I mean what would you pitch as a series idea hahaha
Spoilers New Kirk series (SNW spoilers)
- Thread starter mattman8907
- Start date
Ahhh! I believe you're referring to DC's Star Trek Annual #2 (1986), written by Mike W. Barr:
Decker did appear in that story, which deals with the move toward the TMP era, and I believe a voyage back to Talos IV. DC's Trek comic was very, very solid at that time.
Oh…. Well, wouldn’t share that here in case I get hired or asked to pitch a show! Lol!
This template worked once or twice before.
That was fine for 1964. But the business has changed and the require more of a pitch deck like startups use.
Be that way.
Seriously, I mocked that up as a valentine because thoughts and prayers are passé and sending positive energy is kind of personal. Any gate, I do hope you go boldly.
THEY ARE devoid of fresh ideas which is why we're getting these dreadful things, for instance, Burnham is what she is and her story could've been told just about the same without the Spock baggage. For some reason the producers added those elements to get some sort of validation for the character but at what cost? In order to work they have to deconstruct the established Spock to make him their own just to make their character Burnham look better. Despite the bullsh*t the showrunners are claiming their programs are in the same universe; there's enough visual evidence to acknowledge that garbage is not.
I don't mind archetypes where a character has some familiarity to the viewer like Picard was sort of like Pike from the Cage, Data was sort of Spock-ish, Riker and Troi sort of Will and Ilia but then they branch off. What appears is happening is Hollywood's endless passion in chasing trends where classic Trek characters will be re-packaged like James Bond, and Batman; different actors portraying the title character with a different take no matter how terrible it'll be. For Hollywood there's no need to work too hard to create compelling characters which are fresh but to reposition the brand to become or rival... STAR WARS. THIS obsessed passion has been going on within the studio of Paramount ever since George Lucas' film franchise revolutionized cinema, and it's no surprise the showrunners and writers are avid Star Wars fans and not Star Trek fans. Their product presents just that.
If they wanted to give her a "raised by Vulcans" connection then they could've made it Soval, since we know nothing about his life after ENT then it could've been his experiences with the NX-01 changed him enough to decide to take in the orphaned daughter of a human friend from later in his life, plus has the benefit of not recasting the actor.
Archetypes exist for a reason, they're easy to associate with other characters you might have enjoyed, but they're also open enough to develop and grow in their own way so they can become someone new.
Thank you! I missed the additional stuff at the bottom. Please my sincere apologies for not getting it!
Yes, even more-so than the subsequent TNG comic, also by DC.
So much this.
I believe this is the reason its far easier to disregard ST productions as canon than say, Star Wars; the ST series--especially since Enterprise have gone out of their way to upend any visual continuity / evolution recognition throughout the series (which was successfully established from TOS/TAS/TOS-M/TNG/DS9/VOY), the new series can easily be considered ST in name only, bearing only a slight resemblance to the original in-universe and production continuity.
Agreed, and in the case of Batman and Bond, over the decades, some of the casting choices left much to be desired.
None.
How so? That's not how this works. Even when the original series was on the air Gene expected new people to come in and take it different directions in the future, largely because that's exactly what he did with TMP and was done again in TNG and TWOK, and DS9. "Trek in name only" is a nonsense statement because the built in design was for people to revisit it and make it their Star Trek.
Read again:
I believe this is the reason its far easier to disregard ST productions as canon than say, Star Wars; the ST series--especially since Enterprise have gone out of their way to upend any visual continuity / evolution recognition throughout the series (which was successfully established from TOS/TAS/TOS-M/TNG/DS9/VOY), the new series can easily be considered ST in name only, bearing only a slight resemblance to the original in-universe and production continuity.
It works if it is recognized that there's such a lack of continuity, history, design evolution within the universe fiction, etc. No one obligated to accept every version of a franchise if they choose not to (ever heard the decades-long treatment of the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies? The Bond movies?).
Roddenberry did not want others to take what would become the second ST movie in the direction it took, complained about it (and Paramount had him as less than a consultant on ST at that point), so its not as if he was this open, giving creator just passing torches down the line.
Last edited:
No one is obligated to do anything.
Star Trek is not Batman. It moves in a much different way.
Doesn't change the opinion I read. He might not have agreed with it but that doesn't change what can be done.
Sounds close to Kelvin Timeline Kirk, who had a wildly different childhood due to the loss of his father.
Wasn't quite like that. Kirk Sr. was a bit of a hardass Starfleet officer who had high standards for his sons.
What was ever said about Kirk's father in the Prime Timeline? I don't recall anything.
Last edited:
Nothing, save for Prime Spock's line in the Kelvin films.
