I like that a trilogy that had aging and death as its core was able to end on a high note. My problems with TVH have nothing to do with the film itself.
- Status
I like that a trilogy that had aging and death as its core was able to end on a high note. My problems with TVH have nothing to do with the film itself.
It’s a TV show same as the rest. Things fail as the plot demand. As any one who’s seen the show knows.
You look foolish when you trot out its X number of years later so the ship should be impervious. TNG has troped “shields down to X%” endlessly. Should the argument be made that the D’s shield shouldn’t fail because it’s a hundred years after TOS? The ship and the characters aren't perfect, that makes for boring TV.
The Enterprise and its sister ships are damaged by all sorts of ships. From one of their own to Klingons to Romulans to unknown aliens. The source and type of weapon depends on the plot. Antiproton. Plasma. So what?
They’re out beyond the edge of known space. There is something new around every corner.
And speed of the plot should always determine how fast a ship goes or whether or not its technology fails. This isn't a hard science series.
None of us are worse off because a computer in 2261 fails so badly or a warp engine doesn't work and repeatedly. And no, "this annoys me as a Star Trek nerd" isn't being "worse off."
None of us are worse off because a computer in 2261 fails so badly or a warp engine doesn't work and repeatedly. And no, "this annoys me as a Star Trek nerd" isn't being "worse off."
That’s my issue with the whole “The universe should follow its own rules” crowd. That’s a great idea in theory. But in execution, how can one take that seriously when the productions don’t and really have never? They stay consistent enough and that’s really all that matters. As I say a lot, for almost 1000 stories, it really all does hold together pretty well.
They have to sell it to the audience though or else they won't buy it. If the Enterprise can stand up to a Borg Cube one episode but is humbled by a Bird of Prey the next, then the structural integrity of the story is failing. If it takes Voyager 70 years to return from the Delta Quadrant but a Ferengi Marauder can just fly over there, then the plot needs more sensible speeds.
They’re two different stories to most viewers.
That doesn't matter to most viewers.
The episodic model offers the implicit understanding to viewers that each story, unless explicitly tied to a previous one, is just one iteration of the characters and setting.
In that way, Picard can strongly support a worldview one week and contradict himself entirely the next, a photon torpedo can be a force of mass destruction in one episode and fail to dent something next week, and the Enterprise can get the shit kicked out of it by a joke ship one week and cripple a Borg cube the next. That's all fine, even if episode ordering can sometimes make the contradictions funny or jarring.
Where I think it's fair to say the Kurtzman era's shot itself in the foot is by insisting that everything actually is entirely consistent and taking part in one continuity, constantly directly referring back to old ideas, which makes it fair game to ask why barely anything lines up in the way it's ostensibly meant to. They took on the task of trying to align sixty years of stuff that already doesn't cohere well, and then added new contradictions on top of it, while also drawing attention to the fact that that's what they were doing.
In that way, Picard can strongly support a worldview one week and contradict himself entirely the next, a photon torpedo can be a force of mass destruction in one episode and fail to dent something next week, and the Enterprise can get the shit kicked out of it by a joke ship one week and cripple a Borg cube the next. That's all fine, even if episode ordering can sometimes make the contradictions funny or jarring.
Where I think it's fair to say the Kurtzman era's shot itself in the foot is by insisting that everything actually is entirely consistent and taking part in one continuity, constantly directly referring back to old ideas, which makes it fair game to ask why barely anything lines up in the way it's ostensibly meant to. They took on the task of trying to align sixty years of stuff that already doesn't cohere well, and then added new contradictions on top of it, while also drawing attention to the fact that that's what they were doing.
Alex Lifeson's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame acceptance speech is the epitome of this.
I think SNW should have used the TOS blueprints for the bridge, and just updated the look of the control surfaces.
I don't think the majority of viewers see it that way.
It was the norm in television for decades, and how TOS and TNG pretty openly operated - both contradicted themselves constantly, sometimes within a couple episodes of each other. TOS didn't even bother to figure out details like the existence of the Federation, or the current year.
You might be right that audiences would be more likely to kick off about it nowadays, but if that is true, I think it's unfortunate, since it's a model that gave us some of the most enduring television ever made.
You seem to misunderstand what this thread is about.
What is controversial in your post?
Edit - In fact, there’s not much in there that would even qualify as your opinion. Like Tallguy said… it’s just words. Not very clever words at that.
But not all ideas are good. Flat Earth nonsense for example.
Exactly. This demand for precision is ignoring the fiction.
Look, I was just telling you what David Marcus said. I mean, he *is* Kirk's son and all.
Now I have this idea about protomatter...
- Status
Similar threads
