Far Beyond the Stars

[kirkfan]

Sorry, Orphalesion, I did not see you had newly posted before I submitted my reply. I get that you feel this is a weakness of Science Fiction. Even so, many genres have a certain presentism. Science Fiction has creative devices that allow presentism to be explored most fully.

No worries. It's just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to Sci Fi and fantasy because it always seems to me like the show runners are saying "We need a break of all this childish space alien nonsense and do something classy/serious for once."
It was, after all still the time when fantasy/sci fi was much more perceived as only for "nerds" and children.
Luckily today fantasy/scifi shows have a higher chance of being taken seriously and I can't really think of a contemporary SciFi show that "broke" it's genre. However "Caprica" was very close to that (from what I have seen)

To be fair Sci. Fi shows are the only ones that can mix genres and remain Sci. Fi.

A regular cop show for example can't introduce stuff like time travel, aliens from outer space...etc without becoming something else.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Sorry, Orphalesion, I did not see you had newly posted before I submitted my reply. I get that you feel this is a weakness of Science Fiction. Even so, many genres have a certain presentism. Science Fiction has creative devices that allow presentism to be explored most fully.

No worries. It's just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to Sci Fi and fantasy because it always seems to me like the show runners are saying "We need a break of all this childish space alien nonsense and do something classy/serious for once."
It was, after all still the time when fantasy/sci fi was much more perceived as only for "nerds" and children.
Luckily today fantasy/scifi shows have a higher chance of being taken seriously and I can't really think of a contemporary SciFi show that "broke" it's genre. However "Caprica" was very close to that (from what I have seen)

I still don't see the problem, but if there is something that "breaks" science fiction, certainly that would be Planet of the Apes ... or better yet, Lexx.

 

[kirkfan]

Sorry, Orphalesion, I did not see you had newly posted before I submitted my reply. I get that you feel this is a weakness of Science Fiction. Even so, many genres have a certain presentism. Science Fiction has creative devices that allow presentism to be explored most fully.

No worries. It's just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to Sci Fi and fantasy because it always seems to me like the show runners are saying "We need a break of all this childish space alien nonsense and do something classy/serious for once."
It was, after all still the time when fantasy/sci fi was much more perceived as only for "nerds" and children.
Luckily today fantasy/scifi shows have a higher chance of being taken seriously and I can't really think of a contemporary SciFi show that "broke" it's genre. However "Caprica" was very close to that (from what I have seen)

I still don't see the problem, but if there is something that "breaks" science fiction, certainly that would be Planet of the Apes ... or better yet, Lexx.

I wouldn't say "Planet of the apes" breaks science fiction so much as it IS science fiction. It has all the attributes of it at any rate.

 

[Shatna]

Who died and made you king of the internet?

Dancing on the edge of Trolling again. Are you incapable of learning board civility?

BTW, aren't you supposed to be a TNG moderator? Last time I checked this was the DS9 forum! Isn't it enough that you've turned your assigned subforum into a tomb of thought? Are you planning on ruining this one too?

BTW, aren't you supposed to be a TNG moderator? Last time I checked this was the DS9 forum! Isn't it enough that you've turned your assigned subforum into a tomb of thought? Are you planning on ruining this one too?

This forum is MY particular tomb of thought. Today's thought: chill out and stay on topic. Civilly.

- Shatna, king regent of the internet

And that is fine by me. I am the most on-topic poster you'll ever met.

 

[kirkfan]

Dancing on the edge of Trolling again. Are you incapable of learning board civility?

BTW, aren't you supposed to be a TNG moderator? Last time I checked this was the DS9 forum! Isn't it enough that you've turned your assigned subforum into a tomb of thought? Are you planning on ruining this one too?

This forum is MY particular tomb of thought. Today's thought: chill out and stay on topic. Civilly.

- Shatna, king regent of the internet

And that is fine by me. I am the most on-topic poster you'll ever met.

 

[Orphalesion]

I still don't see the problem, but if there is something that "breaks" science fiction, certainly that would be Planet of the Apes ... or better yet, Lexx.

The problem is that I am expecting a certain kind of product (a science fiction show set in outer space) only for the creators of that product to tell me "No, this week you can't have it, here have this entirely different product starring the same actors, and you will damn like it!"

And I meant it broke with the genre, abandoned the genre however you want to call it.
Planet of the Apes is still a science fiction tale, both versions. Lexx likewise is set onboard a living spaceship, a thoroughly science fiction idea. I have not seen many episodes, but one episode I saw that came close to venturing into a different genre was a sort of teen slasher movie-esque tale with Kai murdering a group of teenagers that came on-board after two of them accidentally triggered his programming or something.
And still that did not utterly abandon the science fiction setting/genre like "Far Beyond the Stars" did. It was still the same characters on board the Lexx and used its science fiction elements (the organic walls, space shuttles and Kai's unique nature) to tell the tale.
Beyond the Stars threw out everything about DS9 (setting characters, story) to force something entirely unrelated down our throats.

 

[kirkfan]

I still don't see the problem, but if there is something that "breaks" science fiction, certainly that would be Planet of the Apes ... or better yet, Lexx.

The problem is that I am expecting a certain kind of product (a science fiction show set in outer space) only for the creators of that product to tell me "No, this week you can't have it, here have this entirely different product starring the same actors, and you will damn like it!"

And I meant it broke with the genre, abandoned the genre however you want to call it.
Planet of the Apes is still a science fiction tale, both versions. Lexx likewise is set onboard a living spaceship, a thoroughly science fiction idea. I have not seen many episodes, but one episode I saw that came close to venturing into a different genre was a sort of teen slasher movie-esque tale with Kai murdering a group of teenagers that came on-board after two of them accidentally triggered his programming or something.
And still that did not utterly abandon the science fiction setting/genre like "Far Beyond the Stars" did. It was still the same characters on board the Lexx and used its science fiction elements (the organic walls, space shuttles and Kai's unique nature) to tell the tale.
Beyond the Stars threw out everything about DS9 (setting characters, story) to force something entirely unrelated down our throats.

But doesn't it become a little dull if you always get exactly what you expect? Life is also about surprises.

 

[GotNoRice]

But doesn't it become a little dull if you always get exactly what you expect? Life is also about surprises.

A show being "on-topic" doesn't mean there can't be surprises.

 

[suarezguy]

I still don't see the problem, but if there is something that "breaks" science fiction, certainly that would be Planet of the Apes ... or better yet, Lexx.

The problem is that I am expecting a certain kind of product (a science fiction show set in outer space) only for the creators of that product to tell me "No, this week you can't have it, here have this entirely different product starring the same actors, and you will damn like it!"

And I meant it broke with the genre, abandoned the genre however you want to call it.

Beyond the Stars threw out everything about DS9 (setting characters, story) to force something entirely unrelated down our throats.

DS9 from the beginning had, although rarely emphasizing it, some more fantasy/mythical rather than sci fi elements, especially with the Prophets and Sisko's role as the Emissary, which the plot and some themes in "Far Beyond the Stars" drew from and tried to contribute to.

I can see preferring an examination of more (directly) contemporary issues or sci fi plots but I think most kinds of stories can work and a show shouldn't cut off whole types.

 

[Orphalesion]

But doesn't it become a little dull if you always get exactly what you expect? Life is also about surprises.

A show being "on-topic" doesn't mean there can't be surprises.

Exactly, Game of Thrones is always Game of Thrones, and it's full of surprises and exciting plot twists. Navy CIS, the Good Wife, North and South, all of them count among my favorite shows and not boring and yet they don't "surprise" me by turning all the characters into private dicks from a Noir story.

An unexpected plot twist is welcomed, a completely different show in place of the one I expected not.

 

[The Lensman]

Everyone already knew that Trek shows don't go past 7 seasons,

Let me first say that I don't want my comments to come off as an attack against you personally. But this line of thinking has been a pet peeve of mine with certain segments of Trek fandom since TNG ended, so it's more of me venting against that than you personally.

I never understood that logic. It always smacked of fanboy herd mentality to me in the 90's. This bizarre thought that because things played out a certain way for TNG, that previously unknown truths were discovered about the nature of Trek on t.v. For example, because it took TNG three years "to get good", fans started saying that it took a Trek series "three years to get good". No, it doesn't, as evidenced by the original Star Trek being at it's best in it's first season. This line of thinking also ignored behind the scenes personnel changes as to why TNG "got good".

The same applies to the seven seasons thing. TNG lasted seven seasons so all of sudden people were holding this up as the ideal length of time for a Trek series. It was ridiculous. TNG lasted for that specific period of time for real world reasons. I remember most of the cast being ready to move on, the show wasn't really doing anything to reinvigorate itself and was getting stale among other things. Status changes to the characters that resulted in new positions, transfers of characters that allowed new characters to come in, would've resulted in a wealth of new stories and breathed new life into the show that would've easily allowed it to continue for years to come.

So if TNG had gotten better in it's fourth year, or ended in it's ninth year, those same Trek fans would've been saying "everyone knows it takes a Trek series four years to get good" or "everyone knows the ideal length of time for a Trek series is nine years". A modern version of this is happening now with Marvel Cinematic Universe fanboys proclaiming that any supergroup movie must be preceded by solo movies for each character. No, they don't.

 

[The Lensman]

But doesn't it become a little dull if you always get exactly what you expect? Life is also about surprises.

A show being "on-topic" doesn't mean there can't be surprises.

Exactly, Game of Thrones is always Game of Thrones, and it's full of surprises and exciting plot twists. Navy CIS, the Good Wife, North and South, all of them count among my favorite shows and not boring and yet they don't "surprise" me by turning all the characters into private dicks from a Noir story.

Babylon 5 never did this either.

 

[kirkfan]

Everyone already knew that Trek shows don't go past 7 seasons,

Let me first say that I don't want my comments to come off as an attack against you personally. But this line of thinking has been a pet peeve of mine with certain segments of Trek fandom since TNG ended, so it's more of me venting against that than you personally.

I never understood that logic. It always smacked of fanboy herd mentality to me in the 90's. This bizarre thought that because things played out a certain way for TNG, that previously unknown truths were discovered about the nature of Trek on t.v. For example, because it took TNG three years "to get good", fans started saying that it took a Trek series "three years to get good". No, it doesn't, as evidenced by the original Star Trek being at it's best in it's first season. This line of thinking also ignored behind the scenes personnel changes as to why TNG "got good".

The same applies to the seven seasons thing. TNG lasted seven seasons so all of sudden people were holding this up as the ideal length of time for a Trek series. It was ridiculous. TNG lasted for that specific period of time for real world reasons. I remember most of the cast being ready to move on, the show wasn't really doing anything to reinvigorate itself and was getting stale among other things. Status changes to the characters that resulted in new positions, transfers of characters that allowed new characters to come in, would've resulted in a wealth of new stories and breathed new life into the show that would've easily allowed it to continue for years to come.

So if TNG had gotten better in it's fourth year, or ended in it's ninth year, those same Trek fans would've been saying "everyone knows it takes a Trek series four years to get good" or "everyone knows the ideal length of time for a Trek series is nine years". A modern version of this is happening now with Marvel Cinematic Universe fanboys proclaiming that any supergroup movie must be preceded by solo movies for each character. No, they don't.

And these "traditions" are even made stranger by the fact that TOS lasted only three seasons and the third one wasn't the best of the series.

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Everyone already knew that Trek shows don't go past 7 seasons,

Let me first say that I don't want my comments to come off as an attack against you personally. But this line of thinking has been a pet peeve of mine with certain segments of Trek fandom since TNG ended, so it's more of me venting against that than you personally.

I never understood that logic. It always smacked of fanboy herd mentality to me in the 90's. This bizarre thought that because things played out a certain way for TNG, that previously unknown truths were discovered about the nature of Trek on t.v. For example, because it took TNG three years "to get good", fans started saying that it took a Trek series "three years to get good". No, it doesn't, as evidenced by the original Star Trek being at it's best in it's first season. This line of thinking also ignored behind the scenes personnel changes as to why TNG "got good".

The same applies to the seven seasons thing. TNG lasted seven seasons so all of sudden people were holding this up as the ideal length of time for a Trek series. It was ridiculous. TNG lasted for that specific period of time for real world reasons. I remember most of the cast being ready to move on, the show wasn't really doing anything to reinvigorate itself and was getting stale among other things. Status changes to the characters that resulted in new positions, transfers of characters that allowed new characters to come in, would've resulted in a wealth of new stories and breathed new life into the show that would've easily allowed it to continue for years to come.

So if TNG had gotten better in it's fourth year, or ended in it's ninth year, those same Trek fans would've been saying "everyone knows it takes a Trek series four years to get good" or "everyone knows the ideal length of time for a Trek series is nine years". A modern version of this is happening now with Marvel Cinematic Universe fanboys proclaiming that any supergroup movie must be preceded by solo movies for each character. No, they don't.

The (overlong) interview with Rick Berman for the Acadmey of American Television addresses this: he considered seven years to be the maximum profitability he could get out of a series before costs rose. Maybe each series could have gone longer, but Berman was himself inclined to think that after seven years, a series either went to the big screen or went off the air.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Everyone already knew that Trek shows don't go past 7 seasons,

Let me first say that I don't want my comments to come off as an attack against you personally. But this line of thinking has been a pet peeve of mine with certain segments of Trek fandom since TNG ended, so it's more of me venting against that than you personally.

I never understood that logic. It always smacked of fanboy herd mentality to me in the 90's. This bizarre thought that because things played out a certain way for TNG, that previously unknown truths were discovered about the nature of Trek on t.v. For example, because it took TNG three years "to get good", fans started saying that it took a Trek series "three years to get good". No, it doesn't, as evidenced by the original Star Trek being at it's best in it's first season. This line of thinking also ignored behind the scenes personnel changes as to why TNG "got good".

The same applies to the seven seasons thing. TNG lasted seven seasons so all of sudden people were holding this up as the ideal length of time for a Trek series. It was ridiculous. TNG lasted for that specific period of time for real world reasons. I remember most of the cast being ready to move on, the show wasn't really doing anything to reinvigorate itself and was getting stale among other things. Status changes to the characters that resulted in new positions, transfers of characters that allowed new characters to come in, would've resulted in a wealth of new stories and breathed new life into the show that would've easily allowed it to continue for years to come.

So if TNG had gotten better in it's fourth year, or ended in it's ninth year, those same Trek fans would've been saying "everyone knows it takes a Trek series four years to get good" or "everyone knows the ideal length of time for a Trek series is nine years". A modern version of this is happening now with Marvel Cinematic Universe fanboys proclaiming that any supergroup movie must be preceded by solo movies for each character. No, they don't.

The (overlong) interview with Rick Berman for the Acadmey of American Television addresses this: he considered seven years to be the maximum profitability he could get out of a series before costs rose. Maybe each series could have gone longer, but Berman was himself inclined to think that after seven years, a series either went to the big screen or went off the air.

Is that the same interview in which Berman let loose on fans the self-serving apologetic narrative of the post-TNG series failing to attract viewers because of "franchise fatigue"? The fact is, starting with DS9, all Trek series shed viewers like clockwork at a steady and predictable rate over the course of their respective runs. This was at a time when popular TV shows were managing to hold onto their audiences. People got board with Trek because the shows were too formulaic. It wasn't just TNG that grew stale, as The Lensman put it; they all did, DS9 included. They all shared and drew from the same well too many times, even DS9. It wasn't franchise fatigue per se, it was doing-the-same-sort-of-thing-over-too-many-times fatigue. At least "Far Beyond the Stars" dared to be different, which was starting off on the right foot, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[kirkfan]

The Seven Year Rule...

 

[Bad Thoughts]

Is that the same interview in which Berman let loose on fans the self-serving apologetic narrative of the post-TNG series failing to attract viewers because of "franchise fatigue"?

You are mistaken. He does that in every interview.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Is that the same interview in which Berman let loose on fans the self-serving apologetic narrative of the post-TNG series failing to attract viewers because of "franchise fatigue"?

You are mistaken. He does that in every interview.

Ah.

 

[GotNoRice]

This bizarre thought that because things played out a certain way for TNG, that previously unknown truths were discovered about the nature of Trek on t.v.

It wasn't my intention to open a pandora's box with that comment, and I was speaking within a fairly specific context. The episode "Far Beyond the Stars" took place half way through the 6th season. The nature of contract negotiations, etc, is such that things have to be planned out ahead. It was already known at that time that Season 7 would be DS9's last season - and not due to any fan theories based on TNG...

 

[Orphalesion]

At least "Far Beyond the Stars" dared to be different, which was starting off on the right foot, as far as I'm concerned.

So becoming a completely different series out of the blue that has nothing to do with aliens, spaceships, space exploration etc. except in a completely fictional manner was a step into the right direction?
Sorry I don't understand that logic.
If that's the case I hope the next Abramsverse movie will recast Pine Quinto and the others in the setting of a "Jane Austen" stile comedy of manners set in England during the Regency Era in which Spock is not a Vulcan there are no space ships no aliens, but it's still named Star Trek. Brilliant!