I would watch this, if only to know exactly what was causing TBBS to erupt in flames.
How desperate are you for a new Trek TV series?
- Thread starter Jedi_Master
- Start date
I would watch this, if only to know exactly what was causing TBBS to erupt in flames.
When I'm on the crapper, sometimes these ideas come to me and I'm like ... well, shit, I could write STAR TREK in my sleep! This stuff is easy to think up. There's really no excuse for the percentage of bad STAR TREK episodes that are out there already, when you think about it. Did these scriptwriters sleep through Screenplay 101? Yet there's certainly a hell of a lot of them, patting eachother on the back and bragging about their STAR TREK association, sure enough ... Television is ready for the next step in evolution and I'm confident that STAR TREK is up to the challenge!
Star Trek: Snu Snu ?
2takes, as much as I appreciate your enthusiasm, he who writes thusly:
Is questionably positioned at best to speak thusly:
There are many reasons why substandard episodes can happen: television is a collective endeavour that can be fraught with misadventure from any number of sources. One potential source I can think of would be overconfidence in the awesomeness of one's ideas.
2takesfrakes said:
Is questionably positioned at best to speak thusly:
2takesfrakes said:
There are many reasons why substandard episodes can happen: television is a collective endeavour that can be fraught with misadventure from any number of sources. One potential source I can think of would be overconfidence in the awesomeness of one's ideas.
im just taking it day by day and if and where a new trek series get announced I wont be jumping through hoops like I did when I heard about enterprise(it wasn't what I read it would be)so for now I be happy to read all the new trek books comics(and even the next trek movie)and watch all my trek dvds again.
If you gotta go - go with a smile!
I ignore your insipid insinuation, sir.
I ignore your insipid insinuation, sir.
... and that's how the really calamitous ones happen.
Probably, given time, most of us could throw together a decent script, but the best writing is about character and the best story beats are usually about character.
Even in a plot driven episode, like BoBW, the character moments tend to define it. My favourite moments include Picard's chat with Guinan, coming to terms with the possibility that they are living in the last days of the Federation, a "full circle" moment from his conceit in Q-Who. Also Riker coming to terms with the command chair, basically a focus of the two parter, coming to a head in the battle to rescue Picard.
So if you come up with a fully-fledged character driven plot for an episode on the toilet, that can be told in 45 minutes for not much money, you should probably look at doing some writing.
You miss the real reason they made bad episodes, principally time and politics. Season 1 of TNG has some stinkers that literally seemed not to have been reviewed and properly written, I'd be unsurprised if "Code of Honor" was written on the toilet, and in fact provided inspiration!
In all honestly television has changed enormously since trek was last on the air. Season long arcs, basically evenly divided between episodes, are basically standard for the "quality" shows, and it is debatable whether there is a huge market for a "dilemma of the week" show. Maybe if it played out like a "space exploration procedural" it could make some headway, but this wouldn't guarantee quality.
What we all really want is a show that is recognisably Trek but also whose relative storytelling quality is comparable (I hasten to add quality is comparable, not tone) with the Sopranos, Breaking Bad, the Wire or more relevantly the new BSG. Frankly a challenge for any writer
I think we all can admit that a new "Star Trek" would be darker in tone and content, and would have at least one really evil and nasty main character.
That's not at all a given.
Thank you for your well-thought and detailed response, sir. This is much to digest - and to process - before any thought can be given to any sort of rebuttal. A full plate, indeed ...
Some story ideas really are stupid. But there are quite a few episodes that actually have a worthy idea at the heart, but something went seriously wrong in translation in development and production. There are quite a few early TNG episodes like that as well as a number of TOS episodes particularly in the third season. Some of TNG's 1st and 2nd season episodes might have come off quite differently with a mild rewrite and some polish as was seen in the 3rd season. Some of TOS' 3rd season efforts could have benefitted with a mild rewrite and if done with the sensibilities of the 1st season could have come off quite differently.
I think TOS' "And The Children Shall Lead" is the series worst, but it has the makings a a decent scare story with elements of horror. Indeed there are some chilling moments in the episode. But they just didn't get a handle on how effective it could have been. The finished effort is brimming with ill-conceived or not fully conceived ideas as well as poor directing and acting. "Spock's Brain" is a solid science fiction idea at heart, but it's marred by the inclusion of stupid ideas and not properly conceived ones. TNG's "Arsenal Of Freedom" can seem leaden, but it actually has a good story that's unfortunately clumsily told.
I think TOS' "And The Children Shall Lead" is the series worst, but it has the makings a a decent scare story with elements of horror. Indeed there are some chilling moments in the episode. But they just didn't get a handle on how effective it could have been. The finished effort is brimming with ill-conceived or not fully conceived ideas as well as poor directing and acting. "Spock's Brain" is a solid science fiction idea at heart, but it's marred by the inclusion of stupid ideas and not properly conceived ones. TNG's "Arsenal Of Freedom" can seem leaden, but it actually has a good story that's unfortunately clumsily told.
I would be lying if I didn't admit that the episode scared the heck out of me when I was eight . . ..
Classic Trek and Abrams Trek are two different franchises, both named "Star Trek".
What I'd like to see on TV now isn't 'Yet another post-9/11 crypto-fascist moral-grayfest', I'd like to see a TV show that brings back a little moral sanity to the equation and holds principles higher than survival at all costs. That's what Star Trek is about, and if a show doesn't have that, it may be called 'Star Trek' but it will be at most an unrelated franchise with similar names.
I think DS9 got the balance right, because it didn't just assume that survival came before principles. It showed the exact moral breaking point in In The Pale Moonlight where the very idea of freedom was at stake. Then it ended with an act of mercy, saving the lives of their sworn enemies.
What I'd like to see on TV now isn't 'Yet another post-9/11 crypto-fascist moral-grayfest', I'd like to see a TV show that brings back a little moral sanity to the equation and holds principles higher than survival at all costs. That's what Star Trek is about, and if a show doesn't have that, it may be called 'Star Trek' but it will be at most an unrelated franchise with similar names.
I think DS9 got the balance right, because it didn't just assume that survival came before principles. It showed the exact moral breaking point in In The Pale Moonlight where the very idea of freedom was at stake. Then it ended with an act of mercy, saving the lives of their sworn enemies.
That's right. Like it, or lump it, as long as CBS &/or Paramount hold the pink receipt to it, STAR TREK is whatever the balls hell they say it is.
Nope. But it also isn't what a few fans think it is either. I'm not a fan of Voyager, but I still consider it "Star Trek". There's simply no reason for anyone to think otherwise.
Star Trek is Star Trek.
The Next Generation is Star Trek.
Deep Space Nine is Star Trek.
Voyager is Star Trek.
Enterprise is Star Trek.
Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek.
Star Trek Into Darkness is Star Trek.
It seems some folks are more interested in going around telling others what isn't "Star Trek" than simply enjoying what they enjoy and allowing others to do likewise.
Amen. It's just like Tarzan or Planet of the Apes or Battlestar Galactica or whatever. There are lots of different versions, and people are certainly entitled to have their likes and dislikes, but there is no one "true" or "real" version.
Now I think I'll go downstairs and set the DVR to tape "Elementary" so I can see what Sherlock Holmes and Joan Watson are up to in modern-day New York.
Is that a "real" Sherlock Holmes show? Who cares?
Makes no difference to me . . . .
Well, if you're saying that Trek is not in fact just "whatever the balls hell" the studio says it is, it would follow from that there are some criteria beyond "the studio says so" for deciding what is convincingly (as opposed to just officially) part of the Trek brand. You can't really have it both ways.
I think there are some things that we would agree aren't "Star Trek" even though it would be produced by CBS. One that comes immediately to mind would be a Jack Black/Will Ferrell as Kirk and Spock buddy comedy that directly makes fun of Star Trek and its fans. Which is what I personally thought we would see in 2008 when rumors surfaced of a new film. The Abrams films are no where near that ballpark and have more in common with The Original Series than anything produced since the 1960's (a sense of fun and adventure plus not taking itself too seriously).
But I tend to dismiss the "it ain't Star Trek" crowd who are peeved that they didn't get a Voyager or Enterprise continuation.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
