That was a good show. Sorry to see it go. Not sure was was "Hollywood Flashiness" or even what that means. Solid Military SF and worldbuilding.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
As a diehard player of online Halo games I really liked most of the Halo series. It was missing a few game elements I wanted to see (mostly weapons systems that either were never seen or barely used on screen), but for a Paramount+ show it wasn't that bad.
Most of my friends who played all the Halo games hated the TV series.
Not enough bang bang pew pew?
Was it, say, Trek levels of good? Even X-Files? Eh. But it was good enough and I loved seeing the costumes and equipment I've been seeing in the game franchise for more than 20 years translated into live action.
It deviated too much from the story in the games and added in original characters that clashed with the original story.
So they gave up and moved onto something else.
When the DS9 writing staff got back together for the DS9 documentary and plotted a new episode set 20 years after the finale, Ira Steven Behr postulated that Dr Bashir would be the man in charge of Section 31 by this time. I think that's a much more interesting idea.
And Kira can be in charge of the Obsidian Order.
Well, this is the controversial opinions thread, so I'm going to say that they could have made an excellent Star Trek show with the Section 31 concept. I've said it before and I'll say it again, I would really love to read the 10 completed scripts for the first season that never got made.
The DS9 or ENT writers? Maybe.
This group? Doubtful.
This group? Doubtful.
The way I see it, the only way a Section 31 series works in Star Trek is if underneath all the moral greyness it's clear that Section 31 are the bad guys and the Federation is not the bad guys. If the series isn't going to do that, then it isn't Star Trek.
It was fantastic ride.
Yes, I've played the games, read the books, watched various series, and think Red vs. Blue is one of the best sci-fi series out there.
If you are not hearing massive cheering, then there is a problem...
Are we getting better shows now that it's 10-12 episodes per season? I don't really think so.
Alias was really fun IMO. It had a lot of good twists and turns and Arvin Sloane is a fantastic character.
Oh gods, yes. Ridiculously good.
A direct, 1:1 adaption of the source material from one form of media to another hardly ever works.
Hitchcock would change many elements of the novels he would use as the basis of his films. Anime adaptions of manga like Kimagure Orange Road or 16bit Sensation significantly retooled the events or overall narrative to fit the storytelling medium. M*A*S*H significantly retooled the narrative, flipped the personalities of Hawkeye and Trapper, and drastically reduced the number of characters.
I never understand people that watch a TV/movie adaption of something from another medium and expect 100% of the same thing. What would be the point?
Douglas Adams very specifically made a point of making sure that the radio show, novels, television show and movie for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy were different from each other.
Changes are pretty much inevitable, but in my experience good adaptations fall into two groups:
1. Basically another draft of the existing story, fixing what's needed and leaving everything else alone (The Expanse, Watchmen, The Last of Us).
2. Something that bears so little resemblance to the original that people often don't even realise it's an adaptation (Die Hard, Total Recall, Edge of Tomorrow).
When something ends up in the middle ground between the two you often get films and series that are marketed using all the things fans love about the stories, only to frustrate them with all the differences when they actually watch it. It feels like they're getting the details wrong. Hitchhiker's Guide was actually an example of this for me, as it's maybe my all time favourite book and I didn't like that movie at all.
I never saw Halo, I'm not a fan of the games, but I've heard that one was a real 'Surf Dracula' situation. You you had watch two entire seasons before it got to the bit where Dracula goes surfing, metaphorically speaking. And then it immediately ends.
1. Basically another draft of the existing story, fixing what's needed and leaving everything else alone (The Expanse, Watchmen, The Last of Us).
2. Something that bears so little resemblance to the original that people often don't even realise it's an adaptation (Die Hard, Total Recall, Edge of Tomorrow).
When something ends up in the middle ground between the two you often get films and series that are marketed using all the things fans love about the stories, only to frustrate them with all the differences when they actually watch it. It feels like they're getting the details wrong. Hitchhiker's Guide was actually an example of this for me, as it's maybe my all time favourite book and I didn't like that movie at all.
I never saw Halo, I'm not a fan of the games, but I've heard that one was a real 'Surf Dracula' situation. You you had watch two entire seasons before it got to the bit where Dracula goes surfing, metaphorically speaking. And then it immediately ends.
Similar threads
- Locked
