Ten Forward"Star Trek is Being Stolen" (Reply | Watch)

The Star Trek universe is being stolen by Hollywood and publishing companies, from the hands of those who have been loyal fans for a long time. The Star Trek movie made in 2009 was an insult to the contunuity of the timeline created by the original series, The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine,Enterprise, and the various novels written over the years. It was an insult because they took the sweat and tears that Gene Roddenberry put into crating the series, and completely made it into an idea that was designed to please those that weren't Star Trek fans. The story was good, the acting was at the same level, but just the mere act of changing so much was the insulting part(like when James T. Kirk lands on the planet Vega, the computer on his escape pod says that the planet was an M-class, thus making it virtually uninhabitable; as we all know, an M-class planet is perfect for life). If this wasn't enough, the new game Star Trek Online creates a reality that consists of starships, people, and events that haven't even happened yet, which confuses the heck out of anyone who is loyal to the primary timeline. I hope that more of you feel this way, and join me in making others aware that we will not take Hollywood's or publishing comanies' raid on Star Trek.

Okay, I really, really agree with you on this one. Hollywood is stealing the wonderful name of Star Trek, and yes, the new video games do confuse the heck out of someone who is loyal to the primary timeline.-- 18:06, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
Just to poke a hole in one of your comments right off... If he'd landed in Antarctica on Earth (an "M class" planet), it would be pretty darned uninhabitable too. -- sulfur 14:54, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute .. how can you "raid" and "steal" something that you already own? Paramount has owned Star Trek since they bought Desilu way back in 1968. All of the current licensee publishers have valid contracts with the owners at PAramount.
Desilu owned Star Trek outright because Gene Roddenberry never had creative control or royalty ownership in his contract to that studio. In reality, Roddenberry was betrayed around 1970 when he stopped getting a regular paycheck for the show. IF you think that watching post-Roddenberry Star Trek is an abomination, try to remember that Roddenberry only wrote two or three episodes, and worked on a year-and-a-half of the Original Series, cocreated TAS and TNG, and helped with the early drafts of The Motion Picture. Roddenberry excused himself from day-to-day work on TOS season 3, he was excluded from working creatively on Star Trek II, III, IV, V and VI and was forced to retire for health reasons after half-a-year of TNG. Roddenberry's -- Captain MKB 22:26, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
  • What I meant by "stolen", is that the people who created the 2009 "Star Trek" movie and the creators of "Star Trek:Online" have taken the idea of Star Trek, and turned it into something that is meant to please the masses(they don't seem to care about staying true to the ideas, people, and events that have been created by the series and novels that have been written so far, which have created and continue to create legions of fans). In essence what I am saying is this: If we allow people to continue radically changing the Star Trek timeline without saying that it doesn't affect the primary timeline, people are going to be confused, and not know what events and people affect the characters that they cherish so much. In short, it messes up the overarching story(not cool).
I've been a Star Trek fan for longer than you have, and I'm really excited about changes. In fact, the last few rounds of productions and publications that were "loyal" to the "original timeline" (as you put it) were unconscionably boring. It was really starting to die off, so I'm happy they've made steps to make it entertaining again. -- Captain MKB 03:40, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • How can you call yourself a Star Trek Fan,and be okay with the radicaly and unnecessary changes that have been made to the core of what Star Trek is? You might be bored with the novels, series, and comic books that have remained true to the original timeline,due to the fact that you don't care what happens to the lives of the trillions of beings that call the Star Trek universe home. I don't think that you would take much liking to if somebody came along and changed who you were. As for not entertaining, what entertains is anything that cherishes and guards the lives of its characters. -- unsigned by an anonymous troll who is not interested in following Memory Beta etiquette
How can you call yourself a Star Trek fan if you aren't excited about new Star Trek movies, novels and games?
And there haven't been any radical unnecessary changes to the Star Trek I love - i read Spock's World the other day and not a word had been changed. -- Captain MKB 13:43, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I get excited about novels, movies, and games that stick to the original storyline, not ones that go off an a major tangent.Until that happens, I'm going to stay away from all the things that call themselves "Star Trek", but really aren't. 20:43, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
OK good. That course of action sounds a lot more sensible than making ridiculous statements claiming that someone has "stolen Star Trek" -- Captain MKB 20:50, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • They aren't ridiculous statements, because I still feel the same as I did when I first wrote a comment on here. 21:58, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't mean to be rude or anything, I just find it hard to think that any Star Trek fan wouldn't be pissed off because of all the changes the phenomenon(Star Trek), has been put through in the last couple of years.PrimeDirective 04:48, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Well then, you're finding it hard to see my viewpoint. I have loved Star Trek games, comics and novels for over twenty years -- but i am most disappointed in the new novels, and i think the new movie and new game are awesome. Since nobody's changing anyone's minds here, i'd please ask that user:PrimeDirective and user: please do our wiki a favor and please stop trolling in this and other discussions. Basically, this has been a waste of our wiki's resources and our editors' time, because nothing you have said is immediately relevant to changes to our files. To summarize: to pointlessly smear your opinions here, you are disrupting our wiki. Please stop. -- Captain MKB 14:16, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not "smearing" anything; I'm just expressing my opinion.PrimeDirective 21:28, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
  • On Memory Beta, Ten Forward is a place where members can discuss any issues that are related to Star Trek.PrimeDirective 21:33, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I cant believe anyone watched that awful "spit in the face" of a movie i was expecting wide spread hate and condemnation on the boards after i watched this movie( i dont cal it by its name because it isnt)instead all we got was alot of "it was okay"

To put in my own two cents worth I don't agree with what the original poster is saying here. Yet, I did have feelings that the 2009 movie (and indead even before then) have been leaving behind the core theme of hope-for-the-future and doing a military movie set in space in the future. --Pinkkeith 18:53, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

I thought the new Trek was going to be lame as well. But with the introduction of the new crew and especially the new Enterprise I changed my mind. There are going to be a lot of new avenues that Trek can travel down, especially regarding the V'ger Probe and the Whale Probe that just like Khan and the events that led up to Into Darkness would keep the timeline intact because these events took place before Star Fleet and the Federation came into existence and would have been protected fromthe time line shift created by Nero. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dryson. (talk • contribs) .
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.