FY STAR TREK

comma-butt asked: As a long-long trekkie, I naturally want the person in charge of the franchise to be as devoted as I am, so I'm not happy the franchise is in Abrams' hands. However, nobody is really acknowledging the 2nd part of what he said: "Some of the writers loved Star Trek ... So when we were all happy, it felt like that was the way to go." I understand the need for change. I still don't like it, but at least Abrams *is* trying. I want it to just be for us, but maybe that makes me a greedy fan.

Anonymous asked: Regarding "Star Trek is over": Its legacy, its shows and movies, will always be there, absolutely, and I will always love all of it, but if there was ever a new TV show it wouldn't, couldn't be like the shows that came before, because TV has changed so much, and the idea of Star Trek has changed because of the new movies and a whole new generation that has no idea what came before. The glory days when for almost twenty years there was always one or the other Star Trek show on TV are sadly over.

I guess I’ll have to hold on hoping that HBO buys the rights. Lol

Anonymous asked: I don't quite understand why Abram's movies were explicitly written to appeal to non-Trekkies as well and thereby betrayed a lot of what Star Trek used to be, because the Star Trek fanbase is really big enough to make sure that they would have gotten their money's worth in any case. Honestly, I feel like Star Trek is over anyway, because the way it used to be it doesn't fit in with this day and age's idea of entertainment.

Is Star Trek over? I’d have to disagree with that. I have to believe what we are doing here is exactly why it won’t be.

confoundedinkentucky asked: I don't think Abrams' Star Trek "left behind" Rodenberry's vision at all. There are fantastic humanist themes in the 2009 reboot, from Spock's heritage conflict to Kirk overcoming the absence of a father (not to mention the circumstances of his father's death coming back to haunt him later). What friendship means in the context of being a leader and the captain of a starship. The eternal optimism of GR's Star Trek hasn't been present since Berman became a big presence in the TV series.

Anonymous asked: Honestly, even where they diverged from Gene's vision it's because he was devoted to optimism. You still have underlying philosophical, ethical, and moral questions in a lot of the later series. I think that J.J. Abrams hasn't diverged from that vision, he's left it behind. The last movie was and this next is promising to be just so much action dressed up in Star Trek drag.

Thanks Anon!

Another good argument from a different pov! 

We have ourselves a discussion. 

Anonymous asked: I think Trekkies are overreacting to what Abrams said. The indignation over the fact that he did not like Star Trek growing up is silly, IMO. It's not as if he himself is in sole creative control over the movies - he said in the interview that others on the production/writing teams were Star Trek fans and that they worked together to come to a point where the movies held true enough to the "principles" of the Star Trek franchise, but also appealed to non-Trekkies. (continued in another ask)

Continued:

People have to consider that the movies have never really done a GREAT job at holding to Rodenberry’s vision. In fact, later on in TNG as well as DS9, VOY, and ENT diverged from GR’s original vision for the franchise. The movies have almost always been more action-oriented than the TV shows. GR didn’t like many of them, as a matter of fact. Bringing Star Trek to a wider audience is fantastic, IMO. I think the first was well-balanced between appealing to general audience vs Trekkies. (fin)

Thank you Anon! Very good points!