People in their twenties and thirties play teenagers all the time on TV.
It's never bothered me.
Is it time to put Star Trek to rest?
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
People in their twenties and thirties play teenagers all the time on TV.
It's never bothered me.
it's often bothered me. I don't find it believable when it comes to teens
Same. My reaction to Wesley is he is a decent Kirk.
DS9 was intended as an ensemble from the beginning so it would do that better than the others.
considering how rough teen actors tend to have it in their lives, I prefer they use adult actors when possible.
I agree about DS9 but it does make the earlier casts look underwritten. especially with characters like Troi and Crusher
I just find it funny people bash Discovery for doing that when most Trek had that issue
Discovery had plenty of genuine issues to focus on. I always thought that was a lame criticism, also.
I think about 45% of it boiled down to: "I find Detmer attractive and the robot woman, too. Show them more and make them say stuff"
I mean, if that wasn't the intention of the first of the show I'm not inclined to acknowledge them as being structured differently. Deep Space Nine set out to be an ensemble show, and utilized it's stationary setting at times to highlight different characters.
Good point. But they shouldn't cast actors so old that they look more like high school teachers than students
While I do wish those characters got more development, I believe the bigger issue is trying to structure a show with the traditional format but focused on one main character. They could've tried a new format with a smaller ship.
I understand that. Im just saying the unintended effect is it makes some of the characters weak. That's why I like SNW: it does something with Uhura & Chapel
A lot of that comes from Discovery branching so far from whatever it was Brian Fuller intended for it to be. And the total focus on Burnham. The Burnham focus got derailed over and over by being upstaged by interesting characters and great portrayals like Pike, Lorca, the Georgious, Tilly,and Saru (and Spock for that matter). That led to two spin-offs and a movie. Personally I think Discovery would have worked better as an ensemble show, but oh well.
Yea they didn't really know how to balance everything
I'd personally be fine with a Trek show focusing on a smaller cast of characters on a smaller ship (Millenium Falcon vs Enterprise size, for comparison)
like Picard season 1 and 2? Admittedly they didn't fly much in season 2
In a sense, albeit with all new characters (but old characters making guest appearances). I had my issues with seasons 1 & 2, but I do think they tried to move past the basics of Trek
People were complaining they talked too much in S1 (And they want a President Archer show?
)Nothing short of President Archer jumping into a starfighter and kicking alien boo-tay a la Independence Day is going to impress anyone.
If the director doesn't call "cut" by shouting "shut up Wesley" then they aren't Trekking right
Wouldn't be appropriate.
People were complaining they talked too much in S1 (And they want a President Archer show?
Nothing short of President Archer jumping into a starfighter and kicking alien boo-tay a la Independence Day is going to impress anyone.
They complained about that in Picard? I thought stereotypical Trekkers wanted more dialogue, less action
Lol
They were complaining that it took too long for them to get into space ("It's called STAR Trek for a reason!")
Wow, for real? I just kinda accepted it wasn't going to be about Trekking per se so I didn't really think about it
I tend to agree. I see at least four major hindrances to making more Trek:
1) Real-world space travel/science hasn't been exciting since the early days of the ISS and Hubble Telescope, and probably never will be again. We'll probably never be able to put a human on Mars (except maybe as a one-way trip), and, given the sophistication of robots, there's zero reason to do so other than as a flex. There will never be self-sustaining colonies on the Moon or Mars due to factors such as toxic dust and radiation, never mind a lack of resources. What's more, the loudest voices championing human space exploration these days are among the worst people in our societies, and in most cases, shooting more and more rockets into orbit does more harm than good.
2) Now that anything and everything can be freely discussed and dramatized in the arts, sci-fi allegories have lost much of their power. Why do an allegorical story about, say, reproductive freedom, trans rights, a slide into dictatorship, etc., instead of openly discussing such issues in a real-world setting?
3) Trek is at its best when limited budgets and production value force quality writing to the fore. Classic episodes like "Mirror, Mirror," "Conundrum," "In the Hands of the Prophets," and "Pathfinder" would gain nothing from bigger sets, more lavish effects, and longer action/fight sequences. But, because Paramount's suits want a chunk of that Star Wars/Marvel action movie money, and most modern audiences expect elaborate makeup/CG characters/space battle extravaganzas, the economics of production paradoxically disincentivize shooting lower-budget, thoughtful, talky shows on simple sound stages, with most aliens being regular actors with a few ridges or whatever glued to their faces.
4) There comes a point at which genuinely new ideas quite simply dry up. Once songs like "Yesterday," "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," and "Sweet Child of Mine" are written, those tunes and rhymes can't be written again for the first time. Melodies may be more mathematically limited than stories, but the general principle still applies. Trek can't do alternate universe stories, time-travel stories, stories about robots/AIs gaining sentience, war stories, etc. again for the first time. What's scarier than the Klingons? The Borg, and what's scarier than them? A lizard-like race with bio-ships, and what's scarier than them? Sphere Builders from the Future? (No.) Returns diminish. Seeing T'Pol experiment with indulging in emotions is just plain not as interesting as seeing Data fumble towards attaining emotions by adding up experiences.
Would I be interested in seeing a relatively modestly budgeted new Trek series that, unlike the mindless grimdark actionfest of Picard S3, actually felt like the best of the 90s output again? Sure. But, I'd frankly rather see similarly talky shows based on real history, such as ancient Athens, the North and South during the Civil War, or the Allied and Axis administrations of WWII. AFAIK, for instance, there's never been a single movie TV episode dramatizing how Abraham Lincoln, who hadn't held public office in 11 years, pulled off an upset presidential nomination win at the 1860 Republican National Convention, and that's neaking fruts, IMO.
I’d say that now based on our divisions in the real world, that allegory is needed more than ever.
Similar threads
