exactly! and people don't have any imagination nor are they open to any. things change, not always for the best. no one will EVER make a star trek movie that will make every trek fan happy. not even if roddenberry was alive.
Why it is important some people are unhappy
- Thread starter AudioBridge
- Start date
exactly! and people don't have any imagination nor are they open to any. things change, not always for the best. no one will EVER make a star trek movie that will make every trek fan happy. not even if roddenberry was alive.
Whatever happened to the idea that limitations make for better writing? An "anything goes" approach is the laziest way to go about storytelling, because suddenly you don't have to go through the hard work of having your story actually make sense, you just use the old "it's sci-fi/fantasy/fiction, we can do anything we want" and toss up any old crap whether it belongs there or not.
And then wonder why nobody likes your alleged magnum opus.
And then wonder why nobody likes your alleged magnum opus.
To some extent, but what happens when the limitations themselves make no sense. What if some new cracking story about whatever violates several trivial or nonsensical connon events? What if a lot of cracking stories are limited by such factors? The limitation of canon and continuity become the limitations of drama and that can't be good.
Its far too early for me to list examples from memory, but having Romulans without warp in Enterprise because a iof line from Balance of Terror would make less sense than the canon it violates. I'm all for solid continuity, but the bad or outdated ideas need sidelining.
Last edited:
Actually, GQ was, overall, such a loving parody of Trek's fandom... but I honestly sometimes wonder what the fictional show involved would have been like. A weird mix of Trek, Buck Rodgers, and some of the IDC Kid's shows from the 1970s.
Right, I know it was a parody of Trek fandom, and did seem to incorporate alot of aspects of other 60's/70's scifi shows. But it really seemed to have a more Trek vibe than most recent Trek did. The humor, the adventure, the heartfelt stories, the over the top acting. It was everything good in Trek... in a parody. Abrams will be doing us right if he's taking anything from the experience of watching GQ into Star Trek.
I have to disagree with you Polaris. Morality doesn't sicken me like spoiled honey. I love it. I could see ST was a modern Aesop's fables when I was seven and I drank it in. St has kept me going when I felt like giving up.
'Judging by the polution content of the atmosphere, I believe we have arrived in the latter half of the 20th Century'
Sickening? Character driven? Really?
I love it. I'm hungry for it.
He doesn't seem to be say that (and I'm sure he's correct me if I'm wrong) - he's not saying that Morality is sickening but rather then way it was applied in star trek is - the application not the concept.
From my own perspective - I'd put Star Trek on a similar level to He-Man and the masters of the universe when it comes to telling moral tales.
That was partly because it included a parody of Trek fandom. Particularly throughout the 1990s when Trek was at its zenith in terms of general public awareness, Trek fandom was the elephant in the middle of the living room. People thought of "Star Trek," they thought of "trekkies." Viva Barbara Adams.
At least three independent features - "Free Enterprise," "Trekkies" and "Trekkies II" - have been reasonably successful by focusing playfully on us hard-core Trek fans. "Galaxy Quest" married the two parts of "Star Trek" successfully into an action/comedy that worked.
In general, no one nitpicks and episode for 'canon minutae' if the overall episode or movie is good and strong. It's the ones that fail the most that get ripped into pieces more than anything. If the story is strong enough, the no one is going to care if Spock's birthday is on the wrong month, or Kirk's middle initial is T, R, or a silent Q. With a strong story, the viewer will overlook the errors (or, just write them off).
If you're story is weak, then the errors are all the more noticable, and the whole thing is more prone to being ripped apart.
I can hope for that, I suppose. But his interview where he mentions it, he seems to miss the entire point that Galaxy Quest was a loving parody, and not the typical modern-day angry-hate-fest parody that passes for comedy in these cynical and narcissistic times.
I don't think he missed that point, I just think it wasn't his point.
That Galaxy Quest as a parody(In whatever form) in many ways outclassed old Star Trek in terms of believablity.
Only to those so unimaginative that they can't figure out a way around those limitations.
So you give them jumpgate capability, or hyperdrive, something other than standard warp drive that doesn't contradict what's been established but still enables the story to move forward.
But decrying the "limitations" of adhering to the established continuity isn't an indictment of that continuity, but of your own lack of ingenuity.
I'm sorry, the imagination is meant to be boundless, not restricted.
It's not very imaginitive at all to be sat down and told to "Work between the lines".
Tear down the fucking walls, especialy when they're 42 years old.
That's not creatve, that's chaos.
If the film is internally consistent it's not a problem, if it isn't - then it's a problem.
And if it's claiming to be an integral part of a series, then it should be an overriding concern for everyone involved.
Yes free thinking is oft labeled as such.
Haha. Ok. I'll just enjoy Star Trek as a good Star Trek movie, not as a good piece of canon.
Fine, then how about making Kirk a crossdressing hermaphrodite, Spock part jackrabbit with a shoe fetish, McCoy a drug addict (such drama!), Scotty an Irishman (Irish, Scottish, same thing, right?), and while we're at it, let's paint the Enterprise hot pink with spinners along the sides of the secondary hull.
No limits, right?
If it made a good film, I wouldn't be bothered.
And so long as it was a stand-alone project, I wouldn't give a rip either way.
But second that "Star Trek" label gets attached, it carries with it a responsibility to the rest of the franchise, just like any segment of any other series.
It appears that JJ is not living up to that responsibility.
But second that "Star Trek" label gets attached, it carries with it a responsibility to the rest of the franchise, just like any segment of any other series.
It appears that JJ is not living up to that responsibility.
