Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley developing Star Trek reboot for Paramount

[Stewey]

What opinions were those?



I already have. I thought Star Trek Picard was utter shit, but I watched it anyway and accept that it’s part of the canon whether I liked it or hated it. Does that answer your question now?

Yes, thanks.

 

[fireproof78]

Would you accept and or watch a lower quality show than previous higher quality shows that you like simply because for you it is Star Trek?

No.

I'd watch it because I like it. Quality has nothing to do with it.

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Would you accept and or watch a lower quality show than previous higher quality shows that you like simply because for you it is Star Trek?

Quality is a subjective metric and will be eternally entangled with opinion.

I watch what I enjoy. I enjoy it because it is, to me, of a high quality.

I could sit here and tell you until my last breath that The Mummy Returns is of a higher quality than all the Indiana Jones films combined. That is my truth, the amount of people who would disagree is probably astronomical but that is their truth. No work of art can ever be called good quality or bad quality without it being an opinion.

So to ask anyone if they would watch a new Trek show of lower quality is essentially asking them if they would watch something they expressly dislike. And they would have to watch it to discover how they feel about it any which way. It is an argument with no solid footing.

All art belongs to the audience, its quality, its message are for only you to say. Not even the artist.

 

[fireproof78]

Quality is a subjective metric and will be eternally entangled with opinion.

I watch what I enjoy. I enjoy it because it is, to me, of a high quality.

I could sit here and tell you until my last breath that The Mummy Returns is of a higher quality than all the Indiana Jones films combined. That is my truth, the amount of people who would disagree is probably astronomical but that is their truth. No work of art can ever be called good quality or bad quality without it being an opinion.

So to ask anyone if they would watch a new Trek show of lower quality is essentially asking them if they would watch something they expressly dislike. And they would have to watch it to discover how they feel about it any which way. It is an argument with no solid footing.

All art belongs to the audience, its quality, its message are for only you to say. Not even the artist.

Even highly regarded Star Trek shows have absolute garbage episodes. It simply is not a perfect franchise. Art is highly subjective; it is meant to evoke emotion from the audience. I often go back to the first pilot of this little series called Star Trek:

VINA: It doesn't matter what you call this, you'll feel it. That's what matters.

That's the important part of Star Trek. Entertainment first and foremost. It goes back to the roots of the franchise, and if Starfleet Academy only appeals to me them I'm all in for it.

 

[Santa Kang]

I didn't say they didn't spring from TOS. They can reference it all thru want. That doesn't make the characters exactly the same people.

ETA: To illustrate my point a little bit further: these two people are not the same character:

Now, they both represent Colonel Blake from an adaptation of MASH, and are intended to be in the same setting, with similar background, and serving in the US ARMY in Korea. That they are not in continuity with each other does not remove the influence felt from one to the other.



I'm happy it was instant for some. It wasn't for me.

Part of the M*A*S*H-iverse

 

[Tuskin38]

I didn't say they didn't spring from TOS. They can reference it all thru want. That doesn't make the characters exactly the same people.

ETA: To illustrate my point a little bit further: these two people are not the same character:
Now, they both represent Colonel Blake from an adaptation of MASH, and are intended to be in the same setting, with similar background, and serving in the US ARMY in Korea. That they are not in continuity with each other does not remove the influence felt from one to the other.

Also see, the Stargate the Movie vs the Stargate SG-1 the TV series.

Very much inspired by it, uses some of the lore, even a couple actors returned, but a lot of it was reinvented for the TV series. Some character names were even changed, or had their spellings changed.

 

[Firebird]

Not seen the reboot film (not that I ever plan to do so again) for years so maybe I mis-remembered. Trek (at least in the past) always attempted to use as much real science as possible and that movie should at least try do do that.

Oh please. They used realistic-sounding science, but most of what Andre Bormanis came up with to help the writers TECH the TECH was nonsense bullshit, and he admitted as such in the interviews on the TNG Blu-ray’s.

 

[fireproof78]

Oh please. They used realistic-sounding science, but most of what Andre Bormanis came up with to help the writers TECH the TECH was nonsense bullshit, and he admitted as such in the interviews on the TNG Blu-ray’s.

To paraphrase SF Debris: you take two sciency sounding works and mash them together, regardless of what they mean. He comments on "The Swarm" when Harry notes they are using an interferometric pulse, which is a real word, but doesn't actually mean how Harry uses it.

Treknobabble at its finest.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Oh please. They used realistic-sounding science, but most of what Andre Bormanis came up with to help the writers TECH the TECH was nonsense bullshit, and he admitted as such in the interviews on the TNG Blu-ray’s.

Absolutely. Transporters and warp drive are both absolute nonsense, and they are staples of the franchise. When someone once asked Michael Okuda how the Heisenberg compensators work, his reply was, "They work very well."