RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,917
Posts: 5,478,232
Members: 25,052
Currently online: 510
Newest member: johnclever25

TrekToday headlines

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

Retro Review: Covenant
By: Michelle on Nov 22

Two Official Starships Collection Previews
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21

Saldana: Women Issues In Hollywood
By: T'Bonz on Nov 21


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 > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 25 2009, 07:44 PM   #16
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Bryan Fuller interview on Heroes

Temis the Vorta wrote: View Post
None of that really addresses what I said: the sole business motive for putting Trek back on TV will be to capitalize on the movie's success.
Of course it would be, but my point is that capitalization doesn't necessarily equal slavish imitation. Star Trek is a broad, diverse franchise and has room for variety. DS9 was made to capitalize on TNG's success, but it was anything but a clone of TNG.

True, most network executives do believe they have to imitate the things they want to capitalize on. I'm just saying that it will be good if the CBS/Para executives are smart enough to recognize that the key to STJJ's success was not the specific formula or setting or tone he used, but the fact that he was given creative freedom and the fact that he's a prominent name that attracts audiences independently of what franchise he's working in. So they could theoretically decide that what they need to emulate is not a 23rd-century setting or a young Starfleet crew or whatever, but the willingness to pick a prominent name creator and turn him loose.


Why would CBS be interested in doing their own version of Trek (and given their approach to TV, we'd probably get CSI: Star Trek)? Their only interest would be to make $$$ off a suddenly viable property they own, and they'd recognize that they can make a profit off the work Paramount already put into revitalizing the brand. They'd have to be idiots to reject a gift like that and go off doing their own version of Trek.
I don't understand what you mean. Obviously a new TV Trek would not be about Kirk, Spock, and McCoy on the Enterprise, because that setting is reserved for J.J. Abrams now. So no matter what, it would have to be "their own version" -- a different set of characters in a different situation. I'm not proposing a separate continuity (although it could be, since Abrams' film is itself a separate continuity from previous Trek and that doesn't seem to be hurting it), just a show with a different emphasis and an original style.

Besides, do you think FOX were idiots for going off and doing their own version of Terminator (The Sarah Connor Chronicles) that conflicted with the third and fourth movies? There's certainly precedent for TV networks developing adaptations or spinoffs that are far from slavish copies of the films whose success they're capitalizing on. Particularly in animation; the current Spectacular Spider-Man and Iron Man: Armored Adventures series are very different in style, tone, and continuity from the movie franchises whose coattails they're riding. What matters is the brand recognition, not the details of style and content.



What it really lacked was a motive for the audience to keep watching. Being macabre isn't going to do it; what Fuller needed to do was raise the stakes on the drama, so that Ned stood to lose something that the audience couldn't help but care about.
Huh? He stood to lose the woman he loved if he ever so much as touched her. I can't imagine higher dramatic stakes than that.


Maybe I shouldn't have said Fuller is "sugary" when the real problem is that the dramatic tension was too low, and that's why people tuned out. Not sure why his other shows failed, since I never watched em, but PD failed because it gave the audience the option not to watch.
I don't understand why you'd have a problem with a comedy having low dramatic tension.

And the dramatic tension on Heroes has ramped back up considerably since Fuller returned; it isn't just a bunch of random plot twists, but we actually care about the characters again. And Fuller wrote "Company Man," the most acclaimed episode of Heroes' first season, and those 42 minutes probably had more dramatic tension than the rest of the series put together.

As for Wonderfalls and Dead Like Me, the former was on FOX when it was still in the hands of executives who were quick on the cancellation draw, and DLM was taken out of Fuller's hands very early on. So I don't think their cancellations say anything about Fuller's abilities, certainly not in the latter case.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 11/16/14 including annotations for "The Caress of a Butterfly's Wing" and overview for DTI: The Collectors

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 25 2009, 08:44 PM   #17
DWF
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Re: Bryan Fuller interview on Heroes

Of course it would be, but my point is that capitalization doesn't necessarily equal slavish imitation. Star Trek is a broad, diverse franchise and has room for variety. DS9 was made to capitalize on TNG's success, but it was anything but a clone of TNG.
DS9 was a clone of TNG it's DNA was just arranged in a slightly different way, but the same elements exist on both shows. And unless Star Trek can get away from those elements no show will that much different from what's already been made.
__________________
The greatest science fiction series of all time is
Doctor Who! And I'll take you all on, one-by-one
or all in a bunch to back it up!"
--- Harlan Ellison, from his introduction
to the PINNACLE series of Doctor Who books
DWF is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
heroes

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 02:22 PM.

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