Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies: Kelvin Universe' started by Sector 7, Nov 13, 2008.
True. I guess you did have four seasons to be totally wrong about Enterprise.
And enjoyed every one. Other people seemed to be unhappy, but that was their look-out.
You got all that from a main raising his arm? Will you read my palm?
If I'm understanding you correctly then I think you might agree with me. "Character driven" stories are killing genre shows. TNG was more soap opera then Sci-Fi. ER is more soap opera then about medicine. It seems that today there is more focus on charecter development then what the genre it is written in is about. I've started to watch a few House episodes and it seems to be a perfect example of what a medical drama should be about. CSI works (the few I've seen) because the stories are driven by the "solving of the crime" via research, etc. Character and character developements are secondary and neat if they occur but are not required.
This is why I couldn't get into Stargate SG1, Enterprise, a lot of TNG, the new Battlestar Galactica....etc.
Well, uh, they do.
Granted they tend to be ridiculously rich and have nicknames like "Frolic" but they do. There are lots of horse people in southeast PA, and northern VA who like to go fox hunting and ride their carriages in their full-on Dickens garb (PDF).
Edit: Found some additional pix.
"Character driven" doesn't mean "soap opera", though. These days, soap operas are very plot-driven (and even event-driven) affairs, while there are many excellent character-driven shows that have nothing to do with the traditional trappings of soap operas.
The point is that if you are doing a Sci-Fi story or a medical drama or whatever it should be driven by that not be character driven. It make it character reactive as that is the point.
Example what would you like to see or read:
1 a person lives their life and they just happen to have a severe heart defect. The person works, plays, has relationships, like everyone else and that is what you're driving at.
2. a person with a severe heart defect is trying to live as normal a life as possible. How does he do it? How does the defect affect how he works, plays and has relationships. How does he compensate? What does he sacrifice and what rewards in life does he get that someone else my not get?
Character development makes for much more interesting stories than pure plot-driven ones where characters are merely props. While I may have initially been drawn to TOS episodes for the plot/ideas, I watched them again because I found the characters interesting. While little to no character developed during the show, the actors developed a sufficient level of chemistry to suggest greater depth to the characters.
My favourite films, plays, TV shows, novels and other forms of fiction are overwhelmingly character, rather than plot, driven.
But don't you get bored seeing the same dynamic played out over and over? That's the idea behind genre. It throws something new and unexpected into the mix and should affect that dynamic.
I don't see how TNG was Soap opera or like ER - in ER we saw character progress and develop - can we really say that about TNG? the characters are pretty much unchanged by their adventures and life changing events are never mentioned again - comparing that to the trajectory of say Mark Green, who we saw divorce, fall in love again, struggle with being a father and then.. die.
TNG isn't really in the same league.
Not if it is well executed. Genre is window-dressing. Besides, one of the problems with TOS, to me, was that the dynamic WAS played out over and over precisely because there was so little character development. The actors were able to overcome this limitation, to some degree (and I came to TOS as a child--I'm not sure I'd find it as interesting if I came to it today).
If I don't care about the characters, my interest in a story wanes rather quickly. One can have both character development and interesting plot-driven elements to a story, just as one can focus almost exclusively on one or the other. In my experience, those that focus too much on plot are easily forgotten, even when interesting at the time whereas good character development stays with me for a long time.
I know what you are saying but I prefer that the genre element be behind the character development (as is the point as I see it) then character development for the sake of character development. Why have the genre element or "window dressing" as you put it, if it is not needed? See my question above.
One of the complaints I heard about DS9 was it was like a soap. I never saw it that way but then again it is my favorite of the 5 series.
Re: Corvette vs. Mustang
Hey, numb nuts. Check out the high-definition trailer. It's obviously a Corvette.
Please tell me these are NOT what JJ is gonna pass off as Klingons...
They are not. Probably Romulan guards and Nero escapes from them.
Yes, it is. Star trek was dead, and this takes us back to a new beginning. Explosions? Sex? Lord forbid that ST have some excitement. I can't wait.
I doubt it. Look at the ridge line. Those are Klingons.
There was mention made
of a scene or sub-plot involving Klingons which was filmed but which was removed from the finished theatrical release because it added confusion.
You are hereby instructed to warn yourself for flaming yourself.
Separate names with a comma.