posted
This questions sort of jumps across forums (fora?). Wouldn't it be wonderful of Paramount gave OSC a crack at the Star Trek franchise? I guess I'm thinking about his ability to craft charcaters and dialog, and how well suited he would be to the ST universe.
I have always wanted to see a series about Starfleet Headquarters, set on Earth in the ST:TNG time frame. I would love to see all the drama associated with maintaing the Federation interests in the explored galaxy. OSC would be perfect for it.
posted
I believe OSC won't be available to work on any new film projects until after 2012, which is when he's scheduled to be done with production of the Star Wars preprequels. Where we learn that Padme is actually Anakin's father.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC would not be suited to the current ST universe. Now if they let him start it from scratch I think that might be a different story.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that OSC has said some fairly negative things about Star Trek, I sincerely hope he is never offered "a crack at" it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Dammit, Spock, you green-blooded intellectual elite. Can't you just for once come down to the level of us common folk?!?"
..................
"Ladies, I don't think it's appropriate for me to engage in any alien friskiness while Mrs. Kirk and my 12 kids are waiting for me on Earth."
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always partitioned Star Trek in the realm of science-fiction-best-enjoyed-when-you-don't-think-about-it-too-hard. A lot of the science is made up, and you have to stretch your imagination a little more to suspend your disbelief for almost everything Star Trek does. I read somewhere that Star Trek is best thought of as a religion, where its followers will support it no matter how awful some portions of it can be.
OSC, on the other hand, manages to suspend my disbelief every time with little to no stretching of my imagination.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I've always partitioned Star Trek in the realm of science-fiction-best-enjoyed-when-you-don't-think-about-it-too-hard. A lot of the science is made up, and you have to stretch your imagination a little more to suspend your disbelief for almost everything Star Trek does. I read somewhere that Star Trek is best thought of as a religion, where its followers will support it no matter how awful some portions of it can be.
OSC, on the other hand, manages to suspend my disbelief every time with little to no stretching of my imagination.
This is precisely why I think he would be such a breath of fresh air. He could elevate the story like Harlon Ellison did with the orginial series.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: "Ladies, I don't think it's appropriate for me to engage in any alien friskiness while Mrs. Kirk and my 12 kids are waiting for me on Earth."
posted
OSC generally has a low opinion of franchise-based shared universes, if I'm not mistaken. Even if he is allowed to start a new offshoot from scratch, there are countless limitations on a ST screenwriter. And if the film/series does break with the pattern, Paramount will be worried about upsetting fans.
I guess the question is, will OSC's enthusiasm for writing quality screenplays for film outweigh his distaste for the many limitations which will be implicit in a ST film/series?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that OSC would be more willing to create his own television series than any already franchise based. Just think: Forget about Enders Game the Movie. How about Enders Game the Series? Perhaps it could be set after the Bugger War and during the time of the great genius wars.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I think that OSC would be more willing to create his own television series than any already franchise based. Just think: Forget about Enders Game the Movie. How about Enders Game the Series? Perhaps it could be set after the Bugger War and during the time of the great genius wars.
I dunno, I almost think the Alvin Maker series would make for a better TV series.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by johnsonweed: This is precisely why I think he would be such a breath of fresh air. He could elevate the story like Harlon Ellison did with the orginial series.
While City is unquestionably one of the best ST episodes ever, you are aware that the finished version was considerably re-written from Ellison's script, and that he hates it, right?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also believe the original Star Trek was badly acted and took place within a foolishly conceived fictional universe - but I also believe that it doesn't matter enough for grownups to spend time talking about it. Statement of Beliefs - By Orson Scott Card
I can't find the link, but from what I remember of Mr. Card's most recent rant on Star Trek, he really hated the way the focus of the shows was always on a very few members of the senior staff, who always seemed to do absolutely everything. All the junior-grade guys ever got to do was die. Plus, he really hated a lot of the acting styles exhibited. And I think he probably didn't like a a lot of other things, which I've forgotten about, too. Basically, he thought it was a bit silly, and he wasn't wrong. But I think that the trick with liking Star Trek is to know how silly and unlikely and impossible it is, and not to care.
Not that ST doesn't need a rehaul these days. Bring on the darkness and the creepy, and more of the funny too, I say. And I'd actually like to see more of the lower rank people involved, or a smaller ship with less crew, where there was a reason why no-one else ever got a look in. We need something which updates the show, improves on its foundations, and makes it what the other Star Trek shows were always aspiring to be. But Mr. Card isn't the guy to do it - if he even wanted to be involved with TV, which I very much doubt.
Plus, that would mean he would be too busy to write anymore books, which would be a shame, IMO.
Though an Alvin Maker series would rock. Maybe a Steven Spielberg style big budget nine hour mini-series?
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: I've always partitioned Star Trek in the realm of science-fiction-best-enjoyed-when-you-don't-think-about-it-too-hard. A lot of the science is made up, and you have to stretch your imagination a little more to suspend your disbelief for almost everything Star Trek does. I read somewhere that Star Trek is best thought of as a religion, where its followers will support it no matter how awful some portions of it can be.
Actually when Rodenberry was alive the series always had NASA advisors to help with terms and possible technologies from what I have seen in BTS stuff.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually when Rodenberry was alive the series always had NASA advisors to help with terms and possible technologies from what I have seen in BTS stuff.
posted
It actually contradicts what I recall Roddenberry saying at a con. AFAIK, the first significant interaction between Star Trek and NASA occurred after the original show was cancelled, and Nichelle Nichols got involved in recruiting women and minorities for the space program.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You may be confusing ST with Babylon 5 -- they worked pretty closely with NASA and JPL from the get go. I never have heard of ST using a NASA advisor.
Posts: 1323 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wondered the same thing. I know that they did that with B5, but I'd be really surprised if they did it with ST.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to disagree with Card and Bella B. I loved the original ST from the very moment I saw it as a kid. As an adult I still love the show, other than a few really bad ones. The acting wasn't that great, but it wasn't horrible. I admit at times it was very unbelievable, but the stories were good enough for easy suspension of disbelief. If you actually watch science fiction from the time it was made, Star Trek was the only one that felt adult. As for television, I guess there was Lost in Space. Now there is a loathsome show.
Did it ever show the lower ranks other than to kill them? who cares? For me that would be boring and I dare someone to name a show (especially sci-fi) that ever did. For that matter, has OSC ever written a sci-fi book about the lower ranked individuals? In a way what makes Douglas Adams so unique is that he does write about the lower ranks of the Universe and makes fun of everyone equally.
Now, I cannot say any of the above about the original Battlestar Galactica that I liked as a kid. Watching it now makes me question why I ever liked it in the first place. Then I remember how cool the space battles were.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Magson: You may be confusing ST with Babylon 5 -- they worked pretty closely with NASA and JPL from the get go. I never have heard of ST using a NASA advisor.
I never knew any of this. That's pretty cool.
Honestly, I really like the Trek universe. Like Occasional, I didn't mind at all that they didn't show much of the lower ranks just because in all honesty, I have a LOT of trouble remembering names. I mean, to the extent that I can read an entire novel and not be able to tell you the protagonist's name. It's not as much of an issue for books, but when it comes to television and movies it makes it really hard for me to follow what's going on, which is probably why I also don't like war movies very much. If there are too many people coming and going, it's a lot more likely that my eyes will glaze over.
posted
PH, that is exactly why I hate Lost. Not that I can't remember names, but because with so many people involved there is too many to follow and enjoy the characters. Another unrelated reason is that I just don't think the show is believable enough to even suspend disbelief. Chasing across the galaxy into uncharted territory is one thing. Landing on an island big enough for unlimited adventures and never getting found? Riiiight.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually when Rodenberry was alive the series always had NASA advisors to help with terms and possible technologies from what I have seen in BTS stuff.
Sources?
it's in some of the behind the scene stuff on the new limited edition DVDs. Don't know the exact one off hand, I'm thinking Nemesis but probably wrong. I also think there is something about it in one of the technical journals which I no longer have so I could be wrong on that one. If someone has Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise or TNG Tech Manual I think it was in one of those. I also remember something about the cast being on hand for the unvieling of the Enterprise space shuttle so they definitely had fans if not advisors at NASA. Sorry I don't have anything concrete but I'm not in school any more and really don't worry about providing sources for things? Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually when Rodenberry was alive the series always had NASA advisors to help with terms and possible technologies from what I have seen in BTS stuff.
Sources?
Sorry I don't have anything concrete but I.......really don't worry about providing sources for things?
How have you survived here since July with that attitude?
Occasional, I've never been able to get into Lost at all. I think Battlestar Galactica is about as many plots as I can follow in a series. I get annoyed when I can't miss a show and still have an idea of what's going on the next week.
quote: I'm not in school any more and really don't worry about providing sources for things?
It's just that when you say something that flies in the face of reality as I perceive it, I'll require more than your say-so before I believe you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Considering that OSC has said some fairly negative things about Star Trek, I sincerely hope he is never offered "a crack at" it.
As if he hasn't been already.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have to disagree with Card and Bella B. I loved the original ST from the very moment I saw it as a kid. As an adult I still love the show, other than a few really bad ones.
Actually Occasional, on that point, you and me, we agree. I was raised on Star Trek and I've always loved all the shows, except that last one, which I gave up on when it seemed to have run out of steam. The negative opinions I was putting forward were what I remembered of Card's, not my own.
But a few years ago no-one would have thought that a show set in this universe could be cancelled. The fact that ’Enterprise’ was, suggests that something has gone very wrong - plus the last movie didn‘t exactly set the box office on fire. So someone needs to take a good hard look at what the problems are, and fix them - but I wouldn’t want them to gut out the original premise and atmosphere of the universe.
As for learning hundreds of names, yeah, I wouldn’t want to do that either. Though I do have the opposite problem with Lost - I don’t have trouble remembering the names of Our Heroes, but I hate that there are meant to be about forty other nameless people on this desert island, who never even seem to interact with Our Heroes and never seem to do anything at all - they don‘t change anything, they don‘t provide services, they just stand around chatting - if we even see them at all. At least on Star Trek the red shirts had a purpose. Why didn’t the showrunners just kill off everyone else except the main characters? [/rant] But that problem is partly because of the isolated nature of Lost - on Star Trek people should be arriving and leaving a ship or spacestation regularly, so that wouldn’t be such an issue.
DS9 managed to incorporate about double the amount of secondary and tertiary characters that the other shows had, without ever confusing me. I’d like to see a couple of Ensign Ricky’s out there, named people I sort of knew from a distance (if you can‘t remember the name, you might remember the face), who might be killed off every now and then, whose death I could actually feel a little sad about without it ruining the atmosphere of the show. It’s a personal preference, but I think having recurring background characters adds a veneer of reality to a show and can bring out interesting elements in the main characters, too.
Card’s main problem with it was that he couldn’t see a captain going on away missions, kicking alien butt etc, when he’d have people to do that for him. But that’s never bothered me - it’s just part of the silly (along with time travel, transporters and holodecks) which you accept with the package because the whole is good fun. Pretty much all speculative stories, be they books, tv shows, movies, have ridiculous elements about them - I could accept the silly on Star Trek without it spoiling my enjoyment, OSC couldn’t. Which is perfectly fair enough.
However, I certainly don't think that adding more tertiary characters would bring in thousands of new fans. It's a case of needing people with imagination and exerting quality control, and having someone who passionately cares about making a new show succeed - and that doesn't seem to have been happening recently.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card doesn't hate "Captains and most important crew members get their hands dirty" SF on that basis alone...note his embracing of the Firefly/Serenity universe. He just wants said fictional universe to seem consistent, and for their to be an internal set of rules for the obviously fictional stuff.
Face it, in Star Trek (much as I loved certain episodes of TOS and TNG) the rules change from episode to episode. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So someone needs to take a good hard look at what the problems are, and fix them"
I can tell you exactly what was wrong, at least from my point of view and the reason I lost interest. All the stories were the same as we have seen in the ST Universe a thousand times before, and usually better written. Enterprise had the ability to be a show about the development of the Federation. Instead it was OST lite. The ST X movie had the ability to become an epic, but ended up a simple patchwork adventure story. They don't need a change. They need an expansion into uncharted story ideas and grander vistas.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the main problem with Enterprise was that it causally (and for no particularly good reason) violated canon (and fairly established fanon, but that's another story) right and left. That alienated a good part of their established fan base early on.
Throw in increasingly ridiculous time-travel-related stuff, and the surprising part is how long the show lasted.
A shame, really. I adore Scott Bakula, and really wanted to like the show.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yea, rivka, the violation of canon was another reason I lost interest. However, it wasn't the main problem for me. I guess I believe in "open canon" as long as everything else is working. Nothing else was.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I must say if I had a choice of ST or Babylon 5, B5 ftw.
Enterprise however was a good series, there were no casaulity errors I could see, name three.
*if you mention the NX-01 Enterprise I'll kill you*
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Actually, the main problem with Enterprise was that it causally (and for no particularly good reason) violated canon (and fairly established fanon, but that's another story) right and left. That alienated a good part of their established fan base early on.
Throw in increasingly ridiculous time-travel-related stuff, and the surprising part is how long the show lasted.
A shame, really. I adore Scott Bakula, and really wanted to like the show.
Yup. Enterprise was teh suck. And I could never get into it. It didn't even LOOK Star Trek to me. Really. I don't know if it was the set or how it was filmed or what, but it was like, "One of these things is not like the others..."
posted
I'm a big fan of STNG and DS9, but never got into Voyager or Enterprise, or TOS...
TOS was clunky and poorly written and acted (I'm too young to have grown up on it, 26) and I did watch a little Voyager, I really liked the doctor and the cook...but that show lost me too. Enterprise never caught me for the reasons you guys have mentioned even though I too love Scott Bacula (Quantum Leap forever!).
My main problem with the (newer) movies is the director, Johnathan Frakes. I like him in front of the camera, but behind it he sux monkey parts. His camera work reeks of effort, his pacing is a joke and his character development is heavy handed.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It didn't even LOOK Star Trek to me. Really. I don't know if it was the set or how it was filmed or what, but it was like, "One of these things is not like the others..."
To me, that worked in its favor.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually when Rodenberry was alive the series always had NASA advisors to help with terms and possible technologies from what I have seen in BTS stuff.
Sources?
Sorry I don't have anything concrete but I.......really don't worry about providing sources for things?
How have you survived here since July with that attitude?
I won't really I've survived I guess maybe endured would be a better descriptor. That and I use a lot of Graemlins.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It didn't even LOOK Star Trek to me. Really. I don't know if it was the set or how it was filmed or what, but it was like, "One of these things is not like the others..."
To me, that worked in its favor.
I thought that was the best part of it. Not all clean and sterile like the previous series had been, but more realistic of what the not so distant future might look like.
Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My main problem with the (newer) movies is the director, Johnathan Frakes. I like him in front of the camera, but behind it he sux monkey parts. His camera work reeks of effort, his pacing is a joke and his character development is heavy handed.
Didn't Frakes direct First Contact? The really kick-butt TNG movie?
The worst Stre Trek movie was Nemesis. Shiny graphics and all that, but otherwise wretched. He didn't make it.
Generations was the best, but he didn't make that either. I think it is damned closely followed by First Contact, which he DID make, and Insurrection, while not fantastically awesone, wasn't the worst thing ever made.
Big difference in those movies was the writing, that's where I'd look.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly, Nathan and I are watching Generations with the commentary by Ron Moore and Brannon Braga on. I highly recommend it, it's hysterical.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favourites were Insurrection and First Contact. I see Insurrection as a sort of epitomy of Star Trek didactic plot structure.
B34N,
Not clean? I thought DS9 was grittier than Enterprise, at least visually. Archer's ship looked pretty clean to me.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: My favourites were Insurrection and First Contact. I see Insurrection as a sort of epitomy of Star Trek didactic plot structure.
B34N,
Not clean? I thought DS9 was grittier than Enterprise, at least visually. Archer's ship looked pretty clean to me.
DS9 was on a Cardasian Space Station of course it is going to look a little dingy. But the Defiant was spotless and so was most of the station with the exception of some areas.
I never really group DS9 with the rest of the ST series. It is kind of in a world its own just cause it was so much better than the rest and mostly on a station not in a ship.
I disagree, Archer's ship was pretty clean in Season 1 and 2 but for the rest of the series that I remember it was constantly dinged up from battle. Plus it was a much darker atmosphere in some areas as opposed to the other series.
But all this is just my personal opinion not hard fact or anything so it is completely open and I do agree that at times DS9 was darker but that's just cause it's the best series.
PS: Frakes is a pretty good Director and I thought Nemesis was pretty good but poorly executed. There were a lot of bad things in it, like Data's shotty makeup and some bad acting by that clone Piccard but I thought the story line was pretty good!
Back to the topic: I think if OSC was to write like a precursor to Enterprise kind of like right after Zefram Cochran does his little warp trip it would rock but won't happen. Posts: 871 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn- Think in terms of character, First Contact was far and away the very best of the next generation. It was most like Deep Space Nine, in that it actually allowed captain Picard to be really troubled, and to actually be the bad guy for once. Kirk, though he was noble, was also unfair and made mistakes, but Picard was always more reserved, and predictably perfect. In First Contact, he loses it a little, and it makes him a much more interesting character, kind of like the Borg were his "Khan!!!!" He even has a scene much like that... "No!!!!!" "You Broke you're little ships."
Also, the plot with Data and the Borg Queen was great, and they didn't focus too much on what didn't work, which was the Zephram Cochrane part of the movie (not the best part, but okay). Also, First Contact had more one liners than most Next Generation movies were willing to do. Can you remember more than a few one-liners from any of the other movies? I can remember a bunch from First Contact, and many from the TOS movies, but not the others.
You get Worf saying: "Perhaps today IS a good day to die," and "If you were any other man I would KILL you where you stand."
"Borg, sounds Swedish"
"I don't want to spend time arguing about time... we don't have the time."
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man"
"Resistance is Futile!" -Data
"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
And I keep thinking of more- it was just a very well written movie.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn- Think in terms of character, First Contact was far and away the very best of the next generation. It was most like Deep Space Nine, in that it actually allowed captain Picard to be really troubled, and to actually be the bad guy for once. Kirk, though he was noble, was also unfair and made mistakes, but Picard was always more reserved, and predictably perfect. In First Contact, he loses it a little, and it makes him a much more interesting character, kind of like the Borg were his "Khan!!!!" He even has a scene much like that... "No!!!!!" "You Broke you're little ships."
Also, the plot with Data and the Borg Queen was great, and they didn't focus too much on what didn't work, which was the Zephram Cochrane part of the movie (not the best part, but okay). Also, First Contact had more one liners than most Next Generation movies were willing to do. Can you remember more than a few one-liners from any of the other movies? I can remember a bunch from First Contact, and many from the TOS movies, but not the others.
You get Worf saying: "Perhaps today IS a good day to die," and "If you were any other man I would KILL you where you stand."
"Borg, sounds Swedish"
"I don't want to spend time arguing about time... we don't have the time."
"Don't try to be a great man, just be a man"
"Resistance is Futile!" -Data
"The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!"
And I keep thinking of more- it was just a very well written movie.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
