The terrible nonsensical script, unfocussed plot, stupid elements (ie building a starship in a field, Kirk going from cadet to Captain in a day, young Spock being a complete moron, Scotty having the brains of a chimp etc), bizarre design choices (the Engine Room of the Enterprise seemed to come from a different universe than the rest of the ship) and one-note direction (whip-pan! lense flare! repeat ad nauseum) all rather got in the way, for me. Nevermind the premise.
Star Trek has never been so shit. I wouldn't even call it Star Trek. I don't know what that crap was.
Last Edit: Sept 15, 2011 21:10:03 GMT by The Doctor
Been watching some TNG in a loop while laid up with the lurgy. What boggles my mind is that some of these episodes I'm watching are now as old as episodes of the original series were when I first saw TNG when it was new!
Just feels weird.
Last Edit: Sept 18, 2011 8:22:42 GMT by The Doctor
Some interesting points there. I do find TNG currently plays more freshly than it has in years now that so many shows are obsessed with overall arcs rather than individual episodes with the odd recurring storyline.
Been watching a fair chunk of Star Trek: The Animated Series over the past week or so. I have seen some of the episode before, but not all of them so I figured it was time to correct this omission, so that I can honestly claim to have seen all of original Star Trek.
Actually, I am quiet enjoying the Animated Series to be honest. The stories are very much of a piece with the live action series - both tonally and in terms of reusing established recurring elements from its predecessor. Tribbles, Harry Mudd, the planet from Shore Leave all return and are used quite well. Indeed, in terms of storytelling it is pretty much "Star Trek" only quicker - being twenty-five minutes instead of fifty.
Visually, it struggles with its budget as most animated shows have a tendency to do but some of it is absolutely lovely - I defy anyone to look at the background paintings and not agree that they are beautifully executed. It has its flaws, the voice-directing is a little bit iffy in places for example and not all of the episodes are up to snuff, but really the latter could be said of most shows.
All told, the Animated Series is pretty much "Star Trek" in a different media, and I'd argue is closer to the tone and nature of "Star Trek" than a lot of the live-action spin-off stories.
I liked the last Star Trek film.... apart from the problems it causes with Massive Donkey Balls of First Contact & Enterprise, all pre film, by destroying the universe that TNG happens in.
The "Prime" Universe (As Roddenberry's original universe is now canonically called) is fine. They can still do stories, series, and what not set there. So it's gone no where, and hasn't been destroyed. It's just still in mothballs, where it would be if Abhram's movie never happened. The new Universe is a brand new reality, as evedent in the movie, before the characetrs declare time has changed and created an alternate. It already was an alternate before Nero came back in time. (While this is more fan desire than anything, I shove Enterprise into this continuity and leave it out of the original, for my personal fannon)
It betrayed a lack of imagination for a universe which was about New Things. Doing 'young Kirk and co' was pointless enough, but doing *alternate* versions of them doubly so!
Not to Gene Roddenberry it isn't pointless. Gene Roddenberry Jr. spent the better part of the last decade making and filming a documentary about what Star Trek means to people, and trying to get to know his father from that (It's called Trek Nation, and aired here on The Science Channel, a few months ago) While he was digging around family archives, he found an interview with his father, who said it's his personal dream to see a modern take on his original star trek. A reimagining by new directors, new actors, new writers, and new special effects.
Having grown up on Trek (TNG specifically), I quite enjoyed the new Trek film. It had it's problems (The science makes my head hurt when I think too hard about it, but then my obcession with science has ruined a great number of movies that should have been fun, like 2012), but it was a lot of fun, I loved the actors, and for the first time, I actually *kike* Kirk. (Kirk was the only TOS character I didn't like).
Either way, for all it's faults, the new Trek is a lot better than anything Brenan Bragga can cough up. And I'm glad the franchise has been stripped of Burman.
I think if New Trek got turned into TV series, and they were allowed to go into a slower paced format that would allow, you'd enjoy new new changes more. The first movie is an origin, and those are always wonky. All the players are in place and set up, so I think the next one will blow this one out of the water.
Oh I well understand how folk enjoy it and it is cool that you got something out of. Tis just for me personally that I just can't get excited about a slightly different version of the 60's show. I would much rather see new characters, ship, etc, which is what Star Trek was about from 1987 onwards.
But like you say, the original stuff still exists. I can always still enjoy it and if I want new tales set there at least there are comics and books still being produced for it.
As far as I'm concerned, the best thing that happened with the new trek movie, is Paramount firing them from the franchise. From what everyone says behind the scenes (Cast and crew), the two of them are about as self important and assy as it gets.