test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Does this scare anyone else?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited April 2012 in Ten Forward
http://sciencefiction.com/2012/04/20/possibility-of-any-new-star-trek-series-on-hold-thanks-to-j-j-abrams/

I'm not one of those people who are against or like the previous Trek film. I think it's a great adventure/action movie but I don't think it captures the essence or intelligence of Trek - It was good eye candy and that's about it. I'm hoping, like the article states, that Abrams gets a new appreciation of the franchise after the last movie and HOPEFULLY brushed up on his Trek a bit.

This makes me nervous about the potential of getting Trek back on the map - This next Trek movie is going to either make or break the Trek series for good, or at least for a long while again.

I'd personally LOVE to see Bryan Singer get a shot at Trek and I think he's more suitable for the job than Abrams.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    We're in a scifi drought atm. I certainly don't want any new trek series to be torn apart by a horde of people trying to mould it to fit everything everyone could possibly want.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    no, think all 3 would be good for a reboot. fans of anything can be a bad thing...as they'll have a tendency to rehash their favorite things and not take things any further than that old beaten path. abrams would be the wild card. keeping a series as he did with the movie from being the same old same old.

    fans like living in the past too damn much, the glory days. which makes it stale for those of us who are also fans...but get tired of retreads. can't count the number of eps of voyager, tng, ds9 that were similar to each other or eps from tos. same plotlines, different names and faces. that gets old fast.

    now, those with poor memories or new to the franchise wouldn't care about rehashed plots...and it's always easier to retread a plot than develop something entirely new >.> but, they may do it they may not, they may include abrams if they do (i hope) or may not...it's all so much vapor right now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Aside from the Krik era, name one trek movie there after say ST IV that didnt lack in something...whether it be action, plot, acting.....


    Trek needs a reboot alright..something perhaps set in this time frame of the game....or after?

    JJ is a good director in his own way. His movies sell thats why he's doing it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    If a new series were to be set further in the future, then I would like to see a return to going "where no one has gone before". For example, a few decades after STO, when the whole Iconian-centric mess we are currently dealing with has died down, we could follow the adventures of the Federation's first real intergalactic expedition (perfection of Quantum Slipstream Drive could allow this, given that Voyager was apparently able to cross ten thousand light years in one day in the episode "Timeless"--a month at such speed could reach the Magellanic Clouds).

    If it's not going to be further in the future though, then I would like to see something set in the 2170-2220 era where the Federation is brand new after the Romulan War.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    ChibiClari wrote: »
    If a new series were to be set further in the future, then I would like to see a return to going "where no one has gone before". For example, a few decades after STO, when the whole Iconian-centric mess we are currently dealing with has died down, we could follow the adventures of the Federation's first real intergalactic expedition (perfection of Quantum Slipstream Drive could allow this, given that Voyager was apparently able to cross ten thousand light years in one day in the episode "Timeless"--a month at such speed could reach the Magellanic Clouds).

    I see some Enterprise-J potential there. From what little I've read about that it was designed for colonization in some way.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Aside from the Krik era, name one trek movie there after say ST IV that didnt lack in something...whether it be action, plot, acting.....


    Trek needs a reboot alright..something perhaps set in this time frame of the game....or after?

    JJ is a good director in his own way. His movies sell thats why he's doing it.

    Whilst I don't want to argue the point that he is a good director in his own way I hope to dear god that he gets over his lens flare obsession!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    reyan01 wrote:
    Whilst I don't want to argue the point that he is a good director in his own way I hope to dear god that he gets over his lens flare obsession!

    What I can't get over is... since when did every Starfleet ship come equipped with pulse (phaser) cannons? NX-01 got rid of them the first opportunity as they were terribly ineffective.

    I think... JJ just wanted the point blank range pew pew :P

    Not counting the Defiant of course.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    nynik wrote:
    We're in a scifi drought atm. I certainly don't want any new trek series to be torn apart by a horde of people trying to mould it to fit everything everyone could possibly want.

    Are you kidding have you seen the Sci-Fi films being released this year.
    New Star Trek film, Battleship, John Carter, The Avengers, Darkest Hour, Total Recall, Judge Dread, The new Alien film, the list go's on
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Personally I don't harbor any illusions that Trek will ever be Trek again. When Gene Roddenberry was alive and retained IP rights to the franchise there was a check in place against the kind of schlock that passes for Sci-Fi these days. MuftyTufty actually has a pretty good list compiled of what I'm talking about. Like the OP says, it's all eye candy. Now that Trek is corporately owned and the loving guidance of the Great Bird of the Galaxy is no longer there to keep the Paramount execs under control Trek is pretty much dead. The franchise is now controlled by the same people who wanted to "get rid of the guy with the ears".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    People keep bringing up these new Trek TV series ideas. And in each thread, I've kept posting that the JJ Abrams movie series is going to keep new TV series blocked. That's just how the business works.

    Abrams rebooted the entire franchise, setting it back to Kirk and Spock. So all these ideas that crop up with going back to the Prime Universe or whatever might appeal to folks on this forum, but do not appeal to Paramount or Abrams who are still trying to maximize their use of the IP with their films.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    ST should never be touched.

    LEave as is, just make something.... NEW...not a remake....a NEW series.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Geoff_484 wrote:
    http://sciencefiction.com/2012/04/20/possibility-of-any-new-star-trek-series-on-hold-thanks-to-j-j-abrams/

    I'm not one of those people who are against or like the previous Trek film. I think it's a great adventure/action movie but I don't think it captures the essence or intelligence of Trek - It was good eye candy and that's about it. I'm hoping, like the article states, that Abrams gets a new appreciation of the franchise after the last movie and HOPEFULLY brushed up on his Trek a bit.

    This makes me nervous about the potential of getting Trek back on the map - This next Trek movie is going to either make or break the Trek series for good, or at least for a long while again.

    I'd personally LOVE to see Bryan Singer get a shot at Trek and I think he's more suitable for the job than Abrams.

    Actually, IMO, the latest Trek movie was so full of plot holes, story weaknesses and outright nonsense (Red Matter?!... REALLY??) that if it weren't for one thing I'd never watch it again... that one thing was the cast. Granted they were recreating a chemistry that was originated by the first cast and that's easier and maybe a bit less magical than the chemistry in TOS. But it's still there. That chemistry and feeling that they all had fun with the characters. That can make up for a LOT. After all there were a number of absurd episodes in TOS, yet I find myself enjoying them over and over just for the cast.

    Like you I REALLY hope they do worlds better on the next movie. The cast has that elusive "something" down pretty good so if they can come up with a dynamite script, a bit of fine tuning on the characterizations and a renewed focus on the things that made Trek good in the first place (hint... start by looking around for a good Sci-Fi story to base the script on... preferably by an author who actually KNOWS something about real science) they'll have a world beater. If not... as you say... could end up putting Star Trek to bed for a few more years.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Singer/Fuller would be great at the helm, so to speak. Abrams would've been better suited rebooting Star Wars.

    This probably won't end well, but a new series needs new characters too, the TOS characters are, in my opinion, unbearably wooden and boring. XI has a couple of good actors in it, but poor characters with poor writers...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    muftytufty wrote:
    Are you kidding have you seen the Sci-Fi films being released this year.
    New Star Trek film, Battleship, John Carter, The Avengers, Darkest Hour, Total Recall, Judge Dread, The new Alien film, the list go's on

    So all we have to look forward to for Sci-fi is remakes, box office bombs, and comic book heroes? Great. And Battleship? I lol'd.


    It's not a lack of Sci-fi it's a lack of Space Adventure. The only show on right now that really comes close is Dr. Who, but with the death of Stargate, Battlestar's end the Syfy Channel increasingly turning towards Paranormal, and Reality television rather than Science Fiction has led to a definite drought in this area. The last thing I remember seeing that came close to this, was the Japanese Space Battleship Yamato live action, that never made it to western shores unfortunately. Where's the spaceships? Where's the Babylon 5, Andromeda, Star Trek, Farscape, Stargate, Firefly? Outside of Red Dwarf for the UK and the ever up in the air Battlestar Prequel I cannot think of any Sci-fi in this strain appearing. All we have are more Earth based Sci-fis right now like Primeval, Eureka, and Falling Skies. While yes they are Science-Fiction, they aren't the kind of science fiction that's craved really. Where are the spaceships? Where are the alien worlds? Wheres the cool technology? Where has Space-Based Science Fiction gone? Are we forever doomed to watch reruns of 90's and early 2000's shows, while J.J attempts to remake Star Trek as a Starwars, and George Lucas continues to drive the latter into the ground with children's shows?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    So all we have to look forward to for Sci-fi is remakes, box office bombs, and comic book heroes? Great. And Battleship? I lol'd.


    It's not a lack of Sci-fi it's a lack of Space Adventure. The only show on right now that really comes close is Dr. Who, but with the death of Stargate, Battlestar's end the Syfy Channel increasingly turning towards Paranormal, and Reality television rather than Science Fiction has led to a definite drought in this area. The last thing I remember seeing that came close to this, was the Japanese Space Battleship Yamato live action, that never made it to western shores unfortunately. Where's the spaceships? Where's the Babylon 5, Andromeda, Star Trek, Farscape, Stargate, Firefly? Outside of Red Dwarf for the UK and the ever up in the air Battlestar Prequel I cannot think of any Sci-fi in this strain appearing. All we have are more Earth based Sci-fis right now like Primeval, Eureka, and Falling Skies. While yes they are Science-Fiction, they aren't the kind of science fiction that's craved really. Where are the spaceships? Where are the alien worlds? Wheres the cool technology? Where has Space-Based Science Fiction gone? Are we forever doomed to watch reruns of 90's and early 2000's shows, while J.J attempts to remake Star Trek as a Starwars, and George Lucas continues to drive the latter into the ground with children's shows?

    This is kind of where I am at with it all. No one wants to build new genre "brands" right now and it hurts me on a neigh spiritual level. lol
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Sadly, if JJ doesn't understand the ethos and the essence of Star Trek I truly worry that Trek will become something of a transformers franchise only good for eye candy and no substance to it. That is what makes me afraid that artists with emotional vision are becoming a dying breed as the trend is becoming more simplistic and more lens flare. Bryan Singer would be a better fit because he understands the true core of Star Trek, as do most of us. Concept wise there is plenty to do with the old cannon and it shouldn't die because a group got over zealous with TNG and made a disastrous prequel. That is unfortunately the true problem with continuing the Prime timeline people still remember Enterprise.

    You see if you move it ahead 2 centuries after Nemesis and further away from what happened before you now have as much to play with as before and as much freedom creatively. There are things this show hasn't done before and I am sure you could do new regions of the galaxy. New Aliens, New characters, very few references to the old shows unless needed and it would be a continuation that is very much needed. As they say time heals all wounds or lets them fester. Not to mention this galaxy has billions and billions of stars in it and infinite possibilities. Rehashing could be good or bad, depending on how you went about it. Honestly think about who the series new long lasting villains should be, should there be Q, how will the Borg change?, Species 8472, will you make the Iconians a ever present villain like STO has or will you make them a dead species with technology that is dangerous. Explaining what happened to the Klingon Empire, the Romulans, the Federation, and the Dominion will they be friendly with us? Or will you make the frontier a dangerous and wild place (hence going into new areas and open up the vastness of the galaxy.)

    How will you avoid rehashing old issues. You see that is the thing. Intertextuality (nothing is ever really new just borrowed and made to look new. example of Homer's work and the Aeneid, Shakespeare's work, Dante.) Study literature and you will see that originality is just borrowing what is old and twisting it into a new form with what is going on in our time.

    I hope this will help people see a bit better on this issue.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Trek needs a reboot alright..something perhaps set in this time frame of the game....or after?

    A reboot set in the time frame of the game would be great, I think. :) This way, not only do we get to see a unique perspective of the Klingon/Federation war, but we also get to see all of the different uniforms being worn in one place. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    TOSLover wrote:
    A reboot set in the time frame of the game would be great, I think. :) This way, not only do we get to see a unique perspective of the Klingon/Federation war, but we also get to see all of the different uniforms being worn in one place. :D

    I don't think that would be a good thing. Not far enough away from the shows before. Remember the amount of time between Star Trek 6 and the pilot episode of TNG . Also remember the difference of time between Enterprise and Nemesis or TOS. We would need a show further away from Nemesis and XI (the portion from the Prime time frame.) 2409 is a good spot for the game but the game is considered "soft cannon" Another reason why it wouldn't do well as a film or series.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Honestly, I had no problem with the movie from a storyline perspective. Yes it was ANOTHER going back in time adventure kinda thing (and I hated that they destroyed Vulcan) but otherwise it was ok by me. What I really couldn't stand, absolutely HATED , if not DESPISED outright, was the ships. Those nacelles where were so stupid looking. And the overall ship looked way too pudgy. Starships should be sleek and slightly sexy/dangerous looking. Don't even get me started on the bridge layout. Talk about crowded!

    All of that being said, I'm all for a new series. Just do us (the fans) a favor and don't make it as lame as Enterprise was. And give me an awesome ship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    As much as this is about to inevitably **** off a whole lot of die hard ST fans, Star Trek is dead, not declining, not dying, not on life support, it's dead,buried and worm food. And right next to it is the open grave waiting for Space sci-fi's last nail to be put in the coffin before it goes in the ground too.

    Why bother attempting an expensive space sci-fi when they can get half a dozen reality shows for half the price. for ****s sake sci-fi channel even rebranded themselves because they "wanted to appeal to a larger audience and not just a small niche group". Add on top of all this broadcast TV's unwillingness to let a show run for the inital 3-4 seasons it needs to really set everything up and you've got what's going on right now.

    Baby Boomers were told by now we'd have flying cars, The extreme mis-management of the manned space flights, and everything else has lead to such a general disillusion with space exploration and space sci-fi that everyone is trying to hold on for dear life to the 50-90's sci-fi to milk as much from it as they can, because no one really knows where to go from here.

    If Space Sci-fi is ever going to continue or more accurately come back from the dead, it needs some type of reinvention/evolution/revolution to shake it to it's very core and remake it as something completely new. Everything is relying on everything old and done to death.

    Anything in the time period of 2000-3000 is pretty much doomed, and the reason why is a simple one brought up again and again. We have the technology sitting around collecting dust to do so much more than what we have, but typical human greed, war, and insistence on money is going to keep us stunted for a lot longer than originally thought. Therefore, it will only end up being the same thing as with the Baby Boomers and flying cars, or us 80's kids with the space shuttle and going to mars and moon bases.

    Even such a far enough out jump that it allows the imagination run wild again may not be enough to say space sci-fi, and that's just one obstacle of many.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    We have the technology sitting around collecting dust to do so much more than what we have, but typical human greed, war, and insistence on money is going to keep us stunted for a lot longer than originally thought. Therefore, it will only end up being the same thing as with the Baby Boomers and flying cars, or us 80's kids with the space shuttle and going to mars and moon bases

    Exactly my thoughts on the matter. If it werent for all those things WE would me much farther technologocally. And it seems like "The Very Rich" are winning the war. Greed is going to be the death of this nation. Hell, look it's already starting. Economic slavery has already taken place on TV what with all the reality shows we force fed. And just now I tried to let my son watch 'The amazing World of Gumbal' on Cartoon Network and you have to choose a cable provider that you use. And if you aren't using those specific corraled choices you can't watch it. I'm quite positive this monopoly will continue to other websites.

    I know alot of folks hate the 'JJ' movie but I for one loved it. Nothing was cheesy about it. If I had one complaint about it: The Corvette chase scene where young Jame T. Kirk is being chased by a cyber cop.
    That car was almost 300 years old.

    They should have just made up a car like this one: http://www.tuvie.com/wp-content/uploads/audi-avatar-car-concept3.jpg

    Then say it was a classic. Because that Vette was almost 'ancient' in thta movie.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    A space based sci-fi will always, always, get compared to Trek and Battlestar Galactica and all the rest so it would be near-impossible for a new franchise to get a fair shot, probably even harder for a spin-off. Genre television altogether is dying, there's just not enough profit. Primeval had 5 seasons after already being cancelled once, Torchwood nearly ended after CoE, both now have questionable futures. Heroes, SCC, V, all cancelled the second and latter after only 2 seasons. I count my lucky stars for Warehouse 13 and all its glory.
    Tis better to have had Trek and lost than have it turn TRIBBLE like Doctor Who. There's still novels, games and a creative and passionate (to the point of fracturing) fanbase. The spirit lives on, no franchise can boast what Trek has, though I hope Warehouse 13 will one day, okay I'm rambling now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    nrobbiec wrote:
    A space based sci-fi will always, always, get compared to Trek and Battlestar Galactica and all the rest so it would be near-impossible for a new franchise to get a fair shot, probably even harder for a spin-off. Genre television altogether is dying, there's just not enough profit. Primeval had 5 seasons after already being cancelled once, Torchwood nearly ended after CoE, both now have questionable futures. Heroes, SCC, V, all cancelled the second and latter after only 2 seasons. I count my lucky stars for Warehouse 13 and all its glory.
    Tis better to have had Trek and lost than have it turn TRIBBLE like Doctor Who. There's still novels, games and a creative and passionate (to the point of fracturing) fanbase. The spirit lives on, no franchise can boast what Trek has, though I hope Warehouse 13 will one day, okay I'm rambling now.

    Never know til you actually try, giving up doesn't help anything. Granted its hard doesn't mean its impossible doesn't mean you have to endure sitcoms, contests, and crappy reality TV. Fair point better to have Trek and what it was but that is when it is gone.

    What voices in the dark doesn't seem to get is that Star Trek isn't dead yet that is why they rebooted and think about it it was what 3-4 years after Enterprise ended. Many still remember that abysmal show. The reason is Braga ran it into the ground and did not do enough to move the franchise forward. Remember the time gap between TOS and TNG?? I wouldn't be surprised if we have to wait that long for them to realize that pandering to almost pathological simpletons. Sure, dying breed but we still have a chance to make it worth the time of people that is what it means to be an artist to make a lasting impression a permanent one. So give it a try. Work at it. Bust your rear end.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    I like Enterprise, the finale however...I can't describe that in polite company.
    Sure it's not completely impossible and a great series can be made on a smaller budget if the writing and the acting and the passion is there, but one failed investment...
    This may be an unpopular view and please don't flame me for it but when non-Trekkies think of Star Trek, a lot of them will think of TOS and from the perspective of someone born in the 90's that's bad.
    I've heard a lot of older Trek fans and TOS purists complain that there Trek was gone after like TNG. I'm 20 and I think my Trek's probably gone too. Maybe it's a downside to being so good, people get too passionate. You can't please everybody but you can disappoint them.
    I would still love to be proved wrong though.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    I think the main problem is they keep killing them before they have time to develop into a franchise. A Sci-fi show may not have the highest ratings, but if Star Trek didn't make any money at all, or didn't have any loyal fans, would it have lasted for as long as it did/has? Look at Firefly which only went a couple of seasons, but even today I can still find people to talk about it with at work. A Sci-fi isn't going to be just about the show itself its going to be about the community that a Science Fiction show can create, and that will continue to generate money for it long after the series is over. In ten years no one will even remember TRIBBLE like Kate Plus 8, but I bet you everyone will still know Star Trek, Star Wars, and to a lesser extent Galactica and Firefly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    I think the whole "Guardian of Trek" title being bestowed on Abrams, really shows how little attention these guys are paying to the fans. There's a reason we coined the phrase "JJ-verse". That's his. If there's to be a series that has a basis in the original or prime universe, that's got nothing to do with him, and I'd prefer they keep it that way. I rather liked Star Trek (XI) in it's own way, but I probably wouldn't have if that separation didn't exist and I actually had to file all the plotholes under relevant. And besides, right now, where sci-fi series are concerned, Abrams has something of a conflict of interest going because of his own show, Fringe, having to compete with any new Trek series, so it really wouldn't do to go relying on his go-ahead all too heavily.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Aside from the Krik era, name one trek movie there after say ST IV that didnt lack in something...whether it be action, plot, acting.....


    Trek needs a reboot alright..something perhaps set in this time frame of the game....or after?

    JJ is a good director in his own way. His movies sell thats why he's doing it.


    First Contact, great plot, great acting, lots of action.

    Abrahms' movie had good acting, but it did not have any stellar actors like Nimoy (apart from his brief cameo which was not that great) and Stewart.

    There was a lot of acting, but the plot made very little sense and was full of huge gaping holes.

    It was not a Star Trek movie per se, but rather J.J. Abrahms presents Star Trek.

    Do not get me wrong, it was still better than The Motion Picture or The Final Frontier.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Reave wrote: »
    I think the whole "Guardian of Trek" title being bestowed on Abrams, really shows how little attention these guys are paying to the fans. There's a reason we coined the phrase "JJ-verse". That's his. If there's to be a series that has a basis in the original or prime universe, that's got nothing to do with him, and I'd prefer they keep it that way. I rather liked Star Trek (XI) in it's own way, but I probably wouldn't have if that separation didn't exist and I actually had to file all the plotholes under relevant. And besides, right now, where sci-fi series are concerned, Abrams has something of a conflict of interest going because of his own show, Fringe, having to compete with any new Trek series, so it really wouldn't do to go relying on his go-ahead all too heavily.

    They don't care about the fans when they make movies. All they care about is filling seats.

    The fans are the ones that will buy all the schlock they license, like blu-ray remasterings and replica phasers.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    Aside from the Krik era, name one trek movie there after say ST IV that didnt lack in something...whether it be action, plot, acting.....

    In my opinion everything IN the Kirk era was severely lacking in acting, plot, action, writing and more.
    The only decent things with Kirk in them, for me, are Trials and Tribble-ations. Classic and Kirk's only in the background. And Generations, great film and kills Kirk twice as an added bonus.

    To each his own.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2012
    nrobbiec wrote:
    In my opinion everything IN the Kirk era was severely lacking in acting, plot, action, writing and more.
    The only decent things with Kirk in them, for me, are Trials and Tribble-ations. Classic and Kirk's only in the background. And Generations, great film and kills Kirk twice as an added bonus.

    To each his own.

    I extremely disagree. It had all of those things in sometimes disproportionate amounts. But the best one was Wrath of Khan hands down. To me it had the essence of star trek at its core, the same as TNG did. Generations to me could have been better had they not did anything with Kirk or let him stay in the energy ribbon. The last 2 TNG films did not have the necessary elements in them to even compute on your requirements and had a pretty bad set of acting in them as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.