Discussion in 'Star Trek - The Original & Animated Series' started by Grant, Oct 17, 2012.
There's no reason to take different opinions personally. These threads are for discussion, and good discussion usually flows from opposing viewpoints.
I've read back through this entire thread and I really don't see anything that constitutes "ridicule". As long as posters continue to express their thoughts without getting personal, it's all good.
The forum would be quite boring if no one ever disagreed.
Oh I wasn't referring to this thread. You're right, this one has been civil. I was referring more to my experiences in both Misc and The Netural Zone (and yeah, the rules there are different, I know, but some posters geti way out of line down there for no reason at all).
I have seen it creep into other areas around here from time to time though, and some comments go WAAAAY beyond simple disagreement.
My blood pressure remark wasn't about personal attacks. I was talking about my losing hope for the future, when light sci-fi is held up as being as good or better than the more adult SF with depth and maturity to it. It's one thing to enjoy the lighter stuff, and I wouldn't mind seeing some right now... but we need to be able to tell that they're on different levels, at least.
The answer is YES.
TOS pretty much defined science-fiction.
I love Twilight Zone, but it was anthology and isn't strictly science-fiction.
The Invisible Man (with David McCallum)
The Man From Atlantis
And the old Saturday Moring Live action entries of:
Jason of Star Command
Land of the Lost
Well, if you include The Lost Saucer, why not Far Out Space Nuts and Dr. Shrinker?
Technically, children's sci-fi should count, as the genre is not strictly for adults. Dr. Shrinker falls into that catagory, much like Valley of the Dinosaurs, Sealab: 2020 (NOT the Cartoon Network parody Sealab: 2021), and certainly the animated Star Trek and Return to the Planet of the Apes count as TV sci-fi.
Look at it this way--for any of those fun-killing, anti-TOS members: if any of the Rick Berman shlock was the first televised ST rather than TOS, this thread and board would not exist. Honestly, when TNG turned 20, the mainstream media hardly blinked about it--the opposite reaction to TOS' 20th, where I remember the mainstream coverage, and the screening of full version of "The Cage." That was 1986, a period where all kinds of entertainment diversions had taken center stage (that was the "blockbuster decade"), so ST was not the only game in town, yet TOS' anniversary was well covered news.
I did not see that in TNG's case, and there's no doubt few will pay attention to the 20th of DS9, VOY or ENT, and I think there's a clear reason for that--if anyone cares to admit it.
So, some can take shots at TOS, but that series remains the face of the franchise--nearly 50 years and hundreds of spin-off episodes later. It is a true cultural icon, but who speaks that way about the Rick Berman productions? There's a reason for that as well.
Rick Berman made good Trek and bad Trek, just like Gene did. I'm a TOS die-hard but there is some fun to be had in the spin-offs.
Berman buried ST, which required a reboot (questionable as NuTrek is). Roddenberry cannot be accused of that.
Science Fiction existed before Star Trek and Star Trek is influence by what came before it. So It hardly defines Science Fiction. SF is much more interesting and varied than Star Trek. (And I say this a long time fan of Star Trek)
The argument could made that both TMP and TWOK rebooted ST. One could also argue that GR buried ST when he abandoned it in the third season of TOS. Luckily it clawed its way out.
Roddenberry did a soft reboot with both The Motion Picture and The Next Generation. And it can be argued that Berman held TNG together while Roddenberry and his lawyer nearly destroyed it with writing room shenanigans.
Berman's biggest crime is that he didn't know when to get out.
TMP was not a reboot, but a continuation of the same characters and their experiences from TOS, which is what Phase II was going to be before the production shited gears to feature films. That was the opposite situation of the Berman productions, which dug a grave so deep, NuTrek was the only way to bring ST back.
Remember, fans wanted to see the OS cast and their defined universe return as soon as the series was cancelled. TAS addressed that desire to a degree, but that just proved audiences really wanted more of TOS (not a reboot), and eventually that happened with the further adventures on the big screen.
We cannot say that about the Berman films, because the moment the last episode of the horrible Enterprise aired, and the last big screen film left theatres, the main fan base or interested parties among the general public were not demanding the return of the TNG/DS9/VOY or ENT casts or universe to return. There's a reason why--not ST burnout, but the tone and lack of quality of Berman (and associates) production.
Sorry, but what I saw in theater in 1979 was not a continuation of what I watched on TV in the 60s and 70s. While it used the same actors and names for the characters it also reimagined them in many ways. Ditto for TWOK. Both gave the illusion of continuing from TOS, but in far too many ways theY were divergent.
I'm sure you could find fans of all the "Berman" series and films who are very vocal about their favorites returning to either the small or large screen. Hell, you'll them right here on this very website!!!! Including the "horrible" Enterprise.
Roddenberry was kicked upstairs to the role of a powerless "creative consultant" after the failure of Star Trek--The Motion Picture. Harve Bennet was brought onboard to give the franchise a new start; that he chose to keep the original actors while Abrams didn't is simply the difference thirty years makes.
that has no bearing on reality. When Phase II was announced, then the movie, in no interview or press release were either siad to be anything which is described (today) as "reimagining." It was a conscious continuation of the TOS characters and experiences, acknowledging the passage of time, hence age, costume and ship changes. That's all.
Again, you would be incorrect. The film is a sequel to both TMP (as the next film) and "Space Seed" (direct) with a lead villain, and his motives for revenge (abandoned) occuring in the TV episode. There is no reimagining the TOS franchise, as seen in the Abrams film.
Apparently, their numbers were not large enough to prod Paramount/CBS into starting any of the Berman series again. Berman buried the franchise, which is why the PTB had no interest in digging up TNG/DS9/VOY/ENT. When TOS ended, it was not long when NBC (after discovering syndicated TOS actually reached that key demographic when it was first run) wanted the series to return, and as noted 1 post ago, we know what followed.
Of course, this was based on the astounding post-network interest in TOS, but the same cannot be said of the Berman series, otherwise, NuTrek would not exist, and we would be watching the twilight adventures of Picard and Co., but we are not. Few were sad to see the Berman series ride off into the sunset.
You sure about this? Seems to me that CBS is spending millions of dollars remastering TNG and may follow suit on the rest of the 24th century shows. And the TNG-R Blu-ray sets are selling very well. Those shows continue to sell well and CBS will be taking a second look at them.
I love Star Trek, I have a love/hate relationship with Modern Trek. The my Trek is better than your Trek shit gets tiresome.
And even Bennett wanted to recast after Star Trek V.
I watched the film. I watched the TV show. It was very real, whether they mentioned it or not in the press release is irrelevant. The changes in costuming and sets are normal when reviving a property or shifting it to the big screen. Still the look and feel of the ship and uniforms are a pretty radical shift. The age of the characters still didn't match the age of the actors. A decade had passed between the end of TOS and TMP. There is no reference for that much time passing for the characters. I don't recall any real callbacks to TOS episodes in TMP other than Decker's name. (and the plot of the Changeling). The characters/characterizations don't seem right either, especially Kirk. Decker presence/role also disrupts the character balance, even if he is doomed. If Phase II version with Decker as XO had gone into production this would be more evident. The tone of TMP is different than TOS too. Seemingly influenced by 2001 and "serious" SF. It's more sterile too and lacking the sense of fun that TOS had.
All that adds up to a major reimagining of the property to me.
Yeah, it was the next film and was based on Space Seed, but it represents another tonal shift both visually and conceptually from TMP. Kirk becomes more of a "big action hero" than he was TOS and definitely more than he was in TMP. The 09 film is a sequel, too. That has little to do with reimagining. Of course, the 09 film is also a step back to TOS in certain aspects. The uniforms are obviously based on TOS. Its mix of action and character is also closer to TOS than TMP and the other films.
Is that "deimaginig?"
Well what followed was a half hour Saturday morning animated series, which I doubt reached the key demographics NBC coveted or appealed the Saturday morning demo either. And of course Roddenberry would "disavow" it.
Was it really NBC who "requested" TAS. I thought Filmation started the ball rolling.
Who can really say what the future will bring. Perhaps someday "Berman Trek" will get it's own reboot after a groundswell of interest by a new fanbase. After all, TNG was the most successful TV series and DS9 is probably more popular around here than any other series.
Separate names with a comma.