Should we let Star Trek rest in peace?

[Sionnach Glic]

Well, the subject came up recently in another thread, so I thought I'd dedicate a thread to it. Should we simply let Trek finaly die, and content ourselves in the knowledge that it had it's time, and that time is long since passed? Or should we continue to let new series be made, and watch it sink to new depths of crap?

[Mikey]

I will always be in the audience for anything new in the way of 'Trek, but I think it's time for a breather - to step back, evaluate the personnel situation, and wait for the right time (in RL and in-universe) in which a new franchise would fit. ENT, for example, felt like it was forced into the time frame, and IMHO suffered for it.

[Captain Seafort]

While I believe that Enterprise was cancelled just as it was about to turn a corner, overall the saga is suffering from overexposure. Give it a decade or so and a new team with new ideas may be able to revive it, but until then it needs a breather.

[Enkidu]

Enterprise was a case of "could have, not should have" - They didn't really have stories that really needed telling, they where churning them out for money. I think that Nemesis and Insurrection, and to a lesser extent Voyager also fall into this category.
However, I have a certain amount of faith in J. J. Abrams and his sidekicks, enough to counteract my natural pessimism. I think this new film has a fighting chance of been worthwhile.

[Captain Seafort]

Enterprise was a case of "could have, not should have" - They didn't really have stories that really needed telling, they where churning them out for money.

The fundamental idea behind Enterprise - showing the origins of the Federation - was sound, and had promise as Manny Coto showed, particularly in the Romulan Drone arc. It was the abysmal execution in the first two seasons that was the problem.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Enterprise was a case of "could have, not should have" - They didn't really have stories that really needed telling, they where churning them out for money.

The fundamental idea behind Enterprise - showing the origins of the Federation - was sound, and had promise as Manny Coto showed, particularly in the Romulan Drone arc. It was the abysmal execution in the first two seasons that was the problem.

Got to agree on that. The pilot wasn't even that good. And if you don't have a good pilot, more often then not the series will die quickly. I think only reason why Enterprise lasted as long as it did was because it was a Star Trek series. If they started with season 4 quality stuff in the first season it could have gone the traditional 7 seasons, maybe longer.

[Aaron]

Got to agree on that. The pilot wasn't even that good. And if you don't have a good pilot, more often then not the series will die quickly. I think only reason why Enterprise lasted as long as it did was because it was a Star Trek series. If they started with season 4 quality stuff in the first season it could have gone the traditional 7 seasons, maybe longer.

That is exactly the reason, it was Trek. Look at SAAB and Firefly, both way better than the Trek on at the time and they didn't make it past one season. TNG never would have either if it wasn't Trek.

[Mikey]

Got to agree on that. The pilot wasn't even that good. And if you don't have a good pilot, more often then not the series will die quickly. I think only reason why Enterprise lasted as long as it did was because it was a Star Trek series. If they started with season 4 quality stuff in the first season it could have gone the traditional 7 seasons, maybe longer.

That is exactly the reason, it was Trek. Look at SAAB and Firefly, both way better than the Trek on at the time and they didn't make it past one season. TNG never would have either if it wasn't Trek.

While the premise for ENT was sound, the show is a serial - I still maintain that one of the problems was trying to force things into a particular time frame.

And SAAB - isn't that a Swedish auto and aircraft manufacturer?

[Aaron]

Whoops, should be S:AAB (Space Above and Beyond).

ENT is a prime example of good plan, poor execution.

[Mikey]

Whoops, should be S:AAB (Space Above and Beyond).

ENT is a prime example of good plan, poor execution.

I was kidding about Saabs - but they are good cars.

And you are dead on about ENT, but I would even call it "good ide, but failure to plan enough."

[Aaron]

I was kidding about Saabs - but they are good cars.

So I hear, have to rob a bank to afford one though.

And you are dead on about ENT, but I would even call it "good ide, but failure to plan enough."

That's basically the same thing. Looking back it's almost like they planned to fail. They didn't even know who future guy was.

[Captain Picard's Hair]

If they do continue Trek, they need someone at the helm that will dedicate himself to upholding Trek standards and quality. Ultimately, the enormous financial success Trek has been for Paramount may have been one it it's undoings. Paramount is chiefly concerned with squeezing as much money out of Trek as it can.

[Mikey]

You're absolutely correct, of course, CPH - but I still think that would require a bit of a cooling off period of retrospection.

[KuvahMagh]

I support an end to the flogging in so much as it would give them the needed time off. Its unfortunate but inevitable.

As for this new movie... recasting Kirk, Spock, McCoy et al, is possibly the worst idea I have EVER heard of. I honestly don't see how people can be behind this idea, regardless of what they come out with I would still rather watch TMP and TFF in an endless causality loop until the end of time than even consider for a moment watching such a blatant attempt at ringing money from the series by destroying those who made it in the first place.

[Mikey]

I agree, although perhaps not so vehemently. I believe that it is possible to do this concept right - just VERY improbable.