Still, I never understood what the whole problem was with Enterprise. Kepone has a point about already available technology in Sci-Fi, but still I feel Enterprise had it’s own right to exist, as did Voyager and DS9. What I like about the whole Star Trek universe is that it’s so big, and that by now, it is so thoroughly explored in fiction. Naturally, and luckily every series has a totally different approach, because it would have been even more pointless to just make another 20 seasons of TNG instead. DS9 was more “soapy” than some Sci-Fi fans liked, but hey, that’s part of the ST universe too.
And Enterprise was less techy than Voyager, but it had some very good episodes that really added something, like about “first contact”, and the moral implications of meeting a different culture.

About the next movie, I think Abrams is a good choice and I’m looking forward to the movie. I’m pretty sure it’ll be pretty cool even if not all ST fans will find it “Star Trek worthy”. And if it isn’t to everyone’s liking… I’m also pretty sure there’ll be another ST film after this so just be patient. ;)

As for Tom Cruise playing a central role in the next Star Trek movie? My eyes! My eyes! Make it stop!

The problem with prequels in Sci Fi, is that nobody cares about past technology. For example, in Star Trek: Enterprise, you frequently see things like LCD flat panel displays, recaro bucket seats, etc etc..The point of Sci Fi is to stimulate the imagination, not give you the saddening notion that a few hundred years in the future, they are still using the same technology we use now.

The jump from Star Trek: TNG to ST:DS9 was great because it showed a giant leap forward in technology, and a whole new set of characters and species to interact with. For example- The Defiant..Same thing in ST:Voyager, they introduce bioneural-gelpacks, a whole new type and class of ship that while small was the most technologically advanced ship in the fleet.. and this created all kinds of new plotlines and character development stories due to the unique nature of the new technology at hand. Then we get to ST: Enterprise.. and everything takes this giant leap backward, not to mention the fact that it causes all kinds of continuity problems in the overall ST universe story..

People want to see the future..the further back they go, the worse the ratings will be, and the fanbase will become that much more alienated and uninterested in the ST franchise as a whole.

There is so much they can do with this franchise, instead they waste it on prequels..Gene Roddenberry would roll over in his grave if he saw the generally backward direction his franchise is taking.. Star Trek is about going forward, not backward..

Um, I do! *raises hand* Well, not for a long while, anyway.

Don’t get me wrong, I have been a huge ST fan in the past but frankly feel we’ve been thoroughly saturated by it. Voyager was a step too far, IMHO, never mind Enterprise. It needs to rest for a good few years yet, a decade or more, so that the memories of this 21-year-plus televisual blitzkrieg begin to fade. Only then do I think it would be safe to *start* talking about bringing it back.

How do these projects help/hurt the development of Trek? What does it mean that Paramount is allowing these professional-level productions to use the trademark? Will fans “take back the trek?”

-Magic Time.

They did do that already (at least for the director) for Star Trek: Nemesis, and it sucked badly (I consider it the worse Trek film ever). So the infusion of New Blood may not really be the issue. I can only hope that with Berman out of the way that Abrams really can do something fun and interesting.