A regurgitation
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
...More action. That could be good, or that could just mean more stuff to attract the people who just like fights and explosions and guns and all that ADHD stuff. Kind of like what they did to X-Men 3.
I like good action, but it actually has to be good, and have relevance to the plot. It needs to be there because it enhances the story and makes it fun, not just so it can make-up for a lack of story or to get the pleasure-chemicals going in the brain.
Wow, that sounds like a lot of movies Hollywood pumps out.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Oh no! They'll mess it up!
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hope they learned their lesson from Enterprise. If you make a crappy Trek show, all the fans will hate you and refuse to watch.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Heh. I think the franchise was imagined just fine the first time 'round.
Posted by MyrddinFyre (Member # 2576) on :
I'm worried because it sounds like they're trying to make it so Normal People will like it.
Still, kinnnnda interested.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm worried because it sounds like they're trying to make it so Normal People will like it.
That's a bad thing?
*remembers the hoards who invaded his Middle-Earth sanctuary*
Oh yeah.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
We super-hero fans still haven't recovered from when the X-Men went "mainstream", man.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I loved Enterprise.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
How isn't Star Trek already "mainstream"? Trek and Wars are the most commercial and mainstream sci-fi franchises by a mile. I don't mean that as a criticism, by the way. I'm a huge fan of both, but it's just a fact.
Anyway, a reimagining might be kinda neat. Just look at Battlestar Galactica.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
It'll never be the same as the book.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I loved Enterprise.
So you're the one!
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon: How isn't Star Trek already "mainstream"? Trek and Wars are the most commercial and mainstream sci-fi franchises by a mile. I don't mean that as a criticism, by the way. I'm a huge fan of both, but it's just a fact.
Well, Star Trek has a spotty record when it comes to movies with mainstream commercial appeal.
The touchy-feely, pseudo-cerebral and philosophical first ST movie was quickly and wisely forgotten once the fast-moving, action-oriented Wrath of Khan came out. Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Yeah, the first Star Trek movie was sssooo ssslooow (and not just in that one bit where everyone goes all blurry). Fast moving and action orientated can work great, but only if the audience actually cares enough about the characters that they're on the edge of their seat wanting to know what happens next. And a really cool bad guy doesn't hurt either.
Reimagining is okay with me. Do I want to see Matt Damon as Kirk, as rumours suggest? No. But then I'm not Matt Damon's biggest fan. Although if they really did get Gary Sinise as Bones, I would forgive them anything. Anyway, neither of those possibilities is at all likely. I'm just glad the franchise isn't quite dead yet.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
Looks interesting. Although I really like the original series, as well as much of TNG, it seems like a fresh start would give them a lot more options. That way they wouldn't have to work around the cruft and inconsistencies that have accumulated in the Star Trek universe over the past 40 years.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Well, if they're "re-imagining" the universe, they may have to "re-imagine" me paying to watch the movie.
I'll seriously reconsider any immediate loyalty I have (had) to the series, based on this news.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Sometimes rebooting a franchise isn't a bad idea.
See: Batman Begins
And sometimes it -is- a bad idea.
See: The Mark Waid/Barry Kitson Legion of Smug, Smarmy Teen Brats Who Pretend to be Super-Heroes run. Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I think they should plan to do a complete remake of each of the 10 Star Trek movies. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Heh. I think the franchise was imagined just fine the first time 'round.
I agree.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Take away everything I like, and replace it with "more action."
Imagine my disinterest.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Where does it say "more action" means "only action"?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Okay, so last night, after seeing this, I spent about two hours wandering my house (I'm home alone) ranting about all the possible permutations of an un-reimagined Star Trek prequal. I've been watching rather a lot of TOS recently so I've got ST on the brain.
I think that if they feel the need to 'reimagine' they are NOT using their imaginations, because the amount of perfectly good material that exists is tremendous, funny, action packed and even relavent to today if treated in the correct light and era.
I worry most that they do not know what the "look" (that they want to retain) of the universe is, because I think (read: IMO) I know sure as heck how to update ST and keep it clearly ST.
ps. I have a great idea for a ST prequal show; all I ask is they be so bad that they do not negate any future plots . Or they could surprise as all and be good, but I'm not terribly hopeful.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Here's my issue:
I don't think "reimagining" with the goal of appealing to a new audience would work all that well, simply because...it's Star Trek. It's still going to have the Star Trek name. The last non-Enterprise Trek ended not too long ago. People still know what Star Trek is.
In other words, it's not like Battlestar Galactica, where a significant period of time had passed. So worst-case, I can see this alienating loyal fans while at the same time failing to attract new ones because people will be all, "Star Trek? Psh. I never liked Star Trek."
"First"? They've been discussing Star Trek "reboots" (both hard and soft) at least since the late 90s.
I lost all faith in JMS after he had Gwen Stacy have sex with the Green Goblin, then made Reed Richards into the cause of the Big Bang. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pfft. At least since the late 80s that I personally recollect. And really for longer than that -- STTMP was the end result of all kinds of "reboot" scenarios.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by pH: The last non-Enterprise Trek ended not too long ago.
Assuming you mean Voyager, it's been more than half a decade since that show ended.
More than half a decade is a lot less than....how long has it been since the first BSG? More than thirty years?
-pH
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
I really like the J.M.S. version.
Or at least, I think it's a great possibility. A few things I might do different, but I'd definitely watch that.
Female Scotty. *grins* Reminds me of Starbuck. Ahh, this truly is the age of the reboot.
So... that concept didnt get used, then? What a pity.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
This movie and idea is SOOOO going to suck. I have no hope for it.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Pfft. At least since the late 80s that I personally recollect. And really for longer than that -- STTMP was the end result of all kinds of "reboot" scenarios.
I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a revamped version of the scrapped pilot for the Star Trek: Phase Two TV series?
That series didn't intend to clear away the original series continuity, it intended to pick up the character's lives "later". Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Considering only the barest skeleton of details has been released about the Abrams Reboot, I think it's premature to say it'll be better or worse than the JMS version.
Posted by Dav (Member # 8217) on :
Wow, I really like JMS's idea. Sounds like it would really bring back the spirit of the the classic Trek. Too bad it'll never get made Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was a revamped version of the scrapped pilot for the Star Trek: Phase Two TV series?
That series didn't intend to clear away the original series continuity, it intended to pick up the character's lives "later".
IIRC (and it has been quite some time since the con(s) at which I heard this, so I may not), there were some pretty significant character changes that were planned as well. It wasn't just "later"; it was "later, and remember a bunch of stuff you knew about the characters? We changed it."
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Other than Klingons suddenly being all bumpy and ridge-y?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's not a character change.
It was the early onset of Star Trek Forehead disease.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Physiological changes don't count? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I did not mean changes to a character. I meant character -- personality, etc. -- changes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Whose personalities changed from TOS to TMP? I never noticed any changes (but I was never a big TOS fan).
My opinion is that if Star Trek is ever to be successfully revived, they need to let the ground lie fallow for a while. A long while.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I was unclear. It was the (scrapped) Phase Two that was meant to have all those changes, character changes (and introducing several new characters) among them. Almost none of the projected changes survived the transition of the planned second TV show becoming a movie -- those dreadful uniforms were among the few things that did.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I used to have a "Best of Trek" book that had the plot breakdowns for the never-filmed 12 "Phase Two" episodes, as well as the character descriptions. I don't recall anything particularly contradictory to the original ST canon...though there was quite a bit of "fanon" contradicted.
I could be wrong, though. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*shrug* I was hearing someone's (a producer? I forget) recollections of something that was a decade past when I heard it. And it's been quite some time since then.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
What I remember of Star Trek Phase 2 was that the idea was to introduce new cast members to replace the original members, particularly Kirk and Spock, whose actors wanted a whole lotta money for a new series. I had a book of episode ideas/plots and many of them ended up being TNG episodes. I got that feeling that Phase 2 was the basis for TNG.
The other aspect is that Nimoy was not in good graces with Paramount because of the lawsuit he filed and won because they used his likeness without permission or royalties for that german beer ad. The feeling was to get rid of Spock, either in the movies or tv show, and replace him. And Paramount believed Nimoy didn't want to keep playing spock as well. That book he wrote probably didn't help any either.
IF anything, Star Trek was reimagined starting with TWOK. Roddenbury never wanted starfleet to be a military organization, or the shows to be primarily about space battles and/or war. The franchise was reimagined starting with the second movie, putting more of a militaristic spin on the franchise, basing starfleet on the navy, etc and doing more action and ship battles than Roddenbury wanted. And Gene was pushed out of the way somewhat when it came to stories. I've read repeatedly about the stories Gene wanted to do like time traveling to witness the Kennedy Assasination, stories about Jesus being a space alien/probe, etc. All that never saw the light of day or serious consideration because paramount took the franchise in a different direction. And you could argue that the successful movies after TMP were a difinite reimagining of the franchise, although they kept the actors and the dynamics, the basis for the fandom in the first place.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by stihl1: What I remember of Star Trek Phase 2 was that the idea was to introduce new cast members to replace the original members, particularly Kirk
?
Kirk was going to be the major focus of "Phase II". Shatner had no objections to being in that show. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It surprises me that in this Star Trek thread, everyone is screming that there is no room in the ST universe for originality. I remember frothing at the mouth in rage when I first heard about Deep Space Nine. I'm glad I got over myself.
Abrahms, I doubt will go overboard with action in a Star Trek movie, though it will certainly exist. I mean look at Lost.
Roddenbury fostered alot of alternative thinking in the trekverse, I don't think we make the series better by insisting Abrahms follow the traditions of others.
Many folks like the Star Wars novels, if those are not a reimagination of the movies, I don't know what is.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
"Reimagining" Star Trek sounds like an excellent plan to generate the largest, angriest fan outcry in all of modern human history. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that reimagining the universe is a good idea, but I agree with Jon Boy that this field needs to lay fallow for a good while first.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I liked what I heard about someone wanting Adrian Brody as Spock. I really can seen him playing the role well.
I'm cool with constantly changing continuity. I'm a Highlander fan to after all.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Who exactly is screaming that there's no room for originality in the Star Trek universe? I think it's just the opposite problem: Paramount has sucked Star Trek's well of creativity dry.
Posted by nateetan (Member # 10283) on :
The problem with Enterprise had absolutely nothing do with the show, especially since the 4th season had picked up steam, but entirely to do with the fact that it found itself marooned on UPN.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder anymore if spacefaring Sci-fi shows can survive on network TV.
The Sci-Fi channel thrives off them, and they are loyal to them. Network tv is ready to dump anything at a moment's notice, and rarely gives them a chance to succeed, see Firefly.
Sci-fi, I mean real futuristic sci-fi, seems dead everywhere except Sci-Fi Channel and maybe USA. Heroes and LOST are geeky shows, but where're the phasers and the shields? Or at least the space ships.
There's a place for it on television, we're just not getting it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The problem with Enterprise had absolutely nothing do with the show, especially since the 4th season had picked up steam, but entirely to do with the fact that it found itself marooned on UPN.
I can assure you that I didn't stop watching it because of what station it was on.
I stopped watching because it didn't find it interesting enough to keep watching.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by nateetan: The problem with Enterprise had absolutely nothing do with the show, especially since the 4th season had picked up steam, but entirely to do with the fact that it found itself marooned on UPN.
The two highest rated Star Trek shows were TNG and DS9. They were also the only syndicated shows. I really think there is a connection, and I think any future tv Trek should be syndicated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They were also the only good shows...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Who exactly is screaming that there's no room for originality in the Star Trek universe? I think it's just the opposite problem: Paramount has sucked Star Trek's well of creativity dry.
See here's the thing. Star Trek takes place in a UNIVERSE. Have we plumed the depths of ANY universe including our own?
Theres plenty of material in just EARTH. Why should we run out of ideas in a universe?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: They were also the only good shows...
Well sure if you consider solid characters and excellent writing the definition of a good show...
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Who exactly is screaming that there's no room for originality in the Star Trek universe? I think it's just the opposite problem: Paramount has sucked Star Trek's well of creativity dry.
See here's the thing. Star Trek takes place in a UNIVERSE. Have we plumed the depths of ANY universe including our own?
Theres plenty of material in just EARTH. Why should we run out of ideas in a universe?
You mean other then time travel? I don't think that is possible for Paramount (as much as I love time travel).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:See here's the thing. Star Trek takes place in a UNIVERSE. Have we plumed the depths of ANY universe including our own?
Theres plenty of material in just EARTH. Why should we run out of ideas in a universe?
Um, because it's an artificially shallow and limiting universe?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:See here's the thing. Star Trek takes place in a UNIVERSE. Have we plumed the depths of ANY universe including our own?
Theres plenty of material in just EARTH. Why should we run out of ideas in a universe?
Um, because it's an artificially shallow and limiting universe?
Could you elaborate on why you believe the universe is artificially shallow and limiting? I agree with you but I was not sure if I did for the same reasons.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If they did a series tracking the revocation of the Prime Directive, with in-depth examination of it as a morally bankrupt premise, I'd watch. Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: See here's the thing. Star Trek takes place in a UNIVERSE. Have we plumed the depths of ANY universe including our own?
Theres plenty of material in just EARTH. Why should we run out of ideas in a universe?
I came up with an analogy a while back that sums up my feelings on fictional universes like Star Trek. You hit a rich vein of ore and mine it for a while. Then you want to get some more, so you start making more mines. Pretty soon you give up on that approach and start strip mining or pit mining. You turn whole mountains inside-out looking for more ore. Sure, you may be getting a lot of ore, but you leave this behind.
Simply put, I don't think that plumbing the depths of every fictional universe is necessarily a good thing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ohh look its kennecott copper mine!
The way I see it, kennecott copper mine would be the what a show like "The Simpsons." uses. The Star Trek universe has a mine the size of the earth to work with.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
I disagree. The Simpsons seems far less bound by a premise than Star Trek does. And the size of the universe (a galaxy instead of a town) isn't directly proportional to the number of interesting stories you could tell about that universe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: I disagree. The Simpsons seems far less bound by a premise than Star Trek does.
Might I submit that I think Star Trek starting with TNG has done far more exploring of it's casts backgrounds and psyche rather then exploring for unknown alien species?
edit: On second thought I am not sure I agree with my above statement.
More accurately I think there is still plenty of possibilities on the 'new alien species' front.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Aliens in a universe with infinite possibilities? Yay!
quote:According to this relationship, in a production system with fixed and variable inputs
What are the fixed inputs in the Star Trek universe?
Its not my fault they make most of their aliens humanoid in appearance.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
I think there's plenty left to do, originality wise, in the Star Trek universe. I don't think they should go backwards and do prequals or re-imaginings. They should push forward and expand things. And they don't necessarily need to push out another movie, either. THey should let it all rest for a while, instead of pushing for this re-imagining. IMO, they never finished imagining the old Star Trek universe.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Best. Post. Today.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Could you elaborate on why you believe the universe is artificially shallow and limiting? I agree with you but I was not sure if I did for the same reasons.
Off the top of my head:
There's the refusal to explore the ramifications of the new technology or science they develop to combat the timespace anomaly du jour.
Same thing with most of the interesting aliens (i.e., the ones that aren't funny-looking humans [or not even funny-looking at all, like the Bajorans] with one or two human traits emphasized. In short, most aliens aren't alien -- they are really just demihumans, like elves and dwarves. (I realize that this is extremely difficult to work around, given the medium of TV and movies).
There's the blandification of human nature by saying that mankind has overcome persistent human problems such as privilege, poverty, jealousy, money, disease, hunger, want, etc..
There's the idiotic (refusal to develop cloaking technology) and morally bankrupt (prime directive [to steal Dag's phrase']) sense of honor in the Federation.
There's the too-powerful technology which requires far too much effort to explaining why why in this situation they can't scan for lifesigns or beam him up.
There's the refusal to make things different. Enterprise was supposed to be exciting because they didn't have all this magic technology to fall back on like the other Treks. But before long, they were raising shields, powering up weapons, and beaming people up just like in all the other Treks.
Your turn.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Star Trek was a shoddily constructed universe, anyway you slice it. Still, it could be fun.
And hey, since alternate universes are already a part of Trek canon, a new universe with alternate Kirk and Spock really contradicts and reboots nothing. Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: Star Trek was a shoddily constructed universe, anyway you slice it. Still, it could be fun.
And hey, since alternate universes are already a part of Trek canon, a new universe with alternate Kirk and Spock really contradicts and reboots nothing.
I would be all for it if they came right out and said this was a mirror universe, and delved into what happened in the mirror universe after the original episode. I'd be all for it. But this reimagining bs sucks, imo.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Star Trek was a shoddily constructed universe, anyway you slice it. Still, it could be fun.
I agree with you there. As much as I gripe about Trek, I still enjoy it.
I just think that the time to do something like this is after time. Right now, Trek fans are still pissed off about Enterprise. In five years, the fins will forget how annoyed they were and will be more nostalgic about what they did love.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
*deep breath*
First of all, all fictional universes are limited in their scope because no television series or series of television series can hope to explore all the possible options. The point of storytelling is imagination and invention and the way I see it, Star Trek is no more limited than any other science fiction universe, including that of Firefly.
quote:There's the refusal to explore the ramifications of the new technology or science they develop to combat the timespace anomaly du jour.
I recognise this as a valid point but I don't see it as part of the "point" if you will, of the star trek universe. The original ST was far more sociological and used technology to make a sociological, comic or historical point, instead of the reverse. Nowadays, that might seem shallow, but that doesn't mean that a prequel Trek can't take this into account.
quote:In short, most aliens aren't alien -- they are really just demihumans, like elves and dwarves.
You are right, this is a relic of television, but again, IMO the point of Star Trek and its limited television budget was not to show how crazy aliens LOOKED but how they were different from humans. And yes, they weren't that different because I think that it's easier to deal with creatures who are similar.
In addition, there have always been a great deal of bizarre completely non-humanoid creatures tromping around the ST universe. The fact that most of them being people is an artifact of the fact that human actors are, in fact, human shaped.
quote:There's the blandification of human nature by saying that mankind has overcome persistent human problems such as privilege, poverty, jealousy, money, disease, hunger, want, etc..
Were I to make a prequel show, this is EXACTLY the point of view I would present and then defeat. I would suggest that by eliminating negative sociological traits such as poverty we do not dehumanize ourselves. Certainly, I do not think that was the goal of TOS: the characters are indeed driven by their own personal goals, desires etc. They are clearly human.
I think the point of Star Trek is to show that in spite of the "loss" of such sociological traits as poverty, humans are still human. They do not need to be greedy, violent, or poor. We still have negative traits aplenty for us to deal with.
In my opinion think a show that (as a small part of its plot) combated the belief that to be poor and hungry is "part of the human experience" wouldn't be terribly poorly received.
quote:There's the idiotic (refusal to develop cloaking technology) and morally bankrupt (prime directive [to steal Dag's phrase']) sense of honor in the Federation.
Both of these are relics of the eras they were conceived in. Neither are applicable to a prequel-era show. They do not have to be dealt with.
Besides that, I do not think that the Prime Directive idea really was, or has to be, "hands off". With a little imagination we can imagine that it was merely intended to prevent the kind of violence and destruction we see today in societies that have abruptly come into contact with our technological expansion. I would posit that much of our problems with the Middle East emanate from an intense feeling of helplessness in the face of cultural erosion. Aboriginal societies have struggled excessively with the industrial world- would it have been better to let a slower pace lead the wide variety of human societies to the same place, instead of presenting an ultimatum? Is it possible that the prime directive; the allowance for a slower, more natural pace of evolution, is in fact a pretty smart idea?
I don't think the Prime Directive was ever really supposed to prevent Starfleet (yeah, now I sound like the largest geek in the world) from intervening in war or famine or such. There are numerous examples of peaceful intervention in the Star Trek canon and some of rather forceful (if not violent).
I think the Prime Directive isn't as morally bankrupt as Dag makes it out to be, although of course it depends on how you interpret it. You must also remember that our perspective on a single planet in the 21st century is quite different because we are ALREADY everywhere. Now, it's morally bankrupt to stay away, but when a hunter-gatherer society across a wide ocean we've never crossed is the order of the day, is it better to merely look, instead of interfering- provided all is going weel? I think that is the status of the Prime Directive.
I don't think it was intended by its inventors that societies should be left to die in some kind of cosmic eugenics program. PLEASE correct me on this if you have evidence of this in ST.
quote:There's the too-powerful technology which requires far too much effort to explaining why why in this situation they can't scan for lifesigns or beam him up.
This kind of kinky/wonky world writing is visible in a lot of sci fi. In my opinion, with clever writing it can be eliminated or made to seem invisible.
quote:There's the refusal to make things different. Enterprise was supposed to be exciting because they didn't have all this magic technology to fall back on like the other Treks.
I agree, but I don't think that ST is just about technology, it's also about society. True, Enterprise completely messed up regarding societal issues too- contentious relationships were gone as fast as technological ones.
I think that with an imaginative and clever person at the helm, a Star Trek universe/movie/show can be created that fits not only within the general canon of the other shows but also within the demands of the real world today. I also think that said show/movie/universe can retain most if not all of the core values- even those of the ideas of elimination of poverty that m_p_h finds so vile and unhuman- and still be very realistic and captivating.
Like all good stories, it must find ways to get around unrealities and explain away or combat arguments against it.
I am of the opinion if you hate ST and find it so far from realism as many people seem to, or you feel it is all wrong for the era today, why are you trying to make it? Why not simply start over?
I personally, however, do not believe that the core values of ST are either invalid or completely unbelievable. ST is not trying to be the vision of the future, it is trying to be just one vision. I think a re-imagining is unnecessary.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
BlackBlade: I think mph already made a lot of my points pretty well. You call the Star Trek universe infinite, but I think it's anything but. There are a lot of things in it that are more or less fixed, like humans, the Federation, the Prime Directive, the other major alien races, and a lot of the themes. And I'd say that different alien races is one of the least interesting aspects of the universe. After all, Voyager featured a lot of different races, and it was a pretty crappy series.
Also, the possibilities aren't endless—for example, if there were an episode in which the crew members evolved into galactic hypersalamanders, then it really wouldn't be Star Trek, now would it? And even if it were Star Trek, it certainly wouldn't be good television.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Also, the possibilities aren't endless—for example, if there were an episode in which the crew members evolved into galactic hypersalamanders, then it really wouldn't be Star Trek, now would it? And even if it were Star Trek, it certainly wouldn't be good television.
How about a Trek were Captain Bauer only has twenty-four of his hours to stop a Romulan plot?
And isn't it always convenient that aliens threatening the Enterprise always convert time to earth hours, and that it always ends up being nice round numbers?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Universal translator + awesome coincidence = nice round earth hours.
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I guess I am in the middle about ST. There are elements that I simply love. I've been working my way through TNG season 5 and, for the most part, really really enjoy it. Yes, there is the problem with trechno-babble and the way it is pulled out of thin air (or other places.) These are major new solutions/technologies that, for all practical purposes, have never been tested. Not a one of them is buggy. Man, MS shoulda hired Geordi for the new Vista OS. Guy can come up with a solution to charge an atmosphere of pollutants, and then use the enterprise as a lightning rod to channel them into space- or it will burn up every living thing in the atmosphere. It's a 50/50 situation, not helped by a guy claiming to be from the future looking over their shoulders asking them to fill out questionaires, saying to ignore him when he makes himself un-ignorable. With that kind of pressure, Geordi succeeds and not only gets the weather back on track, but also completely cleans up the atmosphere.
And this wonderful technology will be used?...Never again. That is supremely annoying.
The little things- the language and time-scale issues, the 'shape' and similarity to humans, etc- don't bother me. I know those are simply byproducts of short production time, limited budget, and simplified conventions to cut out the necessary (but lame) 'You have 3.34x10^(24) cycles of the cesium atom to respond!!!'
The thing is, those little thing wouldn't bother so many people if the the big things- things like character consistancy, plot consistancy, willingness to follow amazing stories on to their end and ALLOW them to forever change the characters (Episodes after 'Inner Light', I'm looking at you, here), avoiding the dreaded 5 minute solution after 37 minutes of detective work (in a 42 minute episode).
In many ways, these all boil down to one thing: even though we know it is made up, we WANT to believe it. We will suspend our disbelief and put up with some simplification (time-scale, etc), but only when the over-all arch and series continuity is sacred. When it is as self-contained and consistant a universe as possible. This is partly why, IMO, so many shows with large, series spanning mysteries and archs have become so popular. They provide us with a microcosm universe for us to understand and 'live in'.
When the TOS came out, there was nothing like it. There was just *enough* continuity (real or imagined) and it was new enough that people, especially in syndication, could love it and want to believe in it, however poorly imagined. And even when TNG came out, there was still nothing like it on TV, or hadn't been for a while (the only one I'm can think of is the original Battlestar Gallactica). So they could still do the free-standing, epoch-agnostic episodes that were so necessary to repeats and syndication. But even then, people responded to the true myth-archs. Through DS9 (which evolved, accidently, I think, into an over-arching series), then Voyager, the producers tried to have teh best of both worlds. But we'd already had shows like Babylon 5, X-Files, and so on, that highlighted the good and the bad of the series with tight focus and continuity. Not that every episode has to be part of a larger tapestry (soap-operaish) or can't be fun. But things can never go backward. Smallville is in the same boat and failing miserably.
Enterprise made the mistake of creating many myth-arch episodes (fulfilling the 1st requirement), but ignored much of the previously established continuity. The irony being, they were trying for an internal continuity (lessons learned from the previous series) at the expense of the larger continuity of the whole franchise. That's what caused the backlash. And when it didn't work, they resort to hype. Don't bring the Borg on in what amounts to more than a celebrity cameo, if it violates canon.
My honest opinion is this. If they want to do a movie that rocks, that totally brings all of geekdom to their feet, they need to do this: create a crossover movie that acknowledges meaningfully and uses ALL the Trek series (perhaps minus Enterprise). Not a toss in everything but the kitchen sink movie. But a movie that takes elements and people/situations from all the series and weaves them together. For a perfect example, Greg Cox's 'The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh' or his 'Q-Continuum' series. What amazed me most, aside from the good stories, was the way he referred constantly (but not overly so) to events in all the series. Why could the Enterprise in TOS not go beyond the galaxy? What was the being at the center of the galaxy that called itself God (in the execreble Final Frontier movie)? What was the * creature that thrived on violence in TOS? How are they related to Q and the Guardian of Forever (City on the Edge of Forever, TOS)? How did their actions destroy the T'Kon empire (the ones who moved stars) that Picard found in season 2? Or affect Sargon and his people who put their minds in bubbles? It goes on an on. There is an amazing breadth of continuity and sense of uniformity and reality that he gives to all those elements.
I promise you, a story that used and acknowledged elements/people/plots from all the series in a meaningful way (not stunt casting, like Generations) would revitalize the franchise. People would find it awesome, the breadth of 40 years of ST imagining all brought together. And if a series was done afterward, it would need to have (a) iron-fisted producer(s) to make sure it maintained certain criteria.
It does not need to lie fallow. It needs to be done right.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Although I don't agree entirely with IanO's specific methods, I agree with his general premise. I think that there is plenty of material- alien, social, "historical", "scientific" to call upon and make a new movie or show both canon, exciting and awesome.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. Or they could surprise as all and be good, but I'm not terribly hopeful.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)