Debating fiction is to begin with.
Pitfalls the new series should avoid
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Debating fiction is to begin with.
What if avoiding the temporal cold war and time travel plotlines is what causes them in the first place?
One pitfall that should be avoided is sloppiness like Riker using a similar line to the one I typed above TWICE -- almost verbatim, having a near exact conversation with Picard in two separate episodes (incidentally, I feel his objection was stupid in both cases).
Also. There was this show back a while ago called The Event.
I tried watching this, but what really bothered me was, speaking of time travel, all the stupid time jumping in the narration. "Six months earlier", "One year later", "3 Weeks earlier" just jumping around all over the place.In fact, I think at one point, the flashed back to something like "3 months earlier", then flashed back again a couple weeks -- at no time did I see "The present". Is this a flashback in a flashback?
It was ridiculous. I didn't know where I was, temporally, in the narrative. Add to that the stupid gimmick where the writers have no fracking clue where they want to go with it so they just constantly throw mystery after mystery every week, building up this lore of mystery with absolutely no pay off whatsoever because they don't know what it is. Shows like this can be spotted with trailers that start ... "NEXT WEEK. YOUR QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED". LOL.
Star Trek v.Next should do none of these things. Please.
Looking at some of the "pitfalls" that have been repeatedly listed I wonder how Trek17 could get a single episode made. Certainly a long-running series would be basically impossible.
Furthermore if you applied these standards retroactively to the franchise as it existed before 2009, about 90% of it would probably be obliterated, and large segments of Trek BBS would likely disappear as well - along with Memory Alpha, DITL.org and a smorgasbord of other sites.
I'm curious as to why certain posters on this thread have spent so long on a Star Trek fan forum when they seemingly are put off by every single thing about Star Trek - and in particular by the fandom.
Furthermore if you applied these standards retroactively to the franchise as it existed before 2009, about 90% of it would probably be obliterated, and large segments of Trek BBS would likely disappear as well - along with Memory Alpha, DITL.org and a smorgasbord of other sites.
I'm curious as to why certain posters on this thread have spent so long on a Star Trek fan forum when they seemingly are put off by every single thing about Star Trek - and in particular by the fandom.
I would like them to go back to standalone format of episodes (even though I get why people want arcs). There is some sweet spot for me between space opera and absolutely no character development. I like how much variety there is in TOS. Some are just adventure, some a character stories and some are thoughtful parables (which I think other people think are preachy but which I love). I'd like that kind of variety. I enjoy long story arcs like Babylon 5 or shoot 'em ups like the JJ Abrams films, but I like Star Trek episodes to be like little short stories using the same characters.
Personally, I wouldn't mind an "Event of the Week" for 'A Plot' purposes, but also a medium term 'B Plot' (similar to ENT Seasons 3 and 4) with a core of 3-5 main characters and at least a dozen regulars sprinked through the episodes appearing as needed for the plot, with real effects of things that happen (again similar to ENT s3 and 4) like hull damage, lost shuttles, casualties and the like.
I feel Star Trek is perfectly fine to cut your teeth on and each has there own reasons to venture deeper into every crack and crevice. Could also be a fear of exposing oneself in creating a new metaphor with just as many flaws and inconsistencies as the one they are working behind.
It's safe here.
Well, that's simple. It's because you're reading an ongoing thread with hundreds of participators who actively disagree with each other and then acting like they're all one unified voice.
Very few people would erase anywhere near that much of trek history - we just all disagree, sometimes subtly, sometimes massively, about which parts would be better off gone, so when all of us start talking at once the cumulative affect is far, far larger than any individual would ever advocate for.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Exactly, all this thread shows is there is a very wide set of preferences when it comes to Star Trek and its future. I may long for more complex mythology and arcs while others might consider that a misstep and prefer standalone episodes. It doesn't mean that unless the new series is somehow both we'll all hate it.
We'll hate it for more rational reasons like the colour of the nacelles.
Last edited:
I have run in to a number of individuals around the Internet who would rather just complain. Very rarely are you going to find someone who hates every aspect of Star Trek. Each person has their own particular interests and pet peeves and that applies to Star Trek as much as any other entertainment media.
There is no set standard for Star Trek, has it has been a variety of different stories, characters and typology in its history. For some, that means that TOS is really the only series they enjoy as Star Trek, while others find TOS to be boring.
The problem that Star Trek 2017 will run in to is the effort yo be something new, and avoid the temptation of revisiting some of Star Trek's "greatest hits."
I agree. The big hump the series will have to get over is people's initial gut reaction of
"Hey, this isn't TOS/TNG [delete as applicable] -- so this sucks!"
shaky hand-held camera work like Battlestar Galactica (2004).
Actually, some of the people here seem to fall into that category.
A long-time fan who has been embalmed in 50 years of Star Trek, read every behind-the-scenes book, well, you can reach a point of burnout.
Some of these people still call themselves fans but when you ask them what not to do, they rattle off all of the core things that have always made Trek Trek.
I think that fandom kind of runs a course through people's lives where they sometimes stay engaged in fandom long after their passion for the thing has all but deteriorated.
When you've picked and analyzed a thing to death don't be surprised that you find that all you can see is the scaffolding, the tropes and such.
Creative criticism isn't hate, neither is objective analysis or commentary.
I would watch out for these:
I'm curious as to who has demonstrated a hatred for every facet of Star Trek.
