Well that is bull shit... utter shite!

It's not just limitations, it was the style of the day. Things became a lot quicker over time. TOS had quite a bit of action, just like The Six Million Dollar Man, Thunderbirds, and a lot of other stuff from the 60's and 70's. It was just slow motion action, compared to today. It looked fine at the time, but nowadays a 50 minute Thunderbirds episode would be crammed into 20 minutes tops, without losing anything.

Well, Tarfu is not completely wrong. In Roddenberrys time, Star Trek had a more "What happens if.... and how do we deal with it?" feeling.
Today it`s more a "How can we squeeze more action out of the script?" feeling.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Betrayal.

Well, that all may be, but it would still be totally cool to see the new series taking a course that is not action centered. In my eyes, action was always a major point but by far not the strongest point in the series and also it shouldn't be.

I didn't say there weren't any action focussed episodes at all. Most season finales of any Star Trek series were purely action focussed. But this was always the exception. As I said: The Defiant was a warship (the Federation doesn't build any warships) and saw less battles in 5 seasons than we get in one JJ Trek movie.

Enterprise isn't a very good argument... Especially season 3 isn't... They changed a lot of things in season 3 to save the show from being cancelled. It didn't work out and they didn't want a fourth season. We got the fourth season because fans signed petitions and stuff, but... well... We didn't get a fifth one.

I'd say Deep Space 9 is the most action focussed Star Trek series AND the most "high-brow" one at the same time (Sisko's been through a lot of moral dilemma). They managed to mix both things pretty fine. Voyager had it's action too (Kazon and Borg), but Janeway was always a walking Starfleet Moral Codex (I often hated her for being so stubborn). So Voyager had a good mix too. I can't find that mix in the new movies. sorry.

It's not that I don't like it. I just don't think it's Star Trek. As I said in the first post I made in this thread: "If you want to do Sci Fi action movies, create a new franchise. But don't call it Star Trek and hope that people will love it."

No. Because it's almost entirely about "action and explosions"!

The Federation is about overcoming war, social problems and diseases. They wanted to make the universe a better place for everyone to live "long and prosper". And sometimes they had to defend their idea against some bad boys.

Even the pretty dark DS9 had lots of this Federation idealism in it (Sisko's son and his Ferengi friend - was it Nog? - had a lot of those "I don't get your Federation" moments). And Voyager... They were far away from the Federation, but still wanted to stick to their ideals. Even the new Enterprise thing was basically all about the Federation and it's (upcoming) principles. JJ Trek is just BOOM. The old movies had developed characters going on war. The new movies have characters going on war without having time for development. They have glorious names, but not a lot of personality and story. They're action heroes with Star Trek names.

Maybe I'm a bit hard-bitten here, but I still don't think that Star Trek works as a series of sci fi action movies. Star Trek works best as a TV series. Throwing undeveloped characters into some action movie doesn't work for me and lots of other Star Trek fans. And as I said: People who were not interested into Star Trek over the last few decades won't watch the movies either, because they probably don't know that JJ Trek is different from the shows they never liked. So it remains stupid to call it Star Trek. Just give it a new name.

and how long ago did Gene get thrown out of the loop? Well before JJ took the series. He wasn't involved in most Trek past The Motion Picture, most of which has very little combat and explosion in it. Hence, it is talking shite.

Jesus I'm tired of this argument. Whatever. Draw your lines in the sand wherever you want.

Surely you couldn't have started this thread without knowing there would be some opinions you disagreed with and viewpoints you'd already heard before?

Relax, people have differing opinions. Nothing to get so worked up over.

Yes, you're right, which is why I edited down my post. It's just that I hoped we can just speculate about the future here, not argue about the same stuff over again. And I don't mind someone disagreeing with me. Dislike the moves, fine, whatever. It's just the level of... of denial I guess and the entire "no true scotsman attitude" towards Trek.

I'm sorry. I am really, honestly sorry if I'm being a dick about this. It's just that I swear I remember when talking about Trek and speculating about the future movies and seasons and stuff could be fun. Not constant flood of hate and "THIS... ISN'T...STAR TREK!"

Actually, let's bring this back on topic and focus on the future, shall we? It's been announced that the first episode of Discovery is going to be directed by David Semel. Is anyone familiar with anything he made? I don't think I am, except for maybe some episodes of House, that I don't even remember. I don't know, I hope he does all right, but I kinda hoped they would bring someone more high-profile for the pilot episode. I was hoping for Jonathan Frakes, really. It would be a huge boost for my confidence in the series if he was on board to direct at least the pilot.

Well... You can't open a thread with the words "First of all- Star Trek Beyond, despite good reviews and positive audience reaction is pretty much a flop" and expect no one to discuss why they think it's flopping. It doesn't work like that :/

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just oversensitive on the subject- I love Star Trek, and yet I have terrible experience with Trek fandom, always being very hateful and negative towards everything that isn't "true Trek". And it's not just when talking about the new movies. It's the same with Enterprise, and Voyager, and even DS9. I just think thatby now everyone has seen every permutation of the "Nu Trek sucks!" argument, and it's pointless to carry that on. You have your line in the sand, I don't, I won't try to convince you to see things in my way. Far as I'm concerned you can disavow eveyrthing that came after The Cage :D Let's just move on.

Moving on to some actual news... well, sort of:

Looks like we'll have some andorian(s) in the new series. I hope it's one of the crew members. It's weird how andorians, a founding member of the federation, never had a single main character in any of the shows. An andorian first officer would be cool.

Or maybe it could be Shran returning as a recurring character? If the show is between Enterprise and TOS he could still be around, and whatever criticism Enterprise faced, I think pretty much everyone liked Shran.

Indeed. I sure did and I would like him to return. :-)

I wasn't really a fan of the original Star Trek, but the two previous movies were good.

My 2 cents: summer is not a good choice to release a movie (at least in sunny countries...).
I'm also planning to watch this Beyond movie (again, since it's summer I can't be bothered to go to cinema).

What I didn't like of the previous movies was:
* Confusing storytelling,
* Escalating, universe threatening menaces, in all the movies
* They are episodes, in a cinema. I would appreciate a self contained trilogy.
* I'd like to see a bit more Hard Science and not this "Shield falling" for half movie, all the movies.