But you didn't say that.
2017, A Trek For The Fans?
- Thread starter Bry_Sinclair
- Start date
I was just saying that one troubled film adaption (DUNE) doesn't invalidate the entire notion of a film adaptation taking major liberties with the source material, as in the case of BLADE RUNNER and PLANET OF THE APES.
One might as well say that the failure of BAYWATCH NIGHTS proves that all spin-offs are a bad idea.
As for THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, I've never seen the Keanu version. I was referring to the fact that the classic 1950s film took plenty of the liberties with the short story it was based on, "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates.
Was Robert Wise (the director) therefore wrong for not sticking closer to Bates's story? Or maybe he was a talented director who transformed the story in positive ways?
Honestly, I wish we could ban the words "iconic" and "canon" since they've become counter-productive.
Not really. Whatever is done now doesn't invalidate what has already been done.
"Certain respect" read like code words for doing anything you don't like with the property.
I don't believe I said Lynch's movie improved on Herbert. Though I should note that I don't believe Herbert is somehow above improvement.
You know who doesn't come come across as having a lot of respect for TOS? Nicholas Meyer. Even to this day I don't think I've ever seen him be overly enthused about it, he admits he came into the project with a mind to overhaul most things, and it was Harve Bennett who did a lot of the 'research' into the 'canon' (watching the series and picking Khan etc).
Yet even if you don't like TWOK, it would really be reaching to say that it wasn't a great big turning point for franchise. You wouldn't have TNG without it.
You know who doesn't come come across as having a lot of respect for TOS? Nicholas Meyer. Even to this day I don't think I've ever seen him be overly enthused about it, he admits he came into the project with a mind to overhaul most things, and it was Harve Bennett who did a lot of the 'research' into the 'canon' (watching the series and picking Khan etc).
Yet even if you don't like TWOK, it would really be reaching to say that it wasn't a great big turning point for franchise. You wouldn't have TNG without it.
JJ caused this with him babbling about timelines. He wanted to herd the fans and the broader audiences into the one tent. I get the logic in doing that but he mismanaged it. He wanted to have his cake and eat it. And the result is all these ructions over canon.
He shouldn't have bothered with that. He should've just said we're doin' what BSG did with BSG. We're reimagining it from scratch and kickin' canon to the kerb.
Fans should be still amused by the common elements shared with the old series/movies. But they don't share universes or timelines.
It's a separate body of work. So fans can rest easy knowing their canon is protected whilst a new team can get crackin' with open license to creating something original and new without being shackled by canon or unduly burdened by the discontent of fans.
He shouldn't have bothered with that. He should've just said we're doin' what BSG did with BSG. We're reimagining it from scratch and kickin' canon to the kerb.
Fans should be still amused by the common elements shared with the old series/movies. But they don't share universes or timelines.
It's a separate body of work. So fans can rest easy knowing their canon is protected whilst a new team can get crackin' with open license to creating something original and new without being shackled by canon or unduly burdened by the discontent of fans.
Infraction for Trolling. Relevant comments may be made via PM.
If you can't make your point without attacking other posters, then your stay here will be very short.
Even if we got a 25th century series featuring the Enterprise-D with Jim Kirk in command along with his senior officers Tasha Yar and Jadzia Dax, it wouldn't make your DVD's disappear off the shelf.
Even handed retaliation in response to provocation. If this board can't tolerate mild satire then it's not a forum where I want to be.
And in the cases of "Androids/Blade Runner" and "Apes", the original properties were not that widely known (outside of SF readership, I mean). Certainly not to the degree that Trek is.
In fact, the film "Blade Runner" is arguably the source of the wider interest in the works of Phillip Dick that has occurred since its debut, a fact for which I'm sure his heirs are grateful. Maybe the creators of ST-17 will pursue a middle course and put the show in a setting for which issues of continuity won't matter as much.
But even if they set it in the TOS-era prime universe, I wouldn't expect mini-skirted yeomen and big honking computers with multi-colored blinkies.
In fact, the film "Blade Runner" is arguably the source of the wider interest in the works of Phillip Dick that has occurred since its debut, a fact for which I'm sure his heirs are grateful. Maybe the creators of ST-17 will pursue a middle course and put the show in a setting for which issues of continuity won't matter as much.
But even if they set it in the TOS-era prime universe, I wouldn't expect mini-skirted yeomen and big honking computers with multi-colored blinkies.
I don't care myself. Canon for me is a salute to the fans and cool that some respect has been shown to that but its by no means necessary or indispensable to a new star trek project.
If people want to populate the Enterprise with a crew of sentient hamsters, that's fine as long as that writing is top quality. And that's the root of my dilemma. I don't have confidence in the converging JJ mafia in producing quality output.
I'm sensing ructions though here and elsewhere over canon. My post above is a simply prescription that would've avoided all that. It's academic now anyway.
Abrams did it as a way to keep batshit crazy fandom from throwing themselves off of the proverbial ledge over their stuff no longer counting. Batshit crazy fandom threw themselves off the proverbial ledge anyway.
Well, canon should've been dumped, that's my point.
Abrams didn't do that and that amplified the argument with fans who saw their precious canon being undermined or mocked.
If I had my way: canon, "bang", kicked to the kerb.
Abrams didn't do that and that amplified the argument with fans who saw their precious canon being undermined or mocked.
If I had my way: canon, "bang", kicked to the kerb.
Yep. Even if it ended, Star Trek TOS-ENT would still be a canon. A clean reboot would just be another one. And you'd still get people being pissy that 'their' favourite was being ignored.
For eg. Terminator clean rebooted it's 3rd and 4th movies out of existence (but not the rest). About half-way through 5, I really started getting nostalgic for them.
People wanting the show to return to the Prime verse is a separate thing, because that's technically an argument over setting. It's essentially the same as someone going 'I want the next series to be set in the Mirror verse, because I want to see the fallout from Emperors New Cloak.'
For eg. Terminator clean rebooted it's 3rd and 4th movies out of existence (but not the rest). About half-way through 5, I really started getting nostalgic for them.
People wanting the show to return to the Prime verse is a separate thing, because that's technically an argument over setting. It's essentially the same as someone going 'I want the next series to be set in the Mirror verse, because I want to see the fallout from Emperors New Cloak.'
Last edited:
I don't know. It's hard to think of a figure who is more iconic than Sherlock Holmes, yet I don't see viewers rejecting either ELEMENTARY or SHERLOCK, both of which are revisionist takes on the "classic" version of Holmes.
And the new PLANET OF THE APES movies seem to be succeeding, even though they've dumped much of the original continuity and iconography.
Audiences may be more flexible than we give them credit for.
And surely we're not arguing that any old property that is sufficiently "iconic" needs to be treated like a sacred cow. That sounds to me like both a self-fulfilling prophesy and a trap.
It's a slippery slope from "iconic" to "nostalgic," and nostalgia alone is not going to keep STAR TREK fresh and exciting and attractive to younger viewers.
If CBS is banking on attracting fans to a pay service, they're going to be held to the same standards as shows on premium channels.
I care more high artistic quality than if it's 'For the fans', and frankly I can't stand shows that try to pander to me. I'd much rather it be in the explorative spirit of Old Trek, but mostly I just want a good show.
I don't trust that's also what CBS wants.
I care more high artistic quality than if it's 'For the fans', and frankly I can't stand shows that try to pander to me. I'd much rather it be in the explorative spirit of Old Trek, but mostly I just want a good show.
I don't trust that's also what CBS wants.
Well, that didn't last long.
Well, the subsequent conversation about not having the conversation has beem pretty riveting...
Similar threads
- Locked
