I want everybody to be a unique person, not just an archetype.
Whom do you think is just an archetype?
I want everybody to be a unique person, not just an archetype.
Whom do you think is just an archetype?
I can't really think of anyone offhand, but what I mean is, I want them to be multi-layered. Don't make them all good or all bad. Make them real/
Real life is more complicated than black and white. You should understand if not excuse their behavior.
Stop shoe-horning every episode into an A-plot/B-plot structure. It's okay if there's only one story per episode. Really.
In general I agree with your sentiment. However, I want it known that if the exact scenario you've laid out were to be produced, it might become my favourite Trek story ever.^^^
Not necessarily that, but those episodes where you've got this really interesting story happening say about a difficult diplomatic contact with a new species that will spark a galaxy-wide apocalypse if handled wrong that keeps cutting away to Ensign Biff trying to learn how to dance the jitterbug for his cat's bar mitzvah or whatever.
Stop shoe-horning every episode into an A-plot/B-plot structure. It's okay if there's only one story per episode. Really.
No unnecessary ship-in-danger subplots just to keep things "exciting".
No: Borg. Holodecks. Random space-wedgies that drain the ship's power for no other reason than to just be there doing that. God-like aliens in general, Q specifically. Forehead squiggle aliens. Button-push plot resolutions. And for the love of the gods keep time-travel to a bare minimum, please.
Yes: alien aliens. Familiar TOS-era aliens. Stories that have effect beyond one episode. Ongoing character development beyond finding one distinct characteristic per character and driving that into the ground for seven seasons.
Agreed. And the captain needs to be a white man.I want strong and hard characters.
None of this touchy-feely, angst-y, oversensitive, quick to take offense at every little thing, passive-aggressive crap that we are constantly subjected to in contemporary media and society.
Kor
No. Not really. I don't really care if it turns out to be the case--but "needs" is NOT warranted at all.Agreed. And the captain needs to be a white man.
Agreed. And the captain needs to be a white man.
I don't see what difference it makes this time around since he's not going to be the main character.No. Not really. I don't really care if it turns out to be the case--but "needs" is NOT warranted at all.
I don't see what difference it makes this time around since he's not going to be the main character.
Perhaps Garth could be the captain. Long after Axanar but before (or in the early stages of) his insanity. Don't play it over-the-top since we are more tolerant of mental illness these days. Instead focus on the tragedy of this man, the greatest explorer and role model for all starfleet captains, slowly losing his mind. And his crew dealing with it while dealing with their mission, etc. The Klingons respect him because of Axanar, and starfleet needs him there for the mission to keep the cold war from going hot. And again, he's their most prolific explorer. Maybe he has experience with wherever their mission is taking them. This could be the underlying season arc, and you could still have the crisis of the week up until Garth himself becomes the crisis. We'd never get to Lord Garth nor would we need the dots connected to that degree. "Whom Gods Destroy" isn't a great episode, but Garth's backstory is definitely interesting as the Anaxar fan film intended to prove. It's mentioned in TOS but we never see it, so it meets the criteria of what we know so far. It could also help explain why Paramount targeted Anaxar fan film instead of just putting out a blanket warning against all fan films that were crowdfunding or thinking of crowdfunding in order to create studio level productions that may be mistaken for, or worse, preferred over the genuine article.
Like most folks today, you are unecessarily hung up on words. That's all it was, a word, not an agenda.This point does NOT strengthen your argument. "Needs" is even less relevant under these circumstances.
In a medium of communication without vocal inflection or body language, it's especially important to carefully choose one's words. The absolute nature of the word "needs" strongly suggests the very thing you claim is not present--an agenda, whether you intend it to or not (hence the importance of careful selection of words).Like most folks today, you are unecessarily hung up on words. That's all it was, a word, not an agenda.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.