Spoilers What does SNW get right that DSC and PIC got wrong??

[fireproof78]

Not sure it'll be much remembered in 50 years.

I still am trying to figure outwhen this became a measurement of quality. Entertainment, by it's definition, is a sensory, temporary thing. That TOS and TNG have some staying power is as much about the times they were made in as the quality. So what if a story isn't remembered 50 years from now. Did you enjoy it now?

Yes or no?

No? Then move on.

 

[StarMan]

Well for starters, SNW does not rely on poorly designed, frustrating mystery boxes that outstay their welcome 2-4 episodes before the penultimate episode Reveals All.

Whoever had the bright idea every story can be plugged into that format needs a large halibut upside the head.

 

[Citiprime]

I still am trying to figure outwhen this became a measurement of quality. Entertainment, by it's definition, is a sensory, temporary thing. That TOS and TNG have some staying power is as much about the times they were made in as the quality. So what if a story isn't remembered 50 years from now. Did you enjoy it now?

Yes or no?

No? Then move on.

Doesn't that depend on whether you only see this as only an ephemeral entertainment product, or if you're also looking at it of Star Trek as a whole within an artistic endeavor with cultural impact?

For example, the SNW crew can spend untold hours and millions of dollars reimagining the Gorn and the Enterprise, but it will always exist in the shadow of the original. I can enjoy SNW for what it is, but also feel it exists as an adaptation of a superior source material. And I'm sure people will VEHEMENTLY disagree, but when the history of Star Trek is written 100 years from now, it'll be the Jefferies design of the Enterprise and the dude in the rubber Gorn suit that people remember when you talk about Star Trek.

How many films have been remade in color, with upgraded VFX, featuring all-star casts, but in the end the original endures because it retains a special quality? 12 Angry Men has been remade multiple times, but it's the original Henry Fonda led black and white film that people return to.

 

[fireproof78]

Doesn't that depend on whether you only see this as only an ephemeral entertainment product, or if you're also looking at it of Star Trek as a whole within an artistic endeavor with cultural impact?

Since I give very little care to "cultural impact" since that has no bearing on my day to day life I will simply say I see it as entertainment.

And I'm sure people will VEHEMENTLY disagree, but when the history of Star Trek is written 100 years from now, it'll be the Jefferies design of the Enterprise and the dude in the rubber Gorn suit that people remember when you talk about Star Trek.

And I'll be dead so my level of caring is negative.

How many films have been remade in color, with upgraded VFX, featuring all-star casts, but in the end the original endures because it retains a special quality? 12 Angry Men has been remade multiple times, but it's the original Henry Fonda led black and white film that people return to.

That has zero bearing on entertainment value.

I still enjoy the original STAR WARS, with no additions and such. Does that stop me from liking other things? Nope. So, I divorce one from the other because if it is doing it's job, as in entertaining me, then I will not be thinking "Huh, TOS was totally better." That's not the way I engage in short term entertainment meant as a distraction.

 

[Lord Garth]

It's more than rumored, it's been officially announced, although no mention of Mary Wiseman being involved yet.

That said, Star Trek 4 was announced... and announced... and announced... and quietly went away forever. So who knows? Especially with strikes and whatnot grinding everything to a halt. Tawny Newsome is one of the writers.

I have faith in SFA happening. Only because unlike with the Abrams Films, Streaming Trek can actually get stuff made. Even if it takes a while.

With Star Trek 4, I think something fishy's going on. I think someone doesn't want it to be made, a producer, an investor, I don't know who, but someone. And JJ Abrams doesn't care if it's made or not. Somehow there's always some kind of reason why they can't make it. There's never not a reason. Beyond underperformed, but it didn't do THAT badly.

They say, "We want to wait for the right script!", but I think that's bullshit. It's not like they're making The Godfather. If they really wanted to make a new Star Trek movie, they would've done it by now, regardless of how good the script was.

 

[Orphalesion]

This has been brought up elsewhere: Who in all of Star Trek has ever been "in danger"? And when they were when was it not because the actor had other things to do (or was not asked back)? It's a trope (still) "Hey, we've never seen that person before and there's a Gorn on the loose! I wonder who's in trouble here?":

The fact that Pike, Spock, Uhura, Chapel, and M'Benga will be seen years from now does not really put Chin-Riley, Ortegas, or Noonian-Singh in terrible jeopardy.

I agree with this. Star Trek main characters are hardly ever in any "real" danger. I might be missing some, but right now the only ones I can think who permanently died (or at least were permanently removed form their shows) were Tasha (the actress wanted to leave) Jadzia (the actress wanted more money), and Kes (the writers decided to replace her with Seven and removed her because they could only afford so many lead actors)
Plus there's also the fact that the characters being in literal, probably peril of being killed is by no means the only thing that should make a show captivating, interesting, or suspenseful. I mean we saw that troupe going really wrong with the latter seasons of Game of Thrones after all (which also was a lot more conventional and frugal with the deaths of actual Main Characters than people claim, it's just that Ned was a decoy protagonist)

 

[Farscape One]

I agree with this. Star Trek main characters are hardly ever in any "real" danger. I might be missing some, but right now the only ones I can think who permanently died (or at least were permanently removed form their shows) were Tasha (the actress wanted to leave) Jadzia (the actress wanted more money), and Kes (the writers decided to replace her with Seven and removed her because they could only afford so many lead actors)
Plus there's also the fact that the characters being in literal, probably peril of being killed is by no means the only thing that should make a show captivating, interesting, or suspenseful. I mean we saw that troupe going really wrong with the latter seasons of Game of Thrones after all (which also was a lot more conventional and frugal with the deaths of actual Main Characters than people claim, it's just that Ned was a decoy protagonist)

Kes didn't die. She just evolved into... something.

Tasha and Jadzia are the only permanent deaths, in terms of main cast. (As in theur names are in the theme sequence.)

I do not count Trip on ENTERPRISE... first off, it was a series finale. And secondly, that was an abysmal episode. I have only rewatched it a few times.

 

[Orphalesion]

Kes didn't die. She just evolved into... something.

Hence the "or at least we're permanently removed from the show" part of mypost.

 

[Farscape One]

Hence the "or at least we're permanently removed from the show" part of mypost.

True. I missed that on reading the post the first time. My apologies.

My brain is a little fried... this is the second time today I missed an obvious thing in a post. I need a brain break.

 

[Tallguy]

With Star Trek 4, I think something fishy's going on.

Nothing fishy. Kirk and Uhura are expensive movie stars. (And so is Kirk Sr. if we're going with that plot.) And Beyond did not make the money to justify that kind of budget.

 

[Lord Garth]

Nothing fishy. Kirk and Uhura are expensive movie stars. (And so is Kirk Sr. if we're going with that plot.) And Beyond did not make the money to justify that kind of budget.

That's not the full story according to what Zoe Saldana thinks.

Zoe Saldana Thinks Delay On ‘Star Trek 4’ Is More Than Just Scheduling – TrekMovie.com

We were in touch with J.J. and we were trying to sort of see if we were going to be able to this past fall. I don’t think it was possible. I have my sort of ideas that maybe it was just like schedules were very… we couldn’t manage to get a whole cast and a whole crew to sort of come together. But I think as well it probably has something else to do with the project. But I know that we’re all on the same page that we would love nothing more than to be able to come back.
​

She didn't go into details, which indicates to me there's something sensitive going on, leaving TrekMovie.com to begin speculating to fill in the gaps. TrekMovie isn't exactly a Conspiracy Theory type of site.

 

[Vger23]

That's not the full story according to what Zoe Saldana thinks.

Zoe Saldana Thinks Delay On ‘Star Trek 4’ Is More Than Just Scheduling – TrekMovie.com

We were in touch with J.J. and we were trying to sort of see if we were going to be able to this past fall. I don’t think it was possible. I have my sort of ideas that maybe it was just like schedules were very… we couldn’t manage to get a whole cast and a whole crew to sort of come together. But I think as well it probably has something else to do with the project. But I know that we’re all on the same page that we would love nothing more than to be able to come back.
​

She didn't go into details, which indicates to me there's something sensitive going on, leaving TrekMovie.com to begin speculating to fill in the gaps. TrekMovie isn't exactly a Conspiracy Theory type of site.

Unfortunately, actors saying that they “would love to come back for the sequel” is no different than the beloved star athlete in their contract year saying that they’d “love to spend the rest of their career here.”

It’s just code for “I’d do it if they can pay me a shitton more.”

 

[Vger23]

My hot take is that if SNW had been first out of the gate, exactly as it is, it would have drawn just as much hatred, discontent, and consternation as DSC.

The fact that these other series paved the way has made SNW's journey a MUCH easier one.

 

[Tallguy]

My hot take is that if SNW had been first out of the gate, exactly as it is, it would have drawn just as much hatred, discontent, and consternation as DSC.

The fact that these other series paved the way has made SNW's journey a MUCH easier one.

It would have drawn more complaints than it did, but not as much as Disco.

 

[Jedi Marso]

Personally - I don't find SNW as interesting (though that isn't to say I haven't enjoyed it) precisely because it is basically just TOS with modern production values.

You may have just hit upon why I like it so much. I hadn't really thought of it as 'being' TOS, but in certain ways it is.

 

[Orphalesion]

My hot take is that if SNW had been first out of the gate, exactly as it is, it would have drawn just as much hatred, discontent, and consternation as DSC.

The fact that these other series paved the way has made SNW's journey a MUCH easier one.

I know I would have almost certain dismissed it as an "annoying" 23rd century prequel with garish uniforms. Probably would have called several of the episodes "silly" as well.
For me personally I know it took DSC and PIC to make me welcome SNW with open arms.

 

[Farscape One]

My hot take is that if SNW had been first out of the gate, exactly as it is, it would have drawn just as much hatred, discontent, and consternation as DSC.

The fact that these other series paved the way has made SNW's journey a MUCH easier one.

I'm forced to agree with this assessment.

For many people who didn't like DISCO or PICARD or both, SNW was essentially what they were looking for.

You have to experience the bad to really appreciate the good, to borrow a phrase.

 

[Vger23]

I think SNW would have probably been smacked around the same way Kelvin Trek was smacked around in 2009.

My guess is that the backlash would have gone something like this:

• The Enterprise looks different inside and out. Stop destroying my childhood
• Why do a prequel?
• Recasting classic characters is bad.
• Too much action / too frenetic for Star Trek
• Too silly
• Pike doesn't act that way
• Spock doesn't act that way
• Uhura doesn't act that way
• Starfleet shouldn't act that way
• It's just more of the same episodic planet of the week stuff...why can't we have modern serialized storytelling?
• Not thoughtful enough...need more tea drinking and conference room scenes
• Spock / Chapel romance is the worst thing since Warp 10 salamanders and Trip's death
• Lazy / bad / inconsistent writing
• Gene's vision

Anyway, I'm sure you get the picture. Any Star Trek show first out of the gate was going to get skewered no matter what.

You may have just hit upon why I like it so much. I hadn't really thought of it as 'being' TOS, but in certain ways it is.

Same feelings here.

TOS had been so meticulously and carefully avoided (in terms of style and approach) in the 700 episodes we got from 1987-2005 that I feel like we finally have a series that completely recaptures the feeling of a 57 year old show, but updated for today. It's really quite fascinating to see. Even when I don't really like the episodes on their own face value (which isn't often), I appreciate how much they have re-captured the TOS feel. That, to me, is very interesting.

 

[Oddish]

Anyway, I'm sure you get the picture. Any Star Trek show first out of the gate was going to get skewered no matter what.

I think you're right. That is why I think well of Discovery, even if it wasn't personally my cup of tea. It blazed a trail, like TNG before it.

 

[Lord Garth]

I can relate, even though it's with something else. The idea's the same. It took PIC Seasons 1 and 2 before I became open to the idea of another "TNG Movie". 10 years ago, 20 years ago, I never would've wanted one.

It took PIC Season 1 to get me interested in TNG again because immediately prior to that point, I definitely wasn't. Then I went back and re-watched all of TNG, a lot of it for the first time since high school and got into it again.

PIC Season 2 wasn't something I liked as much as Season 1. So that made me more welcoming of the change-up that was Season 3. If the second season had been as good as the first, I would've reacted a lot more negatively to them switching up the cast.

.
.
.

Then there's another thing that these series made me realize: I wasn't married to any one century of Star Trek. I thought I was, but it turned out I wasn't.

I got tired of TNG/DS9/VOY by the '00s, and ENT never did anything for me. So it was TOS and the 23rd Century all the way for me. As anyone who knew me during my first stint on TrekBBS can attest. I regard the Kelvin Films as effectively just comic book movies, so it was DSC in the 23rd Century that I thought I was all about. I was half-right. I like DSC, but when they jumped to the 32nd Century, I still liked it. And then there was PIC, which was in the 25th Century (except when it was in the 21st!) and I liked it about as much as DSC. To this day, I still go back-and-forth on whether or not I like DSC or PIC better. So I realized it didn't matter if it was the 23rd Century, the 25th, or the 32nd. When a series took place had no bearing on what I thought of it.