All Those In Favor of Removing JJ Abrams' 'Star Trek' License...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Not that it will actually make any difference... but....

I can't possibly be the only one here who thinks JJ is killing Star Trek right before our very eyes.

[Talcy]

Considering the damage Rick Berman wrought, I think I'll wait and see the actual movie before I judge JJ Abrams. Even if I disagree with some of his decisions, I haven't seen any of it in context.

[Master_Kinnon]

I have to admit to being disappointed when I found out JJ was in charge, he was far from my first choice to continuing the Star Trek line! Guess we'll have to wait and see what he does with it, but I don't have much hope!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Not only can I get passed the time setting, but I just cannot get passed some of the Cast selections. Chris Pine (Kirk) looks like he should be in a cheap Sci-Fi Channel movie, not a big blockbuster (well... we'll have to see about that...) motion picture production like Star Trek.

Oh JJ... Would that thee see thine mistake and correct it.

[Master Magnus]

JJ Abrams killed Trek? No, Berman and Braga did that singlehandedly. If we take Star Trek: Enterprise as an example. I haven't seen the last season of Enterprise but the opinions about it that I have heard is that the show did an upheaval after JJ become involved. And it's far too soon to complain about his casting decisions.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I know, I know. And I've been proven wrong with actors before, i.e. Samuel L. Jackson in the Prequels. I was very skeptical about him being in Star Wars, but now here I sit, and Mace Windu is one of my favorite characters.

Okay, but if not the actors then certainly the concept and storyline are enough to drown JJ. Star Trek: Enterprise proved that Past-Trek is a no no. We need to move FORWARD not BACKWARD. Some things you can get away with, like Star Wars, but Star Trek to me is a Move-Forward-Only (except maybe in novels, etc.). And that's the other thing: the storyline (if not the whole movie-concept) sounds like an EPISODE or a story for a novel, not a major motion picture.

I mean, come on:
Old Spock teaming up with Young Spock to stop the assassination of Kirk?

Does anyone else find that a little novel-ish/episode-ish?

[Tovor]

I know, I know. And I've been proven wrong with actors before, i.e. Samuel L. Jackson in the Prequels. I was very skeptical about him being in Star Wars, but now here I sit, and Mace Windu is one of my favorite characters.

Okay, but if not the actors then certainly the concept and storyline are enough to drown JJ. Star Trek: Enterprise proved that Past-Trek is a no no. We need to move FORWARD not BACKWARD. Some things you can get away with, like Star Wars, but Star Trek to me is a Move-Forward-Only (except maybe in novels, etc.). And that's the other thing: the storyline (if not the whole movie-concept) sounds like an EPISODE or a story for a novel, not a major motion picture.

I mean, come on:
Old Spock teaming up with Young Spock to stop the assassination of Kirk?

Does anyone else find that a little novel-ish/episode-ish?
Oh jeeez. Will this never end? We seem to be made to suffer.

Somebody, for crying out loud already, give us the 27th century already. Batman needed to be rebooted; so did James Bond...but not Star Trek. Star Trek is about the future, not the past, and we've already seen the 23rd century already so let's move forward and see the unknown future.

And yes, that plot scenario does seem episodish. I mean, c'mon, we've already seen stuff like that multiple times in TNG and the other series. Besides, we already know how it's going to end. I mean, why not have the Enterprise crew travel back in time and save the Titanic from the iceberg if we're going to have to sit through something so lame and predictable?

[empire21]

^ I agree about the 27th century or whatever future century in Trek time.

But I'm still in favor for the simple reason that we are getting new Trek. :)

[Master Magnus]

And that's the other thing: the storyline (if not the whole movie-concept) sounds like an EPISODE or a story for a novel, not a major motion picture.

I mean, come on:
Old Spock teaming up with Young Spock to stop the assassination of Kirk?

Does anyone else find that a little novel-ish/episode-ish?
We don't know that this really is this story and even if it doesn't sound very promising we shouldn't jump to conclusions just yet. However, they seem to be catering to the already hardcore trekkies and I don't know if that really is such a good idea.

[Carder]

It's hard for me to really say...see...my first thought is to say he should be taken off the project completely...BUT STILL I haven't seen the finished product yet so I am reserving judgement. But my FIRST thought is to say I am sick and tired of people thinking we need to look BACK in Trek..what's the point of having a show about the future if it's going to continually be taking place in the past? (Wrap your head around THAT!:P )
I think my biggest thing right now...is....How is MIchael Giacchino going to do a Star Trek score? He's only done like....PIXAR movies!!!:D That should be....interesting?

[Javen]

wait...people still like star trek?:nahnah:

[empire21]

I just realized I voted Yay. Ooops :blink:

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

^:devil:Hah-hah. It worked! My plan was to confuse people!


Just kidding :)

[Momin327]

I don't think J.J. Abrams could possibly screw up as badly as Berman and Braga did towards the end.

[JackBauer24]

Isn't this a Star WARS board? Screw Star Trek!

[empire21]

Isn't this a Star WARS board? Screw Star Trek!

Try reading what the interrogation room is all about.

[JackBauer24]

Yeah, it's about anything but Star Trek!

[Lord Tesla]

I mean, come on:
Old Spock teaming up with Young Spock to stop the assassination of Kirk?

Does anyone else find that a little novel-ish/episode-ish?


That does seem rather slender subject matter for a feature film.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Here's where I stand:

I feel that the movie has the potential to be awesome for its cinematography, CGI, special effects, etc. But I just really can't get passed the fact that JJ is ruining everything by trying to revive and revise the original crew. As a Trekkie, to me its basically Trek-Blasphemy that he is messing around with the TOS characters.

I may end up going to the movie and being completely blown away by it, but I'm just not sure I'll ever be able to really enjoy because of what it is.

[Ripley]

Here's where I stand:

I feel that the movie has the potential to be awesome for its cinematography, CGI, special effects, etc. But I just really can't get passed the fact that JJ is ruining everything by trying to revive and revise the original crew. As a Trekkie, to me its basically Trek-Blasphemy that he is messing around with the TOS characters.

I may end up going to the movie and being completely blown away by it, but I'm just not sure I'll ever be able to really enjoy because of what it is.
Eleven years of Voyager and Enterprise with most of the TNG movies blew ass. J.J. is quite the talented chap so he's the main reason I'm looking forward to the movie (besides Spoclar).

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

After having a marathon yesterday and today of all 10 films, I find myself even more depressed and angered about our current situation. No TV show, No continued TNG movies, No DS9 or VGR movies.

I just want to know why. Why is it imperative that we return to a time that we've already seen instead of moving forward into the unknown. To me this just seems like JJ and the other people who put/are putting it together didn't have the imagination to think of a whole new atmosphere. I further don't understand why they would do a early-era film after the disaster of Enterprise. I just cannot understand the reason WHY we are going BACK in time to a time already established instead of FORWARD.

I am sure I will get some cocky annoying fan replying to tell me to "stop b****ing". And frankly, I don't care. What I do care about is Star Trek and its future. And to dramatically quote A Christmas Carol: "I see an empty chair..." though of course in this case it's an empty Captain's chair :)

Star Trek is a continuing journey. CONTINUING. Not a halt-time-and-go-back-to-the-past journey. This may be putting it harsh but it is genuinely how I feel: I don't see how you can approve of this and call yourself a true fan. You don't screw with the past. Especially not with the TOS crew, and especially not on the Big Screen.

I should probably vacate the premesis now before you all finish setting your phasers to maximum power.

[empire21]

A Voyager movie? :ugh: :P

But I do agree with you about Star Trek moving forward instead of backwards.

I myself prefer 23rd century Trek which is why I'm cool with this movie, but I would much rather get a new series or movie set in the future of the Trek time frame.

[Jjm3233]

After having a marathon yesterday and today of all 10 films, I find myself even more depressed and angered about our current situation. No TV show, No continued TNG movies, No DS9 or VGR movies.

I just want to know why. Why is it imperative that we return to a time that we've already seen instead of moving forward into the unknown. To me this just seems like JJ and the other people who put/are putting it together didn't have the imagination to think of a whole new atmosphere. I further don't understand why they would do a early-era film after the disaster of Enterprise. I just cannot understand the reason WHY we are going BACK in time to a time already established instead of FORWARD.

I am sure I will get some cocky annoying fan replying to tell me to "stop b****ing". And frankly, I don't care. What I do care about is Star Trek and its future. And to dramatically quote A Christmas Carol: "I see an empty chair..." though of course in this case it's an empty Captain's chair :)

Star Trek is a continuing journey. CONTINUING. Not a halt-time-and-go-back-to-the-past journey. This may be putting it harsh but it is genuinely how I feel: I don't see how you can approve of this and call yourself a true fan. You don't screw with the past. Especially not with the TOS crew, and especially not on the Big Screen.

I should probably vacate the premesis now before you all finish setting your phasers to maximum power.

Joe,

B***h away, I've been doing it for the last decade about Trek - it doesn't change anything, but it can help you feel better for awhile. As for me, I'll give J.J. his chance - can't be worse then either Insurrection or Nemesis. And a VGR movie? lol, that was the series that drove most people I know away from Trek . . .

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Well thanks for the reassurance, Jjm :)


See, I don't understand the VGR problem. People say they hate it, and people hated Enterprise, yet ENT only lasted, what, 3 seasons? And VGR lasted 7 without being cancelled? Doesn't make sense to me.

Apart from ENT, I have yet to see a show/movie that I didn't love. Yes, this includes The Final Frontier, Insurrection, Nemesis, and Voyager; all of which I'm still unclear as to why nobody likes them.

You know, I actually have a saying when people tell me "Well some people like that one but most people hate it" -- It goes:

"I would rather be some than most, because when you're some, you like everything, and to me that means that the SOMES are the true-fans."

Isn't that a good saying? The only problem, of course, is that there are two holes in it. And these two holes are ENT and STXI. Oh well...

Anyway, to me- I feel that if nobody liked Voyager, than a motion picture would be the producers' chance to impress the fans. Although they screwed up there being a chance of a movie because of Janeway as an Admiral (a.k.a. desk-job) in Nemesis. Although... this didn't stop the Federation from having Admiral Kirk comandeer the Enterprise in TMP.


Talking to my sister, she told me about a newspaper clipping she had from a few years ago that had the producers of Star Trek promising a series of DS9 motion pictures. What ever happened to that idea? People complain that it would be a boring movie because they're on the station all the time. But these anonymous people that say this obviously didn't watch all of DS9, because if they did they would notice that a lot of episodes have the crewmembers leaving the confines of Deep Space Nine.


I should probably get back on topic because this is all stuff that really should be discussed in the Star Trek thread in the Entertainment section... if there is such a thread, which I don't see how there couldn't be.

[Ripley]

After having a marathon yesterday and today of all 10 films, I find myself even more depressed and angered about our current situation. No TV show, No continued TNG movies, No DS9 or VGR movies.

I just want to know why. Why is it imperative that we return to a time that we've already seen instead of moving forward into the unknown. To me this just seems like JJ and the other people who put/are putting it together didn't have the imagination to think of a whole new atmosphere. I further don't understand why they would do a early-era film after the disaster of Enterprise. I just cannot understand the reason WHY we are going BACK in time to a time already established instead of FORWARD.

I am sure I will get some cocky annoying fan replying to tell me to "stop b****ing". And frankly, I don't care. What I do care about is Star Trek and its future. And to dramatically quote A Christmas Carol: "I see an empty chair..." though of course in this case it's an empty Captain's chair :)

Star Trek is a continuing journey. CONTINUING. Not a halt-time-and-go-back-to-the-past journey. This may be putting it harsh but it is genuinely how I feel: I don't see how you can approve of this and call yourself a true fan. You don't screw with the past. Especially not with the TOS crew, and especially not on the Big Screen.

I should probably vacate the premesis now before you all finish setting your phasers to maximum power.
Trek, as it stands, is on the precipice of death. People don't care anymore. Going forward in time like you and others suggest without rebuilding the franchise will make Trekkies necrophiliacs.

Trekkies, in terms of having Trek sustain as a viable and successful franchise, have failed in recent years. Insurrection and especially Nemesis bombed at the box office coupled with Enterprise's cancelation sucked the life out of the franchise. The Trek brain trust no longer cared about making a quality product, and a large portion of the fanbase left. What Paramount is doing is a rebuilding stage.

Step back from your fanboy position to look at the circumstances and the people involved to have a more objective point of view. Most people walking the streets would respond well if someone says "Kirk, Spock, McCoy, Klingons," and so forth. Now go around the streets saying "Archer, Bald Sisko, Seven of Double-D, Tuvok" which will result in a mixed reaction. To many people, the people that need to be drawn back to Trek, the franchise is Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. Putting a new spin on characters many people are familiar with will interest potential viewers to see the film at the box office.

In almost equal importance is the type of people Paramount is bringing to the project. Abrams has mentioned he is a fan not a fanatic. Quinto's made similar comments. Those type of new blurbs show that Paramount want something different than the previous Berman incarnation. Simply put fanboys that want to go off in some weird extreme geek direction that only the extreme fringe of Trekdom would love and understand would create a crap product. Any approach to a long running franchise like Trek requires a balance of what makes a good film on its own merits instead of Star Trek enblazen in massive font on the poster; another reason why Wrath of Kahn is by far the best film so far. Paramount made a wise decision to hand the film to talented filmmakers that are fans instead of people with surgically altered Vulcan ears that do not have the slightest idea how to make a good picture.

Abrams' Star Trek is what this franchise needs- major life support. Abrams has the opportunity to make Trek living and relevant again. This "not a true fan" irrationality is simply an ill constructed ad hominem fanboy knee-jerk reaction that collapses when taking a few minutes to think about the film and the franchises' condition.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

See, that's something I would really like to understand. I have never been able to understand this hatred fans have for Nemesis. The Final Frontier and Insurrection I can somewhat understand because they seem a bit more Episode-ish than Movie-ish. But Nemesis? What more do you want from a TNG-movie? For me, that one is constantly competing for first place with First Contact, although the latter, of course, wins because I feel that bringing the Borg into the movies was as awesome an idea as having Khan return in Wrath of Khan.
But really, I'd like to hear a detailed "report" as to why Nemesis is disliked so.

I also cannot understand why, because of three mistakes, fans are condemning Rick when he is responsible for bringing us some of the best movies and shows (and episodes) in the franchise.


I understand what you're saying, Rip. And as I said, I know this could end up being a good movie. I just cannot, at this time, bring myself to agree with this choice of returning to the past. There are so many warning lights (or should I say "Red Alert" lights) blinking on; this includes the choice of timeline, of course, and the choice of actors.

But, our points have been made so I guess I should try to shut up now... and simply... wait...


--Captain Joseph T. Harrison of the Apparently Small Federation of All-Movie and All-Show (Except Enterprise) Lovers (a.k.a. the ASFoAMaASEEL)

[Master Magnus]

I also cannot understand why, because of three mistakes, fans are condemning Rick when he is responsible for bringing us some of the best movies and shows (and episodes) in the franchise.
You must be joking. Berman, together with Braga, is responsible for the worst rubbish in Star Trek's history. He was behind Star Trek: Voyager which includes the worst garbage in television history (just think of Twisted and Threshold) and the worst movies ever (Star Trek IX and X).

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Well I still don't understand why people claim no one liked VOY. As I said above, it lasted a full seven seasons without being cancelled and I remember there being considerable hype about it during its time. Not to mention that it won, what, 6 Emmy awards? Very confusing.

I still am, though, waiting for a detailed response as to why Nemesis, according to most of you, wasn't any good. But now I'm also curious as to why most of you don't like VOY.

Again I come to the same question: What more do you want from a Star Trek Movie/Series?


Sure, okay I understand the point that once Seven comes into the show it seems like all our beloved main characters take a step into the background for a time as we go through Seven's struggles, etc. And sure, there are times when things seem to happen a little unplausibly...

You know, I'm so tired of "plausibility". I'm tired of it. I'm tired of people not liking GOOD stories because they're not "plausible." I'm tired of fans being too darn technical to enjoy anything. On a constant basis I hear from fans saying about a certain character who does something in a movie or show "They actually wouldn't have done that," or "They actually wouldn't have made that mistake." Well, obviously they did because it's right there on the screen happening. You know what, if we're going to be so concerned with plausibility than we might as well completely tear the entire Star Trek Universe apart because... Ding-Dong! It's not plausible.

It just really roasts my potatoes when I see good stories crapped upon because of the "technical impossibilities of reality". It's a darn fantasy/sci-fi TV show/movie! It's NOT reality! These are the fans that go TOO overboard in my opinion. When they lose the fanboy love for a story and begin destroying it piece-by-piece.

To me, these stubborn fans who once loved everything but now take pleasure in picking and pulling and tearing at it represent those fans that become so obsessed with something that they get to the point where they just want to kill it.

Plausibility and Reality? We would have some VERY boring fictional storylines if everything was plausible and realistic.


Okay, I think I popped a vein in my forehead. Once again I've lost myself in an ocean of annoyance and I apologize.

[Ripley]

See, that's something I would really like to understand. I have never been able to understand this hatred fans have for Nemesis. The Final Frontier and Insurrection I can somewhat understand because they seem a bit more Episode-ish than Movie-ish. But Nemesis? What more do you want from a TNG-movie? For me, that one is constantly competing for first place with First Contact, although the latter, of course, wins because I feel that bringing the Borg into the movies was as awesome an idea as having Khan return in Wrath of Khan.
But really, I'd like to hear a detailed "report" as to why Nemesis is disliked so.


1). The villain is a bald guy that cries just like when F. Murray Abraham cried for two hours. Out of the entire body of Trek canon that's the two people who are supposed to be the heavy?

2). The marginalization of almost the entire cast except for Picard and Data.

3). Constant absurd reasons to bring Worf into the plot though he has virtually no relevance to the plot.

4). The best scenes were cut.

5). Apparently Spock and Sela failed to do anything worthwhile in regards to Romulus.

6). A general disregard of pass Trek canon that could make a great film.


Again I come to the same question: What more do you want from a Star Trek Movie/Series?


Much like Abrams' have said "It was its own world, yet it was our world." Trek at its best is a mirror into human soceity and the human condition. Great Trek also has balls. Having a black woman on television in the 60s was ballsy. Dealing with issues such faith, race, politics of the time, so and so forth was groundbreaking with memorable characters like Kirk, Spock, and Bones. Deep Space Nine did the same thing thirty years later (which why I consider it the only true spirtial succesor to the original). Good Trek needs chemistry between the characters that Voyager and Enterprise lacked; same with creative storylines.


You know, I'm so tired of "plausibility". I'm tired of it. I'm tired of people not liking GOOD stories because they're not "plausible." I'm tired of fans being too darn technical to enjoy anything. On a constant basis I hear from fans saying about a certain character who does something in a movie or show "They actually wouldn't have done that," or "They actually wouldn't have made that mistake." Well, obviously they did because it's right there on the screen happening. You know what, if we're going to be so concerned with plausibility than we might as well completely tear the entire Star Trek Universe apart because... Ding-Dong! It's not plausible.



That argument is so riddled with holes it collapses under its weight. Under your criterion if Picard starting eating children on screen that would be fine. The answer to that is that the former powers that be did not care anymore. They typed instead of wrote. Consistent characterization is essential because the viewer has to believe. The person in the seat in front of the screen has to believe the implausable is plausable. If the writers had any passion left for the franchise they would have researched harder, drafted more to make sure that script was crisp, hired talaented writers who cared for the subject material, so and so forth. Just because a film is not meant to change your views on life does not mean has to be done bad. Wrath of Kahn is so effective because the filmmakers didn't pussyfoot around in making the film. Frankly any writer that does not give their all when writing has no reason to write.

The former executives no longer cared, and it showed. Abrams' and his team obviously give a damn about the film. That level of commitment is what seperates the great and good from the bad and crap.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

1). The villain is a bald guy that cries just like when F. Murray Abraham cried for two hours. Out of the entire body of Trek canon that's the two people who are supposed to be the heavy?

2). The marginalization of almost the entire cast except for Picard and Data.

3). Constant absurd reasons to bring Worf into the plot though he has virtually no relevance to the plot.

4). The best scenes were cut.

5). Apparently Spock and Sela failed to do anything worthwhile in regards to Romulus.

6). A general disregard of pass Trek canon that could make a great film.




Granted, especially when it comes to 4) and the Alternate Ending with the new First Officer. Love that scene and I'm ALWAYS bugged that they didn't keep it in.

Okay, here's the thing: I think my problem is that there are certain movies where the overall presentation (acting, soundtrack, sound effects, visual effects/CGI) is enough to have me glued to the screen, so much so that I ignore the things that other people pick on. Jerry's excellent soundtrack, the Scimitar, the space battles, the acting between Shinzon and Picard (especially during their 'dinner' in the Romulan Council), the interaction between Picard and Data, and of course, Picard's "ramming" maneuver with the Enterprise... these things, to me, are just so 'cool' that they overide any implausibilities and story-flaws. So I think that's why it's so hard for me to see it from everyone else's point-of-views (points-of-view? points-of-views? I don't know:giveup:) because we're on different tracks...... most of the time.

PS - Thanks for the details on why Nemesis is disliked. Now I'd like to hear the same about why VOY is disliked---Even though I still find that hard to believe because of the hype that I remember coming from fans back when it was on (and, of course, the six emmys).

Deep Space Nine did the same thing thirty years later (which why I consider it the only true spirtial succesor to the original).

Really? Interesting. It's very rare to hear fans choosing DS9 over TNG as the TOS successor. I don't have a problem with it because I loved DS9, it's just interesting to me when people choose it over TNG.


Under your criterion if Picard starting eating children on screen that would be fine.


(Well, sure, if it's another nightmare of Data's as in "Phantasms" :D) -- Anyway, that's really taking it to the extreme, I think; I didn't really mean I was fine with things that were that implausible.



Abrams' and his team obviously give a damn about the film.

The question is... will the fans give a darn about the movie after they see it ;)

[Master Magnus]

I'll post a detailed reply later, but...

Not to mention that it won, what, 6 Emmy awards? Very confusing.
Let's see... Did the show won any Emmys for best directing? No. Best writing? No. Outstanding series? Hmm, no. Lead actor? No. Lead actress? No. How about supporting role? No. Hmm... It didn't win any of the heavier Emmys, so what Emmys did it win? Well, it won 2 Emmys for visual effects (1999 and 2001), 2 Emmys for the music and theme (1995 and 2001), 1 Emmy for hairstyling (1997) and 1 Emmy for make-up (1996). The series was never even nominated for any of the heavier Emmys so appealing to the number of Emmys the series won is a non-sequitur.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Darn it! You weren't supposed to call me on that! ;)

I actually had just found out what the emmys were for last night after looking on IMDb. But anyway, yes I'd really like to understand, so I look forward to the detailed report.

[JackBauer24]

You guys are geeks.

[Jjm3233]

^ Hello Mr. Kettle, you're black! :nahnah: - Mr. Pot

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

You guys are geeks.

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

:cheers: :P

[JackBauer24]

^ Hello Mr. Kettle, you're black! :nahnah: - Mr. Pot

Thanks, Captain Obvious.

:cheers: :P

Well, in the realm of geekdom, Star Trek geeks are waay geekier than Star Wars geeks and Star Trek/Star Wars geeks are the geekiest of all!

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Well, in the realm of geekdom, Star Trek geeks are waay geekier than Star Wars geeks and Star Trek/Star Wars geeks are the geekiest of all!

Then I say "Darn the Regular-Geeks, Full Speed Ahead." ... or should I say "Maximum Warp!" :D :wink:

[Jjm3233]

^ I would have just said "Engage"

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Fine. Have it your way...


"Darn the Regular-Geeks... Engage."

Nah, that doesn't sound right. Okay how about:

"Darn the Regular-Geeks, Maximum Warp..... Engage!"

Oh dear....

[JackBauer24]

Damn, I'm getting out of here before what little sexual appeal I have to women vanishes from second-hand geekness.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Damn, I'm getting out of here before what little sexual appeal I have to women vanishes from second-hand geekness.
Commander, activate tractor beam! Don't let him get away!


:vaderxmas: :D

[cj790]

Rofl! :rofl:


And as for the question - well a lot of people here know I'm not too keen on the 'reboot' idea, but I wouldn't go as far as to say JJ is 'killing' the franchise. I voted 'no' - let's see what happens before making judgement calls.

[Master Magnus]

Well I still don't understand why people claim no one liked VOY.
The writing:
From TNG onwards the writers started to turn away from the things which made the original series great and which peaked with Voyager, the emphasis on the characters and the reflection of society and the writers became too obsessed with nonsensical and ridiculous technobabble (it became the end of a means), stereotypical aliens of the week, various deux-ex-machina which are introduced at the very last moment, recycled ideas and the turning of the franchise into a soap opera.

The characters/acting:
With the exception of the Doctor (who, as the series progressed, unfortunately became more and more intolerable) and Seven (before she turned into a Mary Sue), the characters are generally unlikeable. Captain Janeway must be one of the most incompetent captains in Starfleet (I hoped that Picard would yell out "What the heck has you done to become a vice admiral"? in Nemesis:P ) and the rest of the characters had a zero personality. It also spawned two of the most dreadful characters in Star Trek history, Neelix and Kes *shudders*

I still am, though, waiting for a detailed response as to why Nemesis, according to most of you, wasn't any good.
Nemesis was an atrocity. The authors completely ignored the established continuity and introduced the most convoluted plot in the history of Star Trek with an android which we've never heard about before coupled with an awful villain with a silly backstory who is supposed to be a clone of Picard but strangely enough is bald... Oh, the writers screw things up again! Let's disregard for a moment that the actor who plays the clone of Jean-Luc Picard looks nothing like Patrick Steward, they ignored that The Next Generation series established that Jean-Luc Picard had hair when he was a young man (the episodes "Rascals", "Violations" and "Tapestry"), but still the writers insisted on having the actor who, as I mentioned, looks nothing like Stewart to portray Picard as a cadet with no hair! Furthermore, Shinzon was dying, and needed Picard's DNA but still found time for idle chatting with Picard (including having him wait for a day!) and to mind-rape Deanna Troi! Never mind that he could have grabbed Picard during dinner, but nooo. There are just so many things that doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the movie and which are outright dumb: Picard going Rambo, the bridge crew leaving the bridge to fight intruders, the silly Argo vehicle (and the aliens on the primitive planet have almost identical vehicles, what are the odds for that?! Oh, and Harry Kim couldn't even recognize a car in "The 37's", another continuity error!), the entire fight in the rift which was a blatant rip-off of The Wrath of Khan (the entire movie tries to be a rip-off of TWOK but it fails miserably) and the movie generally lacks emotion.

Again I come to the same question: What more do you want from a Star Trek Movie/Series?
I would want the writers (and I'm glad that new writers have been brought on board) to tone down the technobabble and focus on the character interaction (of course, that would require more interesting characters than Janeway and Chakotay). Don't recycle the same material from earlier shows over and over again and create a movie/series in which we recognize ourselves and don't turn it into a soap opera (there must still be a continuity of course).

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

Well thank you for your detailed reports, Mags. I appreciate it, and now understand a bit more (though it has not changed my personal opinion of either VOY or Nemesis).


Ahem... AHEM:

Don't recycle the same material from earlier shows over and over again and create a movie/series in which we recognize ourselves

AHEM!!!! *cough*Star*cough*Trek*cough*XI*choke*....*dead*.. .


:vaderxmas:

[Master Magnus]

Well thank you for your detailed reports, Mags. I appreciate it, and now understand a bit more (though it has not changed my personal opinion of either VOY or Nemesis).


Ahem... AHEM:

AHEM!!!! *cough*Star*cough*Trek*cough*XI*choke*....*dead*.. .


:vaderxmas:
You're welcome! However, we do not know yet that Star Trek XI will be a rehash. The rumored storyline isn't exactly a rehash either.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

I know, I know. It was really the "a movie/series in which we recognize ourselves" line that caught my attention :)