Wow! After reading several perspective online, I am glade that someone understands Trek. Your statements are complete true. I think it take a special witter and director to capture someone else’s piece of work. J. J. Abrams is not the type of individual who intelligent enough to recapture everything Roddenberry. Abrams is more focused on action. “Star Trek” is no all about action, but it is about who we are as human beings. Like you said, “The future is the drivig force of humanity”. Roddenberry was all about looking forward, and how the future motivate the individual.

I personally don’t believe that “Star Trek” needs to be saved, but I do believe that it needs some rest. “Star Trek XI” is all about commercialism. People use to write for “Star Trek” because it was a honor and privilege. Now, they write for “Star Trek” because they want to make a quick buck. I call that ugly. I’m sure that money making was a focus in the past, but I don’t think it was the overall pursuit.

If you watch some of the documentaries, Roddenberry was only interested in telling and sharing his perspective on the human potential. People keep forgetting that JFK and “Star Trek” introduced the questions, “What are we? Why do we exist? What is our place in the galaxy? What if?”

When you watch the original “Star Trek” movies, you can always walk away with something new. You learn a little bit about yourself, society, and humanity as a whole.

If there is to be another “Star Trek”, they should leave the past alone. We should move forward, so that already established paradigms can be challenged.

I want to watch a new series or movie, which inspires me to look beyond my back door. “Star Trek XI”‘s premise will just not do that.

—-

On another note, do you feel like they are stuck on the time traveling concept? What the hell happened to creativity?

A very, very wise statement, MacLeod. For some time now I have been opposed to the concept that is STXI. If I only liked Star Trek, I would be excited about this new film, but having grown up watching The Next Generation and reruns of TOS as a child, I cannot deny that my feelings for Trek stem far deeper. We have watched the fall of Trek over the years. The lukewarm response given Deep Space Nine, which gave us depth to an ideal universe skipped on the edge of sensationalism and fell into the void of commericial progress in the process.

Two years ago at an anime convention (yes, I am one of the few Star Trek fans who enjoy anime) a panel reviewing the history of the Gundam franchise suggested that the goal of all subsequent Gundam series is to ultimately expose new fans to the original concepts put forth in the story first put forth in the 1970s. I find it interesting that I would see the connection even more clearly now than then when the same person suggested that Gundam is to anime as Star Trek is to science fiction.

Can we truly say that this new Star Trek film seeks to restore the faith that the Roddenberrean dream conveyed? If I could answer yes to this, then perhaps I would not be so bitter about this film, but what I and many others see is not the perpetuation of the Roddenberrean dream but the (attempt at) overwriting the history of Trek lain down over the last 40+ years. I see nothing wrong with exceeding the original vision, but not at its expense.

For a show like Star Trek, to look back means that too much time is spent turning inward rather than outward. One of the failings of Enterprise (in my perview) was that too much time was spent using humanity to push the limits of the future, rather than using the future to push the limits of humanity. Should we forget that at the heart of Trek is to ability to show that we can both grow into a greater existence while stillleaving room to grow? Vive le TNG!

One of the most important philosophy of “Star Trek’ revolves around around a dialogue in the “Star Trek: The Next Generation: episode “Neutral Zone”. At the end of the episode, Capt. Picard was asked by Commander Riker, “Are you sure we can’t take them to Earth ourselves? To be in the presence of those from the 20th century would make a good study”. Capt. Picard replied, “It would number 1, but our mission is forward.” (Excuse if the quote is not exact.) This theme is repeated throughout the “Star Trek” universe, and you can honestly understand what Roddenberry had in mind.

After saying the above: I personally don’t think any prequel movie or tv series is in the tradition of “Star Trek”. In order to continue the legacy of “Star Trek’, we must move forward and not back.

On another note, I don’t believe revisiting the past will help the franchise. Yes. I do enjoy the new CGI in the original “Star Trek”, but they are only enhancing what is already established. When you go back in time, to fill in the blanks, you have a high possibility in rewriting history. trekkers or Trekkies will be pissed.

After revisiting “Star Trek: the Next Generation” season one, I can honestly say that the franchise is in a long hiatus. Until someone else comes up with third generation of “Star Trek”, I don’t think Parmount will recover.

Money is their goal, but money is not Star Trek’s goal.