Spoilers What are your unpopular Sci-Fi & Fantasy Opinions?
- Thread starter Saul
- Start date
The thing about Trek's shared universe is that I can't think of a single instance where one series/movie substantively affected the course of another that was already in progress. There'd be a crossover character appearance or two, and TNG introduced the Maquis conflict, but the most effect one would see would be a throwaway reference to how Shinzon fought in the Dominion War. All the significant interplay between properties - say, Picard resigning due to Starfleet's handling of Romulus' destruction - happens offscreen, and in between stories. In that sense, it's not so different from the Law and Order universe: shared timeline, and characters move here and there, but nothing in one drastically affects anything in the other.
Compare that to the Thor movies - if you hadn't seen The Avengers, and went straight from Thor to The Dark World, you'd be at least somewhat confused. And, of course, the big example, The Winter Soldier radically reconfiguring Agents of SHIELD.
Compare that to the Thor movies - if you hadn't seen The Avengers, and went straight from Thor to The Dark World, you'd be at least somewhat confused. And, of course, the big example, The Winter Soldier radically reconfiguring Agents of SHIELD.
Exactly. A franchise having many spinoffs is not the same thing as a shared universe. The MCU movies are connected in a way that the Star Trek shows never were and still aren't. Sisko angry at Picard or Barclay showing up on Voyager is a pale shadow of what the MCU accomplishes.
Now let's look at Hercules and Xena. Those two shows had a strong shared universe that doesn't get enough credit. It's not on the level of the MCU, but definitely above that of Star Trek. The Dahak story arc involved multiple characters and plot threads jumping back and forth between the two shows for a couple of seasons.
Now let's look at Hercules and Xena. Those two shows had a strong shared universe that doesn't get enough credit. It's not on the level of the MCU, but definitely above that of Star Trek. The Dahak story arc involved multiple characters and plot threads jumping back and forth between the two shows for a couple of seasons.
I would even go further than that. Star Trek has often gone out of its way to AVOiD characters and situations that should affect other series--and often for a no better reason than to evade paying residuals to writers of former episodes.
They originally wanted Ro for Voyager, too. They invented Torres because they still couldn't get Michelle Forbes back.
They wouldn't pay what she wanted. Similarly Voyager created the Tom Paris character because they didn't want to pay residuals to the writer of that TNG episode.
Tom Paris is so obviously Locarno in all but name its actually kind of funny. I never understood why people that sell a script to a TV show get to keep monetary rights to characters, why doesn't the series own all those contributions? I get residuals for the actual episodes, but it makes no sense having to pay residuals to writers to use characters from their episodes when the episodes and characters are the property of CBS anyway. Its not like Doctor Who where Terry Nation owned the rights to the Daleks, CBS owns all characters from all Trek episodes outright as far as I know.
As it is, I like the work around of using Locarno but just changing the name, since its the same actor its easy to just act like its the same character, since the name is the only real difference from what I remember.
As it is, I like the work around of using Locarno but just changing the name, since its the same actor its easy to just act like its the same character, since the name is the only real difference from what I remember.
The only other real difference is that Paris graduated from the Academy, while Locarno was expelled — and the writers mixed the two up. It was a little TOO easy to act like it's the same character.
One thing I find unfair about that is that the TV writers get residuals for that kind of thing, but the novel and comic writers don't. I know TV is a much bigger deal, but it still seems kinda unfair.
I think the MCU just took it too extreme that hadn't been attempted before. Trek largely relied on references than actual crossovers beyond one episode bits. TNG had a chance with the Dominion War during their films and let it pass with just a line.
MCU should get credit for wearing out the superhero film enjoyment.
I don't think they should get any character residuals, they're working to write a script for a show they presumably didn't create, they shouldn't get money every time a character is used, that just limits the potential for good new characters. Residuals for repeats/releases of the episodes they write, sure, but the characters should be usable without paying the writer if the writer is just someone hired to make an episode for a TV show. If a writer is "work for hire", aka they're hired to write something for someone else's franchise/universe/company, they shouldn't get any rights to any characters or story concepts they make. They know what they're getting into.
Giving writers residuals for characters just means we get to see less characters used. They 100% don't deserve that when working for someone else. DC got really screwed over for a few years by the estate of the Superman creators, and while they won that legal fight they never should have had to fight them to begin with.
Its not too easy, its obviously supposed to be the same character. Outside of changing the name and whether he was expelled, they probably wanted it to be as close as possible without having to pay a fee.
This is dead wrong. Siegel and Shuster didn't create Superman for DC. They created the character and then sold the rights to DC. What happened is that DC has prospered because of having those rights, and attempted to get out of continuing to pay to use them. DC got what they deserved, so the Siegel and Shuster families could get what they deserved. Creator's rights always apply.
What you're talking about here is Grant Morrison being hired to write X-Men for an arc or three. They're not his characters, they belong to Marvel. They just want his take on their adventures. He gets no residuals beyond reusing his actual work, and he has no claim on any actual changes he makes to the characters or situations unless he introduces a heretofore unseen character. That's the way it's supposed to work.
Yes it was. One of my favorite shows!
I have plenty of these. In no particular order:
* Roddenberry wasn't a genius visionary who single-handedly made a great show full of brilliant masterpieces. He was a bloke who, along with many others, made a TV show in order to make a living. No more or less than that.
* Voyager is nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be.
* "Threshold" isn't even the worst episode of Voyager, never mind the worst episode of any Trek series. DS9 has at least three episodes which IMO are far, far worse than anything Voyager ever did ("Profit and Lace" is the worst episode in any Trek. "Let He Who Is Without Sin" is the runner up, and "Life Support" is an abomination that killed my interest in DS9 stone dead).
* DS9 isn't as great as it's made out to be. Neither is Firefly.
* the episodes of nBSG I sat through were some of the most boring hours of television I've ever watched.
* Braga isn't evil incarnate, and Moore isn't the second coming.
* Blade Runner is one of the most boring, pointless movies ever made.
* the LOTR movies are okay, but no more than that.
* Star Wars in its entirety holds zero interest for me.
* "The End" - aka the Lost finale - was brilliant.
* Felicity Smoak was a terrific character whose only "crime" was that she was sometimes very badly written. (So was Kathryn Janeway.)
* Now and Again was the best single-season cancelled series ever made.
* Tennant was an awful, unwatchable Doctor.
There are others, but that will do for now.
* Roddenberry wasn't a genius visionary who single-handedly made a great show full of brilliant masterpieces. He was a bloke who, along with many others, made a TV show in order to make a living. No more or less than that.
* Voyager is nowhere near as bad as it's made out to be.
* "Threshold" isn't even the worst episode of Voyager, never mind the worst episode of any Trek series. DS9 has at least three episodes which IMO are far, far worse than anything Voyager ever did ("Profit and Lace" is the worst episode in any Trek. "Let He Who Is Without Sin" is the runner up, and "Life Support" is an abomination that killed my interest in DS9 stone dead).
* DS9 isn't as great as it's made out to be. Neither is Firefly.
* the episodes of nBSG I sat through were some of the most boring hours of television I've ever watched.
* Braga isn't evil incarnate, and Moore isn't the second coming.
* Blade Runner is one of the most boring, pointless movies ever made.
* the LOTR movies are okay, but no more than that.
* Star Wars in its entirety holds zero interest for me.
* "The End" - aka the Lost finale - was brilliant.
* Felicity Smoak was a terrific character whose only "crime" was that she was sometimes very badly written. (So was Kathryn Janeway.)
* Now and Again was the best single-season cancelled series ever made.
* Tennant was an awful, unwatchable Doctor.
There are others, but that will do for now.
This isn't an unpopular opinion. It's an incontrovertible fact.
I've tried to sit through Blade Runner a couple of times. Only made it to the end once. Man, I don't get the appeal of this movie.
Agreed; DS9 had its moments, but it was nowhere near the best of the ST franchise, as some of its defenders often claim.
*Ducks to avoid the arrows shot at Orac Zen*
Blade Runner is a strong film, but it takes patience to allow the story and its message unfold. Looking back to its theatrical release in '82, I remember some moviegoers felt burned because they had been so conditioned by Star Wars movies, and other fantasy films trying to be a Lucas film in one way or another, that any attempt to go their own way was met with harsh criticism. That same year,a similar situation occured with some making comparisons between E.T. and The Thing, with some tearing into the Carpenter film for not presenting an alien story like E.T., as if the latter was the "right" way. Personally, i've never enjoyed a second of E.T., but thought The Thing was not only a great sci-fi horror film, but a great film in general.
Do you mean the original film, or the franchise?
More arrows!
What was your issue with Tennant's interpretation of the Doctor?
I found all that manic, totally-over-the-top, I'm-a-Who-fan-living-my-fantasy-OMG!!!!11111!!! over-acting and mugging incredibly irritating. I didn't care for the adolescent simpering over Rose, either - an aspect of his version of the character and the writing for that version that left me absolutely cold. His exit was probably the worst of the lot, too.
Each to their own but I got to a point where I couldn't watch the show because of his presence.