Yes, thanks.
Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley developing Star Trek reboot for Paramount
- Thread starter Casas9425
- Start date
Yes, thanks.
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.
Part of the M*A*S*H-iverseI 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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
The failure of your argument is that TOS, its characters, behavior, visual language are not the same in other versions, when the DS9 episode--among other examples--proves it all the same and perceived that way, as intended:
The DS9 characters fully interacted with the TOS world as originally presented, and it was not left up to random, personal interpretation.
The M*A*S*H* example is poor, as the movie's story, and specifics of the characters were not carried over into the TV series, with many elements deliberately changed for the sake of a TV production and network demands (the same applies to 1974's movie Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Alice, the 1976-85 sitcom it inspired). The TV series exists in its own continuity, unlike the "prime" Star Trek universe series, which were all created to be seen "as is" within and by viewers--a part of a flowing story, hence DS9's smooth connection with TOS.
Oh, well.
Last edited:
So I just accept it without questions? Just consume. Got it.
Accept reality, not self-manipulated fantasies.
It's fiction.
The failure of that argument is the Lower Decks characters fully interact in the SNW setting and don't see anything out of the ordinary just as they perfectly accept the TOS, TAS, DS9, TNG, VOY and ENT related things they encounter.
Last edited:
You do realize everything in Star Trek is absolute made up fiction, right?
Absolutely none of it is real; and any actual factual science portrayed is a stroke of luck.
And that's why Harry never gets promoted. Janeway heard that, noted it mentally.
;-)
Back in another lifetime I was an academic, and I remember some lecturer’s triumphant declaration that Author X’s most important work was all about stating that (gasp!) Author X was not, in fact, a poststructuralist!!!!!!!!
Certain corners of fandom have always felt familiar.
Certain corners of fandom have always felt familiar.
althought there is probley an alternate earth where everything in star trek is real
Its a production with a certain intent which was realized for the sake of said production(s) and its in-universe setting. not some make-up-your-own-adventure novel. The latter option is served by ST fan fiction (and more often than not, that does not work).
[/QUOTE]
You do realize you're replying to an argument never made, right?
