I hope for more traditional space battles

[DalekJim]

DarthTom wrote:

---

The final episode of Star Trek Enterprise These are the Voyages illustrates what your saying above in spades. And they even got making the TV show for the die-hards wrong on that episode.

Well, I hate that episode but the same season's In a Mirror, Darkly 2-parter was really good and is the kinda thing I'm talking about. Most people wouldn't like it or give a shit but I don't care about what they think as I thought it was good.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Well, I hate that episode but the same season's In a Mirror Darkly 2-parter was really good and is the kinda thing I'm talking about. Most people wouldn't like it or give a shit but I don't care about them as I thought it was good.

Same issue though, they were pandering to the same die-hards.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

BillJ wrote:

---

I just don't understand how you can claim to know so much about TV/film and yet make a claim like the one above? CBS/Paramount doesn't make Trek out of the goodness of its heart, they're in it to make money.

Indeed, he's confused failure to hold on to the audience the studio was seeking to satisfy with "being aimed at a cult audience." Two different things, but the misunderstanding better facilitates an unjustified self-flattery.

So, do I understand correctly that the proponents of DS9/First Contact type space combat can't follow the action in modern movies, including Abrams's Star Trek, and they're blaming that on the movies themselves? I certainly have no problem and I've seen the same movies, so that's clearly not where the problem lies.

[DarthTom]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Well, I hate that episode but the same season's In a Mirror, Darkly 2-parter was really good and is the kinda thing I'm talking about. Most people wouldn't like it or give a shit but I don't care about what they think as I thought it was good.

BTW, I love DS9 as much as you do and it's my favorite in all of Trek and to be honest the whole Dominion Arc [especially the final two seasons] had a lot of "shoot em' up" episodes.

For example one of the most memorable DS9 episodes with the 'traditional space battles,' was Sacrifice of the Angels. No morality plays in that.

[DalekJim]

BillJ wrote:

---

Same issue though, they were pandering to the same die-hards.

Why would it be an issue quality-wise that a science-fiction show was aimed at science-fiction fans, rather than the general public?

[daveyNY]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Well, that's where we'll always differ. I don't think Star Trek should be aimed at the widest possible audience of the general public. Most people won't like or understand Star Trek without it being vastly changed in to being dumber and less imaginative.

No, I'm fine with it being aimed at a cult audience but being of higher quality, than aiming to please everybody and transforming itself so it doesn't really resemble the thing I liked to begin with.

As I said before, DS9 is my favourite Trek. All the hardcore Abrams fans in this thread seem to hate it, but that makes perfect sense to me as DS9 was a show that did not make an effort to aim itself at a wide audience of non-sci-fi fans. It is the complete antithesis to Abrams' approach to sci-fi (Which he doesn't even view as sci-fi, but action/adventure that just happens to involve spaceships and aliens!).

Unfortunately, the people who throw the money around to make these movies, apparently don't agree with that kind of thinking.

They do so to make more money, not Art.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

Why would it be an issue quality-wise that a science-fiction show was aimed at science-fiction fans, rather than the general public?

You seem incredibly confused...

In a Mirror, Darkly was a good episode that I, as a die-hard fan, loved. But when you do episodes like that, you're aiming them directly at people who already watch the show. When every episode and movie is aimed at people who already love the show, you're not growing the brand.

Star Trek fans are going to watch Star Trek, but at the end of the day that's an incredibly small group. It's not enough to keep the franchise afloat on either TV or in the theater. So you have to broaden the concept. Do you think bringing Worf to DS9 or creating Seven of Nine were creative decisions? They were decisions made to try and broaden the popularity of shows that were in decline ratings wise. Much like the Dominion War and the Xindi arc.

[DalekJim]

daveyNY wrote:

---

Unfortunately, the people who throw the money around to make these movies, apparently don't agree with that kind of thinking.

They do so to make more money, not Art.

I know. I just don't see why I have to cheer them on and congratulate them for stuff I don't like, just because it sold well.

[BillJ]

DalekJim wrote:

---

I know. I just don't see why I have to cheer them on and congratulate them for stuff I don't like, just because it sold well.

Nobody said you did. I have several issues with Star Trek 2009, but I also understood that it is a piece of a bigger puzzle.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

BillJ wrote:

---

Do you think bringing Worf to DS9 or creating Seven of Nine were creative decisions? They were decisions made to try and broaden the popularity of shows that were in decline ratings wise.

Exactly so. No one was happy with how DS9 or Voyager were doing, regardless of content.

[anh165]

Ryan8bit wrote:

---

Uh, that wasn't the point at all.

The point was one about clarity and understanding of the visuals, not about storytelling, dialog, effects, etc.

Yes I get that, but the example of clarity and understanding is also dull and terribly fanboitastic, had the Kelvin and Narada encounter were done in that way, fanboys can count how many old type IV phaser laser beams and romulan special anti-borg type X disruptor bolts were fired and recall to the final letter which power coupling conduit codswallop was taken out, where as the rest of the audience would yawn and leave their seats, and then the whole ST reboot, along with the franchise would be truely dead and buried.

[BillJ]

My Name Is Legion wrote:

---

Exactly so. No one was happy with how DS9 or Voyager were doing, regardless of content.

The other thing was Voyager was going to axe Garrett Wang until he was named one of People Magazines 'Fifty Sexiest People', then the axe fell on Jennifer Lien.

[Borgminister]

Another TNG movie would've had much more to overcome from the standpoint of perception than a reboot of TOS, IMO. TNG's performance at the box was woeful toward the end, and TOS represented a fresher start from a true retro standpoint. The archetypes are also much simpler to present in a 2-hour format than Picard's ensemble.

I say this as one who also thought DS9 was the "best" of all Trek series overall, and would love to see that cast on the big screen, but that just is not going to happen.

[Ryan8bit]

BillJ wrote:

---

Do you think bringing Worf to DS9 or creating Seven of Nine were creative decisions? They were decisions made to try and broaden the popularity of shows that were in decline ratings wise. Much like the Dominion War and the Xindi arc.

Worf, Seven, Xindi: yes
Dominion War: no

The Dominion was established very slowly and subtly as an adversary. It took like 3-4 seasons for the war to even start. It's not the same as the others which were immediate grabs.

[DalekJim]

Borgminister wrote:

---

I say this as one who also thought DS9 was the "best" of all Trek series overall, and would love to see that cast on the big screen, but that just is not going to happen.

I'm actually glad that DS9 escaped. I don't want a JJ Abrams DS9 action film with Sisko telling Kira to "Buckle up!" as a 2-dimensional shouty caricature of Gul Dukat screams "Fire everything!".

DS9 was so great because it didn't have to water itself down too much. Which it would have had to have done if it become a Hollywood blockbuster.

As it stands, its legacy is untarnished. Best Trek ever.