STAR TREK the enemy of LOST IN SPACE?

Discussion in 'Star Trek - Original Series' started by ZapBrannigan, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I watch Star Trek to have fun, first and foremost.
     
  2. Galileo7

    Galileo7 Fleet Captain Fleet Captain

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    east coast United States
    Agree.:vulcan: I have been a fan since 1973, when as a young boy I first encountered reruns of TOS and the Saturday morning TAS. I too enjoy the Abramsverse films in which the Kirk era lives.
     
  3. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Sure, but how each person defines fun will vary.
     
  4. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    That goes without saying.
     
  5. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    You'd think so, but often enough it doesn't come across that way. Often enough when someone says they watch something "just for fun" the implication is you shouldn't think too much about watch you're watching.

    So I can say I enjoy TOS because of the fact that it's not only visually interesting but it also exhibits a good measure of intelligence in how it's put together. From that my sense of "fun" is going to have certain expectations. If I have to suspend any measure of critical thinking too far then I'm not having fun anymore.

    On the face of it a show like Futurama looks like utter nonsense and yet it's often pretty damned clever in how it's put together.
     
  6. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I feel the same way about Star Trek Into Darkness. :shrug:
     
  7. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    Well, this is where we part company.
     
  8. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I think many people hold the Abrams movies to a much higher standard than they hold TOS or any of the Modern Trek series.
     
  9. R. Star

    R. Star Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    Shangri-La
    I didn't read the whole thread so maybe something similar to this has been said, but why does it always have to be one vs the other in similar genres?

    Why is LiS the enemy of ST? Why can't I like Star Trek and Star Wars at the same time. Sure I'll like some sci-fi shows more than others, some not at all, but it's like some have to validate their love for one by actively hating the other.
     
  10. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    I agree. It's all about the IDIC. We can like things that are different from each other, and we can respect other people's right to like things we don't like, rather than feeling we have to argue them into submission.

    The word "fan" used to mean someone who likes stuff. These days, it seems to mean someone who goes out of one's way to hate and reject things.
     
  11. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    ...actually I've chosen to delete my reply, which wasn't offensive in the least, but I simply have no repsect whatsoever for JJ and his work so it's best for me not remark further.
     
  12. BillJ

    BillJ Fleet Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2001
    Location:
    alt.nerd.obsessive.pic
    I'm not trying to troll or flame you, Warped9. Just something I've noticed from many people, not just you.

    It was more of a general comment about the state of the franchise. I do think some people hold Abrams and Company to a higher standard than whatever their favorite version of the franchise is.

    I responded to this blog...

    http://wrathofdhanprops.blogspot.co...howComment=1379448934095#c5688594873057206825

    About the supposed "trick transporters" used by Abrams and Company that somehow make starships obsolete. Yet no one I've seen has ever uttered a peep about how transporters in the Prime universe should really make death itself obsolete. :shrug:
     
  13. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    I think also there are some people who will simply not accept a Star Trek reboot no matter how good it is.

    That said, I didn't like the Abrams films.. :) But I'm all for future Trek reboots.
     
  14. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    It has always been thus. A decade ago, posters on this board and elsewhere were constantly condemning Enterprise or declaring it an alternate reality for continuity glitches no worse than those that had existed in the previous shows and films. Like I said before, we're always harder on what's more recent because we've had time to get used to the flaws in the older stuff, to gloss over and rationalize and forgive them. The illusion of nostalgia, the way the brain smooths out the past, leading to the false perception that the present is worse.
     
  15. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    Well I suspect a lot of people would been more accepting of ENT's continuity problems if the writing had just been a lot stronger, and not so painfully cheesy and derivative (and seemingly aimed only at teenage boys). I think that's what makes the biggest difference for most fans.

    It's usually only after a show fails to engage you with the storytelling that you find yourself focusing on nitpicky details and continuity errors like that.
     
  16. Warped9

    Warped9 Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2003
    Location:
    Brockville, Ontario, Canada
    A reboot of Trek was inevitable just as other properties have been rebooted. Sometimes it works and sometimes not.
     
  17. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    Except that the "true" TOS fans were just as hostile toward TNG when it came along. Granted, it took a couple of seasons before it started getting really good, but some fans took even longer than that to accept it. Quality can help overcome the initial resistance, but the resistance is going to be there as a kneejerk reflex anyway.

    Even I'm not immune to it. When I got the assignment to take over the post-series Enterprise novels and went back and rewatched the series, I found I liked it a lot better the second time around. The first time, I'd watched it through the filter of "Oh, that's not what I expected"/"That's not what I would've done," and that colored my view of it. But when I came back and just accepted that it was what it was, took it on its own terms rather than weighing it against my preconceptions, I found it had a lot more merits. Oh, it definitely had its flaws and its failures, but a lot about it worked quite well for me.
     
  18. Noname Given

    Noname Given Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    May 22, 2001
    Location:
    None Given
    Oh please. As someone who also saw TOS first run on NBC; the above argument makes little sense as there was PLENTY that TOS (especially 'The Cage') 'got wrong' too. I mean hell, they are 18 light years from Talos IV; yet at 'Timewarp Factor 7' - get there in about 30 seconds. Amazing Kirk's Enterprise which was certainly upgraded/refit with newer components after 12 years, could seem to match that speed, etc.)

    And if you go by the first run Nielson ratings of Star Trek - in general, audiences didn't 'buy it' (IE it didn't 'earn their suspension of disbelief') on the initial run either.
     
  19. Hober Mallow

    Hober Mallow Commodore Commodore

    To me they have more in common with TRANSFORMERS films than with TOS; they're action movies whose scripts are built around (and out of) action set pieces, one right after the other. You can feel when you're at the beginning of a set piece, in the middle, at the end, and when the next one starts. It's predictable. One after another after another. It used to be that a film script would provide rising action throughout the film; the actions scenes would be the payoff, have more power because of the build-up. Now action rises, falls; rises, falls; rises, falls; at a steady and prediactable rate. It makes for a really flat movie experience.

    For someone who claims not to have known anything about screenplay structure, Nick Meyer structured TWoK perfectly. That kind of structure has virtually gone out the window now, and I think it's a shame. It's not JJ Abrams' fault, that's just the way action movies are made these day.


    And that right there is why I just can't get into the fan series. More power to the writers, director, actors doing these things; clearly they're in it for the love. But I want Trek to be more than a self-referential fanwank.
     
  20. Christopher

    Christopher Writer Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2001
    I think there was a time-passing dissolve during that warp sequence. We saw them set out, we saw them arrive, but there was a transition that skipped over the travel time in between.

    But how about this: they've just come from Rigel, and are heading to Vega Colony for medical treatment. Rigel is 863 light-years from Earth... and 883 light-years from Vega! They're in more or less opposite directions from us. There is no way in hell that Vega is a convenient stopover point after leaving Rigel.

    Heck, even in Star Trek Star Charts and the novels, where Trek's Rigel has been retconned into a nearer "Beta Rigel" system, it's still closer to Earth than it is to Vega.