Star Trek- Better than I thought it was going to be!

[Harry Dresden]

oh and Data aint dead.....

 

[JoeB131]

Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.

Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".

 

[Oddball]

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Right-o.

Abrams starts the new time line so he doesn't have to go with any of the old story and plot lines, then what does he come up with for his sequel?....Khan?

Seriously weak.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.

Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

 

[JoeB131]

Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.

Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.

Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

the novels are way more imaginative than the shows were and had much better stories....if Voyager had the stories the novels had it would not have been considered so ho-hum.....

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters

if you stayed away from the Novels.....how do you know?....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've read a lot of scifi bloggers who weren't all that thrilled with this latest Star Trek movie.

I'll wait til it shows up on cable.

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Right-o.

Abrams starts the new time line so he doesn't have to go with any of the old story and plot lines, then what does he come up with for his sequel?....Khan?

Seriously weak.

Exactly.

The first movie sucked because he turned Star Trek into Star Wars. The second movie tanked the entire franchise because he then tried to tie it into something that Star Trek actually did.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Makes me glad I avoid Trek Novelizations.

Harlan Ellison once called them "Star Drek".

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.

Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan

 

[JoeB131]

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.

Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan

That's understandable. There was that period during the 1970's when they weren't controlling the Fan Fic and you had stories like the one where they made Kirk and Spock gay.

 

[JoeB131]

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

the novels are way more imaginative than the shows were and had much better stories....if Voyager had the stories the novels had it would not have been considered so ho-hum.....

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters

if you stayed away from the Novels.....how do you know?....

I do occassional get them. My relatives have given me them as gifts over the years and such. And frankly, they are awful.

Now, I have read some of the Babylon 5 novelizations, which are pretty good. (Even though they are often written by the same people, like Peter David.) This is because JMS allows the characters to be developed beyond their parameters.

 

[Harry Dresden]

he was just pissed because of the way they treated City On The Edge of forever.....people i have talked to at the Sci-fi Conventions said the guy is an egotistical jerk....

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.

Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan

exactly.....you can AFTER the series is done playing.......

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

the novels are way more imaginative than the shows were and had much better stories....if Voyager had the stories the novels had it would not have been considered so ho-hum.....

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters

if you stayed away from the Novels.....how do you know?....

I do occassional get them. My relatives have given me them as gifts over the years and such. And frankly, they are awful.

Now, I have read some of the Babylon 5 novelizations, which are pretty good. (Even though they are often written by the same people, like Peter David.) This is because JMS allows the characters to be developed beyond their parameters.

Joe they were not awful.....if they were they would not sold as well as they did.....they were way more imaginative than the TV Shows.....and the first 9 Bab 5 novels were written by 8 different writers.....David only wrote the "The Centauri Trilogy " and two novelizations of the TV Movies.... the other 2 Trilogies were written by 2 other Authors....

 

[Oddball]

well lots of the "hard core" fans feel there was no need to create a new version of something that has been established for 50 years....Abrams and Co. could have just went back to day one on Kirks Enterprise and went from there,instead he has created his own version of Star Trek.....they do the same to many of the long established Comic Characters when they make some of their movies....take creative liberties.....what you gonna do?....

Right-o.

Abrams starts the new time line so he doesn't have to go with any of the old story and plot lines, then what does he come up with for his sequel?....Khan?

Seriously weak.

Exactly.

The first movie sucked because he turned Star Trek into Star Wars. The second movie tanked the entire franchise because he then tried to tie it into something that Star Trek actually did.

I liked the first one, despite the several plot holes.....And I especially liked the idea of the new timeline to pump in some fresh air and new plot lines.


Then Abrams punts and rehashes the Khan thing...I won't even bother until it shows up on cable.

 

[Mr. H.]

Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh, he is an egotistical jerk.

But most Trek novelizations are commercial diarhea that even with a couple of creative writing classes I know are bad...

Why?

Because nothing in the novels make any major change in the characters.

You know why? Because the rules Paramount set up say you can't change a major character.

Star Trek Novel Submission Guidelines - Resources - Don't pretend, you know you love it. - Star Trek Fan

That's understandable. There was that period during the 1970's when they weren't controlling the Fan Fic and you had stories like the one where they made Kirk and Spock gay.

They still don't control fanfic, there is a large market for it, and all sorts of things have happened.

http://trekfanfiction.net/

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!

It saves me $10, and tells Abrams he shouldn't be in charge of a series where people think.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh come on. It was fun and exciting and nothin' beats seeing it on the BIG SCREEN!

It saves me $10, and tells Abrams he shouldn't be in charge of a series where people think.

i agree about Abrams.....wrong guy for this franchise.....

 

[JoeB131]

[

Joe they were not awful.....if they were they would not sold as well as they did.....they were way more imaginative than the TV Shows.....and the first 9 Bab 5 novels were written by 8 different writers.....David only wrote the "The Centauri Trilogy " and two novelizations of the TV Movies.... the other 2 Trilogies were written by 2 other Authors....

Something selling is not an indication of quality. Just ask Steven King (SARCASM).

I thought Peter David also wrote the Psi-Corps trilogy books.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.

My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.

The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I think that Star Trek has simply evolved with the techology the producers now have at their disposal compared to the original series. And, as such, it makes sense that resulting productions focus more on the action elements such technological advances can accomodate.

Furthermore, I disagree with your opinion of Pine's portrayal of Capt. Kirk. He brings a much greater fluid energy to the role than his predecessors. He's leading a young crew, eager to go where no man has gone before, and his almost boyish wonder of the challenges he's anticipating making a refreshing change compared to Stewart's mature leadership.

My wife does not like the new Kirk, she feels his portrayal is no good compared to Shattner's Kirk. I like all of them. I also am wondering why we don't facsimile their world govt.on our planet.

The new Kirk is fine. The new Spock needs some work.

i heard it was good

have not gone yet