Then where does the money to make it come from?
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
Then where does the money to make it come from?
Star Trek has been pandering to some bigwig or another since 1965 when The Cage was new.
It’s time to put this thread to rest I think.
It’s time to put this thread to rest I think.
If you strike it down it will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
People forget how lily white “The Cage” was. It was advertisers who stepped in wanting more diversity as minorities were becoming more affluent and had money to spend.
Yeah I know..Im just saying I would have not wanted a TNG lead series.
Fuck Legacy.
Certainly for Seven and Sydney. Raffi grew on me, especially as the seasons went on. Great acting, but material that had to be acted could be hit or miss and season 1 even felt completely antithetical to Trek's universe (unless the Founder/Borg alliance was quietly happening along with the season 1 stuff, there's a headcanon retcon... retcanon? headcon?) Jack was hit or miss, ultimately interesting but the use of the name "Jack" felt odd.
Beverly was hiding him from Jean-Luc.
Fanon has given him the full name of John Lucas Crusher.
Suffers the same way Stargate Universe did where it was such a sharp change in storytelling that it can feel jarring and that period of adapting to the new method means you aren’t engaged the right way with what they are trying to do
I reckon we will see it looked upon much more favourably in 10 years time when it can be taken on its merits rather than directly compared to the past
One of their issues is that they strongly tie themselves to the past. TNG, DS9, and Voyager invite reappraisals (both positive and negative) over time because they're relatively standalone shows, but the reaction to Picard and SNW probably won't change much over time, because both immediately present themselves as direct prequels/sequels to existing things and keep referring back to them.
I see your point. But another rest may be fatal to Star Trek.
I think that Star Trek needs more continuity and a return to the 24th century.
Something which can take of after PIC but be more optimistic.
Star Trek "drowns in nostalgia" because what has come after TOS, TNG, DS9 and VOY have been so bad.
Star Trek needs that nostalgia to go back to basics, get it all together and create something which is good again.
Umm…no.
Possibly. But only one of many possibilities.
Indeed.
The time period doesn't make Trek good. Telling good stories does that but even then Trek is hit and miss on.
Based on? They haven't been able to mount a theatrical production for nine years, and Starfleet Academy is just starting. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if we don't see a companion series in the next year or two.
I bet folks said the same before TNG came on the scene.
The more (some) fans change, the more (some) fans stay the same.
I have to disagree; IMO it needs less continuity. It needs to totally detach itself from pre-existing series.
TNG's approach was more or less to do exactly that. It treated Star Trek as a storytelling engine - the nice vaguely-pacifist Federation go out into a psychedelic and surreal universe, and stories arise from the people and places they encounter, with tight plotting because you generally have 45 minutes to tell a complete story. TNG didn't really care about lining up with TOS, nor about reusing its ideas (beyond one-offs like Relics), and didn't even give much thought to its own episode-to-episode continuity. The focus was always on telling a good original story within any given episode, without worrying if it contradicted throwaway lines (or even major plot points) from other episodes.
That approach is, I think, the one that will eventually give us a truly superb new Star Trek series - when writers see Star Trek as an ethos that can birth entirely new stories, rather than a MCU-style set of existing characters and ideas to be remixed and revisited endlessly.
Similar threads
