April 25 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Trek Nation Special Edition DVD

1 min read

For those who missed the airing of Trek Nation, the news of the release of the DVD of the documentary should be of interest.

Trek Nation will be released next month by FilmBuff and MPI Media Group.

Trek Nation is a documentary which chronicles Rod Roddenberry‘s “trek across America to discover his father through the touchstones Gene [Roddenberry] left behind: his friends, his work and his influence. The film includes surprising, revelatory conversations with Star Trek actors, writers, fans, family friends and some of entertainment’s most iconic figures who point to Gene’s influence on them – among them George Lucas, Stan Lee, Seth MacFarlane and J.J. Abrams, director of the two most recent Star Trek blockbuster movies.

Trek Nation is a journey to understand one of the world’s largest cultural phenomena, the man behind it, and the legacy he has left us all.”

Trek Nation will be released on July 9, with an SRP of $24.98. The DVD is available for pre-order on Amazon and will sell for $12.99. To pre-order a copy, head to the link located here.

About The Author

29 thoughts on “Trek Nation Special Edition DVD

  1. Great video. Sad to see that TREK is veering WAY off course from the premise his Dad steered it, and even so called “fans” saying Gene Roddenberry would have made TREK worse. Never thought I would see that!

  2. It’s currently available for free on Hulu (with commercials) or if you have a Netflix subscription, it’s available there as well.

  3. Then, I guess, you missed 1989, 1990, and 1991, right? Because, at that point, Gene Roddenberry was something of a poison pill to TNG… him becoming too sick to continue with the production, sadly, was the best thing for said production.

    I guess we can pretend something else is true… I mean, that has nothing to do with what happened to the people that replaced him (going through their own fatigue a decade later), nor with the people that replaced them… the current lot… But to suggest that Star Trek would be better off if other input beyond Gene Roddenberry’s hadn’t been offered is laughable.

  4. Well, he was in very bad health by then. But with the BIg Bird of the Galaxy, there would have been no TREK. I suppose those who love TREK as it was are being replaced by so called fans who HATE Gene and mock him and his vision of the future. I don’t want TREK to become like that abomination of the re-imagined Galactica, dark and foreboding, depressing and dire. That is not what TOS was. And I don’t find that laughable at all. Star Trek: Continues for example is what TREK should be. I will stick with that.

  5. Big Bird… I think you meant Great…

    I don’t think anyone should take anything away from Gene Roddenberry… However, I don’t think undue praise should be heaped on him, either.

    Star Trek was brilliant. I don’t think anyone visiting this site would debate the lasting impact of ST, nor that it would not exist in the original television, the subsequent film, or the subsequent television rebirth forms without Gene Roddenberry.

    And I’m not even defending the current trajectory of Trek.

    But, you’ve taken it a step too far. Yes, he was a sine qua non for the franchise… no, he was not the only one, nor, necessarily, as far as an ongoing storyteller, was he the best.

    And, all that is wrapped up in YOUR statement: “and even so call ‘fans’ saying Gene Roddenberry would have made TREK worse.”

    Now, you want to quibble that he was sick at the end of his life… yeah… and? You’re the one who suggested that Roddenberry would’ve made better Trek had he continued to be in charge, right? So, are we not dealing in reality with him? He was sick. He was diminished. Trek WAS better off without Gene Roddenberry at that point. It was better without him being the main player from TWOK forward in the film franchise.

    Trek is on the wrong path… but if your definition of it being on the wrong path is that it isn’t adhering entirely to GR… well… I wouldn’t want on that path either. That’s the path of TMP and the first 2 seasons of TNG… Love ’em, but wouldn’t want Trek to be defined by them and only them… that’s for sure.

  6. Perhaps… Your comments seem to indicate that you think the problems with Trek are fairly recent. Is that accurate, or has Trek been pretty off course since Gene’s failing health in your estimation? And, while I agree that Trek shouldn’t be BSG, how do you feel about what Nicholas Meyer did to Trek? It was basically a Galactification before there was such a concept… Was Wrath of Khan where Trek went wrong for you? Honestly curious.

  7. ST:2 didn’t go wrong, it just was just an extension of Space Seed. Trek is gradually in my opinion going dark, like most of SCIFI. Which is why TREK has stood out, it presented a possible positive future, instead of a dreay future of invasions, Earth being destroyed or what have you. I love the Trek of TOS, and that is why I love to see the fan based Star Trek: Continues web series. Just my view and opinion.

  8. Gene Roddenberry didn’t think so. He thought TWOK was a betrayal of the ethos of ST at its very core. Sure, they used Khan, but the nature of ST changed drastically with that film… far moreso than we sometimes now remember. Starfleet itself was made a far more militaristic organization, which was Roddenberry’s chief complaint, along with, I believe, how they dealt with Saavik as a Vulcan character and specifically making the references to Kirk’s aging… Nevertheless, Roddenberry pretty roundly disliked it if the players are to be believed…

    But as you put it, and as is pretty clear, Wrath of Khan IS the natural extension in 1982 of the episode from 1966, right? In more ways than one… For some people, like Roddenberry, that was already one step too far.

    In the end, I just don’t think we should be defining people out of Star Trek fandom because they don’t fit our narrow perspective on what the best Trek is… Some people think Voyager is the best Trek ever. I won’t even dignify why I think that’s preposterous… suffice to say, everyone who considers themselves a Trek fan is a Trek fan, and using what Trek you don’t like as a means to suggest how much more of a fan you are than someone who does like more Trek than you… yeah… that does not compute rationally… All I’m saying.

  9. Well, I am a TOS fan and that is the TREK I like. I see TREK is going the way of BSG, and that is not for me. Star Trek: Continues again is what TREK is all about. I will stick with that.

  10. Thank you! I now know what I shall be doing tonight in between fingerpainting and polishing my forehead.

  11. A perfectly reasonable sentiment and perfectly reasonable desire with regard to the future of the franchise……. All accomplished that time without calling other people’s fandom into question.

  12. Just to interject. That positive view of the future, that one day, human beings (and others) can band together to overcome problems, solving those problems with intelligence and compassion more often than with force, and the preference to have circumstances or the unknown as the antagonist instead of a Big Bad, are all things I consider to be core qualities of Star Trek. That is Gene Roddenberry’s vision, and I submit that it is vital to Star Trek.
    This is why when such geniuses as Kurtzman and Orci talk about how it’s all about the villain, and bringing in dark, gritty themes, I shake my head sadly and put my ticket money elsewhere.
    It’s not that Trek hasn’t gotten dark before, hell, look at DS9, but that darkness was confronted, dealt with, overcome where possible. There are dozens of dark, gritty, edgy action properties in theatres every year. Repackaging Star Trek in this fashion takes away pretty much everything that makes Trek unique.
    It’s true that Roddenberry’s vision of the future has been done over and over for forty-odd years now, and ought to be refreshed. I submit that instead of the easy route of gutting Trek and making it conform to the expectations of modern audiences, the effort should be directed at bringing that vision to modern audiences in ways that they will understand. We know this can be done and has been done more than once. This is why I call JJ’s three stooges lazy.
    Alright, the meds are kicking in. Rant over. Carry on.

  13. Well, I just think there are fans who are wanting more “dark” TREK, to be more gritty and resemble BSG. If that fact offends, then I apologize. But that is the way I see it. Again, I am not in charge of the franchise, just a fan who has that “opinion” and has been a fan since it first came out.

  14. Very well said. My feelings exactly. Excellent synopsis of my view of where TREK is and could possibly be going in the future. Excellent.

  15. What, exactly for you and fans like you, is ‘the right path?’ I frankly think that you have no idea what it is beyond hating Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman because they updated some aspects (many of which were successful) and you, like most Trekfans obsessed with the founding moment (to quote Irshad Manji) can’t or won’t deal. Tough crappies; this is Star Trek, and you will have to put up with it for the time being.

  16. Star Trek Continues is just a low-budget fan show that has a few fans, but is beyond the pale; how YOU and other fans of it think that it will displace the official cannon as approved and made by Bad Robot, Paramount, and CBS Studios, I have no idea-except to say that you all are deluded and are treating Star Trek as a religion that can`t be changed, a frightening thing in and of itself. And I say this as a fan of that show and the other fan shows.

  17. The ONLY stooges I see are you and the other foundamentalists unwilling to face reality-oh well, continue to be deluded.

  18. For one thing, Bad Robot IS changing TREK from Canon that was set before the 2009 movie. Where have you been? And secondly, there are quite a few fans of ST:Continues, a fan series that is presenting TREK in the same vein that TOS and subsequent TREK. TREK is not a religion, but the established canon should not be messed with as BAD ROBOT is doing. You seem confused and deluded.

  19. I’m being realistic, you & Kang the Unbalanced are not. Perhaps this is the view of old Trekfans afraid that the franchise is getting away from them, and can’t stand it because of ‘those kids and their dammed ideas!” Oh well, as I said before, continue to be deluded.

  20. “Afraid the Franchise is getting away from them…” Many TREK fans do not care for JJ and his alternate timeline. We prefer the original canon already established over 4 decades worth. “Those kids and their Damned Ideas.” There are no KIDS, just adults from BAD ROBOT and corporate suits at Paramount. Good to see you are such an “open minded” person. I see that you are the type of person who derides and condemns those who disagree with you. You must be a liberal.

  21. I’ve explained what the right path is many times: Give the franchise to people that actually like it and want to play in its sandbox. A truly talented set of people can set storylines in any era of Star Trek and make them entertaining, important, and all without violating what came before. That’s what I want…and I don’t think that’s asking too much. Is it?

    Now, to flip it… what, exactly, would the “wrong path” be to you? I frankly think that you have no problem watching a steaming pile of feces attract flies… And, if you even bothered to read what I wrote above, you can see I’m entirely not a purist when it comes to Star Trek, that I think Gene Roddenberry was only the first person to greatly add to Trek, but far from the last, and, in truth, far from the most important after it started. So, you can try to sell that bullshit somewhere else… people that actually read my comments know I don’t have some deluded notion of Gene Roddenberry or the foundations upon which Star Trek is built. However, sir, I do have AN understanding of what Star Trek has been built upon, and perhaps that is why I’m not willing or happy about all of those foundations being cast out, and yet mandatory for any emotion to be wrung from this shitpile.

  22. The trouble with you and people like you is that you are trapped in the past, and don’t know how to adjust to the realities of the present as they apply to the production and promotion of media franchises like Star Trek. As well, you’ve bought into the bullshit (and it is bullshit) myth of Gene Roddenberry being ‘The Great Bird’ and how he had a ‘vision’ for Star Trek. If he truly did, by the time of Star Trek: The Next Generation, it had atrophied (the way the characters are and the creation of Wesley Crusher are the reasons why I don’t really buy into this anymore.) Like I’ve said before, you and the others are trapped in the founding moment of Star Trek and can’t get out of it, so much so that anybody who wanted to update Star Trek would have a hard time doing so due to your obdurate sour old man attitude.

    Thankfully, people like you are getting old and dying off, and they won’t be the ones that CBS should be catering to with a new show or set of movies (CBS should stop making all of this merchandise based on the older shows as well, but unfortunately, they won’t, which is foolish in and of itself.) ‘Violating what came before’ ? That was baggage that needed to be jettisoned, and was rightfully done so bu Bad Robot, CBS, and Paramount. Too bad that you’re so obdurate that you can’ see it that way. But, then again, losing so-called ‘fans’ like you stick in the past isn’t a big loss.

  23. Who are these ‘many fans?’ They are a minority, just like you, and should be ignored-oh wait, they are being ignored! And the grosses of the two movies proves that the current franchise runners are going in the right direction, unlike you and most of the Trek foundamentalists stuck in the past and unwilling to progress.

  24. Really? A minority? I think not. But then, you are commenting to me aren’t you? Well of course the movies did well, since that is the ONLY new Trek available. But the canon TREK still does very well. I would say that you really seem to be very hostile to others when it comes to difference of opinion(s)…good thing you aren’t in charge of a FIRST CONTACT mission.

  25. I’m not in charge of a first contact mission, but then again, I’m not a hypocrite either.

  26. Hypocrite? Sure you are, and very intolerant and a very hostile individual as well.

  27. I will not be responding further. By claiming I’m too attached to Gene Roddenberry it becomes clear you haven’t made it to the end of a single one of my posts, because, if you had, that would be a delusional thing to say… So, fuck off.

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.