If it isn't entertaining, it won't survive for long. Even Roddenberry knew the first job was to entertain the audience.
Star Trek Writer's Bible said:
News Meyer: Star Trek: Discovery Is Self-Examination
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
If it isn't entertaining, it won't survive for long. Even Roddenberry knew the first job was to entertain the audience.
What is entertaining is pretty subjective. Some people think TNG was boring and preachy, I think it was basically the best TV show ever (and it was highly successful, so this is not even me being weird.)
I don't understand some of the hand wringing that occurs anytime anyone involved in the production mentions support for one of the tenants of Star Trek. Star Trek is an "exploration of humanity", it is "high-concept sci-fi", it is action-adventure, it is morality tales, it is a character piece, it is dramatic, it is dark, it is fun, it is introspective, it is entertaining, etc. What it isn't is just one of these things. I can guarantee that the producers, writers, staff, and actors for this new series don't want it to be just one thing, and even if individuals did, collectively they all want different things. So no one should decry one opinion, about one aspect of a new Trek show, spoken by one individual. What is and will always be important is the final result when all these craftsmen with all their ideas come together - if they are talented, dedicated, and interested enough, they will produce a good show. And if they aren't, they won't.
I guess I am always hoping that future discussions about what is Star Trek and what it will be in this new series will focus on the "should be" and not the "shouldn't be". That discussion take these opinions of Meyer or others and say "yes, Star Trek should have this, and it should also have..." such that they are inclusive lists and not exclusive.
I guess I am always hoping that future discussions about what is Star Trek and what it will be in this new series will focus on the "should be" and not the "shouldn't be". That discussion take these opinions of Meyer or others and say "yes, Star Trek should have this, and it should also have..." such that they are inclusive lists and not exclusive.
Not really. Star Trek VI, when looked at objectively, is massively overrated.
Not sure what "objective" has to do with anything. It's certainly one of my favorites and sucks me in whenever I watch it.
It's actually a dangerous movie that way; more than once I've fired up the DVD, intending to watch just one bit for research purposes, only to end up watching the whole thing again!
Last edited:
Undiscovered Country is a great movie, if a bit awkwardly directed at certain points. Meyer has made some great contributions to Trek and, like Fuller, has a good idea of what makes it tick. It's very encouraging to have him as an eminence grise.
Yep.
Is there such a thing as "objectively" when looking at an entertainment property?
But how long did it work before it stopped?
The whole TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT basic concept worked for two decades, at it's core is what is Star Trek.
Would have been improvised immensely if the movies "villains" had possessed realistic and supportable reasons for their actions, instead of they were just "stupid and racist."
Since ratings started sliding with DS9 and kept sliding until the cancellation of Enterprise, I'd say the "formula" only really worked with TNG.
And, when TNG was established it was the only real sci-fi game in town.
Exactly so.
Not sure what "objective" has to do with anything. It's certainly one of my favorites and sucks me in whenever I watch it.
It's actually a dangerous movie that way; more than once I've fired up the DVD, intending to watch just one bit for research purposes, only to end up watching the whole thing again!
I'm sorry, but looking back I just don't think it's a great movie. That doesn't mean it isn't ENJOYABLE. I like watching it and have seen it many times. It's certainly not as flawed as Insurrection or Generations, but it's admittedly a mess.
The plot is very loose and filled with illogic and slop. The production is cheap and very rushed. The middle acts are bloated and drag almost as much as a trip through the V'Ger cloud. Too much winking at the fans and sly attempts at charming nostalgia take me out of what otherwise is supposed to be a taught political thriller.
I like Nick Meyer, but he used his clout here as a platform to stick self-serving and pretentious literary references all through the film in an awkward and unnatural way (heck, even the title "The Undiscovered Country" was a stretch, and something he did because he just liked the sound of it and didn't get his way on Star Trek II).
I'm excited about Discovery and I'm thrilled that Meyer is part of the creative team, but TUC is not the guidepost to great Star Trek.
As I said, I believe it's massively overrated in the fan community because it was the "farewell" of the original crew and it had Meyer's involvement. Overrated doesn't mean "sucked." It just means that it is put on a much higher pedestal than it likely deserves, especially given the criteria by which I've seen fans weigh the merits of the other 12 films.
I thin it's funny how people are always saying, "Trek should be about big ideas! Moral quandaries! Issues! It shouldn't be a dumb action movie!" And then a guy working on a new Trek show says the show will make you reflect on yourself and everyone is like, "Don't talk down to me! Make it fun!!!" 
I really enjoy The Undiscovered Country. It is very much an "80's" with all the pros and cons. But, at that point, Star Trek was still very much action-adventure.
I'd rather watch it than pretty much anything produced by Rick Berman and Company. That isn't a slam at them, just that they changed Star Trek into something very different than what it had been.
I thin it's funny how people are always saying, "Trek should be about big ideas! Moral quandaries! Issues! It shouldn't be a dumb action movie!" And then a guy working on a new Trek show says the show will make you reflect on yourself and everyone is like, "Don't talk down to me! Make it fun!!!"
But you can talk about big ideas and still be fun. Take John deLancie as Q in "Encounter at Farpoint". He is a scene chewer there and very much fun and entertaining while talking about "big ideas".
I don't mind Trek taking itself seriously, but if that's all it does, it gets tiresome quickly.
That's what Trek has always done though, or strove to do, in my opinion. People wouldn't watch it if it were consistently pedantic without being entertaining. I recently watched Duet again and it is insanely entertaining and the acting and writing are astounding, and yes, it's also about big ideas and moral issues and even has historical relevance. I guess I'm just not sure why when a new show is coming out and Meyer says it'll make you think about yourself and society, people are wagging their finger like, "But you better make it fun or I'll put you in fandom jail!" I mean, Star Trek has been pretty consistent with the balance of thoughtfulness and entertainment. It's kind of its bread and butter. Sure, there's episodes and movies that failed to do both, but...I dunno, I guess I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until I see some episodes.
This issue is making me think about which writers, directors, and producers really "get" what Star Trek is about. I was listening to the Weekly Planet podcast and they were having a similar discussion about which comic book movie directors really understand comic books. Maybe this is good fodder for another thread? Suffice to say, I think that while Meyer didn't know a lick about Trek when he signed on for WoK, he learned pretty fast, and I think now he's almost an authority figure on what makes a strong Trek story.
Similar threads
- Locked
