Yes.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
M
marlboro
Guest
Good plan. Just keep hiring shitty writers and keep rebooting the series as soon as the fans tune out. It's done wonders for the comic book industry.
It's like grabbing a new shovel to help dig yourself out of a hole.
Like Batman. It was not campy when it first came out, died out, came back campy-yet-innocent-childlike (and saved Alfred in the process) then became serious but not grim'n'bloody then became grim'n'bloody after a period when it was the highest camp in the 1990s.
I think that's along the lines of what you mean by "yes" when changing so much in a reboot that can gain something...?
Of course, everyone hates the campy stuff... except for its fans that hat the gory stuff. Or somewhere in between both extremes. Or new extremes. Not everybody's going to like every instance of every incarnation but we all still like it in the end.
There comes a point where 'X' no longer meshes with 'Y'. Why should writers be handcuffed to fifty year old material that was made when the world was a much different place?
My opinion is ignore the stuff that doesn't work or fit anymore. I guess that's controversial.
M
marlboro
Guest
You do not have to produce prequels. You do not have to write new characters into the backstory of well known characters. You do not have to place your series immediately after Voyager.
You have the entire universe, the entire timestream, limitless alternate dimensions, and infinite alternate realities to explore.
Talented writers can use previous history as a springboard for new ideas.
Middling writers feel handcuffed and produce mediocre work because of it.
Bad writers give up and say "we have to start over. " These guys usually only manage to reproduce a pale imitation of the original stories.
You have the entire universe, the entire timestream, limitless alternate dimensions, and infinite alternate realities to explore.
Talented writers can use previous history as a springboard for new ideas.
Middling writers feel handcuffed and produce mediocre work because of it.
Bad writers give up and say "we have to start over. " These guys usually only manage to reproduce a pale imitation of the original stories.
Last edited by a moderator:
Since that's not what I'm saying at all I think I'll just leave that hyperbole alone.
I see no harm in rebooting because it allows you to restart the world without worrying that a technology is inaccurate, or a character is out of place or whatnot. Because, that is the level of minutia badgering that is being expected of new shows.
Also, I would love for Star Trek to return to its TOS style roots, with that action/adventure framework and basing it around future focused projections on current technology.
A reboot ends all the nitpicky bullshit. I don't believe for a second fans will accept an alternate timeline. Especially after watching the Kelvin timeline debates and complaints over the tech in that alternate dimension...
Yes and no.
What worked 50 years ago above and beyond "people in spaceship of all types who all get along like grown-ups who are going to different planets in controls that sci-fi prior to it didn't put any effort in playing with sincerity" that can't work now? Some of this stuff is timeless and not always in bad ways.
For one, the future-era humans having evolved seems to be a core component; ditching that in favor of modern day people just reeks either "lazy" or "parody" and parodies have an easier time because they send-up sci-fi as its bread and butter. Imagine if Zoe kept saying "groovy" to the Doctor, or Tegan spouting "gag me with a spoon" all the time. Lame... At least 21st century people so far have been as bland as unused toilet water.
On the flip side, what one expects to keep retained and to be ditched can be very different things. For example, today's standards of marriage are nothing like 1960s'. Few if any of us are demanding the show do now in that regard what it was doing in the 1960s.
But to show a bunch of kids in the future acting like today's kids? What, parenting has gone down the cesspool in 400 years too? That's bullshit for Trek standards. Why not go all the way; cut'n'paste a bunch of neanderthals going "ug" and "grunt" seen in some other show doing the same thing instead? It's just as lazy for a show that takes place in the future and shows an evolved humanity.
Even Kirk did a better job at upstaging the occasional eeeeeeeevil admiral o' the week wrong.
Another angle: A guy in a suit that looks like a bat. (I'm just thankful no incarnation has yet been so self-aware that Batman tells whoever he's a nutjob wearing a bat costume. Leave it to the baddies, it keeps the thin line of disbelief suspension there.
)Or if they want to make crews that don't get along, why not innovate on "Firefly" instead? Or reboot but in general there are so many more of those now than ever before.
That's a TMP/TNG core component. The only "evolved" sensibility is the ability for multiple peoples and cultures to work together in TOS.
Which Gene and company introduced. Though it looked like TOS had all of humanity's cultures working together, even other species like the non-humanoid Horta as an extreme but still viable example.
As with DS9 or anything the creators of the original did not do, when does the whole brand snowball in feature creep? (the same problem applied to prequels, just not in the same way.)
Which leads to the flip side of the equation - which was done in the 1980s as well, but how far does a creator's edict stretch? If I bought the Trek rights and turned it into some warped combination of Bullwinkle and Jerry Springer, where they work on "main engines" and "phase cannons" instead of "warp engines" and "phaser banks", how far before it becomes generic pablum? Or replacing "warp speed" with "hyperactive mode" (even though the consistency within was recalculated/tossed out the window/etc?)
Or imagine if today's Trek took place in 1986. That'd be too funny., if the pedants(not excluding me) were up in arms back then, that's nothing by comparison...
Or if shows are only "of their time", then why reboot to begin with? What happened to old shows being influences on new ones as opposed to reboots? That's the strongest argument against reboots, especially as many of them are just vague retreads using the name. Nobody needs Trek, a show that suggests smoking and alcoholism were overcome regressing to show ciggie puffing and partially-braindead alcoholics as being vogue? (Well acted or not, any point they were making didn't exactly shine through.) Remake Firefly then, it'll fit in better using their motif. Oh wait, PIC's alcoholic seemed to turn around ever so fast. I'm sure my ex, who still screams he has no problem with alcohol (and in public spaces, for all to see then be gawked at by), will promptly take notice and ditch the hooch just because of that. Uh-huh. Sure. The elephant in the room is eating popcorn with peanuts. Elephants, actually...
Really?
My controversial opinion is that we should stop referring to Klingon uniforms as "armor." We have seen many times that their outfits provide absolutely no protection whatsoever against either melee weapons or beam weapons. If those things are supposed to be "armor" then they are absolutely worthless. They're simply uniforms with an armor-like visual aesthetic.
Kor
Kor
Controversial Opinion: I like "The Royale" (TNG). I also like Roger Rabbit, and "The Royale" fits in with that vibe.
M
marlboro
Guest
"Oh, my God - it's DIP!!!"
The Royale has some fans here, I think. The guest actor is great. I wish they had focused more on the hotel scenes and cut out most of the Enterprise scenes.
The Royale has some fans here, I think. The guest actor is great. I wish they had focused more on the hotel scenes and cut out most of the Enterprise scenes.
I think a show set in the late 25th century that treats the older shows as "loose suggestions", kinda like TNG treated TOS would be just as good as a reboot, and would be my preferred Star Trek show, honestly.
A lot can change in a hundred years, so the writers and world builders would have a lot of freedom in creating their version of the Star Trek universe. They could pick and choose whatever little details or concepts they want from the old and create the new themselves.
A lot can change in a hundred years, so the writers and world builders would have a lot of freedom in creating their version of the Star Trek universe. They could pick and choose whatever little details or concepts they want from the old and create the new themselves.
I have never seen it called 'armor', it's flimsy leather to the eye. Do people think it's armor just because some of it is ribbed gray?
This isn't controversial too but I wish the Klingons and Romulans had uniform changes every once in a while. Klingons are wearing the same uniforms since 2270-2278 (Apparently we don't know what year TMP takes place in...) if not earlier, with a more ornate phase for their higher offices around 2293 that dissipates with the death of Gorkon. By 2365, the 'formal' addition to the Klingon Uniform is a long vest with four front pockets and a backpack attached. The Romulans change a bit more (2266, 2270 TAS, 2365, 2370?) but still.
On the topic of Romulans. I wish they wouldn't have made every Vulcan and every Romulan wear the same wig in 90s Trek.
Thankfully PIC gave the Romulans some more variation. Unfortunately I don't like PIC.
I also wish the Discovery Version of Spock would have kept his beard and more natural hair for SNW.
Thankfully PIC gave the Romulans some more variation. Unfortunately I don't like PIC.
I also wish the Discovery Version of Spock would have kept his beard and more natural hair for SNW.
I would too if I thought they could innovate tech that way, but I don't believe that is possible any more.
That's why I want a reboot.
Similar threads
- Locked
