ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Entertainment and Media»
  • Television & TV Shows»
  • TV Shows

Star Trek: How a Universe was Destroyed

Updated on October 3, 2015
Gene Roddenberry -- Visionary
Gene Roddenberry -- Visionary | Source
Year
Series / Movie
1966 - 1969
Original Series
1973 - 1974
Animated Series
1979
Motion Picture
1982
Wrath of Khan
1984
Search for Spock
1986
Voyage Home
1987 - 1994
Next Generation
1989
Final Frontier
1991
Undiscovered Country
1993 - 1999
Deep Space Nine
1994
Generations
1995 - 2001
Voyager
1996
First Contact
1998
Insurrection
2001 - 2005
Enterprise
2002
Nemesis
2009
Star Trek (reboot)
2013
Into Darkness

A Brief History of Time

Thursday September 8, 1966. This is the day that the first episode of Star Trek ("Where no Man Has Gone Before") aired. This was not the birth of Star Trek, obviously. As early as 1964, Gene Roddenberry was drafting proposals for his "Wagon Train to the Stars" sci-fi universe{1}. Star Trek has a stilted beginning. Its ratings were initially high, but dropped significantly by the end of the first season. The network (NBC) announced it was going to cancel the show after the second season. But an unusual event took place: a woman by the name of Bjo Trimble organized a letter writing campaign which caused the network to pause and rethink this choice. Star Trek endured for another season{2}.

But it seems that the powers that be have been trying to kill Star Trek from its inception. When NBC was 'forced' to keep Star Trek on the air after its second season, they moved it to a non-prime time slot known as the "Friday Night Death Slot"{3} -- this angered Roddenberry enough that he stopped being its producer; a man named Fred Freiberger was producer for Star Trek's third and final season. Even the fans could not keep NBC from killing it after the third season.

Paramount Studios purchased the broadcast syndication rights for Star Trek. Throughout the early 1970s, Star Trek fame and popularity grew. A short-lived (let's be honest here — badly produced) animated series would run for two seasons in 1973 and 1974{4}. Five years later, the feature film series would begin: a total of six films with the original cast would be created. Four other films would feature the cast of The Next Generation; two more set in the original series time frame with a new cast.

All told, Star Trek had six television series; these would run for a combined 28 years{5}. Twelve feature films have been made, the most recent of which was last year. Other products include novels, comic books, magazines, computer games, role-playing games, and board games. All forms of media have been borne of this franchise. Star Trek is, without a doubt, one of the most enduring (and beloved) science fiction universes of all time.

Despite all of this, I can tell you that the Star Trek Universe has been systematically destroyed.

What Happened?

If you are a fan of Star Trek and have read anything about its history, then I do not need to tell you anything else about the earliest years with NBC. For those of you that have not read of such things, let me simply tell you that from the outset Star Trek was seen as an intrusion into the network's line-up.

  • They wanted to remove the character of Spock because he was an alien who looked too alien{6}.
  • They put Star Trek into time slots actively attempting to kill the show. Twice{7}.
  • They cut the per-episode budget each season{8}.
  • A proposed follow-on series called Phase II was planned but cancelled in mid development{9}.
  • After the box-office successes of Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind the Phase II material was re-worked into Star Trek: The Motion Picture{10}.

It is at this point that we see a glimmer of hope for Star Trek. Paramount considered The Motion Picture to be a failure, but saw it do well enough that it could be worked into a successful feature franchise. With the release of The Wrath of Khan, it was as if the executives at Paramount and its affiliates has said a collective "we are sorry" for all they had done to the property. The idea of future films, future television series... all of this bloomed with the joy of possibility. But with the release of Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, we got our first glimpse of betrayal.

And the one that would betray us? Leonard Nimoy.

Leonard Nimoy -- He Shot First
Leonard Nimoy -- He Shot First | Source

The Romulan Star Empire

It is with a sad heart and a heavy soul that I have to call out one of my favorite actors as the first villain of Star Trek's demise. I would have not known the full extent of his betrayal had it not been for a book he wrote: I Am Spock{11}.

Back a long time ago, Leonard Nimoy wrote a book called I Am Not Spock{12}. In this book, he discusses many aspects of playing an iconic character on television, what it was to attempt to have an acting career post Star Trek, and so on. He spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader (or perhaps himself) he and Spock are not the same person. Sure. I get it. Spock is fictional; Leonard Nimoy is real.

In the book I Am Spock, Mr. Nimoy has aged, wizened, and mellowed a bit. He realizes that separating him from Spock is a fruitless endeavor. People see him and they immediately want to hold up their hand, fingers separated, and say "live long and prosper." We all know that many of the things we remember most about Spock are things he created, such as the Vulcan nerve pinch. He realizes that the history of the series will connect him to Spock and the series forever. We love Star Trek; we love Spock. He is Spock.

Star Trek is far more that Spock, however. Star Trek is also the USS ENTERPRISE; it is also James Kirk, Leonard 'Bones' McCoy, Nyota Uhura, Hikaru Sulu, Montgomery 'Scotty' Scott, Pavel Chekov, Christine Chapel, Janice Rand... and many others. Star Trek is also the United Federation of Planets, The Klingon Empire, The Romulan Star Empire, The Tholian Hegmony, The Gorn Holdings, and more. Each of the items listed has a history. Each element of Star Trek has depth and reason. Each element, like Spock, is beloved and should be honored.

The original script for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock has a scene where the Klingon villains steal a Romulan Bird of Prey in order to acquire a ship with a cloaking device so they can carry out their stealth mission. Leonard Nimoy — according to his book I Am Spock — made an executive decision: remove the scene, assume that the Klingons already have cloaking technology, and pretend that the ship is Klingon is design. This set the stage to destroy everything about the Romulans that made them unique and distinctive.

The Klingons, as depicted prior to this movie:

  • They are a proud warrior race
  • They believe in victory through strength
  • They are direct and calculating
  • Ships of the Klingon Empire have a distinctive look

The Romulans, as depicted prior to this movie:

  • They are a secretive, enigmatic race
  • They believe in honor and sacrifice
  • They are subtle and use subterfuge
  • Ships of the Romulan Star Empire have a distinctive look

Once this film came out, the Romulan Star Empire stopped having a distinctive identity. Everything that made Klingon who they were remained Klingon in nature. Everything that made Romulans who they were became Klingon in nature.

Like some kind of Borg Collective, this set the stage for everything written about the Klingons after.

  • Need a brutish warrior? Get a Klingon.
  • Need an honorable warrior? Get a Klingon.
  • Need a brutish looking warship? Get a Klingon.
  • Need a stealthy-cloaked ship? Get a Klingon.

Romulans were all but written out of Star Trek canon and remained absent in The Next Generation for its first season. They showed up in the last episode in a plot that can be summarized as "just letting you know we still exist."

One small choice, and the Romulans were destroyed.

The series has tried to revamp them a few times. The Next Generation had several story lines where it looked like a Romulan character might get some repeat screen time. The most impressive was the daughter of Tasha Yar. But then they would just flush this potential away without explanation.

Deep Space Nine used them. Voyager did to. The first movie in the reboot uses them and missed the point of the Romulan Empire. I mean: completely missed the point. Every time they show up, it feels like they are tacked on with all the enthusiasm of receiving yet another tie for Father's Day. The one thing that was done correctly was the newer designs of Romulan ships. The D'deridex class is absolutely gorgeous.

But as I said above: there is depth in every element of Star Trek. A cool ship is not enough to make the Romulans. It was enough, however, to initialize the series of events that would lead to their destruction.

What Leonard Nimoy did was an accident, however. He was trying to make a good movie and made an executive decision that had consequences he was likely unaware of. What Richard Keith Berman did, however, is unforgivable.

Richard Kieth Berman -- Systematic Destruction
Richard Kieth Berman -- Systematic Destruction | Source

No Experience Necessary

Rick Berman was selected by Gene Roddenberry to help create Star Trek: The Next Generation. Once Roddenberry's health prevented him from having much to do with Star Trek's production, Rick Berman took over as the executive producer. Anything and everything that happened in the universe that is Star Trek from 1987 to the reboot by J. J. Abrams has Rick Berman's fingerprints all over it. He is credited with co-creating Deep Space Nine, Voyager, and Enterprise. He was the lead producer and has story credit on Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis.

Throughout his run, Rick Berman was the man primarily responsible for Star Trek ceasing to be bold, or original (see: Oliver Glen's review of Nemesis). He was notorious for hiring writers and directors who would brag that they had never watched Star Trek.

Let me say that again: Richard Keith Berman, executive producer of Star Trek, regularly hired writers and directors who would publicly brag that they had never watched a single episode of Star Trek.

These authors would do interviews where they would state that, because they had never watched Star Trek, they were not biased and would not be drawn into its history. Imagine this scenario: Disney announces the new Star Wars movie and notes in its press release that the author has never watched Star Wars in any form. How do you think the fans would react? Can you feel the love that would emanate from the adoring fan-base? Neither can I. With writers that do not have a vested interest in the history of the Star Trek universe, the domino that was tipped over by Leonard Nimoy was able to cascade through the Star Trek universe slowly dismantling it piece by piece.

Do I think Rick Berman is a bad man who tried to kill Star Trek? No. I think Rick Berman did his best. I just think that he lacked a fundamental understanding of the Star Trek Universe. Feel free to tell me I am off my rocker here. I mean, this guy was at the center of the storm that is Star Trek and had a view of the universe I can only dream about. Who am I, you might ask, to say he had a lack of understanding? I am a fan. I am nobody. But I have a vested interest in Star Trek and best I can tell, this man spent many years taking a beautifully unique look at the future and turning into something that can only be described as generic.

When the franchise was to be rebooted, I was happy. Until I saw what J. J. Abrams did.

J. J. Abrams -- Sealer of Fates
J. J. Abrams -- Sealer of Fates | Source

Lens Flare

Star Trek is to be rebooted.

I got this news and was happy.

Star Trek's first film will be the story of James Tiberius Kirk's rise to Starship Captain.

I got this news and was thrilled.

Star Trek's first film will include a villain from the Romulan Star Empire.

You might imagine that when I got the news of this I would be happy. Read the entry above on what Leonard Nimoy did to Star Trek. If you cannot tell from this writing that I am — was, and will every be — a fan of the original Romulan Star Empire, then you are not paying attention.

I was not happy; I was confused. You see, as a fan of Star Trek, I knew that the Romulan Star Empire had been in a war with the Federation a long time before Kirk had joined Star Fleet. As a result of that war, the Neutral Zone had been created. It was not until a year or so into Kirk's five-year mission with the Enterprise that anyone would come into contact with another Romulan. So the series, it would seem, would divert almost immediately from the origin story of the original crew.

But how far does this reboot go? The series Enterprise played fast and loose with the time line of Star Trek canon and not in a good way. Would this film be doing the same sort of bizarre historical retcon job Enterprise did? I did not know. But it was new. It was Trek. I decided this was not necessarily bad. This could be a good thing. I can roll with this. Moving on.

Star Trek's first film will include Leonard Nimoy as Spock.

What the...?! OK. I was skeptical. But I wanted to give the film a shot. The film comes. I watch it. I was entertained, but was left feeling like this was a Star Trek parody, not a Star Trek reboot. For example:

Galaxy Quest

In 1999, a film called Galaxy Quest was released. This Star Trek parody went beyond being just a parody of the show and movies, to being a parody of the cast of Star Trek and a few other classic sci-fi shows.

  • Tim Allen's Jason Nesmith character is spot on William Shatner minus the ability to make fun of himself.
  • Alan Rickman's Alexander Dane character is spot on Leonard Nimoy minus the follow-up career.
  • Sigourney Weaver's Gwen DeMarco character is an amalgam of Nichelle Nichols and a host of female actresses throughout the male-dominated sci-fi industry of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Consider Zienia Merton and Catherine Schell of Space 1999; June Lockhart of Lost in Space; or Yvette Mimieux of The Black Hole.
  • and so on...

In this film, there is an iconic scene where the actors have to navigate through a portion of the ship that has a series of deadly crusher-like obstacles that seem to serve no purpose other than to be a series of deadly crusher-like obstacles. Gwen DeMarco notes that there is no reason for these things to exist; the episode in which they were introduced was a stupid episode.

Water Trap

In Star Trek's reboot, we get a scene where Kirk and Scotty somehow beam themselves from a planet onto the Enterprise while it is moving away from them at Warp 3 (please read this article to see why this was a dumb thing to write into the film). They arrive on the ship in a space that serves no purpose other than to be an homage to the parody described above.

Kirk arrives in this odd space aboard the ship; he is alright but he cannot find Scotty. Scotty it seems has been transported into a large water tube within that space that wraps around the area aimlessly threatening to drown him until Kirk finds a valve that (for some reason) release a few thousand gallons of water onto the deck...

No matter how many times I go over this paragraph, I cannot truly describe just how stupid this scene is. It serves no plot purpose. It has, in fact, less impact on the story being told in Star Trek than the crusher-thingies had in Galaxy Quest. And that is saying something.

This is one example of how the movie failed to capture the feel of Roddenberry's dream. But this is not all. Old Spock as a recurring character handing over important future information to young Spock; the fact that it would appear Kirk, McCoy, Sulu, and Chekov all joined Star Fleet at about the same time. The story has to be a multiple-time-travel arc in which a strangely heavily-armed Romulan mining ship from the far future comes back to the age of Kirk to outgun Federation warships. The entire plot rests on the idea that everyone at every level of Star Fleet is a moron.

This assumption carried over into the second film... and with it, let us hope this reboot stops.

Any more Star Trek films in this vein would be criminal.

Agree? Disagree?

Is Star Trek dead?

See results

Dead?

Yes. The Star Trek franchise is dead. May it rest in peace.

As far as I can tell, it was pushed by Leonard Nimoy; it was fatally wounded by Rick Berman; it was slain by J. J. Abrams.

I figure the franchise should remain in its grave for at least a decade. In the mean time, limit the output of the franchise to books and comics; games and the like. Perhaps after a sufficient grieving period, someone who can treat this franchise with the respect it has earned and deserves can step up to the plate.

Until then, I have Star Fleet Battles, the various Star Trek Role Playing Games, and a lifetime of memories.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Leland Frame 16 months ago

      As far as I'm concerned, the Paramount Star Trek movie franchise is DEAD! Completely destroyed by Abrams!

      HOWEVER...

      STAR TREK itself is very much alive in the hearts and minds of its true fans--especially those like me who lived through the dark days of the 70's when all we had was the Animated Series (which was NOT that bad!), the Gold Key Comic Book series, fan fiction and a few books.

      Today, we are fortunate enough that many people have the means to produce their own episodes--especially STAR TREK CONTINUES, STAR TREK PHASE II, and--unless CBS/Paramount wins their vindictive lawsuit-- AXANAR. These series and films are the 21st century's version of the Fan Fiction that was being sold at 70's conventions and published in fan magazines back then.

      A popular phase during the 70's was "STAR TREK Lives!" that is still true today.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 20 months ago from Australia

      Lee

      I totally agree. The magic was lost after the early TV series. It parallels the odd injection of sentimality into Spock (often at Nimoy's request in the movie versions).

      The TV series needs to be digitally resurrected exactly as it was.

    • profile image

      Lee 20 months ago

      My main feeling about Star Trek The Original Series was that in general, and overall, it had 'magic,' a really compelling inner reality - a fusion of all kinds of elements which transported it way beyond the sum of its parts. At its best, and often, it was essentially noble, expansive and inspiring. I felt that all subsequent versions of Trek, lacked that magical and uplifting quality, the sense of something important being put across. It entirely lost the unifying vision that had made it great.

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 23 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Agreed. I can still sit and watch the scene where Scotty and Kirk fly around the Enterprise before going onboard over and over on a loop. I love that scene.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 23 months ago

      Thank youKDLadage, I wasn't thinking. The first Star Trek movie (TMP) may have been viewed more favorably had it come out earlier. Post Star Wars space movies needed more action.

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 23 months ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Lt. Arex wrote:

      1. (letter-writing campaign secretly funded by Roddenberry)

      This is the first I have ever heard of this. Do you have any sources?

      2. (emphasis on Roddenberry "visionary" myths)

      I am sure many people can be said to have had major influence over the final product. But in the end, there is one person who ysays yea-nay. It is not my intent to minimize their contributions.

      3. (Spock looking much like the Devil)

      Understood, and I am aware of this. Just still seems silly to me that this would be an issue. I mean, Santa's elves are often shown looking very Vulcan...

      4. (Rick Berman chosen by Paramount)

      I have heard things like this before; nothing substantiated. If you can point me to some sources, I am more than willing to update the article.

      5. (Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett)

      True, but (from what I have read), they -- or at least Nick Meyer -- spent a great deal of time watching the original series before penning the script. They decided to learn first, write second.

      6. (I kinda agree with you)

      Thanks. And I agree with your assessment of the writers.

      6.b (Roddenberry insisted TNG distance itself from TOS)

      This is, again, the first I am hearing this. Sources?

      As I said, I will update this article as needed -- as I learn new things.

      7. (generic)

      Thanks for the comments. Please let me know if you can dig up sources; I want this article to be as accurate as it can be for an opinion piece.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 23 months ago

      Thank you for the information Lt. Arex. What does TMP stand for?

    • profile image

      Lt. Arex 23 months ago

      Nice article, however I have some points to raise.

      1. The letter-writing campaign was secretly funded by Gene Roddenberry.

      2. You put too much emphasis on Roddenberry with the usual "visionary" myths around him. Roddenberry was certainly the driving creative force behind the inception of Star Trek, but in fact, the Original Series became the legendary show it is because of the work of some other truly talented people, especially the late great Gene Coon, who never receives the credit he is due to.

      3. NBC wanted to get rid of Spock because they thought he is looking much like the Devil, and this would upset the viewers in the Bible Belt. However, after the 4th episode aired (The Naked Time), Spock reached an unexpected popularity among viewers, and they suddenly forget the Bible Belt, and pushed on having Spock more in the center of the episodes.

      4. Rick Berman was not chosen by Roddenberry, he was chosen by Paramount to put on Gene's neck, whom they never trusted. They selected Berman to be the "studio watchdog", to make sure nothing sort of happens like the disastrous production of TMP.

      5. Nick Meyer and Harve Bennett haven't seen any Star Trek either before they got the job of producing, writing and directing The Wrath of Khan.

      6. However, I kinda agree with you. The best writer on TNG turned out to be young Ron Moore, who was a huge fan of the Original Series. The rest, like Brannon Braga never actually watched it (which can explain the huge errors in the Voyager episode Flashback). But this goes back way before Berman. It was actually Roddenberry, who - at the beginning of TNG - insisted that the series should distance itself from TOS as much as possible. It was a guideline for writers not to reference the Original Series, which, under the reign of Berman and Michael Piller became something of a golden rule. The less the writer knew about TOS the more likely the chance that he/she won't be going into the direction of "wow, this is Star Trek, let's pay a tribute to Kirk and Spock and the old glory days". In fact, Moore had a hard time of negotiating with the producers before he was able to write Relics, which featured a member of the TOS cast and a lot of references to the series.

      7. "this man spent many years taking a beautifully unique look at the future and turning into something that can only be described as generic" Agreed, And I think this was Berman's major crime against Star Trek. Simply, he was not a good producer and he was an awful writer. Berman's philosophy was never to take risks, never to venture into new territories, never to do something which could potentially shake up the still waters of the franchise. He was keen on following the same generic formula over and over again, which made two shows with great potential (Voyager and Enterprise) to become dull rehashes of TNG. I insist that DS9 was the best Star Trek spin-off because it had a minimal input by Berman. Its writers dared to go where Berman would've never allowed them if he were in charge. It's a recorded fact that Berman wanted the Dominion to simply exist for a two-parter (The Search), and then never to be heard from again.

    • Oztinato profile image

      Oztinato 23 months ago from Australia

      The more they made Spock into a wimpy sentimenal character the more the soul of star trek was dimmed. Eventually Spock became a romantic leading ladies man ! How sad. My hope is to digitally resurrect all the original characters in the original one hour format. Will you join me?

    • profile image

      Ahsen 23 months ago

      not mentioning Ronald D Moore as well with such episodes like

      A measure of a man. Rick Berman and co never saved Trek. They are the ones that started the decline that lead to JJ. Saying that he saved it s no different to JJs fan that say the same about JJ Abrams.

      TGN was blatantly racist, making other race inferiors Klingons Thugs childish dumb, Ferengies, money grabbing opportunist, Romulan untrustworthy , Bajorians backward religious zealots, Vulacns arrogant uncaring, Cardassian backstabbers whilst humans mostly European in the show is shown to be intelligent, caring strong, the good guys. Its like each of the characters are flawless especially the European actors. SO much for whitewashing in JJ.

      white khan in JJ may be controversial to some but then ...what do you know about MY CULTURE PEOPLE AND THAT REGION WHEN I 'M FROM IT . Disputing it that white khan s wrong just shows how little you know about the place i'm from. Benedict Khan was not white washed at any stretch of the imaginations. Whats wrong with white khan

      1) there are white Indians/Pakistanis/afganis/bangledeshi

      2) its set in a different universe as stated with JJ ** ?????

      Yes question mark JJ keeps changing his stance on if its same universe or different universe.

      Thats why when Ronald D Moore did DS9 it was a lot better.a glimpse that this what trek could have been. you didn't have the rubbish done in TNG and JJ trek All the charterer had flaw even Sisko all the race including humans had flaw and I loved it. It made it more related which TNG was distancing itself it goes show that Berman and Bragna didn't know what they were doing .

      Moore trek had intelligence and kt flowed much better than JJ version rubbish

      Bottom line is you needed some one who knew trek its strong points the ones that made trek great and and its weak ones, the ones that bring down unrelated, rehashed, continual error which must be rooted out . You also needed to think outside of the box because thats what trek is, thats where new ideas come from not :

      "oooo let put Spock in "

      "lets have the borg to increase our profits"

      Time, dedication, thoughtfulness is what going to bring trek back not rehash and fans being OTT picky and accepting anything for the cheap.

    • profile image

      Connie Barnard 23 months ago

      I have been a Trek fan for as long as I can rememer. I love all incarnations of the story and as fangirl as this may sound, I love that between the books, comics, tv shows, movies, and online game I can be part of that world as often as I want. In regards to JJ's reboot I want to point out that in documentary entitled Trek Nation Gene's son who sets out to understand his fathers legacy, shows JJ Abrams a clip of Mr Roddenberry from 1986. In the video Gene states "it would please me for Star Trek to come back years in the future and to have bright young people and new stars that would make it something and have people say thats better than Roddenbery's". Now I am not saying JJ's version is better, what I AM saying is Gene Roddenberry had a great desire for the story to continue and evolve. Abrams was never going to be "like the original" because he is not Gene. The truth is no one's story or characters will ever be exactly like the originals because todays creators are different people with different visions of how they want to tell their audience about the world of Star Trek. I think as a community, we need to just be grateful for the many stories we have been able to be apart of because of the incredible talent of so many men and women over the last 49 years.

    • profile image

      qurgh 23 months ago

      Star Trek is only dead when we, the fans, allow it to die. Star Trek is alive and well in my world, but then I spent a lot of my free time speaking Klingon, playing Star Trek Online, watching Trek, and hanging out with people in Star Trek uniforms. Qapla'! :D

    • profile image

      jason casebolt 23 months ago

      I blame paramount,..they always treated star trek like a bastard child that might make them a few dollars,..they don't love it,but it's there. Even if we were to wait 10 years,the star trek we all love is dead....rest in peace

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 2 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      I do not think I am being closed minded. But that is a matter of debate, I suppose. :)

    • profile image

      Peter 2 years ago

      This was an interesting article to read. However I disagree with most of what you're saying. You make the assumption that Star Trek is all about the original series and everything that came after it needs to follow what that series set out to be/do, and if it doesn't then it's a failure.

      I am a massive Star Trek fan. I attend conventions, have met cast members (Including Leonard Nimoy) and have watched every episode many times, but The Original Series has always been my least favorite. My favorite era is TNG/DS9/VOY and that's what I initially see in my mind when I think about the Star Trek universe. So to me, the Romulans were always the way they are, and whist they may have been a more unique race the way they were originally intended, that doesn't mean they are somehow incorrect or ruined. That's not how creative media works. All that matters is what was actually shown in the finished creation, how things were originally planned is pretty irreverent. I still found all the scenes with Romulans in during the TNG era, very interesting to watch.

      Most die hard trek fans seem to hate the reboot but I don't. If you look at it from the perspective of it being a modern version of ST:TOS then it doesn't live up to nostalgic expectations, but if you see it as a new interpretation/take/perception/arc (can't find the right word lol) then it was a very good movie, worthy of praise.

      Take a comic book character like Batman. You will find many many universes/interpretations of that characters story. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy is very different to the Arkham game series for example.

      With Star Trek there are 4 main universes/interpretations of "Trek":

      1) Enterprise

      2) The Original Series

      3) TNG/DS9/VOY (With a few inconsistencies between them)

      4) J. J. Abrams Reboot

      Whilst the different timelines may encourage you to see these as 1 continuous story, it's best that you don't. You'll enjoy it so much more once you don't.

      I know what you're going to ask.. why was Leonard Nimoy's Spock in the reboot if they are to be seen as separate entities??.. Fan Service! I loved seeing Spock in cinema, as did every other fan I've talked to, so no complaints there.

      If a new Star Trek TV show was to be announced today, I don't think it would follow on with any of the above 4 universes. It would most like become the 5th. The biggest issue with this isn't the acting, the writing, the cinematography or any of the things that should matter when analyzing if the new show is any good. It's the "Fans".

      The biggest problem to any continuation of Trek is the people who are supposed to love it the most. If a new show didn't somehow perfectly align with all 4 universes the fans would riot. It's a great shame because at this point it's literally impossible to write a series that fits into the 4 universes in a way that wouldn't confuse everyone. Not to mention a new show should be looking to bring in a new younger audience, not just existing fans, in order to keep rating up and that's not possible unless you start again from scratch.

      So you are right, Star Trek is pretty much dead. I just wish I could go up to all the so called fans who see the universe in their closed minded way and give them a shake... because they are ruining it for everyone.

    • Robert Sacchi profile image

      Robert Sacchi 2 years ago

      An interesting article. I'm glad someone seems to agree with me about the reboot. A genre such as Star Trek that had a large following of loyal fans doesn't need to deviate from the genre's history. The reboot seemed to say, all you loyal fans out there, forget what you learned.

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 3 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Bill, I did not attempt to pass myself off as an expert on Star Trek history. All I did was to write an article explaining how *I* feel about something *I* care about.

      The various articles I read to gather my facts did not make the gender of Bjo Trimble evident, and so I apologize for the error in my article. This has been corrected.

      Other than this, how did you like what I wrote?

    • profile image

      Bill 3 years ago

      If you're going to pass yourself off as an expert on Star Trek history, perhaps you should know that Bjo Trimble is, in fact, a woman.

    • profile image

      Justin horton 3 years ago

      I agree that the Romulans were robbed of a complex and unique identity, but this was somewhat restored in episodes like Unification and Inter Arma, with that said the majority of development those characters got were always in EU material that allowed us an unfiltered look at the alien cultures.

      With that said i think you're being too hard on Berman and a lot of good things came out of that era, TNG picked itself up in the third season with great eps like the Defector and DS9 really did a lot to flesh out the universe in a consistent way not seen in any other series.

      That said, a lot of hate should go towards ass clowns like Bob Orci

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 3 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      The Romulans? Who cares?

      Obviously, I do. :)

    • profile image

      DillyBear 3 years ago

      Nice points but I have to disagree with you somewhat.

      1) The Romulans? Who cares. Trek is not and never were dependent on one villain to gauge the Federation against. TNG brought us the Borg, DS9: The Cardassians and the Dominion, Voyager: the Undine (Species 8472) and the Hirogen. They were able to develop new antagonists that fit the Universe just fine. They were also developed just fine as being more three-dimensional as well.

      2) Well Berman just didn't come in because of Gene's health. Gene was essentially fired by Paramount after season one of TNG due to a revolt in the writer's room and a lesser extent by the production unit. The production of the series was suspended briefly after the 13th episode where Paramount almost pulled the plug completely on TNG after they were unimpressed with the finished product at that point. Most of the people that Roddenberry had brought in with him left the series at that point. A truce was declared that allowed the season to be finished. At the end Gene found he could not push around the writer's and extensively re-write their work like he had in the 60s. Back then people like John D.F. Black, Gene Coon, and Harlan Ellison had just walked away from Star Trek due to Roddenberry rather than fight him. Not so true in the 80s when the writers desperately wanted to keep their jobs in a more competitive atmosphere in Hollywood for work. They were able to get Gene removed on showrunner this time around. The writers essentially ran Season Two, before Berman was able to take a firm grip on the production starting with Season Three.

      Yes the Abrams productions are rightly terrible. He's moved on to Star Wars thou. His team will make the third reboot universe feature after which Paramount will take Star Trek in a new direction again. It's far from dead. Right now the Online game has continued the old universe in a unique and exciting way. It's providing those of us who are fans so great content to keep us interested while Paramount sorts itself out.

      I hope they take up Dorn on his Star Trek: Captain Worf series. On cable with realistic violence too. (Note not necessarily graphic and over the top, just actually seeing some blood and injuries when someone gets hit with a bat'leth for one!).

    • KDLadage profile image
      Author

      K David Ladage 3 years ago from Cedar Rapids, IA

      Rich -- Search for Spock was first. The "Spock with the Romulans" story line in The Next Generation did not come for another six years.

      As far as the additional poll options... good point. :)

    • Rich Bowman profile image

      Rich Bowman 3 years ago from Cedar Rapids, Iowa

      You need another option in your poll: No, more movies will continue to be made because they keep making HUGE amounts of money.

      Also, I almost feel that Leonard Nimoy realized what he started early on as starting back in ST: TNG Spock had devoted his life to rescuing and reconnecting the Romulan people.

    • melpor profile image

      Melvin Porter 3 years ago from New Jersey, USA

      This is a very good and informative hub. I enjoyed reading it and learned a few things about Star Trek that I did not know before. Voted up, interesting and informative.