And we're going to make the Romulans pay for it!
Pitfalls the new series should avoid
- Thread starter The Overlord
- Start date
Foolishness- you can have stories set on starships exploring space and having adventures without "certain tropes and story beats" left over from a bygone era and still have it be Star Trek.
If not, I don't know what the hell I've been enjoying for 40 years, but it sure as hell was not the "social commentary."
If you ask me, the Trek setting allowed them to do a variety of stuff, mysteries, sci-fi puzzles, character studies, action, geeky Trekky stuff, heck, even a couple clip shows. And social commentary. Every iteration of the franchise has done it. It's in the DNA. (The Abramsverse narrowed the focus to action and not much else -- maybe the characters, if you like them.) Just do a healthy mix of different types of stories and present them in the best way possible for today's audience.
(And I wouldn't be too quick to assume that social commentary is a bad subject matter, as Disney recently did a movie with that as a primary theme and it was one of their best-loved films in recent times. Why? Because it was a well-done movie. Case in point, Star Trek could still do social commentary today and do it well with good writing and acting. Besides, the world is a much different place then it was back in the '60, or even the '90s. There's plenty of new material to go round.)
Fantasy is hardly the only viable option for filmmaking (nor should it be). Also, examining established characters or stories from angles you find unappealing does not make the exercise "crap". Merely something you don't like. It is arrogant presumption to view something one doesn't appreciate as though it couldn't be appreciated by others.
My point is that if you're placing originality and novelty as priority one, then have the courage integrity to go all the way and don't slap a Star Trek label on it. Then you won't invite any more arguments with fans over what constitutes "true" Star Trek (like this one).
It's not like new franchises aren't linked to some form of inspiration. Star Trek could have been pitched to MGM as a "reimagining" of Forbidden Planet, but it wasn't. Star Wars could have been Flash Gordon. That's how things used to work. New franchises would have an inspiration from one or more other franchises, but not be a continuation. We're so down the reboot and re-imagining rabbit hole now that people have deluded themselves into thinking that they can deliver just as much originality as new franchises, but they can't.
Referring to Zootopia? When I think about it, I bet that could even have functioned as a Trek planet-of-the-week episode if you rewrote it enough.
I see deconstruction as a fad, just like the Tealization of Hollywood that I mention sometimes, 3D, hoola hoops, and other repetitive behaviors between cross-pollinating writers and lazy studios. Fads are the throwaway crap that artists produce and consumers buy for a while and then forget. There's a lot of waste in them. Faddish movies - not to be confused with cult favorites, by the way, which are a different animal - is that they become obviously dated instead of timeless and classic.
Yep, liked that movie (really regret missing it in theaters).
Well, I could maybe see elements of the movie's story used in a Star Trek (or other sci-fi setting) -- the Night Howler plot thread mostly, but I think the anthropomorphic animal world setting was a huge part of the movie's fun, and that's something that I'm not sure would translate into Star Trek very well.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine took the most fundamental of all Trek premises (certainly more fundamental than "social commentary"), that of exploring the galaxy in a starship, and junked it.
I didn't see them needing to start a new franchise or retitle the show. And, last I checked, a large chunk of fandom considers DS9 a cream-of-the-crop achievement in Trek history.
You may not agree with my opinion, which is certainly fine, but let's not be ridiculous and say something like "you can't call it Star Trek if you're throwing out social commentary," because that's utter bull$hit.
Except that DS9 did do exploration (Gamma Quadrant, anyone?). The difference is that in many cases, stuff came to them instead of vice versa. Also, there was a lot of exploring the strange new world of Bajor, the Ferengi were turned into a working culture that was examined in some detail, the Trill evolved being being a one-shot TNG species, etc. So, DS9 was faithful to the spirit and the idea of galaxy exploration (to meet and learn about new cultures and use them to tell stories) even if the method was different (not using a starship). (Oh, but wait, they had the Defiant, which they used to explore the galaxy from season three onwards.)
I think TOS and TNG are considered the best pieces of the franchises, but I would be a fool to deny that DS9 was excellent. It was also a case in point example of how to adjust the franchise formula while still remaining clearly part of it.
Um, I'm not. I'm only saying don't throw it out all together, since it's a part of the franchise that's been important to every iteration of it (save the Abrams movies). DS9, in particular, had social commentary that still hasn't gone out of date or still can make viewers think (their depiction of a lead character as a former and unapologetic terrorist is a different thinking piece today, when terrorism is making the news a lot more).
You won't have to worry. Literally every piece of fiction you'll ever be exposed to will have some degree of social commentary. Society impacts on authors, authors shape the works. Kinda like how STID (a product of the 2010's) had the blindingly obvious drone analogies, and firmly presented them as 'useful, but inhumane. Ultimately cuts the hand that wields it.'
Said commentary can be inadvertent (and not exactly good), but it's always there. See: absolute shit like 'Turnabout Intruder' delivering the wonderful message of 'Dont get too ambitious ladies. It will drive ya mad, turn you homicidal, and generally make ya miserable.'
(Assuming that said message was unintentional, and not a result from Gene's "can't give cunts too much power" comments.)
Last edited:
I disagree with both of you. Star Trek has never done social commentary well! It was as subtle as a sledge hammer, preachy, stupid and arrogant.
If Star Trek did social commentary it was usually done by taking a current earth issue, building an alien society around it and then preach how humans have evolved beyond that since they were morons with nuclear weapons in the 20th century.
If the new series does social commentary like before expect the captain to give a variation of this speech at least once in the first five episodes:
"My people used be like yours, in the dark ages of 2017 when humanity was a bunch of hateful, bigoted, moronic apes with nuclear weapons ... thankfully the followers of Dean Moddengerry saw the light and helped create the perfect society we enjoy today!"
Okay, the last part might not happen but it always felt like it was implied because "Gene's vision" and a bunch of fans feeling that if humanity would just get it we'd build the Enterprise for real within 20 years and all of humanity would hold hands and be friends and the only sounds in previously war torn regions would be birds chirping and children laughing while their parents bury the remaining weapons in the ground.
If Star Trek had balls they did social commentary by showing a remote earth colony consisting of white supremacists who casually reveal "We had some niggers but they were all sterilized and the problem solved itself 15 years ago!" and yes, they should use that word and not dance around it. Show racism for what it is, gross, hurtful, dangerous and most importantly a human problem not some weird alien shit that allows the audience to feel superior.
To be fair, and I know this is being debated in another thread, but Abrams' had commentary that was timely too. It wasn't the sledge hammer effect of some commentary, but it was based upon current events.
You said it much better than I could.
I would think it would be inadvertent, given "The Cage" started with a female first officer, but the point is well put. Star Trek's attitude towards women can some times come across as rather bad or ignorant at times.
I think about the desire of some for simple morality plays, and also the discussion on whether there will be gay (or LGBQTIWHMXX) characters in the new series, and this is what I picture:
Captain Kirk slaps a redshirt on the shoulder, says "You queers are alright by me," and gives him his trademark cheesy grin.
It would be terrible, in an awesome kind of way.
Captain Kirk slaps a redshirt on the shoulder, says "You queers are alright by me," and gives him his trademark cheesy grin.
It would be terrible, in an awesome kind of way.
Point taken.
Something like this was actually done really well in the first half of ENT's Shockwave Part 1 -
The crew seemed to be somehow responsible for a colony being wiped out. They were being recalled to Earth, and suffering conflicting emotions of guilt at the deaths and grief at the sudden ending of their mission. It was very effectively done.
Sadly the second half of the ep was more rote, and Part 2 was worse, being largely a scramble to undo the world-ending Berman/Braga cliffhanger it followed.
But those first 20 minutes stand as an example of Trek dealing with mission failure in a realistic and dramatically engaging way.
Given Roddenberry put his mistress in a major role, and after being told to get rid of her (but not the role) he didn't replace her with a different actress.
Except being Star Trek it would be black supremacists who got rid of "whitey."
A few other fans have mentioned this, but I never saw the (intended) torpedo attack as a drone analogy, more a pretty standard attack by missiles launched from a naval vessel.
However, that wasn't the larger point. It was the execution of a Federation citizen without trial, which was the argument that Spock convinced Kirk with to go retrieve Harrison and not execute him from afar with no legal action.
This comes right on the heals of a United States senator taking 14 hours to filibuster to get the US Attorney General and President of the US to admit that they have no legal power to execute US citizens with drones without trial. Watching ST ID right after listening to the news felt rather surrreal.
Exactly. Continuity should be a foundation to build upon. The Problem is that too many people (both pro- and anti-) think of continuity as a box everything has to fit in.
when did Khan become a federation citizen?
