I gotta tell you, I don't know how? Most are pretty poor. But, people also buy tickets to the Transformers movies over-and-over again.
Lorca: Fans Will Have To Adjust
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
I gotta tell you, I don't know how? Most are pretty poor. But, people also buy tickets to the Transformers movies over-and-over again.
A dark and gritty future is only "more realistic", if you have a pessimistic outlook for the future. Who knows maybe the future will turn out much nicer than you think. We simply don't know.
That's a presumption of my point, so let me try again.
"Realistic" and "gritty" doesn't mean dark to me, though I'm sure it does to others. No, I'm not pessimistic of humanity's future but I also want to real like I can relate to setting and the characters. That's realistic to me. Dealing with the consequences of war, bigotry and PTSD? That's realistic, and appropriate commentary for Star Trek, because it's done so in the past.
Even in Star Trek, the future is pretty rough. The Eugenics Wars, World War III, the Xindi, the Romulan War, human trafficking, this Klingon War, the Cardassians, the Tzenkethi, the Borg, Dominion.
While war isn't my first choice for Star Trek, it isn't exactly an invalid way to present the universe based on what we've seen in the past.
The Marvel movies are simply entertaining and a lot of people would disagree with you that they are poor. Not much of a Transformers fan myself, but I guess big robots fighting each other appeals to some. They have at least nice special effects.
If the show is dark and gritty I think that means the show might be good but i'm uncertain if it will be popular. Like I mentioned above I think people want something more like "Star Wars" or the Marvel movies out of Trek more than they want "Game of Thrones." It isn't even about the fact that Trek has had a more upbeat look and aproach in the past. Can a show that has blue aliens and guys with forehead ridges and ray guns and transporters mix will with "dark and gritty?"
Look at some of the stuff that has gone from more lighthearted stuff to dark and gritty in the past like "Logan" or "Battlestar Galatica." One thing they did was basically take away all the comic book or sci-fi trappings to help ground those things into a real world type of setting. Can you really do that with a Trek show? I mean you can do it some degree but I wonder if Trek can make tha full transition. Plus if your not going to be R-rated then how edgy can you be? You can at best only be "Game of Thrones" in style but without the more graphic stuff that makes it really have that edge. Not to mention we are talking about something created by CBS and not HBO,FX etc. I think a lot depends on just how committed CBS is at trying to change it's image. Are they trying to elevate themselves to be seen more on par with AMC,HBO etc or are they still trying to just be network tv. Anyways it will be fun to see how it all plays out. If the show works then that will be great. If not it will be neat to see what the next Trek show will be like.
Jason
Look at some of the stuff that has gone from more lighthearted stuff to dark and gritty in the past like "Logan" or "Battlestar Galatica." One thing they did was basically take away all the comic book or sci-fi trappings to help ground those things into a real world type of setting. Can you really do that with a Trek show? I mean you can do it some degree but I wonder if Trek can make tha full transition. Plus if your not going to be R-rated then how edgy can you be? You can at best only be "Game of Thrones" in style but without the more graphic stuff that makes it really have that edge. Not to mention we are talking about something created by CBS and not HBO,FX etc. I think a lot depends on just how committed CBS is at trying to change it's image. Are they trying to elevate themselves to be seen more on par with AMC,HBO etc or are they still trying to just be network tv. Anyways it will be fun to see how it all plays out. If the show works then that will be great. If not it will be neat to see what the next Trek show will be like.
Jason
Hate watching sounds like a waste of time to me.
Or they want the show to stand on its own so they give it a visual style that is different than what came before.
I am a HUGE TNG fan
It is my favorite Trek show.
That having been said,
I am much more excited about DSC than I am The Orville.
I like this point and it is very a good one. Regardless of whether I liked TNG or not, when I turned it on, i knew I wasn't watching TOS.
As a more general comment, I was listening to a podcast about Insurrection and one of the commentators made a point about expecting Star Trek to stay the same. He asked "If this was a friend of yours, would you want them to stay as they are?" And he goes on to comment that the expectation of Star Trek remaining "frozen in time" doesn't benefit the franchise in any way.
Now, does everyone have to like the visual? No, of course not. I personally have never cared for the TNG style in terms of uniforms, phasers or interiors. But, that doesn't mean some of their stories are not enjoyable.
I think DSC will go a similar way. Maybe it will be "grittier" but it also will have the opportunity to stand on its own and be judged on its own merits. I can say all I want want about the Kelvin films (and many have) but one thing that hurt ST ID was the inclusion of Khan. Why? Because it immediately invites the comparison to TWOK and the film can't stand on its own.
And, yes, I'm aware that an immediate question may be "Why not just create your own sci-fi show and leave Star Trek out of it?" In my opinion, it is because Star Trek has left a timeless stamp and this is an opportunity to make an impression on a new audience. And, the only way that it can do that is by having its own look, just like every other show it before it.
Into Darkness is the highest grossing Trek movie ever. So I say there is room for dark-and-gritty.
"Dark and Gritty" also makes money and depending on how it's framed gains critical acclaim (see BSG2003, Dexter, Boardwalk Empire, etc.) And FYI - I wasn't a fan of BSG2003 myself; but it wasn't because it was dark and gritty, I just didn't care for a existential show about Cylons and their ridiculous motivations.
And as BillJ commented above earlier - TOS - aka STAR TREK often dealt with darker topics in its day, while still remaining and having an overall positive outlook. It was TNG that more often went the 'Afterschool Special' route with some very black and white portrayals of topics (way more often than TOS did); and I'm VERY hopeful ST: D will be more like the first season of TOS, which IMO to this day, is overall the best season of the Star Trek franchise produced to date - but we'll see.
I'm amused by the the degree of popularity there is for "Balance of Terror," TWOK, "Duet," and "In the Pale Moonlight" in conjunction with the fear that Trek might somehow take a turn towards the dark and gritty.
No it's not.
After all, in Trek you can fix PTSD with outpatient medical procedures to correct the neurological damage causing the problem.
You're still kinda missing the point that the show is being made for a 21st century audience. As long as war and various other traumas exist, so will PTSD.
I'd say Kirk was dealing with PTSD in the episode "Obsession". And they didn't seem to do anything for Picard after "Chain of Command", except have him talk to a therapist.
Being implausible in-universe in your opinion isn't the same as not being topical or not being relevant. Being topical and being relevant have to do with what's important to the audience.
Besides, PTSD behavior in Star Trek is canon. See Nog in the episodes following "The Siege of AR-558." @BillJ provided other good examples. We can also think about Picard in "Family."
Nog isn't human, and just so happens to be a member of one of the few races that have pretty much unknown neurological structures.
Ah, good. So you agree: PTSD does fit into Star Trek.
Similar threads
- Locked
