RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,935
Posts: 5,478,942
Members: 25,056
Currently online: 460
Newest member: PennyC

TrekToday headlines

Trek Shirt And Hoodie
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

A Klingon Christmas Carol’s Last Season
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

Attack Wing Wave 10 Expansion Pack
By: T'Bonz on Nov 27

New Star Trek Funko Pop! Vinyl Figures
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

QMx Mini Phaser Ornament
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Stewart as Neo-Nazi Skinhead
By: T'Bonz on Nov 26

Klingon Bloodwine To Debut
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Trek Actors In War Of The Worlds Fundraiser
By: T'Bonz on Nov 25

Star Trek: The Next Generation Gag Reel Tease
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24

Shatner In Haven
By: T'Bonz on Nov 24


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Future of Trek

Future of Trek Discussion of future Trek projects.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 22 2014, 07:46 AM   #46
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: King Daniel Into Darkness
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Star Trek was entertainment first and foremost, sometimes with a simple message like "The Vietnam war is horrible" or "Save the whales".
wulfio wrote:
The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats
So you managed to miss the condemnation of the United States' use of drone warfare? It was about as subtle as the Vietnam episode.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 08:05 AM   #47
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Star Trek is an action adventure series, which is not to be dismissive of it in any way, but to accurately describe what it is.

To put it another way, having read countless behind-the-scenes memos at this point, I'd be willing to bet that the most frequent comment from writers, executives, producers, and directors in these correspondence was "not enough action."
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 12:21 PM   #48
Maurice
Vice Admiral
 
Maurice's Avatar
 
Location: Maurice in San Francisco
View Maurice's Twitter Profile
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

One can argue that "A Private Little War" isn't just about Vietnam, but about when you involve yourself in the conflicts of others you get stuck in them: their problem becomes your problem: be it Korea or Vietnam or whatever.

mos6507 wrote: View Post
The problem often brought up about TAS was the runtime. Even the dialogue was delivered in an almost speed-reading fashion, just to cram as much of the plot into the runtime as possible.
If that were the case the episodes would not feature those long pans over background paintings with only music playing. And there's no speed reading in that show. In fact, the delivery is frequently too leisurely.
__________________
* * *
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip.”
― Winston S. Churchill
Maurice is online now   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 03:21 PM   #49
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

To define it strictly as "action-adventure" is way too basic. Star Wars is also action-adventure. Are they the same?

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies. A cartoon made these days would definitely follow that pattern from the new movies.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 03:44 PM   #50
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies. A cartoon made these days would definitely follow that pattern from the new movies.
I believe that if Roddenberry were alive and in his prime today, a big-screen Star Trek would be much closer to the Abrams films in the amount of action present than either TOS or TNG.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 04:31 PM   #51
mos6507
Captain
 
mos6507's Avatar
 
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Maurice wrote: View Post
If that were the case the episodes would not feature those long pans over background paintings with only music playing. And there's no speed reading in that show. In fact, the delivery is frequently too leisurely.
We'll have to agree to disagree here. The pans tended to often be accompanied by Captain's Log exposition, and Shatner sounded like a chipmunk a lot of the time he was talking so hurriedly (and devoid of emotion). The rushed quality wasn't as pronounced with the other voices.

BillJ wrote: View Post
I believe that if Roddenberry were alive and in his prime today, a big-screen Star Trek would be much closer to the Abrams films in the amount of action present than either TOS or TNG.
I don't know what you base that on, considering that The Cage, TMP, and early TNG reflect Gene's emphasis on cerebral plots and talkiness over action. The only thing I can see is Gene wanting to stay current with FX even if it meant bending canon (ala the Klingon ridges). That's about it.
__________________
Fem Trekz on Facebook
mos6507 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 04:55 PM   #52
BillJ
Admiral
 
BillJ's Avatar
 
Location: Covington, Ky.
View BillJ's Twitter Profile
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

mos6507 wrote: View Post
I don't know what you base that on, considering that The Cage, TMP, and early TNG reflect Gene's emphasis on cerebral plots and talkiness over action. The only thing I can see is Gene wanting to stay current with FX even if it meant bending canon (ala the Klingon ridges). That's about it.
Gene in his prime would be Gene in the 1960's.

"The Cage" - Pike fighting with the Keylar, Pike threatening to break the Talosians neck, the laser cannon scene, Pike burning in his imagination, Number One threatening to kill them all. No action there. No way.

As much as people want to stick there fingers in their ears and go "lalala I'm not listening!", Star Trek (the original) was sci-fi action adventure. Were there talkie episodes? Sure. They didn't have access to the money nor the technology in the 1960's to make a film like we see today.

Why do you think so many kids connected with it at such a young age? I was four when I started watching.
__________________
"If I hadn't tried, the cost would have been my soul." - Admiral James T. Kirk, Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
BillJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 22 2014, 05:23 PM   #53
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
To define it strictly as "action-adventure" is way too basic.
No, it's correct. Because within an action-adventure series, a wide variety of stories could be told, including dramatic ones, humorous ones, character-centric ones, and even allegorical ones.
Star Wars is also action-adventure. Are they the same?
As far as genre, yes they are. Some Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans may not want to admit it, but to the rest of the world the difference between them are apples and oranges. Sure, each have things that are unique to themselves, but both can be easily regarded as action-adventures in space or space operas.
Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies.
A lot of that is due to not being able to do so previously due to technological or budgetary restraints.
A cartoon made these days would definitely follow that pattern from the new movies.
Which is true for any cartoon based off a current movie.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2014, 04:36 PM   #54
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

BillJ wrote: View Post
I believe that if Roddenberry were alive and in his prime today, a big-screen Star Trek would be much closer to the Abrams films in the amount of action present than either TOS or TNG.
I can't even pretend to care about speculation about Roddenberry would do.

BillJ wrote: View Post
As much as people want to stick there fingers in their ears and go "lalala I'm not listening!", Star Trek (the original) was sci-fi action adventure. Were there talkie episodes? Sure. They didn't have access to the money nor the technology in the 1960's to make a film like we see today.
I feel like if I had to define it, I'd say it was a light sci-fi drama with action-adventure elements. The drama was always heavier than the action. I'm not denying that the action wasn't there, but just that in all of Star Trek it was never at the pace or quantity that it currently is. But that's a sign of the times. Surely, Star Trek cannot and should not be exactly what it was before, and what they're doing is apparently working well enough.

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
No, it's correct. Because within an action-adventure series, a wide variety of stories could be told, including dramatic ones, humorous ones, character-centric ones, and even allegorical ones.
The same could be said of many genres. That's why it's too broad.

When I think of action-adventure, right away I think of Indiana Jones or Robin Hood. It's stuff that focuses all around the action. Star Trek has definitely had action in the past, but it wasn't often so much the focus as the drama was.

As far as genre, yes they are. Some Star Trek fans and Star Wars fans may not want to admit it, but to the rest of the world the difference between them are apples and oranges. Sure, each have things that are unique to themselves, but both can be easily regarded as action-adventures in space or space operas.
Isn't saying the differences are apples and oranges really saying that they are indeed different and not comparable?

Anyways, they are different, and the perception of them by people has long been different. Star Wars has a high focus on fantasy, mysticism, and action. Star Trek tries to cloak its fantasy in science fiction, and its emphasis was not as much action. This is even apparent by their names.

Obviously Star Trek has action, but like it was said, it wasn't often high amounts of action like seen in the newer movies.
A lot of that is due to not being able to do so previously due to technological or budgetary restraints.
Not buying that answer. TMP didn't have heavy constraints and while it still has action in it, it's not nearly as heavy as it is today.

I think a lot of it is as I said, a sign of the times. Action movies these days don't give you much time to breathe. It's just spectacle after spectacle; a constant barrage of cumshots.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 23 2014, 09:44 PM   #55
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
The same could be said of many genres. That's why it's too broad.
It's not broad at all, it's just an accurate description. Star Trek is an action-adventure series (in space), and one that has taken advantage of that to tell a wide variety of stories.
When I think of action-adventure, right away I think of Indiana Jones or Robin Hood. It's stuff that focuses all around the action.
And Star Trek is no different. Action-adventure is a genre in which characters undertake a journey or go on a mission and sometimes wind up in a jam they got to get out of. That describes the majority of Star Trek stories.
Star Trek has definitely had action in the past, but it wasn't often so much the focus as the drama was.
That was mostly a TNG thing, other Trek shows tended to mix things up.
Isn't saying the differences are apples and oranges really saying that they are indeed different and not comparable?
Actually, it's referring to things that are thought to be incomparable but share some similarity. "Apples and oranges." They're both still fruit when all is said and done. Same thing with Star Trek and Star Wars. While they both have things unique to themselves, they're both still space action-adventure series in the end.
Anyways, they are different, and the perception of them by people has long been different.
A lot of that long been different perception has been that "Star Wars is fun, Star Trek is boring" or "Star Trek is for nerds."

But really, only die-hard Trekkies and Star Wars fans (Warsies?) tend to quibble about the differences between the two, while everyone else couldn't care less about them as they just want to be entertained.
Star Wars has a high focus on fantasy, mysticism, and action. Star Trek tries to cloak its fantasy in science fiction, and its emphasis was not as much action. This is even apparent by their names.
See above response. But both do have an emphasis on action. Not all of Trek's action has involved a phaser, but it's still action.
Not buying that answer.
You don't have to buy it, you already have it.
TMP didn't have heavy constraints and while it still has action in it, it's not nearly as heavy as it is today.
Star Trek: The Snoozefest? The biggest appeal of that film, and the primary reason for its success, was seeing Star Trek back and on the big screen. Its story wasn't really that favorably received (reviews were very mixed on that).

Conversely, you had TOS' "The Omega Glory," which had a story that featured a ground battle involving thousands. It just was impossible to show that due to the budgetary and technological limitations of '60s television episode, but if it was made today as a feature film, we would have seen it. As such, they were forced to work around it. Ditto for TNG's "Best of Both Worlds" with the Battle of Wolf 359 (although we saw some of it in DS9's larger budgeted "Emissary").
I think a lot of it is as I said, a sign of the times. Action movies these days don't give you much time to breathe.
Some of that may be true because we do live in a faster-paced society. But there's plenty of non action-adventure fare out there that moves at a more leisurely pace.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2014, 05:33 PM   #56
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Action-adventure is a genre in which characters undertake a journey or go on a mission and sometimes wind up in a jam they got to get out of.
That's not a very good definition as it could easily apply to most movies.

That was mostly a TNG thing, other Trek shows tended to mix things up.
No, drama was inherent in all the series, and I was specifically referring to TOS. The drama was high and it was the biggest focus of the show. Larger than the action.

But really, only die-hard Trekkies and Star Wars fans (Warsies?) tend to quibble about the differences between the two, while everyone else couldn't care less about them as they just want to be entertained.
No, I'm pretty sure that a large majority of casual viewers of the two could still tell you a lot of the differences (beyond the superficial).

Star Trek: The Snoozefest? The biggest appeal of that film, and the primary reason for its success, was seeing Star Trek back and on the big screen. Its story wasn't really that favorably received (reviews were very mixed on that).
But the quality wasn't the point, the point is WWGRD? (Abbreviated here to show the ridiculousness of that idea anyways.)

And just because a bigger budget might have allowed us to see some of those scenes on TV, I still don't think they would've been elevated to the level of the new movies, where it's fast-paced, action-quip-action-quip, with not a lot of time for contemplation. BoBW would've only been different in that perhaps one small scene would've been cut to include a longer run time to show the battle. In a way I'm glad they didn't. It was much more dramatic to have them (and us as the audience) not know for sure what happened, show up late, and realize the fleet was decimated. Showing the battle just for the sake of it would've probably been wanky anyways.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2014, 06:47 PM   #57
C.E. Evans
Vice Admiral
 
C.E. Evans's Avatar
 
Location: Ferguson, Missouri, USA
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Ryan8bit wrote: View Post
C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
Action-adventure is a genre in which characters undertake a journey or go on a mission and sometimes wind up in a jam they got to get out of.
That's not a very good definition as it could easily apply to most movies.
No, it's the definition for action-adventure movies. Not all movies are that. Some movies are comedies, others are romance movies, others are purely dramas. What can happen, however, is that some of these other movies can include action-adventure elements (and vice-versa).

That was mostly a TNG thing, other Trek shows tended to mix things up.
No, drama was inherent in all the series, and I was specifically referring to TOS. The drama was high and it was the biggest focus of the show. Larger than the action.
No. TOS had plenty of action in it. It was actually a major draw for many viewers.

But really, only die-hard Trekkies and Star Wars fans (Warsies?) tend to quibble about the differences between the two, while everyone else couldn't care less about them as they just want to be entertained.
No, I'm pretty sure that a large majority of casual viewers of the two could still tell you a lot of the differences (beyond the superficial).
With the respective characters, but not much else.
Star Trek: The Snoozefest? The biggest appeal of that film, and the primary reason for its success, was seeing Star Trek back and on the big screen. Its story wasn't really that favorably received (reviews were very mixed on that).
But the quality wasn't the point, the point is WWGRD? (Abbreviated here to show the ridiculousness of that idea anyways.)
You're going to have to explain this. But in any event, the point stands regarding TMP's story.

And just because a bigger budget might have allowed us to see some of those scenes on TV, I still don't think they would've been elevated to the level of the new movies, where it's fast-paced, action-quip-action-quip, with not a lot of time for contemplation.
Many action-adventure movies do tend to be faster paced than television episodes, although the actual pace varies from film to film. But what might be considered "fast-paced, action-quip-action-quip," might also be considered just "not dragging its feet."
BoBW would've only been different in that perhaps one small scene would've been cut to include a longer run time to show the battle. In a way I'm glad they didn't. It was much more dramatic to have them (and us as the audience) not know for sure what happened, show up late, and realize the fleet was decimated. Showing the battle just for the sake of it would've probably been wanky anyways.
That's a difference of opinion, naturally. It could have still worked if some of the battle (but not its final outcome) had been shown.
__________________
"Don't sweat the small stuff--it makes you small-minded..."
C.E. Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2014, 07:12 PM   #58
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

So is the premise of the OP still a thing or has it the topic simply morphed into something else? The alleged "debunking" from the subsequent early posts on the first page still seemed to leave a small door open to the possibility.
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2014, 07:16 PM   #59
Tyberius
Commander
 
Tyberius's Avatar
 
Location: Twenty million die by fire if I am weak.
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

Just skimming this thread now that it has devolved away from the topic, but this is a beauty here:

wulfio wrote: View Post
...The exception is Abrams trek, which is a pile of mindless garbage, with a few TOS homages thrown in between the action beats....None of the pre lens flare Star Trek movies are action oriented movies(nemesis and insurrection don't exist for me).
So, basically, ignore the movies that disprove your point. Got it.
Tyberius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 24 2014, 09:27 PM   #60
Ryan8bit
Commodore
 
Ryan8bit's Avatar
 
Location: St. Paul, MN
Re: Looks like Netflix is interested in making a New Star Trek Show

C.E. Evans wrote: View Post
No, it's the definition for action-adventure movies.
No, it's the definition of a standard plot. There are plenty of movies that would not be categorized as action-adventure, and that don't even have those elements, which would still fit under what you said.

The definition of an action-adventure movie is plain and simple. It's a movie with lots of action content, and where the characters go on an adventure. Star Trek is that, but it's not hyperfocused on that.

No. TOS had plenty of action in it. It was actually a major draw for many viewers.
I never said there wasn't action, I just said it wasn't the end-all-be-all. Surely people watched it for that, as people tend to watch shows for different reasons. That doesn't change the fact that action was not the basis of everything. In a lot of episodes, particularly the good ones, the action was very secondary to the drama and the plot, not the other way around.

With the respective characters, but not much else.
That falls under the superficial I described. There is more than that which people can differentiate. Hell, as a kid I wasn't really big into either and I understood the difference.

You're going to have to explain this. But in any event, the point stands regarding TMP's story.
No it doesn't at all. Maybe if you're trying to make a point that's largely tangential to what I was actually discussing. The point was in reference to what Gene Roddenberry would do, as if his opinion was all that important anyways. It's almost treated religiously, and like religion people have this tendency to speak for what they think their god would want. It's ridiculous.

The point was that TMP had a large budget, and it was not as action packed as the new movies, or even contemporary action movies of the period. They had the money to make something with as much action as Star Wars, but they opted to go a different route. That's just one reason of many why you couldn't claim anything about what GR would want. Quality has zero bearing on that point.
Ryan8bit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
netflix

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.