto. After the bombs fell, the Emperor sued for peace, nearly earning himself a coup de'tat in the process by his own military. The Japanese military expected to fight to the last man on a war they knew they were losing, that's what would have happened if the Emperor had been killed. He wasn't and the war was resolved faster.

      Now, it's arguable that

    35. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is kind of the point of television, films, fiction and fantasy. I get enough realism in my daily life.

    36. Re: Shades of Blake's 7 by peragrin · · Score: 1

      You do realize that DS9 started out as regular Star Trek but then learned from Babylon 5 that continuous story telling can work.

      DS9 was good especailly a couple of the battles, but babylon5 will will always be the light in the darkness

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    37. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Roddenberry's original series (and, to some extent, TNG) were episodic out of ideology, not an inability to write. The human federation was supposed to represent the culmination of culture: a society beyond need (no private property) or internal conflict, with a strong interest in science and exploration, inclined to peace but equipped to win a war if necessary. Such a culture doesn't have the dynamism of needing to pursue happiness or of frequent warfare, and that lack of dynamism meant that the characters on the show never changed much, nor did details have to carry over between episodes.

      The aliens in each episode were supposed to provide stereotypes of contrasting values (greed, ambition, hatred, paranoia, etc), which is why they repeated infrequently: the show had to move to different values each week, and so to different stereotypes/races.

      It's kind of like Dragnet: the police were always the same, dressed the same, looked the same, talked the same, used the same extras, even though they were supposed to be in different departments each show; the variety came from the guests, who represented different social ills, and whose mildly eccentric to outright wacky depictions (especially the crazy hippie clothes) and behaviors contrasted with the sober grey and gruff of the police, who were the only perfectly "normal" and rational characters.

    38. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Now, it's arguable that

      Teaser?! Very interesting start, where's your conclusion? Did the boss walk in and catch you on /.?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    39. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes. Except I heard they will be keeping red shirts for some of the minor characters in the landing parties.

      Just for Esprit de Corpse...

    40. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by mrbester · · Score: 1

      The Corps is mother, the Corps is father after all...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    41. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly, Star Trek is not just TNG, with Captain Picard being very unwilling to do anything more than ardently ask the natives to not murder his crew.

      It is DP9 with traitorous officers, civil wars, racists, and war.
      It is Voyager with a genocidal Janeway, cutting a swath across the Delta Quadrant, and being willing to destroy whole civilizations on her journey home.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    42. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by khasim · · Score: 2

      Except that fails as a narrative device in this situation.

      Having each character wear their own outfit would allow for a visual "shorthand" for that character's history and personality.

      Firefly and Blake's 7 are great examples of this. Why does Mal wear that long coat? Inara wears skirts and dresses but Zoe is usually wearing trousers. Jayne's outfits are different from Simon's.

    43. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by mrbester · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure. The Federation was still pretty rosy even though there was the beginnings of trouble in Paradise that had started in TNG which Roddenberry still had some control over (and if not, then certainly Majel did). It was always thus: there is always something that tries to ruin utopia. With TOS it was the Klingons (and to a lesser extent Romulans). TNG had Romulans and Borg. DS9 had Romulans, Borg and The Dominion (oh, my!). Voyager had Borg, Kazon and a distinct lack of direction.

      The point being that in order to have a comfortable society it needs to be protected. Some quote about freedom and eternal vigilance springs to mind.

      Aside: Swiping "Romulans" gave me "Etonians". Is my phone trying to tell me something?

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    44. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by mrbester · · Score: 2

      The City on the Edge of Forever. True, if things had gone well he'd have knobbed Joan Collins.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    45. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Having each character wear their own outfit would allow for a visual "shorthand" for that character's history and personality.

      Thus permitting the writers to expend less energy on the conversations which exposed the history & personality of ST:TOS characters.

      I guess that's good if you have a short attention span.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    46. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was the best series they ever made.

      You are thinking of Babylon 5.

    47. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Nephandus · · Score: 0

      That quote is a thought terminating cliche, and your absurd misreading of your opposition is blatantly disingenuous. Sanctimony only counts as logic if you follow Vulcan religion. Protip: If the Borg had used violence more appropriately (that is VERY fucking often, certainly against ANY intruders), instead of pseudo-enlightened arrogance similar to what you're pushing, they'd have won against anything this side of fluidic space short short of certain physical gods.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    48. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by boristhespider · · Score: 1

      Are you arguing that Star Trek: The Original Series had better planned and executed dialogue than Firefly??? I'm not the world's greatest Firefly apologist but, seriously, the one was a reasonably short-lived and reasonably tightly-planned series executed by a team of modern TV writers - who for all their faults are well trained - and the other was, for all its undoubted charms, a shoddy amateur affair from the 60s which on as near an objective watch as a single man can give (which is close to being unobjective and is entirely anecdotal... as are all critics) has aged badly.

    49. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by khasim · · Score: 1

      I guess that's good if you have a short attention span.

      I presented you with an example from Firefly. So I'm a bit confused by your "short attention span" comment.

      Do you believe that Inara's and Zoe's contrasting attire was so that the writers could expend less energy? Or so that the viewers would not get them confused with each other?

    50. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by boristhespider · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat of an aside but it's I think relevant - have a read of Poul Anderson's Technic series. He paints a basically plausible picture of how a civilisation emerges based on relatively cheap space flight, a giant "federation" of sorts (in his case based on the Hanseatic League and increasingly brutally capitalist) emerges and imposes a peace, and then heads towards an inevitable morass of corruption, bureaucratic paralysis and internecine war.

      You may or may not feel it relates to the situation in Star Trek: Renegades but it's at least mildly analogous and, besides, if you haven't read through Anderson's Technic series (recently collected by Baen in the van Rijn and Falkayn books) it may persuade you to give them a look. You will genuinely not be sorry, they're fantastic.

      (My personal favourite is when van Rijn and his crew, attempting to escape the Adderkops in a ship with crippled engines, overhaul and board an unknown vessel which turns out to be some form of zoo... with the crew happily playing dumb amongst the fauna of fifteen different suns. They have to find out who the crew are, and persuade them that they're not like the Adderkops despite having two arms and two legs and boarding them violently, all before the Adderkops themselves overhaul the zoo ship. Fantastic stuff.)

    51. Re: Shades of Blake's 7 by kno3 · · Score: 2

      That certainly doesn't seem to play out in the actual show. There was clearly an emphasis on a more continuous story right from the start. In fact, Rick Berman found it very hard to talk about the project with Gene Roddenberry for this very reason, among others (Roddenberry did not support continuous story lines and other themes the show explored, such as religion).

    52. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer my science fiction to not be all sunshine, rainbows, and utopias.

      Many would argue that science fiction which IS all sunshine, rainbows, and utopias... would be classified as Fantasy.

    53. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      You mean DS9?

      Traitorous officers? Check.
      Civil Wars? Two of them at least.
      Racists? Plenty of racism and xenophobia in the later seasons.
      War? The whole series spends more time in a war-like state than in peace.

    54. Re: Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Babylon 5's story was completely hackneyed and obviously pieced together as it went along. Prewritten story arc my ass. It took a page straight out of George Lucas's handbook.

      I slightly enjoyed B5's first season, but it all went downhill from there.

    55. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know I'm in the minority, but DS9 was my favorite Trek after the original - in part because they did a much better job developing the interpersonal relationships than other post-TOS Treks (which is part of the reason TOS stands up so well, even now).

      And I actually enjoy long story arcs.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    56. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      yeah.. then there's reality.. not all individuals or races are rational..certainly not all the time...and the terrans certainly aren't these monolithic blocks that the starfleet culture expected them to be. To their credit, the maquis delved into this a bit as both sides had an argument, but I always thought trek needed more realism in its politics.. By my early teens, the Radiant Socialist Future stuff caused me to lose interest when it became obvious just how unrealistic it was.

    57. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be so sure.

      The pilot will be aired on the CBS website. The decision to put the show in full production will hinge on how much web traffic the pilot generates.

      Please have a clue before commenting.

    58. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, maybe the argument doesn't hold up so well against Firefly...

      OTOH, the Serenity was a cargo ship, not a man o' war. I don't know what the crews of modern cargo ships wear, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's jumpsuits (in the spirit of the overalls of yore), possibly color-coded.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    59. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Andtalath · · Score: 3

      DS9 explored how no decision is ever morally perfect, even if the people performing them are well-meaning through and through.

      Even the dickish spy moves in the series are quite justified, and this includes the potential genocide of an entire species.

    60. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DS9 was the best series by far, and Far beyond the stars was an amazing episode.

    61. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Deep Space Nine? That Star Trek series consisted of the Dominion War!

    62. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      *I don't know, the Army of Light uniforms on Babylon 5 seemed to work just fine.*
      *Now, I wouldn't mind seeing them return to something similar to The Wrath of Khan uniforms (so much detail!) but lets wait until we see them before we criticize.*

      Those are the best sci-fi uniforms...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    63. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Which they didn't do anyway. Look at the range of characters with Troi's name played by the same actress for a fairly extreme example, or the Data of the week.

    64. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kirk: "I'll be.....IN....my............BUNK!"

    65. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where Kirk didn't ... screw at least one of the guest stars.

      Can you send me the uncensored version?

    66. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      While shooting and punching certainly aren't peaceful, screwing seems like a nice, peaceful way of handling diplomatic relations....

    67. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All I can say about the "Star Trek" we've been seeing in recent years is... It's a faaaaaaake!

    68. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by CayceeDee · · Score: 1

      You won't have any trouble getting your fill then. The vast majority of sci-fi is depressing, dark and dystopian. The great thing about Star Trek, at least with TOS and TNG, was the optimism, but DS9, Voyager, Enterprise and every movie except The Motion Picture and The Voyage Home were simply more war movies in space. Just like 95% of the sci-fi available now.

    69. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by GNious · · Score: 1

      Around Season 4 (late season 3?) DS9 really started improving, and Season 6 of DS9 is generally some of my preferred StarTrek. A lot of people never made it past Season 2, which is a shame.

    70. Re: Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't even launch. TSA won't let them board the starship. Crew, writers, producers, stagehands, Everybody goes directly to jail. Especially the Vulcans, as pointy ears are obviously a new and subtle mutual recognition system for those nasty middle-eastern people.

    71. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then I guess you must have hated "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock" because Kirk & crew disobeyed orders, sabotaged another Star Fleet vessel, stole and destroyed the Enterprise, and kicked a Klingon off of a cliff into molten lava? How about "Star Trek: Insurrection", in which the "malfunctioning" Commander Data decides to out and imprison a stealthed team of federation scientists "observing" a "primitive" culture and Picard & company then join him in violently opposing Star Fleet's attempt to relocate the population? Need I go on? Well, tough, that's all the free writing you're getting out of me today!

    72. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by DutchUncle · · Score: 1

      Mal wears that long coat because it was on sale. He explained that in the bar in the first broadcast episode.

    73. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The Angels have the Enterprise!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    74. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by kermidge · · Score: 2

      Izzat so.

      Maybe you're talking about then and now.

      If you'd lost track of time in the books, there was a knock on the door, "Hey! Star Trek's on." Scoot down to the rec room, into the rows of chairs gathered in front of the maybe 14" b&w tv, and for an hour we had an escape, a story, a parable, however cheesy it may have seemed even at the time. Optimistic? Hell, yes. We needed a bit of that. Kids dealing with the draft, others coming home to an often alien world. Lynchings and other murders of people just wanting to fucking vote. The local stuff, price-gouging and rip-off landlords, cops and narcs and weed, anti-war stuff. Spiced of course by coeds, no bras, the Pill, the Beatles and the Stones, grassers. And always the grind. We were gonna be engineers and doctors and artists, oh my.

      Naive? Sure. At least through that generation, it was always the way of things, the sweet folly of youth, all that. Now? I meet too many 16-year olds who think they got a lock on cynicism. Shit. They ain't seen shit, and don't have the brains to be naive. They know it all, with eyes trying to ape the depth of the universe. I'll take Star Trek to that any day.

    75. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Aged badly?

      It has one thing nothing else touches - an ethic. A core aspirational value - striving not for mere technological development, but towards human growth and ennoblement.

      I will admit that that dimly reflects the environment of materialism, nihilism and techno-fetishism that has dominated since the end of the Nixon-era. If that is aging badly, I'd ask for more.

      You want "age badly"? Try "Red Dwarf".

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    76. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Suppression of the individual.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    77. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by boristhespider · · Score: 1

      I quite agree, Red Dwarf has aged horribly. I watched through the lot (well, until I got depressed around series 8) and while I think it's still funny it's also aged, horribly. Obviously my bold statement about Star Trek aging badly is purely my own opinion; other people can and will always see very different things in it to me, which is kind of how it should be...

    78. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      purely my own opinion; other people can and will always see very different things in it to me, which is kind of how it should be

      My god! On Slashdot? You are a generous and admirable conversation to have had!

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    79. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must have missed that one. For the life of me, I can't imagine any episode where Kirk didn't shoot, punch or screw at least one of the guest stars.

      Then there was his screen persona which would do the same kicking, punching, or screwing of the characters that the guest stars portrayed.

    80. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I respectfully disagree.

    81. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by boristhespider · · Score: 1

      Ah, but I've been dragged into the habit of blustering my own opinions on Slashdot in the past and then flouncing off. It makes you feel such an idiot it strikes you that it's better not to be a dick :)

    82. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by KingMotley · · Score: 1

      Couldn't have said it better myself. I got excited when I heard about another possible Star Trek series, only to be sorely disappointed.

      This isn't anything more than a money grab using the Star Trek name. Sure, make a web series if you want, but CBS please don't pick it up. We need some decent writers who realize that the best part of the Star Trek series (original and ST:NG) was its optimistic views. A beacon of what what life SHOULD be like, not what it IS like. Something to strive for.

       

    83. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by Seraphim1982 · · Score: 1

      The Maquis were wiped out in the 2nd half of season 5 of DS9. It started in "By Inferno's Light" and had been completed by "Blaze of Glory".

    84. Re:Shades of Blake's 7 by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but rogues, renegades, edginess and fast pace just screams, "We don't know how to write interesting conversations!"

      Besides, I thought JJTrek was created to fill that niche...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How can you be faithful to the canon when the canon isn't internally consistent? (see especially Star Trek: Enterprise)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

    1. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much no canon is totally consistent. I assume they mean abandoning the horseshit that was the reboot.

    2. Re:How? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think it is safe to say that they'll mostly ignore Enterprise, just like everybody else on Earth.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:How? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you think that's bad, you should try being a Doctor Who fan.

    4. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Everybody on Earth, except JJ Abrams. Both of the new movies contained references to ST Enterprise.

    5. Re: How? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      I hope they do abandon the so-called reboot.

    6. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It is pretty hard to ignore Enterprise. Holy shit - that one had T'pal on it. Ignore her? Not a chance. Hell of a hottie.

    7. Re:How? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

    8. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It did have a good season. Was nice to see a plot extend beyond one or two episodes. I loved what the ship looked like by the end of that season.

    9. Re:How? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We can only hope. We can also hope that Picardo plays the Doctor instead of Johnnycab Who.

      Seriously, though, *fingers crossed* I hope CBS picks it up.

    10. Re:How? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Star Trek: Enterprise was just a Holodeck program, didn't had to be consistent. Even opening theme was a clear signal that something wrong was happening there.

    11. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baccula. Traditionally, this refers to a whale's penis.

    12. Re:How? by Guspaz · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's playing Doc Zimmerman. He didn't want to reprise the role of The Doctor because he's aged too much, but when it was suggested that Zimmerman would have aged the same as he did, he was onboard.

    13. Re: How? by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The reboot is an alternate timeline, so the original universe still exists separately.

      You may be surprised to learn that not only did the "horseshit" reboot make more money than all the other Star Trek movies combined, it had a higher RT score than Wrath of Khan.

      That Abrams guy is a real asshole. He turned a Star Trek movie into something entertaining that audiences, and critics who usually rip on blockbusters both seemed to have enjoyed.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    14. Re:How? by optikos · · Score: 1

      What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

      I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

    15. Re:How? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you hack out the time travel portion of the middle of the series, Enterprise was quite enjoyable. One episode in particular gave insight into how things we took for granted in the later years came to be. Namely, the Prime Directive.

      Sure, you could call Archer's speech about needing guidance a bit heavy-handed (he comes right out and uses the phrase Prime Directive), but similar to the original series and somewhat with TNG, that episode raised the question of how much interference/help should we give to another civilization without that help changing their natural progression?

      As an aside, the actress who played the doctor's assistant in that episode, Elizabeth Cutler, and who had an attraction to him, died the year after that episode aired.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    16. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thank god enterprise is not our timeline.

    17. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I hope they bring back Reboot, that show was awesome.

      Especially the episode with Rob Cursor.

    18. Re: How? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The first one wasn't bad. The second one felt like a half-assed attempt at remaking Wrath of Khan, and didn't hold together very well, IMO. It lacked plausibility in many respects, and also lacked the emotional depth of Wrath, because they brought the main character back before the movie ended. It felt like a version of Star Trek crafted specifically for people with short attention spans and little ability to spot plot holes.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:How? by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Kirstie Alley was the hottest Vulcan ever, back in the day.

      --
      Good-bye
    20. Re:How? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

      I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

      I guess that must have happened after I quit watching. Not really quit, I just wasn't motivated enough to chase its time slot all around. Could've also TiVo'd it I guess, but again, lacked motivation to press necessary buttons.

      It did have a good start.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    21. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

      I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

      You mean the storyline that identifies the entire series as taking place in an alternate timeline, thus making many differences from the original series' entirely explicable and not inconsistent in the slightest?

      I get tired of all the Enterprise hate, to be honest. Yeah, it wasn't exactly the best thing ever, but it wasn't *that* bad. And some of series 3 was actually pretty good.

    22. Re: How? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Gawd yes. As bad as Voyager and Enterprise were, compared to the hideousness that is the reboot films, they're works of genius.

      But frankly, I could give a s--t about another show in the TNG era. I'd much prefer to see a show with Sulu as captain.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    23. Re:How? by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      I had a Vulcan one night stand with her.

      It was Pon far and away.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    24. Re:How? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was about this point that I stopped watching Enterprise.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    25. Re:How? by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Funny

      They could really screw with everybody and produce a timeline in which Richard Woolsey is frozen after getting seriously injured defending Earth from a replicator attack, the Stargate program is abandoned and forgotten about per an IOA mandate, and Woolsey ends up being discovered on a distant planet by the Enterprise.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    26. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did it by making it Star Wars and taking out everything that made Star Trek what it was. It was completely watchable and for many people enjoyable. If it had been something other than Star Trek it probably would have been even better received by ST fans. The heart of what made Star Trek what it was is that it invited the viewer to aspire to make the world that was portrayed a reality. The new Star Trek films do nothing of the sort, despite the fact that they are great popcorn flicks. I respect j.j. Abrams as an artist and a director, but you can't just slap a name on something, rehash a few fan elements, and call it the same thing. Star Wars is a wonderful space epic. Star Trek is not a space epic, it's a Sci-fi drama. It may not appeal to everyone, it may not make as much money, but people don't tend to make the future from the popcorn flicks, they make the future because of those things that make them reach past themselves into the future of what could be.

    27. Re: How? by Bomarc · · Score: 1

      There is so much that Paramount COULD have done but didn't.

      In the first reboot by JJ; he crated an exciting movie, but why bother to call it ST? (The 2nd one really sucked - with the number of GLARING plot holes, errors and bad re-writes. It is the first ST move that I won't buy)

      Movies that I would like to see that would require actual THOUGHT to write: The Constellation - and the the Dooms Day Device with Decker loosing his crew, Captain Kirk's Brother - when the planet they were on was invaded. One item that really tested Kirk's metal: The vampire cloud and watching Captain Garrovick die.
      The list of possible good movies goes on...

      I am looking forward to seeing this, by the people the care about ST!

    28. Re: How? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Doomsday Device is my absolutely favorite ST of any iteration. That was one fucking awesome episode. Well-written, full of tension and suspense. The fact that the Device looks like a badly-rolled joint is besides the point. That was some damned fine writing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re: How? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 5, Funny

      I kept wondering why in the 'verse they'd ever bother with ships again. They can beam across space to other planets without that pesky years-in-hard-vacuum bit in the middle.

      Transwarp makes negotiations easier, too:

      "Captain Awesome, the Klingon ambassador demands--"

      *teleporter sounds*

      "I beamed him into the sun. What's his successor want?"

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    30. Re:How? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2

      I think it is safe to say that they'll mostly ignore Enterprise, just like everybody else on Earth.

      ..... invisible to the critics..... invisible to the fans ..... Enterprise! ...now with a cloaking device! Now it's even disappeared from the schedule.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    31. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be surprised to learn that not only did the "horseshit" reboot make more money than all the other Star Trek movies combined, it had a higher RT score than Wrath of Khan.

      Yeah! I don't want this sci-fi bullshit you're hawking, not even the soft kind that plays better on movies than those stupid books the REAL pathetic nerds read! None of this intrigue or character development nonsense, I want BOOBS and REALLY LOUD EXPLOSIONS AND OTHER NOISES! That's what makes a movie BETTER, because it MAKES MORE MONEY!

    32. Re: How? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      RT score?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re: How? by dmacleod808 · · Score: 0
      --
      There Can Be Only One...
    34. Re: How? by jythie · · Score: 2

      Meh, that is not saying much. Every summer we have 'highest grossing movie of all time!'. The big question will be how well it holds up over time, since the majority of summer blockbusters end up in the bargin bin within a couple of years and rarely have much of a following.

      And true, Abrams put out a movie with mass appeal, but so what? The majority market already has pretty much everything catered to them, all he has really done was taken something that had a large following and used it as inspiration for attracting another market. Good business, but then again so is reality TV.

    35. Re:How? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What?

      I've not watched many episodes and probably won't, but this sounds interesting. Can you tell me a bit more or point me in the right direction?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    36. Re: How? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it kinda reminded me of when video game publishers take some new unknown game and reskin it with some existing franchise that is already popular... resulting in a game that probably could have stood just fine as an original work but instead feels a bit shoehorned with existing characters.

    37. Re:How? by jythie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if they had produced an entire series like they had season 3 they probably would have had something pretty memorable. But instead season 2 bored off most of their audience and 4 just felt aimless.

    38. Re: How? by B33rNinj4 · · Score: 1

      Exactly! Abrams had a blank canvas to create anything he wanted. Instead, he chose to recreate Star Trek 2, but with a weak-ass twist. It was depressing.

    39. Re:How? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Heck Cannon is out the Windows in TOS, even in TNG.

      We see Trekees or Treckers (which ever one has the negative connotation) Coming up with extended reasons to explain every inconsistency.

      Lets face it. TOS and TNG were TV shows meant to be have a full story in one episode. The fact that the guy died a few weeks ago isn't that big of a deal because he wasn't really part of the story, or the fact that minor character started to get more parts thus his history changes a bit.

      O'Brian before he got his name, was a LT, his uniform had the LT pips... Then he became a Non-commission officer. Why well early on he was just an extra with a couple of lines. Then they made him a bigger part. Cannon out the window... Who cares.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    40. Re: How? by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Critics don't give high scores to films for explosions. Again, you'll note that critics gave higher ratings to Abram's Star Trek than Wrath of Khan.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    41. Re: How? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      That would be fabulous!

      Yes, I did go there, don't you judge you me. It is funny and he is awesome.

    42. Re:How? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Time traveling Space Nazi's. That killed it dead.

      Whoever came up with that idea should never be allowed to work in media again.

    43. Re:How? by BriggsBU · · Score: 1

      There's an episode where Jonathan Frakes guest stars and it's revealed at the end that the entire episode was a holodeck program where Riker was basically playing in an interactive movie to learn about a critical juncture in the Federation's past.

    44. Re:How? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You are the only person who made it that far.
      Time traveling space Nazi's were the nail in the coffin of that show. No one stuck around to see it was just another alternate timeline BS story.

    45. Re:How? by jythie · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think time traveling space nazis fit in quite well if you consider it in context of transitioning to the ToS timeframe ^_^

    46. Re:How? by FlipperPA · · Score: 1

      But does she do the Vulcan mind-meld on the first date?

    47. Re: How? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      You searched for "rotten tomato" not "RT" - there's a difference. How the hell should I have known that's what it signified?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    48. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. They knew the show was being cancelled, so they made some intentionally kitchy episodes which appealed to us TOS fans. It's not like they thought Time-traveling Space Nazis was a serious plot.

    49. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tbh I think Alexander Siddig would have been the best choice for the doctor since they are involved with Section 31.

    50. Re: How? by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      The simple reality of Hollywood nowadays is that movies are made to pander to the biggest audience.

      This sounds somewhat reasonable until you understand this means that all movies are made to placate ~80% of the audience with the remaining 20% getting no movies whatsoever. Slight exageration, but you get the point.

      Creating a movie or TV series for an audience which will at most will be relatively small is way more of a risk than most managers would dare make, no matter how rabidly loyal the fanbase may be.

      Also; what's with the fake lensflares? Could somebody at Adobe please remove the lensflare filter from Photoshop? The only person still using it is JJ Abrams.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    51. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the mirror universe. It's been done.

    52. Re:How? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      And Bester only knows that the Federation is weakened because he has the remnants of the Psy Corps working for him.

    53. Re:How? by jandrese · · Score: 0

      Enterprise just killed me when they would have this big long speech about the need for readiness and make Count Bakula say a line like: "We need some sort of alerting the crew about danger, maybe with light, a colored light, maybe we should make it red, so it could be known as a red alert."

      I'm not a mentally handicapped 3 year old, Enterprise.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    54. Re: How? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      And when you adjust for inflation ... how did it do comparatively, em?

      Its trivial and common for new movies to vastly outgross a 20 year old version. Its called inflation. Look it up. Happens ALL the time, and not just with movies.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    55. Re: How? by dpidcoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It felt like a version of Star Trek crafted specifically for people with short attention spans and little ability to spot plot holes.

      Nailed it.

      Not to show my inner hipster, but I really feel that massive box office sales actually mean that it's not a particularly good star trek. The series is enjoyed by nerds, and since the vast majority of people in the world aren't nerds, it will appeal to a very small subset of people. What appeals to nerds usually doesn't appeal to others, and vice versa. By expanding to include a wider audience, it will by definition need to abandon a lot of what made it "good". That might be great for making money, but the series is no longer star trek and has abandoned its initial fanbase.

    56. Re:How? by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah yes, Enterprises' T'pol, famous from such unforgetable episodes as "T'pol rubbing some stuff on herself in the decontamination chamber", "Somebody else rubbing stuff on T'pol in the decontamination chamber" and "Could this decontamination chamber scene be any more suggestive and puritanical at the same time?".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    57. Re:How? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      And that is inconsistent because ?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    58. Re: How? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That Abrams guy is a real asshole. He turned a Star Trek movie into something entertaining that audiences, and critics who usually rip on blockbusters both seemed to have enjoyed.

      He turned Star Trek into something that everyone BUT a Star Trek fan seemed to enjoy.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    59. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if those within one standard deviation of the mean should have an influence on how I critically view something. Abrams knows how to make an enjoyable action movie, granted, though his movies have no depth.

    60. Re: How? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2
      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    61. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also did a great job with the remastered version of that particular episode. It stayed true to the primitive look of the original, but also had a very film-like quality that wasn't in the original.

    62. Re:How? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Minor point: Half-vulcan, half-romulan.

    63. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh my...

    64. Re:How? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1
      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    65. Re:How? by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      What inconsistencies does Enterprise introduce? Nothing really comes to mind...

      I think that they mean the entire Temporal Cold War story-arc.

      I guess that must have happened after I quit watching. Not really quit, I just wasn't motivated enough to chase its time slot all around. Could've also TiVo'd it I guess, but again, lacked motivation to press necessary buttons.

      It did have a good start.

      The Temporal cold war plot point was established in the pilot episode of Enterprise, so you must've quit very early into that series and forgot about it.

      When I heard they decided to introduce time travel as a key arc in a *prequel* to shows we already had, implying there wasn't enough interesting pre-Federation history to sustain the show on its own, I wrote off the entire series.

    66. Re: How? by mrbester · · Score: 1

      The music helped. I still vividly remember it and it's been years since I last saw that episode.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    67. Re:How? by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      He might be referring to the very last episode of Enterprise, where key events were part of a holodeck simulation being run by Riker and Troi during the events of the TNG episode "The Pegasus".

      I don't think that suggests the entire *series* was a holodeck storyline, but I think gmuslera's comment was more more tongue-in-cheek anyway.

    68. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What annoyed me the most is that they wasted the remake opportunity on Wrath of Khan, which is already an awesome movie. Now I have to wait even longer for a remake of The Motion Picture :(

    69. Re: How? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      You searched for "rotten tomato" not "RT" - there's a difference. How the hell should I have known that's what it signified?

      ahem.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    70. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which Sulu?

    71. Re:How? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If you hack out the time travel portion of the middle of the series, Enterprise was quite enjoyable.

      I couldn't get past the theme song.

    72. Re: How? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what people want to see has gotten darker. Even a child/teen movie series like Harry Potter is way darker than what you'd show in the past, compare old Batman movies to new Batman movies, really the fairy tale Star Trek wouldn't please anyone anymore. You think you do out of nostalgia but really you'd quickly be bored out of your wits.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    73. Re:How? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I used to deride the inconsistencies until Nobots. I'm a bit more tolerant now, consistency is hard in a single book, let alone in a multi-series series.

    74. Re: How? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The fact that the Device looks like a badly-rolled joint is besides the point.

      I always wondered if that was a thinly disguised bit of propaganda, or maybe a sarcastic parody of propaganda.

    75. Re: How? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      [bit.ly]

      Please don't do that. www.bit.ly/goatse
      This isn't twitter, twit.

    76. Re: How? by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ooh. I know this. The probe destroys Earth, and all the whales leave, saying, "So long and thanks for all the fish." No, wait.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    77. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Let's see about that. Amounts in parenthesis are adjusted for 2009 inflation.

      Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
      Budget: $46,000,000 ($134,178,424)
      Box Office: $139,000,000 ($405,452,196)
      Gross Profit: $93,000,000 ($271,273,771)
      Gross Margin: 66.91%
      ----
      Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
      Budget: $11,200,000 ($24,572,366)
      Box Office: $97,000,000 ($212,814,248)
      Gross Profit: $85,800,000 ($188,241,881)
      Gross Margin: 88.45%
      ----
      Star Trek III: The Search for Spock (1984)
      Budget: $16,000,000 ($32,612,563)
      Box Office: $87,000,000 ($177,330,816)
      Gross Profit: $71,000,000 ($144,718,252)
      Gross Margin: 81.61%
      ----
      Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (1986)
      Budget: $21,000,000 ($40,546,214)
      Box Office: $133,000,000 ($256,792,693)
      Gross Profit: $112,000,000 ($216,246,478)
      Gross Margin: 84.21%
      ----
      Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)
      Budget: $33,000,000 ($56,373,265)
      Box Office: $63,000,000 ($107,621,689)
      Gross Profit: $30,000,000 ($51,248,423)
      Gross Margin: 47.62%
      ----
      Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
      Budget: $27,000,000 ($41,996,653)
      Box Office: $97,000,000 ($150,876,867)
      Gross Profit: $70,000,000 ($108,880,213)
      Gross Margin: 72.16%
      ----
      Star Trek: Generations (1994)
      Budget: $35,000,000 ($50,014,641)
      Box Office: $118,000,000 ($168,620,790)
      Gross Profit: $83,000,000 ($118,606,149)
      Gross Margin: 70.34%
      ----
      Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
      Budget: $45,000,000 ($60,908,869)
      Box Office: $146,000,000 ($197,615,442)
      Gross Profit: $101,000,000 ($136,706,573)
      Gross Margin: 69.18%
      ----
      Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
      Budget: $58,000,000 ($75,976,862)
      Box Office: $112,500,000 ($147,368,914)
      Gross Profit: $54,500,000 ($71,392,052)
      Gross Margin: 48.44%
      ----
      Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
      Budget: $60,000,000 ($71,141,000)
      Box Office: $67,000,000 ($79,440,783)
      Gross Profit: $7,000,000 ($8,299,783)
      Gross Margin: 10.45%
      ----
      Star Trek: Space Cadet Nukirk's Little Adventure (2009)
      Budget: $150,000,000
      Box Office: $385,500,000
      Gross Profit: $235,500,000
      Gross Margin: 61.09%

      As you can see, Star Trek 2009 didn't even make as much as Star Trek: The Motion Picture and fell well below the profit margins of all but The Final Frontier, Insurrection and Nemesis. In fact, the only reason that it even did as well as it did is because they throw a fuckton of money at it. Give me $150,000,000 and I could do the same; it's easy to make money when you have money. That and there hadn't been a Star Trek film for seven years at that point, so the audiences were starved. Little did they suspect the platter of steaming excrement that they were about to be served.

    78. Re: How? by DoctorChestburster79 · · Score: 1

      Personally, it was a better execution than the abomination that was Nemesis. I think that was a bigger rip off of Wrath of Khan than Into Darkness was.

    79. Re:How? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      It suggests the series was not, since everyone wears the stupid nametags that had never before been seen in any series.

    80. Re: How? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 1

      According to the CPI Inflation Calculator, Wrath of Khan adjusted is about $191,023,056 (had to fiddle with a decimal point to stay within the odd $10m bounds)

      As it turns out, they were pretty close, with the new one edging out the original.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    81. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Abrams Star Trek was a direct rip-off of Nemesis. Romulans/Remans with a big, powerful starship capable of destroying an entire world on a misguided and childish quest for revenge against people who had nothing to do with their misfortune.

    82. Re: How? by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      You sir, are most certainly a dip shit. Using a URL shortener to hide the fact that you're being a dipshit.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    83. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see a show based on the 25th century Star Trek universe depicted in Star Trek Online. Maybe even a show based on the 26th century Enterprise J shown in Enterprise when Daniels takes Archer to the future.

    84. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't that only happen in one episode? As the series went on, I found myself really liking T'Pol for more than just the eyecandy.

    85. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your spelling and grammar abilities are atrocious. Did you drop out of school or something?

    86. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they do. Especially the type of critics on Rotten Tomatoes (ie. any random John, Mary, Dick or Jane who wants to stuff ballots).

      Your problem is that you rely too much on what other people tell you to enjoy and not enough on forming your own thoughts and opinions. Actually, you're exactly the type of person Abrams was targeting with his version of Star Trek. Mindless, obedient and easily entertained.

    87. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you a habitual liar or something? I am just wondering why you needed to qualify your statement like that.

    88. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the nail in the coffin for Enterprise was UPN.

      "Hur Dur let's show episodes out of order & constantly change it's time slot, just like Fox did with Firefly! That'll improve ratings! Derp!"
      -UPN Executives

      Notice how UPN is dead & gone?

    89. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing holds up well with legions of whiners constantly whining & droning on about it.

      Grow up.

    90. Re:How? by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Who cares, indeed.

      More importantly, ST has never been about consistency, or even quality plots. For every socially relevant episode of TOS (spoiler: racism is bad.), there are a dozen episodes of beating up some monster with laser pistols or making up some new weird biological feature for the pointy-ear'd guy to get out of a pickle.

      The real problem is that ST is a 900lb Gorilla, sucking the sci-fi dollars of hollywood, resulting in the starvation of all other properties, current or imagined. Star Trek gets a billion dollars, the entire "Sci Fi Channel" has to drop the i's for y's to give us 40 hours a week of low-budget Hell's Kitchen ripoffs.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    91. Re:How? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      The best part is that at least as far as we know, none of this technically violates the Star Trek canon. See how easy it is to write cool stories that don't violate canon and yet are completely different from anything you've seen before? :-)

      Oddly enough, the hardest thing about this post was not capitalizing canon. Guess I've been writing/reading too much about cameras lately. But I digress.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    92. Re:How? by Andtalath · · Score: 1

      T'Pol was actually the only character gowing through real growth.
      She really transitioned from the perfect Vulcan in an interesting way.

      The only thing that was fucked was the first contact episode.

    93. Re: How? by Blackeneth · · Score: 1

      I've always thought it looked like a giant Space Carrot.

      --
      -- Knowledge is power. -- Francis Bacon
    94. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the first ST move that I won't buy

      Then you're a fucking idiot, because you bought Star Trek V which had huge plot holes, errors, bad re-writes, bad effects, a bad plot, bad dialogue, and terrible acting.

    95. Re:How? by sarysa · · Score: 1

      ToS can be forgiven...it wasn't as cliche in 1967 to use Nazis as it was in 2004.

      And yeah...they had a wonderful year-long season 3 arc, pretty well put together, and they cap it with space nazis? Why oh why...

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    96. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His first ST was a remake of Nemesis. The next a poor attempt to add a backstory to Khan - for whom a great movie had already been made.

      Abrams is not a Trek fan. He doesn't do story development. He takes whatever script he gets and directs it.

      The writers missed obviously more interesting plots. Say they want to do a backstory on Khan - well, then tell the story of the war between the mundanes and the modifieds. End it with Khan flying away to excile in the Botany Bay.

      Or do a rebot of Pike's first trip to Talos IV.

      Or Klingons. First Contact: Klingons.

    97. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second one felt like a half-assed attempt at remaking Wrath of Khan

      Because it had Khan, it was a remake of Wrath of Khan? Why wasn't it a remake of Space Seed, then? Why wasn't Wrath of Khan a remake of Space Seed?

      Was The Phantom Menace a remake of Star Wars, because it had Obi Wan Kenobi in it?

      Was The Sum of All Fears a remake of The Hunt For Red October because it had a different actor playing Jack Ryan?

      Hell, was Spaceballs a remake of Star Wars and Star Trek and Alien because it similar scenes in it?

    98. Re: How? by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 1

      The reboot is indeed more accessible, but only by making it yet another summer action movie. I'm not really sure what it contributes to the plethora of other summer action movies other then some familiar characters and some references and homages thrown in. Frankly, in fact, I think the last movie went beyond homage or reboot well into rip-off Territory.

      I don't find anything bad about movies and other forms of entertainment that are made to have wide appeal. I enjoy a great many of them, but the change in direction of ST is only a gain for ticket sales, not for what made it a unique work. At the end of the day of course, studios are there to make money, so I don't begrudge them exactly, or think they are going to change on my smaller opinion, but I do think a loss more then a gain by other metrics.

    99. Re:How? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the last two movies are more of a clown cannon.
      Having a brewery in the engine room was a bit of a nice touch though :) Hop drive? What am I thinking, there's no need for starfleet in that setting anyway when you've got backpack teleport direct to the Klingon homeworld.

    100. Re:How? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      The Temporal cold war plot point was established in the pilot episode of Enterprise, so you must've quit very early into that series and forgot about it

      As for me I didn't even make it as far as Enterprise. The amphibian Paris-Janeway sex scene in Voyager was enough to put me off Trek forever.

    101. Re: How? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) ...

      The very length of the list of characters accepted by "old fans" disproves your thesis. Have you seen any Star Trek? Do you realise how badly those series treated the fans? Trekkies have put up with the a history of writers and producers who don't respect the "universe", hammy actors, cheap production values, the endless threat of cancellation, and continued to love the shows. If you've got $100m to throw at a green screen and you can't please those guys for 90 minutes then you are a moron.

      No, NuTrek was hated because of its own internal failures. Cadet-on-suspension becomes new Captain because he made old Captain cry? Like some kind of emo version of Klingons? Oh, and the same cadet can now keep the ship because [shrug] why not... If the director cares so little about his own story, why the fuck should anyone else care about it? Everything else people complain about, the destruction of Vulcan, the stupid gigantor version of Enterprise, that it is built on Earth, Kirk's weak-ass "cheat", the just-so discovery of Scotty on Random Planet 624, and yes even the lens flare, is all just a symptom of the same "the director doesn't give a fuck" slap in the face.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    102. Re: How? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2

      One item that really tested Kirk's metal

      The plate in his head? Or did you mean mettle?

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    103. Re: How? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The US population is quite a bit larger now than it was 31 years ago. A larger population means more potential customers.

    104. Re: How? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      As much as I'd like that, you'd really need a new actor because Takei has unfortunately gotten too old for the part.

    105. Re:How? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Based on the preview I think that the intro is going to go something like this:

      In 2972 , a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum-security stockade to the Sol system. Today, still wanted by the Federation, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem...if no one else can help...and if you can find them...maybe you can hire...The Renegades

    106. Re: How? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Takei is pretty old, but he doesn't look that old. Takei playing Sulu wouldn't be any less appropriate than Edward James Olmos playing Adama in the new Battlestar Galactica or Roy Scheider playing Bridger in Seaquest DSV.

      Now, Walter Koenig (from the video in the summary) -- holy crap he's old! Too old to be an admiral, even.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    107. Re:How? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of Kim Cattrall as Valeris from Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    108. Re: How? by slidester · · Score: 1

      Hans Sulu

    109. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm, sound like the A-Team or The Equalizer.

    110. Re: How? by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      It felt like a version of Star Trek crafted specifically for people with short attention spans and little ability to spot plot holes.

      So like every other Star Trek movie ever made then...

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    111. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of says something about how shit the 2009 Star Trek was, doesn't it?

    112. Re: How? by kermidge · · Score: 1

      The earlier Treks all tried to at the least be a collection of modestly self-consistent short stories.

      The reboot? It's a comic book.

      Take it as you find it, enjoy it as you will.

    113. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you've replied to the wrong command. Alexander Siddig played the character Dr. Julian Bashir on Star Trek: Deep Space 9 as the station's doctor and also had many dealings with Section 31 through a contact named Sloan. He would have made the perfect doctor tbh even besides the fact that his character fits perfectly in the story. His genetic enhancements serve to make him an interesting character to say the least.

    114. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "tbh"

    115. Re: How? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The old fans would be far too busy hating on the new captain not being a Kirk or Picard or Sisko (or even Janeway or Archer) to ever be trusted to support something new. Even "Lord of the Rings" got lots of nerd rage for cutting out Tom Bombadil, replacing about a million elfs with Galadriel and Elrond, adding humor to Gimli's character not to mention the whole Aragon/Galadriel love story which was too much of a chic flick taking away from the Frodo/Sam story and the list goes on and on. And really, what people want to see has gotten darker. Even a child/teen movie series like Harry Potter is way darker than what you'd show in the past, compare old Batman movies to new Batman movies, really the fairy tale Star Trek wouldn't please anyone anymore. You think you do out of nostalgia but really you'd quickly be bored out of your wits.

      This, a thousand times this.

      The new Trek, whilst far from being Merchant Ivory it better than the crap Berman and Braga were spewing out by the end. Enterprise was 3 seasons of crud followed by one season with a few good episodes (then axed).

      But any kind of change will be met with scoff and derision by the crusty old trekkies who remember the original series extremely rose coloured glasses (TOS ep's have huge plot holes, but much like Abrams Trek, are also quite good).

      I grew up with TNG, DS9 was good (although re-watching seasons 1-3 were slow and boring) even Voy had it's moments. I loved TNG, and much like TOS it aged very well (Conspiracy and The Inner Light remain some of my favourite episodes). However we need to move on, there's no point in trying to recapture the treks that have already been done, that's what caused season 1 of ENT.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    116. Re: How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He turned Star Trek into something that everyone BUT a Star Trek fan seemed to enjoy.

      I am a Star Trek fan, and I enjoyed it.

      Yes, that's anecdotal, but still a fact.

      You might be surprised if you take a step back and broaden your perspective a bit. Perhaps the most vocal Star Trek fans expressing non-enjoyment with the reboot movies do not actually represent the (slightly less vocal) majority of Star Trek fans? I don't know, either way, but it's possible.

    117. Re:How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to pretend he got a field commission early aboard the Enterprise that he gave up for a quieter family life, something a normal commissioned officer couldn't easily do, to go be CPO on DS9.

  3. YES PLEASE! by maliqua · · Score: 5, Insightful

    recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

    1. Re:YES PLEASE! by echnaton192 · · Score: 0

      +1 insightful, if I had modpoints

    2. Re:YES PLEASE! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why even make an alternate timeline if all you are going to do is rehash old episodes and movies (poorly)?

    3. Re:YES PLEASE! by Tr3vin · · Score: 1

      You know that time travel has been a main plot element of Star Trek since the original series, right?

    4. Re:YES PLEASE! by lnunes · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't, worry, I've got you covered! And here, take one, too!

    5. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a little time travel episode here and there is hardly the same, at least the characters were consistent, not "lets put spoc in the romantic subplot because it did better in focus groups"

    6. Re:YES PLEASE! by verbatim · · Score: 1

      Because, clearly, the loyal fan base really wanted a thinly-veiled remake of WoK to make up for the four TNG films.

      --
      Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    7. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Star Trek should forever remain an AARP sausage fest. Just look at the above trailer - "Not your grandpa's Star Trek?" You wouldn't know it from the two old farts grimacing through the whole thing.

    8. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Post like these make me sad. Rehashing the same tired argument over and over from lazy posters. Where's the originality?

    9. Re:YES PLEASE! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

      ...generally true. But old Trek had gotten so stale that there wasn't really any other place to go. I know many Trekkers don't like the reboot, and there are aspects that I wasn't excited about, but let's face it -- is a series made by old pharts for old pharts really where you want to be? It's starting to sound like being a Deadhead... "Yeah, there are a few members of the band still playing, let's follow them. Quick, Sundove, get in before the grandkids haul us off to the nursing facility." ("Grandma! Your name isn't 'Sundove'! Drop the bong and back away from the microbus!")

      Isn't it better to let the franchise die when our memories are still of young people doing exciting things, not arthritic pharts arguing at a conference table?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:YES PLEASE! by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tools depend on the skill of the person using them. I thought the new movies were good. In fact, I watched the Wrath of Khan after the most recent star wars movie and (takes a deep breath and cowers behind flame shield) the old one is pretty horrible IMHO.

      I'd further argue that J.J. Abrams was a bigger name than Star Trek in the circles that counted when the first remake movie came out. Not among fans obviously, but among the studios.

    11. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lets put spoc in the romantic subplot

      That was a blatant reference to Uhura serenading (and being accompanied on the Vulcan lute by) Spock in "Charlie X". Have you even watched the TV show?

    12. Re:YES PLEASE! by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No place to go? It's an infinite universe with an infinite timeline. Therefore, there are an infinite number of things that could happen that don't involve interactions with anyone important and therefore don't affect the timeline. You could write a story about the war between the Vulcans and the Romulans, for one. That's never been explored in any depth. Heck, that could be an entire series by itself, with almost no risk of significantly violating the canon.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    13. Re:YES PLEASE! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

      ...generally true. But old Trek had gotten so stale that there wasn't really any other place to go

      My preference would have been "somewhere else". Not "reboot" the franchise. If Abrams wanted to do something new, he should have done it. Not something half-new. Just as time travel/alternate universes crap is the crutch of the lazy sci-fi writer, rebooting an aged but recognizable and previously successful franchise is the crutch of the lazy producer and risk averse investor.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    14. Re:YES PLEASE! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the current reboot is nothing like episode The City on the Edge of Forever which wasn't a lazy use of time travel.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    15. Re:YES PLEASE! by Nutria · · Score: 2

      The thing, though, is that ST:TOS was pretty topical for it's era, with metaphors to the Cold War, Civil (black & women's) Rights, all wrapped up in US optimism that was a carry-over from WW2.

      Likewise, ST:TNG echoed the wretched sensitivity of the 80s & 90s, and ST:ENT did the terrorism thing.

      Why couldn't a new ST deal with the over-arching themes of the 2010s?

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    16. Re:YES PLEASE! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > No place to go? It's an infinite universe with an infinite timeline.

      Agreed, agreed. And so, why is our only focus an infinitesimally small number of characters, many long in the tooth, with a single, series-long mission? You know that even if this is wildly successful, (unlikely, in my opinion) the great majority of the scenes will be with the same small collection of people, in the same rooms and hallways, week after week? How in any measurement is this an infinite number of things that could happen? (Except perhaps at an atomic level, but I don't think that's what you meant.)

      In other words, it's not the high level concept, but the inevitable composition that's at issue.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    17. Re:YES PLEASE! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      recent star trek movies make me sad time travel and rewriting is the tool of lazy sci-fi writers out to make a buck on an established name.

      ...generally true. But old Trek had gotten so stale that there wasn't really any other place to go

      My preference would have been "somewhere else". Not "reboot" the franchise. If Abrams wanted to do something new, he should have done it. Not something half-new. Just as time travel/alternate universes crap is the crutch of the lazy sci-fi writer, rebooting an aged but recognizable and previously successful franchise is the crutch of the lazy producer and risk averse investor.

      You have a point.

      ...but I don't think the answer is to recreate the worst aspects of Voyager with as many former cast members as you can oust from the rest home.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    18. Re:YES PLEASE! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      The thing, though, is that ST:TOS was pretty topical for it's era, with metaphors to the Cold War, Civil (black & women's) Rights, all wrapped up in US optimism that was a carry-over from WW2.

      Likewise, ST:TNG echoed the wretched sensitivity of the 80s & 90s, and ST:ENT did the terrorism thing.

      Why couldn't a new ST deal with the over-arching themes of the 2010s?

      Of course it could. But could it do so in an engaging and watchable fashion? I found Enterprise stiff, predictable, and boring as snot. That's not to say that terrorism as a theme is boring, it's the execution that was so.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    19. Re:YES PLEASE! by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      No place to go? It's an infinite universe with an infinite timeline. Therefore, there are an infinite number of things that could happen that don't involve interactions with anyone important and therefore don't affect the timeline. You could write a story about the war between the Vulcans and the Romulans, for one. That's never been explored in any depth. Heck, that could be an entire series by itself, with almost no risk of significantly violating the canon.

      Gawd yes! There are so many interesting stories that could be told, why are we constantly subjected to the same point-of-view and point in history? I would love to see a mini-series about this. I don't think it's enough for an entire run, but it would likely be too much to force into a movie.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    20. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like government recording every public and private aspect of a persons electronic life for future reference if it's needed or when the IT guy is bored?

    21. Re:YES PLEASE! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      it's the execution that was so.

      Well, competent writing is usually a sine qua non of a good series...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    22. Re:YES PLEASE! by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

      Its not, our focus is on canon. I couldnt give a shit who was in a new star trek series as long as it followed canon.

    23. Re:YES PLEASE! by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Its not, our focus is on canon. I couldnt give a shit who was in a new star trek series as long as it followed canon.

      Even if it's boring as snot?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re:YES PLEASE! by Bardez · · Score: 1

      First Contact made up for the other three. That is all.

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
    25. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...And so, why is our only focus an infinitesimally small number of characters, many long in the tooth, with a single, series-long mission? ...

      Because, ultimately, what made Star Trek in its various incarnations successful was the characters and their interaction with each other. Get that right and the writing and storylines will probably follow.

    26. Re:YES PLEASE! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it sort of depends on how you define "time travel."

      First, you have the "real" time travel episodes: City on the Edge of Forever, Tomorrow is Yesterday, All Our Yesterdays, and Assignment: Earth. These are episodes where people are supposed to actually be in a different time.

      Second, you have the "pseudo" time travel episodes: Patterns of Force, A Piece of the Action, Spectre of the Gun, Plato's Stepchildren, The Paradise Syndrome, and Bread and Circuses. While these don't actually involve time travel, they take place in environments that are the same or similar to Earth history. Patterns of Force and A Piece of the Action take place on planets where, due to human interference, the inhabitants have adopted the dress and demeanor of Nazi Germany and 1930s Chicago. Spectre of the Gun is an illusion of the Old West, Plato's Stepchildren takes place on a planet modeled after Ancient Greece, The Paradise Syndrome is inhabited by people who look and act like Native Americans, and Bread and Circuses takes place in a 20th Century Roman Empire.

      Third, you have a few of "time traveler" episodes: "Who Mourns for Adonais," where the crew of the Enterprise meets the ancient god Apollo, "The Savage Curtain," where Kirk meets simulations of Abraham Lincoln and Genghis Khan, and "Requiem for Methuselah," where they encounter a man who has been alive since 3500 BC and was Leonardo DaVinci, among other historical figures.

      So if you consider "real" time travel, only four episodes had anything to do with time travel. Out of 79--I'd hardly call that a "main plot element" of the show. On the other hand, if we throw in the six "pseudo" time travel episodes and add in the "time traveler" episodes, you come up with about 16% of the episodes having something to do with known Earth history. I'm still not sure I'd call that a "main plot element" of the show--hey, it's no "Time Tunnel" or "Quantum Leap"--but it's definitely noticeable.

    27. Re:YES PLEASE! by Renevith · · Score: 1

      I thought the new movies were good. In fact, I watched the Wrath of Khan after the most recent star wars movie

      This is why I feel just fine about Abrams directing the next Star Wars: he's already directed two Star Wars movies, and they were good!

    28. Re:YES PLEASE! by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      You have a point.

      ...but I don't think the answer is to recreate the worst aspects of Voyager with as many former cast members as you can oust from the rest home.

      True. When given the choice of a reboot or beating a dead horse, maybe the answer is none of the above.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    29. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched Star Trek 2 before watching either of the new movies. I'd never seen a Star Trek movie before, I though they would be awful. And it wasn't. It wasn't brilliant, but my god Montalban was amazing and Shatner hammed up the shit out of that role, and despite being extremely silly it was somehow engrossing and emotional and full of tension. The reboot movies just felt like any other movie today, with some cute nods to old Star Trek.

    30. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a blatant reference to the TOS episode "Plato's Stepchildren" in which the original script called for Spock and Uhura to kiss, but Shatner had it changed so that he got to "kiss" (they didn't actually kiss, just got close) her instead.

    31. Re:YES PLEASE! by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Yes. A literal panopticon.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    32. Re:YES PLEASE! by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Because every time the writers try something else than the 'noble humanists on a starship', a very vocal portion of the fandumb starts a ruckus: "That's not what Roddenberry wanted".

      For sure, they win some new fans who like what they do, but you may have noticed that these are not as fanatical as the TOS fanbois, and don't garner ratings and income as much.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    33. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? The Wrath of Khan was a great movie - not just a great SF movie, and a great movie period.

      It was all about vicious revenge, loss, sacrifice and pain - and gripped the audience all the way through.

      That made it a bad Star Trek movie (which are generally anodyne, moralising drivel)... but a superb movie for general audiences.

    34. Re:YES PLEASE! by verbatim · · Score: 1

      First Contact made up for Generations and gave headroom for Insurrection and Nemesis, but all they did was run the series into the ground. They did such a poor job, I think there really was no other choice but to restart the series. "Star Trek" should have started with a lengthy apology.

      It wasn't horrible. Which is more than the other three achieved.

      --
      Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
    35. Re: YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people when confronted with a problem in the cannon think "I know, I'll use an alternate timeline." Now they have two problems.

    36. Re:YES PLEASE! by am+2k · · Score: 1

      You could write a story about the war between the Vulcans and the Romulans, for one. That's never been explored in any depth. Heck, that could be an entire series by itself, with almost no risk of significantly violating the canon.

      While I fully agree, this series wouldn't involve a single human. I don't think this would really work, since it's harder to relate to some foreign species, especially as alien as Vulcans and Romulans (to the general public, anyways). Note how a large majority of the main characters in every single Star Trek series and film were human, even though plenty of alternatives were available.

      I personally would love to see Klingon everyday life before the warrior caste took over the whole social structure.

    37. Re:YES PLEASE! by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      But old Trek had gotten so stale that there wasn't really any other place to go. I know many Trekkers don't like the reboot, and there are aspects that I wasn't excited about, but let's face it -- is a series made by old pharts for old pharts really where you want to be?

      That still doesn't mean there's an excuse for letting a cadet out of Police Academy jump straight to captain!

      The problem with the Abrams monstrosities aren't just that they "aren't Star Trek," but that they're fucking stupid in and of themselves.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    38. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see something about the genesis of the Borg, or the Voth, the intelligent saurians who originated on Earth but ended up on the other side of the galaxy. http://bit.ly/IymZaX

    39. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing, though, is that ST:TOS was pretty topical for it's era, with metaphors to the Cold War, Civil (black & women's) Rights, all wrapped up in US optimism that was a carry-over from WW2.

      Likewise, ST:TNG echoed the wretched sensitivity of the 80s & 90s, and ST:ENT did the terrorism thing.

      Why couldn't a new ST deal with the over-arching themes of the 2010s?

      But DS9 already dealt with the Kardassians...

    40. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think a series where each episode featured a different ship and crew, not restricted to the Federation would be cool. One week it's a human crew, the next a Romulan crew, the next a Ferengi crew, etc. Of course it would require serious set redress and new actors for each show, but I think it could be done without becoming too cost prohibitive.

    41. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The promotion from cadet to captain is not only completely, unrealistically nonsensical, but it also cheapens the character of James T. Kirk. Now he didn't earn his way up through the ranks, he was given preferential treatment (why did none of the other crew get advanced to captain as well?) and skipped ahead.

      I am reminded of that one episode of TNG where someone asked Data if his rank was honorary and he said no, that he had to go through the academy and earn his way up to it like anyone else. That single scene earned the Data character a lot more respect.

    42. Re:YES PLEASE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I fully agree, this series wouldn't involve a single human. I don't think this would really work, since it's harder to relate to some foreign species, especially as alien as Vulcans and Romulans (to the general public, anyways). Note how a large majority of the main characters in every single Star Trek series and film were human, even though plenty of alternatives were available.

      Deep Space Nine worked out well with mostly non-human characters.

  4. What a coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I literally finished watching the last episode of Voyager today. That's *really* good timing. Well played, Star Trek.

    1. Re:What a coincidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How was Mrs. Columbo?

  5. YES by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fantastic news!

  6. The Trekkies will finance by ikhider · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somehow, I don't think they will have trouble getting funding for this. I am sure Wil Wheaton will be on this as well. Trekkies are a massive economic force to be dealt with. I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe. A cursory glance at the newer shows and I have no idea what is going on and thus no reason to care. Heck, while I am at it, why don't the script writers add a bit f science to their sci-fi. That would be nice.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    1. Re:The Trekkies will finance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe.

      A sign of the times. I think it was the '80s (Hill Street Blues?) before American prime-time shows started using multi-episode story lines.

      I agree that the story arc concept is one of the reasons I have largely given up on prime-time television.

    2. Re:The Trekkies will finance by Kielistic · · Score: 2

      I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe.

      I always felt that was one of the biggest problems with Star Trek. It's pretty hard to tell a deep/complex/compelling story in only 40 minutes.

    3. Re:The Trekkies will finance by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I thought the Star Trek shows were more interesting when each episode stood on its own without you having to know about the canon and universe.

      Then you would have disliked Farscape as it was very serial - at least to get it all. True many episodes could stand alone, but the season/series arcs really tied things together and many details were intertwined throughout most episodes. Actually one of the reasons I liked it - though I won't discount my crush on Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black) - and most of the other women on the series :-) [ I do like strong, smart, independent women. ]

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    4. Re:The Trekkies will finance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Some of us have attention spans longer than 45 minutes.

      DS9 was the best simply because they finally had a Trek with actual storytelling.

    5. Re:The Trekkies will finance by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      B5 was pretty much the perfect show for that.
      Honestly if you don't want to know what is going on or care, just watch reality tv and leave those of us with attention spans alone.

    6. Re:The Trekkies will finance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my crush on Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black)

      I think I just puked a little. The term 'galactic skank" comes to mind. Now Gigi on the other hand is smoking hot, with or without the make up.

      8===> ( . ) ( . )

    7. Re:The Trekkies will finance by camperdave · · Score: 1

      [ I do like strong, smart, independent women. ]

      Same here. Pity it's never mutual.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:The Trekkies will finance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my crush on Aeryn Sun (Claudia Black)

      She has a nice body, but oh shit, that face! That's a brown bagger for sure.

    9. Re:The Trekkies will finance by Prune · · Score: 1

      > Farscape as it was very serial

      Not to mention Babylon 5.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:The Trekkies will finance by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      > Farscape as it was very serial

      Not to mention Babylon 5.

      So I hear, but I've never seen it. (perhaps someday...)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    11. Re:The Trekkies will finance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TNG didn't have any problems with that. The episode "The Inner Light" comes to mind in particular.

    12. Re:The Trekkies will finance by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      Bit of a false dichotomy. You can have overaching stories without turning it into a soap opera. Each episode being understandable and watchable on its own, with added layers for those who are following the show regularly.

      I think Farscape did this moderately well, and Firefly pretty much nailed it. X-Files oscillated between the poles. But every time I tried to watch B5 or later season episodes of DS9 I had absolutely no idea what was going on. (Not that rehashing a bunch of exposition in every ep for the casual viewers’ sake is the answer.) Lengthy serials are fine for what they are, and easier to approach in our Netflix/Bittorrent/etc era besides, but they aren’t the only alternative to completely self-contained episodes.

    13. Re:The Trekkies will finance by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase: “Do you ever read short stories? Then go back to People Magazine and leave those of us reading Infinite Jest alone.”

  7. Begone where no man has begone before :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before.

  8. Beam me Up by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Informative

    Lately I've been on a Trek retrospective (Trekrospective?) thanks to Netflix and by Evil Spock's beard do I miss Star Trek

    All power to the engines!

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  9. Just wanted you youngsters to know by Sam_In_The_Hills · · Score: 2

    that some of us who watched the first season of the first series in it's first run, before reruns, are still alive and kicking. Of course back then we watched it on black and white T.V. My brothers and I each got a plastic model of the Enterprise for Christmas. Wonder whatever happened to them? The models, not my brothers.

    --
    Linux -- the Ultimate Windows Service Pack
    1. Re:Just wanted you youngsters to know by cruff · · Score: 1

      My brothers and I each got a plastic model of the Enterprise for Christmas. Wonder whatever happened to them? The models, not my brothers.

      Being young boys of that era (one of which I am also), you may have used the models for BB gun target practice or blew them up with fire crackers while performing your own special effects. Or possibly flew them into a simulated star (camp fire?) and watched them burn up.

    2. Re:Just wanted you youngsters to know by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      Thank god someone still remembers a time before this politically correct bullshit where boys can't play with BB guns, firecrackers or touch a lighter.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Just wanted you youngsters to know by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Wonder whatever happened to them? The models, not my brothers.

      Your brothers stole them after they broke their own, fellow geezer.

    4. Re:Just wanted you youngsters to know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our cat destroyed mine, in revenge for leaving him in the neighbor's care when we vacationed for a week.

  10. No Thanks by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

    This has "SUCK" written all over it.

    It's been nearly 50 years. Time to give it a rest

    1. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      blasphemer

    2. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You speak in strange whispers. This is not the way of Landru.

    3. Re:No Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He is not of the body.

    4. Re:No Thanks by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So long as a show doesn't stagnate (I'm looking at you Simpsons), I see no reason why a particular time limit needs to be put on a show. I'm a big Doctor Who fan that that's been around for 50 years now. (Granted, I haven't seen many of the classic Doctor Who episodes yet. I began watching last year with Doctor Nine and worked forward. Eventually I'll go back and watch the classics.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:No Thanks by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Well I wouldn't put it like that, but this is just a single short sequence, even with ST veteran actors, with some spliced CGI to make a trailer. I'm going to go into "wait and see" mode.

      It doesn't help that whenever I hear Koenig's voice all I can think of are nuclear wessels (sorry). His voice and accent are just TOO iconic!

    6. Re:No Thanks by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Dharmok at teh keyboard. His zipzup opens. His hand unfurls.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:No Thanks by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It's been nearly 50 years. Time to give it a rest

      Get off my lawn, punk. Do you feel lucky?

  11. Sarship Mythbusters - Grant Imahara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuff said :)

    Myth: Is it true that the Borg lives in the Delta Quadrant ? Let's find out.

  12. Pointless by Jiro · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Being stars of the series and/or professionals doesn't mean you own the copyright. Producing something you don't have the rights to produce is just as likely to get you a cease and desist order.

    And even ignoring that, although this is "professionally produced", the people who own Star Trek will produce what they want. I'm pretty sure that if they had wanted a Star Trek pilot to be made, they could have commissioned one on their own. If they're not willing to commission one, they're probably not willing to buy one either.

    All this is is a piece of expensive live action fanfic.

    1. Re:Pointless by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      If CBS sees dollar signs it'll be on TV.

    2. Re:Pointless by crossmr · · Score: 1

      you forget that there are series out there made by fans.. if they aren't going to stop them they won't stop this.

    3. Re:Pointless by LMariachi · · Score: 1

      if they had wanted a Star Trek pilot to be made, they could have commissioned one on their own. If they're not willing to commission one, they're probably not willing to buy one either.

      That’s how Hollywood works for people with no connections, not previous stars of the franchise with name recognition to the fans. They will at a minimum get a look-see and meetings with the honchos.

  13. ST Continues by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Star Trek Continues is very, very good. The first episode features the return of Apollo, played by original actor Michael Forest. I've already sent them money; I'd rather see this funded than more TNG era stuff. The era had its moments, but this is a really faithful back-to-the-roots adaptation that captures the heart and soul and the *feel* of Star Trek better than anything else I've ever seen. The attention to detail is amazing. Gorn Bob says check it out: http://www.startrekcontinues.com/

    1. Re:ST Continues by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It's somewhat confusing that there are now two separate and mostly unrelated TOS continuations (well, Vic Mignona is involved in both) shooting on the same soundstages (specifically the ST:NV ones), though. ST:NV has changed most of the actors one or more times anyhow, so it's not entirely clear to me why they're not collaborating more directly seeing as how they're already using the same facilities.

    2. Re:ST Continues by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Yup. What I'd like to see is a series based on Sulu's time as captain of the Excelsior. That to me would kick some serious ass.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:ST Continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. What I'd like to see is a series based on Sulu's time as captain of the Excelsior. That to me would kick some serious ass.

      Don't you mean cornhole some serious ass?

    4. Re:ST Continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Star Trek Continues sets are the sets built with Farragut Films, not P2.The Original Series set recreations are used for STC and Starship Farragut.

    5. Re:ST Continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ST:C does not shoot on the New Voyages/Phase II sets. And, Vic is not connected with them any more.

      ST:C is shot on the Starship Farragut sets, which are newly built and very nice sets.

      It's not confusing in the least.

    6. Re:ST Continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I swear that I'd heard this was the plan for the series after Voyager...

      Very, very disappointing when "Enterprise" came out. :(

    7. Re:ST Continues by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1

      I just rewatched it again for about the fifth time. It blows me away. It'll blow you away too.

    8. Re:ST Continues by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the link, that was indeed well done and faithful to the original series. I did have trouble with some of the casting. Spock's voice is too high pitched. Nichelle Nichols was hot, Kim Stinger is kind of "meh...".

      The acting was all excellent. Vic Mignogna nailed it, that was the best William Shatner impersonation I've ever seen. Chris Doohan is eerily like his dad, down to the facial expressions. I was disappointed with Larry Nemecek's portrayal, his characterization of McCoy was nothing like DeForest Kelley's. The rest of the characterizations were passable to pretty good.

      Again, thanks for the link, I've bookmarked it.

  14. I wish them godspeed by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really do. And it's good to see Walter working again. But Voyager and Enterprise pretty much soured me to Old Trek. I'm sure some people will really enjoy this, and the best to them. But I'm done. I'd much rather see something (relatively) new and different move forward, like L5. Or a series based on literature that hasn't been done yet, like Ringworld or even the Heinlein juveniles. Why must we continue to flog dead horses?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:I wish them godspeed by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      The problem is that L5 did one pilot, it ended on a cliffhanger, and a year and a half later there's no indication of any work to continue it.

    2. Re:I wish them godspeed by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that L5 did one pilot, it ended on a cliffhanger, and a year and a half later there's no indication of any work to continue it.

      Yes, that is a problem. But the difference between that and this is that it wasn't trying to drag a dead franchise out of its casket and slap it awake. L5 had some interesting ideas, and I'm sad that it never went anywhere.

      There are people who will watch anything that's Old Trek, even if it's the original crew playing Wheelchair Basketball. Maybe there are enough geriatric fans out there to make another series a moderate success. But it has to be a steadily decreasing number.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:I wish them godspeed by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Because flogging a living one will get you in trouble with the SPCA, maybe?

    4. Re:I wish them godspeed by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      Why must we continue to flog dead horses?

      Says the guy flogging George Lucas in his signature? ;)

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
    5. Re:I wish them godspeed by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Why must we continue to flog dead horses?

      Says the guy flogging George Lucas in his signature? ;)

      You have a point. Now that he's finally no longer making movies, I suppose I should move on. But I still don't forgive him for what he did to Star Wars. Similar to (but not as intense) my feelings towards Rick Bremen for the emasculation of Star Trek.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:I wish them godspeed by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      it ended on a cliffhanger

      That's a deal breaker for me. I hate serials and cliffhangers, look what happened to My Name Is Earl. Imagine if STNG had been cancelled during the middle of the one where the Borg assimilated Picard?

    7. Re:I wish them godspeed by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Just swap the name to J.J. Abrams; it still works.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    8. Re:I wish them godspeed by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      For some people. For all the moves' faults, and whatever else trekkies may think of him, Abrams put the excitement back into Trek. Bremen's trek was as exciting as an IBM board meeting. Were this not true, it would not have been necessary to reboot.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  15. Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

    After locating the nuclear wessels (a Russian inwention), Psi-cop Alfred Bester finds a way to travel back to the 1980's and muck with Khan Noonien Singh's head (explaining why Khan recognized Chekov on Ceti Alpha V).

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh FFS! Kahn had access to the enterprise database! Who cares that they didn't shoot any footage with him and chekov, he could easily have looked up all the officers on the primitive LCARS interface!

      Oh dear god... I'm so pale...

    2. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by mark-t · · Score: 2

      You know, just because Koenig wasn't on the series during Space Seed is no reason to think that Chekov was not on the Enterprise at all.

      There were over 400 crewmembers on board the Enterprise, Chekhov's absence in a first season episode is easy to explain simply by having him not yet assigned to full-time bridge duty.

      Also, the novelization of Space Seed explicitly mentions Chekhov as being on night watch.

    3. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Also, the novelization of Space Seed explicitly mentions Chekhov as being on night watch.

      It did? Lost my Blish novelizations years ago.

      Them were the days, no internet for nerds to form communities around. Their were a few magazines, the ST novelizations, some photonovels and the fanzines...for those who actually knew about those.

    4. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by Prune · · Score: 1

      For a second there I perked up at the thought you were making a reference to the original Alfred Bester, a well-known author from the golden age of sci-fi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Bester especially since the "psi" reminded me of his Hugo-winning novel, The Demolished Man, in which telepathy is a major subject. Only then did I realize, with disappointment, that this was a reference to a Babylon 5 character.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    5. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      (explaining why Khan recognized Chekov on Ceti Alpha V)

      Go back and watch "Space Seed" some time and the answer is the easily plausible: Chekov was on board ship and Khan, including all the other stuff he read, went through the crew manifest. And yea, I know the whole thing is said in jest (like Koenig's suggest that Khan saw Chekov in the lower levels (and was angry Chekov held up the line to the bathroom, IIRC)), but it sort of boils down to not bothering to rewatch "Space Seed" (which also makes one wonder about, well, just about everything in Star Trek II, but that's another story).

      Back to on-topic, I think the whole show just sounds really bad. It sounds like it has most of the same flaws Voyager did--trying to be morally ambiguous, often through the very act of flip-flopping on what is exactly the issue to even have moral reservations about* while throwing technology at the problem (while ignoring things like the laws of thermodynamics) of the week because the problem was just an excuse to setup a moral dilemma regardless of how asinine that dilemma is. It's really hard to stomach that, after a while. Oh, that and how "renegade crew" == Maquis which (except for a few random later episodes) went no where because it fundamentally goes against the hierarchical command structure of Starfleet and is therefore outside the scope of consideration in writing, I think. I mean, in the end, Star Trek was founded on the idea that Kirk was the Captain and the Captain was God. That Picard, Sisko, or Janeway should give more leeway to a select few or not bitchslap someone down right away doesn't equate the anarchy of a true, renegade crew. Yea, yea, sorry for rambling.

      *Prime directive means no interference...except to save the Ocampa but it's okay to ignore the local laws..sometimes..maybe..or not ever because they remind us of us. *sigh* Yea, the sliding scale of episodic moral relativism.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    6. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by dbIII · · Score: 1

      this was a reference to a Babylon 5 character.

      Who of course was deliberately named after Alfred Bester due to the novel The Demolished Man because telepathy is a major subject in it :)

    7. Re:Star Trek: Koenig's Triumph by Cerender · · Score: 1

      If you watch the original series in Star Date order, Catspaw (season 2 episode with Checkov) occurs before Space Seed. http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWeplist-tos.html

  16. By faithful to the canon... by arpad1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...does that mean there'll be lots of lip service to the Prime Directive while completely ignoring it? Does this mean the captain of an important Federation ship will get into fist fights as part of his duty as well? Will there be significant loss of life among the crew as a regular occurrance during peace time and will the ship regularly engage in ship-to-ship combat during this same peaceful time as well?

    If the answer's "yes" then this new production will be faithful to the original.

    --
    Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
  17. huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is this voyager? Anyway, while they're at it, I'd suggest making a sequel to the Matrix.

  18. No way. by 605dave · · Score: 1

    There's no way this is ever going to get the big stamp of approval. If Paramount did launch a new TV show, I would be shocked if it wasn't based on the JJA universe. Why in the world would they want to introduce the confusion of two separate Trek universes being marketed at one?

    --
    Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
  19. I AM THROWING CASH AT MY MONITOR by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    Yes, please.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  20. How is Chekov still alive? by guru42101 · · Score: 1

    Compared to TOS wouldn't this be way in the future? I know TNG, DS9, and Voyager occur in less than 20 years. The TOS characters that make an appearance all have some excuse to still be alive. Scotty is only alive due to storing himself in a teleporter. Kirk was trapped in the nexus. Spock is late to middle aged, for a vulcan, and his father is elderly. Maybe he's playing Pavel Chekov Jr, like Brent Spiner played Data, Sung and a few of Sung's ancestors.

    1. Re:How is Chekov still alive? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      McCoy was still kicking at the start of Next Gen, with no technobabble to get him their beyond their implied superior medical tech. Checkov was much younger (stupid bastardization of the new movies aside) and could be an oldish but not decrepit man.

      Or he passed out in a ship travelling 99.99999% the speed of light in normal space for a few minutes, fill in the exact details.

      Or pattern buffer.
      Or time travel.
      Or he fell into the sarlac pit whose digestion process actually kept him alive for 1000 years somehow but he got rescued early.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:How is Chekov still alive? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Chekov is 18 years younger than McCoy in TOS. The gap is shrunk to 14 years in the Abramsverse.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:How is Chekov still alive? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Mccoy was born 2227, Chekov 2245. McCoy is in TNG in 2364 tottering around at 137. So obviously the med tech allows people to live longer (though not necessarily age slower). 10 years after Voyager could mean 10 years after Voyager's return (2404) or 10 years after the last episode, which was already 10 years after Voyager's return (2414). Either way you're looking at 159 or 169 respectively, and he looked a lot younger in that video than McCoy did in Encounter At Farpoint. I think they'd pretty much need some type of plot device to put him in with TNG/DS9/Voyager era folks and still have him kicking around. Of course, given the integrity and respect for canon the writers have, I seriously doubt they'd compromise that much just to put Chekov in.

      Oh who am I kidding! Three loops around the sun and straight on till morning! Next stop, the future!!!!!

    4. Re:How is Chekov still alive? by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Whoops, messed that up. 2378 was voyager return date, 2404 was endgame. So its either 2388, 2404, 2414, so 143, 159, 169. Still really freaking old!

    5. Re:How is Chekov still alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      McCoy was in the Pilot of TNG series, so possible that Chekov could still be alive as well.

    6. Re:How is Chekov still alive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember in "Farpoint", Bones was like 132 years old and incredibly ancient-looking. If my math is right, if this is 10 years after VOY, then Chekhov would be 143.

  21. Self Consistency Canon by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would greatly prefer if the writers for this series, in the unlikely event it takes off, focused on being self consistent.

    Don't show the "time police" one episode, complete with an enforcement vessel called the USS Relativity, that ruthlessly polices the timeline, then magically resolve all the outstanding problems by having your captain come back from the future with cheat-technology in a later episode. (because if the time police let this stand, why don't they simply give the Federation the best tech of all time from day 1?)

    Don't show a space station next to earth one movie, with a massive infrastructure, then show the Enterprise and another ship have their illegal fight between Federation warships right next to earth, so close that the Enterprises crashes into the earth in the same movie!

    If you establish that maximum warp has a speed, don't show a ship getting from the border of the Klingon neutral zone to Earth in 5 minutes of warp.

    If you establish that Bones is the medical officer on the ship, aka the only qualified doctor, and you then show the Enterprise taking massive damage with mass casualties, don't have him quietly standing on the bridge lecturing Kirk instead of getting his ass to sickbay to treat the critically wounded.

  22. CBS? by trparky · · Score: 1

    They're going to present it to CBS? Seriously? Well, that's a one way ticket to cancellation. Better for them to present it to say, NetFlix, at least there it would stand a chance of survival.

    Remember, this is CBS we're talking about here; mainstream media. Mainstream TV media wouldn't know a good TV show if it came up and slapped them upside the face.

    1. Re:CBS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      CBS owns the TV rights to Star Trek.

    2. Re:CBS? by trparky · · Score: 1

      Sadly yes, they do. Unfortunately that means this is going to go nowhere fast.

    3. Re:CBS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet is not TV.

    4. Re:CBS? by Briareos · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is CBS we're talking about here; mainstream media. Mainstream TV media wouldn't know a good TV show if it came up and slapped them upside the face.

      So that explains why Person of Interest never went past the first season...

      Oh wait, it did.

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  23. Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so the saying goes "history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce." I'd say we're at level 10 and still digging now. Trouble is that from level 5 on down it's all known as "extruded crap". Jeez, can't these clowns get work? Trek "canon", what a joke.

  24. Donated by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

    $150 in.

    --
    We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  25. Chekov? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Voyager returned from the Delta Quadrant in the year 2378. The events of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country took place in 2293. How is Chekov still alive 85 years later?

  26. Oy vey. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not another one. Please. This horse is so dead, it's not even usable as glue anymore. When IS there finally a good day to die??

  27. 47 comments. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

    When I saw this, there were 47 comments on the thread.

    Perfect.

    I hope they can get RDM to write/direct again! He's what made TNG and DS9.

    --
    Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    1. Re:47 comments. by sconeu · · Score: 2

      No...

      THERE ARE **FOUR** COMMENTS

      [crap to defeat the lameness filter]
      [crap to defeat the lameness filter]
      [crap to defeat the lameness filter]
      [crap to defeat the lameness filter]

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  28. Politics... by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right now, too many careers and face are invested in the reboot. It does not matter how good or bad this would be, it is unlikely the IP owners would allow it to succeed since it would hurt the personal careers or people in charge right now.

    1. Re:Politics... by smylingsam · · Score: 1

      would you please stop it with the pragmatism? Star trek has never been about what is real :>

  29. sell it to netflix as an original by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They might use a Scifi original

    1. Re:sell it to netflix as an original by compro01 · · Score: 1

      CBS owns the rights to anything Trek, so you need to convince them to allow it.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  30. This could have been better by Tighe_L · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I was talking to a friend about my idea for the next Star Trek show. One set in a remote federation outpost where a Federation Admiral is corrupt, and there is a crew of a non-federation (human captain) ship that is constantly having to deal with him. Think Dukes of Hazzard. The Admiral makes them out to be criminals, but the reverse is true and this ship is always coming to the aid of people in the sector while trying to scrape out a living and possible get the big score. The crew would be a Human male captain (I am thinking about reprising William Campbell as Thadiun Okona) An old Klingon with a death wish (just wants to die in battle, but whenever he get the chance he is needed and misses the opportunity) (also he likes 80s rock and plays the guitar) Exiled Romulan who constantly clashes with the Kingon (looking for evidence to go home and reunite with his family) Orion Slave Girl A female Nausicaan (twist that female Nausicaans are attractive) Vash might be a recurring guest star.

  31. This looks terrible. by Evro · · Score: 1

    If this trailer is any indication, count me out.

    --
    rooooar
  32. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will kill you and all your descendants, fucktard.

  33. I'll never understand by franblets · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is the same mistake made by all that have gone before... Sell it to one of the broadcast networks where it will be canceled in 2 years or less. Sell it to the SciFy channel where it will be watched and supported.

    1. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, then you're thinking it won't be *good* Science Fiction, because for the most part SighFie wouldn't know good Science Fiction if it warped in and blew a photon torpedo up their asses. When good shows do miraculously make it through they are rapidly cancelled because the budget to viewer draw for SyFy is unreasonably large. The only network worse for ditching good Science Fiction is Fox.

      (And BTW, it is "SyFy" and not "SciFy" but the confusion is understandable because they once went by the sane spelling "SciFi" before the MBA dweebheads there convinced the excecutives that their "brand" was more important than their content.)

    2. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They cant sell it to Sci-fi channel because they dont own the rights to the Star Trek TV franchise. They are trying to sell this to the franchise owners..

  34. Mission impossible by onyxruby · · Score: 2

    Sorry, but Mission Impossible is an entirely different series, not based in space at all.

    The problem is that with the advent of millions of fans and the Internet every little flaw, tick and tock is well known. There is no true canon as such as there are too many inconsistencies in the series.

    You see to get a Star Trek series that was canon compliant you would have to start by axing every single series after the original. Even if you did that and stuck with the movies you would have to draw the line at a certain movie without voiding canon. By the time you were done taking an axe to everything in the name of purity you wouldn't have much left to work with. The younger fans know the newer series and you would alienate them by saying their favorites simply didn't exist.

    You can't even really say that Star Trek is an idea, as the very idea of what Star Trek means has changed quite a bit over the years. If you did go with the canon of the original ideas you would end being accused of being politically incorrect (why do the women wear miniskirts and why is the Captain banging all the aliens?). The bottom line is that you can't take a series made back in the spirit of the 1960's and make it again today. Society, the series, the actors, the story and just about every other thing about the show has changed.

    This is why franchises get rebooted, it all gets too messy, and there far too many fan-boys and fan-girls to appease with far too little benefit for the cost of being canon compliant. It's not an accident that they just rebooted Star Trek with the 2009 movie.

    1. Re:Mission impossible by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If you did go with the canon of the original ideas you would end being accused of being politically incorrect (why do the women wear miniskirts and why is the Captain banging all the aliens?)

      Because in the end, it's still a TV show, perhaps? It's obviously going to reflect no small amount of values belonging to the period in which it was made. The concepts you describe were certainly part of the original series, but there's no reason something which is made today must include them just to be true to the original ideas, because those ideas (such as what kinds of clothes they wear, or how many different women Kirk slept with) are not really essential points to the idea behind Star Trek anyways.

    2. Re:Mission impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't even really say that Star Trek is an idea, as the very idea of what Star Trek means has changed quite a bit over the years.

      The illusion is helped by allowing the shaping of our suspension of disbelief. The producers have given a forward facing framework, and the audience imagines that world, much like ours, but filled with the characters and props from the show. It's just a show, which is to say it's business. Star Trek is a group of agreeable individuals with a flare for enterprise.

    3. Re:Mission impossible by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but Mission Impossible is an entirely different series, not based in space at all.

      Though, ironically Leonard Nimoy *did* appear in it.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  35. We Are Out Of Work Actors - Our Agents Gave Up by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 2

    Years ago...

    Can you help? C'mon gang! Let's put on a show!

    Actually, I'd pay GOOD MONEY to see anything with Larissa and Chasty prominently featured.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  36. Didn't Star Trek make money obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought in the Star Trek universes that money was no longer used?

    1. Re:Didn't Star Trek make money obsolete? by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      yes, it was ... they used credits instead ... mostly based around the energy required to do/make whatever it was they were bartering for.

      It came up on various occasions, and is required because not everyone in the universe has the same mentality about it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Didn't Star Trek make money obsolete? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Federation didn't use money. Some alien species, like the Ferengi, used gold pressed latinum.

  37. Re:Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That does, I believe, constitute a threat on someone's life. As the poster to whom the above person responded did not post AC, it is theoretically possible that the AC who made the above comment may be able to make good on his threat. What are the poster's legal options? Should the police be notified?

  38. Re:Chekov? How? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Obamacare, duh!

  39. Re:Self Consistency Canon by Iswandulla · · Score: 1

    Seconded.. Thirded..

  40. Re:Chekov? How? by compro01 · · Score: 1

    McCoy was alive in 2364 and Chekov is 18 years younger than him.

    No reason Chekov couldn't still be alive, though limited to piloting a desk.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  41. Make it so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it goes ahead I hope they get Kate Mulgrew (aka Capt. Janeway) in for at least an episode or two.

    This really could be good, at least a couple of the actors mentioned in TFS have already participated in some post-Voyager fan episodes. They seem to have the right mix of acting professionalism (eg they're good at their job) and respect/enjoyment of Star Trek lore and neebish fans like myself.

    Damn, I'm getting excited!

  42. Sounds like it is about optimism by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You seem to have missed the part where the crew didn't like each other at all ("keep from killing each other" was what I seem to remember reading). That sounds like a great opportunity to show a group of differing minds learning to get along and work together.

    Also, to be frank, showing that a government is not so stupid as to always obey the rules it sets in place for everyone is a sign of optimism all by itself...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sounds like it is about optimism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you just make that up? I have watched all of the behind-the-scenes specials for TOS and the actors got along just fine. Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley even became close friends and often spent time together outside of work.

      George Takei was the only one who was a whiny bitch. He was not only resentful and jealous of Walter Koenig, who had been brought on the show to fill in for Takei while he was off filming something else, but he's also the only one to have spoken negatively about Shatner. Seemingly Takei has grown up a bit, as evident from his participating in the Comedy Central Roast of William Shatner.

  43. Re:Self Consistency Canon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would greatly prefer if the writers for this series, in the unlikely event it takes off, focused on being self consistent.

    Consistent? Then it would be just another BSG...and we all know how badly that ended.

  44. Tim Russ by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

    With Tim Russ? No thanks.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  45. Re:Self Consistency Canon by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

    One doesn't equal the other. Also, keep in mind that the ending to the series was just one bullshit weird event after another, culminating in a series of retarded decisions.

  46. Canon faithful? by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    How is this canon faithful if Chekov is alive ten years after Voyager returned home? Time travel? Suspended animation?

    1. Re:Canon faithful? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      McCoy was still alive (aged 135) in the first episode of TNG, which was set approximately 25 years before Renegades would be, and Chekov's about 20 years younger than McCoy (though I don't think McCoy looked early-40s in TOS). So with a little 24th century plastic surgery (which McCoy would never have stood for), no problem.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  47. Re:Chekov? How? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was 137 at the time, walked like he just dumped in his Depends and looked like death warmed over.

    So Chekov was 119 at the time.

    Voyager returned in 14 years later in 2378, making Chekov 133.

    This new show is set 10 years after Voyager returns.

    So he's 143?

     

  48. But the Vulcan says ... by aoism · · Score: 1

    Canon-faithful ?In this Interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLFPn6eyszY#t=277, Tim Russ says they want to go a different direction than anything we've seen so far.

    1. Re:But the Vulcan says ... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

      The two aren't mutually exclusive. Stargate Universe was canon-faithful. Doctor Who is still canon faithful (or as close as can reasonably be expected after fifty years) despite a pretty radical facelift when it came back.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  49. Re:Self Consistency Canon by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

    Don't show a space station next to earth one movie, with a massive infrastructure, then show the Enterprise and another ship have their illegal fight between Federation warships right next to earth, so close that the Enterprises crashes into the earth in the same movie!

    If my memory of that sequence is correct, it was far, far worse than that. They were locked in combat not close to earth, but close to the moon, and then once crippled and drifting they "fell" towards Earth and hit atmosphere in a matter of minutes. If they started drifting while in Earth orbit I'd give them a pass, but even allowing for Hollywood's compressing timeframes for pacing purposes (today's audiences especially won't put up with the more accurate space physics e.g. the lengthy docking sequences seen in 2001), falling from the moon to Earth was excessive and atrocious writing.

  50. Grant Imahara is in this?! by lewoot · · Score: 1

    I am so on board with this.

    1. Re:Grant Imahara is in this?! by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      Try this instead: http://www.startrekcontinues.com/
      It's another fan project he's involved in, but unlike Renegades it's actually watchable.

  51. Michael Dorn Pitches Worf-based ST Series to CBS by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

    Meanwhile, back in Klingon space, the legend of Worf's further adventures has already been scripted by Michael Dorn for pitching to CBS:

    http://www.tvrage.com/news/7790/michael-dorn-has-written-a-star-trek-series-about-worf-your-move-cbs

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
  52. Watch out guys... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sure, but when your typical oldster starts talking about how optimistic TOS was he really means naive.

    We're dealing with a Betazoid over here.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  53. Did you even watch the show? by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Enterprise just killed me when they would have this big long speech about the need for readiness and make Count Bakula say a line like: "We need some sort of alerting the crew about danger, maybe with light, a colored light, maybe we should make it red, so it could be known as a red alert."

    http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tactical_alert

    Tactical alert was a security protocol instituted by Malcolm Reed under the influence of dangerous mind-affecting radiation aboard the Enterprise NX-01, in response to the perceived number of threats that were being encountered by the ship in their deep space exploration mission. The protocol was kept due to its usefulness. It was a precursor to the alert system used on later Starfleet vessels.

    The alert was designed to automatically bring the ship to battle-ready status when a pre-programmed set of circumstances occurred (for instance, an impact to the hull, or an order from the captain). When a tactical alert was initiated, the hull plating would be polarized, the weapons were automatically charged, and critical systems such as the warp core were secured. In addition, all crewmembers would report to battle stations upon initiation of the alert.

    While in the process of naming the new condition, the terms "Reed alert", security protocol and condition red were suggested. The term "Reed alert" was sarcastically suggested by Commander Tucker as the name for the new tactical alert system Reed was working on, but was later dismissed by Lieutenant Reed as being "a bit narcissistic," whereas security protocol was deemed "not very dynamic." (ENT: "Singularity")

    By the 23rd century, tactical alert was replaced in Starfleet by the red alert, yellow alert and blue alert conditions. (Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, et al.)

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  54. Payment in exchange for what license terms? by jbn-o · · Score: 1

    I think it's a great idea to support independant media, and I'm willing to do so with my money.

    But I want something in exchange: I want at least a DRM-free copy of the work licensed to let me at least transcode the work and share the work with anyone, share the work with them at any time, and share the work in any way I wish. I see nothing in this offer that specifies what license the work will be under when it is released.

    Where can I find the license for the finished work? I would not want to contribute to a work that doesn't respect my freedom to share.

  55. Rick Berman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm happy to not see Rick Berman's name associated with this.

    1. Re:Rick Berman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not splitting infinitives is a BOGUS rule completely made up in the 19th century in an attempt to made English follow the rules of Latin. It's impossible to split infinitives in Latin, therefore it must be wrong for English. Bullshit! There is NOTHING wrong with saying "to boldly go!"

  56. star trek - New Frontier by renegade600 · · Score: 1

    I think I would rather see the new frontier series - starting from the beginning when Mackenzie Calhoun was a warlord, how he came into starfleet, and his adventures in Sector 221-G. I rather enjoyed reading and listening this series, more so than the other star trek series.

    That is not to say I will not watch the new Series :-)

  57. Even better! by jsrjsr · · Score: 1

    Google hybrid vigor...

  58. Re:Self Consistency Canon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought Bones portrail was acurate, the doctor standing around running his mouth well the nurses did all the work. ;)

  59. William Wallace? Is that your voice I hear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I am Gene R. And I see a whole army of my Trekkies, here in defiance of big-budget-popular-director reimaginings! You have come to watch as canonical fans. And canonical fans you are! What will you do without real Trek? Will you watch?"

    "A shoestring budget against hundreds of millions? No! We will be grateful to Abrams and the lens flares!"

    "Yes! Watch canon and you may be bored or groan. Watch Abrams and you will be entertained at least awhile. [Until you start thinking about what you watched.] And dying in your bed many years from now, would you be willing to rewatch all the high-budget Melrose Space crap or take one chance, just one chance, to come back here as young men and listen again to the heart of Star Trek and tell Hollywood that they may take our money but they will never take

    our Federation!"

  60. Canon-faithful? by Mr.+Firewall · · Score: 2

    How can you be faithful to the canon [snip]

    Besides, if they are, I won't watch it. I'm faithful to the Nikon.

    <ducking rotten vegetables being thrown my way>

    --
    In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
  61. Re:Self Consistency Canon by Nimey · · Score: 1

    I'm chuckling quietly because I do IT for our health center and you're right about who does the work.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  62. One year old news by ulricr · · Score: 1

    this trailler was made in 2012! gawd the acting in it is TERRIBLE

    1. Re:One year old news by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 1

      gawd the acting in it is TERRIBLE

      No it's not - it's an accurate and faithful reproduction of the acting style of a 1990's CDi/3D0/CD32 "interactive movie". The plot is also clearly in the same style. I look forward to the completed game being released.

      Whadaya mean, "It's a TV series"?!?

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    2. Re:One year old news by ZosX · · Score: 1

      That's really funny because I was reminded of bad acting in video games from the "multimedia" era while watching this.

  63. meh... boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    after 15 years since I first heard the idea floated, I still haven't heard of a better concept for a Trek series than an anthology...

    you could do this idea AND EVERY OTHER idea, from any and all periods of the show's history/canon - including alternative timelines and universes

  64. Star Trek: Dyson Sphere - NOW! by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I can't believe nobody has thought about pitching a series based on the Dyson Sphere from TNG. Think about it. The potential scope is enormous and wouldn't fall prey to the "endless quest" type of story line. Get cracking. KTHXBYE.

  65. Completing the pilot by LongearedBat · · Score: 2

    When the pilot is complete

    Is the pilot an android?

  66. Re:Self Consistency Canon by dbIII · · Score: 1

    today's audiences especially won't put up with the more accurate space physics e.g. the lengthy docking sequences seen in 2001

    Given how much just about everyone was paying attention to real space news in 1968 I'm not sure Kubrick could have got away with anything else.
    I've got no idea why the long slow spaceship stuff to classical music works in 2001 but attempts to redo it in Star Trek: The motionless picture and Mission to Mars come off as shit. They even redid the rotating set thing in Mission to Mars almost shot for shot and it just doesn't seem to work on the big screen while in 2001 it has you in wonder even watching on a small TV set.

  67. Cool! Looking forward to it! by mitcheli · · Score: 2

    Gotta admit, I cringed when I heard the words, "J.J. Abrams" and "Star Trek" used in the same sentence. And so far, ... yep... not impressed. Pretty curious to see Grant Imahara's spin on his character. That sounds pretty interesting.

    --
    Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
  68. Re:Self Consistency Canon by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

    I've got no idea why the long slow spaceship stuff to classical music works in 2001 but attempts to redo it in Star Trek: The motionless picture and Mission to Mars come off as shit. They even redid the rotating set thing in Mission to Mars almost shot for shot and it just doesn't seem to work on the big screen while in 2001 it has you in wonder even watching on a small TV set.

    One big reason was that by the time ST:TMP came out (1979), Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica had shown audiences a far more exciting (though completely unrealistic) portrayal of action in space. It's only gotten more ridiculous since, although Babylon 5 did an excellent job making realistic space physics part of the show (spinning station and ship sections to simulate gravity, Earth's fighters using 16 thrusters to realistically operate in all six degrees of freedom). And AFAIK only Firefly has attempted to follow 2001 in showing space scenes in complete silence.

  69. Re:Self Consistency Canon by dbIII · · Score: 1

    One big reason was that by the time ST:TMP came out (1979), Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica

    Not for me since I saw all of those before I saw 2001, and it was only then that I realised what the ST: The motionless picture was trying to copy. I still can't believe they thought that movie was worth shaving a girls head for, they ripped her off big time.

    The weird thing is anime that includes blatant magic puts more effort into space physics than Hollywood when it's attempting to be serious.

  70. Levar Burton was right by AbominousSalad · · Score: 1

    Just let Star Trek die. Not that it has any dignity left.

    -Signed, a life-long Trek fan who refuses to watch the current piles of shit they've slapped the label on.

    --
    Every trollism an AC posts is prefixed, in my mind, with "A. Coward whined, in a weak and cowardly voice:"
  71. Reasoning, Mind Games and Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just what Star Trek needs. it can be subtitled the original timeline. the main difference is it Star Trek was always into reasoning and mind games and this goes along with a low cost internet production. :-!. They were also always into trying to find out the truth. And, sometimes the truth was not the same thing is the âoelogical" conclusion.

  72. Why bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why even bother with this setting?

    Okay they want to keep it in the Star Trek universe and in canon, so why ride roughshod over the Federation like this?

    If they want to do something a bit more dark, why not do a series based with the Klingons or something? We could explore more of their culture and have lots of excuses to fight with ridiculous swords blow shit up!

    Or look to the fringes; Smugglers, Dissident groups or even an Elite-style perspective of a simple cargo trader and his/her/it's struggle to survive (Okay that might end up turning into Star Trek: Firefly)

    All potential to be far more interesting, exploring new areas of the ST universe without having to compromise the existing!

  73. Not Time Travel, but.... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    They reason for the misconception is probably due to the fact where there are a bunch of episodes where they find some planet that seems to have *exactly* followed Earth's historical trend, and they just happen to visit during a) the time of the Greeks, b) Romans!, c) Gangsters?, d) NAZI's!, etc...

    Or I think there was also a few where you had godlike advanced beings observing Earth, or were part of Earth's History, mimicking gods, etc...

    So not earth, and not time travel, but still...

    Recently re-watched Enterprise (all series still working on TNG), and remember thinking.."Heh, oh yeah, alien NAZI's, forgot about that luz!" Of course I think they just copied "Sliders" on that...

  74. Yes, but by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Not exactly original. All the series sexified somebody. TNG had Troy, DS9 had Kira, Voyager had 7of9, and Enterprise had T'Pol.

    Notice the trend of "Not really Starfleet", so they don't have to wear the uniform, and instead get custom more suggestive clothing.

    Yes the decontamination chamber scenes was ridiculous, but at least her outfits were not really all that out there. 7of9 was probably worse.

    I can just see the actor playing 7of9 being handed her costume "er.... do I have any lines in this show?". Yes she ended up being fantastic, but I just imagine the "so why is my costume different again?" dialog. "Er because you're Borg." "Why is that because they are efficient and don't want to waste fabric?" "er.. yeah that's it."

  75. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only thought I was a geek. IT'S NOT REAL!!!!!!!! Get over it! You speak like Star Trek was some kinda reality that we could all look forward to. News flash, people! NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!!!! Move out of Mom's basement, get a girlfriend, and accept the reality that you actually live in!!!!!
    BTW...... If you think the dialogue on the original series was "groundbreaking" and "brilliant", stay in Mom's basement! You obviously have no place in the real world!!!!!
    Live Long and Prosper!