Lots of information and speculation on the future of Trek here:




https://youtu.be/R5e2cpr--e4

I'll watch the video a bit later but I can say that the big problem started when Star Trek: Beyond under-performed at the box office. It made Paramount think twice about making a third film with the same JJ Abrams cast and guess what happened? Paramount and the main cast couldn't agree on a new contract. Apparently the actors were asking for more than Paramount was willing to pay so the negotiations went nowhere and then you started getting the Quentin Tarantino Star Trek rumors for a while but now it seems nothing will come out of that either.


Based on what I've read, ST: Discovery has been a commercial success for CBS and so far Picard is doing very well. So right now it seems that this new creative direction that CBS has taken with Trek has been vindicated.

Why do people even bother with these haters videos?

People have hated the JJ movies from the get-go and well, frankly, they can #%&*$# off and die. I love them, and I love the new shows even more.
Far beyond the utter drek that was most of TNG, VOY and ENT. (and lets not mention the TNG movies - GAH!).

I only rank ST2 and ST6 above the JJ movies, and the TNG ones barely above ST5. DS9 was the best show but now Discovery is starting to beat it. Picard is looking awesome.

People spend a lot of energy on things they don't like these days. It's the new pastime. The challenge is to get people who like something to dislike it. LOL

Did you even watch the video? He's not hating on anything other than the convoluted ownership situation that exists and what may happen in the next couple of years if NBC buys ST from CBS.

I get a distinct "no one's opinion matters but mine" vibe from your Trek related posts. It's fine that you have your opinion, but others have theirs too and have a right to express them. So why don't you chill out and drop the " #%&*$# off and die" nonsense.

Bah, Trek died with Khan and an increasing interest in music and girls.

But being the nostalgic nutcase that I am, I'm waiting for future 3D technology to give us more TOS episodes. I love how they enhanced the visuals on my TOS Blu-ray boxset, just not enough seasons.

More rumors of behind the scenes political maneuvering:


Rumor: CBS Discussing Replacement For Alex Kurtzman on Star Trek

What's funny is that ST:TOS had more episodes in 3 seasons (79) than most series today have in 7 or 8 seasons. Almost all of the streaming series have at most 10 episodes in one season and many of the network tv shows have gone down to 13 episodes per season. And on top of that, each of the ST:TOS episodes run about 50 minutes since back then the total commercial breaks for a one hour show was about 10 minutes.

I didn't realize this, PM.

I'm currently watching the complete Twilight Zone (an episode an evening) and there seems to be so many episodes (at library so can't check my boxset but reading online there's "5 seasons and 156 episodes.")

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the classic Twilight Zone episodes were only 30 minutes each? I haven't seen any of those episodes since the 80's!

I'm looking at my Blu-ray boxset now (c. 2016), "156 EPISODES PLUS SPECIAL FEATURES ON 24 DISCS."
"Run Time: Approx 74 Hrs., 34 Min."

I see this on Wikipedia which seems correct...

"The original series contains 156 episodes. The episodes in seasons one through three are 30 minutes long with commercials (24 or 25 minutes without commercials). Season four (1962–63) consists of one-hour episodes with commercials (51 minutes without commercials). Season five returned to the half-hour format."

A lot of people very much liked Voyager (at least the first 4-5 seasons), the TNG movies, and even some of Enterprise much better than the franchise-ruining insults JJ Abrams puts out (whether it be Star Trek or Star Wars).

First Contact and Insurrection were much better written, directed, and acted (and much less beset by ridiculous special effects) than either of the JJ Abrams Star Trek miscreations. Abrams has a unique talent for simultaneously being extremely derivative yet completely failing grasp (or intentionally ignoring) the essence of what an television/film franchise great.

I've always felt that JJTrek was made for a younger crowd who wanted less depth and more flash.

This is largely true. In a nutshell, the JJ Star Trek reboot was heavily "Starwarsized"

Yep. Which makes it less, musch less, "StarTrekized"

Which is the pity of the current direction of the whole franchise, all of this "Gotta keep up with the modern world" or whatever reasoning for the direction Trek has taken ceauce it makes it less of what it was intended to be and less of what it was from TOS through ENT. Or ENT through VOY if you prefer your Trek chronologically

Yes the production values are fantastic, the special effects are phenomenal, the writing and acting is top notch... but the stories? The "feel"? Not My Trek.

Yet none of the Trek series have been the same. They have all been different, same with the movies.

So what is "Trek"? Each person have their own relationship with the franchise and parts they like or dislike about it.

I enjoy DS9 best, dislike most of TNG, VOY and ENT. Only good "pre-JJ" movies are ST2 and ST6.
I love the new movies and shows.

But others have different views. One might argue that the Roddenberry series are the "true" Trek, but they were also made 60 years ago in a different television-era.
,

Same answer here as when you stated the above in the Make it so: a ST Picard series! thread:



And since he said it so much better than I, I will also quote Nimits:

Star Fleet being "corrupt or decayed" is your interpretation. Nowhere is "Saving the Romulan Empire" is in their charter.

Just because Picard thought it was the right thing to do doesn't make it what Star Fleet must do - espesially not with their primary shipyard destroyed by terrorists. In addition many UFP members wanted the romulans to burn due to their past history - and Star Fleet is a civilian organiation run by the UFP. It is not a military force (even if it has armed vessels and ranks), that has been stated many times on the shows.

I didn't say it, PICARD said it. And Picard is the star of the entire franchise, he and his opinion's are the measure by which everything in the Trek universe has been judged since pretty much the first episode of TNG aired, his opinion matters and when he says "Starfleet is criminal" it means something.

And a statement you later see is somewhat flawed and very colored by Picards experiences. He made promises to the refugees, and when he didn't get his own way after Utopia was destroyed and Star Fleet refused to empty all it's reserved into the rescue to rescue millions by potentially exposing billions and tirllions to being unprotected he gave them an ultimatum putting his comission on line.

What did Picard do when he faced with an obstacle he couldn't overcome? He gave Starfleet an ultimatum about his comission, was cashiered and spent the next 14 years moping in selfpitty. In the process utterly abandoning those who had helped him and whose careers went down the drain with him, those whom he had promised to help and generally nursing a grudge against Starfleet for not being his private navy at his beck and call.

So when he does need their help after lambasting them on galactic news, he just struts into Starfleet command and assumes he'll get a new comission and a ship because, I'm Picard!

This show actually has awesome character growth and exploration about Picard, but it is not a show about Starfleet or the UFP - but Trek has always been the whole universe.

ok I'm not going to comment on the writing for the JJ Universe Trek, but I will say this -

the casting of Karl Urban as Bones and Simon Pegg as Scotty was inspired.

Pegg's Scotty is just wonderful. I used to joke I've always wanted to hear Scotty say "It's f****d captain!" ..Pegg saying "well thats Banjaxed..." (thats Broken) was as close as we'd get pre Discovery... that was the moment I warmed to his take on Scotty.

as for Urban. he became Deforest. no mockery.. he was channeling Deforest all the way ... the man is a true actor.

back to the thread...

I think the one good thing about the Abrams Trek is the cast - just about all of them did a good job in my opinion. It's too bad about what happened to Anton Yelchin.

I agree Abrams (or whoever) did a good job casting the Star Trek reboot; the first act of the first movie (right up until they start treating cadet Kirk like he is ready to promote straight from third-year student to Commander) is quite good . . . if only someone could have done as a good a job writing and directing the story for the other 2 2/3 movies . . .

Again I have to agree with every word. Casting was very good, in Urbans case great.

The entire premise of taking wet behind the ears cadets and giving them a starship in the first JJTrek movie is just preposterous.

And in the second he just re-writes one of the most iconic Trek stories of all time.

And made Khan an opponent whom you could fear. I love ST2, but nothing there really showed why Khan was so fearsome - heck the man behind the Eugenics wars, the most brilliant warlord ever, and he couldn't phantom 3d thinking? Please.
Even in the TOS episode there is little to make him stand out.

So there's a new Khan, eh?

I did some research and some were upset for 'whitewashing' Khan into a plain white dude, while the makers of the movie didn't want to "support demonizing anyone of color." When will it end?

It already has in 1982 when the *real* Khan (Ricardo Montalbán) died in battle. What a good movie.

In my opinion STID was not just bad, it was offensively bad. Not only was it full of just generally stupid ideas, but it was unoriginal and dumped on one of the best written and executed movies in the Trek universe. They made the bad guy a white guy with an English accent but named him Khan, and then made him a sympathetic character who you would actually be rooting for. They also made Kirk the bad guy, in my opinion. And that's just for starters.

Here are some videos that I think highlight many of the issues with that movie:

Making Khan an actual character with depth instead of "I'm Khannnnnn! I'll have my vengeance!" repeat of lines from ST2 was the best thing about Into Darkness.

Khan of TOS was one of the more stupid villains. Yes I love the movie, but the character was just an idiot whose projection of menace was well, "I'm Khaan!". Even if you had seen "Space Seed" it added little to project how fearsome everyone described him as, suspension of belief was strongly required to elevate him to the level of villainy he was due to have.

Assuming that's accurate, for the sake of argument, it's still like saying "Not having ketchup all over it was the best thing about that sh*t sandwich they served for lunch." Additionally, everything they added, while possibly giving the character depth, was counter-productive to the whole movie. It required a bunch of stuff to happen that took away from overall story, like him just trying to save his crew undermining his villainy, and also making Starfleet and the main cast either evil or stupid, or both.


There were definitely flaws in the movie (more on that in a minute), but I thought that character served is purpose in creating a situation for the primary cast to do what's needed to tell a good story, pretty much the opposite of the Khan character in STID, where he interfered with telling a good story.

One flaw that occurred to me about ST2 was right before the infamous "KAAAAHHHHNNN" scream, where Khan beams up the Genesis device, and Kirk says "You've got Genesis, but you don't have me. You're going to have to come down here." Well, Khan just beamed up Genesis, which means he should have a fix on Kirk, especially since Kirk was using a communicator, so Kahn could have just beamed Kirk up as well and been done with it, not having to go down at all.

Wasn't Kirk just acting desperate to make Khan think he was desperate? Desperate people will say anything. Battle of the minds and Kirk won.

But why didn't Khan beam him up? I know he said he could leave him buried for all eternity, etc., but I find it hard to believe that Khan wouldn't beam him up to see him face to face if it were that easy.

Because Kirk was stranded (or so Khan thought) the same way that he felt he was stranded by Kirk. Eye for an eye, nothing else required (which might have saved Kirk's life...like how the bad guy never puts a quick end to 007 when he has the chance).

EDIT: Kirk's desperate attempt to manipulate Khan's actions ("...come down here.") and then his screaming at Khan for leaving him to rot inside a planet was apparently enough satisfaction to Khan's sense of justice and intellect.

Lol...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2zpDpZ90cM

Stupid SJW controversy aside, Cumberbatch got the role because at the time his star was rising in Hollywood and he was a "hot" property so the producers jumped at the chance to get him for the role.

And casting CUmberbatch was no worse or better than casting a mexican to play a man named "Khan" to begin with.

Montalban easily passes for Indian more so than Cumberbatch.

And many, if not most, of the issues mentioned could have been avoided if they had just done something original instead of crapping all over ST2. It just seemed like a cheap, lazy money grab. It's like they thought "Let's redo ST2 because everybody like that one, but mix it up and make Khan a good guy (basically), Kirk a bad guy, and swap the actions of Kirk and Spock. That's really clever of us!"

They could have come up with a new villain, or maybe re-use one that hadn't been in a movie yet, and come up with a unique story around them and not have to worry about trying to wedge in key activities from another movie but trying to add a twist.

EXACTLY.