Hard Star Trek
- Thread starter Autistoid
- Start date
Worked for Star Wars.
Yes, but IIRC there's are exploitable loopholes related to cable networks and streaming services. For some reason (*coughlobbyistscough*) cable companies are governed by a slightly different set of laws than broadcasters.
To which I reply:
"Ee'dplebnista norkohn forkohn perfectunun."
And those were actually pretty refreshing for having such a simple problem create such a huge uproar. "Dawn" was also an excellent way to approach that issue.
Just saying that doesn't need to be a "let's do another language episode" theme of the day. It should be as fundamental to Star Trek as transporters and communicators: when you find a new alien race, the first thing you need to do is figured out how to talk to them.
You can get speech performance just fine from "alien gibberish." Sometimes moreso, if the only thing the AUDIENCE is going to hear are their emotional inflections.
Well, you want to target as broad a group as possible. If the focus is strictly on hard science fiction fans, then you are gutting off potential viewing audience, and you are setting yourself up for failure.
The idea of targeting just one demographic is not really going to work in this day and age because people have too many options now. I mean, as Warped9 mentioned Star Wars is really space fantasy, that works for a number of demographics, especially children.
Star Trek's fanbase can be very fragmented, so appealing to a much larger audience will be critical to the success of any new show.
Children of ALL ages
It also stands to reason that what appeals to the general audience is also going to appeal to Star Trek's fanbase, a highly vocal minority notwithstanding. Star Trek fans are, after all, PART of the general audience and not a separate category.
Hard science fiction fans? That is going to be a niche audience. And yes, the hard core Trek fans are a niche as well.
Appealing to a broader audience? That is why there is any live action Trek at all. In that respect, you have to give J.J. credit. Trek could have died with the cancellation of Enterprise.
Fuck, I don't want to get into this discussion again, but I don't have to give JJ credit for anything. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else. And, with a little luck, someone who would have done it better by showing a little more respect to the original subject matter.
But having a somewhat hard SF element to a new Star Trek doesn't have to take anything away from having a broad appeal because how you deal with the tech and hardware is a small part of the larger elements that are Star Trek's main appeal.
You think it would have made a difference if it was someone else? Didn't Orci get canned because his ST3 script was TOO trek? Or was that just rumor?
I don't know about Orci, but I'm not talking about making things heavier with continuity references. Indeed they should have made more of a full-up reboot cutting away completely from the original continuity (which in itself would have been more respectful of the original). They could have done that while being more respectful in terms of portrayal of the characters and how TOS approached its stories rather than making a dumbed-down and hyped up action fest.
But to get back on point. I had this same discussion with friends some years ago where I said much the same thing. It isn't necessary for a Star Trek to be hard SF, but if it were so desired it could be made to work without sacrificing greater elements of Star Trek's appeal. From the beginning Roddenberry laid out the idea that it was best to avoid getting overly technical in terms of explaining how things work. A cop doesn't explain how his firearm works when he draws it so in like manner it isn't necessary for an Enterprise crewman to explain how the phaser works when he or she uses it. He or she just uses it and lets how the device is shown to function speak for itself. So in terms of science and hardware you don't need to get caught up in wasting time explaining your tech--you just use it and let the sight of how it functions speak for itself. Focus on the characters and the story.
Last edited:
That's my point. Orci was making it trek. I'm not talking about continuity, I'm talking about the spirit of trek. Which you just described. Subsequently he got canned because the script was too much trek, and less dumbed down action fest.
So the point is, is JJ really to take allt he blame, or maybe should we be looking at Paramount on this particular issue?
I don't want to get this thread too far afield of its subject. But if TPTB did as you say then they share the blame for how nuTrek was done by choosing someone who had the mindset towarrds the materiel we saw up on the screen.
I can understand the feeling some might have that the Prime continuity was getting or at least feeling unweildy and perhaps serving as a barrier to potential new viewers. But a new continuity could have been established without dumbing down the essential subject matter.
A reboot was inevitable. Thus the issue becomes how to do a reboot.
Appealing to anybody or targeting some specific group is bound to make Trek a piece of crap. Without at least a minimum amount of integrity and unwillingness to make your show appeal to everybody it wouldn't be Trek.
When they had stuff like Kirk kissing Uhura they did not care that much about pissing off half of the South, they just did it.
By the way, I never got that target audience marketing nonsense in the first place. I certainly goodn't be categorized into something like that because I don't care whether it is sci-fi or fantasy or whatever. I care about it being a good piece of drama.
In what way precisely was he making two Michael Bay-ish action flicks "Trek"? Via twice copying TWOK? Via fanwank massive?
First of all, the execs did care about pissing off the South which is why they shot two versions of the scene, and went with the one that doesn't show the actual kiss. This was documented in Shatner's "Star Trek Memories." So, yeah there was some worry there.
Secondly, I agree that I want good drama, and more importantly, I want interesting characters. I would rather have characters that are deeper, realistic, flawed and interesting than all the tech in the world.
He made an action/adventure story with some social commentary. That was GR's original pitch of Star Trek, and I think that the spirit of TOS was captured in both films.
Also, if you want to discuss Orci's contributions, there is actually a whole thread over in the XI+ subforum. You might enjoy it
Ok I'll try one last time to explain my point because people seem to be paraphrasing and not getting my meaning.
I have read that the reason Orci got canned from ST 3, was because the movie he wanted to make was TOO MUCH like how we think of Star Trek. We're talking about the heart, optimism, less emphasis on action and more on commentary, etc.
All I'm saying, if this is the case, then can JJ really be blamed for the substance of nuTrek(for those that hate it), if the case is that Paramount is firing people for making the movies TOO MUCH like Star Trek.
For the record, I dislike nutrek. But IF that rumor is true, then I can't really fault JJ or Orci, or Kurtzman, for just following studio criteria. And if the aforementioned scenario is true, then I don't see how we can logically harp on JJ or Orci for it being a fluffly action flick.
Writers, and directors typically don't have the final say in these tentpoles. They just take the notes they're given, and do the job. Or they move on because of creative differences.
Look at the F4 situation now. It's said Trank was locked out of the editing bay, and they redid the entire 3rd act. It's not always black and white. Just because someone has the credit doesn't necessarily mean the fault(or accolade) lies completely on them. There's notes galore on these tentpoles.
I have read that the reason Orci got canned from ST 3, was because the movie he wanted to make was TOO MUCH like how we think of Star Trek. We're talking about the heart, optimism, less emphasis on action and more on commentary, etc.
All I'm saying, if this is the case, then can JJ really be blamed for the substance of nuTrek(for those that hate it), if the case is that Paramount is firing people for making the movies TOO MUCH like Star Trek.
For the record, I dislike nutrek. But IF that rumor is true, then I can't really fault JJ or Orci, or Kurtzman, for just following studio criteria. And if the aforementioned scenario is true, then I don't see how we can logically harp on JJ or Orci for it being a fluffly action flick.
Writers, and directors typically don't have the final say in these tentpoles. They just take the notes they're given, and do the job. Or they move on because of creative differences.
Look at the F4 situation now. It's said Trank was locked out of the editing bay, and they redid the entire 3rd act. It's not always black and white. Just because someone has the credit doesn't necessarily mean the fault(or accolade) lies completely on them. There's notes galore on these tentpoles.
Last edited:
I believe that it would be possible to nudge Trek in the direction of Quasi-Hard. But that would work best if, as GR suggested, the tech kind of fades into the background. (Which is one thing NuBSG did well).
There is one catch-much of the technobabble would have to be dropped!
There is one catch-much of the technobabble would have to be dropped!
After the previous two movies this rumour seems highly dubious. Orci as well as Abrams only do uninspired popcorn cinema so the claim that there is a rift between the studio and in this instance the writer is unlikely to be true.
I do not understand that. You want Trek to be more hard sci-fi and less technobabble at the same time?
I want Trek to remain soft sci-fi but not so soft that we never hear engineers actually using technical language. Of course it should be more in the background and the tachyon beam should not save the day ... but that really happened in only a bunch of episodes.
As NuBSG gets always mentioned in these technobabble discussions, theobabble is actually worse than technobabble and Moore pulled a quite literal (ans also far worse than Trek ever did) deus ex machiona.
That is one point. Another is that if Quasi-Soft turns to fluffy-soft, the technobabble isn't really technical, its just babble,
Let's try again.
Firstly "technobabble" is a catchphrase for reams of nonsensical technical terminolgy. It's mostly made-up bullshit put across as highly advanced science and technology and whose only purpose is to try making the characters sound smart. It has nothing to do with real science.
There has been some hard SF--largely in literature--where characters go on at length about the science and technology, but in film and television it's rare. Hard SF doesn't mean you need to indulge in lengthy explanations using little known terms. It simply means that before you start writing stories you establish your technical guidelines (in some sort of writer's guide) and then strive to stay consistent with those guidelines in your stories. This is basically what TOS and its films as well as most SF in film and television tend to do even with mostly nonsensical science and technology.
I will say I heard far more snatches of real science throughout the runs of Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis then I ever heard in all of Trek and it never bogged down the story, simply because they used it sparingly. And yet more actual science came out of the mouths of the characters Samantha Carter and Rodney McCay then in fifty years of Trek and not once was it a problem. It was also incredibly refreshing.
If I were helming a new space adventure, be it Star Trek or something else, this is the approach I'd follow even when allowing for some gimmes that are found in most SF.
Last edited:
