• '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @Cmdr:

    None of TNG was “bad” it just could have been better, IMHO.  First season was a lot, in feel, with TOS, wasn’t it?

    60% was a bit of an exaggeration, but I will name a few first season episodes that were pretty much terrible: “Justice”, “Code of Honor”, “The Naked Now”, “Skin of Evil”. Even though “Shades of Gray” is in season two, any clip episode has to be included. If you are going to pick some random TNG to watch, how likely is it that you pick “Shades of Gray” over any other episode?

    First season TNG was a lot like TOS, but that doesn’t make it good. TOS can be accepted for what it was and a product of its time: it was fairly revolutionary and actually had some meaningful drama for its era. TNG has much more to live up to considering the heights to which the show rose. That is a good thing, but makes the primitive nature of season one clash with the more sophisticated later stuff. In comparison, many points in season one are just laughably bad. I was watching season one all the way through again recently and cringed at a lot of it. There are lots of good points too, but I think that some of it can be said to be objectively poor. To each his (her) own though.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    http://www.denofgeek.us/tv/star-trek/250227/star-trek-what-do-we-want-from-the-new-tv-series

    This is a fair expectation of the new series. Pretty much fits what I would expect given our culture and TV watching habits today.

    I have been expecting for some time that any new Trek show would include some contemporary socially disenfranchised individual based solely on Star Trek’s penchant for progressivism. In this instance, if it is an LGBT person, Star Trek will actually be behind the curve since many other shows have already done that. TNG didn’t exactly have an Uhura, Chekov or Sulu or any regular cast member who was marginalized minority, so I don’t think that the new show has to either, though I wouldn’t at all be surprised if it ends up having one.

    I think the real question is if the new show continues the even more core aspect of Star Trek’s exploration of humanity with an emotion-less character. IMO it would be redundant and probably un-creative for the writers to imitate or create another Spock or Data. I just feel like any attempt to match those characters will both come short and seem much too trite by this point. The writers should figure out another route for the “what makes us human” approach.

    Everything in the article sounds pretty good, until you come back to reality and remember that, ah… damn. Its Alex Kurtzman. Well that was a nice fantasy……


  • @Cmdr:

    None of TNG was “bad” it just could have been better, IMHO.  First season was a lot, in feel, with TOS, wasn’t it?Â

    Yes, and apparently one of the reasons both for the similarity with TOS and for the uneven quality of the episodes was the Gene Roddenberry had more control of TNG in the first season than he did subsequently.  Roddenberry’s idealism sometimes clashed with the requirements of television drama: his wish to depict Starfleet personnel as peaceful and progressive allegedly made him insist that they never be shown in conflict with each other (unless they were, let’s say, under some kind of alien influence).  Any conflicts depicted on the show had to be restricted to conflicts with people external to the primary characters – preferably non-Starfleet / non-Federation people.  Unfortunately, this imposed severe limitations on the kinds of stories the writers could come up with.  After all, can you imagine what Voyager or Enterprise or (perhaps especially) DS9 would have been like if no conflict had been allowed between the primary characters?

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @CWO:

    Yes, and apparently one of the reasons both for the similarity with TOS and for the uneven quality of the episodes was the Gene Roddenberry had more control of TNG in the first season than he did subsequently.  Roddenberry’s idealism sometimes clashed with the requirements of television drama: his wish to depict Starfleet personnel as peaceful and progressive allegedly made him insist that they never be shown in conflict with each other (unless they were, let’s say, under some kind of alien influence).  Any conflicts depicted on the show had to be restricted to conflicts with people external to the primary characters – preferably non-Starfleet / non-Federation people.  Unfortunately, this imposed severe limitations on the kinds of stories the writers could come up with.  After all, can you imagine what Voyager or Enterprise or (perhaps especially) DS9 would have been like if no conflict had been allowed between the primary characters?

    William Shatner just made this documentary (Chaos on the Bridge) with help from many of the TNG writers, cast and those in-the-know. I don’t know if it is truly a hit-piece on Roddenberry, but it looks really interesting. I have known the general situation with Roddenberry controlling the creative process and hampering TNG development, but this is a more authoritative and definitive look at the whole deal. I want to watch.

    http://io9.com/a-new-documentary-shows-how-gene-roddenberry-almost-kil-1721153875

  • '18 '17 '16 '11 Moderator

    I had heard that before, Marc.  Roddenbury was very anti-inter personnel conflict with bridge characters.  IMHO, a little strife on the bridge saved Enterprise from being a total waste.  I actually kind of liked Enterprise.  Not all of it, but there were quite a few good episodes.  There was also the conflict between Paris and Janeway, Torres and everyone and that might be a bit of why I enjoyed Voyager.

  • '17 '16 '15 '12

    any of you Star Trek fans ever came across startrekcontinues.com?

    fan-made episodes 100% in sync with TOS, continuing where the show ended. James Doohans son playing Scotty, even. Its not action, but again is centered about human issues.

    I just discovered it today and watched three episodes, its really really noce, with lots of ties to earlier episodes, or continuations of them.

    Am I nostalgic? Damn, yes, but thats one kind of Star Trek I want to see. I also watched the prologue to Star Trek Axanar (think thats how it was spelled), a series or movie depixting the Klingon / Fed war a couple years before Kirk took over. Prologue was nicely done, featured Hertzler (Martok) and Todd (think that was Kurn) in fed roles, funny to hear. They are under legal fire now from CBS, not sure how it will end, but seems to have a lot of star power behind it. Looked good, more action-oriented, but made with the same love as StarTrek continues.

    Sorry if that is old news and has been discussed already.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    I am not into the fan-fiction stuff. Some of it may be well done, but in the end it feels more like an imitation rather than the real thing itself. I have heard of Anaxar Axanar though and what I have heard is positive. I wish something like that would be produced by CBS and put back on television, but I doubt that is what the new series will be like.

  • '17 '16 '15 '12

    It is an imitation, oc you are right there. But it lacks a goofy look or such things. Its amazing how they captured TOS, music, way of acting, Sulus voice etc. The added things, Marina Sirtis is the computer voice now, they have a holodeck and a counselor. One simply doesnt notice its fan made, other than the (sometimes just slightly) different faces.

    Lets hope for Axanar and any new and original CBS stuff. I cant stand another “Starkiller is in weaponsrange in 30 seconds…boom” moment.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    Oh, I am not opposed to trying it out and watching it. I may even like it if it is well done. Typically the fan produced shows are more accurate and respectful than studio ones because it is being made by the nerds for the nerds. In that way, it is better than a studio show will be.

    However, it still feels kinda like an exercise in futility because, even though Star Trek itself is not real, fan fiction is even less real. Not in the quality necessarily, but more in an absolute manner. It will never be referenced in books, movies or other shows because it never officially happened. I think I may find it hard to enjoy what Trek was and will be if I invested myself so much in what was an unsanctioned offshoot. It would be like living in an alternate universe; you just pretend the real universe doesn’t exist.

    I grant you, JJ Abrams (and the studio execs) screwed everything up royally. They have basically forced real Trek fans to plug their ears and sing la-la-la-la-la so as not to accept the bungled mess that the franchise is in. If the studio can blow it all into alternate realities then I guess fans have every right to also.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @alexgreat:

    It is an imitation, oc you are right there. But it lacks a goofy look or such things. Its amazing how they captured TOS, music, way of acting, Sulus voice etc. The added things, Marina Sirtis is the computer voice now, they have a holodeck and a counselor. One simply doesnt notice its fan made, other than the (sometimes just slightly) different faces.

    Lets hope for Axanar and any new and original CBS stuff. I cant stand another “Starkiller is in weaponsrange in 30 seconds…boom” moment.

    You must , PLEASE read this article… It is absolutely brilliant. It conveys to perfection exactly how I would feel about Star Trek fan-fiction and also pretty much how I regard JJ Abrams’ version of Star Trek. Happy because it is back, but sad because the real one is dead.

    http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/requiem-for-star-wars/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&_r=1


  • @LHoffman:

    You must , PLEASE read this article… It is absolutely brilliant. It conveys to perfection exactly how I would feel about Star Trek fan-fiction and also pretty much how I regard JJ Abrams’ version of Star Trek. Happy because it is back, but sad because the real one is dead.

    Excellent article – thanks for the link.

    To draw and A&A analogy, one could say that fan fiction is the equivalent of house rules: unofficial, but sometimes (arguably) better than some elements of the official product line.

  • '17 '16 '15 '12

    will read it, and eloquently put about screwing up royally :)

  • '17 '16 '15 '12

    hm. Its a very good analysis, well written, but personally I dont agree entirely.

    The most important thing right now seems to be the, whats the correct English translation, most common denominator? Screw people who want things to fit, who want at least a bone thrown how the whole new thing ties in and developed (I am talking about JJ Star Wars), lets just overload people with soundbits and iconic things they love, add the unavoidable action factor of a 201+ movie and, to play it totally safe, repeat what has been before. Cant fail with a squadron attack on a Death Star thing.

    For JJ Star Trek, same thing. Yes, I found it appealing to a degree when the movie evolved and let, this time, Spock cry Khan while Kirk dies of radiation. But in the end its so cheap I could cry, and the (intended) side effect is blowing away the old canon. Vulcan? WTF, blow it away. The rest, just put it through a mirror or adapt slightly.

    So some people are young and just discover those two franchises, others are consumers of an entertaining movie and dont bother about the “lore”, others live with it for decades, immerse themselves (yes, get enarmored with some things like, in my case, Mara Jade or the Romulans and are biased towards the movies already when those things are gone) and ask for a bit more. I dont feel the latter group is really served. Partly, I understand, because nowadays everything costs so much, they have to be successful. Without massive special effects nobody is coming, thats the fear they have, I guess. Not sure if thats true, but too a part it surely is.

    In the end, as the author said, we get recreation, no development at all. Star Wars could have gone anywhere, not necessarily the great Thrawn Trilogy, but no, they went mostly nowhere. Star Trek, jumpstarting the franchise, they went simply back. Thats not bold, and certainly not where no man had gone before.

    I agree with you entirely, watching something that is not “official” has not the right feel, and it wont matter in official compendia etc. But with the indiscriminate slashing of what has grown organically, what is official and whatnot can change so quickly (and for the worse, in my personal opinion), that any fan-created piece has the same legitimacy (correct word?) as the studio staff. All the ore enjoyable when its so well done. Even if the voice in the back of the head says “its not real”.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    @alexgreat:

    I agree with you entirely, watching something that is not “official” has not the right feel, and it wont matter in official compendia etc. But with the indiscriminate slashing of what has grown organically, what is official and whatnot can change so quickly (and for the worse, in my personal opinion), that any fan-created piece has the same legitimacy (correct word?) as the studio staff. All the ore enjoyable when its so well done. Even if the voice in the back of the head says “its not real”.

    Ha! Very well said my friend. For apparently not speaking English as a first language you are quite eloquent in your wording.

    And I agree with you. When I referenced the studio (being the source of all that is “Official”) willing to blow up everything in Trek and create alternate realities simply to re-invigorate their product… You appropriately rhetorically questioned if “any fan created piece has the same legitimacy?”

    At that point, I think that fan-fiction could easily have the same level of legitimacy as the trademarked material. On an emotional level it certainly feels that way.

  • '17 '16 '15 '12

    Thx :)

    Always embarrassed when I confuse staff and stuff, though. I dont know why, this particular mistake hounds me for years now.


  • http://www.startrek.com/article/bryan-fuller-named-co-creator-of-new-star-trek-tv-series

    Bryan Fuller Named Co-Creator of New Star Trek TV Series

    February 09, 2016

    Bryan Fuller, who launched his career writing for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Voyager, will return to the television franchise as co-creator and executive producer of the new CBS Star Trek series.

    Star Trek will be produced by CBS Television Studios in association with Kurtzman’s Secret Hideout. Kurtzman and Fuller will be joined by Heather Kadin as executive producers.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    I saw the Brian Bryan Fuller add the other day. Didn’t know who he was until I read his resume. The more people they bring in from TNG, DS9 and VOY the better, IMO. I assume there is some particular style that they are framing the series as (like the reboot is framed as TOS slicked up for the 2000s), so I don’t know how much creative influence the old guard folks can really bring. But having them around cannot hurt. They at least know what Star Trek is.

  • '17 '16 '15 '12

    absolutely agree.

  • '18 '17 '16 '15 Customizer

    http://trekcore.com/blog/2016/02/wrath-of-khans-nicholas-meyer-joins-cbss-2017-star-trek-tv-series-writing-staff/

    Very, very good news in the Star Trek TV show world… Nick Meyer (Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country) is on board for writing the new tv show.

    That provides a lot of hope I think, since he has made some of the best Star Trek films ever. The mitigating issue is that his writing will have to bend to the creative will of Kurtzman.

    Also, I don’t know if this indicates the era of the show. Far as I know, Nick Meyer was only ever involved in the original cast/TOS era films… therefore will the new show be placed in that era? A continuation of the new movies rather than a TNG/DS9 era show. To be honest I think that is most likely the situation.


  • @LHoffman:

    Also, I don’t know if this indicates the era of the show. Far as I know, Nick Meyer was only ever involved in the original cast/TOS era films… therefore will the new show be placed in that era? A continuation of the new movies rather than a TNG/DS9 era show. To be honest I think that is most likely the situation.

    Perhaps it will be the case and perhaps it won’t…but either way, I’d argue that Nicolas Meyer’s involvement doesn’t in itself point towards either hypothesis.  As you say, he made some of the best films of the Trek canon – so it’s clear that he’s talented, that he’s knowledgeable about the subject and that he has a good feel for (and respect for) the Trek universe.  (Contrast this with Jonathan Frakes, who directed the Thunderbirds movie that came out a few years ago.  I loved the original TV puppet series – which was actually quite serious in its tone – but I disliked many things about his movie, which came across as a kind of “Spy Kids” semi-comedy film.  So I wasn’t surprised to hear that Frakes allegedly said that he’s never actually seen any of the original Thunderbirds episodes.)  Someone with Meyer’s qualifications should, in principle, be able to do good work in any Star Trek era.  To assume otherwise would amount to saying, “He’s great, but he’s a one-trick pony who can only work in the Kirk era,” which would actually be something of a put-down.

Suggested Topics

  • 44
  • 2
  • 4
  • 17
  • 150
  • 19
  • 14
  • 22
Axis & Allies Boardgaming Custom Painted Miniatures

92

Online

17.2k

Users

39.6k

Topics

1.7m

Posts