Trek On TV Again?
1 min read
According to Sky News Entertainment Reporter Joe Michalczuk, there is ongoing discussion regarding the possibility of getting Star Trek back on TV again.
The information comes courtesy of Star Trek into Darkness Co-writer Roberto Orci.
“Bob Orci just told me they’ve had a meeting with CBS to revive @StarTrek on TV,” said Michalczuk. “This made me v[ery] excited.”
However, it was only a few weeks ago that J.J. Abrams spoke on the matter, as reported by TrekWeb. “What I’ve been told from the powers that be [At CBS] is that they’re not interested.”
Thanks to TrekToday Just a Guest for the tip!
About The Author
Presumably because we’ve been to the next generation… why rehash it again like they’re doing poorly with TOS? I didn’t downvote it, but I presume that’s why some did.
A case could certainly be made for Voyager… but, in general, you’re right on that… which is why it being PC isn’t my issue. But, I’m not sure choomster even liked TNG… I know he’s said he likes TOS………..
How so?
Oh snap, is that rainbow and city from Logan’s Run? Its a deliciously cheesy sci fi, I love it!
Well damn.
I. Love. This. Comment.
And I mean @Mike359:disqus
Thanks.
Damn. Blast and bugger. Another elegant hypothesis shattered by an ugly fact.
I won’t say those are all good (because they aren’t), but it does bear out what 2009 showed, that he does in fact have at least a little talent.
Bob, Maybe teevee is the place you oughtter be?
However as for suitability for Star Trek… I’m on the fence. We have one that was pretty good, and one that was insultingly brain-dead.
The one that was good, was good on the strengths of characterization, and even dialogue. However I maintain that Orci and Kurtzman show a brazen contempt for anything resembling actual science. This is why I simply could not watch Fringe. How could I enjoy a show whose entire premise is scientific mysteries when the science in the show was so horribly, horribly bad?
The mind boggles. This would be so much easier if he and Alex were complete no-talent hacks.
I like this!
Well damn indeed.
It is. I was inspired by that scene in Star Trek V – The Final Frontier, where Kirk was given his orders by that Admiral. Behind that Admiral was a picture of a building from Logan’s Run. Apparently, some props from the 1976 MGM Oscar winning film were recycled in various Paramount productions. Star Trek and Mork and Mindy among them. So, I decided to experiemnt around in photoshop and created this.
One 23rd Century world meets another 23rd Century world.
Well, I’m the guy who dropped this tip for the site, and I would like to say a couple of things.
I am a fan of all incarnations of Star Trek, TOS, TAS, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, STTMP, TWOK, TSFS, TVH, TFF, TUC, GEN, FC, INS, NEM, ST09, and STID, I also play ST: Online, read Trek Novels and Comics, and so on.
I respect the opinions of a number of posters here, and do not respect those of some others, I won’t say who in either case.
I want Star Trek on TV again, all kinds of ideas could work, I had an idea a while back for a show centered on the Starfleet Criminal Investigations Service, they have a JAG office (Measure of a Man, The Drumhead, others), and the Office of Temporal Investigations (Trials and Tribbilations), so a CIS is almost guaranteed to be there, and it would be a side of Trek no one has ever seen before.
There are so many more stories out there to be told, I can’t wait to see them, and I will always be watching, just like I am watching TOS as I type this. LLAP
“What I’ve been told from the powers that be [At CBS] is that they’re not interested.”
Good. And I expect it to stay that way until someone competent comes along. Abrams, Kurtzman and Orci are the names that should forever be avoided like the plague when it comes to Star Trek.
As a matter of fact I have. But I simply couldn’t watch it anymore after a certain number of episodes. I don’t know about you, but I don’t appreciate bad acting, bad plots, and cheap rip offs of cult TV shows, like X-Files. (Interesting how the last two “Star Trek” movies more or less follow the same pattern). Orci & Co.? No thanks.
“Even Abrams has said in the past that he recognizes what Trek should be on TV and how it differs from his movies.
He also said he doesn’t like Star Trek and that he “doesn’t get it”.
Well said.
I’d be OK with that. However, WITHOUT Bad Robot.
Was this concept set in the main timeline or JJ Abram’s offshoot? Just wondering how you conceived it…
You know, I’m an “Original” fan of ST:TOS when it was on NBC. Watching the old episodes on ME-TV with the upgraded FX most of them still hold up…considering they’re nearly 1/2 a century old. The other incarnations had to upgrade. Now with J.J.’s two movies, yes, they’ve been brought into the mainstream and did great at the box office. And you now what? I liked them!!! I frankly don’t want to be stuck in the past. And though Roddenberry said to always move forward, this does as it is a parallel time line. I do now however want to see the 3rd movie do an adventure/exploration thing, not dwell on political matters, etc. I did hear a rumor that: “The Doomsday Machine” might be a jumping off point the the 3rd one. So, bottom-line, most of you would be newbies to the TREK universe to me, so if you can’t adapt and change, then find another franchise. I have the feeling that you’re only thing in life, what you live for is to criticize.
I could see it going either way, to be honest, if it was set in the “Prime” timeline I think Worf would be perfect as the “Gibbs” of the show, while if it was in the new timeline I would pick Lt. Hendorff (aka Cupcake) as the “Dinozzo” of the group. Either way I would center the show on the Starfleet Criminal Investigation Service “Major Case” Unit assigned to Starfleet HQ or to a starbase at any major Federation world, like Vulcan, Andoria, or so on. Cases could take them to different planets, much as cases on NCIS can lead to different countries, they could go after the Orion Syndicate, Spies from the Klingons, Romulans, Cardassians, Dominion, and so on. Lots of stuff there, a look at crime and punishment in the Federation (on a scale never attempted before), and a lot more, but hey I’m just a guy behind a keyboard like everyone else here. LLAP
Nothing against moving forward. Trek is set in the future and it should move forward. But Abrams Trek is hardly about moving forward. Actually, it’s moving backwards in so many ways (and I don’t think special effects and lens flares really count as moving forwards). Just consider how many times the word s#it was uttered in this last movie. Does that seem to you like a way people would talk in the future? (at least in the Trek future). And that was only one small detail. Not to mention that the Captain, which should be a respectable person who you would want to look up to, is depicted as a total jerk who you normally wouldn’t entrust with taking care of one person, let alone hundreds of persons aboard a starship. And the list goes on. That’s not moving forwards. That’s moving backwards! Into silly adolescent idiocy which has more in common with Idiocracy than with Star Trek. I claim that Abrams Trek is not about progress, it’s not about moving forward, not in moral or inspirational sense, not even in terms of technology or ideas, but it’s actually about regressing backwards. Star Trek into Dorkness indeed.
…, a homeless guy from the streets, a small kitchen appliance— anyone, anything but Roberto Orci in charge- or even peripherally involved.
…, a homeless guy from the streets, a small kitchen appliance— anyone, anything but Roberto Orci in charge- or even peripherally involved.
2009 completely threw me out of the universe the moment Spock Prime allowed himself to be taken captive without a fight- and by a fight, I mean everything up to and including the self destruction of the Jellyfish ship and its cargo, Red Matter, which Spock would have sacrificed everything to keep out of nero’s hands.
Trek 09 was as bad or worse than Star Trek Into Dickiness….
I know someone who might be interested in buying the enterprise (The Star-Trek Enterprise), I mean the Franchise and without the element of Commericial Terrestrial or other Advertising revenue which was always recognised as the cause of the HIGHLY importune cearly demise of Enterprise – The Series.
OK, are you ready for my suggestion, and it is only a suggestion but this TV company who are non-commercial advertising revenue dependant have always, since Day One of TOS, right through to the last episode of ‘enterprise’, aired every series?
Again, are you ready for my suggestion? I must tell you that I may be considered mad by some people for my lateral thinking strategum, which never impresses the money managers but believe me, ST the original commodity did not come about entirely by employing the accepted norms of linear thinking?!
Okay-Dopey, I’ve kept you on tenter-hooks long enough now. Here is my suggestion. Hold onto your Deckchairs.
THE BBC, of British Broadcasting Corporation.
Seriously, they’ve got the money. There is a huge latent ST support crowd in the UK who mostly wait for the corporate fat-cats to get of their swing-chairs and stop blowing bubbles. I am a can do person. If it’s conceivable by me, and after many years of cogitating upon my madness I have reached no other conclusion, then it can be done/
THE BBC. Contact the British Broadcasting Corporation. If they got to buy a major stake-hold in the ST franchise, in order to re-launc it on TV, DVD and the rest?
THE BBC!!!!! You heard it here first. I know, no-one else has ever suggested it. That’s not because it’s a crazy idea, it’s because my idea has got what it would take!
Ciao.
New Voyages, with Captain Elvis. I saw a clip from one episode and when Kirk stepped out of the turbo lift with Elvis hair, it was all over for me. I couldn’t stop laughing.
Trek snobs like you are why so many people laugh (or roll their eyes) at Trekkies — and snobs like you are the primary obstacle to any Trek series as unless those making it come straight to you to get your permission to proceed (much like some religious man going to the Pope) you’ll always be eager to call it crap. And if enough Trek snobs throw enough tantrums to give a producer the (wrong) sense that the series might be sabotaged in the public’s perception that could ruin everything. It happened with Stargate: Universe and there are a lot more Trek snobs than Stargate snobs.
You are describing what I call “fan fanatics.” They exist with any sci-fi/fantasy property and consist of people who (in effect) believe that only they are the real authority when it comes to the series/movies in question. They act and think like a cult, often describing material they feel isn’t “proper (series name)” in terms that the real world uses when talking about crimes against humanity. Subconsciously they are desperate to feed their sense of self-righteousness and victimization — they feel entirely justified to scream with anger and resentment over how their favorite (ha!) series has been “mistreated” in the same manner as, say, a regular person would feel anger and resentment toward the man who raped their wife or ran over their six-month old daughter. It’s utterly out of proportion to the reality of things.
Unfortunately, they can and have at times so poisoned the waters when it comes to the object of their veneration that they can harm or even bring down series. Stargate: Universe is a great example — Stargate: Atlantis fanatics screamed so long and hard over their favorite show being supposedly “unfairly cancelled” (despite the fact the series lasted 5 years and begun to stagnate creatively) that they gave the Sci-fy channel the perfect excuse to cancel Universe when they began to doubt its success. Fan Fanatics can’t kill a show outright, but they can stick a dagger into the heart of one with borderline ratings or a proposed series that producers aren’t sure about. Their attitudes can also help drive away casual fans who don’t want to be associated with such wackos, thereby hurting ratings.
It’s one thing to just not like something or provide reasonable criticism, but the way that fan fanatics take every opportunity to angrily (and often outrageously as in Orci’s case) denounce something they feel is not the “true” and “proper” version of the series they supposedly love suggests rather disturbing neurosis at work. And, that’s enough to know they are a danger to any creative endeavor and to fandom in general.
A possibly useful analogy just came to mind, having to do with Subarus.
Subarus sold in the U.S. today, with the exception of the sports models, are considerably larger and/or taller than their counterparts of 5 years ago and earlier. Both of our Subarus are old-style, with frameless door glass. They are starting to incur large repair bills, as you’d expect from cars with >90K miles – wheel bearings, etc. But there are no present-day replacements for our Legacy and Forester.
Instead, Subaru sells some cars that happen to have the same names, from the same factories in Indiana and Japan. They have nothing in common with our cars except for the boxer engine, although the low cowl (base of windshield) height made possible by that configuration is absent from the new cars.
Subaru of America just had its best sales month ever, by successfully marketing these cars that to me aren’t real Subarus. (Yes, I concede that they have much more habitable rear seats.)
Similarly, a fan of original Star Trek (“Spock’s Brain” in Sept 1968 was my first episode) may not only loathe the two Abrams films but may be dismayed, or at least puzzled, by their popularity. And the same may be true for any new TV series, whoever writes and produces it. For me to find satisfactory any new version of Star Trek is about as likely as Subaru offering a car in the U.S. next year that I’d want to buy (despite our onetime loyalty; both my wife and I have been Subaru drivers for 25+ years).
I’m OK with this. The basic designs of our cars lasted a long time before they were superseded, and we can try to maintain the ones we have; nor do I think someone who likes new Subarus must be totally ignorant. Subaru’s long-term reputation, earned with the older designs, is part of what brings buyers of the new ones to the showroom.
Likewise with Star Trek. Someone I might know personally may have liked one or both AbramsTrek movies (and might even also like old Trek) and it wouldn’t bother me, even if I’d never want to subject myself to those two movies. Old Trek still exists and recently had some long-term maintenance done (the remasters), just as we hope to keep our cars going until gasoline-fueled cars are as antiquated as a 10-year-old (5-year-old?) Windows computer.
Having said that: If some real SF writers were recruited as in 1966-67, I might watch a new Trek series.
“So, we’re supposed to bend over and thank them for the raping?”
Like I said, taking things WAY out of proportion and using terms/phrases that the regular world uses for actual terrible crimes.
As Bill Shatner might say, “Get a life!”
It could be worse. Vic Mignogna and the other liars, thieves, crooks, robbers, and dishonest people who run Farragut Films could be running things.
Be nice. James Cawley is a friend of mine.
If you want to laugh at something, laugh at Vic Mignogna and John Broughton from both Star Trek Continues and Starship farragut. Though chances are, you would curse those two and their disrespective shows out in the end.
I certainly have!
I urge you to give Fringe another go – season 2 is simply sublime!
As for the acting – Leonard Nimoy and John Noble were both nominated for prestigious Saturn Awards for their roles – and Nimoy won for best guest actor.
I get that not everyone likes the same things though 😉 I’m just quite passionate about Fringe. For me it’s the best SF show since DS9!
I’m the one up-vote!
Oh yeah, that haircut is really Elvis-like. lol
Hey, I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a Trek series. Far from that. I’m just saying there shouldn’t be a Trek series made by the people mentioned. I think that’s for Trek’s own good.
You might have had a point, except the people that don’t like or appreciate STD have given numerous reasons… The people that like it, with very few exceptions, have been unable to address the shortcomings or non sequiturs. That’s not our fault. It’s not our fault that it doesn’t hold up.
You’re also entirely missing the point: As longterm Star Trek fans, we fully know there’s no way we can destroy this franchise… we can mothball it, but we can’t destroy it. Unlike Stargate, Star Trek doesn’t even need to have something on to retain most of its power within its fanbase… you know, the ones you’re accusing of destroying said franchise? lol But, in the end, we want our comments to be the poison pill for this incarnation of Trek. If a void period of 5 years is necessary to cleanse the palate of this crap, then that’s exactly what we’re hoping for. Now, would we prefer fresh quality Trek to just spring from the ether immediately? Indeed we would. Do we expect that? No. Do we feel, generally, that mediocre or shitty Star Trek is better than no Star Trek?
No.
And that’s the thing some of you folks can’t seem to wrap your minds around: Star Trek fans would rather have no Star Trek than bad Star Trek. It’s why we didn’t accept STD. It’s why many didn’t accept ST2009. It’s why fewer then even accepted Nemesis or Insurrection.
Now, you can be an apologist for shitty Star Trek if you want. And you can, somehow, declare yourself the sole guardian of what it means to be quality Star Trek, but it won’t change anything. The reason those earlier things failed is because they weren’t that good. The reason STD has failed with actual Star Trek fans is because it wasn’t that good.
Here, of course, is where you call me out for saying that some people are and some people aren’t Star Trek fans… Of course, if you were being fair and as smart as you’re pretending to be, then you’d obviously understand that I’m using that to differentiate between longterm fans of the franchise and those people that have come to Star Trek with JJ Abrams and crew… and yeah, sure, there are a TON of NEW Star Trek fans… But, here’s the kicker: The reason I don’t necessarily include them in the base term of Star Trek fans is because they aren’t… They’re fans of these 2 movies. Are they fans of anything else dealing with Star Trek? If not, they’re not Star Trek fans, they’re JJ Abrams fans or Abrams Trek fans, but, they aren’t fans of Star Trek writ large…. We are. And, as has been pointed out in any number of venues, the Star Trek fans that have been fans for decades before Abrams and will be fans for decades after Abrams, those people don’t generally like STD. But, it’s not on us to like STD… that’s not what makes us fans of Star Trek… By your rationale, all the people that are new to Trek and love STD are the Star Trek fans and those of us that love most other incarnations of Trek? Yeah, we’re just griping losers lol lol lol
But, just to be clear if I haven’t been: If I thought Star Trek was going to forever be set off course by this ilk? Yeah, I’d just as soon kill it. However, I AM a Star Trek fan, and thus, I know this nadir in quality won’t last forever… a key feature you lack, which tells me all I need to know about you and this franchise.
Such a delicate little flower.
Rape (noun)
4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation
That’s exactly what’s happened to the franchise under JJ’s watch.
You know, for someone acting so superior, you can’t quite wrap your mind around a lot…
James Cawley is one of the worst parts of the whole Phase II project.
I’m not going to defend Vic Mignogna at all, but the main reason people give for him being the way he is is that he’s an egotist intent on him portraying Kirk… Now, we might agree that his methods are less than upstanding, but at the end of the day, taking away the methodology of how it manifests itself, is the root for James Cawley not the same as Vic Mignogna? To portray themselves in the position of Kirk?
And you can trash VM all day long in the role… he’s not good at all… But, people can trash James Cawley all day long for the same thing… he’s not that good at being Kirk. If either man would get out of their own ways and actually hire someone to be Kirk rather than have these things continue to be exercises in ego stroking and their own megalomania, we’d all be better off.
Of course, those things are subjective… That hair, I think, is objectively horrid.
Yes, we just love Star Trek so much that we hate it. It isn’t even remotely possible that we dislike it because it isn’t worthy of liking it. lol
We may be snobs, you’re an idiot. And idiots like you are the reason this crapfest has made the money it has while being devoid of actual quality storytelling, characterization, or even action filmmaking… But, I’m sure, that’s just sour grapes from me…
One wonders how any Trek ever gets made, since you think we hate everything at all times without reason…
Let me guess, Star Trek V: The Final Frontier… Epic movie making, right? I mean, you can’t say anything bad about it, right? You can’t say anything bad about anything without it being a mask for some other deep rooted feeling, right?
Moronic sentiment if I’ve ever heard of one.
But, you do raise the proper corollary, but with one big mistake/omission: Stargate: Universe was a good science fiction series that failed. Why?
Now, your elementary schoolyard cry will be meanies like us. The reality is that Stargate: Universe, even though it was a good show, wasn’t a show that fit within the Stargate franchise universe as it had been constructed. The light-hearted banter-rich groups gave way to something entirely different. Was I entertained? Sure… but only because I could get beyond the changes. But did I enjoy it for the same reasons and in the same ways as I had enjoyed SG1 or Atlantis? Indeed not… It was intentionally different. Did those differences detract from the show? Not as a piece of science fiction. As a piece of Stargate? Yeah… it didn’t really feel connected with the rest of the Stargate mythos, but I could forgive that. I understand why many Stargate fans couldn’t, it was a departure thematically from everything that came before. The reason I think it still held up was that it a good story to tell and was telling it well without being too reliant on the mythos and manner of storytelling they left behind.
Does STD do that? Does it accomplish any of that? I contend no.
STD only exists because they said they needed to divest themselves of the Trek that came before. And yet, the key emotional moment in their movie comes not naturally from their movie, but from the reintroduction of Spock Prime… Khan only becomes an adversary because Nimoy tells Quinto that he should. And, even though Admiral Marcus was the one attacking them, trying to kill them, had set them up, etc, because Nimoy said so, we get Spock yelling, “Khaaaaaaaaan!” instead of him yelling what would’ve made sense in the moment, “Marcusssssssss!”
Star Trek was also derailed by turning away from discovery of the unknown into revenge flicks. The moral heart of the franchise replaced with hollow fx and lens flares. Thoughtful science fiction replaced with magic blood and mad scientist doctors injecting dead tribbles with anything and everything laying about….
Of course, this isn’t the first time actual complaints about this movie have been raised… and since you ignored those, I’m sure you’ll ignore these, so I won’t waste my time continuing my list of why Stargate’s departure isn’t exactly the same as Star Trek’s departure… But, if you take away anything, what you should take away is the simple reality that while you and your Stargate ilk couldn’t roll with the punches through one fundamental change, the simple fact is that Star Trek fans have adapted to fundamental change for decades and been fine with it. We just aren’t fine with it now because………….. wait for it………… IT’S SHIT.
If you think Fringe was an X-Files ripoff, then your “certain number of shows” must’ve been the first half of season one. It got much better, and much more original after that.
It’s a good comparison, but lacking in one way: Today’s Subaru models, are they manifestly worse by almost all conceivable measures to the old models? Not just in terms of comfort features you’d become accustomed to… but actually worse? Like, say, they went from making a reliable car to making one that always breaks down. They went from one that got 40mpg to one that gets 20… They go from anti-lock brakes to oldschool drums… These aren’t issues of opinion, they’re very simple basics which aren’t being addressed.
If anyone can answer these questions, I’d be happy to entertain the idea that I’m just being a snob:
Why does Spock turn in Kirk for a violation of the Prime Directive, and what was the violation?
Why does Spock yell Khan instead of Marcus?
Why does Kirk get promoted from a cadet to Captain in ST2009?
And why does Kirk get busted back to the ACADEMY by Pike in STD?
Why are there differences prior to the Kelvin incident?
Does this movie earn Kirk’s death?
Does it earn Kirk and Spock’s friendship?
Why does the guy go through with the bombing?
Why does Khan flee to the one place he knows would make Marcus’ plan manifest?
And that doesn’t even get into the problems with characterization, from Kirk now being a pervert to Uhura telling her captain to basically shut up while her and her boyfriend continue to argue on a mission? Come on… This isn’t a new Subaru unless the new Subaru models are pieces of crap strung together with a massive budget using the cheapest materials possible.
That’s quite true… So, we just need to wait for another 4 or 5 movies before they actually start to produce ones that are good Star Trek. Nice.
Star Trek 09 was great. I know the vocal minority’s tried to convince people for years that it wasn’t, but I remember seeing mostly praise here on TrekBBS at the time. Trek ID was ok for me, but I thought it would’ve been better if they’d just deleted that reactor scene (or at least deleted the yell at the end) and had Harrison be one of Khan’s followers. IMO, Khan’s only appearance should’ve been a very brief (as in one or two seconds) cameo of Montalban from TOS inserted digitally as a guy frozen in one of the torpedoes. I hope some fan will recut the film that way so I can get my hands on it.
.
..
…
Well, poop.
So, interstellar beaming is great?
Another revenge story is great?
Time travel/dimensional shifting that still doesn’t explain pre-Kelvin differences is great?
Spock being okay with the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his mother, but is the first person to suggest time travel to pick up some whales, is great?
Promoting a cadet to captain of the Federation’s flagship beyond all the ensigns, junior grade lieutenants, lieutenants, lieutenant commanders, and commanders was great?
It WAS more entertaining and LESS egregious than STD, but that’s like comparing STDs… I suppose syphilis is preferable to AIDS, but I wouldn’t really like either.
That said, I do think every one of the changes you suggested would’ve vastly improved STD, but it wouldn’t have fixed it. Magic blood, the leaps of logic with regard to the torpedoes, the frozen men, etc make no sense or are just plainly dumb and inconsistent with what we know of Augment blood.
You can be an apologist if you want, just as I don’t have to be. But you saying the movie was good isn’t the same as me laying out reasons ^ why it wasn’t…
Would you like to hear why I’m glad I took my happy pills today?
I rewatched Star Trek V. I never thought I’d see the day when I’d compare it favorably to anything, much less another Star Trek film.
It does still suck. The reason it sucks is because it is a bad movie.
A bad movie. Not bad Star Trek. I greatly prefer it to STiD.
Here is why.
> The camaraderie of the triumvirate is the backbone of the film. A Trek virgin could watch ST V and know immediately that Kirk, Spock and McCoy were long-time friends and comrades based solely on what is presented onscreen.
> Sybok is not a villain. He is an antagonist. He is a man with a goal. There is tension between him and Spock due to their long-standing retcon, but Spock clearly demonstrates that Sybok is not his nemesis; he’s his half-brother.
> There is plenty of fighting, yet neither he nor his followers intentionally kill anyone, despite threatening to do so.
> Oh, and curiosity –the desire to know the unknown– keeps Kirk from taking the ship out of there at a time where he clearly could have.
Make no mistake, there is a lot to roll your eyes at in ST V; a major backstory change of a primary character, too many ship-broken and slapstick gags; direction that is barely par for television; a dubious fan dance; 68 decks; lamest god EVAR, please don’t make me go on. But;
Aside from Spock suddenly having a half-sibling he never told his best friends in the world about, no one breaks character. The flashback scenes of Spock’s and McCoy’s pains are very good and give great insight into the characters. There’s a pretty spiffy shuttle crash sequence. And possibly my favorite Kirk line, “Excuse me… excuse me, I just want to ask a question. What does God need with a starship?”
So there you have it. Star Trek V is dethroned as the worst Star Trek film. But not the worst Star Trek ever; that honor still belongs to that Voyager episode where an overtuned shuttlecraft exceeds warp 10 and they turn into newts.
Relax, buddy, it’s ok for people to like things you don’t like. And me saying the movie was “good” IS the same as you laying out reasons why it wasn’t, because both are arbitrary opinions. For instance, nothing you’ve “laid out” screams “bad movie” to me. All it screams is “this guy has pet peeves.”
For the sake of argument, let’s get into your pet peeves:
(1) Interstellar beaming is fine with me, as long as they come up with some reason later on to ban it. Maybe it causes cancer. Maybe it makes the beamee go bald. I don’t care. But it’s an easy “problem” to solve just by showing (in another movie, or in the comics that are supposedly canonical) that it has bad long term side effects.
(2) Another revenge story is ok. Not great, but it’s not the end of the world.
(3) WHAT “pre-Kelvin differences?” I’ve seen every episode of every Trek series (even VOY and ENT) at least three times. I could recite way more lines and far more Trek trivia than my girlfriend would like. If *I* didn’t notice any pre-Kelvin differences, then I would argue they weren’t all that major in the grand scheme of things. The one difference that bugged the hell out of me was Khan’s ethnicity and appearance. And again, that would’ve been solved if they’d just not made him be Khan.
(4) Spock wasn’t “OK” with the destruction of Vulcan and the death of his mother. You lose 50 credibility points just for writing that. However, he’s pretty much realized by this point in his life that time travel can have disastrous consequences. He’s also realized, from his comments about meeting Kirk and Scotty on the ice planet, that this is a separate timeline. Logically, that means he’d have also realized that going back in time to “save” his mother and Vulcan would NOT save them in this reality, it would just create yet another alternate timeline wherein that never happens. And what’s the point of that, when Vulcan is perfectly fine and dandy in the Prime timeline already.
(5) Promoting Kirk above all the others made perfect sense after he’d just saved not only Earth, but the entire Federation. But it created a lot of resentment and second guessing about the decision, as evidenced in the comics AND in ST:ID when Pike informs him he’s been demoted. That was an entire plot point in the film. Perhaps you missed it while you were busy scoping out all the “apologists” who were sitting all around you actually having a good time.
(6) Magic blood, I completely agree. But it’s no more ridiculous than half of what we’ve seen in Star Trek ever since TOS. I could cite dozens upon dozens of contrived, magical crap — including the Genesis Planet, and how it conveniently aged Spock to the exact age he was at death before it self destructed — but I’ve (almost) always chosen to suspend disbelief about most of it because I’d rather enjoy the show than be annoyed by it. That said, “what we know” of Augment blood doesn’t preclude what we don’t know about it. Nobody ever wrote a definitive user manual for Augment blood. If they had, I’d have bought it, read it, and stored it next to my collectible 1970’s era blueprints of UFP ships.
That said, it’s fine for you to disagree with me and loathe this film the way Khan loathed Kirk in TWoK. To paraphrase you, you can be a hater if you want, just as I don’t have to be.
Mike, if it hadn’t been for James Cawley and all of his hard work, dedication, and devotion, there never would have been a Phase 2. Did you ever think about that?
Therefore, James Cawley is NOT one of the worst parts of the whole Phase 2 project. Your argument concerning that is invalid. He is one of the BEST parts about Phase 2.
If you want to identify any worst parts, you need not look any furthur than two, and ONLY two worst parts that have unfortunately caused the P2 staff a lot of unnecessary and unwanted shit. Those worst parts being Vic Mignogna and Michele Specht being involved and later trying to take over the Phase 2 production, during the filming of Kitumba. Vic and Michele are essentially the Bonnie and Clyde of Star Trek fan filmdom who give new meaning to the words ego stroking, toxic relationships, narcicissm, lying, stealing, robbing, and thievery.
Vic and Michele are the ones who should be branded as WORSE PARTS. Right up there with Farragut Films, there meglomania, and their inability to be honest in how they deal with people.
That is objectively horrid!
Star Trek Continues and the people behind it certainly give new meaning to the old Star Trek joke about what Jim Kirk found in the porcelain commode. Loosely translated: they are the captain’s log that hadn’t been flushed.