Abrams says original Trek inaccessible?!
- Thread starter BriGuy
- Start date
Lost is perfectly comprehensible if you have been following along. But accessible? No. I'd expect Trek to be more accessible.
Lost is actually very good, and does have to be followed each week - thus the reason it is a series. Star Trek, in more cases during the spinoffs, had become a prisoner to the "canon" and "continuity" that if it referred back to another episode, and the one you were watching used that previous one as a hinge too much, you were out of it.
I tried several times to watch Babylon 5 when it originally aired, but every time I would tune in, it would be dealing with something 10 episodes back (one I did not see) and I then found something else to watch, since I couldn't grasp the episode.
Trek needs to return to where it was when it began: a series that was a single adventure each episode. You could put on an episode at any time and not worry about having to have seen everything else to get what you were watching.
All you needed to know was that it was about a starship, and this is what they found this week.
Unfortunately, the current moviegoing public will not and can not adjust or sit long enough to concentrate on a continuous story that you have to watch everything to get. Just enough to pique your interest and get you in the door. They don't want to have to think or put their mind to it too much.
It sounds terrible, but that's how it is.
I tried several times to watch Babylon 5 when it originally aired, but every time I would tune in, it would be dealing with something 10 episodes back (one I did not see) and I then found something else to watch, since I couldn't grasp the episode.
Trek needs to return to where it was when it began: a series that was a single adventure each episode. You could put on an episode at any time and not worry about having to have seen everything else to get what you were watching.
All you needed to know was that it was about a starship, and this is what they found this week.
Unfortunately, the current moviegoing public will not and can not adjust or sit long enough to concentrate on a continuous story that you have to watch everything to get. Just enough to pique your interest and get you in the door. They don't want to have to think or put their mind to it too much.
It sounds terrible, but that's how it is.
RobertScorpio
Pariah
I am a big fan of arc shows. But if you are going to do single episode stories, you need new ideas. Because it seems to me that the later 'single episode' Treks (enterprise-voyager) were running out of ideas, and outright reusing the same ideas over and over. There are so many times you can write about oppressive governments--subtle gay themed episodes--sexist societies--overbearing parents--god like beings--contaminated societies--enviromental episodes--with various bumpy headed aliens each week with out becoming stagnent.
Rob
"Trekkie's" are johnny-come-latelies - we didn't have a name when I started watching. We just liked the damned show.
I remember being called the Trek-kid (by my friends) when I was in the fifth and sixth grade (c. early '70s)
Well, seeing as the trailers already portray Kirk as a captain, I don't think you have much to worry about there.
Let's see now: Picard picks a fight and loses his heart in a bar fight. Kirk steals a car. Should I consider Picard as less honorable a captain because of his brash youth? On the contrary, TNG devoted a whole (and very-well written) episode showing how the fight turned this brash, arrogant, and violent youth into one of Starfleet's most celebrated captains and diplomats.
And why is it so hard to believe that Kirk, a guy who cheated big time by reprogramming the Kobayashi Maru, is morally incapable of a joyride? We're really reaching for things to dislike about this movie.
I am one of those pre-Trekkie fans. I have been a fan so long that I can remember when being a fan meant being- GOD forbid!- an optimist.
"Trekkies" are johnny-come-latelies - we didn't have a name when I started watching. We just liked the damned show.
Yeah, I remember when it was fun.
Wall St. Journal 4-24 article
Along the same vein:
APRIL 24, 2009
From 'Star Trek' to 'X-Men,' studios are betting on prequels for the summer blockbuster season.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052882780150299.html
The Wall Street Journal has officially said it:
nuStar Trek is an alternate universe.
But since Paramount made it it is official canon. Further discussed here.
Along the same vein:
Hollywood Starts Over
APRIL 24, 2009
From 'Star Trek' to 'X-Men,' studios are betting on prequels for the summer blockbuster season.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052882780150299.html
The Wall Street Journal has officially said it:
nuStar Trek is an alternate universe.
But since Paramount made it it is official canon. Further discussed here.
I missed half of season 3 of Lost (not by choice) and I was still able to "get caught up" on the plot (although it took me a little while) and I am now compltely up-to date on the plot.
The are still some unexplained mysteries (without the mysteries, it wouldn't be Lost), but was has been revealed thus far makes perfect sense and is by no means a "mess". What has been revealed may be a bit "fantastical", but it still makes sense.
Star Trek (TV) is more episodic than Lost, which has a story arc, so Star Trek is of course more accessible -- i.e., you can come in anywhere and pick up whats going on pretty quickly -- although it takes a while to appreciate the character nuances.
I wouldn't call Lost inaccessible, since anyone who wants to understnd it could understand it -- they just need to commit to watching it.
If someone doesn't understand the plot of Lost, it's the fault of the show, but because the viewer chose not to follow it.
The original Star Trek was inaccessible?? I don't agree with that! But what I would agree with is that Star Trek, through its various spin offs and movies, eventually did become totally unaccessible to a mainstream audience.
There came a time in Star Trek's history where it simply disengaged from the mass audience and started to focus more on the core fanbase of Trekkies. I dunno if that timeframe coinciding with the appearance of Voyager, the end of DS9 and the eventual failure of Enterprise is just coincidence or a symptom of the disconnection from mainstream audiences. In effect, once DS9 was over, Star Trek disappeared up it's own wormhole, as DS9 was the last solidly popular Star Trek TV series.
On the movie front, First Contact was the last of the Trek movies with anything approaching real mainstream appeal, as Insurrection and Nemesis catered more or less squarely to the fanboys.
There came a time in Star Trek's history where it simply disengaged from the mass audience and started to focus more on the core fanbase of Trekkies. I dunno if that timeframe coinciding with the appearance of Voyager, the end of DS9 and the eventual failure of Enterprise is just coincidence or a symptom of the disconnection from mainstream audiences. In effect, once DS9 was over, Star Trek disappeared up it's own wormhole, as DS9 was the last solidly popular Star Trek TV series.
On the movie front, First Contact was the last of the Trek movies with anything approaching real mainstream appeal, as Insurrection and Nemesis catered more or less squarely to the fanboys.
Similar threads
