Did Abrams really save the franchise?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by Warped9, May 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ConRefit79

    ConRefit79 Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    I agree. I can do that to. But for some reason, they cannot write Star Trek characters in a way for me to do that. And that's been true of all the Star Trek I've seen.
     
  2. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I generally hate them too, but in the case of Star Trek, I think it was very well done by using the existing lore as a backdrop for erasing the previous timeline. Also, I had been saying for a while that Star Trek may need a timeline, if only to make it more accessible with people who didn't know much about it.

    We don't know if that's going to happen yet. Let's have this conversation when we get there, if ever.

    Although, for regular viewers, respecting continuity simply helps suspension of disbelief.

    So ? When I watch a movie, amongst other things, I'm looking to spend time doing something I like. I'm not looking to challenge my worldview. If I wanted to do that, I wouldn't watch a movie.
     
  3. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    No. They wrote to entertain.

    Yes. Call it earning a living.

    They priority for creating something pretty much goes like this: entertainment ---> money.

    Didactic pontification is a distant third, that is, unless the artist is a giant, pretentious douche. None of those you mentioned were.

    Exactly™.


    I don't know about you, but I will be merely skipping off to the theatre, perhaps while whistling a jaunty tune.
     
  4. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Abrams (or the be more precise, O&K) obviously hasn't saved the franchise. It doesn't need even more fanwank and continuity obsession. It needs fresh blood and a clear cut, another Nick Meyer, somebody who doesn't give a crap about came before him.
     
  5. Belz...

    Belz... Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Location:
    In a finely-crafted cosmos... of my own making.
    I would rather Star Trek kept going in a form I dislike than not at all.

    Well you can't expect it of them, but if Paramount had kept a writer's bible at any time, at least some of the major screw-ups, unimportant in the grand scheme of things as they may be, from happening.
     
  6. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Even Meyer knew you had to respect what came before.
     
  7. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    No. Khan and the Klingons were Nick Meyer originals.


    Oops.
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    Do you know how thick that Bible would be if you included all the minutiae from seven hundred hours of material? It would put the regular Bible to shame. :lol:

    All I expect from Trek, is that the broad strokes be "right" from episode-to-episode, movie-to-movie, series-to-series.
     
  9. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    You also want to avoid creating the perception that you need to be a card-carrying Trek expert with an advanced degree in Klingon politics to understand the latest Trek movie or TV show.

    I actually think that most Star Trek episodes are fairly accessible to casual viewers, but the notion that "Trek is too complicated" and that you have to be a Trekkie to understand it was something that I used to hear at neighborhood barbecues and birthday parties and such. And it's a misconception that we may have brought on ourselves by obsessing so enthusiastically over obscure points of Trek trivia and continuity.
     
  10. RXTT

    RXTT Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Location:
    Gamma Quadrant
    It is not a matter of knowing everything that came before. If you create a story about Picard during his academy days, all you have to do is look up any relevant details that were already included in the canon. You do not have to analyze Spock to write for Picard, nor do you have to delve into the Borg if you want to write a short story/film about Captain Sulu.

    All writers worth their salt do research. JJ had to do tons to make the new flicks. I do not think it would have been any less research for a noob like him to write something canonical.
     
  11. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    A writer doesn't have to do anything except write.

    ...And pay his taxes.

    Bologna.
     
  12. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    I think it's possible this happened. And coupled with the over-saturation we got towards the end.


    Regarding something said upthread. Yeah, no fan is really bound by continuity. By that I mean series-to-series or series-to-film continuity. You can bail or tune out at any time and focus simply on the things you like. It's certainly done in regard to comics all the time.


    Another point: technically Trek has been rebooted numerous times if one really chooses to see it that way.

    - "The Cage" (the original version)
    - "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (a mild reworking of the original version)
    - TOS (1966-1969: a freshening up and fleshing out of the essential concept)
    - TAS (1973-1974: a world-building expansion of TOS)
    - TMP (1979: TOS as filtered through Robert Wise)
    - TWOK-TUC (1982-1991: TOS as filtered through Harve Bennet, Nick Meyer, Leonard Nimoy and William Shatner)
    - TNG (1987-1994: a reinterpretation of Gene Roddenberry's concept)
    - DS9, VOY and ENT (1993-2005: each an expansion from the TNG concept)
     
  13. horatio83

    horatio83 Commodore Commodore

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Abrams didn't write the movie(s). If there is any problem in the last two (or let's generalize it to three, Logan was also a fan) movies it is precisely that a fan was involved in writing the script, that there is too much knowledge about past Trek which lead to massive fanwank.

    Nothing against using ingredients that have been used before, TWOK did it and FC did is as well (but then again if you take the arguably best TOS story, City, it obviously worked so well because the original script has been written by an outsider). But merely using these ingredients and throwing them together does not lead to a good script.
     
  14. CDR6

    CDR6 Lieutenant Commander Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    It doesn't matter what flavor of cool aid you hawking... if you can't get butts in the seats (fans/movie goers/what ever) you're done. They make the movie, and the franchise...it's the "bottom line" against which all is measured.
     
  15. BillJ

    BillJ Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    What do you do when minutiae contradicts minutiae like we've seen so often in Trek?
     
  16. CorporalClegg

    CorporalClegg Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2001
    Location:
    Land of Enchantment
    Two prevailing arguments in this thread:

    "The best filmmakers know everything about their subjects!"

    "The best filmmakers know nothing about their subjects!"

    Ah, Trekkies. :adore:
     
  17. RXTT

    RXTT Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Location:
    Gamma Quadrant

    Have you ever read anything describing how writers do what they do? I don;t mean specifically novelists, but TV writers, script-writers, etc? They ALL DO RESEARCH.
     
  18. Greg Cox

    Greg Cox Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Location:
    Oxford, PA
    But "canonical" is not a virtue in its own right. Most people don't judge a movie or book on how "canonical" it is. And if if the idea is to get off to a fresh start, reboot the franchise and start over, "canon" is the last thing you need to fixate on.

    Star Trek is not an encyclopedia. It's a vehicle for telling (hopefully) engaging and interesting stories.
     
  19. RXTT

    RXTT Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Location:
    Gamma Quadrant
    Nothing. I accept it as part of a flawed human creation.

    expanding on something (a sequel) is a much different beast than a re-boot (I hate that word. It is just a remake by another name).
     
  20. RXTT

    RXTT Lieutenant Red Shirt

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2013
    Location:
    Gamma Quadrant
    Greg Cox is right.

    "canon" stuff just lays out a blueprint. This makes sure that we do not see Spock characterized as a fey, lazy brat.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page